I take one of Steven’s primary points to be that “the canons of Dort” (taken in historical context with all its complexity) and “the five points of Calvinism” (as popularly understood and exposited) certainly intersect in important ways, but are not simply identical.

I suspect that if one were to ask most Reformed people about Dort, they would think of the five points, understood in a particular way. And even if they have a bit more historical knowledge, I doubt it usually gets past a few big labels and names: Remonstrants, Arminius, Gomarus, Episcopius.

So the whole rich texture and detail of Dort gets lost and names such as Bogerman, Scultetus, Breitinger, Deodatus, Davenant, Carleton, Ward, Alsted, etc., are left in the dustbins of history. All these detailed stories bear re-telling.

One suggestion about the need to recount Dort from an British perspective: those of us who are shaped by the Westminster Standards operate within that British stream of theology and thus, at least in part, by how Dort was received within English-speaking divinity.

While many Puritans and some Independents embraced a Calvinism that had more in common with Perkins and Gomarus, the Westminster Assembly itself represented a much wider array of views, especially among the English Presbyterians. Thus the importance of Steven’s account.

I agree with your position on Bogerman as well. He was certainly influential and sounded a different tune than the Brits, but I think my point stands when you see how much was eventually allowed, compared with the demeanor leading up to the event. Comparing the Contra-Remonstrants’ statements with the finished balance of Dort, for instance, shows just how much the English were able to acheive. This goes beyond toleration, in my opinion, and into positive teachings. If one teaches eternal justification, for instance, he’s the one who has to take exception.

The non-insertion of supra-lapsarianism is also a biggie. Gomarus did think that the Brits and Bremenese were on the fringe, but the end result is that his own position is just as fringe.

High-Calvinists can definitely subscribe to Dort. No question about this. The logic of Dort, however, seems to be more of the moderate position. It doesn’t start with a supralapsarian decree (like Perkins’ chart), and it does say that the gospel is to be preached to all.

The free offer is a good issue to spot the diversity though, since the Brits didn’t get all they wanted on that issue. You are correct to point out the other traditions, even the diversity that runs away from the British.

So I have privileged the British position on this. I wouldn’t want to assert that theirs is the only one present. I chose to emphasize them, though, because theirs is the voice that seems to be lost.

I think that if you compare them with the early Heidelberg theologians you can see their “mainstream” status in the larger Reformed landscape. That is how I was using mainstream. They were the minority when they showed up in the Netherlands, to be sure. Their viewpoint, I believe, had been strongly represented across the continent, though. You can see this in David Pareus’ letter to Dort:

“The cause and matter of the passion of Christ was the sense and sustaining of the anger of God excited against the sin, not of some men, but of the whole human race; whence it arises, that the whole of sin and of the wrath of God against it was endured by Christ, but the whole of reconciliation was not obtained or restored to all.” (Act. Synod. Dordrect. pg. 217. quoted in Davenant’s Dissertation on the Death of Christ pg. 355-356)/

Thanks for your thoughts here. I think we’re basically on the same page, and my burden was to bring out the moderate position. Your perspective is valid and needed as well.

I found your work very informative and well done. It is on a topic that I find very much ignored and under done, namely the amazing work of Dort and all the differing delegates coming to the formation of the Canons. But since you asked for any critique of your article, I thought I would offer mine. Now, I am not attacking the broader point that there are indeed traditions within the ‘reformed’ faith. That I believe is true. I am more just questioning exactly where the English delegates strand fits into the broader river of Reformational heritage.

My main critique is that you are approaching the topic of differing traditions in the Reformed faith and their legitimacy especially at Dort by expounding one specific tradition at Dort. It is hard to imagine that the authors of that tradition at Dort would hold itself to be illegitimate or even in the minority. Let me illustrate. When you read Crisis in the Reformed Church edited by Peter DeJong you get a picture of Dort that is very Dutch. The essay in that book by Simon Kistemaker entitled “Leading Figures at Dort” does not even list any foreign delegates as if all the leading figures were indeed Dutch. The book as a whole sings the praises of President Johannes Bogerman. Now if you read James I Good’s work about the church in Germany, you will find a different outlook on Dort. There you will be reminded that two-thirds of all foreign delegates were German and that one-fifth of the entire Synod was German. You will hear of Scultetus as the most powerful foreign delegate, and you will hear how the plethora of German delegates spoke out on each of the five points of Calvinism and how Alting, the professor at Heidelberg University gave a lecture on reprobation that “surpassed all others in range of knowledge.” You can even get the impression that the English delegates were only at Dort because King James was intermarried to the Palatinate rulers. The Swiss will of course point to Johannes Breitinger of Zurich as the most honored delegate. After all he was on the committee that drew up the Infralapsarian compromise. They would also point to the wide-ranging scholarship and influence of Johannes Deodatus, professor at Geneva who aided in many other aspects of the Synod. Each tradition makes its own the norm, and plays up its own men as heroes of the faith, as is human nature (and I am not necessarily faulting them for this).

My rambling point here is that you have made assertions such as “British delegates at Dort can be seen to be well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy.” You have done a good job of showing they were not alone and that their views were not specifically condemned, but does that make their position mainstream? Gromarus did not seem to think that there position was mainstream, and the German delegates seem to have the view that the English and Bremen delegates were allowed to sign and interpret it liberally as a concession not an endorsement (at least Good seems to read it that way). It is still true that Limited Atonement is taught in the canons and the fact that their specific viewpoint was not rejected does not mean it was thought mainstream or even approved, just that it was simply not condemned. I think that part of the discussion is still open for debate, and it would interesting to know what members of the other traditions thought about the English Broad Atonement Sublapsarian tradition.

My only other point would be your statement that the “German Reformed Church could continue with only the Heidelberg Catechism as a confessional document well into the 19th century”. If you mean here the German Reformed Church in America then this is not true. The German Reformed Church in America started out in 1747 subscribing to all of the Three Forms of Unity. This continued until at least 1790, and then no one knows where or why the church seems to have dropped the Belgic and the Canons so that they are no longer present in 1840. If you meant the church in Germany then just consider me stuck in my own tradition and dismiss this entire last paragraph.

Thank you again for a nice thoughtful article.

For Bible-oriented Christians, this is no threat. For those whose religion is centered around ideology, it is very much a threat. Buried somewhere in all this may be substantive differences over the interpretation of historical events — though as Joel points out, what Steven put out is pretty standard. The heat and hostility generated by these issues, however, reveals that something other than objective scholarship is at play. As a friend of mine used to say, the response is incommensurate with the stimulus.

If there are actual objections to any part of my presentation, I’m happy to hear them.

Ah, yes. Just as as I thought.