As we prepare to “Dig into Dort,” I thought it would be wise to consider more of the context in which this document was produced. The official title of this document is, “The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine in Dispute in the Netherlands”, which is a reminder that this document came about because of a Synod that was called to settle a dispute in the church. The fact that the Canons come from a Synod, a gathering of church leaders called to help settle a disputed matter in the church, does not diminish their significance or importance. In fact, many key doctrines of the Christian faith were developed this way.

The Role and Precedent of Councils and Synods

The Nicene Creed came about because of a dispute in the 4th century, with the councils that met in the towns of Nicea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381) producing what we know as the Nicene Creed. Those councils and the Synod of Dort were following the model established in Acts 15, as there was a gathering of church leaders in Jerusalem to settle a dispute in the church. The particular dispute for that gathering was whether or not Gentiles who became Christians had to keep the Jewish law (some Pharisees who had become Christians said yes, while other believers such as the Apostle Paul were saying no). Those leaders in Jerusalem examined the Scriptures and what they had seen God do and prayerfully came to the conclusion that Gentiles did not need to follow the Old Testament laws if they wanted to follow Christ. This was not just a decision of this group, but one that moved out to the churches as they were represented there through their leaders. Therefore, when there is a dispute in the church, church leaders gather to look to the Scriptures to determine the answer; it is not up to a particular individual to make the decision, as we believe that the church is a community with certain individuals equipped to lead and oversee the beliefs of the church.

While some contend that the need for a gathering to bring clarification means that the church did not have this belief before, this is not always the case. Rather, what these assemblies often do is put on paper what was initially believed but not necessarily written down because all were on the same page. We typically don’t make rules or laws when everyone is in agreement, but rather when people deviate from the accepted behavior or belief; rules are written because people have broken them, and beliefs are written down when people start to drift from them. In the case of the Nicene Creed, it was not at that point that the church declared that Jesus is fully God (and fully man); this had been something that the church had believed from the beginning. Similarly, the Canons of Dort did not establish new doctrines, but actually reaffirmed what had been written in the Belgic Confession, which the church in the Netherlands had affirmed to be reflective of the biblical teaching. Because we believe (and that Confession affirms) that the ultimate authority is the Bible and that gatherings of humans can make errors, it is right and proper to re-examine them to make sure they reflect what we see in the Bible, which is in many ways what the Synod of Dort did.

The Dispute Shapes the Document

The comparison with the Nicene Creed would seem to be helpful as well in that the context shapes the language and format of the statement. The Nicene Creed seems to be an expansion of the Apostles’ Creed, but with a stronger focus on Jesus and who he is because of the dispute in the church of the time. Furthermore, the language that is used at times seems odd to us — e.g., light of light, God of God, begotten not made — but those terms and that language was part of the debate going on at the time.

Similarly, the Canons of Dort lay out beliefs in light of the dispute that was happening, and this explains the structure. As noted in last week’s blog, the Remonstrants had raised five issues, and the Canons address these five issues in the order in which they were presented. (While there are five issues, there are technically only four articles of the Canons of Dort, as the third and fourth issues are addressed in one section, often numbered 3/4 when citing the Canons of Dort). Within each section, there is first a positive section explaining what the church believes on the subject and then a negative section that rejected certain errors (the Reformed Church in America does not give confessional status to the Rejection of Errors, but these are useful to help interpret the statement of belief). Both of these sections include references to Scripture, affirming that the Bible is the basis for these beliefs; citations of Scripture are very common in the latter part of each article that reject certain errors. In addition, at the very end of the Canons, there is a statement that rejects some misrepresentations of the teaching found there and an exhortation to those reading (including a blessing).

Implications

I want to highlight two important implications of this context. First, while at times the Reformed Church has been known for the teaching found in the Canons of Dort (often called the Five Points of Calvinism), we should not view the fact that the Canons deal with them as making them more important than other beliefs found in the confessions. They seem to have garnered more attention and more controversy, but the reason for a special statement was not because the church really wanted to emphasize these (as if they were the most important thing to know), but because they needed to be clarified in light of debates that were happening. The church affirms it and holds it as being important, and other churches will differ on it, but it is not going to be the bulk of what you hear preached week in and week out.

Second, because the Canons of Dort are written in response to the objections that were raised, the ordering of the statement reflects the structure of their thought rather than the way the church might teach it. This explains why the Canons begin with the idea of election (which is where the statement of the Remonstrants started) rather than with the idea of Total Depravity (which is where Reformed thought typically begins its discussion of these topics, and, as we will see, is the foundation for the thought concerning election in the first article). People often explain the “five points of Calvinism” with the acronym TULIP (see explanation of them here by the late R.C. Sproul), but that reflects more of the logical order (made popular in America in the 20th century).  The structure of the Canons is not the same as TULIP because it is a refutation of a statement by the Remonstrants. In explaining these doctrines to others, one may want to use a different order and slightly different language in light of one’s context and audience, as that shapes how and what we communicate.

Now that we have a better lay of the land, we are ready to start digging into Dort….next week :)

Questions about the Bible or theology? Email them to Pastor Brian at Theology@wearefaith.org. You can also request to receive weekly emails with our blog posts by filling out the information on the right side.