Synod of Dort

I know the Canons of Dort is one of the great Reformed Creeds, but the Synod not only declared the Arminian Remonstrants to be in error, but that they were condemned as heretics and outside the faith.

While I definitely think the Remonstrants were in error, I don't think these Arminians were outside the faith. What do you think? Was the synod correct in declaring them heretics? For those of you who fully subscribe to the Canon of Dorts, do you consider this as central?

I've struggled with this for a few years now. Part of me finds Arminianism to be heresy. I just can't see thinking YOU did anything to be saved as "ok". If you take it as far as you can go it comes down to a "work", you have to do "something" or there is "something" in you that gets you saved. I often wonder if we don't pay enough attention to Dort in that regard.

I have trouble calling it heresy. Problematic, to be sure. How is one defining heresy? If it is simply analyzing and showing the danger of Arminian teaching, well and good. If they are heretics because they are not Calvinists, well we have just anathematized most of church history.

I honestly haven't ever studied the Synod of Dort or the Three Forms in much detail. I'm not prepared to call someone who isn't a 5 pointer a heretic, although of course many are. There are some heretics who affirm the 5 points as well.

One thing someone pointed to me that helped:

We need to see our traditions as "systems of truth" rather than "truth" itself. If we fail that distinction, then it is hard for people before the 1630s to be in heaven, since they didn't have the truth.