Jacobus Arminius died on October 19, 1609. The infamous Synod of Dort convened in 1618-1619, a full nine years after the death of Arminius. The Articles of the Remonstrants were written in 1610 and debated in the various churches, lecture halls, taverns, and universities by Calvinists and the Remonstrants (not yet called Arminians) until the Synod of Dort met. The Synod of Dort condemned Arminianism (as it would be later called) on May 9, 1619. The rest is history.
Following the Synod of Dort, the two leading Remonstrants spokesmen had been Johan van Oldenbarnevelt and Hugo Grotius. Both were imprisoned by the Calvinists and condemned. Van Oldenbarnevelt was beheaded by the Calvinists on May 13, 1619, and Grotius was given a life sentence in prison but escaped with the help of his wife. Ironically, to show you how biased the Synod of Dort was, both men had been in prison since August 29, 1618.
While there can be no changing of history, I have sometimes wondered whether the outcome of the Synod of Dort might have been different had Arminius not died in 1609. Arminius was no doubt one of the leading theologians of his day. His works, because of the Synod of Dort, were not published until 1629 and many of them had been lost prior to this. We have only a portion of much of what Arminius said and did. But a casual reading of Arminius’ works is simply impossible. He is both a theologian and a philosopher rolled into one. His arguments against Calvinism range from exegesis of known biblical passages to simply arguing based on logical reasoning (a method John Wesley would later employ himself when debating Calvinism).
Think with me for a moment of what might have happened if Arminius had not died in 1609. Suppose Arminius was able to defend his views at the Synod of Dort. I doubt there would have been a Calvinist theologian who would have been able to argue his case as Arminius would have. There is no denying that Calvinists would have sent their best lawyers and theologians to debate Arminius, but few would have been able to match his ability to speak or debate. While the outcome of the Synod of Dort probably would not have turned out different since the Calvinists had stacked the table against the Remonstrants so they could not win the debate (much like one political party controlling Congress, for example, with more seats and more votes), I do think that Arminius would have stood his ground, and he possibly would have changed many minds about the doctrines of Calvin.
We simply will never know. History only speaks for us now.
I do think that the death of Arminius in 1609 caught the other Remonstrants off guard. They had long looked to Arminius and his brilliant mind to defend them, and he had. Yet now they had to find new spokesmen for their cause and they found them in three main men: Simon Episcopius, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, and Hugo Grotius. While I think these three men did well, they lacked the theological background and training of Arminius. Arminius had been taught by Theodore Beza in Geneva and at one time had defended Calvinism, yet when asked by Beza to defend Calvinism against the Anabaptist movement, Arminius begin to change his theology. Few could say that among the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort.
Arminius was a great man of God and how I pray that in time, he will be remembered that way.
[Link to original post and comments at Roy Ingle’s website.]
