The Council for the
National Synod of the Reformed Church, summoned by the States General of the
Netherlands,[1]
met in the city of Dordrecht, Holland, between 1618-1619 to respond to and
settle the controversy instigated by Arminius. The Remonstrants sat at the discussion table
and participated fully in the proceedings, not as members but as defendants.[2] This National Assembly of the Dutch Reformed
Church had invited voting members of the reformed churches from eight other
nations.
This convocation may
be considered among the most interesting events of the seventeenth
century. The Synod of Dordt had a class
of importance peculiar to itself and was, on the whole, pre-eminent. Nor was it simply a meeting of chosen divines
from one nation; this was a convention of churches from the Calvinistic world,
brought together to bear testimony against Arminianism, viewed as a rising and
obtrusive error. The purpose of the
Synod was to determine whether the opinions of Arminius could be reconciled with
the teaching of the Confession adopted by the Belgic churches. All the Reformed churches of Europe at that
time had a deep interest in this matter because, at bottom, they knew this was
and is a Gospel issue.
The Synod convened
on 13th November, 1618 and consisted of 39 pastors and 18 ruling
elders from the Belgic churches, five professors from the universities of
Holland, 19 delegates from the Reformed churches in Germany and Switzerland,
and five professors and bishops from Great Britain. Berkhof adds that there were 18 political
delegates to this august assembly.[3] Dr John Davenant (1572-1641) was one of the
five Church of England theological representatives at the Synod. He had been appointed by King James I, and was
arguably the most influential of the English delegates to the Synod. Davenant's important role at Dordt being
recognised, he seems to have sympathised in part with the French theologian
Moise Amyraut (1596-1664). Representatives
from Brandenburg and from the French churches were also invited but did not
attend.[4] The Synod was thus constituted of 86 voting
members in all. There were 154 formal
sessions and many informal sessions held during the six months duration of the
Synod to consider these matters. The
last session at the Synod was held on 9th May, 1619. This was most representative body of reformed
churches that ever met.
The Synod of Dordt
examined in great detail the ‘five points’ which the Remonstrants had advanced,
and compared that teaching with the testimony of Scripture. They concluded that these “five points” could
not be reconciled with the teaching of Scripture, so unanimously and
uncompromisingly rejected them. The
situation arrived at, namely a mere rejection of the Remonstrants’ five
propositions, was not deemed to be satisfactory or sufficient, so the Dordt
commissioners set forth the true teaching of the Scriptures, of reformation
teaching, and of Calvin, regarding those matters which had been contested. This positive exposition of biblical truth,
conjoined with negative propositions which exposed and rejected Arminianism,
were set out in clear and precise terms.
When completed, they arrived at what many now know as The Five Points of
Calvinism, and were adopted as the official teaching of the churches represented. These were contested by about two hundred Dutch
Arminian clergymen who were then banished for a short time. When Prince Maurice died in 1625, he was
succeeded by his more tolerant brother who restored to the Arminian party the
right to build churches and schools in every town in Holland. The Churches also adopted the Belgic
Confession and Heidelberg Catechism at this time.
These were the deliberations
of the first ecumenical council, made up of some of the ablest Gospel-focused
theologians of the day, thus removing the theological uncertainty that had
engulfed the churches of the Netherlands and churches further afield, and
threatened the reformed faith.
This controversy was
purely theological, but because of the close association of Church and State it
became unavoidably entangled in political issues, which shook the whole
country. The Reformed Churches in France, Germany, Switzerland, England, and
Scotland were deeply interested in this matter, and sided, generally, with the
Calvinistic party; the Lutherans, on the other hand, sympathised to some extent with the Arminian
cause.
So right from 1619,
the gauntlet was unavoidably thrown down that would ensure the continuation of
controversy surrounding this doctrine.
The general level of agreement amongst the representative church bodies,
however, promised a potential absence of controversy around such a central
Gospel doctrine, but this did not materialise.
Had there been less theological polarisation in the preceding years,
this controversy might not have developed and the church spared much hurt and
damage.
It is of interest to
note that the resultant five points of clarification arrived at by the Dordt
Synod had embedded within them a universal understanding of the atonement.
The relevant portion is article three of the second
main head of doctrine, and reads,
This death of the Son of God
is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite
value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
This positive
universal atonement statement, referenced 1 Jn.2:2, is denied by the high
orthodox, as represented by Stewart,[5]
who states, in defiance of the clear universal aspect in Dordt’s understanding
of the atonement, that Dordt recognises the particularistic element of the
atonement. If it is true that Dordt only
recognises the ‘particular’ element in the atonement, it leaves the sufficiency
of Christ’s death to atone for the sins of the whole world quite
redundant. If there was no universal
aspect in the atonement, then that phrase is quite inexplicable. It is then for those who reject this
statement by ignoring or denying it to explain in what sense Christ is said to
have made an atonement of such infinite value and sufficient to atone for the
sins of the whole world.
The truth
lies easily with each viewpoint, namely, that Christ in His death made
atonement that is sufficient for the sins of the whole world but efficient only
for the elect. It is sufficient to save
the entire human race, and every repentant sinner who trusts Christ alone will
be saved. This reformation paradigm,
contested by some reformed theologians, best fits all the Scriptural data. It endorses the position that because the fallen
human mind is limited in its ability to understand the divine Mind in all its
details, God has made known what He wanted men to know. The atonement is limited in its application –
it is applied only to those who believe in Christ; the atonement is unlimited
so far as its availability and sufficiency are concerned. This alone does justice to the Scripture
data.
No comments:
Post a Comment