Originally Posted by dannyhyde

Gentlemen,

This should not even be a question. One of my original points still stands: if the Heidelberg Catechism taught anything incompatible with the Canons of Dort, then why did that Synod not change the Heidelberg Catechism in any way? After all, it did modify the Belgic Confession somewhat. How could the greatest theologians of that age have missed the unlimited atonement in the Heidelberg if it taught such a doctrine? How could 400 years of Reformed theologians, ministers, and members in our churches have missed this if it were so?

I would encourage you all to read Q&Q 37 in light of the Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, and ask yourself if there is a contradiction. Relevant are the following:

Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?
Answer: That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.

Article 3: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 4: This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.