Canons of Dordt

King James Bond,

Been there done that with these people, they refuse to look into history. I took them all the way back to the pre Nicene fathers and they still shook there heads.... It would be nice if they would admit that their understandings where born from Humanistic, secular philosophers like Erasmus and the like, but they will stick to their traditions, no matter how refuted the "free will" position has been in the Church.

 

more teachings of men = more error.

rc, if history were as important as you make it sound, we would be catholic.

 

Hey rc, how's it goin?

KJB, can we really say that Arminianism was "completely proven to be unbiblical"? For Calvinists to "completely prove" it, doesn't necessarily make it so. That would be like me saying the sky is purple therefore it is purple because I have proved it.

 

I have a comparison book on TULIP which summarizes both sides and gives Scriptures. Some of the Calvinist ones are way out of context.

 

The council of Dordt was made not by "calvinists" but a unified reformed church. They were unified in the traditional, historical, orthodox teachings of the five solas.

This is the view that caused the reformation, that the Catholic church was founded on a heresy that was strong armed unto the masses due to politics and not truth. The view of the Roman church was based on the HERETICAL view of Palagianism which was introduced to the Roman church by Zosimus even after being rebuked by the council or Orange.

The reformation brought light back to the people, thus the slogan "Post tenebras lux". They where unified again with scripture being the foundation and the church only being a protective guide FOR the masses.

Dordt was a council that denounced Arminianism has heretical and was a "slip" back to the Catholic Church in it's subtle form of Casianism. (free will) which the Roman church supported with the leading humanistic philosophers of the time defending the church against the reformers.

This council wasn't a bunch of guys who found this "new" teaching and said "We think this is wrong and this is why!" It was a decision that was made on the scriptures AND the History of the teachings of the Church fathers. The decision was made after recognizing the free will view was NEVER accepted into the church at all, but always refuted through out the whole History of the church. It wasn't that it needed to "Prove" that Arminianism was wrong, but that it just accepted what was always taught and did not see any scriptural support for the teaching but was again by history shown to be a teaching that was brought in by humanistic, secular teachers.

 

Webdog,

And if you Knew your history, you would know Roman Catholicism IS the foundation of your sotierology!

 

So now I need a sotierology degree to know false doctrine? No thanks.

 

My people perish for a lack of knowledge.
You keep on siding with the Catholics then!

 

Who does this "knowledge" come from, man or the Holy Spirit? Continue to look to men for your wisdom, and read 1 Corinthians 3:18-21

 

Yes, I agree.
So why do you agree with the teachings of secular humanists? These are the ones that introduced self determinate free will into the church.

Do you not listen to a preacher every Sunday? Didn't Paul say that God gave TEACHERS?
Also in Proverbs it says that: There is a way that SEEMS RIGHT unto a MAN but the ends thereof are death. Also a wise man seeks counsel. Your questions are begging.
This is one reason for the authority of the CHURCH, to defend truth and name and expel the wolves within. If you look in history you will find them. Arius, Pelagius, Zosimus, Casianus, Arminius.

Long before Calvin, Luther was Pelagius. Why did the CHURCH find him to be a heretic? Remember, the church then was not like the church today. They were in universal agreement, it wasn't "a couple guys" that deemed his teachings to be in error but the whole CHURCH did, to keep the Church free from doctrinal disease. What did the church use to find him guilty of heresy?

 

What church you talkin' about, rc?

 

"The followers of Jacob Arminius were proved to be teaching false and Un-Biblical doctrine way back in 1619."
"
For those not in the know, the Synode van Dordrecht (Dordt) was mostly a politically motivated hatchet job, more about the power struggle between prince Maurits and Johan van Oldenbarnevelt than about theological differences. The synod wasn't a theological dispute, it was a trial and by that stage in the struggle the outcome was already certain, first his political supporters got denounced and than on 13 may 1619 van Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded. His last words were:"Mannen, gelooft niet dat ik een landverrader ben, ik heb oprecht en vroom gehandeld, als een goed patriot, en die zal ik sterven.
Maak het kort, maak het kort.*"

*(to the spectators)) Men, don't believe I'm a traitor, I've acted genuine and pious, like a good patriot and I will die like one.
(to the executioner) Make it short, make it short.

 

mr. Bond
While I don't disagree with the rest of your post I must take issue with your first sentence.

"Even if that is the case."
I just told you the Dutch equivalent of the death of Billy the kid (or the Alamo, or the murder of JFK) and you doubt it happened!?

HELLO earth to 007. Defining moment in my nation's history.

 

Thanks for the breath of fresh air, mioque.

 

If implies doubt. Even WHEN that is the case is better.

 

No problem, just some mis-communication.