It took a long time for the States General to convene a synod; the Synod of Dordrecht. An ecclesiastical meeting that lasted, with the necessary intervals, from November 1618 to May 1619. In fact, the convening of this meeting had taken too long. The tensions that gave rise had eventually become too independent and even acquired a political face.
God’s will or own will
To gain some understanding of the difficulties that arose in the Protestant Netherlands at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century, it is necessary to draw (roughly) some lines from church history. In the context of this article, theologizing is neither possible nor desirable for the understanding of the subject matter, so that there will be no question of any scientific refinement. This can only make the matter clearer for the interested layman, we hope.
We have used the heading ,God’s will or own will., The importance of this contrast will become clear from the remainder of this argument.
Augustine and Pelagius
Augustine (born November 13, 354 in Thagaste and died August 28, 430 in Hippo) taught on the basis of the Bible original sin (today we would say that ,it is in the genes,), the inability of man for his own salvation , the necessity of Divine grace and election or predestination .
Pelagius, a British monk who lived around the year 400, took a completely different view. He denied original sin and taught that man came into the world as a tabula rasa, a blank slate . According to him, a person could remain sinless. If people sinned, it was by following a bad example. From the foregoing it inevitably follows that Pelagius assumed free will in man. Every moment man had the choice to choose between good and evil. Various synods and councils rejected the teachings of Pelagius.
Despite the fact that Pelagius’ teaching never became official church doctrine, his ideas about free human will and the denial of original sin lead a life of their own , so that the Christian church has always had these two lines, from Augustine and Pelagius . How much the official side has always turned against Pelagius’ views.
Luther and Erasmus
We see these two lines again in Martin Luther, the great church reformer from Germany, and Desiderius Erasmus, the great humanist from Rotterdam. Martin Luther denied free will and thus followed in the footsteps of Augustine. He taught that the human will is ,enslaved,, made subservient to the devil. That is why he spoke of a servile will.
Erasmus, seen by many of his contemporaries as a kindred spirit of Luther, especially in his fight against abuses in the church, did not want to take sides, but watched the battle from the sidelines and – if it proved possible and necessary – took a stand. play a mediating role. Yet he took sides. He was forced to combat Luther ‘s view of the servile will. In 1524 he published a book on free will, an extremely humanistic view.
Stretching and precision
In the Netherlands – the Republic – Reformed Protestantism showed a great diversity of views. Dirk Volckertsz Coornhert (1522-1590) was a strong defender of Erasmian humanism. He taught a Christianity that manifested itself in society in a practical way, averse to all ecclesiastical divisions. Coornhert, who did not consider himself a member of a church, received many sympathizers from church circles, such as Reverend Coolhaes from Leiden. Jesus Christ was only seen by Coornhert et al. as an example worth imitating. The church had to turn against this, because this position was at the expense of God’s grace. Coornhert’s followers, known as liberals, generally came from wealthy circles and felt assured of government support, partly because they were of the opinion that the church should not interfere in state affairs, but – on the contrary – the state should control everything. had a say in church matters.
The preciseists wished to adhere to the teachings of the Reformation and not to give in to the pressure of creeping in humanistic ideas. They also did not want government interference in church affairs. They wanted a national synod to be held again, but had to bow to the view that such a meeting could only take place at the initiative of the States General. They wanted to see the Reformed doctrine guaranteed in the church.
When stretching and being precise, the theological problem takes on a political tinge.
Gomarus and Arminius
The two lines become very clearly visible when we talk about professors Gomarus and Arminius. The contrast between flexibility and precision was given new impetus by a conflict at Leiden University. This conflict, which as we have seen, had been dormant for a long time, was brought to the surface by the theologian Jacobus Arminius , who tried to soften the Calvinist doctrine of predestination by emphasizing the active will of man. He taught the so-called foreknowledge: God chooses on the basis of a faith foreseen by Him. So God knows in advance who will believe. In this view, man has the free will to believe or not to believe. Popularly said: God knows who is going to believe.
Gomarus, who was already a professor in Leiden when Arminius was appointed as such, was strongly opposed to this position. He did not see election as God’s foreknowledge, but as God’s predestination; so not ,God knows who will believe,, but ,God decides who he will let believe,. In this view, faith is a gift of grace from God and not dependent on man’s decision.
Here the old struggle between God’s will and the will of man, a free will or an ,enslaved, will, faith as man’s choice or as a gift from God, Augustine or Pelagius, is brought to a head.
The followers of Arminius, who himself died in 1604, established a Remonstrance after his death under the leadership of Joh. Uyttenbogaert. This Remonstrance stated that the state had absolute authority in ecclesiastical matters. No wonder that this view found much support among national administrators, such as Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. The five (theological) articles of the Remonstrants were also launched, namely:
- The election is made because of a foresighted faith.
- The general atonement through Christ.
- The power of the natural will for good.
- The resistance of grace.
- The possibility of an apostasy of the saints.
The followers of Gomarus, who organized a Counter-Remonstrance in response, received little attention from the government. They also urged that the States convene a synod to think through the contradiction theologically. However, the States, who were basking comfortably in the warmth of the Remonstrance, refused to allow such a synod to take place.
Twelve Fare Truce (1609-1621)
We are already in the period of the armistice with Spain, the Twelve Year Truce, which was very much against the wishes of Prince Maurice. He would have preferred to continue the fight, especially now that the military prospects for the Republic were so favorable. Now Spain had ample time to strengthen itself in the resulting breathing space. In 1611, the Counter-Remonstrance was offered to the States, without success. On the contrary, the Counter-Remonstrants – as they were soon called to distinguish themselves from the Remonstrants – were no longer allowed to hold church services and many of their ministers were even suspended (by the government!). The old situation of giving sermons came into use again, so that Counter-Remonstrants who wanted to hear a sermon often wandered through all weather to a barn or farmyard where a service was being held. They were soon called mudbeggars .
Valuers
To break the resistance of the Counter-Remonstrants, from now on every city was allowed to keep a standing army, the so-called burghers. To get to this point, Maurice’s army had to be disbanded. It is understandable that this was very much against the prince’s wishes, even during the armistice. He wanted to train his army so that it could continue the war against Spain with renewed vigor. Maurits ignored the decision of the States and visited the cities of Holland to get rid of the landlords , which was not done without a fight. By attending a church service in the Hague Monastery Church, the prince openly sided with the Counter-Remonstrants. He had those in favor of appointing the landlords imprisoned on charges of high treason. The grand pensionary Johan van Oldenbarnevelt was also imprisoned. He refused the offered pardon and was executed in 1619.
Maurits had settled the battle politically. He also wanted to resolve the dispute theologically and to this end called on the States to convene a national synod . That happened in 1618; the National Synod of Dordrecht.