THE CANONS OF DORT

In less than a month’s time, many Reformed churches around the world would becommemorating the Great Protestant Reformation which begun in Germany on 31October, 1517. On that providential day, Martin Luther nailed his famed 95Theses on the door of the castle church of Wittenberg.In no time, without Luther’s knowledge, this paper was copied, and reproducedin great numbers with the then recently invented printing machine, anddistributed throughout Europe. This paper was to be used by our Sovereign Lordto ignite the Reformation, which saw the release of the true Church of Christfrom the yoke and bondage of Rome.Four hundred and eighty-three years have gone by since then. Today, there arecountless technically Protestant churches (i.e., those which can trace back tothe Reformation in terms of historical links) around the world, but there arefew which still remember the rich heritage of the Reformers. In fact, a greatnumber of churches which claim to be Protestant have, in fact, gone back to Rome by way of doctrineand practice, and some even make it their business to oppose the Reformers andtheir heirs.

I am convinced that one of the chief reasons for this state of affair in the Protestant Church is a contemptuous attitude towardspast creeds and confessions and the historical battles against heresies. When,for example, there are fundamental defenders of the faith teaching in BibleColleges, who have not so much as heard of the Canons of Dort or the Synod ofDort, but would lash out at hyper-Calvinism, then you know that something isseriously wrong within the camp. Yet, this is indeed what is happening. Mostbelievers in the pews are not comfortable with theological jargons, not tomention being able to detect the incursion of subtle errors into the church.But when ministers of the Gospel are also unconcerned about what errors havealready been dealt with by the Church in the ages of learning in the past, thenwe know the floodgates of apostasy are being opened; and who knows how far thetorrents will carry the Church in the next generation? The attitude ofpreachers, we must remember, will inevitably rub off on the members of thechurch, some of whom may become leaders of the church by and by.

It is for this reason, I believe, that we must go back to our past. We mustremember the great work of God in and through the Church in the past and seekto learn from the mistakes of our forebears (cf. Deut 2:30; 3:3; Ps 105:5–6).It is especially pertinent for us to do so as we remember the GreatReformation.

Last year, we look at five key Reformers who were greatly used by God to shapeHis Church. This year, we shall move a hundred years ahead to look instead atthe history and doctrine of the Canons of Dort (or Dordrecht). In this article, we shall take aquick look at the events leading up to the Synod of Dort. From next Lord’s Day,we shall examine the doctrine of the Canons in the order of the well-knownacronym, T-U-L-I-P, that has developed since then. Since the attitude of disdainfor historical theology is already quite entrenched in many of our hearts, itwould be needful that the doctrinal articles be derived directly from theScriptures rather than from the Canons (which we believe to be consistent withScriptures). But we shall quote the canon where appropriate to show the wisdom,foresight and biblical fidelity of the framers of the Canons.

In Brief

The Canons of Dort was the product of a synod of Reformed churches, which metbetween the 13 November, 1618 and 6 May, 1619 in Dort, Holland, to examine theteachings of the disciples of Jacobus Arminius, known as the Remonstrants.These had wanted their articles of faith to be adopted by the churches inHolland, and so had petitioned the Dutch Parliament with a Remonstrancecontainingfive points. The parliament called for the Synod, and the result was that thefive articles of the Remonstrance were condemned. The Canonsof Dort documented the findings of the Synod. The full and revealing title ofthe document reads:

Judgement of the National Synod ofthe Reformed Churches of the United Netherlands: held in Dordrecht in the year1618 and 1619; which was assisted by many excellent theologians of the ReformedChurches of Great Britain, the Electoral Palatinate, Hessia, Switzerland, Wetteraw,Geneva, Bremen, and Emden: Concerning the well-known five heads of doctrine,about which a difference arose in the Reformed Churches of the said UnitedNetherlands.

In all, 81 theologians (56 Dutch and 25 foreign) met for 154 sessions, and atthe end of it condemned the five points of the Remonstrance asbeing contrary to Scripture and heretical. The articles of the Canons wereessentially a systematic apology of the doctrine of salvation as taught by JohnCalvin. Though the Canons themselves were only adopted by the churches of Dutchorigin, as part of the three Forms of Unity (which include the BelgicConfession and the Heidelberg Catechism), the findings of the Synod were andare held in great esteem in Calvinistic churches throughout the world, and theessence of it, as summarised in the five points of Calvinism or TULIP (thenational flower of Holland!), is regarded as the yardstick of Calvinisticorthodoxy in most English-speaking churches in the world.

Jacobus Arminius

Jacobus Arminius (c. 1559–1609), also known as Jacob Haemensz, was born inOudewater, Holland. Although Arminius was, in fact, not the originator of thedoctrine of the Remonstrance, and had, furthermore, already diedfor about 10 years by the time the Synod of Dort was convened, it is notwithout historical reasons why the doctrine refuted by the Synod is popularlyknown as Arminianism. Arminius was, after all, the man who made the doctrineespoused by his students popular.

In 1576, at 17 years old, Arminius was enrolled as a theological student in theUniversity of Leiden (or Leyden). Five years later, in 1581, he went to Geneva,and there studied under Theodore Beza, who had succeeded John Calvin aslecturer in theology. It appears, however, that Arminius was never really comfortablewith Beza’s doctrine of election and reprobation, though he did not show it.

Not long after his call to a pastorate in Amsterdam in 1587, Arminius was askedto refute a pamphlet, written by a man by the name of Coornhert, criticisingCalvin and Beza’s doctrine of predestination. With personal discomfort andunresolved questions in his heart, it was not surprising that instead of beingable to refute Coornhert objections, Arminius was won to his side. And soon,his theological biases began to surface in his sermons, such as when hepreached that Paul was referring to himself as an unconverted man in Romans7:14–25. We need only to read the text to know the implication of his view, forit would make Paul able to desire to do good while unregenerated, which wouldmean that he was not radically deprave in his heart. Soon, Arminius began to bevigorously opposed by Plancius, one his fellow ministers in Amsterdam.

Arminius was a popular man in the pulpit. And he was a brilliant scholar,refined in manners and appearance. Most importantly, he had many powerfulfriends in the government. At that time the universities were under staterather than church control, and so despite the controversy that wasintensifying in Amsterdam as Arminius began preaching from Romans 9, he wasappointed to the chair of theology at the Academy of Leyden.

At first, Arminius was opposed strongly by Franciscus Gomarus who was then aprofessor of theology at Leyden. But Arminius managed to persuade Gomarus ofhis orthodoxy by subtlety and craft, and Gomarus relented. Later Gomarus was toregret his decision, for as soon as Arminius was in the chair, then he beganpromoting his heresies to the students. In this way the doctrines of Arminiusbegan to spread abroad, and soon the whole country was in turmoil and severalconferences were called to settle the disputes.

Before anything could be settled, however, in October of 1609, Arminius died.His followers, however, continued to pursue their teacher’s purpose. Thefollowing year, under the influence of a powerful court preacher, JanusUtyenbogaert, the disciples of Arminius gathered together in the city of Goudato draw up a document known as the Remonstrance. By this document,the party hoped to have the parliament call for a revision (more likere-writing) of the existing confessions of the Dutch churches.

The Remonstrantia

This document of the Arminians, being designed to subvert the establisheddoctrine of the church, was drafted very craftily so as to give an impressionthat it is consistent with orthodoxy. In fact, my guess is that most of us whoread this document today will have difficulty finding fault with it at all! Ofcourse, in part, this is due to the ulterior care with which it was written,but I suspect, the lack of theological sensitivity that characterises most ofus today is to be blamed too.

Those interested to examine the articles may find them in Dutch, Latin andEnglish in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom (Baker,reprinted 1995), 3.545–49. We reproduce just the first two articles, which mostclearly show the Remonstrants’ departure from orthodoxy:

ArticleI. That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son,before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinfulrace of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, thosewho, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus,and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace,even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible andunbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate fromChrist, according to the word of the gospel in John 3:36… and according toother passages of Scripture also.

Article II. That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world,died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, byhis death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no oneactually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to theword of the Gospel of John 3:16…. And in the First Epistle of John 2:2….

Are you able to detect the heresy? If not, you will find the other threearticles even more subtle. In the first article, the doctrine being proposed isthat God’s election and reprobation is based upon God’s foreknowledge, i.e.,those whom God foresaw will believe were elected, those He foresaw would rejectthe Gospel were reprobated. The Remonstrants very carefully avoidedsaying,—that election is therefore conditional, and that salvation is thereforenot sovereignly brought about by God though it be by grace,—which is what theywere teaching. In the second article, it is essentially teaching that Christdid not die to save. Rather, He died for all without exception to makesalvation possible; and whether a person is saved depends on his response tothe Gospel.

In a nutshell, the other three articles teach that man has the ability to dogood when assisted by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit’shelp may be resisted and a Christian may lose his salvation.

The Great Synod

The Synod was convened in November, 1618; though it did not begin to deal withthe Arminians until 6 December. In line with proper ecclesiastical proceduresand the principle that accepted verities are to be regarded as truth unlessproven otherwise, the Synod was appointed to examine and try the Arminians.Johannes Bogerman, the pastor of Leuwarden, a fiery and capableContra-Remonstrant, was elected the president of the Synod.

The Arminians were naturally unhappy with this arrangement, and vehementlyprotested against the fact that their polemical opponents had been set overthem as judges. From the onset, therefore, they tried to stall the proceedings.First, they attempted unsuccessfully to get Bogerman replaced. Then, ratherthan submitting themselves to the examination of the Synod and defendingthemselves doctrinally, they kept asking for more time to prepare theiropinions. Not only that, they also tried to win the sympathy of the foreigndelegates by depicting the national delegates as schismatics and persecutors ofthe innocent and simple.

It should be noted that though the national delegates were almost consistentlyCalvinistic, some of the foreign delegates were not so. The delegates from Bremen appeared to betotally in agreement with the Arminians. Also among the delegation of five fromGreat Britain,there were clearly those who leaned either to Arminian or Amyraldian (mid-waybetween Calvinism and Arminianism) position.

By 14 January, 1619, when the Arminians again refused to submit to theauthority of the Synod in the matter of their examination, Bogerman’s patienceran out. He burst out:

Theforeign delegates are now of the opinion that you are unworthy to appear beforethe Synod. You have refused to acknowledge her as your lawful judge and havemaintained that she is your counter-party; you have done everything accordingto your own whim; you have despised the decisions of the Synod and of thePolitical Commissioners; you have refused to answer; you have unjustlyinterpreted the indictments. The Synod has treated you mildly; but you have—asone of the foreign delegates expressed it—“begun and ended with lies.” Withthat eulogy we shall let you go. God shall preserve His Word and shall blessthe Synod. In order that she be no longer obstructed, you are sent away! Youare dismissed, get out!

With the departure of the Arminians, the Synod could finally get down to work.Though the former could no longer present their arguments personally, they wereallowed to submit written defences of their position. This they did, and wroterather voluminously. A committee was appointed by the Synod to consider thesewritings and to write a doctrinal consensus of the Synod together with rejectionof errors. This was completed in about three months, and was signed by all thedelegates.

Conclusion

With the probable exception of the Westminster Assembly, the Synod of Dort waspossibly the greatest assembly of notable Reformed scholars to have gathered todeliberate on any doctrinal issue. Some may question the nature of theproceedings in the Synod, that it did not give occasion for irenic debate suchas in the case of the Westminster Assembly, but when we examine the Canons ofDort (see Schaff, Creeds, 550–97; Thomas Scott, TheArticles of the Synod of Dort [Sprinkle Pub., 1993]; HomerHoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers [RFPA, 1980]) and thedoctrine it propounds, we see that there is really little to debate about. Atstake was the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, as well as, an unbiased andlogical interpretation of the Word of God.

We may say that it was by the providence of God that the controversy arose inthe first place; for through it the Church was not only enriched with a Creedto serve as a standard for future churches, but also caused to see the logicalbeauty and self-consistency of the biblical doctrine of salvation as revealedin the Word of God. As we examine the five petals of the TULIP in the next fiveweeks, I believe this assertion would become clearer to the praise and glory ofour Almighty God who has revealed all things for our instruction and enjoymentof Him.

—JJ Lim