The Canons of Dort

From The Forum Magazine, Winter 2013 - view the full issue here

The Canons of Dort were produced in 1618-19 by the careful and concerted effort of delegations of clergy and theologians sent from nearly all parts of Reformed Europe for the sake of settling the controversy over the teachings of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609). Arminius’ formal statement of his theology and his differences with the generally received teachings of Reformed church (in which he was an ordained minister and a professor) were presented to the States of Holland in 1608 in his Declaration of Sentiments. He argued that grace ought to be understood as resistible; that human beings, once saved, might be able to resist God’s grace to the point of rendering it ineffectual; that God’s election rested on foreknowledge of faith. He also argued that the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism ought to be revised, particularly on those doctrinal points not absolutely fundamental to salvation—presumably for the sake of broadening the definitions in order to make the views that he and his followers held confessionally acceptable. He must certainly have recognized that views like his had been previously rejected by a series of synods as not falling within the confessional boundaries.

After Arminius’ death, his followers continued to argue their views in a Remonstrance or “protest” (1610), signed by fortysix clergy. A response or Contra-Remonstrance, followed as did an unsuccessful conference at the Hague in 1611. In order to resolve the controversy, the States General called a National Synod to convene at Dort or Dordrecht in 1618. Delegates were appointed to the Synod from the various provinces of the Netherlands, the Walloon churches resident in the Netherlands, the faculties of the universities or academies of Leiden, Groningen, Harderwyk, and Middelburg, and from a series of Reformed cities and principalities throughout Reformed Europe. The French delegates were forbidden to attend by Louis XIII. The Canons of Dort were the result of numerous conferences among the delegates concerning theviews presented by the Remonstrants and of a final collation of the reports of the delegations.

Common Misunderstandings of the Canons

Of the three Forms of Unity, the Canons of Dort have been the least understood and least appreciated. Much of the reason for this lies in a reductionist reading of the Canons through the lens of the rather unfortunate phrase, “five points of Calvinism” and the even more problematic attempt to explain the canons with the acronym TULIP. There are five doctrinal topics addressed by the Canons not, however, because “Calvinism” can be collapsed into “five points” but because the articles of doctrine put forth by the Remonstrants contained five main sections. The broader teachings of the “Calvinist” or, as more accurately named, “Reformed” churches remain in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. The Canons of Dort serve as an interpretive codicil or appendix to the two main confessional documents, set against the Remonstrant articles for the purpose of preventing a mistaken reading of Reformed doctrine. The acronym TULIP is a modern attempt, originating probably in the early twentieth century and certainly not in use before the late nineteenth century. Not only is it reductionistic, it has often led to a very mistaken and narrow reading of the Canons. The best use that one can make of it is to indicate how the Canons cannot be easily wedged into its terms.

The Teaching of the Canons

There are five “heads” or basic theological topics in the Canons, divided into four sections. They deal respectively with (1) “Divine Election and Reprobation”; (2) “The Death of Christ and Human Redemption”; (3-4) “Human Corruption” and “Conversion to God”; and (5) “Perseverance of the Saints.” It should be immediately obvious that the actual order of the Canons does not correspond with Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Examination of the teachings of the Canons, moreover, demonstrates that even a re-ordering of the acronym into something like ULTIP is problematic. The only one of these terms actually present in the Canons is “perseverance of the saints.” And whereas unconditional election can be elicited from the actual words of the Canons, the remaining terms can only be applied to the Canons with difficulty and much explanation.

The first topic is not simply about unconditional election. At issue here is the universal sinfulness of the human race; the wages of sin, namely, eternal death; and the loving intention of God to save all those who believe in Christ through the preaching of the gospel. All who believe in Christ will receive the gift of life eternal, whereas those who do not believe remain under the anger of God against sin. The Canons specifically state that the cause of all sin, including unbelief, resides in human beings alone—but, as the Apostle Paul teaches, salvation is the free gift of God (Eph. 1:4-5; 2:8, 10; Phil. 1:29).

The Canons continue, in their second topic, to underline the solely gracious nature of salvation by identifying Christ’s sacrifice as full and perfect satisfaction for sin, “sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.” This sufficiency provides the basis for the Canons’ declaration that the gospel should be preached to all people. In addition, the Canons insist that “all who genuinely believe” in Christ are saved by him from sin and death. How such a doctrine could be characterized as “limited atonement” is difficult to comprehend. Of course, the Canons also acknowledge that not all human beings will be saved. On the one hand, attributing all salvation to the utter graciousness of God, the Canons declare that all those whom God has chosen will by grace be given faith and led to salvation. On the other hand they also declare that the fault of unbelief lies in human beings themselves.

This salvation is not something earned by human beings either on the basis of their works or because of a human choice to be faithful and election is not based on foreknowledge. Rather, salvation is entirely gracious and, given the eternity of God, it is an eternally willed graciousness, an eternal election to salvation in Christ. Election is, therefore, unconditional and unchangeable while condemnation or damnation arises solely on account of sin. Just as election is manifest in time through the work of Christ in the preaching of the gospel, so too is assurance of election an aspect of Christian life in the world. Assurance arises not from inquiry into God’s plan but the experience of faith in Christ, sorrow over sin, and thirst for righteousness. Reprobation is touched on briefly as the divine will to pass by some, leaving them to their sinful ways, and finally judging them on the basis of their sin to final condemnation. Reprobation is not presented as God rejecting innocent people from all eternity.

The problem of the human condition that was introduced at the beginning of the first topic of the Canons together with the topic of conversion to God appears again in the third section of the Canons (topics 3-4) and provides a more complete explanation of the underlying issues addressed in the first topic.

The unconditionality of God’s grace stands in direct relation to human inability in sin, specifically to the human inability to fulfill the divine requirement of righteousness. This is not a doctrine of “total depravity.” The Canons indicate that all human beings have a sense of moral good and even a will to accomplish it. Rather this is a doctrine of the utter inability of human beings to save themselves from their own sinfulness, whether by means of the light of natural reason or by means of observance of the law. All fall short of true righteousness. Salvation is available only through the utterly serious call of the gospel to turn to God and believe in Christ as savior. Our acceptance of the gospel is itself founded on God’s grace.

The Canons also insist that the gospel does not address human beings as if they were puppets, does not abolish human freedom, and does not coerce into salvation. Rather the gospel is the principal means by which God revives and heals human beings corrupted by sin. The other means appointed by God are the sacraments and church discipline, namely, the three marks of the church in Reformed thought. The sacraments and church discipline are witnesses to the gospel.

This language of the marks is important and also often misunderstood. The issue is not to restrict the life or activities of the church but rather to identify the specific identifying characteristics that reveal the presence of the true church as the place where the work of salvation as rightly presented and administered in Word and sacrament.

The ongoing preaching of the Word and administration of the sacraments noted in the last article of the third and fourth topics leads directly toward the issue taken up in the fifth topic, the perseverance of the saints. Here too the Canons can be mistaken or caricatured. They in no way indicate an easy victory over sin and path to salvation or an assumption that once a person is saved by grace through faith alone that a person’s life need not reflect the work of the Holy Spirit. The Canons are quick to indicate that regeneration does not entirely free Christians from sin. Christian life contains many failings and the need for ongoing repentance. What the Canons also teach, however, is that perseverance in salvation is not a human work that can fail but an unfailing work of divine grace. The means of grace are also, therefore, means of perseverance.

Conclusion

As indicated by the consistent citation of Scripture throughout the Canons, their teachings are not scholastic, speculative, or philosophical. Their arguments may be a bit more complex than what we find in the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism—but that is because the Canons are not the basic confession or the catechetical instruction of the church. They are a response to a theological problem. Debate over Arminian teachings continues and the Reformed churches continue to affirm the biblical truth presented by the Canons of Dort.

(Richard Muller, Professor of Historical Theology, Emeritus)