Well, this is it, guys. The last part of our study on Reformed theology and Calvinism, part 15. Sad to say, unless people come up with new questions or anything, or beg for more history and stuff like that, I'd be happy to continue on. We are going to continue tonight. We're going to wrap things up with a little bit more history. I'm going to keep it shorter tonight. Well, shorter than last week, I should say, because I did not intend to go a full hour last week. I think, you know, after this, you will have had basically the equivalent of a one or two hour semester class on the introductions to reform theology, or at least the five points in Calvinism. So we can all give ourselves a pat on the back about that, I suppose. But I'm going to try to keep it a little bit shorter tonight. At least I did with my word count. But you know when history and theology kind of converge, it is hard to shut up about it. It's just super, super interesting. Let me recommend this book. Saving the Reformation, the Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort. If you don't know what that is, you will after tonight, if you're listening, I guess. Forward by Joel Beakey. This is W. Robert Godfrey. He was the seminary president when I was at Westminster. Awesome, awesome teacher. Everything he does is gold. And he's from the Dutch Reformed tradition, so he knows it well. This is very good. The bulk of, I guess, the history portion of this book can basically be found on his articles online and things like that. So if you want links to just read shorter articles, you don't want to read a whole book or, I mean, the history portion is the beginning of it, let me know. I've got links to a whole bunch of shorter stuff and things that are available for free online. But I recommend anything he does. Everything and anything is good. even if you're disagreeing with him. So last week we covered the life of Jacob Arminius, and that's all the lead up to what we're talking about today. So if you didn't hear last week, you might be a little in the dark. You definitely need to hear what we talked about and covered last week to have a fuller understanding of what we're talking about this week. Let me give you a brief review. We left off where he had basically become He was increasingly suspected of denying the teachings of the Dutch Reformed Church, in which he was a minister, and he was also later a theological professor at the University of Leiden. And people are suspecting him of some aberrant beliefs, for good reason, because he had aberrant beliefs. Finally, in 1608, things were beginning to come to a head. He was asked to explain his views. Because remember, he did a lot of writing on it, but he never published any of it. So he was very secretive in the way that he went about things. So he was asked to actually write them down and say what it is you believe. So he wrote the Declaration of Sentiments, and he presented it to an assembly at The Hague. This is all in the Netherlands, if you'll remember. In his declaration, he expressed his theology, finally, which Anyone could see if you read what he wrote, it was incompatible with the standards of the church that he was part of. It's incompatible with the Bible, we would argue, of course. William Ames, I don't remember if I said this last time, but he described Arminianism very well. He said, it's not properly a heresy. but it's a dangerous error tending to heresy. Basically, if you saw it through to its logical conclusion, if you were consistent with what Arminianism teaches, you'll end up in heresy. either full-blown semi-Pelagianism or full-blown Pelagianism, or at the very least, semi-Pelagianism, because it is inherently semi-Pelagian. So by 1608, Arminianism had been brought out of the shadows, we could say. It's into the light. People could see it for what it was. The divide was really going to get going. It was no more like the whispers and the rumors and things like that. People could see it for what it was. It was more out in the open. However, Arminius' health was deteriorating, and he died almost exactly a year after that declaration was suspended. So he died in 1609. He presented in, I think, October 1608, died in October 1609. And that could have been the end of the controversy. It could have been over and done, but his teaching either convinced some people. There was a few people that went along with it, either because he convinced them Or they had those beliefs and they were emboldened by him. They may have already agreed with his theology and they now felt liberated to express what was ultimately dissenting views within their own church, saying they disagree with their own standards. So there was this minority movement that began in the Dutch Reformed clergy. And they wrote the Remonstrance. We'll talk about that in a second. There's only 42 signers of the Remonstrance. There's only 42. That doesn't mean there's only 42 that believe Armenian theology. There's more than 42 Armenians, but there's only 42 that are willing to come out and be like, yeah, this is true. So that's what this movement became to be known as. The Armenians within the Dutch Reformed Church were called the Remonstrants. The verb, if you've heard the verb remonstrate, it just means, you know, make a forceful, disapproving protest. So a remonstrance is a forceful, disapproving protestation, right? And those that supported it were remonstrance. I'm emphasizing the end there a little bit. They're the remonstrance that were part of the remonstrance, trans, yeah. They sound almost identical, but they're spelled different. Anyway, same thing. They're the people versus the movement. You get it. Their views in the coming years came to be widely discussed in Europe. Doesn't mean they were being agreed with, but they're at least being discussed throughout Europe. We're going to see that they were not being agreed with throughout Europe. They're just being talked about. And so in 1610, about a year after the death of Arminius, they presented an appeal or a petition Not to the church, but to the civil government. Again, they're going to the civil magistrate for ecclesiastical protection. The Armenians go to the state for ecclesiastical protection. And they wrote the remonstrance. It's this petition. And it was long. It was in 1610. It was long. It had five points of theology that they wanted protected. They were like, this is where we disagree. with the church. They didn't necessarily say it that way. They were basically like, these are our views and they're consistent with the church. Well, they weren't, but they're saying, here's five points of theology we want you to protect. So they're saying to the state, hey state, protect us from this church that we're part of. That's what they're doing. And they have five points. Those are the five points of Arminianism. This is how the five points idea started. It was the five points of Arminianism. The remonstrants had five points in which they disagreed with orthodox Calvinism. Now, the Calvinists, the counter-remonstrants, responded to their five points in a document, the counter-remonstrants, with seven points. So they had seven points responding to the five points. But their refutation of the five points has come to be known as the five points of Calvinism, at least it Not because of what they wrote there with those seven points, but more because of what happens with the synod later, which we'll talk about. So it's the response to the five points of Arminianism that became the five points of Calvinism. So we need to understand this. Reform theology is much bigger. It's a much bigger tradition than just five points. Those are unique things to us, but that's just a tiny little picture of our entire tradition. On top of all the basic teachings of the faith, such as, you know, doctrine taught in the ancient creeds that we confess, right, all the basics about the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, all that stuff. Reformed theology includes confessionalism. Confessionalism is an entire body of doctrine. It includes covenant theology, regulative principle of worship, the law of gospel distinction, the moral law, positive law distinction, that stuff, very, very important, and, of course, the five points of Calvinism. But that's just a little piece. But those five points are just the affirmation of the soteriological system, the doctrine of salvation. Soteriology is the doctrine of salvation. So those five points are just the affirmation of the soteriological system, not even the whole thing, but the part that was denied by the remonstrants, the ones that came after it and said, this is wrong, we're saying, no, these are right. And here's five points saying that they're right and explaining why. So the five points are not a complete picture of our doctrine of salvation. Please do understand that. It's just the part that had to be defended against the false teaching of Arminianism. As Godfrey rightly says, he says, Calvinism does not have and never has had five points. Rather, it has five answers to the five errors of Arminianism. That's the whole five points idea. Reform theology is not mere Calvinism. It's not just five points. It's the entire system of theology found in our confessional standards. So what are these five Arminianaires? What are the five points that the remonstrants wrote out saying, here's what we believe? What are the five articles? So article one that they said, God decreed before the foundation of the world to save in Christ those who believe and persevere in obedience through grace. He has also decreed to leave the unconverted in their sin. Okay, then that sounds very orthodox, right? Sounds fine. Those opposing orthodoxy, they do this, and the Armenians, they very deliberately did this, especially at the beginning. They tried to sound as similar in belief as possible. They tried to sound as orthodox as possible. They don't just come out and say, here's where we're different. They're kind of like, oh, we're just like you, but just with a little tweak. It's like, your little tweak undermines the entire system. Anyway, but they made election about a class of people. If you read how they wrote about it, it's about a class of people, or a people that meet a certain condition. Not individuals, it's not individual predestination or election. So they tried to make it sound as similar as possible, but what they're ultimately saying is, God didn't choose people, persons, per se. He chose the qualifications for salvation that individuals must then meet. So it's sort of like God sent a bus, and he said, this bus is going to heaven. Whoever gets on the bus will get to heaven. But he's not choosing who goes on the bus. It's sort of like the corporate idea. The synod recognized the inescapable fact that this Armenian teaching would mean that the elect were more worthy than those that are not elect. And they're like, look, you're just saying that the best people got chosen. Ultimately, there's some evangelical worthiness to the elect, because they did their part. And to that idea, they simply said, such teaching is repugnant to the whole of scripture. They hate that idea, that the elect are better. So that's the first article. Article two, they said, Christ died for every man and earned for all of them reconciliation and forgiveness of sins. Okay, universal atonement, right? Sounds universalistic. But then they say, except he died in such a way that no one shares in this forgiveness unless they believe. So it's like, okay, how does that work? Obviously, this doesn't make sense. And obviously, like we've pointed out, they are limiting Christ's atonement. They're saying he did it for every single man, but it's not powerful enough to save unless we do something. And they never explain this. They just kind of leave it vague. You know, they just say he died for all, but not in a way that all are forgiven. Okay? Doesn't make sense. For the Ramonstrants, somehow our personal belief triggers the effectiveness of the atonement. How does that work? There's no idea like that in scripture, but unbelief makes it like it didn't even happen. So it's not something he does in and of himself. So in other words, Christ alone atones, but Christ alone does not save. It's kind of a way to say it. They'll say Christ atoned for all, but he doesn't atone for all in a way that saves all. So Christ alone does not save. His atonement was not objective. He is a potential savior, but not a complete savior. And again, the synod responds to that like, nope, Christ is a complete savior. That's false. So unbelief limits the atonement somehow. They believe in a limited atonement. They don't want to call it that, but they limit the atonement. Even though, if unbelief is a sin, right? This is what Owen pointed out to him years later. Unbelief limits the atonement somehow, but if unbelief is a sin, then it must have been died for and forgiven by Christ. And if unbelief is not a sin, then no one should be condemned for it. So they got themselves in a little predicament there. Like we have said, the inherent logic of the Armenian teaching on the atonement necessarily leads to universalism. Or just outright, we work with Christ. He saves when we do our portion. Little side note here, limited atonement, and they pointed this out, limited atonement is not unique to the Reformed. And we see it in medieval theologians as well. You might not think of medieval theologians believing in limited atonement, but they did. So if you've ever heard of Peter Lombard, he had something called The Sentences. It's one of the most significant medieval theological works, not super important. But he declares in there that Christ's death was sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect alone. And that verbiage has hung on for many, many years. Even we are comfortable saying that, yeah, it's sufficient. You don't need to add to Christ in order to save more. You wouldn't have to add to his atoning work, but efficient for the elect alone. It only had a goal of saving the elect. And that's from a medieval theologian, not some wild Calvinist out in the Netherlands somewhere. That's medieval Peter Lombard. So just so you know, limited atonement was not just some Calvinistic thing. They're saying, no, this is a teaching of the church, and it makes sense. Article three from the Arminians, They said this, man does not have saving faith from himself or from his free will. He cannot from himself think, will, or do any good, even faith. He must be born again by the Holy Spirit to be renewed in understanding, affection, and will. Okay, right, great, sounds orthodox. Again, way to go, remonstrants. Grace is absolutely necessary. They got that part right. They are not Pelagian. Sounds like total depravity. However, This point by itself, while it sounds fine, is not left alone. The grace that they insist is needed in Article 3 is effectively castrated in Article 4. They effectively contradict Article 3 with Article 4. Now the Canons of Dort that responded to this in the Senate, they put out the Canons, we'll get to that in just a bit, they treated these two points together because they are effectively one point. They divided them in their points, but it's basically one point. So Article 4, they go on to say, man needs grace for everything good that he does, but grace is irresistible, therefore it's not effectual. Okay. He needs grace to do everything good that he does, except for the good of choosing grace, apparently. Therefore it's not that man is totally depraved. Therefore man is not totally depraved according to the Arminians and can choose to take up grace or he can choose to reject it, either one. So that's what they're saying. So it's back to not making any kind of sense, right? Apparently we need grace for all the good that we do except for accepting God's grace, which is the thing that determines absolutely everything else, right? It's like telling a judge, you know, Yes, this guy got shot. I didn't have anything to do with that murder when that guy got shot because all I did was pull the trigger. That's it. Don't blame me for the guy getting shot. I just pulled the trigger, right? I didn't make that gun. I didn't light the gunpowder. It was the bullet that caused the wound, not me. It was the wound that caused his death. Don't blame me. I'm just there pulling triggers. Big deal. That's how the Armenians talk about grace. Like, look, we don't do any of it. It's all of grace to be saved. All we do is the very thing that decides whether or not we're saved. Okay, so yeah, the trigger. You pull the trigger. The trigger's not somehow categorically distinct, right? And it doesn't work for the Arminians. They're trying to sound Augustinian about humanity, but in reality, they're arguing for semi-Pelagianism. This is the very argument that Erasmus made to Luther that prompted him to write The Bondage of the Will. When the Reformation started, there's, you know, it's Luther versus Roman Catholicism, and Erasmus was defending the Roman Catholic faith, and he goes to free will. And Luther recognized that, and he responded with that famous book, The Bondage of the Will. So Erasmus argued that fallen man remains determinative as to whether or not grace is effective, which is what the Arminians are saying. That is the issue of free will. And Luther, let me read you a quote from Luther in The Bondage of the Will, because he addresses Erasmus and he's like, thank you. Thank you for putting your finger on the thing that matters. He said, Moreover, I give you hearty praise and condemnation on this further account, that you alone, in contrast with all the others, have attacked the real thing. That is the essential issue. He's talking about free will. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the papacy and purgatory and indulgences and and other such trifles rather than issues in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood, though without success." He's saying, you know, other people are talking about the papacy and the mass and purgatory and they're trying to kill me over it, and he's like, those are trifles compared to the real issue. He says to him, you, Erasmus, and you alone have seen the hinge on which all turns and aim for the vital spot. And for that, I heartily thank you. So he's thanking Erasmus for putting his finger on the real issue. That is free will. The Arminian teaching that sinners must use their natural abilities to dispose themselves to election is judged by the canons that came out of the synod. And they said, these things savor Pelagius. You're just saying use your natural abilities. That's Pelagian. In another section, the synod rejects the teaching that humans must use their free will to respond and to receive mercy offered to all as, again, the pernicious poison of Pelagianism. So they're going at him for saying you have natural abilities somehow and grace isn't needed to use those natural abilities to do the greatest thing that is needed, which is come to faith. Not the faith itself, like get the faith, but the decision that gets you to the faith. They make it convoluted. Remember what we keep saying, the issue of the Reformation was not the necessity of grace, it was the sufficiency of grace. Is grace enough or do we have to add to grace? Arminianism was rejected for many things, one of which was saying that grace only works to convert by way of moral persuasion. So grace is ineffectual unless we do something to make it effectual. And they rejected it for that. All right, the last article, I think I might've mentioned this before, the last article of the remonstrance was, we don't know if believers can lose their salvation or not. We don't know. And nobody really took him seriously on this. I think everybody's like, I think you know and you're just not saying. I think they were viewed as pretty disingenuous here because they knew what a serious thing it would be to be like, yeah, you can lose it. It's a clear sign of their inconsistency, clear sign of their confusion. This is why their other points don't make sense, right? No four-point Armenian makes any sense. It doesn't make sense. It's all or nothing. We pointed this out when we covered preservation of the saints. They affirm grace can be rejected. It's not effectual. It can be rejected and have no effect on the beginning of salvation. but they don't know if it can be rejected later. Like you can take up grace by your choice and then you can do all these things to you and then later, we're not sure if you can reject it later or not. So you get your free will at the beginning, but we're not sure if you get it later. If grace overcomes and you don't have free will anymore is basically what it amounts to. And this certainly made them a little harder to take seriously and probably a little harder for anyone to trust them. it would very much be in line with their modus operandi to conceal beliefs. This is what they did. They concealed beliefs that they knew that would be offensive or potentially would get them in trouble, make them face church discipline. They would conceal those or mask them in a lot of ways. And history proved that skepticism to be justified because in the decade after the remonstrance, some of them became way more radical. They drifted dangerously close to Pelagianism, if not even full-blown Pelagianism. So, history proved the concern right. In the years leading up to the synod, so that's a big deal. There's a debate right around, it starts or really gets going after Arminius dies, the Romances writes it, now there's a big debate and the Calvinists are saying like, we need a synod to take care of this problem. this divide amongst us. And the Armenians are like, yeah, we need a synod. Yeah, that's right, we do. And only the state can call the synod. And the state's like, yeah, yeah, we need a synod to fix it. We're not going to call a synod, though. Like, why not? Because they're protecting the Armenians. So that's what's going on. We have basically almost eight years of this, almost eight to 10 years where it's like, hey, we need a synod. And they're like, yeah, we need a synod, but let's not have a synod, because then we'll get in trouble. So that's what's going on. So in the years leading up to the synod that did eventually happen, newsflash, the Armenians have been stirring up strife amongst the people. They've been making them question Calvinism, using all kinds of strongmen argumentation. This is very much exactly what still happens today. Arguments about what Calvinists really teach and make them sound terrible, use all these emotional arguments. For instance, let me read you one of their claims and see if it sounds familiar to you. Many infants of the faithful are ripped innocent from the breast of their mothers and tyrannically thrown into hell so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism help them. That's what the Armenians said about Calvinism. Yeah, they still say this. They still make this claim about us today. They still just lie. Straumann attacks. So you can see the absurdity of their false claims loaded with appeals to emotion and that's how it started. From the very beginning this was happening. So essentially the die was cast at this point. Like there's a divide here that has to be dealt with eventually. The remonstrants knew that they were liable to church discipline in the Dutch church. And so they adamantly were trying to prevent that national synod and examination of their views. They don't want this synod to happen. The formal remonstrants, the document that they had signed, sought protection within the church for their views from the civil government. And they got that protection for almost a decade. And even though the Remonstrants had been successful in obtaining protection from the civil government, even though that worked for a while, the divide that they had created was growing. It was getting more and more serious. And honestly, it eventually almost threatened civil war. And this makes sense because, or at least theologically, the divide makes sense. Because the theology that they advocated was incompatible not only with itself, with what they said they believed, three and four contradict themselves. One says they affirm things and then they undermine the very beliefs. So it's contradictory within itself, but it contradicts the confessional standards of their own church and obviously from the Bible. Although obviously they don't believe that, but we can see that. And the divide was not just within the church, it extended into the government. into the civil magistrate and we're not going to get into all those details as interesting as they are, we're not going to get into them, but there was a threat of civil war over this and eventually there's a change in the civil government and that got the ball rolling towards a new Senate, an actual Senate happening. There hadn't been one for at least 30 years. So this civil government was protecting the Armenians, preventing a Senate. That's how they're protecting them, preventing the examination. Once that civil government changed, then it's like, all right, now we can get a Senate going. Sort of removed the magistrates that were protecting the Armenians from church discipline. The Armenians had been supporting the Erastian church polity, if you remember that from last time. That's more state control of the church, right? Erastianism. The state controls the church, and that's how the Armenians protected themselves. A faulty church polity, using the state to control the church to protect their faulty theological beliefs. So they used it to kind of weaken the Calvinists and their call for a synod because they knew when that synod happened, they would face the discipline. But with the change of government came less state protection for the Armenians. So eventually in 1618, a full decade after that declaration of sentiments written by Arminius in 1608, nine years after his death in 1609, eight years after the remonstrance in 1610, Finally, in 1618, a national synod was called, and the city of Dortrecht, often just called Dort in English, the city of Dort, which is where they had the synod of Dort, and the synod of Dort produced the canons of Dort. And their job was to address the Armenians and their theology. So that is the synod of Dort, the famous synod of Dort. If you haven't heard of it, it's monumental in church history. The Dutch Reformed Church. would be judging the theological issues, but it was actually international. They invited international delegates to come and participate as full members of the Synod, including a significant delegation of English Puritans. Those are our dudes. They were there. They put in the work on the Canons of Dort too. So England sent a delegation. France wanted to, but Louis XIV, XVI, XIV or XVI, one of the two, one of the Louis. He was like, yeah, you can go, but you cannot come back in. So Louis is always trying to get, they're trying to get rid of Calvinists every time they can. So. And the French didn't get to come, and they left seats open for him. But it was an international synod. They were able to assemble a truly international synod, 82 delegates, most of who were very well known at the time. We wouldn't recognize all the names. There are a lot of famous guys in there, though. It was truly one of the greatest and most ecumenical, meaning reformed ecumenical, gatherings of reformed churches that has ever been held, Synod of Dort. It's good to remember the teachings of the remonstrance had been discussed in much of Europe and in the Protestant churches. So these churches where these delegations came from, these other countries, they were concerned about it because they were seeing the error discussed as well. And they were like, yeah, we want to come and speak to this. And so the synod met from mid-November 1618 to late May 1619. So just thinking the time from Thanksgiving to Memorial Day, about six months, somewhere in there. primary purpose of the Synod was to evaluate and respond to the teaching of the Armenians. We know that, but they had some other stuff to deal with. There hadn't been a national Synod for 30 years, so they wanted to deal with some other basic stuff. They authorized a new Dutch translation of the Bible, which basically became like the Dutch KJV, more or less, in the Dutch world. They talked about how to promote effective catechism for the young to pass down the faith and to encourage their people to do that and do it in the churches. They raised a question about baptism in foreign missionary lands, stuff that wouldn't be super relevant to us. But they were dealing with other stuff, too. So it wasn't just the Armenian stuff, but that's the bulk of the reasoning for it. They also dealt with some issues regarding their own church order, confessional subscription, Sabbatarianism, that sort of stuff. Stuff that's all, again, very relevant to things we deal with. Soon after the Synod was convened, though, The Armenians arrived, their delegation arrived to present their views for judgment. And they were led by a man named Simon Episcopus is probably how you'll hear it said Episcopus. It looks like it's spelled Episcopios. Like, I don't know how it's technically pronounced. If you hear either one, it's the same guy. Simon Episcopus, I'll say that because it's easier to say. He had studied under Arminianus at the University of Leiden. He later developed and systematized the principles of Arminianism. If you think of Arminius like Luther, and Luther has his Melancthon, Episcopus is basically Arminius is Melanchthon. He's the Melanchthon to Arminius. He's the guy that follows it up and really adds some meat to the bones and systematizes things. So he's there to present it. He's basically doing the leading. In the years after the Senate, he even wrote the Remonstrant Confession in 1621, and that was surprisingly, and also not at all surprisingly, approved by the Anabaptists. So the Anabaptists were like, yeah, that's how we think salvation works. So they're pretty much wrong. But Episcopus comes in with his delegation, gives an opening speech for two hours. And then there's some famous quote in there of like, Episcopus finally got to the part we were all waiting for, the end. So I think he kind of, yeah, didn't set a good impression. But the Armenians were given weeks to speak at great length, four weeks, about their position. And they did so. But they would not do so in a way that was helpful. They wouldn't respond to the questions or the challenges. And eventually, after five or six weeks of this, the president of the Senate ejects them out and told them, you know what? Just communicate to us in writing enough of this. You're not even responding to us. You're not answering our questions. were fed up, they'd boot them out. And they'd be like, write, just write it. We've got your writings, write in whatever you want, and we'll deal with it. So they had all that. They had the bulk of the Armenian teaching. Everybody knew what it was. The various delegations that had been assembled, I think there was like 19, met separately and they wrote responses to the Armenians. And then they gathered those together into a committee who prepared the canons. Canons are like the rules or the measurements. We talk about the canon of scripture, it's the measure. This is what scripture is. This is what canons are. So synods produced canons. Synods and councils produced canons saying, these things are true, these things are false. That's basically what a canon is. These canons were then presented to the gathered synod and the delegates approved them unanimously. Unanimously. Not just every one of the 19 delegations approved them. Literally every single delegate there approved them. That is a huge task. An international gathering of the Reformed churches in Europe looked at these canons and said, those are true. They examined Arminianism and said, that is all false. International. So the European Protestant churches were united in one thing. Arminianism is false. That is the unity of the Reformation, of the Protestant churches. They called themselves evangelical. We are the evangelical churches. That was evangelicalism back then. In fact, each head of doctrine begins, when they write the canons, each head of doctrine begins with a Catholic or a universal statement of the doctrine. And it's written to show that the Reformed teachings were not novel, they weren't sectarian, we weren't the odd man out here. They were actually derived from common Catholic teaching, universal teaching of the Christian faith. The canons repeatedly pointed out times when the Arminian position is actually the one coming up with something new. That's the novel position. This is not what the church has said. Where it goes against the continued practice of the church, it points that out. Where it's condemned by the ancient church, it pulls out the stuff about Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. They said it's against the perpetual consensus of evangelical doctrine. What you're saying is against evangelical doctrine. So, now the famous canons of Dort. Sorry, famous canons of Dort. were approved. This is April 23rd, 1619. This is where they come from. This is where the five points come from. They also approved a preface to the Cans the Door. The preface is in here with a kind of a new translation. He's got a newer translation of all the relevant documents, including the preface. And the preface is an interesting read. It's very pastoral in tone. People don't think of the canons of Dort as pastoral. They don't think of the five points of Calvinism as being pastoral. If you actually read them, they are very pastoral. In it, they rejoice for Christ's provision to set the church free from tyranny and the heirs of Rome, recognizing God brought them through the Reformation. They're rejoicing over that. Christ has protected his church from that heir, that tyranny. And they describe Arminius and the Remonstrants as attacking the church with new various heirs. Some are new, some are old. First they did it secretly, now they're doing it openly, and it threatened the church with schism, again. And that's true. It was Arminius and his followers that disturbed the church. They did, they disturbed the church, they threatened its teaching and its unity, they created disorder within the church, that always comes along with sin and error, it always comes with disorder, and they created lots of disorder, we're literally still feeling it today. The synod said that they came together to judge the teachings and reject false doctrine to restore order to the church and protect it from the wrath of God. If they maintain the disorder or if they were negligent about dealing with the disorder, they're like recognizing we're opening ourselves up to the wrath of God for doing so. In fact, all the canons are far more pastoral than you might think. And that's a big part of this book. It's the subtitle, right? The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort. It's not heady, it's not like some ivory tower theological professor thing. This is written, they're written like as a pastor speaking to common believers, they really, really are. The canons speak much of Christian's comfort, they talk about joyful news, they talk about assurance, gracious softening, spiritual joy and holy satisfaction, things like this. And one of the ridiculing responses to the Arminian teaching that the certainty possible in this life is mutable. Basically, you can be certain of it and then lose your certainty, lose your assurance. You shouldn't have assurance, you should expect that. The canon said, it's absurd to make certain things uncertain. I think Godfrey says this quote, he says, the tone and approach of the preface, the canons and the conclusions The conclusion shows the triumphant Calvinists at their best. They were humble and reasonable and concerned for Christ, the truth, and the souls of sinners. And it's true. If you read them, if you've never read them, you should at least read them at least once in your life. They're not that long. And do it from here. It's got a good, easy translation of it. So we're not gonna go through the canons themselves because they simply reflect the basic theology that we've taught through the past 12, 13 lessons, 14 lessons in this series. We've already taught the actual doctrine. What we have taught in all that doctrine is exactly what the Canons of Dort says. We are in agreement with the Dutch Reformed Church on this doctrine. All the Reformed confessions are. But let me at least give you a sketch of their contents in case, you know, if you ever do read them, if you're interested. They were indeed written to be read. They were written to be understood by the people. They're not for professors. So they laid it out in the five heads of doctrine. Those five heads are the five points of Calvinism. So they laid it out in these five heads. Each head has a series of articles of affirmation about the particular doctrine, and then a series of rejections of the heirs of the Arminians regarding that doctrine. So articles of truth, and then we reject these heirs that the Arminians say. First head of doctrine was on predestination or election, has 18 articles, nine rejections of heirs. Second head of doctrine was on the death of Christ and our redemption through his death, basically limited atonement. has nine articles, seven rejections of heirs. The third and fourth heads of doctrine were treated together. Like I said, if you remember, the free will, total depravity, spiritual ability thing, they treated those together as one thing about grace being effectual, basically man's spiritual ability. That one, those two together have 17 articles and nine rejections of heirs. And then the fifth head of doctrine is the preservation of the saints. There's 15 articles and nine rejection of heirs. And these articles are how we get the five points of Calvinism. As a result of the synod, a group of remonstrants did leave. They formed the Remonstrant Brotherhood. I think it was about 200 ministers that were dismissed out of the Dutch Reformed Church. And rightfully so, they weren't Dutch Reformed. They were Dutch. They pretended to be Reformed. They were anti-Reformed, about 200 of them left or were dismissed. And they did come to be accepted and by like 1630, you know, they had their own churches, the remonstrant churches within the Netherlands. Netherlands was fairly tolerant, not all the time, but eventually. 1630s, they're fairly tolerant. A lot of Anabaptists survived there peacefully. As long as they were peaceful, they were tolerated. And the Ramatian brotherhood still exists today. And I don't think with how solid their theology is that you would be surprised to hear that they are open to inter-religious dialogue, other religions. They serve communion to people that don't even go to church. They have female ministers. And they approve of same-sex marriages. So Arminianism is not a heresy, per se. in the proper sense, but it's a false teaching, a dangerous false teaching, tending to heresy. And thus their churches have ended in heresy, the remonstrant churches. So while it is we Calvinists who are typically the ones that get accused of divisiveness, The truth is we are actually simply continuing the long reformed tradition of defending the doctrines fought for in the Reformation against old heirs and new wineskins. That's all it really is. We didn't start this fight. We honestly didn't. We simply continue to defend the truth against various old heirs that have now gotten a new facelift in evangelicalism. Arminianism is just warmed over semi-Pelagianism. It is false teaching tending toward heresy. It is dangerous. If you hold it consistently, you wind up with a false gospel. And its damage to the church has been immense, absolutely immense. It has caused 400 years of schism. It's brought God's judgment on the church. It has made the church doctrinally shallow, pragmatically ineffectual. We did a lesson once, it was for the young adult conference we had about Charles Finney and his new measures and stuff like that. And if you listen to that, it's basically historical, but it's the idea of decisional regeneration and all the garbage that comes from it. Everything bad in the church is tied, in the presentation, in the style of the church, especially in America, is tied to decisional regeneration. And all of that is firmly planted at the feet of Arminianism. It is their fault. It is their false doctrine that has caused all the bad stuff about evangelism and the approach of the church, the seeker sensitivism, seeker movements, everything that has to do with appealing to man and not relying on the power of the gospel to do the converting because they still think that man is the one that pulls the trigger. If man pulls the trigger, then you appeal to the man to pull the trigger. decisional regeneration. I can't say enough bad things about the damage they've done. Arminianism has done tremendous, tremendous damage. We fought for the truth in the Reformation, we defended it, we held on to it, and we just have to keep it. This is what our confessions do. The United Reformed and the good Presbyterians, they do it with us, with their confessions, which are mostly right as well, and they are our brothers in arms. I mean, this is just how it goes. This is how it goes throughout history. It's not like it's unique to us. You know, the church has always had to defend the truth against errors from within. Paul had to deal with the legalists. You read Galatians, you're like, oh man, even the early church is dealing with it. Athanasius opposed Arius. Augustine opposed Pelagius. Martin Luther opposed Erasmus. The Reformed opposed the Arminians. And the list goes on and on and on. In the past 400 years, we could go on and on with all the opposition that we've had to do. We contend earnestly for the faith, once for all, delivered to the saints. This is part of the Christian walk. We have to defend the truth, even from within. I'll close with Godfrey's comments about the canons. He said, the canons of Dort proclaim a God-centered, Christ-centered religion that is more needed today than in the 17th century. God's sovereignty and Christ's perfect atonement are our only hope and confidence. Truly, the Synod of Dort preserved the Reformation. Luther had said that he would rather have his salvation in God's hands than his own. Dort reiterated and clarified that truth. Christ alone and grace alone, indeed, Here's something truly to celebrate. All right, so if you want any other resources, if you want any articles, PDFs, or if you wanna borrow that book as well, I basically ordered it just for this. So let me know. Any questions before we close? All right, I guess we covered everything. Good deal, let's pray. Heavenly Father, it is with great joy that we stand in a tradition that is willing to defend the truth against lies and straw men and falsehood. We pray that we can continue to do so in grace and truth, that we can lovingly preserve the truth, that we would not hate others, that we would not think of ourselves as brighter or smarter than anybody else, but that we would wholly praise you for the grace that has led us to understand everything that we do understand, everything from the deity of Christ to the simplicity of the gospel to Calvinistic reform doctrine that goes deep into an entire system of doctrine that makes sense and is cohesive with itself. All of these things, Lord, we thank you. We recognize that we surely have errors in our doctrine and theology. We surely have things that we are going to be corrected on when we are glorified and our soul is purified. We don't know what that is, Lord. We pray that you would reveal it to us so that we can continue to get closer and closer to pure truth. And we can worship you in spirit and in truth without air that bogs us down. We know that air always brings disorder. We don't want to bring disorder into our church. We don't want to bring shame on the name of Christ. Protect us from that, whether it be in our beliefs or in the way that we live them out. Give us soft hearts, but also a strong, unbending faith to defend the faith, to hold to the faith, and lovingly proclaim it. And we do it for the glory of Jesus Christ, our Savior. We pray in his name. Amen.