The Canons of Dort
as a Standard for
Teaching and
Preaching (2)
• Arjen Vreugdenhil
·
February 16, 2017
Introduction
In a previous article I pointed out that the Canons of Dort not
only define the content of Reformed doctrine, but also direct
the way in which it is taught and preached. In this article I
will address section I of the Canons, and draw conclusions
about the way we ought to speak about God’s work of
election.
Election in Broader Context
The first section of the Canons is about election, but this is
only brought up in section I.6. The first few articles of
section I outline more foundational principles of Christian
doctrine; and we see this pattern repeated at the beginning
of the other sections.
There are several reasons for choosing this approach. By
taking its starting point in basic Christian doctrine, theCanons emphasize that the Reformed churches are not
sectarian, but stand fully in the tradition of the Christian
church. By beginning with common ground, the polemic with
the Arminians also becomes less militant.
But most importantly, the introductory articles I.1-6 show us
the proper context in which we must think about election.
The doctrines of sin, Christ, gospel, and faith take priority
over the doctrine of election. In election, God chose people
from the sinful, human race. Election is in Jesus Christ.
Election is no direct ticket to heaven, but predestination to
be in Christ, and to be saved in the way of faith in the
gospel.
In this way the Synod of Dort defused the first main
complaint against the Reformed, namely, that they teach
that God predestines people to heaven or hell “without the
least regard or consideration of any sin.”[1] People perish
eternally because of their sin and unbelief; people inherit
eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. Contrary to the
Arminian accusation, sin and the obedience of faith are
central in the Reformed doctrine!
I frequently meet Reformed believers who will suspect
anyone of being “Arminian” if he begins his gospel
presentation with John 3:16, in God’s love for the world. It is
true that some evangelicals take this text too far, and
declare God’s saving love for every individual, whether they
believe or not. But note that our very own Canons of Dort
start with John 3:16—in his love for the world, God gave
Christ. This merciful gospel must be preached to all, so that
people may believe. And God, based on his eternal decree
of election, will give faith precisely to those he has chosen.Do you see how evangelistic the Canons are from the very
beginning?
Speaking of Reprobation
Article I.15 addresses the dark side of predestination. If God
elects some to receive Christ and his benefits, there will be
others to whom this is not given. They will perish in their
unbelief.
According to the Remonstrants this was a terrible, cruel
doctrine. They complained that the Reformed made
“reprobation the cause of unbelief and ungodliness, in the
same manner in which election is the source and cause of
faith and good works.”[2] This would make God the cause
and “author” of sin.
To be fair, there were some Reformed ministers who drew
this conclusion. The Synod of Dort even dealt with a
seminary professor, Maccovius, who taught that “God wills
and decrees sin” and that “he predestines people to sin.”
Maccovius was not declared a heretic, but he was strongly
reprimanded to tone down his teaching. Even those who did
not agree with Maccovius would conclude that, at the very
deepest level of God’s decree, God must be the ultimate
cause of sin. After all, he created people, he allowed them to
fall, and by electing some to be saved, he implicitly allowed
others to die in their sins.[3]
The Canons do not give an explanation of the origin of sin;
the reality of sin is simply assumed throughout, starting
explicitly in article I.1. And article I.15 ends with a serious
warning, intended to keep our thinking and speaking
straight. Never, ever are we to think of God as the cause,
the author of sin.The decree of reprobation, say the Canons, is no more than
this: that God decided to leave the non-elect precisely
where they are, by their own fault, in the guilt and misery of
sin.[4] He does not make them sin. He does not prevent
them from believing. He simply gives them what they (and
we, if it were not for God’s grace!) want in their rebellion.
The Canons make it abundantly clear: people do not go to
hell because God forces them to go there. People go to hell
because they are guilty and do not believe in Jesus Christ.
Is it unfair that God permits them to become lost? Article
I.18 answers with a sharp but loving rebuke to those who
complain: if anything is unfair, it is our election! Everybody
deserves hell, and our election to faith and salvation is
undeserved.
The first section of the Canons ends with praise to God for
his deep council, which we cannot understand. It points us
to Romans 9, which teaches that God has the basic right to
do with his creation as he wants, like a Potter with his clay.
Today there are Calvinists who like to start with this
principle, that God is sovereign and therefore has the right
to cast into hell whoever he wants. They believe that this is
a “higher,” better view than that presented in the Canons.[5]
It is this kind of teaching of unmitigated divine sovereignty
that evoked the Arminian complaint that the Reformed
doctrine is no different than Islam.[6] But the Canons start
with the revealed gospel of grace in a sinful world. The
teaching of God’s sovereignty is for those who would talk
back to God who justly punishes rebellion.
Election, Assurance, and ComfortSeveral articles toward the end of section I of the Canons
spell out important pastoral consequences of election.
Christians who are aware that their faith is a gracious gift
can easily worry: how can I be sure that God has chosen
me? How do I know my faith is real? Sadly, there are entire
denominations where this anxiety overshadows all of the
Christian life, and only very few are assured of their
salvation.
The Canons do not want us to think this way, and certainly
not to teach this pious-sounding doubt. Article I.12 gives a
careful, sensitive answer. Believers, as they grow in faith,
will receive assurance of their election. Not by some private
insight in God’s secret council. Not by a miraculous
experience. But “by noticing within themselves, with spiritual
joy and holy delight the unmistakable fruits of election
pointed out in God’s Word”: faith, awe and trust in God,
sorrow for sin, desire to be righteous.
What about those who lack this assurance? As a result of
sin we can feel so guilty, so much lacking in godliness, that
we may fear that God has not chosen us. Canons I.16
comforts us that we should not “be alarmed at the mention
of reprobation, nor count ourselves among the reprobate.”
This article point us to the mercy of God. It shows the way of
growth and perseverance in the Christian life; I will address
this at the end of my next article, where we look at section V
of the Canons.
The pastoral approach of the Canons is balanced; articles
I.13 and 16 also address the opposite problem of
presumption and antinomianism. There are people who are
not serious about their faith, but claim to be elect in spite of
an uncaring, ungodly life. It even says that such falseassurance “usually happens to those who casually take for
granted the grace of election” and “are unwilling to walk in
the ways of the chosen.”
The Question of Dying Infants
Believing parents care about the salvation of their children.
One particularly pressing question is what we may believe
about our children if they die at a very young age. At the
time when the Canons were written, infant mortality was
extremely high, due to warfare, pestilence, and other
factors. But even today, when most infants survive after
birth, many parents look for comfort after a miscarriage.
The Arminians made this question a focus in their campaign
against the Reformed doctrine. As I mentioned in the
previous article, they accused the Reformed churches of
teaching that “many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless,
from their mothers’ breasts, and tyrannically plunged into
hell” (by God).
The delegates at the Synod of Dort had to address this
question. They did so, briefly but powerfully, in Article I.17.
We may believe that children of believers who die at an
early age belong to God’s elect. There is no reason for
doubt, because God himself speaks favorably about the
children in the Scriptures. The Canons give two arguments.
First of all, there is the covenant, which continues from
parents to children and is only broken by deliberate unbelief
at older age. Second, there is the declaration in 1 Cor. 7:14
that children of believers are holy. This does not
automatically mean that all children of believers are elect,
and saved no matter what; but it does imply that thesechildren are special to God. If he takes them to himself at a
young age, there is no reason to doubt his covenant mercy.
In fact, article I.17 says very much the same as the
traditional Reformed form for the administration of baptism
to infants.
Throughout the centuries this article has been controversial
in Reformed circles, especially in those experiential
churches who were hesitant to lay hold of the assurance of
faith. The Canons of Dort also clearly go beyond the
Westminster Standards in this respect, which only teach that
elect infants will be saved, even though they have not
believed (WCF 10.3). But where the church received this
article as a faithful reflection of the covenant promise, it has
been of great comfort to many parents.
Teaching Election Properly
We have seen that section I of the Canons is evangelistic
and pastoral. It also exhibits great pedagogical qualities, as
a guide for preaching and teaching. If we are to preach on
predestination, let it always be in the context of sin, Christ,
and gospel, as shown in Articles I.1-6! If we are to preach on
election, let us give comfort to the afflicted and warning to
the presumptive! If we are to preach on reprobation, let us
endeavor never to suggest that God is the author of sin, but
admire the justice and wisdom of God even when we do not
comprehend him!
Article I.14 gives explicit instruction about how to teach the
doctrine of election. This doctrine was taught throughout the
history of the church, in Old and New Testament, and so it
must be taught today. But it is very important how this
teaching takes place. Article I.14 is not only a warningagainst not preaching election; it is also a warning against
improper teaching of it. The Canons list a number of
qualities our teaching of election should have.
First of all, the doctrine of election is “specifically intended”
for God’s church, to comfort believers. It is not the first (or
even second) aspect of Christian doctrine to bring to
unbelievers! For many zealous Calvinists that may seem
wrong, especially if they are eager to combat Arminianism in
all its forms. But the Canons are following the Biblical
example here: the Bible speaks about election almost
exclusively in the context of God’s people, whether Old
Testament Israel or the New Testament church.
Second, the Canons call for discretion and a godly and holy
attitude. Because the doctrine of election can raise difficult
questions, and can be distorted into a false denial of
assurance or presumptive complacency, we must be very
careful how to present it. Articles I.12, 13, 16, and 17 list
some pastoral considerations that should be taken into
account.
Third, the Canons tells us that election must be preached “at
the appropriate time and place.” This should be understood
as the proper time and place in the preaching and teaching
curriculum. For instance, the Heidelberg Catechism speaks
of election in Lord’s Days 20 and 21, and when teaching
these questions and answers a teacher should explain
election. Likewise, election must have a place in sermons
about Deut. 7, Rom. 9, and Eph. 1. But neither the Bible nor
the catechism speaks about election all the time, and
neither should we.
Fourth, in the preaching and teaching of election we must
be careful to bring glory to God, “without inquisitivesearching into the ways of the Most High.” Practically, this
means that we echo the clear teaching of the Bible that God
has chosen for himself a people, to save them in the way of
faith; but we must refrain from speculation on the details
which are not clearly revealed.
Some argue that election is one of the most foundational
doctrines of the Bible, and must therefore figure in most
sermons. One Reformed minister wrote, for instance:
If the question be asked, ‘What place does Scripture allot to
the truth of election?’ the answer is: ‘First place.’ The truth of
election is of prime importance. … Take it away, and the
whole body of the truth dies. For there is not a single
element of the entire truth of Holy Scripture that can stand
ultimately without the truth of sovereign election. … Even
while the church is busy with the task of proclaiming in the
narrower sense of the word such truths as vicarious
atonement, regeneration, or conversion, for example, that
truth of election will pulsate regularly and strongly through
the preaching. If it does not, then the truth of election is
being deprived of its proper time and place.[7]
It even seems that Canons I.9 support this view, when it
calls election the “source of every saving good”.
But this view is mistaken. God’s decree (including election)
comes first in the logical and historical order; but that does
not mean that it is the central element in God’s revelation.
Scripture tells us clearly that the center of revelation is
Jesus Christ and his ministry. The Bible calls to faith in
Christ much more than it speaks of election. In fact, even
our election is in Christ (Eph. 1:4). Likewise, in the very
definition of election, the Canons define Christ as the
foundation of salvation (I.7).To be sure, the truth of God’s electing grace may not be
obscured or denied. It is a tremendous source of comfort for
the believer. But this doctrine must take its proper place, so
that Jesus Christ, the greatest Word of God to a sinful world,
remains at the center.
The same guiding principle is found in the remaining
sections of the Canons. I will address this in the next and
last article of this series.
[1] See the “Conclusion” of the Canons of Dort for this
accusation. The full text of the Remonstrant complaint is
this: “Some [Reformed churches teach] that God by an
eternal and unchangeable decree, out of the people whom
he did not view as created and much less as fallen,
ordained some to eternal life, some to eternal perdition,
without any consideration of righteousness or sin,
obedience or disobedience, merely because he was
pleased to display the glory of his justice and mercy, or—as
others formulate it—his saving grace, wisdom and
sovereignty.”
[2] See the “Conclusion” to the Canons.
[3] See, for example, the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae,
which was published in 1625 by four leading Reformed
professors. Also, in his dissertation, The Issue of
Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618-19) in Light of the
History of this Doctrine (1985), D. Sinnema discusses the
many ways in which Arminian and Reformed theologians
alike attempted to parse out the difficult doctrine of election
without putting the blame on God.[4] The last paragraph of I.15, “And this is the decree of
reprobation …” must be understood in a limiting sense. This,
and nothing else or more, is the decree of reprobation.
[5] E.g., Homer Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers
[6] The “Conclusion” of the Canons summarizes the
Arminian complaint that “this teaching … is nothing but a
refurbished … Turkism.” Mainstream Muslim doctrine has
many tenets of hyper-Calvinism: A hard determinism,
combined with the view that Allah is absolutely sovereign,
and even the most faithful believers can only hope that he
will be merciful to them.
[7] Homer Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers, 231.