Introduction to the Canons of Dordt (1)

Rev. M. Golverdingen, Waarde, the Netherlands

Clarification of the biblical doctrine

The history of the Confession of Faith (the Belgic Confession) also makes this clear. The author of this confession was Guido de Bres, an itinerant preacher who was faced with fierce persecution as one of the Calvinists in the southern part of the Netherlands by King Philip II. The Roman Catholic Church leveled all kinds of false accusations against the heretics to make their practice of persecution acceptable. De Bres wondered if the king were actually aware of the contents of the biblical doctrine as advocated by those who identified themselves with the Reformation. That is the reason why he wrote a confession of faith consisting of thirty-seven articles which was published in the form of a booklet.

In the early morning hours of November 2, 1561, soldiers opened the gate of the Citadel of Tournay and found a little package that had been thrown over the wall of the castle. In addition to a letter for the Governess Margaret, in which Guido de Bres protested against the persecutions, the package contained a copy of the confession, prefaced by an epistle to the king. From its inception, this document functioned as a confessional writing of the church. After a thorough revision and discussion, the Confession of Faith was accepted as an official creed of the church by the Synod of Dordt on May 24, 1619.

A confession as a book of instruction

The Heidelberg Catechism, too, owes its existence to a time of conflict. In the sixteenth century, the Electorate called the Paltz, a miniature state along the Rhine River, had become the scene of great strife between the Lutherans and the Calvinists. The God-fearing Elector Frederick III organized a religious dispute between delegates of both parties. It appeared that the Lutherans were not able to defend their doctrine in a convincing way. Subsequently, the Paltz acquired a Reformed character. The Elector was confronted with the question of how he could instill the basic truths of the biblical doctrine into young people and adults in the best way possible. All sorts of Roman Catholic and Lutheran views persisted among many citizens.

Two young theologians, Ursinus and Olevianus, were charged with designing a catechism book which could be used in churches and schools. They were expected to seek cooperation with others in this undertaking. The catechism had to be understandable for the common people and the upcoming generation. In 1563, the booklet was approved by the Heidelberg Synod, after which it set out on its influential journey throughout the world. One reprint followed upon the other. Its contents were examined once more at the Synod of Dordt in 1618-1619. The official acceptance of the catechism as a creed of the church became a fact on May 30, 1619.

Confessing as an answer to a serious conflict

The National Synod of Dordrecht also drafted a totally new creed, namely, the Canons of Dordt, sometimes called the Five Articles Against the Remonstrants. The official title is Judgment of the National Synod of the United Netherlands ...concerning the well-known Five Heads of Doctrine, about which a contention has arisen in the Reformed Churches. The word for “contention” in ancient Dutch is “difference.” However, it denotes more than just a difference of opinion; rather, it signifies a serious conflict. The Canons of Dordt, too, came into being as the consequence of a conflict which greatly stirred the entire Reformed community at the end of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century.

The preface

The core of this conflict is represented by the introduction which precedes this confessional writing: “Preface in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.”

It is unfortunate that this preface has been omitted in some editions of the Dutch Psalter and the Three Forms of Unity. The editions of the Gereformeerde Bijbel Stichting (the Dutch counterpart of the Trinitarian Bible Society) and of the Jongbloed Publishing House contain the text of this preface in a contemporary spelling. It sketches the origin of the conflict with a few strokes of the pen. After the deliverance from the tyranny of the Roman antichrist and the horrible idolatry of popery, a church began to flourish in the Netherlands, an event that greatly cheered the hearts of many in the entire Reformed world. This church was “assaulted by Jacobus Arminius and his followers by means of several old as well as new errors, first in a subtle and later in an open way. Persistently disturbed by offensive contentions and schisms, the church was brought into such great danger” that she would have been consumed by discord and disunity if our Savior had not intervened at the right time.

Upon the advice of “the most illustrious Prince of Orange,” God put in the heart of the States-General to convene a general Synod in the city of Dordrecht. An eventful and moving history hides behind these few sentences, a history which now requires our attention.

Disputations of Arminius and Gomarus

The beginning of the conflict can be traced to the city of Leiden. Jacob Harmenson or Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), who served as a minister in Amsterdam, had been appointed professor at the University of Leiden in 1603. On February 7, 1604, he led a disputation—an academic discussion—concerning God’s predestination and election. His view of God’s decree was as follows: The Lord has decided to receive in mercy all those who repent and believe, and to save them for Christ’s sake if they persevere therein. For that purpose, God uses means unto conversion. Those who do not repent and believe are left by God in sin and under His wrath and, consequently, will perish. That the Lord saves certain people and rejects others is something that depends upon His “prescience” or foreknowledge. From eternity He already knew those who would believe by His grace and those who would harden themselves.

A fellow professor of Arminius, Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641), held another disputation on October 31, 1604. He asked his students to defend his interpretation of God’s predestination. According to His good pleasure and out of undeserved love, God predestined “some particular” persons—we might say, some people who are personally known to God—unto eternal life, whereas He predestined others “unto everlasting death and contempt.”

It seemed to be a theoretical discussion, only meant to sharpen the theological insight of students. However, the issue at stake was the biblical view of man. Both Arminius and Gomarus confessed that faith was a gracious gift of God. Arminius made a connection between God’s eternal decree and man’s act of faith. Of his own accord, man is capable of rejecting the gift of faith and, consequently, salvation. Gomarus wanted to maintain that there is no one who can annul what God performs. When God graciously grants faith, He implicitly reveals his election unto him. In regard to His decree to bestow mercy, God is by no means dependent upon a human act, nor can His decree be made acceptable for the human understanding. Grace which man can dispose by an act of his own will is not grace at all.

This difference of the view of man gives rise to a great difference in preaching. How must those who attend church and find themselves under God’s Word be changed? Arminius believed that the minister should be allowed to call upon his audience to make the decisive choice for or against the offered salvation and to do so of their own accord. Gomarus believed that assurance of salvation disappears if God chooses man on the basis of faith, a faith that He has already observed in that person. Instead, the preacher must point the people to the work of God in Christ which remains firm and secure even when people deny it or refuse to accept it. This work of God cannot be resisted. That provides rich comfort to all those who in great dismay wonder whether they have truly received faith. The difference, therefore, in how one views God’s decree implies a fundamental difference in the view of man and leads to a fundamental difference in preaching and pastoral care.

Blocked consultation

Before long, it was rumored throughout the whole country that the professors at Leiden were in disagreement. An attempt to convene a National Synod in 1604 failed because the parties could not come to a consensus concerning the content of the agenda. This consensus was a condition which the States-General had laid down. The States of Holland and Utrecht demanded that such a Synod would revise the creeds. This concurred exactly with the desires of Arminius. However, Gomarus and his followers sought a verdict about the doctrinal contention on the basis of the doctrine as accepted in the existing creeds. When the rumors concerning the unorthodox views of Arminius increased, he requested the States of Holland and West Friesland to convene a gathering in which he would be able to exonerate himself from these accusations.

On May 30, 1608, the two professors, together with eight ministers, appeared before the Supreme Council at The Hague. This conference or consultation was a failure. During this session of the Supreme Council, Gomarus solemnly declared that he would not dare to appear before God’s judgment seat with the sentiment of Arminius. On October 19, 1609, Arminius passed away, but the controversy continued to exist.

(For a detailed study of the doctrines contained in the Canons of Dordt, we would encourage the reading of The Canons of Dordt Explained by Rev. C. Vogelaar, published by the Netherlands Reformed Congregation of Kalamazoo.) □

— To be continued —

Men’s sins are innumerable, yet they are but ciphers to the vast sums of grace that are every day expended because they are finite, but mercy is infinite.

— George Charnock

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen