Ambiugous reference in Canons or Dordt

[DaveJes1979]

In the first Rejection of Errors the Canons of Dordt reject:

"Who teach that God's election to eternal life is of many kinds: one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and the latter in turn either incomplete, revocable, nonperemptory (or conditional), or else complete, irrevocable, and peremptory (or absolute)."

I'm not quite sure what view this is attacking. Can anyone shed light here?

Thanks.

 

[Poimen]

In the first Rejection of Errors the Canons of Dordt reject:

"Who teach that God's election to eternal life is of many kinds: one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and the latter in turn either incomplete, revocable, nonperemptory (or conditional), or else complete, irrevocable, and peremptory (or absolute)."

I'm not quite sure what view this is attacking. Can anyone shed light here?

Thanks.

Some of the delegates clearly anticipated the Federal Vision and prepared the Reformed churches for the onslaught.

Coming out of the Reformed churches, the Arminians were committed to 'election' as a concept but, as I am sure you know, understood that it was conditioned upon our response to the gospel. However it appeared that they held that men were elected to eternal life by simply preaching the doctrine (term) all the while avoiding or twisting the confessional stance of the time (BC, Article 16) which clearly condemned their view.

Homer Hoeksema notes as much in The Voice of Our Fathers specifically mentioning that the Arminians were purposely ambiguous so as to deceive the people into thinking that they believed in divine election when, in reality, they made up their own doctrine. In order to convince the flock into thinking they were orthodox they simply used the term and defined it to death so that they wouldn't (couldn't?) be accused of being non-Reformed, when in fact they most definitely were.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Peter Feenstra says (Unspeakable Comfort: A Commentary on the Canons of Dort), pp. 38-39:

The Arminians taught there are various kinds of divine election to eternal life. One is general and indefinite and the other is particular and definite. The former does not specify who is part of God's chosen people while the second does. They claimed there is an election to faith and another to salvation. You could be elected to grace without receiving the glory. Whether you will be elected depends on where you stand at the end of your life. The Synod of Dort rejected these views as "an invention of the human mind without any basis in the Scriptures" (Chapter I, Rejection of Errors, Article 2). God's elect will receive both grace and glory.

Adrian Dieleman says (Sermon on Canons of Dort, Head I, Articles 8-9, May 11, 2003):

A Article 8 starts off by saying, "This election is not of many kinds." It combats here the error of those who believe in different kinds of election. These different kinds are mentioned in Rejection II. The Synod rejects the error of those

Who teach that God's election to eternal life is of many kinds: one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite ... Likewise, who teach that there is one election to faith and another to salvation ...

Of course, the Canons were taking aim against the Arminians who talked of six or more kinds of election.

This error is very old. Back in the fourth century the Pelagians were guilty of the same error. And, the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries maintained the exact same error when they taught there was a counsel of God without sin, and a counsel of God with sin. The Jesuits also said there was a counsel of God unto salvation through the law, and a counsel of God unto salvation through Christ. They understood God as having a counsel or decree for every single possibility.

B Over against those who talk or think this way the Canons maintain that there is but one kind of election:

... election is not of many kinds; it is one and the same election for all who were to be saved in the Old and the New Testament. For Scripture declares that there is a single good pleasure, purpose, and plan of God's will, by which he chose us from eternity ...


We see here that the Canons strongly believe in something important to the Reformed faith: that is, it believes in the essential unity or oneness of the Old and New Testament periods or dispensations. There is one kind of election which applies to all those who are saved, whether they live in Old or New Testament times. There is but one promise. There is but one Gospel. There is but one Savior. And, there is but one people of God. Therefore, Abel and Enoch and Noah were included from eternity in the same decree of election as were Paul and Silas and Timothy. And, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were included from eternity in the same decree of election as were Lydia and Dorcas and the Philippian jailor. All the saints, every lost one of them, were included from eternity in the one decree of election, to receive the one salvation in Christ.

This does not mean, of course, that there is no difference between the Old and New Testament periods or dispensations. Yes, there is a difference, but it is a difference not in decree or in grace; rather, it is the difference between a shadow and the real thing, between a promise and its fulfillment. In the Old Testament, as you know, the ceremonies and sacrifices of the Law all pointed forward to Christ. We in the New Testament, on the other hand, don't have shadows or types because we have the real thing – even Jesus Christ, crucified, raised, and ascended.

The New Scofield Bible, which some of you may be acquainted with, makes the error of not recognizing the essential oneness or unity of the Old and New Testament periods or dispensations. In fact, it recognizes seven distinct dispensations and teaches that there is a distinct election decree for believers in each of the seven dispensations. The New Scofield Bible distinguishes between the Jews and the Gentiles as the children of God; it makes a distinction between the kingdom and the church; and it believes God has one purpose for Israel and another for the church.

John Murray says:

The doctrine of the Confession on predestination and foreordination is unequivocal. The differentiation involved and the diversity of destiny arising therefrom are clearly asserted. ‘These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished’ (Sec. IV). It is worthy of note that this statement of the Confession includes both angels and men and is so framed that in respect of the doctrine set forth it has equal relevance to men and angels. This feature goes beyond what we find in the Canons of Dordt. The Canons are concerned solely with the election and ‘reprobation’ of men. The reason for this is obvious. The Remonstrant tenets against which the Canons were directed dealt with the decree of God with reference to mankind and the issue would have been unnecessarily perplexed by introducing the subject of angels. But Dordt enunciates the same position in respect of mankind. ‘And as God himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled nor annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished’ (Cap. I, Art. XI; cf. Art. VI). In the Rejection of Errors, Articles II, III, and V, the reason for this emphasis upon definiteness is given. The opposing position is stated to be that ‘God’s election to eternal life is manifold, the one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite . . . the one election to faith, the other to salvation that the good pleasure and purpose of God, of which Scripture makes mention in the doctrine of election, does not consist in this, that God elected certain men above others, but in this, that God from all possible conditions . . . elected faith, in itself unworthy, and the imperfect obedience of faith as the condition of salvation’, a position pronounced to be pernicious error, prejudicial to the good pleasure of God and the merit of Christ. The Westminster Confession is oriented against the same error but the reference to angels in the same section is a reminder that the scope of its interest in Chapter III is more embracive than that of the Canons.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Don't the Lutherans believe something similar to this ?