Reformed Arminianism vs. Reformed Calvinism: Which Is More Faithful to the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession?

Introduction: Who Owns the “Reformed” Label?

When people today hear “Reformed,” they almost automatically think of Calvinism and the five points of TULIP. But this is a historical confusion. The term “Reformed” originally referred to churches shaped by the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566)—all written decades before the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) ever narrowed the definition of Reformed.

The problem is clear: if Dort and TULIP define what it means to be Reformed, then Arminians (and their descendants) are outside the family. But if the Heidelberg and Belgic define Reformed theology—as they historically did—then Reformed Arminianism has every right to claim the name.

This is not mere hairsplitting. It is about recovering the broader, pastoral, Christ-centered faith of the early Reformed churches—one that speaks directly into apologetic conversations today.

---

1. The Pre-Dort Confessions: Broad and Christ-Centered

The Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession were not rigid scholastic systems. They were pastoral documents meant to disciple believers, comfort consciences, and protect the gospel.

• The Heidelberg Catechism is structured around guilt, grace, and gratitude. Its heartbeat is relational assurance: “That I am not my own, but belong…” (Q&A 1).¹

• The Belgic Confession, written by Guido de Brès, emphasizes the centrality of Christ’s mediatorial work and God’s justice and mercy. Its language of election is intentionally Christ-centered, not decretal or abstract.²

By contrast, Dort’s five points were polemical definitions designed to shut down the Remonstrants. They codified one strand of Reformed theology into binding dogma.

Thus, the confessions before Dort gave space for what later came to be called Reformed Arminianism. In fact, Arminius himself always insisted he never left the Reformed faith—he simply read Heidelberg and Belgic in a way that was consistent with their pastoral intent.³

---

2. How Heidelberg and Belgic Support Reformed Arminianism

a. Grace and Faith

• Heidelberg Q&A 20 teaches salvation only for those who, by a “true faith, are grafted into Christ.”⁴ This assumes grace can be resisted.

b. Election

• Belgic Article 16 describes election in Christ, not apart from Him. It also highlights justice in “leaving others in the fall… wherein they have involved themselves.”⁵ This suggests responsibility, not an arbitrary decree.

c. Atonement

• Belgic Article 21 describes Christ’s satisfaction for sin in universal terms—no limitation to the elect is stated.⁶

d. Assurance

• Heidelberg Q&A 1 and 86 place comfort in Christ and fruit-bearing faith, not in speculation about hidden decrees.⁷

This framework matches Reformed Arminianism: conditional election in Christ, universal atonement, resistible grace, and assurance in Christ.

---

3. TULIP Under the Microscope: Where It Conflicts with the Confessions

Now let’s flip the coin. For apologetics, it’s not enough to show that Reformed Arminianism fits the confessions—we must also show how TULIP Calvinism conflicts with them.

T – Total Depravity

Dort was right to affirm humanity’s fallen state. But Heidelberg already taught this in Q&A 8: “Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good?” Answer: “Yes, unless we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.”⁸

This is no problem for Arminians—we affirm total depravity. The issue is not man’s condition but God’s provision of prevenient grace, enabling response. Nothing in Heidelberg denies this. Dort, however, reads irresistible grace back into depravity.

U – Unconditional Election

Belgic Article 16 speaks of election “in Christ” but does not spell out unconditionality apart from faith.⁹ Calvin himself, in Institutes 3.24.5, warned believers not to pry into secret decrees but to look to Christ.¹⁰ Yet Dort codified a naked decree theology, which the Heidelberg and Belgic never demanded.

L – Limited Atonement

This is where TULIP is most at odds with the confessions. Belgic Article 21 speaks of Christ’s satisfaction in universal terms. Heidelberg Q&A 37–38 stresses His substitutionary suffering without restricting its scope.¹¹ Arminius argued this was proof that the Belgic did not demand a “limited atonement.”¹²

I – Irresistible Grace

Heidelberg Q&A 20 and 60 emphasize faith as the human act of receiving.¹³ Grace enables, but the response is required. Nothing in Heidelberg or Belgic states that grace cannot be resisted. Dort’s “effectual calling” was an innovation over and against this pastoral balance.

P – Perseverance of the Saints

Heidelberg Q&A 1 gives assurance that Christ “so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head.”¹⁴ But the Catechism never explicitly rules out apostasy. The Remonstrants themselves left perseverance somewhat open.¹⁵ Dort closed the door, insisting on inevitable perseverance, whereas the confessions leave room for conditional security.

---

4. Apologetic Advantages of the Pre-Dort Faith

Why does this matter for apologetics today, especially for Former Adventists?

1. A Universal Gospel Offer – We can sincerely preach John 3:16 as it stands.

2. The Character of God – God is not arbitrary but truly desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4).

3. Pastoral Assurance – Comfort comes from Christ, not from trying to read the eternal decree.

4. Human Responsibility – Avoids fatalism; sinners are accountable for rejecting grace.

For former Adventists, who have long lived under the crushing weight of conditional assurance tied to law-keeping, the Reformed Arminian reading of the Heidelberg and Belgic offers real freedom: Christ is sufficient, salvation is offered to all, and assurance is found in Him alone.

---

Conclusion: Who Is More Truly “Reformed”?

The Synod of Dort narrowed the Reformed tradition into TULIP. But the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession—the bedrock of the Reformed churches—teach a broader, pastoral faith: Christ-centered election, universal sufficiency of the atonement, resistible grace, assurance in Christ.

Reformed Arminianism fits these confessions better than post-Dort Calvinism.

So when someone says, “You’re not Reformed unless you hold TULIP,” the historical answer is clear:

"No, Reformed Arminianism is actually closer to Heidelberg and Belgic than you are."

For those of us committed to gospel clarity and confessional fidelity, the way forward is not Dort’s narrowing but a return to the broader, warmer, and truer Reformed faith.

---

Footnotes

1. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 1, in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: Volume III, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 307.

2. Belgic Confession, Article 16, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 389.

3. Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), 203–207.

4. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 20, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 309.

5. Belgic Confession, Article 16, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 389.

6. Belgic Confession, Article 21, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 391.

7. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 86, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 333.

8. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 8, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 309.

9. Guido de Brès, Confession de foy, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 389.

10. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.24.5, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 972–973.

11. Belgic Confession, Article 21, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 391.

12. Jacobus Arminius, Declaration of Sentiments (1608), in W. Nichols, ed., The Works of James Arminius (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 1:659–670.

13. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 60, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 326.

14. Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 1, in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 307.

15. Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 181–183.

Former Adventists Philippines

“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph