When I was first introduced to Reformed theology, I encountered “the five points of Calvinism” and “TULIP.” I was told that these came from the Synod of Dort, which essentially decided that Calvinism would be the accepted religion of the Reformed churches in Europe. Calvinism and TULIP were for the most part equivalent.
As I moved from a Reformed Baptist to a Presbyterian, I began to hear pastors mention that Calvinism was more than the five points. I began to learn about “covenant theology,” which served as the basis for baptizing infants. Calvinism now included the TULIP as well as covenant theology and infant baptism. Still later in my studies, I began to learn about the Calvinistic doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. My understanding of Calvinism broadened, but I still had a tendency to think of Dort when I heard the term Calvinist.
Given the central place of Dort in the history of Calvinism, I was surprised when I began to read R. L. Dabney’s Systematic Theology and his book The Five Points of Calvinism. He nearly dismissed the five points saying, “Historically, this title is of little accuracy or worth.”[1] As I continued to read in Dabney, I began to discover there were various schools within Calvinism, some of which disagreed in key places. Amazingly, Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd all distance themselves from theologians like Francis Turretin on the relationship between the decree of God and the cross of Christ, and even go so far as to explicitly reject key exegesis that underlies the “limited atonement” argument found in John Owen’s The Death of Death.[2] These 19th century Presbyterians were neither Arminians, nor Amyraldians though, but rather they represent what is called, for better or for worse, moderate Calvinism.[3]
How is it, I wondered, that I had never heard of this distinction before? Why have I been taught that the Five Points of Calvinism are the summary of Reformed theology? What is limited atonement? This brought on a bit of theological dizziness, and I was eager to learn more about the true history of Calvinism and the Synod of Dort. What did it teach concerning these matters, and what is its place in the larger Reformed church history?
At this point the reader must be warned. This discussion quickly becomes dangerous territory in the eyes of many contemporary Reformed thinkers. Indeed it is a sort of “read at your own risk” move. There are very few moderate Calvinists today, and the current of high Calvinism has become so strong that deviations will most certainly be condemned as Amyraldianism from the outset. Part of my intent is to alleviate this reaction and to shed some light on the facts of history. I think it will be shown that the actual history of Calvinism was always a variegated one, and the five points represented a heavily contextualized debate within one period of the larger Reformed tradition.
One of the first observations that needs to be made is that the theological dispute that lead up to the Synod of Dort occurred from inside the Reformed theological community. The Remonstrants would eventually argue for a clear departure from this tradition, but at the outset this was not the case. In other words, the debate was initially an intra-Reformed debate, not one between those inside and those outside of the tradition. Furthermore, there had been at least fourteen confessional documents composed prior to Dort, including the Tetrapolitan Confession, the 1st and 2nd Helvetic, the Scots Confession, the Belgic Confession, the 39 Articles, and the Heidelberg Catechism. The English and German delegates were as much concerned with maintaining their pre-existing standards as they were defending the specific writings of the Contra-Remonstrants. In fact the two parties in the Netherlands at that time are sometimes called the Arminians and the Gomarists, illustrating the regional particularity. King James I sent the British delegates to Dort with instructions to uphold the current faith of the Church of England.[4] David Pareus, writing from Heidelberg, also asked that no deviation from the Heidelberg catechism be made.[5] That there was an established and authoritative Reformed theological tradition prior to the Synod of Dort is obvious. Dort was not subscribed to by those outside of the Netherlands, though it was approved as sound doctrine by the various foreign delegates. This explains how it is that the German Reformed Church could continue with only the Heidelberg Catechism as a confessional document well into the 19th century.
This fairly self-evident historical review is necessary today because of subsequent history’s tendency to divide theological groups between “Anglicans,” “Puritans,” “separatists,” “non-conformists,” and still others, and then to simply give the title of “Calvinist” to the more extreme parties. Many within the Church of England also felt no need to apply the title of what they viewed to be a subset of Protestantism to themselves, opting instead to simply refer to the doctrine of the Church. Many conservative and “Reformed” English Churchmen valued the names of Augustine and Prosper as much or more than that of Calvin, and thus they did not refer to themselves as Calvinists. Further complicating maters is the tendency for the moderate Calvinists to criticize “rigid Calvinism.” Such a reference should not be interpreted as a slight against Calvin. “Rigid Calvinist” was the name given to the supralapsarians. It was not uncommon for a moderately Calvinistic Anglican (who never referred to himself as such) to seem antagonistic towards “Calvinism” when in reality it is the supralapsarians (or perhaps some of the Presbyterian-minded Puritans) he specifically had in mind. Sorting some of these matters out can be admittedly difficult, and our lack of familiarity with the pre-Puritan Protestant Church of England further handicaps us. Figures like Archbishop George Abbott, George Carleton, Samuel Ward, and John Davenant are not familiar to modern Presbyterians, but they should not therefore be categorized as simply sub-Reformed.
The controversy in the Netherlands was ignited by the writings of Arminius and his students, but it should also be noted that the phenomena of suprlapsarianism was just as novel. Arminius’s early writings were directed towards William Perkins and Francis Gomarus[6], and Morris Fuller, writing in 1897, can state that the origins of the controversy really began with the introduction of supralapsarianism into the Dutch academies.[7] Though it is certainly anachronistic to use such a label, the twelfth article of the French confession, the fifth chapter of the Scots Confession, the sixteenth article of the Belgic Confession, and the seventeenth article of the English 39 articles all present an infralapsarian doctrine. This is quite significant given Dort’s stated task of defending the Reformed tradition against destructive innovations.
The followers of Arminius presented their Remonstrance at The Hague in 1610, and the issues gained international notoriety. In England, Robert Abbot and George Carleton began refuting the Arminians. Grotius and Vorstius achieved some audience in England; however, both were eventually deemed heretics. Even King James I was vocal in opposing Arminianism. He called the Arminian preachers “seditious and heretical” and wrote that their doctrine was a “corrupt seed which that Enemy of God had sown.”[8] Some of the English Churchmen were eager to side with the contra-Remonstrants, but others, most notably James Ussher, Lancelot Andrewes, and John Overall argued for a middle course. Overall wrote three significant treatises on the Dutch controversy, and he proved especially influential on John Davenant. Peter White notes, “Davenant had gone to Dort armed with a four-page memorandum headed ‘Dr Overall. De Praedestinatione Divinea, De Morte Christi’.”[9] One of the most distinctive points in Overall’s treatise that reappears in Davenant’s writings at Dort is the combination of a universal and conditional atonement with a particular and efficacious atonement. According to this teaching, one could say that Christ died for all in one sense and that he did not die for all in another sense. This position, which was held in suspicion by the high Calvinists, is essentially the same as David Pareus’s additions to Ursinus’s Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.[10]
During the proceedings of Dort, certain significant differences among the divines became evident. Most famous perhaps is the dispute between Gomarus and Martinius,[11] but there were quite a few issues that proved controversial, including the place of the Apocrypha, the order of the decree of predestination, the foundation of election, the extent of the atonement, the universality of grace, the free offer of the gospel, and the temporary operations of the Spirit enjoyed by the Reprobate. By the end of the numerous debates and resolutions, Gomarus, who had been heading up the contra-remonstrant cause, would actually find himself in the minority.
The diversity at Dort, of course, is true of both tendencies. The British and Bremen delegates represented the more moderate strands of Calvinism, but there were also several high Calvinists present that tended towards outright hyper-Calvinism. The delegates from Friesland and Gelderland argued against the free offer of the gospel.[12] At the close of the Synod, the delegates from England, Hesse, and Bremen all requested that certain contra-Remonstrant positions be condemned, particularly statements found in the writings of Piscator.[13] Earlier in the proceedings, Gomarus had greatly disturbed the British when he stated, “As He predestinated man to death, so He predestinated him to sin, the only way to death.” Of this John Hales remarked, “And so he mended the question as tinkers mend kettles, and made it worse than before.”[14]
The British delegates at Dort are often portrayed as softer Calvinists. This description needs to be questioned for several reasons. The first is that the Remonstrants were originally invited to Dort. With their presence, the British and Bremen delegates are actually in the middle of the spectrum, with the Gomarists at the other extreme. When we compare the positions of the University of Heidelberg in the previous generation, as well as the broader English theological landscape, the British delegates at Dort can be seen to be well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy. They were committed to absolute predestination, and could call upon citations from Calvin, Zanchius, Pareus, and their own James Ussher for support for their views on the atonement. There was even some division among the British delegates on these issues. Carleton, Balcanquall, and Goad were known for teaching a more restricted doctrine of the atonement, while Davenant and Ward were known for teaching a broader doctrine.[15] Initially Carleton and Balcanquall both sympathized with Gomarus, asking Martinius to modify his position, however through the persuasive arguments of Davenant, as well as the intemperate behavior of Gomarus, the British eventually agreed among themselves to support Martinius’s position affirming that election is founded in the person of Christ.[16] The official British position on the canons of Dort can be found in their Collegiat Suffrage,[17] and while it is true that Davenant and Ward were successful in obtaining a majority of their views, Anthony Milton notes, “Some of the points initially desired by Ward and Davenant were excluded from the final Suffrage.”[18]
In considering the place of the British and their views, we should also note the impression that they were able to make upon the final version of the Canons of Dort. The Canons are infralapsarian. In fact, the opposition to supralapsarianism was so strong that at one point, Bishop Carleton requested that supralapsarianism be included among the rejected errors. To avoid this decision, Gomarus appealed to the authority of English theologians like William Perkins and upon their reputation was able to avoid condemnation.[19] The canons of Dort also emphasize the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice and the free offer of the gospel. The British were unsuccessful in persuading Dort to ground the gospel offer in the worth of the atonement, however, and thus this point has to be understood as a bit of a compromise. Certain high Calvinists opposed the free offer, and others defended it solely as a Christian duty, not having a necessary implication on the particulars regarding the extent of the atonement.[20]
One of the most striking achievements of the British at Dort is seen in what they were able to keep from being listed among the rejected errors. Initially a proposal had been made to reject as an error the teaching that the reprobate could attain a state of temporary justification. The British protested and were, amazingly, successful in keeping this position from being considered heretical. Their reasons for doing so are worth quoting in full:
We ourselves think that this doctrine is contrary to Holy Scriptures, but whether it is expedient to condemn it in these our canons needs great deliberation. On the contrary, it would appear
1. That Augustine, Prosper and the other Fathers who propounded the doctrine of absolute predestination and who opposed the Pelagians, seem to have conceded that certain of those who are not predestinated can attain the state of regeneration and justification. Indeed, they use this very argument as an illustration of the deep mystery of predestination; which cannot be unknown to those who have even a modest acquaintance with their writings.
2. That we ought not without grave cause to give offence to the Lutheran churches, who in this matter, it is clear, think differently.
3. That (which is of greater significance) in the Reformed churches themselves, many learned and saintly men who are at one with us in defending absolute predestination, nevertheless think that certain of those who are truly regenerated and justified, are able to fall from that state and to perish and that this happens eventually to all those, whom God has not ordained in the decree of election infallibly to eternal life. Finally we cannot deny that there are some places in Scripture which apparently support this opinion, and which have persuaded learned and pious men, not without great probability.[21]
The British were concerned about the interest of the Lutheran churches because James I had explicitly instructed them not to give undue offense towards them. James still hoped for a future union between all Reformation churches. The British delegates even asked that the Lutherans not be excluded from the title “Reformed,” since, they argued, the Lutherans began the Reformation.[22]
This information is fascinating for a number of reasons. It shows the breadth of the Reformed tradition, at least according to the British, as well as their understanding of the function of the Canons of Dort. Obviously if the success of removing a rejection held value, then it was understood that positions which were neither promoted nor condemned were allowable to be held by Reformed ministers. The interest in the Lutheran churches also shows that the British did not desire to use their confessions to mark off the limits of the Christian Church. They instead only wanted to condemn clear error and the precise points under dispute at the time.
Another angle at understanding where the British delegates at Dort fall within the larger Reformed spectrum is by noting the appearance of views similar to theirs in subsequent years. Many of the English Puritans promoted a broad view of the atonement, among them being Ussher, Baxter, Seaman, Arrowsmith, Preston, Marshall, Howe, Scudder, and Polhill. Curt Daniel has stated that one third of the delegates at the Westminster Assembly could be classified among the moderate position.[23] Perhaps most interesting of all, however, is the fact that such moderate views nearly obtained the status of the majority view among 19th century American theologians, the most well-known being, as mentioned before, R. L. Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd. With the larger lens of history, the British delegates at Dort, as well as the Bremenese, are well within the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy.
One other point that should be noted is that the Canons of Dort never held confessional status over the English churches. The British delegates were sent by King James I, not by the Church of England, and thus served as private citizens. They gave their approval to the content of the Canons of Dort, however, their opinions, as found in the Collegiat Suffrage, include many more qualifications, creating a manuscript that is much larger than the Dutch Canons. The British were also asked to grant their approval to the Three Forms of Unity, which they did with certain significant reservations. The British clearly disagreed with the Dutch over polity, as well as the interpretation of Christ’s descent into hell in the Apostles’ Creed. The British also held to a stronger view of baptismal grace than the typical Dutch thinker, and they expressly noted their concern not to require certain formulations of the imputation of Christ’s active righteousness among subscriptional standards.[24] After returning to England, Samuel Ward stringently defended the decisions of Dort, all the while maintaining that the Church of England’s confessional documents had not been departed from and that they remained the rule of England’s faith.
This historical inquiry ought to instruct us now, living in the 21st century, about how to understand the theology of the Synod of Dort and its place in the larger Reformed tradition. I do not at all intent my thoughts as criticisms of Dort. On the contrary, as I study the historical complexity surrounding Dort, I grow in my appreciation of its balance and moderation. Contrary to many a foe, Dort does not represent a cold and excessive Calvinism. One will not find any one particular formulation of limited atonement at Dort. It is deliberately open, only rejecting the Arminian viewpoint. And of course, we will all have to finally admit that the acronym TULIP doesn’t even work in Dutch! The order of Dort does not begin with depravity and move into election and then on to the atonement. Dort’s order is: divine election from the fallen mass of humanity, Christ’s death, effectual calling, and perseverance. One will notice that the third and fourth head of doctrine are combined, leaving four main points. Without trying to insinuate any particular amount of agreement or disagreement, we still should familiarize ourselves with the fact that the Canons of Dort are not the same as the popular TULIP.
Dort is also one specific piece within the larger Reformed tradition. It does not itself dictate the fullest bounds of that tradition. As we have seen, it is often that case that Dort says less, rather than more, leaving many positions open for further dialogue. With this diversity in mind, we must also be careful not to plot certain trajectories and logical implications of the Canons of Dort. It may very well be the case that no single delegate present would have himself articulated the specific theses as they are in the final form. Instead, they worked together to produce a document that each could approve of, with varying amounts of personal qualifications.
In order to grow into mature Reformed thinkers, it ought to be one of our top priorities to become acquainted with this historical information. I have found myself quite surprised at what lies smack in the middle of my own tradition. Famous names, of which I’ve never heard, often sit on library shelves nearby. Entire schools of thought can be forgotten within a few generations, and the majority position of one century can become the minority position of the next. Learning to form our identities in light of the complexities of history is essential for maintaining the stabilities of our religious communities, and an eye towards the future is equally as essential for their well being. The easiest way to begin this process, if I may quote Reading Rainbow, is to take a look; it’s in a book!
[1] Dabney, The Five Points of Calvinism (Harrisonburg: Sprinkle), 1.
[2] for instance Dabney, Lectures on Systematic Theology, pg. 521, Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. 2, pg. 557-558, and Shedd, Dogmatic Theology supplement 6.2.7, pg. 758.
[3] The terms “high Calvinism” and “moderate Calvinism” are too broad and most certainly less than desirable. No one in the 16th and 17th century applied these terms to themselves, and objections can leveled as to the fairness of the descriptions. Nevertheless, these terms have become the most widely used to describe the two tendencies among absolute predestinarians. While often including many more theological issues, especially the free offer of the gospel, the divide is fundamentally over the way in which the atonement is limited. “High Calvinists” place the limit in the content of the punishment born by Christ at the cross insisting on only the special will of God toward the elect, whereas the “moderate Calvinists” allow for a general will of God toward all men, as well as the special will toward the elect, and typically place the limitation on God’s effectual calling and application of the cross-work of Christ.
[4] Anthony Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (Church of England Record Society: Boydell Press), pg. 92
[5] G. Michael Thomas, The Extend of the Atonement (Carlisle: Paternoster), pg. 136; John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians Vol. II (London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co.), pg. 356.
[6] Michael Hakkenberg, The Predestinarian Controversy in the Netherlands, 1600-1620 (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1989), pg. 37.
[7] Morris Fuller, The Life, Letters, and Writings of John Davenant (London: Methuen and Co.) pg. 66-72
[8] Peter White, Predestination, Policy and Polemic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pg. 159
[9] ibid pg. 191
[10] see Sixteenth Lord’s Day, Question 40, Part III. Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism trans. G. W. WIlliard (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed), pg. 221-225. Cf. Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, pg. 355.
[11]see Robert Letham, The Work of Christ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press), pg. 55; Hans Boersma, Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic), pg. 69; White, Predestination, Policy, and Polemic, pg. 187.
[12]Thomas, pg. 149.
[13] Milton, pg. 324-325
[14] Fuller, pg. 83
[15] Fuller, pg. 85; Milton 200-202
[16] Fuller, pg. 85-89; Milton, pg. 195; White, pg. 187-188
[17] The full text can be found in Milton, pg. 226- 293
[18] Milton, pg. 201
[19] White, pg. 185
[20] ibid, pg. pg. 192
[21] quoted in White, pg. 198.
[22] Milton, pg. 327.
[23] Curt Daniel, http://www.gracemessenger.org/files/Daniel_Curt_History_and_Theology_of_Calvinism.pdf, pg. 75.
[24] see Balanquall’s notes on Session 148 of Dort and the British comments on Belgic Confession Article 23 found in Milton, pg. 328-329; 338.
Biblical Horizons 
Excellent article, Steven! Thanks for the work you’ve put into this!
One project stemming from this post, would be to study the transition among conservative Presbyterian thinkers, preachers, and writers from 1850 to 1950. How did we arrive at the “TULIP consensus” and come to believe it was the only Calvinism?
Mark,
I think the answer is something similar to your own study of the problem of original sin in 19th and early 20th cent. American Presbyterianism.
Warfield and then Murray were really influential, and the authority of someone like Dabney noticeably waned.
Banner of Truth would be another thought. They were quite selective in their promotion of “Puritanism.” They reprinted Davenant’s commentary on Colossians, but omitted his Dissertation on the Death of Christ which was originally contained within it.
The neo-Orthodox have also hurt the discussion by overshooting on the whole “discontinuity” thesis.
It is also worth your time to consider in detail how the Mercersburg men, the German Reformed Church, and those among the Reformed who carried similar sympathies with Lutheran communions (because of the close knit geographical world of German speaking lands) felt about the Synod once it was over. Reviewing the primary source material on this is something you don’t find in R.C. Sproul’s book, Chosen by God or other bumper sticker like works which present the theology of the ‘Five Points’ without any contextual detail as to the Synod’s history. In short, not everyone was in consensus with the result of Dort and the Five Points nor was the representation at Dort the sort of universal Reformed synod its rabid theological supporters would like to make us think was the case.
Karl Barth has some very wise words about Dort in his commentary on Romans (look in, I believe, the material on chapter 11) and makes it clear that what the framers of Dort were after was more about God’s freedom than it ever was about some sort of subjective navel-gazing look at assurance and who really was elect (as later Westminster devotees would mistake it for).
I did a podcast about Dort a year or two ago that talked about some of this and how the Reformation has been cast to us in pop theology/history circles. The best cure for this is to actually read the source documentation as Steven has obviously done.
We should be speaking of Reformed traditionS when we speak of our history because it’s a lot more complex than most with an agenda otherwise would like to admit.
are very few moderate Calvinists today
No – on the contrary, the whole Anglican Diocese of Sydney is characterised by Moderate Calvinism. Some would call it Amyraldianism, of course, but it seems to be to be fairly close to Dabney.
Mark,
Think “Reformed Baptist.” When soteriology becomes hyperindividualized, then TULIP becomes everything. And a lot of my generation became Calvinists through Reformed Baptist / Banner of Truth / Jay Green’s publishing / etc.
If you’re asking about the Ell in TULIP, I suspect here again a long influence from Calvinistic Baptists, many of whom were hyper, is part of the background.
For what it’s worth.
So glad you have Milton – I kept that book out of the library forever last year – it was fascinating to read the various letters and essays of the British Delegation. You wouldn’t believe how derisively the mainstream Anglicans spoke of Dort by the mid 18th century, though. They were running away from Calvinism and downplayed the centrality of the delegates to the C of E… It came to a head in the 1760s when students were actually kicked out of Oxford, in part, for simply being Calvinists…
Bravo, Steven. You’ve set out the issues and context of Dort very well.
On the “TULIP” question, the earliest reference I’ve ever been able to find to it is in Loraine Boettner. The 1932 version of The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, which included the TULIP acronym, was a revision of his 1929 ThM thesis at Princeton Seminary. I contacted the reference librarian at PTSem to see if they’ve got the thesis in their archives and, unfortunately, they don’t.
Possibly the acronym originates in the ThM thesis, which would date it back to 1929 and thus to the Princeton context. If it only first appeared in the 1932 edition of the book, then Boettner took up the acronym between 1929 and 1932, post-seminary and thus in the context of his teaching at Pikeville College in Kentucky.
Steven,
Do you have this article in pdf form?
Thanks…James
pdf995 will print anything in pdf form and there is a plugin you can get with WP that will allow pdf’s of all the posts to be created automatically as you write them.
John Dekker,
Good to hear about Sydney. I was thinking of North America, because as an American I’m still not globally minded. I still think the moderate position will strike most Calvinists as controversial.
James Grant,
I can put something together in pdf if you’d like. I could also take out the personal autobiographical stuff if you want a more standard “paper.”
Ok, not TULIP but EDCP (Election, Death, Calling, Perseverence). Is there a flower that can be derived from EDCP??
Good stuff Steven. I shared the link to this article with the guys over on the C&C list. I’m sure they will enjoy. Tell David next time you see him to save some beer for the rest of us…;)
Blessings,
Terry
A great thinker once opined: Things are not always as they seem; nor are they otherwise.
A truly excellent article Steven. I will be passing this on to others. I am excited to see a corrective wave of restoring a more moderate view in our generation. Bruce Ware and others (like the guys at C&C) are working hard to restore the legitimacy of of it. Davenant’s dissertation truly ought to be read by many many more. I find him cogent, consistent, historical and Biblical. As one who was definitely of the “High” Calvinist caste, this move, and resources like what you’ve provided here are a breath of fresh air.
In response to the question of how a particular aspect of doctrine ( in this case TULIP) becomes dominant, I would refer you to the excellent “Gump” lectures given by Mickey Schneider at an early AAPC Pastors Conference on the recent history of Presbyterianism in the South.
Also note David Coffin’s insightful comment made probably 15 years ago that peculiar revival of selective doctrines is a matter of the first to publish an old treatise. Several influential people get excited about it, and there is little allowance for even the alternative opinions at the time of the original publication, much less new thought. It quickly becomes the established orthodoxy, merely because of being the first to bring forth its case. Boettner and Banner of Truth are cases in point.
[…] Walk in Wisdom, Walking in Wisdom – Gleanings from the Scriptures, redemption, soteriology) “The Synod of Dordt and The Complexities of being Reformed” is an excellent article written by Steven Wedgeworth at the Biblical Horizons […]
This is an extremely well written and helpful article.
I’m coming to just expect that whenever I see the name Steven W. attatched to a post.
[…] contributor Steven Wedgeworth has posted an excellent article at the Biblical Horizons blog on The Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed which in my opinion is definitely worth a read by both Calvinists and non-Calvinists […]
This is article is first rate, and sorely needed. All too often, in my view, Reformed folks verbally (and ecclesiastically) persecute other Reformed folks as if all the really important enemies were found on our own membership rolls. On this point, I have no interest in naming names — nor do I need to do so. We all can suppy for ourselves the names of those who think they are God’s anointed theology censors.
But something in our theology, or our tradition, or our ethos, leads us to think that we ought to be heresy hunters, and that the hunting ought to occur primarily in our own backyard. We are far too well known for intra-camp fighting. We are too often the living proof that Coleridge was right: We have more to fear from those who agree with us 90% than we do from those who don’t agree with us at all.
To paraphrase John Milton, we ought to remember that they also serve who only stand and — listen.
Just to echo what Jim Jordan said. the biggest influences in the growth of the Reformed Faith in the South from 1970- 1977 would be: RTS-Jackson (Morton Smith), Banner of Truth Trust,
the book, The Five Points of Calvinism by Steele and Thomas, Reformed Baptist preachers ( Al Martin and Geoff Thomas), the seeds of what now is RUF at Southern Mississippi, Ole Miss and Miss. State and Reformed Youth Movement.
What turned alot of Campus Crusade guys to the Reformed Faith were two books published by BTT: The Sovereignty of god by Pink and Today’s Gospel by Walter Chantry.
David,
How much influence do you think the Mt. Olive Tape Library had?My dad listened to tapes from there while he travelled all over MS for work. When was RYM formed? I went in the late 80’s, but don’t remember it’s history. I think you’re largely correct about those influences back then.
Jonathan-Out of site, out of mind. The Mount Olive Tape Library had a tremendous influence. Mr. Calhoun would come a tape stuff at RTS and other places. It is how most people in the South first heard about Nigel Lee, Rush, Al Martin etc.
RYM was started around 1974 or 75
To all: my keyboard is sticking that is the reason God is not capitalized in #21.
I should have added the Pensacola Theological Institute. In the 50’s through the 70’s they had solid teaching and some big names in the Reformed world to teach and preach. It was also a gathering place to plot about forming a new church.
I’ve found at least one misunderstanding out there, so I thought I’d try to field it for the sake of any bystanders. When I said this:
“Amazingly, Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd all distance themselves from theologians like Francis Turretin on the relationship between the decree of God and the cross of Christ, and even go so far as to explicitly reject key exegesis that underlies the ‘limited atonement’ argument found in John Owen’s The Death of Death.”
I did not mean that the Americans rejected limited atonement, nor that they regarded Turretin or Owen as outside of the boundaries of the Reformed faith.
I meant that they disagreed with the specifics of the formulations. This evidences some significant disagreements over formulations of the ordo salutis as well as the relationship of various loci in their respective systematics.
It isn’t so easy as a simple “discontinuity” thesis. It is significant though.
[…] 31, 2008 by Steven W I posted an exploration of the Synod of Dort over at the BH blog. I focused on the points of controversy between the British and the Gomarists, noting what did and […]
[…] was perhaps the single most influential delegate at the Synod of Dort. Much of his influence was examined in my BH post on the subject, but it is still the case that he is a neglected figure. I had never heard of him until I began […]
[…] those of you who are interested in church history, there’s a great post here about the contribution of the British at the Synod of […]
Steven,
You wrote:
Are you saying that Dabney, Hodge, and Shedd denied limited atonement?
Steve,
I apologize for not reading through all the comments before posting mine (#28). You obviously answered my question in comment 24.
I must say, however, that after looking up the reference in Dabney (I’ll have to check Hodge and Shedd later), I don’t find this as amazing or significant as you do.
Ron,
I just gave a few pages for this paper. Dabney actually uses some dismissive language regarding “ultra-Calvinists,” calling certain common methods of exegesis “torturous.”
I found it amazing because I had never known there were other options withing the Reformed community.
Also,
It is worthwhile to read Dabney’s comments on the atonement in his little pamphlet on the Westminster Confession:
“Again, the Confession asserts with most positive precision the penal substitution of Christ, the imputation of our guilt to him, his punitive sufferings and sacrifice therefore, and the imputation of this satisfaction to all believers for their justification. It holds fast to the truth of particular redemption. Yet it carefully avoids implying any limitation upon the infinite value and merit of Christ’s sacrifice. It carefully avoids confusing the two concepts of legal satisfaction for guilt with the consequent at-one-ment, or reconciliation, for the believing sinner. And it gives no countenance to the quid-pro-quo theory of expiation, which affects, with a mischievous over-refinement, to affix a commercial ratio between the sins of the elect and the one indivisible and infinite merit of the divine sacrifice.”
His differentiation of legal satisfaction for guilt and consequent atonement is not one that I had heard allowed before in Calvinist circles, and indeed, it very closely parallels some of Ward’s suggestions at Dort. His rejection of the commercial ratio between the sins of the elect an the “infinite merit” of the sacrifice seems to be aimed squarely at Owen’s argument in Death of Death.
Steve,
You wrote:
Who were these “ultra-Calvinists,” in Dabney’s opinion, in what sense was his language dismissive, and which particular exegetical methods did he refer to as “torturous?”
I’m pretty sure he’s thinking of the supralapsarians, as well as some infras. In lecture 43 of his Systematics, Dabney goes through the various views, and when he gets to the “strict Calvinists” he names Symington and Turrettin. This is on page 521 of the Zondervan edition.
He says that making John 3:16 mean “the elect” leads us to “the absurdity that some of the elect may not believe and perish” (525).
On pg 528 he rejects the commercial metaphors, even saying that “When men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation, the phrases, ‘limited atonement,’ ‘particular atonement,’ have no meaning. Redemption is limited, i.e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited.”
He’s definitely rejecting the double jeopardy argument, which was one of the ones that brought me into Calvinism.
On pg. 232 in discussing the order of the decrees, Dabney includes within Calvinism, “three different schemes… that of the Supralapsarian, of the Sublapsarian, and of the Hypothetic Universalist.” He says that both supra and sub are erroneous, stating that they “are illogical and contradictory to the true state of facts” (233). He also disagrees with the Hypothetical Universalists, but there is some question in my mine as to whether or not his critiques actually apply in the way he thinks they do. The Brits at Dort seem to make all the allowances for a special intent toward the elect that Dabney does.
On pg. 242 Dabney says the use of “Jacob have I loved, Esua have I hated” cannot prove that reprobation is not grounded on sin, lest it also remove the truth of original sin.
In his essay on the Free Offer of the Gospel (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/dabney/mercy.htm), Dabney says that interpretting the “world” passages to mean “the elect” is “tortuous exegesis.”
So again, he’s not kicking them out of the Reformed tradition, nor condemning them, but he is saying that some of their arguments are unbiblical and absurd.
His distinguishing between limited reconciliation and unlimited expiation is what makes his position especially distinct from someone like Owen. Hodge and Shedd all share a very similar view to Dabney’s, and this grants credibility to my affirmation of men like Davenant and Ward in the 17th cent as being orthodox.
Much work still needs to be done on the historcal roots of Limited Atonement. Theodore Beza, for instance, is very regularly cast in the role as bete noir, cramping Calvin’s more supple Biblical theology into a scholastic, rationalistic harmonising framework. Quite apart from begging the question on the propriety of harmonising Scripture and the Reformation principle of ‘analogy of faith’, I for one should like to see far more of Beza’s works before coming to any conclusion. Sadly he is, for such a seminal Reformed figure, shockingly inaccesible in English translation.
As for imagining we can casually adopt a Four Point view without creating radical repercussions all down the line I would advise severe caution at the very least.
Dabney’s contempt for Quid pro quo and his ready acceptance of the ‘infinite worth’ position also need great care. In my opinion any view of the Atonement as it relates to the unbeliever is entirely speculative: what we DO know for sure is its efficacy for the elect! The same thing applies to the infra/supra distinction. Even ‘high calvinists’ such as Ron Hanko in the Protestant Reformed Church sees that as beyond our right to differentiate dogmatically.
I have major problems with Amyraldianism. Warfield supplies a devastating critique of its concept of the decrees; and on a more immediately Biblical exegesis level it seems to me to chop up the atonement into two parts- one that provides an ‘inert’ or temporary justification, reconciliation, propitiation, etc and then one that subsequently works on the basis of faith. None of this sits at all comfortably with the Biblical data.
Ironically Dr Alan Clifford in Great Britain, Amyraut’s current champion, castigates Owen for using ‘Aristotelian’ rationalism which is supposed to wreck his faithfulness to Scripture; yet it is Dr Clifford who also espouses Amyraldianism for its ‘dualism’, its comporting with ‘common grace’ and a ‘free offer’….so how come the sanctified use of a philosophical method( common amongst most of the Reformers!) is so objectionable?!
This whole issue is refreshingly opened up by Dr Carl Trueman in his books, The Claims of Truth and also Protestant Scholasticism.
Personally I remain a convinved Five Point Calvinist who believes in the universal call/offer which rests on the fact of Christ’s exclusive and universal soteric and kingly sway- Acts 4v12.
Ewan,
I don’t have sufficient time, nor expertise to get into all of the specifics of this discussion here, but I would like to say that I am not where Clifford is. I do not embrace the term Amyraldianism, neither did Dabney, nor Davenant.
What I have tried to explain in this post IS five point Calvinism.
Last I heard, Ken Stewart at Covenant College was going to publish a short book on the history of TULIP tracing the lines of the teaching and development back to the sources. I have an early manuscript he sent me, but I don’t feel free to share it without his permission. Do contact him, though, as I think his research would be helpful and that he’d be willing to share it.
Hi, Steven!
I wasn’t ‘getting at’ anyone in my comments and indeed it’s refreshing to see this vital issue so openly discussed and wrestled with.
I cannot recommend Dr Trueman’s book, ‘Claims of Truth’ heartily enough. If you can ge hold of it, grab it! It’s erudite without being in the least deliberatetly abstruse and helps put the whole issue in its widest context. My one remaining frustration as I say is the inaccessiblilty of the works of Theodore Beza. I keep praying some classicist who’s a Christian will feel the call to translate Beza’s works for us. My own Latin is sadly far too rusty to cope!
So far as the ‘free offer’ or ‘unrestricted call’ of the Gospel goes, I see it grounded in the fact that there is but one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Thus he can quite properly be designated ‘the Saviour of the world’ or ‘the Saviour of mankind’ without that in the least implying universalism or unlimited atonement.
I would submit that any study of Leviticus will reveal that there are limited and unlimited aspects of the atonement, to use our terminology. Jesus is the new hilasterion, the ark-cover, which symbolized the firmament. He is the new firmament between heaven and earth, and everyone living in this world right now is under His atoning covering. That’s universal, but it’s only universal in this world.
Ewan,
I don’t want to over step the boundaries of this blog, but I would like to invite you to join us at Calvin and Calvinism yahoo group. It is a list that is established specifically to work though these issues. You can find the list by going to the following url.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/
Again, forgive me moderators if I am over stepping here. I’m not trying to advertise, just thought Ewan would find the information and interaction helpful at C&C.
Blessings,
Terry
Mr. Jordan,
I fully agree. The scriptures as a whole clearly show both a limited and unlimited aspects to the atonement. I think this is especially essential to a well informed, biblical and historic Christology.
Blessings,
Terry
The ‘true’ history of Dort? Is this an attempt at humor? Perhaps our budding young scholar could consult Abraham Kuyper’s recently translated into English analysis on the subject ‘Particular Grace: A Defense of God’s Sovereinty in Salvation’ ( Reformed Free Publishing Assoc. 2001). Since Kuyper wrote this well after he had graduated from seminary not to mention that he was Dutch, I am inclined to give him a very slight edge over SW.
Mr. Johnson: Better a budding young scholar than a bitter one. Your condescending attitude doesn’t do anything to advance your argument–which you seem to have forgotten to include in your post.
Nicely done Steven. Reminds me a bit of some of the recent work done on Puritan sacramentalism (Holifield, Westminster project) that show a robust variegated tradition that following generations have had a tendency to flatten out.
GLW Johnson wrote: “The ‘true’ history of Dort? Is this an attempt at humor?”
I think Steven said that he was getting charicatures or really simplified versions from secondary sources and this made him want to do research into primary sources.
I don’t think he claimed to be posting the “true” history of anything.
Is Kuyper’s book an in-depth study of the history of the people in the Synod of Dordt or the dynamics of their meeting? The title doesn’t sound like it.
#42
Not much of an argument.
Yeah, Steven, quit trying to confuse people with facts and arguments. Appeals to authority work much better.
I did use the word “true,” but I didn’t mean that I was the lone voice in the wilderness. Milton’s work ought to be a firm ground on which to stand. Robert Letham talks about some of this briefly in his book The Work of Christ. The stuff is available, though it hasn’t taken in hold in the popular mindset yet.
If nothing else, I hope that my post here (and the sources consulted) show that Dort was as much an English product as a Dutch one.
Kuyper, as I understand it, was supralapsarian and taught eternal justification. Supralapsarianism is outside of Dort’s positive teaching. The English wanted it condemned but had to settle for simply the positive affirmation of infralapsarianism in the Canons. Eternal Justification, of course, is clearly not compatible with Dort’s teaching.
But there’s no need to get hung up on Kuyper. I’m as appreciative of him as the rest of y’all post-recons, but I think it is safe to say that the Secession, Doleantie, and the Vrijgemaakt created a decent amount of dissonance among the Dutch tradition. The primary source material collected in Milton is more reliable.
SW
You ought to plan on attending the Bavinck celebration at Calvin seminary this Fall. My friend and co-editor Ron Gleason is one of the presenters. Ron did part of this doctoral work at the Free Univ. under Berkhouwer and also under Ridderbos at Kampen and then pastored in Holland for 10 years. Also get in touch with Jeff Waddington, a PhD cand. at WTS. Jeff won the Greene prize in apologetics for a paper on Kuyper. Jeff also did a chapter in the book that Gleason and I edited for Crossway that is due out in Sept. They both differ with your take on this ,as I do. Good grief, but your friends who rushed to your defense sound like third graders!
GLW: Where do you differ with SW here? What exactly is the problem?
Mr. Johnson,
I don’t spend much time on blogs, and have had enough of the scoffing, mocking, and other childish ridicule that populate them. As well as the open defense of criminal behavior I find on them. Biblical Horizons, like the Federal Vision, is a conversation for grown-ups. Ridiculing the writings of others may pass on other blogs but it does not here. Referring to one’s interlocutors as third-graders may work elsewhere, but not here. Snide insinuations like “budding young scholar” in contrast to “graduated from seminary” is not acceptable in an adult conversation. If you cannot behave as an adult and deal with real issues, you will not be welcome here.
Ok. So Steven cited Anthony Milton, Robert Letham, Peter White, Michael Hakkenberg, and a variety of original source materials. GLW Johnson cited Abraham Kuyper, Ron Gleason, and Jeff Waddington.
But I still have no clue even what the point at issue is here, about which these various sources are supposedly lining up on opposite sides.
Steven’s presentation looks to me like a nice summary of the fairly standard contemporary scholarship on Dort, especially in the UK. What exactly are specific problems in his summary? Listing those in a clear way would seem to be the first step in a fruitful discussion.
GLW: This “third-grader” wants to know what your different “take” on this is…well? We’re still waiting.
So sorry, I cannot answer any of your questions-Mr. James ‘I suddenly got Civility’ Jordon took except to the tone of my inquiry. Adios.
GLW:
Ah, yes. Just as as I thought.
Well that whole thing was awfully silly.
If there are actual objections to any part of my presentation, I’m happy to hear them.
That’s the problem, Steven. “Snide” seems to be the “argument.” Silly, indeed.
Well, Joel Garver’s question, I believe, points to part of the issue here. If one’s religion has come to be defined largely in terms of one’s understanding of the history of doctrine, any alternative to that understanding is seen as a threat. The whole controversy in the micro-Reformed/Presbyterian world over the last five years has been framed by the various investigative committees in terms of ecclesiastical confessions, not in terms of the Bible — and, more pointedly, modern and inaccurate readings of these confessions, not even the original meanings of them. When Steven points out that the Synod of Dordt and its canons do not square with these modern readings, he is threatening this modern religion.
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.
Steven W,
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.
Lee thanks for the clarification on the Germans in the US. I was thinking of the Americans, and my statement was based on 19th century readings.
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.
Good discussion.
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.
[…] those who follow the Federal Vision discussion, Peter Leithart (via Wedgeworth) posted a very intriguing historical perspective on the belief that reprobates can for a time be […]
I thought you might find this interesting.
In footnote #3, you wrote:
Here’s a moderate Calvinist in 1692 using the labels:
While one may still criticize these labels, they do have an historical basis in the late 17th century, at least, contrary to what some claim. I don’t even think Richard Muller knows about that Humfrey reference, yet :-)