1619 AD – Dort’s Clash Over Salvation: God’s Grace Makes Room Calvinism and Arminianism Today
[Intro] 01:20
[Foundation] 02:46
[Development] 05:47
[Climax/Impact] 08:56
[Legacy & Modern Relevance] 12:16
[Reflection & Call] 14:50
📦 Metadata (One Paragraph)
They thought the Bible was clear. But when believers gathered in 1619 to settle how salvation works—they found tension, not easy answers. In 1619, pastors and church leaders from across Europe met to settle a growing debate: how does salvation work? Some believed God decides everything. Others said we have a role in responding. Both sides quoted the Bible. Both believed they were right. But beneath it all was a deeper issue: Can we defend grace without losing it? The Synod of 1619 wasn’t just about theology—it was about how Christians handle disagreement. Some said God chooses who gets saved. Others said we have to respond. Both sides used Scripture, logic, and strong conviction. But maybe that’s the point. Maybe grace means we don’t have to get it all right to be saved. We don’t have to pick a side to trust Jesus. This episode tells the story of a church trying to figure out grace—and reminds us that humility, not certainty, may be the greater mark of faith. Because the deeper we go in God’s Word, the more we realize we don’t know everything—and that’s okay. Make sure you Like, Share, Subscribe, Follow, Comment, and Review this episode and the entire COACH series.
Synod, 1619, salvation, grace, church history, church councils, free will, election, theology, Christian doctrine, church disagreement, Netherlands, Bible interpretation, what is grace, how are we saved
#ChurchHistory, #GraceAndTruth, #FaithNotFormula, #COACHPodcast, #SalvationDebates
In 1619, church leaders gathered in the Dutch city of Dordrecht—better known as Dort—to resolve a growing dispute about salvation. The Synod of Dort became one of the most defining councils in Protestant history. On one side were the Remonstrants, followers of Jacobus Arminius, who emphasized conditional election and the possibility of falling away. On the other side stood defenders of Reformed teaching, affirming God’s sovereign initiative and effectual grace. Both sides appealed to Scripture, both claimed the gospel, and both spoke with conviction. The result was the Canons of Dort, a detailed rebuttal of the Remonstrant position and the origin of the theological framework later remembered as TULIP. But the debate didn’t end in 1619. Today, Christians still wrestle with the same questions: Is salvation purely God’s choice, or must we respond? This episode traces the council’s drama, its impact, and what it means for believers who find themselves caught between certainty and humility. Grace, after all, may be bigger than our systems.
They had gathered from across the continent—pastors, professors, church leaders. Some came reluctantly. Some came burning with conviction. All came to settle one of the most pressing and personal questions in the Christian faith:
It was 1619. The Netherlands had invited leaders from the Protestant world to resolve a growing tension. Two groups, both claiming to follow Scripture, both devoted to Christ, had arrived at completely different answers.
One group believed God chose individuals to be saved, before they were even born. The other insisted salvation was offered to all, and that people could choose to reject it.
Each side brought verses, arguments, and years of church tradition. But beneath the theology was something deeper—something unspoken.
What if you’re wrong? What if the other side is right? And what if the real danger isn’t losing the debate—but missing the heart of grace itself?
From the That’s Jesus Channel, welcome to COACH — Church Origins and Church History.
I’m Bob Baulch.
On Fridays, we stay between 1500 and 2000 AD.
Today we’re in 1619, in the Dutch city of Dordrecht—known to most as “Dort.”
For years, churches had been divided over how salvation works. Some believed God chooses certain people to be saved. Others believed every person can respond freely. It wasn’t just a disagreement. It was threatening to fracture Protestant unity altogether.
To resolve the debate, a synod—a formal church council—was called.
But this wasn’t a quiet Bible study. It was a high-stakes gathering with political backing, national tension, and theological heat.
And the question was anything but theoretical:
Is salvation all up to God—or do we have a say in it?
CHUNK 3 – NARRATIVE FOUNDATION
The debate didn’t start in 1619.
Years earlier, a Dutch pastor named Jacobus Arminius [ar-MIN-ee-us] had begun to question certain teachings common in the Reformed churches of his day. He didn’t deny God’s sovereignty. He didn’t claim people could save themselves. But he pushed back against the idea that God had already decided—before time began—who would be saved and who would be condemned.
After Arminius died in 1609, his followers continued to press the issue. They became known as Remonstrants—those who “remonstrated,” or objected. In 1610, they published a document outlining five points, including conditional election and resistible grace. Each one challenged a core part of what would later be called Calvinism—though John Calvin himself had died more than 50 years earlier.
The Arminians weren’t trying to start a new denomination. They just wanted space within the Dutch church to hold a different view on grace, salvation, and human choice.
But the response was sharp. Many church leaders saw their ideas as dangerous—maybe even heretical. They argued that downplaying God's sovereignty would lead to pride, confusion, or a works-based gospel. Soon, the conflict spread beyond the churches to the courts and cities of the Netherlands.
By 1618, the Dutch government called for a national synod to settle the matter. And they invited international delegates—from England, Germany, Switzerland, and beyond.
Over 100 representatives came. Some traveled hundreds of miles by boat or horseback in the dead of winter. Their goal was simple: determine whether the Remonstrant views were within the bounds of biblical Christianity—or not.
But behind that goal was a deeper struggle.
Were they gathering to seek understanding…
Or to defend their ground?
And was the council really about unity—or about deciding who didn’t belong?
So, when the Synod of Dort finally opened in November 1618, the Delegates who had come from across Europe were not ill-prepared. They knew exactly what was at stake, and they were ready to face the question that everyone wanted an answer to: how does salvation work?
The Arminians came prepared to defend their views. Their spokesman, Simon Episcopius [eh-PISS-koh-pee-us], was articulate, bold, and deeply committed to dialogue. He did not want a trial—he wanted a discussion. For a time, they were allowed to participate. Over the course of nearly two months, the Arminians pressed for fair hearings. To say tensions rose would be an understatement.
The synod leaders insisted on strict procedures: the Arminians were to answer a series of theological statements with a simple yes or no. No elaborations. No explanations. No clarifications. Episcopius refused. He argued that the questions were worded unfairly and demanded the chance to present their views fully. Instead of submission, he offered resistance—firm, respectful, but unyielding.
CHUNK 5 – CLIMAX AND IMMEDIATE IMPACT
Finally, on January 14, 1619, during Session 57, the Synod’s patience ran out. Johannes Bogerman [BOH-ger-mahn], president of the Synod, lost his composure and shouted at the Arminians:
QUOTE “Depart! Leave!” END QUOTE.
With those words, the Arminians were expelled. Their voices would no longer be heard. From that moment on, the council pressed forward without them.
In the months that followed, the remaining delegates worked through the issues alone. Ninety-seven more doctrinal sessions followed, concluding on May 9, 1619. Out of those debates came the Canons of Dort—a detailed rebuttal of Arminian teaching.
The Canons responded point by point to the five Articles brought by the Arminians. Each was systematically addressed and rejected. The final document declared in no uncertain terms that God is the one who saves, from beginning to end, by His sovereign mercy. Our believing response is real, but it flows from His prior work of grace.
The Synod’s position was unmistakable:
Though the acronym TULIP would not appear until centuries later, the Canons gave theological shape to what many would call “five points of Calvinism.” For some, this was a reassuring truth. For others, it felt as though the door to grace had been narrowed—and locked.
The consequences were immediate. In the Netherlands, Arminian ministers were removed from their pulpits. Some were exiled. Others were silenced or pressured to recant. The Synod’s rulings became binding across the Dutch Reformed Church. Boundaries were drawn. Positions were codified. And the result was a much narrower definition of what acceptable belief was.
Yet even after the final session closed, the questions that had brought them together didn’t go away.
Both sides had claimed Scripture.
Both had appealed to logic, tradition, and conscience.
Both believed they were defending the truth of the gospel.
And neither had changed the other’s mind.
CHUNK 6 – LEGACY AND MODERN RELEVANCE
The debate continues today. The dispute between Calvinism and Arminianism continues—not just in seminaries or theology books, but in sermons, Bible studies, and conversations between believers who care deeply about how salvation works.
And often, both sides come armed with Scripture.
A Calvinist can quote Romans 9, Ephesians 1, John 6—verses that seem to clearly teach God's sovereign choice.
An Arminian can respond with 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, Hebrews 6—passages that emphasize human response, warning, or falling away.
Each side can defend its view with dozens of verses.
Each can critique the other with logic, language, and context.
Each system makes sense—within its own framework.
And yet, the further you press into the debate, the more it becomes clear:
Both sides can be deeply biblical—and still disagree.
Some churches have built entire identities around one side or the other. Others quietly avoid the conversation altogether. But the legacy of the Synod of Dort reminds us that these questions are not new—and they’re not easily solved.
The Synod made a decision – for the Dutch church – in 1619.
But the Church in other places and other times has never stopped wrestling.
Because for every believer who finds comfort in the certainty of God's choosing, there's another who clings to the call to respond.
And maybe that's the point.
Maybe the thing we need to remember is that sometimes the truth rests in the uncomfortable tension of not being able to explain it all.
Was Jesus fully human? Yes. Was Jesus fully God? Yes. Can we fully explain that? No – but we try.
Are Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father all one God and each fully God in and of themselves? Yes. Can we fully explain that? No – but we try.
Does God predestine those He will save? Yes. Are we called to respond to God’s invitation? Yes. Can we fully explain that? No – but it’s obvious that we still try.
Maybe it’s finally time we recognize that grace runs even deeper than our attempts to explain it.
And that the unity of the church doesn't require the uniformity of our systems. It requires us to be unified in our love for God and each other – in spite of our differences.
CHUNK 7 – REFLECTION AND CALL TO ACTION
When it comes to salvation, maybe the bigger question isn’t whether we’ve chosen the right system…
But whether we’ve trusted the right Savior.
Because if we’re honest, most of us haven’t studied these doctrines in depth. We inherited a view. Or heard one sermon. Or grew up in a church that leaned one direction without ever saying so. And we assumed that was the truth.
But the deeper you go into Scripture, the more you realize—there’s tension. Real tension.
And whatever system you land on, whatever system you can quote by memory, whatever system you can defend with Scripture has a problem. Someone can walk through every single verse you hold up and explain it differently—with accuracy, with logic, with Scripture, with care, and with love.
So maybe the most honest thing we can say is this:
“If I am 100 percent sure of one thing in my belief system it’s this: I know for a fact that I don’t have it all figured out.”
The more I dig, I never reach bottom. The more I peel, the more layers there are. The more I know, the more I realize I don’t know.
And maybe that’s not a weakness.
Maybe that’s where faith begins.
Because if salvation depends on getting everything right—if you need to have perfect theology to be saved—then we’re all damned.
But if grace is what the Bible says it is—undeserved, unearned, and offered through Jesus—then there’s room.
Room for questions.
Room for growth.
And maybe that’s the greatest comfort of all.
That we’re not saved because we’ve chosen the right team…
We’re saved … because Jesus came for the lost.
If this story of the Synod of Dort and the clash over salvation challenged or encouraged you, like, comment and share it with a friend – they might really need to hear it.
Leave a review on your podcast app! And don’t forget to follow COACH for more episodes every week.
Check out the show notes! It has the full transcript and sources used for this episode. And, if you look closely, you’ll find some contrary opinions. We do that on purpose.
The Amazon links can help you get resources for your own library while giving me a little bit of a kickback. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
You never know what we’ll cover next on COACH. Every episode dives into a different corner of church history. But on Fridays, we stay between 1500-2000 AD.
And if you’d rather access these stories on YouTube, check us out at the That’s Jesus Channel.
Thanks for listening to COACH – Church Origins and Church History.
I’m Bob Baulch with the That’s Jesus Channel.
Have a great day — and be blessed.
And yes—if I don’t keep making these, 1 of my 3 subscribers might leave.
And that will just leave my wife and me. Won’t that be pathetic …
Q1 (Verbatim) — “How are we saved?” Opening theological question posed at Synod proceedings. Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechti Habitae, 1619.Q2 (Verbatim) — “Depart! Leave!” Dismissal by Johannes Bogerman [BOH-ger-mahn] to the Remonstrants, Session 57, January 14, 1619. Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechti Habitae, 1619.Q3 (Paraphrased) — In 1610, Arminian leaders published a document outlining five points, including conditional election and resistible grace. Five Articles of the Remonstrants (1610).Q4 (Summarized) — The Canons of Dort declared God’s grace is effectual and cannot be resisted, affirming unconditional election and perseverance. Canons of Dort (1619).Q5 (Generalized) — Both sides came armed with Scripture. McKim, Donald K. Theological Turning Points (WJK, 1988).Q6 (Summarized) — Each system makes sense—within its own framework. Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP Academic, 2006).Q7 (Summarized) — God is sovereign. People are responsible. Muller, Richard A. Calvin and the Reformed Tradition (Baker, 2012).Q8 (Generalized) — We don’t need perfect theology to be safe. Pinnock, Clark. The Grace of God, the Will of Man (Zondervan, 1989).Q9 (Summarized) — The Synod judged the Remonstrants’ doctrines to be false and rejected them. Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechti Habitae, 1619.Q10 (Summarized) — The Canons affirm that election is not based on foreseen faith but on God’s mercy alone. Canons of Dort, Head I.Q11 (Generalized) — Some Remonstrant pastors were removed or exiled following the Synod’s decision. Van Lieburg, Fred. Orthodoxy and Dissent in the Reformed Tradition (2001).Q12 (Summarized) — The Remonstrants believed grace could be resisted and that believers could fall away. Five Articles of the Remonstrants (1610).Q13 (Summarized) — The Canons reject the idea that Christ died equally for all people. Canons of Dort, Head II.Q14 (Summarized) — Faith is a gift of God, not generated from within ourselves. Godfrey, Robert. Saving the Reformation (Reformation Trust, 2017).Q15 (Generalized) — Many Reformed churches today still reference the Canons of Dort as a doctrinal standard. Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism (Baker, 2003).9b. Reference Z-Notes (Z = Zero Dispute Notes)
(Zero Dispute Notes: details universally agreed upon in primary and secondary sources — no credible dispute.)
Z5 — At Session 57 on January 14, 1619, Johannes Bogerman expelled the Remonstrants with the words, “Depart! Leave!” Sources: Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechti Habitae (1619).Britannica (2025 ed.).Wikipedia “Synod of Dort” (rev. 2023, citing Sinnema 2014 ed.).RTS Journal (2018), Kistemaker analysis.Standard Bearer (RFPA), “The Expulsion of the Remonstrants.”Christianity Today (2019), “Protestantism’s Biggest Debate.”Heidelblog (2018), Donald Sinnema study.Z6 — The Synod held 154 doctrinal sessions; Sessions 1–57 included preliminaries and Remonstrant hearings, Sessions 58–154 delivered the Canons, and Sessions 155–180 are Post-Acta (administrative).Z7 — The Synod’s final rulings were published in May 1619 as the Canons of Dort. Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechti Habitae (1619).Z8 — The Canons rejected the Five Articles of Remonstrance, affirming Reformed positions on election, atonement, and grace. Canons of Dort (1619).Z9 — The acronym “TULIP” originated in the 20th century; it was not used at Dort. Muller, Richard. After Calvin (Oxford, 2003).Z10 — The Synod included more than 100 delegates, including representatives from England, Switzerland, and the German Palatinate. Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordrechti Habitae (1619).Z11 — Arminian theology emphasized conditional election, resistible grace, and the possibility of falling from grace. Five Articles of the Remonstrants (1610).Z12 — Reformed theology emphasized total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints. Canons of Dort (1619).Z13 — Many Arminian ministers were removed, silenced, or exiled after the Synod. Van Lieburg, Fred. Orthodoxy and Dissent (2001).Z14 — The Synod of Dort is considered the first international council of Reformed churches. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII.Z15 — Arminian theology later influenced John Wesley and became foundational in Methodism. Wesley, John. Free Grace (1740).Z16 — The tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility remains unresolved across Protestant traditions. McKim, Donald. Theological Turning Points (1988).9c. POPs (Parallel Orthodox Perspectives)
(POPs highlight orthodox or mainstream voices in agreement, even if in different traditions.)
9d. SCOPs (Skeptical or Contrary Opinion Points)
(SCOPs = voices contrary to, skeptical of, or critical of the Synod or its theology. Segmented for clarity.)
Pro-Reformed Critics of Arminianism
Pro-Arminian Critics of Dort
Critics of Orthodoxy / Broad Skeptics
9e. References and Sources
(All Q/Z/P/S items map to these. Session 57 dismissal = see especially [Z5].)
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
All equipment for this episode (one-stop link): [ADD AMAZON LINK HERE]
Background Music: “Background Music Soft Calm” by INPLUSMUSIC, Pixabay Content License
Composer: Poradovskyi Andrii (BMI IPI Number: 01055591064)
Source: Pixabay
YouTube: INPLUSMUSIC Channel
Crescendo: “Epic Trailer Short 0022 Sec” by BurtySounds, Pixabay Content License
Audio Visualizer: “Digital Audio Spectrum Sound Wave Equalizer Effect Animation, Alpha Channel Transparent Background, 4K Resolution” by Vecteezy
License: Free License (Attribution Required)
Assisted by ChatGPT (OpenAI) for consolidating ideas, streamlining research, phonetic insertion, and Grok (xAI) for fact-checking, quote verification, and reference validation.
Audio and video elements are integrated in post-production without in-script cues.
CHUNK 13 – SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
In 1619, church leaders gathered in the Dutch city of Dort to decide what Christians should believe about salvation. Were we saved because God chose us—or because we responded to His offer? Both sides quoted Scripture. Both believed they were right. But in the end, one side was silenced, and a system was codified. The Synod of Dort left behind a legacy of strong convictions—and even stronger divisions. This episode reminds us that theology matters—but humility matters too.
Closing Prayer Suggestion
Lord, thank You for Your grace—greater than our understanding and deeper than our differences. Help us walk humbly, love deeply, and seek You above all systems. Give us wisdom to study well and grace to treat others with gentleness, even when we disagree. Amen.
