Rex:

The year 1618 is one of the historic dates of Calvinism. It was then that in Holland the famous Synod of Dordrecht was convoked to combat the greatest crisis in dogma since the age of the first reformers. From Germany, the United Provinces, Geneva, Switzerland and England the delegates assembled (France, by order of the king, could send no delegates) to deal with the Arminians, or “Remonstrants” as they were often called, who had challenged some of the fundamental orthodox doctrines, threatening to split the Calvinist world in two.⁷

It was the pious conviction of the Arminians that the insistence of traditional Calvinism upon God’s omnipotence and man’s helplessness (as expressed in the absolute decrees of election and reprobation and other doctrines concerning the nature of grace and the Divine Satisfaction) led immediately and necessarily to the conclusion that God Himself was responsible for man’s sins and was the cause of his damnation.⁸ To avoid a conclusion so monstrous in itself, and which made them so vulnerable to accusations by their Catholic adversaries, they remonstrated to the orthodox with five points of doctrine carefully phrased to coincide as closely as possible with the usual orthodox formulae, but which in reality–as the orthodox were quick to see–affected the very foundations of the Calvinist theological system. In order to make it clear that it was man, rather than God, who was responsible for his own damnation the Arminians suggested (1) that the decrees of predestination and reprobation were not always absolute, (2) that Christ had proffered remission of sins to all mankind by His death, (3) that Christ had died for each and every person, (4) that a sinner might resist grace, and (5) that the saints did not always persevere in their faith. These points if adopted would have broken the absolute nature of the divine decrees; they would have implied the existence of a kind of universal grace offered to all (as opposed to the traditional “particular” grace offered only to the elect), and they would have meant that man’s will was partially independent–independent enough to refuse the grace offered in Christ’s death, or even to lose it, if in the wickedness of his heart man chose to do so.

Inevitably the orthodox rejected the five points. They were far from admitting that their traditional doctrines led to such impious consequences as the Arminians claimed; they saw no necessity to revise the whole structure of their theology, especially since their traditional doctrines were so “evidently” supported by the authority of the Scripture, and since Arminianism was clearly another revival of the semi-Pelagian heresy, whose dangers were already well known to the true Church. For months they labored, and at last brought forth the famous “Canons” which redefined the essential doctrines of their belief, and rejected the errors of the heretics.⁹ All the delegates to the Synod signed their names to each of the articles of the Canons, and at the conclusion of the Synod there were tears of rejoicing and prayers of thanksgiving; medals were struck to commemorate the happy issue of the crisis. A considerable number of Arminians were denied the right to exercise their pastoral functions; many also were placed under surveillance or sent into exile; for political reasons the worthy Oldenbarneveldt was decapitated.

Read the rest of this entry »

[comments below]

Introduction:

The following extracts are taken from Grohman’s dissertation.¹ Some of the material is irrelevant, but included for the sake of context.

The historical context of the following “theses” relates to Alexandre Morus (1616-1670) who was a candidate for ministry in 1641. However, his application and acceptance into the Genevan church ministry was not readily accepted by the “venerable company” of Genevan pastors. He was suspected of being: 1) in agreement with Amyraut on universal grace; 2), that he agreed with Joshua de la Place on original sin; and 3), that he agreed with Piscator on the question of Christ’s active and passive obedience. The company of pastors drew up a list of theses which they demanded Morus sign and thereby assent to. After the theses, I have included Grohman’s comments regarding the theses’ statements relative to Dort and the death of Christ.

Grohman:

1) At the Council’s insistence the Company met on Monday, May 28, and agreed to draw up for Morus a list of theses containing the pure doctrine and rejecting the false doctrine. Theodore Tronchin and Antoine Léger, professors of theology, were appointed to write the theses.

These theses were read and approved at the Company meeting on June 1, and they were signed on behalf of the Company by the moderator Sartoria and the acting secretary Girard. The theses are organized under five headings original sin, predestination, redemption, the disposition of man to grace, and promises made to the faithful and their prerogatives. The theses are as follows:

Original Sin

I. The first sin of Adam (maraptoma) is imputed to his posterity by a just disposition and judgment of God, and corruption is poured-out on each and everyone who proceeds naturally from that source. Thus, there are three things which render man accused before God: (1.) The guilt flowing from the fact that we have all sinned in Adam; (2) the corruption which is the punishment of this guilt, imposed both on Adam and on his posterity; (3) the sins which men commit as adults.

2. The imputation of Adam’s sin and the imputation of the justice of Jesus Christ answer each other mutually. Just as Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity, so the justice of Christ is imputed to the elect. The imputation in of Adam’s precedes corruption; the imputation of Christ ‘s justice precedes sanctification.

3. The imputation of Adam is sin and impure generation, which are certainly two ways of transmitting original sin, are interrelated and completely inseparable. Nevertheless, when they are considered as antecedent and consequent or cause and effect, to be sure, the corruption of nature in us is derived from Adam, because in him we have sinned and we have been made guilty.

Read the rest of this entry »

While at the Dort, Bishop Carleton, says Godfrey, stressed the efficacy of the death of Christ for the elect, “which emphasized the strict Calvinist position.”¹ Carleton asserted this in contradistinction to Davenant and Ward. However, even with his apparent opposition, Carleton no less affirmed:

Christ therefore so dyed for all, that all and every one by the meanes of faith might obtaine remission of sins, and eternall life by vertue of that ransome paid once for all mankinde. But Christ so dyed for the elect, that by the merit of his death in speciall manner destinated unto them according to the eternall good pleasure of God, they might infallibly obtaine both faith and eternall life.

George Carleton, The Suffrage of the Divines of Great Britaine, Concerning the Five Articles Controverted in the Law Countries, (London: Robert Milbounre, 1629), 47-48. [Note: one should ask, I am not sure how emphasizing the efficacy of the death of Christ stands in contrad-distinction to Davenant and Ward.]

When this work was published, it was signed by all the Englist delegates to Dort to signify their unity regarding the articles of Dort.

Credit to Marty for the find.

___________________

¹William Robert Godfrey, Tensions Within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 (Ph.D diss., Stanford University, 1974), 177.

The delegates from the Wetteraw say, “Christ is an expiation for the sins of the whole world, so far as relates to the worth and sufficiency of his ransom.” “When Christ is said to have died for all, this can be understood of the sufficiency of the merit, or the magnitude of the price.” They quote with approbation from one who says, that” the merit of Christ has an equal bearing on all as to its sufficiency, but not as to its efficacy. –The sufficiency and magnitude of the ransom of Christ, as relates to the reprobate, has a double end ; one in itself and the other by accident. The end in itself is, that God may testify that he is not delighted with the perdition of men, seeing he gave his only begotten Son, that every one who believes in him may not perish, but have eternal life. The end by accident is, that by means of its magnitude and sufficiency the reprobate may be without excuse.” And they add themselves, “For these perish, not by the fault of Christ, but by their own, since by their own unbelief they reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel.” “The reprobate are bound to believe this, that the merit of Christ is of so great worth that it is able to profit them also ; and it would indeed profit them, if they would believe the gospel and repent.”* [Footnote * Acts of Synod,” Part II. p. 125, 126, 128, 129.]

Edward D. Griffin, An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the Differences of Christians Respecting the Extent of the Atonement, (New York, Printed by Stephen Dodge, 1819), 362-367. See also: G Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement, (Cumbernauld, Scotland: Paternoster, 1997), 139-140.