The Canons say in I.15: “And this is the decree of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin …” I believe that this is indeed meant in a limiting way: This, and nothing more, is what reprobation is. Reprobation is a passing by (praeteritio) of the non-elect, and a just condemnation of their sin and unbelief. Negatively, reprobation is no abritrary decision on God’s part to send people to hell just because his sovereignty allows him to do so.

This interpretation makes sense historically. The Remonstrants accused the Reformed of teaching that God saves and condemns people without regard for justice and independent of their sin or unbelief; the Canons deny this. (Even though some supralapsarians, such as Maccovius, might have said just that!) Note that at the end of I.15, the Canons emphasize that God is a just judge, and that the damnation of the non-elect is deserved. Reprobation is a judicial act, showing God’s justice over evil, rather than a mere sovereign act showing God’s power.

And yes, I believe that the Canons here discourage, if not forbid, that we ever speak of reprobation as more than just judgment over sin and unbelief. God is not the author of sin– even to suggest that would be blasphemous. You may “supra” all you want, but let it not result in harsh, blapshemous language.

In a way this is “standardization” of the infralapsarian position, for two reasons. First, the formulation in the Canons is undeniably infra (following the presentation in the Heidelberg Catechism). Second, the so-called “harsh sayings” (phrases duriores) of some supralapsarians were in the Synod’s purview. They addressed these statements in the controversy surrounding Maccovius, and debated at length whether there should be a rejection of such expressions. The result is a moderate warning against harsh sayings in the Epilogue of the Canons.

The Canons do not condemn supralapsarian theology, but I think it is fair to say that it does everything it can to keep the typical supra distinctives off the pulpits. A man like Gomarus, who was a supralapsarian and believed the object of predestination to be the “homo labilis” rather than the “homo lapsus” (man not yet considered as falling, rather than falling mankind), had no qualms signing his name under the Canons. The scholarly theological discussion about these matters continued freely, and indeed many later Reformed theologians have been supralapsarian in their systematics. But they kept these matters off the pulpit, and in general taught a clear call to conversion, and offered Christ generously to all. This practice is reflected and standardized in the Utrecht statements of 1905.

Perhaps this statement might be more pertinent to infralapsarianism, now that I think about it:

“In election, God chose people from the sinful, human race.”

I am, of course, assuming that the Canons are, in fact, infralapsarian. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks again!

I want to ask a question about this statement: “The decree of reprobation, say the Canons, is no more than this: that God decided to leave the non-elect precisely where they are, by their own fault, in the guilt and misery of sin.”

Historically (and generally) speaking, do we see in the Canons of Dort at this point the standardization of infralapsarian theology in the Reformed world? I know the supra/infra debate has been ongoing in the Reformed world, but I am wondering if the Canons of Dort served to make in infralapsarian position the more common one among the Reformed (as I believe it is today).

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

God’s blessings!