Reformed Forum

The Canons of Dort as a Standard for Teaching and Preaching (3)

Arjen Vreugdenhil — Tue, 07 Mar 2017 05:00:51 +0000

In our previous article I discussed section I of the Canons of Dort, to show how it presents and prescribes the proper way to teach about election. In this final article I will focus on the remaining sections of the Canons.

A Gracious Gospel for All

The first three sections of the Canons run parallel to each other. Even though they focus on different aspects of our salvation, they follow the same outline:

man’s misery (I.1; II.1; III/IV.1-5)
Christ’s work (I.2; II.2-4)
the gospel (I.3-4; II.5; III/IV.6-8)
unbelief (I.5; II.6; III/IV.9)
faith a gift (I.6; II.7; III/IV.10)
God’s sovereign work

The clear message is that, when speaking of God’s work in saving individuals, we must always do so in a broader context. Sovereign election, definite atonement, and effective grace are to be understood in a framework of sin, Christ, gospel, and faith. The Arminians complained that in Reformed churches these topics were overshadowed by a focus on God’s decree and election. The Synod of Dort denied this accusation by outlining the proper order. In our teaching we must always begin with Christ as the heart of the gospel, and the call to faith in him.

Note the universal overtones of the Canons. Just as all men stand condemned in Adam (III/IV.2), Christ is sent to the world (I.2), and his gospel is a promise to all persons (II.5). Many Calvinists are suspicious of this universal language. In the past four centuries, some have attempted to limit the scope of the word “world” in John 3:16 and Canons I.2; others have argued that the gospel is really only a promise to the elect. To be fair, there were even theologians at the Synod of Dort who leaned this way. But the churches decided on a statement of faith that is deliberately more generous.

Most importantly, the Canons teach kerygmatic universalism: a proclamation (kerygma) of Christ to all people without distinction. Once again we see that the Canons are very concerned with evangelism! Reformed theology can and may never be a reason to limit our gospel proclamation. Three aspects of this deserve our special attention.

First, we must proclaim Christ as the Savior of the world. Even though not all will be saved, the blood of Christ is available to all.[1] Especially Canons section II does not allow us to downplay this. It moves from the infinite value of Christ’s sacrifice to the universal gospel promise that whoever believes will be saved. Even though actual salvation is conditioned on faith, the promise of that salvation comes to “to all persons promiscuously and without distinction” (II.5).[2]

Second, the gospel is a generous and genuine invitation from God to any sinner. “God has most earnestly and truly declared in his Word what is pleasing to him, namely that those who are called should come to him.” (III/IV.8) There is a strand of Reformed theology that likes to limit the “real” calling to the elect only, but the Canons leave no room for this.[3] If we follow the line set out by the Synod of Dort, we must not only proclaim Christ to all, but in the strongest possible terms extend an invitation in God’s name: “God wants you to come and believe in Christ!”

Third, there is only one reason why people who hear the gospel should not be saved. That reason is unbelief. Unbelief cannot be blamed on anything lacking in Christ or in the gospel (II.6; III/IV.9); unbelief is certainly not caused by God.[4] Canons III/IV.9 use Jesus’ parable of the Sower (Mat. 13) to analyze different types of unbelief; in each case, it is the person himself who is to blame: he rejects the Word, he does not allow it to take hold in his heart, or he chokes the seed by worldly cares.

In summary, the Canons of Dort teach us to offer Christ generously to all, and never to attribute unbelief to God. Following this instruction, Reformed people can evangelize with the best news of all: “Christ died for the sins of the world, and in the way of faith this will be yours!”

Definite Atonement

The Arminians had accused the Reformed of teaching that “Jesus Christ the Savior of the world did not die for all people, but only for those who are elected […] having been ordained a means and Mediator only to save them and no others.”[5]

Section II of the Canons is an answer to this complaint. This section is popularly known as “Limited Atonement”—the L in TULIP. This name places much emphasis on the negative aspect: Christ’s atoning work benefits the elect, and no one else. This is a Biblical teaching; the Canons clearly state this in article II.8: “all those and only those who were chosen from eternity unto salvation.”

However, everywhere else in section II the language is positive and inclusive. Here the Canons present the atonement and proclamation of Christ in the most generous terms possible. For this reason the summary statement, “limited atonement,” fails to do justice to the teaching of the Canons.

First of all, everybody needs atonement (II.1). Graciously, Jesus Christ brought a sacrifice of infinite value (II.2-4), sufficient to atone for the whole world. Because of this, there must be a universal proclamation of Jesus as the sure way of salvation (II.5). Finally, all those who believe this gospel are saved completely (II.8-9).

Some find this presentation of the Canons too generous; indeed, it has been suggested that this section contains Amyraldian influences from English theologians.[6] Without going into historical details, it is safe to say that the Canons reflect the position of the entire Synod of Dort, rather than that of a handful of delegates. We must therefore receive the text of section II as a guideline for a Reformed presentation of the matter.

What is the practical importance of this? First of all, it deflects the idea that there is no atoning blood available for the non-elect. No, say the Canons, Christ’s sacrifice is of infinite value; the only reason why people are lost is that they do not believe the gospel. “This is not due to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ on the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves” (II.6). This must comfort those who doubt that Christ died for them; the answer is a resounding: “Yes!” There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved, but it is also the name by which any sinner can be saved through faith.

God’s Grace and Man’s Response

Section III/IV of the Canons deal with the ordo salutis, the way of salvation in the individual Christian. The Arminians underestimated man’s inability to save himself, as well as the completeness of God’s grace in salvation. The most profound response is found in articles III/IV.11-14. Contrary to what the Arminians believed, “[God does not] bestow the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of salvation and actually believe in Christ, but … he works in man both to will and to work …” (III/IV.14).

The Reformed churches emphasized, following the Biblical teaching, that the unregenerated sinner is so “dead” in his sin, that he cannot even muster the will to believe; and that the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit is so profound that he renews the very heart and will of a person. It is one of the most glorious confessions in the Canons that this miracle is “not inferior in efficacy to creation or the resurrection from the dead” (III/IV.12).

But as with all good things, it is possible to make a caricature that misses the mark, and this has given the Reformed faith a bad reputation. The Canons teach us that we may not reduce the gospel to this black-and-white picture of total depravity and irresistible grace. More must be said about people and about God’s grace.

First of all, no one can complain that God withheld grace. He created mankind upright and able to serve him; our depravity is due to our own rebellion. Moreover, in spite of our sinfulness we understand right and wrong well enough to have no excuse for not serving God. God does not rob people of their creation goodness, and he is not out to disadvantage them.[7]

Second, the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit does not operate apart from human involvement. On the contrary. The Holy Spirit works “through the word or ministry of reconciliation” (III/IV.6). As discussed before, the Canons emphasize the importance of the gospel, as it is proclaimed to many people. God’s election involves the eternal purpose as well as the historical means; for instance, it is his sovereign choice which nation will hear the gospel and which nation will not. Likewise, an unbelieving response to the gospel is caused by the human heart, which rejects and chokes the seed that is sown (see above).

Third, the grace of the Holy Spirit in the elect involves his entire person, including his heart and will. Speaking of “irresistible grace” (the I in TULIP) easily makes the impression that God saves people against their will, or without their consent, but the Canons teach differently. “The will, thus renewed, is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active. Therefore man himself is also rightly said to believe and repent by virtue of that grace received” (III/IV.12). God’s grace does not treat people “as senseless stocks and blocks” (III/IV.16), but the Spirit works in them without violating their personality and their will.

In short, the Reformed teaching of effective grace does not deny redemptive history, the importance of gospel preaching, or the order of salvation of the individual.

The Canons frankly admit that it is difficult to understand the concursus between God’s secret work of regeneration and man’s conscious choice to believe. They go together, without violating either God’s sovereignty or man’s will; but how? Our forefathers at Dort warned us not to speculate beyond what is revealed (III/IV.13).

Articles III/IV.15 and 17 outline the implications of this doctrine in the Christian life. First, believers are to be grateful for the work of the Spirit in them, knowing that they were no better than any others. Second, this must call us to pray for those who still live in the darkness of depravity. Third, we must work out our salvation through the use of the means of grace: the gospel preaching, the sacraments, and the discipline of the church. Preaching, catechism, evangelism, and pastoral work must continue, not in spite of God’s secret work of generation, but because of it; God connects these visible means to the invisible results.

Any “Calvinism” that speaks of irresistible grace without mentioning the means God uses, in particular the gospel’s call to faith in Jesus Christ, does gross injustice to the teaching of the Canons!

Preservation and Perseverance

The last section of the Canons has been summarized as “once saved, always saved.” In non-Reformed circles it is viewed as a dangerous doctrine, because it leads to unholy living.[8] Sadly, there have been churches for which this was the case, but section V of the Canons cannot be blamed.

What distinguishes the Reformed teaching of the Canons from Arminianism is the conviction that true believers, even if they fall in serious temptation, never fully lose their salvation (V.6). But like regeneration, this divine preservation cannot be separated from the means God has appointed for believers. The Holy Spirit uses the gospel to lead to repentance and good works. If we speak of the preservation of true believers, by God’s unfailing grace, we must also speak of their perseverance in pursuing a holy life with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Note, again, the pastoral and practical wisdom of the Canons. How can we be certain that we are elect, so that we can be comforted even though our faith is often weak? The careful answer avoids both presumption and anxiety. If we recognize that our faith is true, we may be confident of God’s protection (V.9). But this assurance is never apart from our reliance on God’s promise and our serious endeavor to holiness (V.10). Christians cannot receive God’s preserving grace passively; because a believing understanding of it leads to humility and godliness, prayer and confession of faith (V.12).

The Canons treat the doctrine of preservation similar to that of regeneration. Without compromising the sovereignty of God in every aspect of salvation, they highlight that the Holy Spirit uses means, and involves every aspect of our being in his work. The philosophical difficulties of this approach are not denied; article V.15 echoes the sentiment of III/IV.13.

Conclusion

This last observation brings us to a final conclusion about the Canons of Dort. This document is clearly aimed at the philosophy of the Arminians, who tried to answer the difficult questions about salvation by emphasizing man’s free will. However, as I have tried to point out, the Canons are just as concerned that we do not fall into the opposite error: the rationalistic solution that emphasizes God’s sovereignty at the expense of man’s involvement. Between these rationalistic extremes, the Canons steer a safe course, as it follows the testimony of Scripture without trying to resolve the deepest mysteries.

Out of fear for being Arminian, many a Calvinist have spoken or written with more force and less nuance than the Canons. This has contributed to a bad reputation of Calvinism and Reformed doctrine in the evangelical world. It is my hope that those who stand in the tradition of the Reformation will take note of the Canons; not just its key points against Arminianism, not merely the petals of TULIP, but its entire package. The method of teaching employed here, with its sensitivity to evangelistic and pastoral concerns, is informed by the truth and the wisdom of Scripture.

[1] The question remains if we should be as bold as Puritan John Preston, and proclaim to everyone that “Christ is dead for him.” (The Breastplate of Faith and Love, 1630). Some have accused Preston of the heresy of hypothetical universalism (Amyraldism); see e.g. Jonathan Moore, English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids), 2007. For a defense of Preston’s statement, see Sinclair Ferguson, The Whole Christ (Crossway), 2016, esp. chapter 2.

[2] Note the formulation of Article II.5: “The promise of the gospel is that whoever believes [will be saved]”—a promise for all, containing a condition. Some read it as: “The promise of the gospel to whoever believers is [that they will be saved]”—a promise only for some. That appears to be the position of Homer Hoeksema in Voice of Our Fathers. This reading is harmful because it leaves no true proclamation to unbelievers. In this view, they only have a command to repent and believe, but no promise and no Christ to take hold of.

[3] For instance, Canons III/IV.9 talks about “those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted.” If the gospel “call” were limited to the so-called effective calling of the elect, this would make no sense at all!

[4] Recall that Canons I.15 warns us away from the blasphemy of “making God the Author of sin.” Also note the Conclusion to the Canons, where the churches denied the charge of teaching “that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety.”

[5] This was point 3 of the Remonstrance.

[6] Amyraldianism, or hypothetical universalism, is a more subtle heresy than Arminianism, but eventually wrong for the same reasons. See e.g. Jonathan Moore, “James Ussher’s Influence on the Synod of Dordt,” in Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619).

[7] The practical question arises to what extent we can embrace this general goodness in mankind. Discussions on this point are generally placed under the heading of “common grace.” The Canons draw a clear, necessary line: creation goodness or “common grace” is not able to bring people to saving knowledge of God (III/IV.4). No unregenerate person will make a conscious positive contribution to the Kingdom of God as it makes its way into the world.

[8] The conclusion of the Canons mention the allegation that this teaching “renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that … they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes.”

The Canons of Dort as a Standard for Teaching and Preaching (2)

Arjen Vreugdenhil — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 05:00:32 +0000

Introduction

In a previous article I pointed out that the Canons of Dort not only define the content of Reformed doctrine, but also direct the way in which it is taught and preached. In this article I will address section I of the Canons, and draw conclusions about the way we ought to speak about God’s work of election.

Election in Broader Context

The first section of the Canons is about election, but this is only brought up in section I.6. The first few articles of section I outline more foundational principles of Christian doctrine; and we see this pattern repeated at the beginning of the other sections.

There are several reasons for choosing this approach. By taking its starting point in basic Christian doctrine, the Canons emphasize that the Reformed churches are not sectarian, but stand fully in the tradition of the Christian church. By beginning with common ground, the polemic with the Arminians also becomes less militant.

But most importantly, the introductory articles I.1-6 show us the proper context in which we must think about election. The doctrines of sin, Christ, gospel, and faith take priority over the doctrine of election. In election, God chose people from the sinful, human race. Election is in Jesus Christ. Election is no direct ticket to heaven, but predestination to be in Christ, and to be saved in the way of faith in the gospel.

In this way the Synod of Dort defused the first main complaint against the Reformed, namely, that they teach that God predestines people to heaven or hell “without the least regard or consideration of any sin.”[1] People perish eternally because of their sin and unbelief; people inherit eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. Contrary to the Arminian accusation, sin and the obedience of faith are central in the Reformed doctrine!

I frequently meet Reformed believers who will suspect anyone of being “Arminian” if he begins his gospel presentation with John 3:16, in God’s love for the world. It is true that some evangelicals take this text too far, and declare God’s saving love for every individual, whether they believe or not. But note that our very own Canons of Dort start with John 3:16—in his love for the world, God gave Christ. This merciful gospel must be preached to all, so that people may believe. And God, based on his eternal decree of election, will give faith precisely to those he has chosen. Do you see how evangelistic the Canons are from the very beginning?

Speaking of Reprobation

Article I.15 addresses the dark side of predestination. If God elects some to receive Christ and his benefits, there will be others to whom this is not given. They will perish in their unbelief.

According to the Remonstrants this was a terrible, cruel doctrine. They complained that the Reformed made “reprobation the cause of unbelief and ungodliness, in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works.”[2] This would make God the cause and “author” of sin.

To be fair, there were some Reformed ministers who drew this conclusion. The Synod of Dort even dealt with a seminary professor, Maccovius, who taught that “God wills and decrees sin” and that “he predestines people to sin.” Maccovius was not declared a heretic, but he was strongly reprimanded to tone down his teaching. Even those who did not agree with Maccovius would conclude that, at the very deepest level of God’s decree, God must be the ultimate cause of sin. After all, he created people, he allowed them to fall, and by electing some to be saved, he implicitly allowed others to die in their sins.[3]

The Canons do not give an explanation of the origin of sin; the reality of sin is simply assumed throughout, starting explicitly in article I.1. And article I.15 ends with a serious warning, intended to keep our thinking and speaking straight. Never, ever are we to think of God as the cause, the author of sin.

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.[4] He does not make them sin. He does not prevent them from believing. He simply gives them what they (and we, if it were not for God’s grace!) want in their rebellion.

The Canons make it abundantly clear: people do not go to hell because God forces them to go there. People go to hell because they are guilty and do not believe in Jesus Christ. Is it unfair that God permits them to become lost? Article I.18 answers with a sharp but loving rebuke to those who complain: if anything is unfair, it is our election! Everybody deserves hell, and our election to faith and salvation is undeserved.

The first section of the Canons ends with praise to God for his deep council, which we cannot understand. It points us to Romans 9, which teaches that God has the basic right to do with his creation as he wants, like a Potter with his clay.

Today there are Calvinists who like to start with this principle, that God is sovereign and therefore has the right to cast into hell whoever he wants. They believe that this is a “higher,” better view than that presented in the Canons.[5] It is this kind of teaching of unmitigated divine sovereignty that evoked the Arminian complaint that the Reformed doctrine is no different than Islam.[6] But the Canons start with the revealed gospel of grace in a sinful world. The teaching of God’s sovereignty is for those who would talk back to God who justly punishes rebellion.

Election, Assurance, and Comfort

Several articles toward the end of section I of the Canons spell out important pastoral consequences of election. Christians who are aware that their faith is a gracious gift can easily worry: how can I be sure that God has chosen me? How do I know my faith is real? Sadly, there are entire denominations where this anxiety overshadows all of the Christian life, and only very few are assured of their salvation.

The Canons do not want us to think this way, and certainly not to teach this pious-sounding doubt. Article I.12 gives a careful, sensitive answer. Believers, as they grow in faith, will receive assurance of their election. Not by some private insight in God’s secret council. Not by a miraculous experience. But “by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word”: faith, awe and trust in God, sorrow for sin, desire to be righteous.

What about those who lack this assurance? As a result of sin we can feel so guilty, so much lacking in godliness, that we may fear that God has not chosen us. Canons I.16 comforts us that we should not “be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor count ourselves among the reprobate.” This article point us to the mercy of God. It shows the way of growth and perseverance in the Christian life; I will address this at the end of my next article, where we look at section V of the Canons.

The pastoral approach of the Canons is balanced; articles I.13 and 16 also address the opposite problem of presumption and antinomianism. There are people who are not serious about their faith, but claim to be elect in spite of an uncaring, ungodly life. It even says that such false assurance “usually happens to those who casually take for granted the grace of election” and “are unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen.”

The Question of Dying Infants

Believing parents care about the salvation of their children. One particularly pressing question is what we may believe about our children if they die at a very young age. At the time when the Canons were written, infant mortality was extremely high, due to warfare, pestilence, and other factors. But even today, when most infants survive after birth, many parents look for comfort after a miscarriage.

The Arminians made this question a focus in their campaign against the Reformed doctrine. As I mentioned in the previous article, they accused the Reformed churches of teaching that “many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers’ breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell” (by God).

The delegates at the Synod of Dort had to address this question. They did so, briefly but powerfully, in Article I.17.

We may believe that children of believers who die at an early age belong to God’s elect. There is no reason for doubt, because God himself speaks favorably about the children in the Scriptures. The Canons give two arguments. First of all, there is the covenant, which continues from parents to children and is only broken by deliberate unbelief at older age. Second, there is the declaration in 1 Cor. 7:14 that children of believers are holy. This does not automatically mean that all children of believers are elect, and saved no matter what; but it does imply that these children are special to God. If he takes them to himself at a young age, there is no reason to doubt his covenant mercy.

In fact, article I.17 says very much the same as the traditional Reformed form for the administration of baptism to infants.

Throughout the centuries this article has been controversial in Reformed circles, especially in those experiential churches who were hesitant to lay hold of the assurance of faith. The Canons of Dort also clearly go beyond the Westminster Standards in this respect, which only teach that elect infants will be saved, even though they have not believed (WCF 10.3). But where the church received this article as a faithful reflection of the covenant promise, it has been of great comfort to many parents.

Teaching Election Properly

We have seen that section I of the Canons is evangelistic and pastoral. It also exhibits great pedagogical qualities, as a guide for preaching and teaching. If we are to preach on predestination, let it always be in the context of sin, Christ, and gospel, as shown in Articles I.1-6! If we are to preach on election, let us give comfort to the afflicted and warning to the presumptive! If we are to preach on reprobation, let us endeavor never to suggest that God is the author of sin, but admire the justice and wisdom of God even when we do not comprehend him!

Article I.14 gives explicit instruction about how to teach the doctrine of election. This doctrine was taught throughout the history of the church, in Old and New Testament, and so it must be taught today. But it is very important how this teaching takes place. Article I.14 is not only a warning against not preaching election; it is also a warning against improper teaching of it. The Canons list a number of qualities our teaching of election should have.

First of all, the doctrine of election is “specifically intended” for God’s church, to comfort believers. It is not the first (or even second) aspect of Christian doctrine to bring to unbelievers! For many zealous Calvinists that may seem wrong, especially if they are eager to combat Arminianism in all its forms. But the Canons are following the Biblical example here: the Bible speaks about election almost exclusively in the context of God’s people, whether Old Testament Israel or the New Testament church.

Second, the Canons call for discretion and a godly and holy attitude. Because the doctrine of election can raise difficult questions, and can be distorted into a false denial of assurance or presumptive complacency, we must be very careful how to present it. Articles I.12, 13, 16, and 17 list some pastoral considerations that should be taken into account.

Third, the Canons tells us that election must be preached “at the appropriate time and place.” This should be understood as the proper time and place in the preaching and teaching curriculum. For instance, the Heidelberg Catechism speaks of election in Lord’s Days 20 and 21, and when teaching these questions and answers a teacher should explain election. Likewise, election must have a place in sermons about Deut. 7, Rom. 9, and Eph. 1. But neither the Bible nor the catechism speaks about election all the time, and neither should we.

Fourth, in the preaching and teaching of election we must be careful to bring glory to God, “without inquisitive searching into the ways of the Most High.” Practically, this means that we echo the clear teaching of the Bible that God has chosen for himself a people, to save them in the way of faith; but we must refrain from speculation on the details which are not clearly revealed.

Some argue that election is one of the most foundational doctrines of the Bible, and must therefore figure in most sermons. One Reformed minister wrote, for instance:

If the question be asked, ‘What place does Scripture allot to the truth of election?’ the answer is: ‘First place.’ The truth of election is of prime importance. … Take it away, and the whole body of the truth dies. For there is not a single element of the entire truth of Holy Scripture that can stand ultimately without the truth of sovereign election. … Even while the church is busy with the task of proclaiming in the narrower sense of the word such truths as vicarious atonement, regeneration, or conversion, for example, that truth of election will pulsate regularly and strongly through the preaching. If it does not, then the truth of election is being deprived of its proper time and place.[7]

It even seems that Canons I.9 support this view, when it calls election the “source of every saving good”.

But this view is mistaken. God’s decree (including election) comes first in the logical and historical order; but that does not mean that it is the central element in God’s revelation. Scripture tells us clearly that the center of revelation is Jesus Christ and his ministry. The Bible calls to faith in Christ much more than it speaks of election. In fact, even our election is in Christ (Eph. 1:4). Likewise, in the very definition of election, the Canons define Christ as the foundation of salvation (I.7).

To be sure, the truth of God’s electing grace may not be obscured or denied. It is a tremendous source of comfort for the believer. But this doctrine must take its proper place, so that Jesus Christ, the greatest Word of God to a sinful world, remains at the center.

The same guiding principle is found in the remaining sections of the Canons. I will address this in the next and last article of this series.

[1] See the “Conclusion” of the Canons of Dort for this accusation. The full text of the Remonstrant complaint is this: “Some [Reformed churches teach] that God by an eternal and unchangeable decree, out of the people whom he did not view as created and much less as fallen, ordained some to eternal life, some to eternal perdition, without any consideration of righteousness or sin, obedience or disobedience, merely because he was pleased to display the glory of his justice and mercy, or—as others formulate it—his saving grace, wisdom and sovereignty.”

[2] See the “Conclusion” to the Canons.

[3] See, for example, the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, which was published in 1625 by four leading Reformed professors. Also, in his dissertation, The Issue of Reprobation at the Synod of Dort (1618-19) in Light of the History of this Doctrine (1985), D. Sinnema discusses the many ways in which Arminian and Reformed theologians alike attempted to parse out the difficult doctrine of election without putting the blame on God.

[4] The last paragraph of I.15, “And this is the decree of reprobation …” must be understood in a limiting sense. This, and nothing else or more, is the decree of reprobation.

[5] E.g., Homer Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers

[6] The “Conclusion” of the Canons summarizes the Arminian complaint that “this teaching … is nothing but a refurbished … Turkism.” Mainstream Muslim doctrine has many tenets of hyper-Calvinism: A hard determinism, combined with the view that Allah is absolutely sovereign, and even the most faithful believers can only hope that he will be merciful to them.

[7] Homer Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers, 231.