Piety in the Canons of Dort

By Matthew Barrett

Edwin H. Palmer was unmistakably accurate when he said that, for the “uninformed pastor, the ‘Five Points of Calvinism’ seem harsh, cold and spiritually deadening.” [1] The terms Calvinism, total depravity, election, reprobation, limited atonement, and irresistible grace give him the shivers. As he views it, the God of Calvinism is arbitrary and His decree of reprobation is “horrible.” Such “fatalistic” teachings, he believes, make men morally lazy, give a false sense of security, hinder missions, and deaden human responsibility. Therefore, instead of utilizing these teachings in his pastoral work, he may oppose them or at least ignore them. [2]

In light of Calvinism’s faithfulness to Scripture and biblical accuracy, such nausea to the doctrines of grace is tragic. [3] Moreover, as Palmer observes, such a knee-jerk reaction to Calvinism results in caricatures, chief among them being the claims that Calvinism is responsible for spiritual laziness [4] and a false sense of assurance. [5] Consequently, Calvinism’s influence in pastoral ministry and the spiritual life of the believer is seen as damaging, destructive, and counter-productive to true spiritual grace and humility. [6]

To the contrary, this essay will demonstrate that, for the Calvinist, the doctrines of grace do not serve to hinder but actually promote true, genuine, evangelical piety. [7] Nowhere is this so obvious than in the very core of Calvinistic theology: the Canons of the Synod of Dort (1619). It is Dort which is the hallmark of five-point Calvinism, an expansive and rigorous defense of God’s sovereign grace against the synergism of the Arminian Remonstrants, which came to be definitive for so many sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century Puritans. [8] And yet, these same Canons which expound high Calvinism are also the same Canons which see Calvinism as the very spring of evangelical piety and spirituality. While it is not the intention or purpose of this essay to defend the five points of Dort per se or to extensively explain the historical background that gave rise to the Synod of Dort, the Canons themselves will be examined one by one in order to identify how exactly the doctrines of grace serve as the very foundation for true, authentic piety in the believer.

Short Background to the Synod of Dort

Arminianism bears the name of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609), a student in the Genevan academy in 1581, under the teaching of Theodore Beza. [9] While Arminius learned under the best of the Reformed tradition, he diverted from Reformed theology by conditioning election on foreseen faith, advocating a universal atonement, developing a synergistic view of grace, and believing that it is possible for one to fall from grace, forfeiting salvation. In short, Arminius conditioned the divine decree upon the will of man. Arminius’s theology would be taught by his successors Conrad Vorstius (1569-1622) and Simon Episcopius (1583-1643), who also taught at the University of Leiden. [10] While Arminius died in 1609, his theology filled many churches in Amsterdam so that, by 1610, there were many Arminian pastors. Consequently, forty-six Arminians, led by Johannes Uytenbogaert (1557-1644) and Simon Episcopius, being accused of heresy, wrote a remonstrance which included five canons defending their beliefs. The confession is consistent with the writings of Arminius, teaching among other things that God’s election is conditioned upon foreseen faith, Christ’s atonement is universal, and grace is resistible. [11]

Prompted by the Calvinist Prince Maurice of Orange, six representatives of each side met in Hague (the Collatio Hagiensis) in 1611 to discuss their differences but the meeting was of no success. [12] By 1618, a Counter-Remonstrance was formed by the Calvinists in Dordrecht, presided over by Johannes Bogerman (1576-1637), which sought not only to correct the Remonstrants’ views as well as their caricatures of the Calvinist position but also to set forth the “biblical” view. Dort (1618-1619) was an international synod, as representatives from all over Europe gathered to discuss and finally refute the Remonstrant doctrines. [13] The focus of the Canons is on the major difference between the two parties: conditionality vs. unconditionality in salvation. [14] According to the Calvinists, man is pervasively depraved and spiritually unable to choose God, election is unconditional, Christ’s atonement is efficient only for the elect, the Spirit’s grace in calling and regenerating the elect is effectual and irresistible, and God always preserves His elect unto glory. [15] Dort is clear: no aspect of God’s eternal choice is conditioned upon man’s free will for its efficacy or success. As John R. De Witt states, “Arminianism meant synergism: that is, in however evangelical a form in some of its early proponents, it introduced a cooperate element into the effecting of salvation. And each of the doctrines delineated at Dort was directed against the notion of any cooperation, any grounding of God’s favor upon something acceptable in the creature, in the extending of grace to sinners.” [16]

Before Dort pronounced its verdict, it was requested that the Remonstrants, led by Episcopius, set forth their views with greater detail than they had in the Five Articles originally presented. The Remonstrants wrote a confession of their beliefs that more fully presented their views and it came to be called the Opinions of the Remonstrants (Sententiae Remonstrantium). [17] When Dort pronounced its verdict, condemning the Remonstrant views and declaring the biblical view, such a pronouncement was based upon the Five Articles and the Opinions of the Remonstrants. [18] However, Dort not only rejected the views of the Remonstrants (as demonstrated in Dort’s Rejections), but positively put forth five canons articulating the theology of Calvinism. It is to this theology that we now turn.

Calvinism and Puritan Piety in the Canons of Dort

Predestination: Source of Assurance, Humility, and Holiness

The Canons of Dort begin with the doctrine of unconditional election. [19] Contrary to the Remonstrants, who argued that God elects on the basis of foreseen faith in man, Dort argued that Scripture teaches that election is unconditional, not based on anything in man, but purely due to the good pleasure and mercy of God (Eph. 1:4-6). [20] “Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin.” [21] Those who are chosen by God are not chosen because  they are better or more deserving, for the only thing within them is a “common misery.” [22] Election took place “not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on.” [23] Dort appeals to Romans 9:11-13, Acts 13:48, and Ephesians 1:4 to demonstrate that “the cause of this underserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God.” [24]

Moreover, when asked why some believe and others do not, Dort refuses to resort, as the Remonstrants do, to the will of man, as if God’s sovereign grace is dependent upon man’s choice. Rather, on the basis of Acts 15:18 and Ephesians 1:11, the “fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision.” Dort continues,

In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act — unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just — of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God’s word. This decision the wicked and impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words. [25]

It is here, in canon I.6, that we first see a glimpse of how Calvinism has massive implications for personal piety and spirituality. The wicked deserve reprobation and God’s decision to leave them in their “wickedness and hardness of heart” the impure and unstable “distort to their own ruin.” [26] However, for the elect, predestination is the cause of great comfort, so great a comfort that words are insufficient for the holy and godly soul. Exactly what type of comfort Dort has in mind is seen in canon I.12:

Assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s word — such as a true faith in Christ, a child-like fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on. [27]

Assurance of salvation in Christ is the great comfort that comes in affirming the doctrine of unconditional election. [28] Election is to remind the believer that he is safe in the arms of God, for God has chosen him before the foundation of the world. [29] However, Dort is quick to qualify the serenity of the comfort that comes with assurance. Not all receive assurance in equal measure nor do all receive assurance all at once. Rather assurance comes “by various stages and in differing measure.” Such a qualification is key, lest a saint despair because he does not feel the assurance he previously delighted in. Nevertheless, though assurance may come in differing stages and measures, it is to be found in the believer by noticing the “unmistakable fruits of election” which include true faith in Christ, child-like fear of God, godly sorrow for sin, and a hunger and thirst for righteousness. When the believer recognizes the presence of these fruits of election, he will undoubtedly be moved to “spiritual joy” and “holy delight,” as he is assured of his salvation in Christ.

However, as if to guard the Christian from becoming arrogant in recognizing his own election and fruitfulness, Dort explains the type of attitude assurance should lead to:

In their awareness and assurance of this election God’s children daily find greater cause to humble themselves before God, to adore the fathomless depth of his mercies, to cleanse themselves, and to give fervent love in return to him who first so greatly loved them. This is far from saying that this teaching concerning election, and reflection upon it, make God’s children lax in observing his commandments or carnally self-assured. By God’s just judgment this does usually happen to those who casually take for granted the grace of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen. [30]

The child of God, aware and confident of his election, is moved by such assurance on a daily basis to “find greater cause to humble themselves before God” because he recognizes that his election and even the assurance of his election are not due to his own righteousness but due entirely to the sovereign grace and mercy of God. If election were conditional, the child of God would find reason in himself to boast and humility would be lost. However, since God’s election is not based on anything foreseen within man and man’s assurance is a gift from God, there is no response fitting except that of Christian humility and thanksgiving. Children of God, therefore, have every reason to “adore the fathomless depth of his mercies, to cleanse themselves, and to give fervent love in return to him who first so greatly loved them.” Once again, unconditional election is the very basis not only for comfort and assurance but for humility, praise, worship, and love, as the believer fathoms God’s mercy, loves his Savior, and seeks to rid himself of sin. Furthermore, Dort anticipates the objection that unconditional election leads the elect to be “lax in observing his commandments or carnally self-assured.” Dort counters that by “God’s just judgment this does usually happen to those who casually take for granted the grace of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen.” In other words, if one does become lax, fostering a carnal self-assurance, he is living inconsistently with the doctrine of unconditional election itself. Election, in Scripture, is never an excuse for lax carnality but pro-active deeds in holiness. [31] It is only when the elect seek daily obedience to Christ that they can have a proper assurance of their election.

Nonetheless, Dort is not so naïve to believe that all the elect experience assurance in the same measure. For many, assurance is lacking.

Those who do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ, but who nevertheless use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us — such people ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to count themselves among the reprobate; rather they ought to continue diligently in the use of the means, to desire fervently a time of more abundant grace, and to wait for it in reverence and humility. On the other hand, those who seriously desire to turn to God, to be pleasing to him alone, and to be delivered from the body of death, but are not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like — such people ought much less to stand in fear of the teaching concerning reprobation, since our merciful God has promised that he will not snuff out a smoldering wick and that he will not break a bruised reed [Matt 12:20]. However, those who have forgotten God and their Savior Jesus Christ and have abandoned themselves wholly to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh — such people have every reason to stand in fear of this teaching, as long as they do not seriously turn to God. [32]

Dort identifies and addresses three types of people in canon I.16. First, there are those who “do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart.” These lack a peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a “glorying in God through Christ.” Despite all this, they nevertheless use “the means by which God has promised to work these things in us.” Dort’s counsel to such Christians is that they should not be “alarmed at the mention of reprobation” nor “count themselves among the reprobate.” In other words, though they lack peace, zeal, and passion, they should not despair, contemplating whether they should be counted among the wicked. Rather, Dort advises them to press on, persistently using the means God has promised to use to work spiritual fruit within. By doing so, they should fervently desire for a time to come when they will experience God’s grace in fuller measure. Moreover, while waiting for such grace they should do so in “reverence and humility” knowing that the God who predestines is the same God who will provide a time of assurance. [33]

The second group of people Dort identifies are those who desire to turn to God, please Him, and be delivered from sin, but are “not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like.” This second group of believers seem to possess the desire and zeal that the first group lacked. Nevertheless, due to the constant struggle with sin, they often fail to turn to God and find their satisfaction in Him alone. They want to “be delivered from the body of death” but are impeded in making progress in godliness and faith as they desire. Should such a person fear that he is one of the reprobate rather than the elect? No, they should not fear the teaching of reprobation for God is merciful and has promised to be faithful to His elect, not snuffing them out but advancing them in godliness in due time.

The third group, unlike the first two, receives no assurance or comfort for they have forgotten God and Jesus Christ the Savior, abandoning themselves to the “pleasures of the flesh” and the “cares of the world.” They have every reason to fear the teaching of reprobation “as long as they do not seriously turn to God.” Indeed, the teaching of reprobation serves as a warning to turn to God lest they perish in their sins.

Moreover, the teacher of such hard doctrines as predestination and reprobation must keep these three types of people in mind, setting forth his teaching “with a spirit of discretion, in a godly and holy manner, at the appropriate time and place, without inquisitive searching into the ways of the Most High.” [34] Additionally, he must utilize a mind of humility in order “to deal with this teaching in a godly and reverent manner, in the academic institutions as well as in the churches; to do so, both in their speaking and writing, with a view to the glory of God’s name, holiness of life, and the comfort of anxious souls.”35 The teaching of election and reprobation “must be done for the glory of God’s most holy name, and for the lively comfort of his people.”36 In fact, to agree with the Arminians that “not every election to salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the chosen can perish and do in fact perish eternally, with no decision of God to prevent it” is not only a “gross error” that robs God of His glory in preserving His elect, but it is to “destroy the comfort of the godly concerning the steadfastness of their election,” which is contrary to the Scriptures (cf. Matt. 24:24; John 6:39; Rom. 8:30). [37] Therefore, the synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that in this life there is no fruit, no awareness, and no assurance of one’s unchangeable election to glory, except as conditional upon something changeable and contingent. For not only is it absurd to speak of an uncertain assurance, but these things also militate against the experience of the saints, who with the apostle rejoice from an awareness of their election and sing the praises of this gift of God; who, as Christ urged, rejoice with his disciples that “their names have been written in heaven” [Luke 10:20]; and finally who hold up against the flaming arrows of the devil’s temptations the awareness of their election, with the question, “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? [Rom 8:33]” [38]

It is the last line that is of particular importance, namely, that believers are able to hold up their awareness of election “against the flaming arrows of the devil’s temptations.” One’s awareness of his election is a two-edged sword: (1) it is reason to rejoice and (2) it is to be shoved in the face of Satan, as a shield against his fiery arrows that seek to tempt and destroy faith.

Particular Atonement: Cause for Personal and Corporate Thanksgiving

In Dort’s exposition of election and reprobation, the implications for individual piety and holiness are abundant. However, in Dort’s articulation of limited (sometimes called particular or definite) atonement the implications for piety are more subtle, yet still apparent. Following Arminius, the Remonstrants argued for a universal atonement, meaning that Christ died for all people without exception. Dort strongly disagreed for such a death actually saves no one but merely makes everyone savable. [39] For Dort, while Christ’s death in and of itself is of “infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world,” [40] God designed and intended Christ’s death to efficaciously save and atone only for the sins of those whom

He unconditionally elected. [41] Dort’s emphasis on the particularity of Christ’s atonement comes from its understanding that in Scripture while God has a general love for all people (e.g., His gospel is freely preached and offered to all), [42] He has a special, definite, and saving love meant only for His elect, who in Scripture are called His sheep (John 10:15, 27; cf. 15:12-13) and offspring (Isa. 53:10).

This plan, arising out of God’s eternal love for his chosen ones, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result the chosen are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ’s blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and — here and in all eternity — praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride. [43]

These elect children are purchased by the blood of the Lamb, and it is their sins that are paid for in full at the cross. Dort is explicit that the response from the church, both here and in eternity, is praise and worship because the Savior has laid down His life for her on the cross, “as a bridegroom for his bride.” Therefore, it is the doctrine of limited atonement which sweetly reminds us that the church, and only the church, is the bride of Christ, for He has paid for her with His blood. It is this doctrine which Dort believes should elicit persistent love and worship of Christ, both here and in eternity. [44] While the first canon showed us how the doctrine of election was a great cause for personal comfort, assurance, humility, and godliness, this second canon has demonstrated that for Dort the doctrine of limited atonement is a cause for corporate spirituality as the body of Christ extols her Savior for laying down His life and securing redemption.

Total Depravity and Effectual Grace: Humble Gratitude and the Death of Pride

Dort begins canons three and four by describing the pervasiveness of man’s corruption and depravity. Sin has corrupted every aspect of man, including his will, mind, and affections. [45] Consequently, every man after the Fall is a slave to sin, and yet such slavery is a willful slavery as man’s will is necessarily inclined towards evil. [46] The depravity that pervades is due to the corruption man has inherited from Adam due to the Fall. Consequently, man cannot in any way will that which is needed to inherit eternal life but is in desperate need of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jer. 17:9; Eph. 2:1-5; Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Ps. 51:17; Matt. 5:6). [47] Such a work of God, not upon all but only upon His elect, is irresistible, effectual, invincible, and always successful, bringing the sinner from death to new life. [48] God’s work is not by mere moral persuasion nor conditioned upon “man’s power whether or not to be reborn or converted.” [49] Rather, it is a work equivalent to raising the dead. [50] Accordingly, it is God, not man, who receives all of the glory (1 Cor. 1:31).

Dort, however, is aware of the Arminian objection, namely, that if it is only God who can do this effectual and irresistible work so that without it no man can believe, then God is unjust and unfair to limit His saving work to only some rather than all. Dort responds:

God does not owe this grace to anyone. For what could God owe to one who has nothing to give that can be paid back? Indeed, what could God owe to one who has nothing of his own to give but sin and falsehood? Therefore the person who receives this grace owes and gives eternal thanks to God alone; the person who does not receive it either does not care at all about these spiritual things and is satisfied with himself in his condition, or else in self-assurance foolishly boasts about having something which he lacks. Furthermore, following the example of the apostles, we are to think and to speak in the most favorable way about those who outwardly profess their faith and better their lives, for the inner chambers of the heart are unknown to us. But for others who have not yet been called, we are to pray to God who calls things that do not exist as though they did. In no way, however, are we to pride ourselves as better than they, as though we had distinguished ourselves from them. [51]

The divide then between the believer saved by grace and the unbeliever justly condemned shows itself in external manifestations. The believer has nothing to say but thanksgiving and praise to his Savior, while the unbeliever either cares nothing for the things of God or, in a haughty and boastful spirit, is under a false assurance of salvation. Dort is not silent on how Christians should approach these two types of people. First, Dort states that since we do not know the “inner chambers of the heart” we must “speak in the most favorable way” about those who outwardly confess Christ and seek to grow in sanctification. Second, concerning those who have not yet been effectually called, we are to pray earnestly to God on their behalf, for God and God alone is the One “who calls things that do not exist as though they did.” Here we see the connection between divine sovereignty and evangelism. God alone can call and change a heart of stone to a heart of flesh (Ezek. 36:25-27). However, the Christian is to pray for these unbelievers and ask God to call them to Himself. Just as God calls light out of darkness, so He can call a dead, depraved sinner into the light of the life of Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). Yet, God instructs us to pray for unbelievers, for our prayers are means to this salvific end.

Moreover, Dort not only reminds the believer to pray fervently for the unbeliever but warns the believer that in no way should we “pride ourselves as better than they, as though we had distinguished ourselves from them.” Such a warning can only be truly practiced by the Calvinist. As seen above, for the Calvinist, man contributes absolutely nothing to his salvation, not even the slightest cooperation of his free will. It is God alone who works to effectually call and regenerate the dead and depraved sinner, bringing life out of death (cf. John 3:5-8). Consequently, the believer has no right whatsoever to then, out of a proud heart, turn with contempt upon an unbeliever. To do so, as Dort says, is to act as if something in us distinguished us from them, but no such thing can be found. The saved sinner, as Palmer remarks, is left to say, “Truly, Lord, except for thy grace, I would have done the same evil.” Consequently, “Calvinism produces humility.” [52] Such humility is accompanied by sheer gratitude to God and a life of obedience. [53] Additionally, the Christian’s interaction with unbelievers must be characterized by meekness, for only then is he consistent with the doctrine of sovereign grace. True piety and holiness, as well as a love for the lost soul, comes from the heart that realizes that it was nothing within that moved God to save, but wholly and completely the grace and mercy of God through Christ.

Finally, Dort’s biblical affirmation of irresistible grace is a motivator of pastoral hope in hopeless cases. Whereas Arminianism advocates a God whose saving grace is contingent upon man’s will to save, Dort’s Calvinism looks to a God whose will to save a dead sinner cannot be thwarted (e.g., John 6:44). Irresistible grace is a reminder that no human method or strategy can save a sinner. It is not the case that the lost simply need more convincing due to their indifference. It is not as if one must simply be persuasive enough to get the sinner to react. As Palmer states,

For the man is spiritually dead. He cannot say Yes while he does not have life. He is totally depraved, that is, utterly unable to desire salvation unless the Spirit first of all makes him alive. The man must be born from above, born a second time, spiritually resurrected, made alive again in Christ Jesus. And how else can that be done except that God does it? The pastor knows he has tried every human means to no avail. But when he remembers that God in his electing love works irresistibly, then he can take hope. Although the pastor cannot touch the lost man’s life, God can. If he could regenerate Paul, the Christ-hater, then he can touch today’s hardened or indifferent man. God’s election and the irresistible grace bring hope as the minister deals with the “hopeless” cases. [54]

Dort provides hope to the tired and wearied pastor by reminding him that it is not his own human efforts, whatever they may be, but the power of God to work irresistibly within a dead man’s heart that saves. Irresistible grace gives the pastor confidence to preach the word and evangelize, knowing that God will save His elect. If anything, the pastor is “made to depend upon God more.” [55]

The Preservation of the Saints and the Incentive to Holy Living

Out of the five canons articulated by Dort, it is the fifth and final canon which has the most to say about Christian piety. Dort begins canon five by describing the regenerate believer’s situation, namely, as one who is simultaneously righteous and a sinner (simul iustus et peccator). Those whom God has called to Christ and the Spirit has regenerated, God has also set free from the “reign and slavery of sin, though in this life not entirely from the flesh and from the body of sin.” [56] In other words, sin’s grip has been broken, having no condemning power over the justified believer, but this side of heaven the regenerate man continues to struggle against sin. “Hence daily sins of weakness arise, and blemishes cling to even the best works of God’s people, giving them continual cause to humble themselves before God, to flee for refuge to Christ crucified, to put the flesh to death more and more by the Spirit of supplication and by holy exercises of godliness, and to strain toward the goal of perfection, until they are freed from this body of death and reign with the Lamb of God in heaven.” [57] There is not a hint of perfectionism in these words. Dort, realizing the believer’s ongoing war with sin, reminds the Christian that blemishes are a continual cause of godly humiliation before a holy God. However, it is not condemnation that awaits the believer but forgiveness at the cross of Christ, for Dort exhorts the believer to “flee for refuge to Christ crucified.” Notice, Dort’s first reaction for the Christian sinner is to look upon the objective work of Christ, where redemption has been accomplished and secured and where forgiveness flows for all eternity for those for whom Christ died. However, Dort does not stay there, but secondarily turns to the subjective, namely, the sin within the believer himself, encouraging him to mortify the flesh by putting it to death “more and more by the Spirit of supplication and by holy exercises of godliness.” By the negative practice of mortification and the positive practice of putting on godliness, the believer is able to “strain toward the goal of perfection” which is finally acquired when the believer reigns with the Lamb of God in heaven. Here is a clear reference to Paul’s words in Philippians 3:14, “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”

Nevertheless, unlike the Arminian, the Calvinist is not left without the promise that those whom the Father has called, Christ will indeed keep to the end.

Because of these remnants of sin dwelling in them and also because of the temptations of the world and Satan, those who have been converted could not remain standing in this grace if left to their own resources. But God is faithful, mercifully strengthening them in the grace once conferred on them and powerfully preserving them in it to the end. [58]

Dort does not believe that simply because God has promised to keep those whom He has chosen, man is perfectly motivated and excited at all times in treasuring Christ. Rather, though secure in Christ, believers can and do fall into sin, failing to trust in Christ when temptation comes.

Although that power of God strengthening and preserving true believers in grace is more than a match for the flesh, yet those converted are not always so activated and motivated by God that in certain specific actions they cannot by their own fault depart from the leading of grace, be led astray by the desires of the flesh, and give in to them. For this reason they must constantly watch and pray that they may not be led into temptations [Matt 26:41]. When they fail to do this, not only can they be carried away by the flesh, the world, and Satan into sins, even serious and outrageous ones, but also by God’s just permission they sometimes are so carried away — witness the sad cases, described in Scripture, of David, Peter, and other saints falling into sins. [59]

According to Dort, sin is a real threat, so that believers, by no fault but their own, “depart from the leading grace,” being led astray by the sinful pleasures of the flesh. Dort’s solution is biblical, turning to Matthew 26:41:“Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Again, the instruction is both negative (watch; be on guard against sin) and positive (seek God’s help daily through prayer). If the Christian fails to “watch and pray,” he can very well be seduced by the flesh, the world, or Satan, committing not only minor sins but “serious and outrageous ones.” However, the believer falls into no such sin, minuscule or serious, apart from “God’s just permission.” Just as it is God who preserves the believer to glory, so also is it God who controls and permits the believer’s fall into sin. Here again is an example of how Calvinism at Dort is inseparable from the Christian’s progression in sanctification or his digression from holiness. God is in sovereign control and He will not fail to preserve every sinner His Son has died for. Yet, such divine sovereignty is not a general sovereignty as the Remonstrants believed, conditioning God’s providence upon man’s free will. Rather, God’s sovereign control is both exhaustive and meticulous. With regard to the believer’s sanctification, this means that God is in control not only of the believer’s success in holiness but also his lapse into sin and temptation. Nevertheless, Dort is careful, refusing to fall prey to the Arminian accusation that such a view of God’s sovereignty makes God guilty of sin. Dort frames its discussion by the word “permission.” When the Christian is “carried away” into sin, he does so by “God’s just permission.” Dort is not without biblical justification, for as Dort observes, Scripture is very clear in affirming such a just permission as evidenced in the lives of David (2 Sam. 11-12), Peter (Matt. 26:34, 74), and many other saints who fell into sin.

Nonetheless, though God permits a Christian’s lapse into sin, God takes the believer’s fault very seriously and the consequences are costly.

By such monstrous sins, however, they greatly offend God, deserve the sentence of death, grieve the Holy Spirit, suspend the exercise of faith, severely wound the conscience, and sometimes lose the awareness of grace for a time — until, after they have returned to the way of genuine repentance, God’s fatherly face again shines upon them. [60]

Dort’s list of deadly consequences (offend God, deserve death, grieve the Spirit, suspend the exercise of faith, severely wound the conscience, and temporarily lose an awareness of grace) is not to be taken lightly. These consequences will increase until the Christian turns in “genuine repentance.” Yet, even though the Christian has committed such sins and is in danger of God’s discipline, when he repents he finds “God’s fatherly face” shining upon him. Moreover, in the Christian’s turning from sin to the Father, who receives the credit and praise for such a recovery and continuance in the faith? Dort is emphatic that it is God who is to be praised and recognized for His preservation of the believers, working within them once again “heartfelt and godly sorrow for the sins they have committed” and renewing them to repentance. [61] Furthermore, Dort assures the believer that when the Christian falls into sin, God never takes away His Holy Spirit from His own completely, for if He did, He would forfeit His rich mercy and unchangeable purpose of election. [62] Not only is the Spirit’s presence not compromised, but so also God does not “let them fall down so far that they forfeit the grace of adoption and the state of justification, or commit the sin which leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit), and plunge themselves, entirely forsaken by him, into eternal ruin.” [63] Rather, God, by His Word and Spirit, keeps them in His hand and at the proper time restores them so that they “seek and obtain, through faith and with a contrite heart, forgiveness in the blood of the Mediator.” [64] It is then that they experience the “grace of a reconciled God” and through faith “adore his mercies” so that they “eagerly work out their salvation with fear and trembling” (cf. Phil. 2:12). [65]

Dort also provides hope for the Christian of a troubled conscience. [66] Dort recognizes that some Christians face “doubts of the flesh” and when under “severe temptation they do not always experience this full assurance of faith and certainty of perseverance.” [67] However, due to God’s preservation, assurance is obtained “according to the measure of their faith whereby they arrive at the certain persuasion that they ever will continue true and living members of the church; and that they experience forgiveness of sin, and will at last inherit eternal life.” [68] Joel Beeke comments, “Take away God’s preservation, and every conscientious believer would despair; our failures would overwhelm whatever fruits we discover and destroy all assurance. By speaking first of God’s election and preservation, the canons show us that assurance is rooted in God’s sovereign grace and promises—yes, in God Himself.” [69] Pointing to 1 Corinthians 10:13, Dort reminds believers once again of God’s sweet and Fatherly sovereignty in not allowing Christians to be tempted beyond what they can bear, but providing a way of escape; in due time, by the Holy Spirit, He “revives in them the assurance of their perseverance.” [70] When the Christian receives such assurance, humility, not pride, is to be the result.

This assurance of perseverance, however, so far from making true believers proud and carnally self-assured, is rather the true root of humility, of childlike respect, of genuine godliness, of endurance in every conflict, of fervent prayers, of steadfastness in crossbearing and in confessing the truth, and of well-founded joy in God. Reflecting on this benefit provides an incentive to a serious and continual practice of thanksgiving and good works, as is evident from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of saints. [71]

Dort further explains how this Christian godliness takes form:

Neither does the renewed confidence of perseverance produce immorality or lack of concern for godliness in those put back on their feet after a fall, but it produces a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways of the Lord which he prepared in advance. They observe these ways in order that by walking in them they may maintain the assurance of their perseverance, lest, by their abuse of his fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon his face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit. [72]

According to Dort, humility, godliness, endurance, fervent prayer, steadfastness in persecution and suffering, unwavering profession of the truth, and joy in God all result from the assurance that God provides through perseverance. Moreover, when the Christian reflects on all these benefits that flow from assurance, he should be further moved to perpetual thanksgiving and good works. However, a redeemed assurance does not lead to lax licentiousness or disinterest in godliness, but instead is to create a far deeper concern to guard oneself from again giving way to temptation by observing the ways of the Lord. The motivation in observing the ways of the Lord is to gain a deeper assurance yet. The Christian, says Dort, must guard himself from taking God’s grace for granted lest he once again abuse “his fatherly goodness” and grace. Dort reminds the Christian that looking upon the Father’s face is “sweeter than life” but withdrawing “is more bitter than death.” If the Christian should withdraw again, he may fall into yet a greater “anguish of spirit” than was experienced before.

Dort concludes canon five in the most practical manner. After reminding the Christian that it is God who is pleased to preserve him, Dort lists several ways perseverance is accomplished and joy in God is attained:

And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments. [73]

Hearing and reading the gospel, meditating on the gospel, listening to the gospel’s exhortations, threats, and promises, and taking the sacraments obediently are all ways in which God preserves his children, forming within them a greater joy and love for Christ. Dort’s list of practical vices for greater piety in the faith are not arbitrary nor without cause. Dort is carefully demonstrating and arguing that God’s sovereign preservation of the Christian and gift of assurance are actually the cause and root of the Christian’s growth in holiness and godliness. The Arminian Remonstrants did not view assurance the same way:

[The synod rejects the errors of those] [w]ho teach that the teaching of the assurance of perseverance and of salvation is by its very nature and character an opiate of the flesh and is harmful to godliness, good morals, prayer, and other holy exercises, but that, on the contrary, to have doubt about this is praiseworthy. For these people show that they do not know the effective operation of God’s grace and the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and they contradict the apostle John, who asserts the opposite in plain words [cf. 1 John 3:2-3]…. Moreover, they are refuted by the examples of the saints in both the Old and the New Testament, who though assured of their perseverance and salvation yet were constant in prayer and other exercises of godliness. [74]

For the Calvinist, Scripture is clear that perseverance and assurance of salvation are not a hindrance to but a supplement of “constant prayer and other exercises of godliness.” Assurance that the God who sovereignly saves will also sovereignly preserve does not lead to a license to immorality nor a lax approach to godliness, but rather is a pure and true incentive to see God’s grace effectively worked out through the indwelling and fruit of the Spirit. [75]

Conclusion: Calvinism Inspires Piety

In conclusion, Dort is an excellent example of how Calvinism does not hinder but actually inspires sincere, genuine piety in the believer.

The doctrines of grace serve as the very bedrock to Christian assurance, humility, holiness, and delight in God. No one has described such a connection as well as W. Robert Godfrey when he states,

The canons [of Dort] called Christians to humility before God as they realized their complete bondage to sin. The canons inspired gratitude for God’s electing love and for the complete redemption accomplished in Christ and sovereignly applied by the Holy Spirit. The canons spoke comfort to Christian hearts, casting out fear and declaring God’s love that would never let them go. The canons called people of God to be liberated from morbid self-concern and to serve God in the world with love and joy. [76]

Godfrey rightly concludes,

The theology of the canons did not bludgeon the Reformed community into inaction but rather armed the Reformed church with the whole counsel of God. Strengthened with a confidence in God taught in the canons, Reformed Christians became the most dynamic and effective witnesses to Christ in Europe. [77]

Dort demonstrates not only that the doctrines of grace are faithful to Scripture, but that sovereign grace itself is the very vehicle by which the Christian progresses in godliness and evangelical piety.

Notes

1. Edwin H. Palmer, “The Significance of the Canons for Pastoral Work,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619, ed. Peter Y. De Jong (Grand Rapids: Reformed Fellowship, 1968), 137.
2. Ibid. Similarly, Steven Cowan states, “In the minds of many people the word [Calvinism] itself conjures up the image of a cruel God who determines the fate of each human in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or perhaps the image of a cold, dead Church, unconcerned with discipleship or spiritual purity.” Steven B. Cowan, “Common Misconceptions of Evangelicals Regarding Calvinism,” Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 33, no. 2 (June 1990): 189.
3. It is not my purpose here to defend the five points of Calvinism biblically. For such a defense, see Joel R. Beeke, Living For God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism (Orlando: Reformation Trust, 2008); David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 2004); Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I Am Not An Arminian (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2004); Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010); Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1932).
4. As Cowan observes, “Perhaps the worst accusation leveled at Calvinism is that its doctrines of predestination and unconditional grace provide license to sin. This is the dangerous heresy of antinomianism, which even many of the NT writers had to confront. Again, though many hyper-Calvinists teach this heresy...this is not the view of John Calvin and other orthodox Calvinists. Calvin made it clear that ‘we never dream of a faith destitute of good works’ and that ‘you cannot possess Him [Christ] without becoming a partaker of His sanctification.’” And again, “Calvinism teaches that when God elects someone to salvation he works progressively in that person’s life to make him more and more Christ-like. This is a key aspect of Calvinism’s fifth point (perseverance of the saints). A person that claims to be converted but never grows in spiritual maturity is not truly born again.... [I]t becomes quite irresponsible to charge Calvinism with antinomianism. To be sure, some Calvinists have lapsed into this heresy, but Calvin and the best of the Reformed theologians have explicitly spoken against it.” Cowan’s claim is further substantiated in this article as we look at the Canons of Dort. Cowan, “Common Misconceptions of Evangelicals Regarding Calvinism,” 192. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1960), 3.16.1.
5. Venema acutely states, “A common prejudice against the biblical and Reformed teaching concerning election claims that it undermines the assurance of salvation. If the salvation of believers depends ultimately upon God’s sovereign choice to save some of the fallen race of Adam and not others, a kind of fatalism is introduced into the order of salvation. Who, after all, can withstand the will of God (cf. Rom. 9:19)? It is alleged that the specter of uncertainty begins to overshadow what we can know of God’s grace and favor toward us in Jesus Christ. Since no creature is privy to the ‘secret things’ of God, including the specifics of his sovereign choice to save some and not others, there is no avenue for believers to be confident of God’s good will toward them in Christ. Consequently, the teaching of sovereign and gracious election undermines assurance or certainty of salvation. According to this prejudice, the awesome reality of God’s foreordination of the salvation of some and the non-salvation of others reduces everything to arbitrariness and uncertainty.” This essay will demonstrate that for Dort such an accusation was illegitimate for the doctrine of election actually serves as the very grounds for biblical assurance. Venema also argues against such an accusation, though doing so by examining Dort’s brief reference to infant baptism. This essay will not comment on Dort’s views on infants as it would take us beyond the parameters of the topic at hand. See Cornelis P. Venema, “The Election and Salvation of the Children of Believers Who Die in Infancy: A Study of Article I/17 of the Canons of Dort,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 57-100.
6. In church history, Calvinists who receive the most blame are the Puritans. In popular opinion, the word Puritan, as Kelly Kapic and Randall Gleason observe, “typically conjures up images representing the worst sort of religious hypocrite” (Kapic and Gleason, “Who Were the Puritans?” 15). On the origins as well as the use of the term “Puritan,” see John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, “Introduction,” in The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, eds. John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 1; Patrick Collinson, “Antipuritanism,” The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, 19-33. Likewise, as David Hall observes, many view the Puritan divines as “machine-tooled, robo-theologians, bereft of heart, passion, emotion, and maybe even soul.” However, such a stereotype is far from the truth. “That is a caricature underivable from the best of historical review.” And again, “It simply is not the case that these divines were spiritual dwarves.” David W. Hall, “Westminster Spirituality,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, ed. J. Ligon Duncan, III (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2004), 2:119. To the contrary, the Puritans were spiritual giants, or, as J. I. Packer pictures them, enormous redwoods with deep roots. As James Reid states, “There were never, perhaps, men of holier lives than the generality of the Puritans and Nonconformists of this period [of the Westminster Assembly]. Their piety and devotedness to God were very remarkable. Their ministers made considerable sacrifices for God and religion. They spent their lives in sufferings, in fastings, in prayers, in walking closely with God in their families, and among their people who were under their pastoral care, in a firm adherence to their principles, and in a series of unremitted labors for the good of mankind. They were indefatigably zealous in their Master’s service.” James Reid, Memoirs of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1986), 130.
7. By “piety” I am not referring to the movement called “Pietism” but simply to piety as godliness. On the difference between “piety” and “Pietism,” see R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confessions: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 2008), 74-75, 77.
8. I am of course assuming that a majority of Puritans were Calvinists persuaded by Dort’s Canons. Packer seems to do the same when he describes Puritanism: “Puritanism was an evangelical movement shaped by the gospel as the Reformers had proclaimed it. That gospel, Bible as it was, is best understood as Augustinianism adjusted. With great energy Augustine had echoed the biblical insistence on our natural inability in our fallenness to love God, or turn to him in repentance, or do anything meritorious in his sight, and had insisted that the faith, love and obedience he commands only ever appear when he himself works them in us. It follows that we who believe should praise God for the gift of our conversion no less than for the gift of the Savior himself. The Puritans agreed.” J. I. Packer, “Pilgrim’s Progress,” in The Devoted Life, 190. Likewise, see Coffey and Lim, “Introduction,” 2-3. Kapic and Gleason do the same when out of the seven qualities they believe define Puritanism they list an Augustinian emphasis on sinfulness and grace as one of them: “Puritans followed Luther and Calvin’s emphasis on an Augustinian view of human depravity that requires God’s gracious initiative to work out salvation in the human heart.” Perkins, Westminster, Cotton, Goodwin, and Owen are listed as examples. However, it is important to qualify, as Kapic and Gleason do, that not all Puritans were Calvinists. They could not “agree on such doctrines as the eternal decrees of predestination, for they included Dortian Calvinists (e.g., John Owen and Thomas Goodwin), moderate Calvinists (e.g., Richard Baxter), and even a few Arminians (e.g., John Goodwin).” Kapic and Gleason, “Who Were the Puritans?” in The Devoted Life, 27, 23-24. Other Arminian Puritans could include William Laud and John Milton. See Dewey D. Wallace, Jr., Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology 1525-1695 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 130-132.
9. On the life, writings, and theology of Arminius and seventeenth-century Arminianism, see The Writings of James Arminius, 3 vols., trans. James Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956); Carl Bangs, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985); A. W. Harrison, The Beginnings of Arminianism to the Synod of Dort (London: University of London Press, 1926); idem, Arminianism (London: Duckworth, 1937); F. Stuart Clarke, The Ground of Election: Jacobus Arminius’ Doctrine of the Work and Person of Christ (Waynesboro, Ga.: Paternoster, 2006); Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe: Jacobus Arminius (1559/60-1609), eds. Marius van Leeuwen, Keith D. Stanglin, and Marijke Tolsma, vol. 39 of Brill’s Series in Church History (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Socinianism and Arminianism: Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe, eds. Martin Mulsow and Jan Rohls (Leiden: Brill, 2005). For the events surrounding the controversy Arminius had with Franciscus Gomarus, William Perkins, and others in the Reformed tradition see the following: Simon Kistemaker, “Leading Figures at the Synod of Dort,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 42-44; Richard A. Muller, “Arminius and the Reformed Tradition,” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008): 45-47; idem, “Grace, Election, and Contingent Choice: Arminius’s Gambit and the Reformed Response,” in The Grace of God, the Bondage of the Will, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 2:255; idem, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991); Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams, Why I Am Not An Arminian, 98-111; Louis Praamsma, “Background of Arminian Controversy,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 22-38; Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999), 467; Peter J. Thuesen, Predestination: The American Career of a Contentious Doctrine (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 37-39.
10. Simon Kistemaker, “Leading Figures at the Synod of Dort,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 41-42, 46-48. On the influence of Arminianism in the sixteenth through seventeenth centuries, see Robert Godfrey, “Calvin and Calvinism in the Netherlands,” in John Calvin, His Influence in the Western World, ed. W. Stanford Reid and Paul Woolley (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 104-105; Thuesen, Predestination, 42; John R. De Witt, “The Arminian Conflict,” in Puritian Papers, vol. 5, ed. J. I. Packer (Phillipsburgh, N.J.: P & R, 2005), 5-6; J. I. Packer, “Arminianisms,” in Puritan Papers, 5:3-24; Wallace, Puritans and Predestination, 98-99; idem, “Arminianism,” in Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia, ed. Francis J. Bremer and Tom Webster, 2 vols. (Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2006), 2:312-13.
11. Regarding whether or not a believer can lose his salvation, the Remonstrants state that they remain undecided and must inquire more into the Scriptures before they can decide with full confidence. However, it was not long until Arminians did affirm that believers could forfeit their salvation, as was consistent with the teachings of Arminius himself. See Article 5 of “The Remonstrance, or The Arminian Articles, 1610,” in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, vol. 2 of Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 2:550.
12. Uytenbogaert drew up the five articles that composed the Arminian Remonstrance in 1610. In 1611, a Counter-Remonstrance was written by Festus Hommius for a conference at the Hague but again no agreement was reached. Once more, controversy ensued in 1613 in Delft and, in 1614, the States of Holland presented an edict of peace from the hand of Hugo Grotius; this too was to no avail.
13. Delegates were sent from Great Britain, Palatinate, Hesse, Switzerland, Wetteraw, Geneva, Bremen, Emden, Duchy of Gelderland, Zutphen, Northern and Southern Holland, Zealand, Utrecht, Friesland, Transisalania, Groningen, Omland, and Drent. As Godfrey remarks, “Dutch theologians also realized that the impact of the Arminian controversy was not limited to the Netherlands. They realized the importance of an international Reformed consensus on the issues involved.” W. Robert Godfrey, Reformation Sketches: Insights into Luther, Calvin, and the Confessions (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 2003), 125-26. Dort gathered some of the greatest and brightest Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century, including Gomarus, Bogerman (who presided as president at Dort), Diodati, Boetius, and behind the scenes William Ames as well. Though not exhaustive, others include Sceltetus, Polyander, Lydius, Alting, Hommius, Triglandius, Meyer, Carleton, Davenant, and Hall. Ames was assigned to assist Bogerman, the president, and his influence was substantial. Unfortunately, Pierre du Moulin and Andre Rivet from France, two of the most famous Protestant theologians of their time, were forbidden to attend by the king of France. Despite this, the French Reformed Church approved the Canons of Dort and two different synods (1620 and 1623) made them binding upon their ministers. As for Scotland, they also were not allowed to take part for political reasons, despite the obvious allegiance of Scottish theologians in the tradition of Reformers like John Knox. However, Reformed theology would later make its presence known in Scotland with the adoption of the Westminster Confession (John R. De Witt, “The Arminian Conflict,” 12-13). For a more detailed history of Dort and its influence see Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), 450-77; Homer C. Hoeksema, The Voice of our Fathers (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free, 1980); W. Robert Godfrey, “Calvin and Calvinism in the Netherlands,” in John Calvin, 95-120; Philip Schaff, The History of Creeds, vol. 1 of The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 1:508-23.
14. Klaas Runia, “Recent Reformed Criticisms of the Canons,” Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 174; Peterson and Willliams, Why I Am Not An Arminian, 122. Also see Fred H. Klooster, “Doctrinal Deliverances of Dort,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 57.
15. Later Calvinists would utilize the acronym T.U.L.I.P. to convey the doctrines affirmed by Dort. On the use of T.U.L.I.P. in Reformed theology, see Kenneth J. Stewart, “The Points of Calvinism: Retrospect and Prospect,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 26, no. 2 (Autumn 2008): 187-203.
16. John R. De Witt, “The Arminian Conflict,” 20. On the synergism of Arminius, see the following: Arminius, “A Letter Addressed to Hippolytus a Collibus,” in Writings, 2:470-72; idem, “Declaration of Sentiments,” in Writings, 1:252-53, 363-68, 523-26, 570-74; idem, “Examination of a treatise concerning the Order and Mode of Predestination, and the Amplitude of Divine Grace, by William Perkins,” in Writings, 3:279-526; idem, “Certain Articles to be Diligently Examined and Weighed,” in Writings, 2:501. See Bangs, Arminius, 342, 358; Olson, Story of Christian Theology, 470.
17. For the entirety of the Sententiae Remonstrantium, see Appendix H of Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 229.
18. Though the Arminian Remonstrants were ejected (many were exiled to Antwerp where the Remonstrant Brotherhood was formed) and condemned by Dort by 1619, their theology would nevertheless continue. Shortly after Dort, Episcopius took on a lead role in drafting a confession, which was published as the Confession or Declaration of the Remonstrant Pastors in Dutch in 1621 (and in 1622 in Latin). Episcopius took on the role of the new leader of the Remonstrants. Exiled from 1619 to 1626, he formed the Remonstrant Brotherhood and founded a Remonstrant seminary in 1632. For a list of works written by Episcopius as well as a brief account of his life, see Mark A. Ellis, “Introduction,” in The Arminian Confession of 1621, ed. Mark A. Ellis, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2005), viii–ix. For the confession itself, see pages 1-137. The Confession is an expansion and elaboration upon the doctrine already presented before Dort and synergism is once again affirmed. For the development of Arminianism after Arminius, see Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006).
19. For the development of the doctrine of predestination among the Puritans, see Wallace, Puritans and Predestination; Peter Toon, Puritans and Calvinism (Swengel, Pa.: Reiner, 1973); Alan P. F. Sell, The Great Debate: Calvinism, Arminianism, and Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982).
20. On the issue of infra- versus supra-lapsarianism at Dort, see J. V. Fesko, Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster (Greenville, S.C.: Reformed Academic, 2001), 179-218.
21. “Canons of Dort,” I.7, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:572. For an alternative translation drawn from the Latin, see Anthony A. Hoekema, “A New Translation of the Canons of Dort,” Calvin Theological Journal 3, no. 2 (1968): 133-61.
22. Ibid.
23. “Canons of Dort,” I.9, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:573.
24. “Canons of Dort,” I.10, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:573.
25. “Canons of Dort,” I.6, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:572.
26. On Dort’s understanding of reprobation, see Donald Sinnema, “The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618-9) in Light of the History of this Doctrine” (Ph.D. diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 1985), 136-213.
27. “Canons of Dort,” I.12, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:574.
28. Assurance is defined by Beeke as follows: “Assurance of faith is the believer’s conviction that, by God’s grace, he belongs to Christ, has received full pardon for all sins, and will inherit eternal life. Someone who has true assurance not only believes in Christ for salvation but also knows that he believes and is graciously loved by God. Such assurance includes freedom from guilt, joy in God, and a sense of belonging to the family of God.” Beeke continues, “Assurance is dynamic; it varies according to conditions and is capable of growing in force and fruitfulness.” Beeke, Living for God’s Glory, 119. It is not the purpose of this essay to explore definitions of assurance or the debate over where there is continuity or discontinuity between Calvin and the later Calvinists in their understanding of assurance. However, I am in agreement with Beeke (contra R. T. Kendall and Basil Hall) in his thesis that “Calvinism’s wrestlings with assurance were quantitatively beyond, but not qualitatively contradictory to, that of Calvin.” I would argue that the same is true of the Puritan divines at Dort. On this issue, see Joel R. Beeke, The Quest for Full Assurance: The Legacy of Calvin and His Successors (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999), 3. For the case for continuity on other Reformed issues, see Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988); idem, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003); idem, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003); Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982).
29. Puritanism as a whole grounded the believer’s assurance in election. “English Puritan divines like...William Perkins and Richard Sibbes...took the Reformed doctrine of election to heart, fostering an ‘experimental predestinarianism’ that encouraged the believer to seek assurance that they were chosen by God for salvation.” Coffey and Lim, “Introduction,” 4.
30. “Canons of Dort,” I.13, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:574.
31. Palmer, reflecting on Dort, rightly notes, “Clarification: It is true that if one is elected, he can never be lost; and that once saved, always saved. But how does a person know whether or not he is elected? He has no secret access into the hidden counsel of God. There is, however, a divinely ordained way for everyone to know: his present possession of faith. If one believes, such faith is an infallible sign that God loved and chose him, for faith is the gift of God’s electing love.” Palmer continues, “If anyone should think that he was elected and should reason that it makes no difference whether or not he continues to believe, he would be rationalizing and departing from the clear teaching of Scripture. For although the Bible teaches eternal security, it never proclaims carnal security.” Palmer points to 1 Peter 1:1-5 and 2 Peter 1:10. Elsewhere Palmer states, “Moreover, when correctly understood, the teachings of the Canons of Dort do not feed the flames of indolence and sin, but, on the contrary, induce one to be a better Christian. It is precisely the Calvinist who, knowing that by nature he has not an iota of a good thought, desire or deed; and realizing that he has been saved by grace all the way through, even to the extent of receiving the ability to believe on Christ — it is exactly such a Christian who will become more humble, increasingly filled with praise and more determined to live a holier life out of thankfulness. For he has more to be thankful for than one who thinks he is only partially bad.” And again, “Strikingly — contrary to popular opinion — the Bible reasons in the exact opposite way for those who think that the teaching of election leads to moral indifference. Paul appeals to election as a motivation for greater exertion!” Palmer points to Colossians 3:12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:8-9. Edwin H. Palmer, “The Significance of the Canons for Pastoral Work,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 144, 146.
32. “Canons of Dort,” I.16, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:575.
33. Venema observes, “A fair-minded reader of the Canons could scour every nook and cranny of the five heads of doctrine, contemplating every article in turn, and discover an absence of any evidence for the kind of fatalism or uncertainty of salvation that they allegedly encourage. Because salvation does not hang upon the thin thread of their own initiative and perseverance, but upon the solid chain of God’s electing purpose in Christ, believers may be assured of their salvation. Sovereign and merciful election furnishes believers with the occasion to give thanks to God on the one hand, and rest confidently in his gracious favor in Christ on the other.” Venema points to Kaajan, who argues that Dort had this pastoral emphasis by design. H. Kaajan, De Groote Synode van Dordrecht in 1618-1619 (Amersterdam: De Standaard, n. d.), 175. See Venema, “A Study of Article I/17 of the Canons of Dort,” 58.
34. “Canons of Dort,” I.14, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:574. The fact that Dort turns to address the teacher and how he should instruct his students on these issues reveals the ecclesiological method Dort took in writing the Canons. As Godfrey states, “When the time came to write the canons, the synod had to choose between these two methods of presentation: between the scholastic mode, that is, the technical form of a theological school lecture, and a more popular manner, addressed to the church as a whole for its edification. Delegates decided that it would be most fruitful to frame the canons so that they might be easily understood by and edifying to the churches. Hence the canons are not scholastic but simple and straightforward in format.” Godfrey, Reformation Sketches, 131.
35. See the concluding statement of the “Canons of Dort,” in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:599.
36. “Canons of Dort,” I.14, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:574.
37. “Canons of Dort,” Rejection I.6, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:578.
38. “Canons of Dort,” Rejection I.7, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:578.
39. The synod rejects the errors of those “[w]ho teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ’s death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete, and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.” “Canons of Dort,” Rejection II.1, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:581. See Packer on the articulation of limited atonement by later Puritans, especially John Owen. J. I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1990), 125-48.
40. “Canons of Dort,” II.3 in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:580. On the infinite worth of Christ’s death, see II.4 also. Accordingly, Jan Rohls, commenting on Dort, states, “God’s saving intention is thus not universal, but particular, so that Christ’s sacrifice, although in itself it is sufficient to save all sinners, is only the means to save some sinners.” Jan Rohls, Reformed Confessions: Theology from Zurich to Barmen, trans. John Hoffmeyer, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 162. For a more detailed analysis of Dort, both historical and theological, on limited atonement, see Robert W. Godfrey, “Reformed Thought on the Extent of the Atonement to 1618,” Westminster Theological Journal 37, no. 2 (Winter 1975):133-71; Stephen Strehle, “The Extent of the Atonement and the Synod of Dort,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 no. 1 (Spring 1989): 1-23; idem, “Universal Grace and Amyraldianism,” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 2 (Fall 1989): 345-57.
41. “In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father.” Dort goes on to say, “that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people without spot or wrinkle.” “Canons of Dort,” II.8, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:581.
42. “Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.” “Canons of Dort,” II.5, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:580. Statements like these highlight Dort’s emphasis on the necessity of missions. See Anthony A. Hoekema, “The Missionary Focus of the Canons of Dort,” Calvin Theological Journal 7, no. 2 (1972): 209-20. Also see Kenneth J. Stewart, “Calvinism and Missions: The Contested Relationship Revisited,” Themelios 34, no. 1 (2009): 63-78.
43. “Canons of Dort,” II.9, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:581.
44. Therefore, Venema is right when he states that the key notes throughout the canons are “praise toward the Triune God for his amazing, undeserved grace in Christ, and a remarkable confidence in his invincible favor.” Venema, “Article I/17 of the Canons of Dort,” 58.
45. This is the Reformed doctrine of total depravity, which does not mean man is as evil as he could possibly be, but simply that sin has penetrated every aspect of man’s being (mind, will, affections, etc.). See I. John Hesselink’s chapter “Misunderstanding Seven: That the doctrine of total depravity means that man is worthless and capable of no good,” in On Being Reformed: Distinctive Characteristics and Common Misunderstandings (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant, 1983), 45-50.
46. “Canons of Dort,” III–IV.1-3, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:583-84. Original sin is also addressed in Rejection III–IV.2-5.
47. “Canons of Dort,” Rejection III–IV.3-4 in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:580.
48. “The Canons of the Synod of Dort,” Rejection III–IV.5, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2: 589-90.
49. “The Canons of the Synod of Dort,” Rejection III–IV.7, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:590. Bavinck summarizes Dort well: “God is the primary actor in the work of redemption. He gives a new heart, apart from any merit or condition having been achieved from our side, merely and only according to His good pleasure. He enlightens the understanding, bends the will, governs the impulses, regenerates, awakens, vivifies, and He does that within us quite apart from our doing.... No consent of our intellect, no decision of our will, no desire of our heart comes in between. God accomplishes this work within our hearts through His Spirit, and He does this directly, internally, invincibly.” Herman Bavinck, Saved by Grace: The Holy Spirit’s Work in Calling and Regeneration, ed. J. Mark Beach, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2008), 29. For a detailed description of Dort’s articulation of grace against the Remonstrants, see pp. 41-65.
50. For several strong statements affirming monergistic regeneration, see articles III–IV.10-12. Rejection III–IV.8-9 states, “Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the synod rejects the errors of those... 8. Who teach that God in regenerating man does not bring to bear that power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man’s will to faith and conversion, but that even when God has accomplished all the works of grace which he uses for man’s conversion, man nevertheless can, and in actual fact often does, so resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him, that man completely thwarts his own rebirth; and, indeed, that it remains in his own power whether or not to be reborn. For this does away with all effective functioning of God’s grace in our conversion and subjects the activity of Almighty God to the will of man; it is contrary to the apostles, who teach that we believe by virtue of the effective working of God’s mighty strength, and that God fulfills the undeserved good will of his kindness and the work of faith in us with power, and likewise that his divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness.” Here Dort is drawing from Ephesians 1:19, 2 Thessalonians 1:11, and 2 Peter 1:3. Dort also states in rejection nine, “Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the synod rejects the errors of those... 9. Who teach that grace and free choice are concurrent partial causes which cooperate to initiate conversion, and that grace does not precede — in the order of causality — the effective influence of the will; that is to say, that God does not effectively help man’s will to come to conversion before man’s will itself motivates and determines itself.” Dort goes on to argue that the church condemned the Pelagians for such an error. Dort cites Romans 9:16, 1 Corinthians 4:7, and Philippians 2:13 in support. “The Canons of the Synod of Dort,” Rejection III–IV.8-9, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:590-91.
51. “Canons of Dort,” II–IV.15, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:587.
52. “Again and again, the biblical truth of man’s total depravity induces humility in both the pastor and his flock by the consideration: Truly, Lord, except for thy grace, I would have done the same evil. Calvinism produces humility.” Edwin H. Palmer, “The Significance of the Canons for Pastoral Work,” 140.
53. Henry Petersen, The Canons of Dort (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 73.
54. Edwin H. Palmer, “The Significance of the Canons for Pastoral Work,” 139.
55. Ibid., 140.
56. “Canons of Dort,” V.1, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:591.
57. “Canons of Dort,” V.2, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:591-92.
58. “Canons of Dort,” V.3, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:592.
59. “Canons of Dort,” V.4, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:592. For a very similar statement, see Chapters 17.3 and 18.4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
60. “Canons of Dort,” V.5, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:592.
61. “Canons of Dort,” V.7, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:593.
62. “Canons of Dort,” V.6, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:592.
63. Ibid.
64. “Canons of Dort,” V.7, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:593.
65. Ibid.
66. Palmer, commenting on Dort, also recognizes the massive implications Dort’s doctrine of perseverance and assurance has for pastoral ministry. “The pastor, however, is able to show the timid that salvation depends ultimately not upon man’s perseverance but upon God’s love toward man. He can go on to demonstrate that this God is not chameleon-like, changing with man’s varying moods. But rather, as he wrote, ‘I, the Lord, change not’ (Mal. 3:6). Once the all-knowing God has sovereignly and lovingly determined to save a person, he will not change—Arminian-wise — because of an unforeseen wickedness in man. For he never chose a person in the first place because of any foreseen faith. And what God begins, God finishes. ‘I am persuaded of this one thing: he who started a good work in you will complete it by the day of Christ Jesus’ (Phil. 1:6). If a person believes, the Bible says he has eternal life — eternal, that is, not temporary.” Palmer concludes, “Therefore, a pastor can give real encouragement to his parishioners who worry continually about their future salvation. Such knowledge is of practical importance. Otherwise, fearful ones will concentrate so much on ‘laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God’ that they will not be able to go on to perfection (Heb. 6:1, 2). Such meek ones must be taught to rely on God’s eternal, unchanging love and then to press on toward the goal of their high calling in Christ Jesus.” Edwin H. Palmer, “The Significance of the Canons for Pastoral Work,” 142.
67. “Canons of Dort,” V.8, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:593.
68. “Canons of Dort,” V.9, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:593.
69. As Beeke observes, V.10 draws the connection between assurance and sanctification. “Assurance further serves perseverance through sanctification. The Canons of Dort affirm this in Head V, Article 10, saying that assurance is fostered not only by faith in God’s promises and the witnessing testimony of the Holy Spirit, but also ‘from a serious and holy desire to preserve a good conscience and to perform good works.’” Beeke, Living for God’s Glory, 120.
70. “Canons of Dort,” V.11, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:594.
71. “Canons of Dort,” V.12, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:594.
72. “Canons of Dort,” V.13, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:594.
73. “Canons of Dort,” V.14, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:594.
74. “Canons of Dort,” Rejection V.6, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:597. Dort also had in mind the Catholics, “[The synod rejects the errors of those] [w]ho teach that apart from a special revelation no one can have the assurance of future perseverance in this life. For by this teaching the well-founded consolation of true believers in this life is taken away and the doubting of the Romanists is reintroduced into the church. Holy Scripture, however, in many places derives the assurance not from a special and extraordinary revelation but from the marks peculiar to God’s children and from God’s completely reliable promises. So especially the apostle Paul: ‘Nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord’ [Rom. 8:39]; and John: ‘They who obey his commands remain in him and he in them. And this is how we know that he remains in us: by the Spirit he gave us’ [1 John 3:24].” “Canons of Dort,” Rejection V.5, in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:596-97. On Catholic responses to Dort and Dort’s relevance for Catholic theology today, see Cornelius Van Til, “The Significance of Dort for Today,” in Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 181-96.
75. In the “Rejections of False Accusations,” Dort rejects those who would argue “that this teaching makes people carnally self-assured, since it persuades them that nothing endangers the salvation of the chosen, no matter how they live, so that they may commit the most outrageous crimes with self-assurance; and that on the other hand nothing is of use to the reprobate for salvation even if they have truly performed all the works of the saints.” “Canons of Dort,” in Creeds and Confessions of the Reformation Era, 2:598.
76. Godfrey, Reformation Sketches, 132.
77. Ibid.