Abundant Sufficiency and Intentional Efficacy: Particular Redemption at the Synod of Dort (original) (raw)
Related papers
Reformed Scholasticism and the Synod of Dort (1618-19)
John Calvin's Institutes: His Opus Magnum, ed., B.J. Van der Walt (Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education), 1986
In recent years a growing body of scholarly literature has focused on the emergence of Reformed (or Calvinist) scholasticism in the late six teenth century 1 • The Synod of Dort, probably the single most influen tial event in the Reformed tradition in the early seventeenth century, convened at a time when Reformed scholasticism was beginning to bloom. This naturally gives rise to the question: What influence did this scholastic trend have on the Synod of Dort and its decisions? Some especially older scholars have tended to view Dort as a triumph of scholasticism 2 . Others have called this conclusion into question 3 . The issue deserves a closer investigation. * Not originally presented as a paper at the Congress. 1 For a brief survey of recent literature on Reformed scholasticism see B.J. van der Walt, ed. Our Reformational Ti'adition (Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1984), pp. 369-377. 2 E.g., Basil Hall, "Calvin Against the Calvinists," in G.E. Duffield, ed. John Calvin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 28: " ... the Synod of Dort in 1619 where the extreme form of scholastic 'Calvinism' was achieved in the Five Articles which broke the unity of Cal vin's theology and replaced his biblical dynamism by formulae." Also, Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979), p. 164: "The hyper-Calvinist majority at Dort skewed Reformed theology in a scholastic direction by their dependence on Aristotelian notions of causality, by mak ing predestination the central doctrine to be defended in Reformed Christendom and by teaching notions, suc_ h as eternal reprobation, not specifically found in Calvin." Likewise, p. 188: " ... the Synod of Dort in the Netherlands gave confessional expression to the de veloping Reformed scholasticism." 3 E.g., William Robert Godfrey, "Tensions Within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619 " (Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1974), p. 268: "If Bezan orthodoxy, arid scholasticism, and Aristotelian philosophy did triumph in seventeenth-century Calvinism, they did not win their victory at Dort." 4 On the Synod of Dort see Donald Sinnema, "T he Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618-19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine'' (Ph.D. dissertation. St . Michael's College, University of Toronto, 1985). 5 Brian Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy (Madison: University of Wiscon sin Press, 1969), p. 32; J.P. Donnelly, Calvinism and Scholasticism in Vermigli's Doctrine of Man and Grace (Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 199-201; John Bray, Theodore Beza's Doc trine of Predestination (Nieuwkoop: B. DeGraaf, 1975), pp. 12-13; Rogers and McKim. op. cit., pp. 185-186.
Church History and Religious Culture, 2012
This article analyses the development of the concept of the divine call to salvation in Reformed theology as it was taught at Leiden University in the first decades of the seventeenth century. During this crucial period, with the Synod of Dort as a pivotal turn, twelve disputations were defended on the subject.The changes in the order of the disputations and some switches in the terminology are related to the Arminian controversy and the confessional codification of Reformed doctrine at the Synod of Dort.There are differences between the disputations after the synod and the one defended under Arminius, but there are also some more general developments. Apparently, the Arminian controversy shaped the Reformed understanding of the vocatio.
The Doctrine of the Extent of the Atonement among the Early English Particular Baptists
Harvard Theological Review
This essay challenges the view that the early English Baptists who are often labeled as “Particular Baptists” always held a doctrine of strict particularism or particular redemption. It does so on the basis of the two London Baptist Confessions of 1644 and 1646. The main argument asserted here is that the two earliest confessions of the English Particular Baptists supported a variety of positions on the doctrine of the atonement because they focus on the subjective application of Christ’s work rather than his objective accomplishment. The first two editions of the earliest London Baptist confession represent a unique voice that reflects an attempt to include a range of Calvinistic views on the atonement. Such careful ambiguity reflects the pattern of Reformed confessionalism in the seventeenth century. This paper then goes on to argue that some individuals did indeed hold to “strict particularism”—which is compatible with, but not required by, the first two confessions.
Four Centuries Ago: An Historical Survey of the Synod of Dort (1618-19)
Reformed Presbyterian Theological Journal , 2019
2019 marks the four-hundredth anniversary of the successful conclusion of one of the most significant – and arguably one of the most overlooked – ecclesiastical assemblies in Church History. The Synod of Dort (1618-19) and the canons it produced have been both praised and denounced by historians and theologians for the past 400 years. Generally speaking, these widely different opinions have represented the winning and losing side of the great Calvinist-Arminian dispute, which the Synod sought to resolve. English Puritan Richard Baxter’s oft-cited opinion is representative of the victors at Dort: writing in 1656, he concluded, “The Christian World since the days of the Apostles has never seen a Synod of more excellent Divines than … [the Westminster Assembly] and the Synod of Dort.”2 Nineteenth-century American liberal theologian Charles Briggs represents a very different appraisal of Dort and its divines: “The scholastic theologians of … Holland perverted [the] precious doctrinal achievements of Calvinism into hard, stern, and barren dogmas … They divided the Calvinistic camp into two parties, scholastic Calvinists and moderate Calvinists.”3 But a close examination of the synod’s history and its canons reveals that this was not an unnecessary dispute over words between allegedly “moderate” and “stricter” Calvinists. While there were nuances of opinion at this as in every assembly of Christ’s Church, the Synod of Dort was a field of battle between two very different understandings of the Gospel. As such, it was a debate worth having, and because it is a debate that is very much alive in Christendom, this is a Synod still worth listening to. This essay contextualizes the Canons of Dort by offering a brief historical introduction.
Blaming Beza: The Development of Definite Atonement in the Reformed Tradition
Did John Calvin teach "limited atonement," or did later Reformed thinkers, such as Theodore Beza, concoct this allegedly harsh doctrine by substituting Calvin's restrained biblical exegesis with a deterministic, rationalistic, and deductive system? The fact that scholars have had difficulty answering this question arises out of the fact that the question itself is flawed on a number of levels. Studies of this issue are often plagued with wrong turns and false starts, depositing students of the question into a methodological labyrinth, to use one of Calvin's favorite terms.
Recovering the Reformation’s Ecumenical Vision of Redemption as Deification and Beatific Vision
Perichoresis, 2020
The beatific vision is widely perceived as a Roman Catholic doctrine. Many continue to view deification as a distinctively Eastern Orthodox doctrine incompatible with the Western theological tradition, especially its Protestant expressions. This essay will demonstrate that several Reformers of the first and second generation promoted a vision of redemption that culminates with deification and beatific vision. They affirmed these concepts without apology in confessional statements, dogmatic works, biblical commentaries, and polemical treatises. Attention will focus on figures in the Reformed tradition though one could produce similar surveys for the Lutheran and Anglican branches of the Reformation as well. John Calvin will receive extended treatment because some scholars dispute whether he affirmed deification. This essay presents important evidence thus far overlooked which should settle the question.
Atonement Theory Revisited: Calvin, Beza, and Amyraut on the Extent of the Atonement
Perichoresis, 2013
Throughout the bulk of the Reformed Tradition's history within both Europe and the United States, most scholars have dismissed pastor and theologian Moïse Amyraut as a seventeenth century French heretic whose actions and theology led to the demise of the Huguenots in France. However, upon further introspection into Amyraut's claims as being closer to Calvin (soteriologically) than his Genevan successors, one finds uncanny parallels in the scriptural commentaries and biblical insight into the expiation of Christ between Calvin and Amyraut. By comparing key scriptural passages concerning the atonement, this article demonstrates that Reformed theologian Moïse Amyraut in fact propagated a universal atonement theory which parallels Calvin's, both men ascribing to biblical faithfulness, a (humanistic) theological method, and similar hermeneutic. As such, both Calvin and Amyraut scripturally contend that God desires and provided the means for the salvation of the whole world. Further, the article demonstrates that Calvin's successor, Theodore de Beza, could not in fact make the same claims as Amyraut, this article demonstrating that Beza went beyond Calvin's scriptural approach to Christ's expiation. Therefore, this article supports a more centrist approach from within and outside the Reformed tradition by demonstrating that Calvin and Amyraut concentrically held to God's gracious provision in Christ for the saving of the whole world, for those who would believe in Christ for salvation.