Posts in The Canons of Dort
“The Inadequacy of the Law” -- Article Five, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“The Inadequacy of the Law” -- Article Five, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 5: The Inadequacy of the Law

In this respect, what is true of the light of nature is true also of the Ten Commandments given by God through Moses specifically to the Jews. For man cannot obtain saving grace through the Decalogue, because, although it does expose the magnitude of his sin and increasingly convict him of his guilt, yet it does not offer a remedy or enable him to escape from his misery, and, indeed, weakened as it is by the flesh, leaves the offender under the curse.

_______________________________________

Since the purpose of natural revelation is not to redeem humanity but to provide a natural knowledge of God as well as to further expose fallen humanities’ sinfulness, the authors of the Canons now turn to the question of the ability of Adam’s fallen race to satisfy God’s righteous requirements as they are revealed in the law.

Though it is absolutely clear from Scripture that the law is written upon the hearts of all of humanity—Paul makes this point in Romans 2:14-15—it is equally important for us to take note of the fact that the Ten Commandments give concrete and explicit content to that which is implicitly revealed in natural revelation. God’s revelation of the law to Moses at Mount Sinai (which is a republication of the terms of the covenant of works God made with Adam in Eden) is God’s act in making explicit (through publication) what had been only implicit (i.e. in the human heart) in general revelation.

It has been argued by some that, even after the fall, humanity can earn sufficient merit to attain a right standing before God on the basis of obedience to the law of nature (i.e. the light which God has given to all). But if the purpose of natural revelation was to give a natural knowledge of God and further expose humanities’ sinfulness, the same is certainly the true purpose of the law, only more so! The law can only condemn, not give life.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerInadequacy of the LawComment
“The Inadequacy of the Light of Nature” -- Article Four, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“The Inadequacy of the Light of Nature” -- Article Four, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 4: The Inadequacy of the Light of Nature

There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him—so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness. In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.

___________________________________

The Reformed understanding of total depravity and total inability raises the nagging question about what happens to those who live apart from the light of Holy Scripture and who may have never heard the gospel. This is a common question and is often framed as follows: “What happens to the `innocent person’ in distant lands who has never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ?”

Historically, Arminians have charged that it is not fair for God to hold people accountable for Adam’s act of rebellion in Eden. Therefore, it is certainly not fair for God to hold those accountable for not believing in Christ who have never even heard the gospel. Recall that the Arminian has argued that prevenient grace is universal, so there must be some divine provision for those outside of Christ.

In light of this charge, the authors of the Canons take up the subject of the purpose and consequences of natural revelation, or the “light of nature.”

Given the fact of total depravity, what does the Scripture say about natural revelation, or what is more commonly spoken of as general revelation? This is best done by contrasting the purpose of general revelation (“the light of nature”) and special revelation (Holy Scripture). This puts us in a position to ask “what do fallen men and women do with the knowledge of God they that derive from `general revelation”? Does general revelation lead men and women to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ?

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerThe Light of Nature, General RevelationComment
“Total Inability” -- Article Three, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“Total Inability” -- Article Three, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 3: Total Inability

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

________________________________________

Whenever we address the subject of “total inability,” we need to be clear that we are speaking of but one of the major consequences of the Fall. The Bible clearly teaches that all are born guilty for Adam’s act of rebellion in Eden, since Adam acted for us and in our place as both the federal and biological head of the human race as God’s chosen representative for humanity (cf. Romans 5:12-19). Because of Adam's sin, the entire human race is under the just condemnation of God, and guilty (by imputation) for Adam’s act of rebellion from the very moment of our conception.

As we have seen throughout the prior articles, the biblical data demonstrates that we are born with what is called “original corruption.” As a consequence of Adam's fall, we are inclined toward all evil, we are darkened in our understanding, we are ignorant of the things of God, and separated from God at birth. We are without God and without hope in the world (Ephesians 2:12-13). We are “turned in on ourselves” and, left to our own devices, we are unable to do any good (from God’s perspective) whatsoever. As the Canons indicate, we are unfit "for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in [our] sins, and slaves to sin.”

Total inability refers to the fact that our wills are in bondage to our inherited sinful nature, as well as weakened by the darkness of our intellectual faculties (Ephesians 4:17-19). The Reformers spoke of this in terms of “the bondage of the will” to the flesh (our sinful orientation). None of the fallen children of Adam are born “innocent,” nor are they “neutral” toward the things of God—as though the moral direction of each individual depends upon an act of the human will to follow either Christ’s good example or Adam’s bad one. This is, as the Canons point out, the heresy of Pelagianism.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerTotal inability Comment
“The Spread of Corruption” -- Article Two, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“The Spread of Corruption” -- Article Two, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article Two

Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God’s just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants—except for Christ alone—not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of his perverted nature.

_______________________________________________

Article 2 of the third/fourth head of doctrine deals with the way in which the effects of Adam’s sin are passed on to his descendants. When Adam fell into sin, all those whom he represented as the biological and federal head of the human race fell with him. Adam lost “original righteousness”—including true righteousness, holiness, and knowledge (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10) and came under the curse and death as a result of his act of rebellion. The question arises - what does it mean when we speak of Adam’s descendants as born in sin and likewise under condemnation.

There are many biblical texts which come to mind when considering this topic, although we have space to briefly survey but a few of them. In Psalm 51, the Psalmist declares, “behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psalm 51:5). In Psalm 58:3, the Psalmist reminds us that “the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies.” In Genesis 6:5, we learn from Moses that the reason that God sent the flood as judgment upon the earth was that “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerInherited CorruptionComment
"The Effect of the Fall on Human Nature" -- Article One, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
"The Effect of the Fall on Human Nature" -- Article One, The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 1: The Effect of the Fall on Human Nature

Man was originally created in the image of God and was furnished in his mind with a true and salutary knowledge of his Creator and things spiritual, in his will and heart with righteousness, and in all his emotions with purity; indeed, the whole man was holy. However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by his own free will, he deprived himself of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place he brought upon himself blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity, defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions.

_______________________________________________

As William Shakespeare once said, “that word 'grace' in an ungracious mouth is but profane” (King Richard II, Act II, Scene III). In the previous two heads of doctrine, the Synod of Dort carefully dealt with the fact that our salvation begins with something good in God (his love toward lost and fallen sinners), and not something good in the creature (foreseen faith or obedience). Having demonstrated from Scripture that God directs his saving grace to the specific individuals he intends to save–not to the world generically or impersonally–the Canons move on to turn attention to the fact of human sinfulness and how it is that the saving merits of Jesus Christ are applied to God’s elect.

Approaching this matter in both a logical and redemptive-historical order, the Canons move from God’s decree in eternity past, to Christ’s redemptive work for his people on Calvary’s cross, and then finally to the way in which the benefits of Christ’s doing and dying become ours. This is what we as Reformed Christians mean when we speak of “redemption decreed, redemption accomplished. and redemption applied,” the pattern set out by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 1:3-14.

Without a sufficient awareness of the sinful human condition according to the Scriptures, there can be no real appreciation of God’s graciousness to us. Unless we come to realize the gravity and depth of our offences against the infinitely holy and righteous God, and unless we understand that we deserve his eternal and unending punishment because of our sins, we cannot even begin to appreciate that word “grace.” That word “grace” is indeed profanity on the lips of one whose self-righteousness is not yet crushed by the awareness of their sin and their eternal peril.

To read the rest follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerThe Effects of the FallComment
“The Error of Teaching That the Death of Christ Was Not Necessary for Salvation” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (7)
“The Error of Teaching That the Death of Christ Was Not Necessary for Salvation” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (7)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that Christ neither could die, nor had to die, nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life, since such people do not need the death of Christ.

For they contradict the apostle, who says: “Christ loved me and gave himself up for me” (Gal. 2:20 ), and likewise: “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died,” that is, for them (Rom. 8:33–34). They also contradict the Savior, who asserts: “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15), and “My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:12–13).

_________________________________________

The conclusion to the refutation of errors under the second head of doctrine challenges the Arminian perspective on the atonement by pointing to scriptural evidence that Christ’s death is for particular sinners, thereby saving them. In Arminian theology, Christ’s death is viewed as a general provision for all, demonstrating God’s moral governance and love, but not necessarily satisfying the demands of God’s justice. The Arminian approach contends that Christ’s sacrifice was not aimed at securing salvation for anyone in particular, but was a general offer, leaving the decision to individuals on the presumption that those said to be dead in sin, actually possess such ability to choose Christ and live. It is a short step from here to the error condemned at the Synod of Dort in the refutation above—that the death of Christ is really not necessary to save anyone, important as it is.

The Canons highlight those passages from Scripture which point to Christ’s death being for specific individuals, such as Galatians 2:20 (“Christ loved me and gave himself up for me”) and Romans 8:33-34 (“Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died,”that is, for them [i.e., the elect]), suggesting that his sacrifice had a particular and intentional focus. The cross was not an arbitrary means of salvation (and therefore not entirely necessary), but essential for satisfying God’s justice for the elect.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerChrist's death necessaryComment
“The Error of Teaching That Forgiveness Depends Upon Our Free Will” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (6)
“The Error of Teaching That Forgiveness Depends Upon Our Free Will” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (6)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

VI Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ’s death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.

_________________________________

In order to use biblical terminology used of the cross, while at the same time denying that the death of Christ is a true satisfaction for sins, as well as a literal payment of our debt to God, Arminians have contended that the death of Christ is “for all,” but “not all” are forgiven until the merits of Christ are appropriated by the sinner through an exercise of the will.

To explain how this can be, the Arminian sets up a system in which the death of Christ is said to be for all, but is not effectual for any until it is actually “appropriated.” This means that the death of Christ does not accomplish redemption for anyone, but does have the potential to save everyone who believes. This means that only those who exercise their free-will and believe the gospel are saved, since the atonement is only provisory and ineffectual until actually appropriated by the sinner who supposedly retains the power of free-will to do so.

This enables the Arminian to argue for a doctrine of grace alone, speak of salvation in connection to the death of Christ, and still champion justification by faith alone. But in reality this is theological smoke and mirrors. In the words of one sage, this is mere “word magic.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerForgiveness does not depend upon free willComment
“The Error of Teaching That All Have Been Reconciled to God” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (5)
“The Error of Teaching That All Have Been Reconciled to God” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (5)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that all people have been received into the state of reconciliation and into the grace of the covenant, so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation, or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin.

For this opinion conflicts with Scripture which asserts that we are by nature children of wrath.

_________________________________

This error is yet another fruit of the governmental theory of the atonement and notion of prevenient grace as championed by many Arminians. The Arminian Articles of 1610 state: “Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and every man, so that he hath obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer.”

This brings us back to the root of the whole problem--the nature of God’s justice and the purpose of the atonement. For the Arminian, the atonement reconciles the entire world to God (all people inclusive), redeems the world unto God, and provides for the forgiveness of sin for each and every person who has lived in each and every age. Even the guilt of original sin is supposedly remitted.

But under the terms of the Arminian doctrine, the atonement–while having the potential to save everyone–actually saves no one. Indeed, countless millions of those whom Arminians believe Christ has reconciled, redeemed, and forgiven, will perish anyway--and this despite the fact that all of this has been done for them freely by Christ.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerPrevenient grace, Universal atonement Comment
“The Error of Teaching That Faith Itself Is Reckoned as Righteousness” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (4)
“The Error of Teaching That Faith Itself Is Reckoned as Righteousness” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (4)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

IV Who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ’s death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ’s merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

For they contradict Scripture: “They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ, whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Rom. 3:24–25). And along with the ungodly Socinus, they introduce a new and foreign justification of man before God, against the consensus of the whole church.

_________________________

Because of the use of biblical terminology it is easy to miss the fact that the Arminian view of the justice of God and the nature of the atonement inevitably distorts the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone as confessed by the Reformed churches.

The Arminian does so by defining justification in such a way that the biblical ground of our justification (the imputed righteousness of Christ) is transformed into a doctrine of human merit. This can be confusing because Arminians do indeed use the biblical language of forgiveness, imputation, and “faith alone.” But all of these terms are redefined in a manner which does not comport with the biblical usage of these words, nor with the doctrine of the Reformers.

According to the Arminian system, justification should be understood as follows. Due to Adam’s fall all men and women have a universal tendency toward sinfulness. But the death of Christ secures a prevenient grace for all men and women, which enables people to use their free-will to seek after God and righteousness, and then come to Jesus Christ through faith. Since God has arbitrarily decided that he will regard the blood of a sacrificial victim as a sufficient demonstration of his love and justice (thereby allowing him to remit sin), he has also determined that when someone exercises faith in Christ, God will arbitrarily regard the personal exercise of faith as though it were righteousness.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerImputing Faith as RighteousnessComment
“The Error of Denying that Christ’s Merits Secure Our Salvation” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (3)
“The Error of Denying that Christ’s Merits Secure Our Salvation” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (3)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

III Who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.

For they have too low an opinion of the death of Christ, do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.

_________________________________

The third error promulgated by the Dutch Arminians and dealt with by the authors of the Canons is an error which is also tied to the modified governmental theory of the atonement. As devotees of the governmental theory see it, the death of Christ does not merit or accomplish anything in particular. Rather, through the death of Christ, God’s love and moral governorship of the universe is displayed, since the death of Christ supposedly shows us how seriously God regards human sinfulness.

As the Arminian theologian Limborch states, “the death of Christ is called a satisfaction for sin; but sacrifices are not payments of debts, nor are they full satisfactions for sins; but a gratuitous remission is granted when they are offered.” Notice the slippery language used by Limborch, since he speaks of the death of Christ as a "satisfaction," yet when doing so, means something far different than do the biblical writers (and the Reformed confessions) when they use the same term. For Limborch and the Arminians, “the atonement is a satisfaction.” But it is a "satisfaction" only because it demonstrates how seriously God takes sin, since God has arbitrarily determined to accept it as such.

Notice in the Arminian scheme what the atonement is not. The death of Christ is not the payment in full of the debt we owe to satisfy God's holy justice because of our sins. Nor is the atonement a payment for sin which is in any sense directly connected to the retributive justice of God, in which sin must be punished to the exact degree that it is an offense to God's holiness.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerChrist's merit, Christ's death purchases faithComment
“The Error of Rejecting the Establishment of the New Covenant” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (2)
“The Error of Rejecting the Establishment of the New Covenant” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (2)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

II Who teach that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.

For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ “has become the guarantee and mediator” of a better—that is, “a new”—“covenant” (Heb. 7:22 9:15), and that “a will is in force only when someone has died” (Heb. 9:17).

_______________________________

In the “refutation of errors” section of each head of doctrine, the Canons take up some of the more technical and specific teachings of the Dutch Arminians which prompted the Synod of Dort to be called in 1618. The second error identified under the second head of doctrine is the Remonstrant (Arminian) notion that the death of Christ did not actually establish a covenant of grace between God and his elect, but that the atonement merely makes provision for God to into enter into such a covenant with his creatures on the ground of God’s choosing—whether that be faith or works.

This reluctance to understand the covenant of grace as necessarily tied to Christ’s mediatorial work is fallout from the Arminian view of the atonement, which is a species of what is known as the “governmental theory.” The so-called governmental theory of the atonement teaches that the death of Christ supposedly demonstrates God’s love, along with his right to order his universe as he sees fit. In this scheme, the cross of Christ is not seen as a satisfaction of God’s justice, and therefore, a necessary act if sinners are to be saved. Instead, the cross is understood in terms of God’s arbitrary decree that a sacrificial death would be accepted as a payment for sin instead of some other equally valid way.

This means that it was not necessary for Christ to die if God’s elect are to be saved, but that God determined to do things in this way since his rule over the universe and his love for sinners would be most clearly manifest. As the moral governor of his universe, God saw fit to save in this manner. But he was under absolutely no necessity of doing so.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerThe New Covenant as fixed Comments
“The Error of Rejecting a Fixed and Definite Plan of Salvation” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (1)
“The Error of Rejecting a Fixed and Definite Plan of Salvation” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (1)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

Who 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.

For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: “I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them” (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: “When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand” (Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the church.

_________________________________

In rejecting the Arminian errors regarding the death of Christ, the authors of the Canons now turn to the weakest point in the so-called “universal atonement” position. In the Arminian scheme of redemption, the death of Christ does not actually save any of those for whom Christ is said to have died. What many regard as the strength of the Arminian view–its universalism and emphasis upon the assertion that “Christ died for all” without exception–is seen by the Reformed not as a strength, but as a serious departure from biblical teaching. Yes, the Scriptures teach that Christ died for all those given him by the father. The Scriptures do not teach that Jesus’s death makes the entire world potentially “saveable” if only sinners do what is required of them.

Exposing this error is what the authors of the Canons are getting at when they state the error in view is the Arminian notion that God supposedly appointed Christ to die for sinners, yet without any fixed or definite plan to save any one particular sinner by name. Under the Arminian conception of salvation, the death of Christ is said to be “for all,” because the atonement only makes the entire world “savable” upon the condition of faith in Christ. But notice, this means that the death of Christ does not actually save anyone. The atonement is said to be “for all” because it can potentially save all. In fact, as the Arminian understands fallen human nature and prevenient grace (to be discussed in part two), all can potentially believe, despite the fall of Adam.

Under this conception, the death of Christ actually saves no one, nor does it secure anything for our salvation, until such time as it is “appropriated” or “applied” by the sinner to themselves through the means of faith. This is a very important point. This gets to the heart of what many Reformed theologians have pointed out as the most distinguishing characteristic of the Reformed understanding of the plan of redemption, and that which sets the Reformed conception of salvation apart from all other branches of the Christian family. According to B. B. Warfield, “the saving operations of God are directed in every case immediately to the individuals who are being saved. Particularism in the process of salvation becomes the mark of Calvinism” [Warfield, Plan of Salvation, 87].

To read the rest follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerIndefinite atonement, Universal atonementComment
“The Fulfillment of God’s Plan” -- Article Nine, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“The Fulfillment of God’s Plan” -- Article Nine, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 9: The Fulfillment of God’s Plan

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.

___________________________________

When concluding the second head of doctrine, the authors make the obvious and important point that nothing whatsoever can thwart God’s redemptive purposes—not human sin, nor the sinful human will. God’s plan of redemption is perfect, and God's purposes are immutable.

As stated above, God has decreed to save sinners whom he has known by name from all eternity (Psalm 139; Ephesians 1:4). God chose to save his elect in Christ, who has now accomplished everything that is necessary for our redemption. The blessed Holy Spirit then applies the merits of Christ to these elect sinners, creating faith, and sealing them until the day of redemption (cf. Ephesians 1:3-14). Since it is the Triune God who acts to save his people from their sins, nothing can frustrate God’s plan of redemption.

Scripture clearly teaches us that the gates of hell can never prevail against Christ, or his church (Matthew 16:18). Scripture tells us that there will always be a church of Jesus Christ upon the earth (Matthew 28:20), though in some ages and places Christ’s church may be small, persecuted, and struggling, while in other times and places, it will be large, triumphant, and prosperous (1 Kings 19:18; Romans 11:4; Revelation 7:9).

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerGod's plan of redemptionComment
“The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death” -- Article Eight, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death” -- Article Eight, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. 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; 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.

__________________________________

The authors of the Canons note that the death of Christ is designed by God to satisfy the demands of his holy justice on behalf of his elect. The Canons also point out that sinners cannot believe the proclamation of Christ crucified unless they are given the gift of faith through the preaching of the gospel. At this point, the Canons tie these two things together.

In article 8, the authors state that the cross was ordained by God for the express purpose of actually and effectually redeeming the elect, i.e., those chosen by God in Christ from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). There is not a hint anywhere in Scripture that it was God's intention to make people savable, if only they use their free will and natural ability to come to Christ.

As the Canons put it, “For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation.”

According to the Reformed understanding of the plan of redemption, God has decreed to save his elect in Christ, then in the fullness of time God sent our Lord to accomplish what was necessary for his elect to be saved. Jesus came to die for our sins, thereby satisfying God’s justice which requires payment for our guilt. Through his personal obedience, Jesus fulfilled the demands of God’s law during his messianic mission, so that the elect can be provided with the perfect righteousness of Christ. And then Scripture teaches that God sent the Holy Spirit to call all those whom God has chosen and for whom Christ has died, to come to faith and repent of their sins through the proclamation of the gospel.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerThe efficiacy of Christ's crossComment
“Faith God’s Gift” -- Article Seven, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“Faith God’s Gift” -- Article Seven, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 7: Faith God’s Gift

But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ’s death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely from God’s grace—which he owes to no one—given to them in Christ from eternity.

______________________________

Since our race has fallen in Adam, and we are sinful by nature, we can do nothing on our own to come to faith in Christ. Indeed, we cannot even do anything to prepare ourselves to come to faith apart from a prior act of God on our behalf (calling and regeneration). The Canons remind us yet again that faith does not arise because fallen sinners have the power, desire, or the ability to believe the gospel when it is preached to them.

The Scriptures repeatedly tell us that faith is a gift from God. In fact, faith only arises within when the Holy Spirit creates it in the human heart through the preaching of the gospel. As Luther once pointed out, God creates faith in the heart, just like he created the world from nothing. Unless and until God does this, we gladly remain unbelievers.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerFaith as gift from GodComment
“Unbelief Man's Responsibility” -- Article Six, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
“Unbelief Man's Responsibility” -- Article Six, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 6: Unbelief Man’s Responsibility

However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

______________________________________

At this point, the authors of the Canons must respond to the perennial and nagging question raised by the biblical teaching about the death of Christ. “Why is it that if Christ died for all, not all are saved?” This is especially the case in light of the Reformed distinctive that Christ’s death was designed to save God’s elect, not merely make all people hypothetically “savable” if they do what God asks them to do–repent and believe.

You have undoubtedly heard questions such as the following. “If the preaching of Christ crucified is the power of God unto salvation, why do not all believe the gospel when it is preached to them?” Where does the fault truly lie when someone does not believe the message of Christ crucified and then perishes eternally?

Since Reformed Christians contend that God alone can save those dead in sin, and since not all are saved, the Arminian will object that the Reformed understanding of the atonement makes God to blame when someone is lost, because God supposedly did nothing to provide for their salvation–the death of Christ being “limited” to the elect. On the Reformed understanding of particular redemption (God will save his elect), is not God himself to blame because he is not being fair in not choosing everyone to be saved? Does this mean that God somehow prevents certain individuals from believing and coming to faith in Christ when he chooses others to be saved, as is so often charged?

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerResponsibility for Unbelief Comments
"The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All" -- Article Five, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
"The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All" -- Article Five, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

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.

__________________________________________

Having labored in articles 1-4 to establish that the purpose of the death of Christ is to be found in the satisfaction of God’s wrath toward sinners who have sinned against his infinite holiness, the Canons now make the point that the very nature of the saving work of Christ demands that it be proclaimed universally to sinners. The proclamation of the cross of Christ (i.e., the gospel) is the primary means by which God calls his elect to faith.

In article 3 of the first head of doctrine, the Canons teach that God has not only ordained the ends (who will be saved), he has also ordained the means by which he will save them (the preaching of the gospel). Scripture connects the end (the salvation of God’s elect), with the means by which God saves his elect; the death of his only begotten son, whose shed blood is more precious than gold or silver.

The previous articles under the second head of doctrine (1-4) make the case that the death of Christ is the only possible means by which God’s anger towards sinners can be satisfied and turned away from them (as a propitiation). Therefore, it is the gospel–defined by Paul as the proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) proclaimed in such a way that Christ’s death is publicly placarded before sinners (Galatians 3:1)–which must be proclaimed to sinners. This is so that sinners might understand that God’s anger toward them is satisfied only by the death of Christ. Called to faith through the message of Christ crucified, sinners will trust in the satisfaction of Christ to save them from God’s anger toward their sin. Once in Christ through faith, sinners receive the forgiveness of sins, and the free gift of eternal life.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerEvangelism, Preaching the gospelComment
"The Reasons for This Infinite Value" -- Article Four, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
"The Reasons for This Infinite Value" -- Article Four, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 4: Reasons for This Infinite Value

This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God’s anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.

_____________________________________

At this point, it is important to state with some precision what is implied in the previous articles. The reason why Jesus’s death can satisfy God’s justice and anger toward our sin is found in Christ’s incarnation. Jesus is the God-man who suffers and dies for us in our place. Since he is truly human, Jesus possesses our nature, and therefore can identify with us so that our sin can be imputed to him. He is one with us in every respect—sin excepted. As true man and the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), Jesus Christ stands in our place as our representative before God, just as did Adam in Eden as the biological and federal head of the human race. But unlike Adam, Jesus Christ endured all temptation without sin and lived a perfect life in fulfillment of all righteousness.

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerSubstitutionary atonementComment
"The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death" -- Article Three, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
"The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death" -- Article Three, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death

This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

________________________________________

At this point, the Canons address the question of the efficacy (value) of Christ’s satisfaction made upon the cross. Since the Reformed “limit” the saving benefits of the death of Christ to the elect only (a source of great controversy and misunderstanding, and addressed in part in article three), it is important for the authors to clarify that Christ’s death is not limited in any sense when considering the matter of the value of the death of Christ in terms of removing the guilt and breaking the power of sin so as to satisfy God’s justice.

This is the question article three seeks to address. If Christians affirm that there is such a thing as eternal punishment for the guilt of sin (Hell) and that Hell is populated by particular individuals, then one must limit the atonement either to its extent or its efficacy. Should we affirm that Jesus died for individuals whom he does not save? If we answer “yes” to that question, then we limit the power (efficacy) of Jesus’s death to save–Christ dies for people who perish eternally. If we ask “is it God’s intent to save each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age?” and answer “no,” then we limit God’s intention to the salvation of his elect, which the death of Jesus actually accomplishes. Either way, we limit the death of Jesus as to its power (Christ dies for those who are not saved thereby limiting the cross’s efficacy) or its extent (through the death of Jesus, God will actually and truly save his elect, not merely render all people “savable”).

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerThe Infinite Value of Christ's deathComment
"The Satisfaction Made by Christ" -- Article Two, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort
"The Satisfaction Made by Christ" -- Article Two, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 2: The Satisfaction Made by Christ

Since, however, we ourselves cannot give this satisfaction or deliver ourselves from God’s anger, God in his boundless mercy has given us as a guarantee his only begotten Son, who was made to be sin and a curse for us, in our place, on the cross, in order that he might give satisfaction for us.

______________________________________

In the second head of doctrine, the Canons make the critical point in articles 2, 3, 4, that there is absolutely nothing that sinful men and women can do that turns aside (or satisfies) the wrath of God. This was also explained in the opening article of the first head of doctrine (Article One: God's Right to Condemn All People).

Since God’s wrath toward us results from our sin against his infinite majesty (both in Adam, and because of our actual sin), his justice demands that the satisfaction made be equal to the offense (Romans 3:25-26). Such satisfaction must be offered in order for the guilt of our sins to be forgiven. Because the offense is against the Holy God, there is no way a sinful person could satisfy God’s infinite justice and holiness. As the Heidelberg Catechism puts it in questions 16 and 17, the one who dies for our sins must be truly human because “God’s justice demands that human nature, which has sinned pay for its sin,” but goes on to remind us that one “sinner could never pay for others.” This is why, as the catechism notes, the one who offers the sacrifice must also be true God, “so that by the power of his divinity, he might bear the weight of God’s anger in his humanity and earn for us and restore to us righteousness and life.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

Read More
The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerSatisfaction of God's justiceComment