What We Believe

The Canons of Dordrecht


The Decision of the Synod of Dort on the Five Main Points of Doctrine
in Dispute in the Netherlands

The First Main Point of Doctrine: Divine Election and Reprobation

The Judgment Concerning Divine Predestination
Which the Synod Declares to Be in Agreement with the Word of God
and Accepted Till Now in the Reformed Churches,
Set Forth in Several Articles

Article 1: God’s Right to Condemn All People

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God (Rom. 3:19), All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), and The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

Article 2: The Manifestation of God’s Love

But this is how God showed his love: he sent his only begotten Son into the world, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Article 3: The Preaching of the Gospel

In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. For how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent? (Rom. 10:14-15).

Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel

God’s anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do accept it and embrace Jesus the Savior with a true and living faith are delivered through him from God’s anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life.

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ (Phil. 1:29).

Article 6: God’s Eternal Decision

The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act–unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just–of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God’s Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.

Article 7: Election

Election [or choosing] is God’s unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:

Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. He did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation. And so he decided to give the chosen ones to Christ to be saved, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through his Word and Spirit. In other words, he decided to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them.

God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.

As Scripture says, God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:30).

Article 8: A Single Decision of Election

This 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 both to grace and to glory, both to salvation and to the way of salvation, which he prepared in advance for us to walk in.

Article 9: Election Not Based on Foreseen Faith

This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, He chose us (not because we were, but) so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love (Eph. 1:4).

Article 10: Election Based on God’s Good Pleasure

But the cause of this undeserved election is exclusively the good pleasure of God. This does not involve his choosing certain human qualities or actions from among all those possible as a condition of salvation, but rather involves his adopting certain particular persons from among the common mass of sinners as his own possession. As Scripture says, When the children were not yet born, and had done nothing either good or bad…, she (Rebecca) was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Rom. 9:11-13). Also, All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).

Article 11: Election Unchangeable

Just as God himself is most wise, unchangeable, all-knowing, and almighty, so the election made by him can neither be suspended nor altered, revoked, or annulled; neither can his chosen ones be cast off, nor their number reduced.

Article 12: The Assurance of Election

Assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word– such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.

Article 13: The Fruit of This Assurance

In their awareness and assurance of this election God’s children daily find greater cause to humble themselves before God, to adore the fathomless depth of his mercies, to cleanse themselves, and to give fervent love in return to him who first so greatly loved them. This is far from saying that this teaching concerning election, and reflection upon it, make God’s children lax in observing his commandments or carnally self-assured. By God’s just judgment this does usually happen to those who casually take for granted the grace of election or engage in idle and brazen talk about it but are unwilling to walk in the ways of the chosen.

Article 14: Teaching Election Properly

Just as, by God’s wise plan, this teaching concerning divine election has been proclaimed through the prophets, Christ himself, and the apostles, in Old and New Testament times, and has subsequently been committed to writing in the Holy Scriptures, so also today in God’s church, for which it was specifically intended, this teaching must be set forth–with a spirit of discretion, in a godly and holy manner, at the appropriate time and place, without inquisitive searching into the ways of the Most High. This must be done for the glory of God’s most holy name, and for the lively comfort of his people.

Article 15: Reprobation

Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election– those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice.

And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.

Article 16: Responses to the Teaching of Reprobation

Those who do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ, but who nevertheless use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us–such people ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to count themselves among the reprobate; rather they ought to continue diligently in the use of the means, to desire fervently a time of more abundant grace, and to wait for it in reverence and humility. On the other hand, those who seriously desire to turn to God, to be pleasing to him alone, and to be delivered from the body of death, but are not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like–such people ought much less to stand in fear of the teaching concerning reprobation, since our merciful God has promised that he will not snuff out a smoldering wick and that he will not break a bruised reed. However, those who have forgotten God and their Savior Jesus Christ and have abandoned themselves wholly to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh–such people have every reason to stand in fear of this teaching, as long as they do not seriously turn to God.

Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

Article 18: The Proper Attitude Toward Election and Reprobation

To those who complain about this grace of an undeserved election and about the severity of a just reprobation, we reply with the words of the apostle, Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? (Rom. 9:20), and with the words of our Savior, Have I no right to do what I want with my own? (Matt. 20:15). We, however, with reverent adoration of these secret things, cry out with the apostle: Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways beyond tracing out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has first given to God, that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen (Rom. 11:33-36).

Rejection of the Errors

by Which the Dutch Churches Have for Some Time Been Disturbed

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that the will of God to save those who would believe and persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decision of election to salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decision has been revealed in God’s Word.

For they deceive the simple and plainly contradict Holy Scripture in its testimony that God does not only wish to save those who would believe, but that he has also from eternity chosen certain particular people to whom, rather than to others, he would within time grant faith in Christ and perseverance. As Scripture says, I have revealed your name to those whom you gave me (John 17:6). Likewise, All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48), and He chose us before the foundation of the world so that we should be holy… (Eph. 1:4).

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). Likewise, who teach that there is one election to faith and another to salvation, so that there can be an election to justifying faith apart from a peremptory election to salvation.

For this is an invention of the human brain, devised apart from the Scriptures, which distorts the teaching concerning election and breaks up this golden chain of salvation: Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:30).

Who teach that God’s good pleasure and purpose, which Scripture mentions in its teaching of election, does not involve God’s choosing certain particular people rather than others, but involves God’s choosing, out of all possible conditions (including the works of the law) or out of the whole order of things, the intrinsically unworthy act of faith, as well as the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation; and it involves his graciously wishing to count this as perfect obedience and to look upon it as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

For by this pernicious error the good pleasure of God and the merit of Christ are robbed of their effectiveness and people are drawn away, by unprofitable inquiries, from the truth of undeserved justification and from the simplicity of the Scriptures. It also gives the lie to these words of the apostle: God called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of works, but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Tim. 1:9).

Who teach that in election to faith a prerequisite condition is that man should rightly use the light of nature, be upright, unassuming, humble, and disposed to eternal life, as though election depended to some extent on these factors.

For this smacks of Pelagius, and it clearly calls into question the words of the apostle: We lived at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in transgressions, made us alive with Christ, by whose grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with him and seated us with him in heaven in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages we might show the surpassing riches of his grace, according to his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God) not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:3-9).

Who teach that the incomplete and nonperemptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness. And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

This runs counter to the entire Scripture, which throughout impresses upon our ears and hearts these sayings among others: Election is not by works, but by him who calls (Rom. 9:11-12); All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48); He chose us in himself so that we should be holy (Eph. 1:4); You did not choose me, but I chose you (John 15:16); If by grace, not by works (Rom. 11:6); In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son (1 John 4:10).

Who teach that not every election to salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the chosen can perish and do in fact perish eternally, with no decision of God to prevent it.

By this gross error they make God changeable, destroy the comfort of the godly concerning the steadfastness of their election, and contradict the Holy Scriptures, which teach that the elect cannot be led astray (Matt. 24:24), that Christ does not lose those given to him by the Father (John 6:39), and that those whom God predestined, called, and justified, he also glorifies (Rom. 8:30).

Who teach that in this life there is no fruit, no awareness, and no assurance of one’s unchangeable election to glory, except as conditional upon something changeable and contingent.

For not only is it absurd to speak of an uncertain assurance, but these things also militate against the experience of the saints, who with the apostle rejoice from an awareness of their election and sing the praises of this gift of God; who, as Christ urged, rejoice with his disciples that their names have been written in heaven (Luke 10:20); and finally who hold up against the flaming arrows of the devil’s temptations the awareness of their election, with the question Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? (Rom. 8:33).

Who teach that it was not on the basis of his just will alone that God decided to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation or to pass anyone by in the imparting of grace necessary for faith and conversion.

For these words stand fast: He has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes (Rom. 9:18). And also: To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given (Matt. 13:11). Likewise: I give glory to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and have revealed them to little children; yes, Father, because that was your pleasure (Matt. 11:25-26).

Who teach that the cause for God’s sending the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely God’s good pleasure, but rather that one people is better and worthier than the other to whom the gospel is not communicated.

For Moses contradicts this when he addresses the people of Israel as follows: Behold, to Jehovah your God belong the heavens and the highest heavens, the earth and whatever is in it. But Jehovah was inclined in his affection to love your ancestors alone, and chose out their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as at this day (Deut. 10:14-15). And also Christ: Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! for if those mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Matt. 11:21).

The Second Main Point of Doctrine: Christ’s Death and Human Redemption Through It

Article 1: The Punishment Which God’s Justice Requires

God is not only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. His justice requires (as he has revealed himself in the Word) that the sins we have committed against his infinite majesty be punished with both temporal and eternal punishments, of soul as well as body. We cannot escape these punishments unless satisfaction is given to God’s justice.

Article 2: The Satisfaction Made by Christ

Since, however, we ourselves cannot give this satisfaction or deliver ourselves from God’s anger, God in his boundless mercy has given us as a guarantee his only begotten Son, who was made to be sin and a curse for us, in our place, on the cross, in order that he might give satisfaction for us.

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death

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: Reasons for This Infinite Value

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.

Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6: Unbelief Man’s Responsibility

However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

Article 7: Faith God’s Gift

But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ’s death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely from God’s grace – which he owes to no one – given to them in Christ from eternity.

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

Article 9: The Fulfillment of God’s Plan

This plan, arising out of God’s eternal love for his chosen ones, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result the chosen are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ’s blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and–here and in all eternity–praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride.

Rejection of the Errors

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ’s death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.

For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the Church.

Who teach that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.

For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ has become the guarantee and mediator of a better – that is, a new-covenant (Heb. 7:22; 9:15), and that a will is in force only when someone has died (Heb. 9:17).

Who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.

For they have too low an opinion of the death of Christ, do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.

Who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ’s death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ’s merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

For they contradict Scripture: They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ, whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood (Rom. 3:24-25). And along with the ungodly Socinus, they introduce a new and foreign justification of man before God, against the consensus of the whole church.

Who teach that all people have been received into the state of reconciliation and into the grace of the covenant, so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation, or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin.

For this opinion conflicts with Scripture which asserts that we are by nature children of wrath.

Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ’s death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.

Who teach that Christ neither could die, nor had to die, nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life, since such people do not need the death of Christ.

For they contradict the apostle, who says: Christ loved me and gave himself up for me (Gal. 2:20), and likewise: Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died, that is, for them (Rom. 8:33-34). They also contradict the Savior, who asserts: I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15), and My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).

The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine: Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs

Article 1: The Effect of the Fall on Human Nature

Man was originally created in the image of God and was furnished in his mind with a true and salutary knowledge of his Creator and things spiritual, in his will and heart with righteousness, and in all his emotions with purity; indeed, the whole man was holy. However, rebelling against God at the devil’s instigation and by his own free will, he deprived himself of these outstanding gifts. Rather, in their place he brought upon himself blindness, terrible darkness, futility, and distortion of judgment in his mind; perversity, defiance, and hardness in his heart and will; and finally impurity in all his emotions.

Article 2: The Spread of Corruption

Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God’s just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants– except for Christ alone–not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of his perverted nature.

Article 3: Total Inability

Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

Article 4: The Inadequacy of the Light of Nature

There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him–so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness. In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.

Article 5: The Inadequacy of the Law

In this respect, what is true of the light of nature is true also of the Ten Commandments given by God through Moses specifically to the Jews. For man cannot obtain saving grace through the Decalogue, because, although it does expose the magnitude of his sin and increasingly convict him of his guilt, yet it does not offer a remedy or enable him to escape from his misery, and, indeed, weakened as it is by the flesh, leaves the offender under the curse.

Article 6: The Saving Power of the Gospel

What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law can do, God accomplishes by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the Word or the ministry of reconciliation. This is the gospel about the Messiah, through which it has pleased God to save believers, in both the Old and the New Testament.

Article 7: God’s Freedom in Revealing the Gospel

In the Old Testament, God revealed this secret of his will to a small number; in the New Testament (now without any distinction between peoples) he discloses it to a large number. The reason for this difference must not be ascribed to the greater worth of one nation over another, or to a better use of the light of nature, but to the free good pleasure and undeserved love of God. Therefore, those who receive so much grace, beyond and in spite of all they deserve, ought to acknowledge it with humble and thankful hearts; on the other hand, with the apostle they ought to adore (but certainly not inquisitively search into) the severity and justice of God’s judgments on the others, who do not receive this grace.

Article 8: The Serious Call of the Gospel

Nevertheless, all who are called through the gospel are called seriously. For seriously and most genuinely God makes known in his Word what is pleasing to him: that those who are called should come to him. Seriously he also promises rest for their souls and eternal life to all who come to him and believe.

Article 9: Human Responsibility for Rejecting the Gospel

The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life’s cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).

Article 10: Conversion as the Work of God

The fact that others who are called through the ministry of the gospel do come and are brought to conversion must not be credited to man, as though one distinguishes himself by free choice from others who are furnished with equal or sufficient grace for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains). No, it must be credited to God: just as from eternity he chose his own in Christ, so within time he effectively calls them, grants them faith and repentance, and, having rescued them from the dominion of darkness, brings them into the kingdom of his Son, in order that they may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called them out of darkness into this marvelous light, and may boast not in themselves, but in the Lord, as apostolic words frequently testify in Scripture.

Article 11: The Holy Spirit’s Work in Conversion

Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in his chosen ones, or works true conversion in them, he not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.

Article 12: Regeneration a Supernatural Work

And this is the regeneration, the new creation, the raising from the dead, and the making alive so clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures, which God works in us without our help. But this certainly does not happen only by outward teaching, by moral persuasion, or by such a way of working that, after God has done his work, it remains in man’s power whether or not to be reborn or converted. Rather, it is an entirely supernatural work, one that is at the same time most powerful and most pleasing, a marvelous, hidden, and inexpressible work, which is not lesser than or inferior in power to that of creation or of raising the dead, as Scripture (inspired by the author of this work) teaches. As a result, all those in whose hearts God works in this marvelous way are certainly, unfailingly, and effectively reborn and do actually believe. And then the will, now renewed, is not only activated and motivated by God but in being activated by God is also itself active. For this reason, man himself, by that grace which he has received, is also rightly said to believe and to repent.

Article 13: The Incomprehensible Way of Regeneration

In this life believers cannot fully understand the way this work occurs; meanwhile, they rest content with knowing and experiencing that by this grace of God they do believe with the heart and love their Savior.

Article 14: The Way God Gives Faith

In this way, therefore, faith is a gift of God, not in the sense that it is offered by God for man to choose, but that it is in actual fact bestowed on man, breathed and infused into him. Nor is it a gift in the sense that God bestows only the potential to believe, but then awaits assent–the act of believing–from man’s choice; rather, it is a gift in the sense that he who works both willing and acting and, indeed, works all things in all people produces in man both the will to believe and the belief itself.

Article 15: Responses to God’s Grace

God does not owe this grace to anyone. For what could God owe to one who has nothing to give that can be paid back? Indeed, what could God owe to one who has nothing of his own to give but sin and falsehood? Therefore the person who receives this grace owes and gives eternal thanks to God alone; the person who does not receive it either does not care at all about these spiritual things and is satisfied with himself in his condition, or else in self-assurance foolishly boasts about having something which he lacks. Furthermore, following the example of the apostles, we are to think and to speak in the most favorable way about those who outwardly profess their faith and better their lives, for the inner chambers of the heart are unknown to us. But for others who have not yet been called, we are to pray to the God who calls things that do not exist as though they did. In no way, however, are we to pride ourselves as better than they, as though we had distinguished ourselves from them.

Article 16: Regeneration’s Effect

However, just as by the fall man did not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and–in a manner at once pleasing and powerful–bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.

Article 17: God’s Use of Means in Regeneration

Just as the almighty work of God by which he brings forth and sustains our natural life does not rule out but requires the use of means, by which God, according to his infinite wisdom and goodness, has wished to exercise his power, so also the aforementioned supernatural work of God by which he regenerates us in no way rules out or cancels the use of the gospel, which God in his great wisdom has appointed to be the seed of regeneration and the food of the soul. For this reason, the apostles and the teachers who followed them taught the people in a godly manner about this grace of God, to give him the glory and to humble all pride, and yet did not neglect meanwhile to keep the people, by means of the holy admonitions of the gospel, under the administration of the Word, the sacraments, and discipline. So even today it is out of the question that the teachers or those taught in the church should presume to test God by separating what he in his good pleasure has wished to be closely joined together. For grace is bestowed through admonitions, and the more readily we perform our duty, the more lustrous the benefit of God working in us usually is and the better his work advances. To him alone, both for the means and for their saving fruit and effectiveness, all glory is owed forever. Amen.

Rejection of the Errors

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that, properly speaking, it cannot be said that original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race or to warrant temporal and eternal punishments.

For they contradict the apostle when he says: Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death passed on to all men because all sinned (Rom. 5:12); also: The guilt followed one sin and brought condemnation (Rom. 5:16); likewise: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

Who teach that the spiritual gifts or the good dispositions and virtues such as goodness, holiness, and righteousness could not have resided in man’s will when he was first created, and therefore could not have been separated from the will at the fall.

For this conflicts with the apostle’s description of the image of God in Ephesians 4:24, where he portrays the image in terms of righteousness and holiness, which definitely reside in the will.

Who teach that in spiritual death the spiritual gifts have not been separated from man’s will, since the will in itself has never been corrupted but only hindered by the darkness of the mind and the unruliness of the emotions, and since the will is able to exercise its innate free capacity once these hindrances are removed, which is to say, it is able of itself to will or choose whatever good is set before it–or else not to will or choose it.

This is a novel idea and an error and has the effect of elevating the power of free choice, contrary to the words of Jeremiah the prophet: The heart itself is deceitful above all things and wicked (Jer. 17:9); and of the words of the apostle: All of us also lived among them (the sons of disobedience) at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts (Eph. 2:3).

Who teach that unregenerate man is not strictly or totally dead in his sins or deprived of all capacity for spiritual good but is able to hunger and thirst for righteousness or life and to offer the sacrifice of a broken and contrite spirit which is pleasing to God.

For these views are opposed to the plain testimonies of Scripture: You were dead in your transgressions and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5); The imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart is only evil all the time (Gen. 6:5; 8:21). Besides, to hunger and thirst for deliverance from misery and for life, and to offer God the sacrifice of a broken spirit is characteristic only of the regenerate and of those called blessed (Ps. 51:17; Matt. 5:6).

Who teach that corrupt and natural man can make such good use of common grace (by which they mean the light of nature) or of the gifts remaining after the fall that he is able thereby gradually to obtain a greater grace– evangelical or saving grace–as well as salvation itself; and that in this way God, for his part, shows himself ready to reveal Christ to all people, since he provides to all, to a sufficient extent and in an effective manner, the means necessary for the revealing of Christ, for faith, and for repentance.

For Scripture, not to mention the experience of all ages, testifies that this is false: He makes known his words to Jacob, his statutes and his laws to Israel; he has done this for no other nation, and they do not know his laws (Ps. 147:19-20); In the past God let all nations go their own way (Acts 14:16); They (Paul and his companions) were kept by the Holy Spirit from speaking God’s word in Asia; and When they had come to Mysia, they tried to go to Bithynia, but the Spirit would not allow them to (Acts 16:6-7).

Who teach that in the true conversion of man new qualities, dispositions, or gifts cannot be infused or poured into his will by God, and indeed that the faith [or believing] by which we first come to conversion and from which we receive the name “believers” is not a quality or gift infused by God, but only an act of man, and that it cannot be called a gift except in respect to the power of attaining faith.

For these views contradict the Holy Scriptures, which testify that God does infuse or pour into our hearts the new qualities of faith, obedience, and the experiencing of his love: I will put my law in their minds, and write it on their hearts (Jer. 31:33); I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring (Isa. 44:3); The love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us (Rom. 5:5). They also conflict with the continuous practice of the Church, which prays with the prophet: Convert me, Lord, and I shall be converted (Jer. 31:18).

Who teach that the grace by which we are converted to God is nothing but a gentle persuasion, or (as others explain it) that the way of God’s acting in man’s conversion that is most noble and suited to human nature is that which happens by persuasion, and that nothing prevents this grace of moral suasion even by itself from making natural men spiritual; indeed, that God does not produce the assent of the will except in this manner of moral suasion, and that the effectiveness of God’s work by which it surpasses the work of Satan consists in the fact that God promises eternal benefits while Satan promises temporal ones.

For this teaching is entirely Pelagian and contrary to the whole of Scripture, which recognizes besides this persuasion also another, far more effective and divine way in which the Holy Spirit acts in man’s conversion. As Ezekiel 36:26 puts it: I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; and I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh….

Who teach that God in regenerating man does not bring to bear that power of his omnipotence whereby he may powerfully and unfailingly bend man’s will to faith and conversion, but that even when God has accomplished all the works of grace which he uses for man’s conversion, man nevertheless can, and in actual fact often does, so resist God and the Spirit in their intent and will to regenerate him, that man completely thwarts his own rebirth; and, indeed, that it remains in his own power whether or not to be reborn.

For this does away with all effective functioning of God’s grace in our conversion and subjects the activity of Almighty God to the will of man; it is contrary to the apostles, who teach that we believe by virtue of the effective working of God’s mighty strength (Eph. 1:19), and that God fulfills the undeserved good will of his kindness and the work of faith in us with power (2 Thess. 1:11), and likewise that his divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3).

Who teach that grace and free choice are concurrent partial causes which cooperate to initiate conversion, and that grace does not precede–in the order of causality–the effective influence of the will; that is to say, that God does not effectively help man’s will to come to conversion before man’s will itself motivates and determines itself.

For the early church already condemned this doctrine long ago in the Pelagians, on the basis of the words of the apostle: It does not depend on man’s willing or running but on God’s mercy (Rom. 9:16); also: Who makes you different from anyone else? and What do you have that you did not receive? (1 Cor. 4:7); likewise: It is God who works in you to will and act according to his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).

The Fifth Main Point of Doctrine: The Perseverance of the Saints

Article 1: The Regenerate Not Entirely Free from Sin

Those people whom God according to his purpose calls into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, he also sets free from the reign and slavery of sin, though in this life not entirely from the flesh and from the body of sin.

Article 2: The Believer’s Reaction to Sins of Weakness

Hence daily sins of weakness arise, and blemishes cling to even the best works of God’s people, giving them continual cause to humble themselves before God, to flee for refuge to Christ crucified, to put the flesh to death more and more by the Spirit of supplication and by holy exercises of godliness, and to strain toward the goal of perfection, until they are freed from this body of death and reign with the Lamb of God in heaven.

Article 3: God’s Preservation of the Converted

Because of these remnants of sin dwelling in them and also because of the temptations of the world and Satan, those who have been converted could not remain standing in this grace if left to their own resources. But God is faithful, mercifully strengthening them in the grace once conferred on them and powerfully preserving them in it to the end.

Article 4: The Danger of True Believers’ Falling into Serious Sins

Although that power of God strengthening and preserving true believers in grace is more than a match for the flesh, yet those converted are not always so activated and motivated by God that in certain specific actions they cannot by their own fault depart from the leading of grace, be led astray by the desires of the flesh, and give in to them. For this reason they must constantly watch and pray that they may not be led into temptations. When they fail to do this, not only can they be carried away by the flesh, the world, and Satan into sins, even serious and outrageous ones, but also by God’s just permission they sometimes are so carried away–witness the sad cases, described in Scripture, of David, Peter, and other saints falling into sins.

Article 5: The Effects of Such Serious Sins

By such monstrous sins, however, they greatly offend God, deserve the sentence of death, grieve the Holy Spirit, suspend the exercise of faith, severely wound the conscience, and sometimes lose the awareness of grace for a time–until, after they have returned to the way by genuine repentance, God’s fatherly face again shines upon them.

Article 6: God’s Saving Intervention

For God, who is rich in mercy, according to his unchangeable purpose of election does not take his Holy Spirit from his own completely, even when they fall grievously. Neither does he let them fall down so far that they forfeit the grace of adoption and the state of justification, or commit the sin which leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit), and plunge themselves, entirely forsaken by him, into eternal ruin.

Article 7: Renewal to Repentance

For, in the first place, God preserves in those saints when they fall his imperishable seed from which they have been born again, lest it perish or be dislodged. Secondly, by his Word and Spirit he certainly and effectively renews them to repentance so that they have a heartfelt and godly sorrow for the sins they have committed; seek and obtain, through faith and with a contrite heart, forgiveness in the blood of the Mediator; experience again the grace of a reconciled God; through faith adore his mercies; and from then on more eagerly work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Article 8: The Certainty of This Preservation

So it is not by their own merits or strength but by God’s undeserved mercy that they neither forfeit faith and grace totally nor remain in their downfalls to the end and are lost. With respect to themselves this not only easily could happen, but also undoubtedly would happen; but with respect to God it cannot possibly happen, since his plan cannot be changed, his promise cannot fail, the calling according to his purpose cannot be revoked, the merit of Christ as well as his interceding and preserving cannot be nullified, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit can neither be invalidated nor wiped out.

Article 9: The Assurance of This Preservation

Concerning this preservation of those chosen to salvation and concerning the perseverance of true believers in faith, believers themselves can and do become assured in accordance with the measure of their faith, by which they firmly believe that they are and always will remain true and living members of the church, and that they have the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

Article 10: The Ground of This Assurance

Accordingly, this assurance does not derive from some private revelation beyond or outside the Word, but from faith in the promises of God which he has very plentifully revealed in his Word for our comfort, from the testimony of the Holy Spirit testifying with our spirit that we are God’s children and heirs (Rom. 8:16-17), and finally from a serious and holy pursuit of a clear conscience and of good works. And if God’s chosen ones in this world did not have this well-founded comfort that the victory will be theirs and this reliable guarantee of eternal glory, they would be of all people most miserable.

Article 11: Doubts Concerning This Assurance

Meanwhile, Scripture testifies that believers have to contend in this life with various doubts of the flesh and that under severe temptation they do not always experience this full assurance of faith and certainty of perseverance. But God, the Father of all comfort, does not let them be tempted beyond what they can bear, but with the temptation he also provides a way out (1 Cor. 10:13), and by the Holy Spirit revives in them the assurance of their perseverance.

Article 12: This Assurance as an Incentive to Godliness

This assurance of perseverance, however, so far from making true believers proud and carnally self-assured, is rather the true root of humility, of childlike respect, of genuine godliness, of endurance in every conflict, of fervent prayers, of steadfastness in crossbearing and in confessing the truth, and of well-founded joy in God. Reflecting on this benefit provides an incentive to a serious and continual practice of thanksgiving and good works, as is evident from the testimonies of Scripture and the examples of the saints.

Article 13: Assurance No Inducement to Carelessness

Neither does the renewed confidence of perseverance produce immorality or lack of concern for godliness in those put back on their feet after a fall, but it produces a much greater concern to observe carefully the ways of the Lord which he prepared in advance. They observe these ways in order that by walking in them they may maintain the assurance of their perseverance, lest, by their abuse of his fatherly goodness, the face of the gracious God (for the godly, looking upon his face is sweeter than life, but its withdrawal is more bitter than death) turn away from them again, with the result that they fall into greater anguish of spirit.

Article 14: God’s Use of Means in Perseverance

And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments.

Article 15: Contrasting Reactions to the Teaching of Perseverance

This teaching about the perseverance of true believers and saints, and about their assurance of it–a teaching which God has very richly revealed in his Word for the glory of his name and for the comfort of the godly and which he impresses on the hearts of believers–is something which the flesh does not understand, Satan hates, the world ridicules, the ignorant and the hypocrites abuse, and the spirits of error attack. The bride of Christ, on the other hand, has always loved this teaching very tenderly and defended it steadfastly as a priceless treasure; and God, against whom no plan can avail and no strength can prevail, will ensure that she will continue to do this. To this God alone, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever. Amen.

Rejection of the Errors

Concerning the Teaching of the Perseverance of the Saints

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that the perseverance of true believers is not an effect of election or a gift of God produced by Christ’s death, but a condition of the new covenant which man, before what they call his “peremptory” election and justification, must fulfill by his free will.

For Holy Scripture testifies that perseverance follows from election and is granted to the chosen by virtue of Christ’s death, resurrection, and intercession: The chosen obtained it; the others were hardened (Rom. 11:7); likewise, He who did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all–how will he not, along with him, grant us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died–more than that, who was raised–who also sits at the right hand of God, and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? (Rom. 8:32-35).

Who teach that God does provide the believer with sufficient strength to persevere and is ready to preserve this strength in him if he performs his duty, but that even with all those things in place which are necessary to persevere in faith and which God is pleased to use to preserve faith, it still always depends on the choice of man’s will whether or not he perseveres.

For this view is obviously Pelagian; and though it intends to make men free it makes them sacrilegious. It is against the enduring consensus of evangelical teaching which takes from man all cause for boasting and ascribes the praise for this benefit only to God’s grace. It is also against the testimony of the apostle: It is God who keeps us strong to the end, so that we will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:8).

Who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again not only can forfeit justifying faith as well as grace and salvation totally and to the end, but also in actual fact do often forfeit them and are lost forever.

For this opinion nullifies the very grace of justification and regeneration as well as the continual preservation by Christ, contrary to the plain words of the apostle Paul: If Christ died for us while we were still sinners, we will therefore much more be saved from God’s wrath through him, since we have now been justified by his blood (Rom. 5:8-9); and contrary to the apostle John: No one who is born of God is intent on sin, because God’s seed remains in him, nor can he sin, because he has been born of God (1 John 3:9); also contrary to the words of Jesus Christ: I give eternal life to my sheep, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand (John 10: 28-29).

Who teach that those who truly believe and have been born again can commit the sin that leads to death (the sin against the Holy Spirit).

For the same apostle John, after making mention of those who commit the sin that leads to death and forbidding prayer for them (1 John 5: 16-17), immediately adds: We know that anyone born of God does not commit sin (that is, that kind of sin), but the one who was born of God keeps himself safe, and the evil one does not touch him (v. 18).

Who teach that apart from a special revelation no one can have the assurance of future perseverance in this life.

For by this teaching the well-founded consolation of true believers in this life is taken away and the doubting of the Romanists is reintroduced into the church. Holy Scripture, however, in many places derives the assurance not from a special and extraordinary revelation but from the marks peculiar to God’s children and from God’s completely reliable promises. So especially the apostle Paul: Nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom. 8:39); and John: They who obey his commands remain in him and he in them. And this is how we know that he remains in us: by the Spirit he gave us (1 John 3:24).

Who teach that the teaching of the assurance of perseverance and of salvation is by its very nature and character an opiate of the flesh and is harmful to godliness, good morals, prayer, and other holy exercises, but that, on the contrary, to have doubt about this is praiseworthy.

For these people show that they do not know the effective operation of God’s grace and the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit, and they contradict the apostle John, who asserts the opposite in plain words: Dear friends, now we are children of God, but what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he is made known, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure (1 John 3:2-3). Moreover, they are refuted by the examples of the saints in both the Old and the New Testament, who though assured of their perseverance and salvation yet were constant in prayer and other exercises of godliness.

Who teach that the faith of those who believe only temporarily does not differ from justifying and saving faith except in duration alone.

For Christ himself in Matthew 13:20ff. and Luke 8:13ff. clearly defines these further differences between temporary and true believers: he says that the former receive the seed on rocky ground, and the latter receive it in good ground, or a good heart; the former have no root, and the latter are firmly rooted; the former have no fruit, and the latter produce fruit in varying measure, with steadfastness, or perseverance.

Who teach that it is not absurd that a person, after losing his former regeneration, should once again, indeed quite often, be reborn.

For by this teaching they deny the imperishable nature of God’s seed by which we are born again, contrary to the testimony of the apostle Peter: Born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable (1 Pet. 1:23).

Who teach that Christ nowhere prayed for an unfailing perseverance of believers in faith.

For they contradict Christ himself when he says: I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail (Luke 22:32); and John the gospel writer when he testifies in John 17 that it was not only for the apostles, but also for all those who were to believe by their message that Christ prayed: Holy Father, preserve them in your name (v. 11); and My prayer is not that you take them out of the world, but that you preserve them from the evil one (v. 15).

Conclusion: Rejection of False Accusations

And so this is the clear, simple, and straightforward explanation of the orthodox teaching on the five articles in dispute in the Netherlands, as well as the rejection of the errors by which the Dutch churches have for some time been disturbed. This explanation and rejection the Synod declares to be derived from God’s Word and in agreement with the confessions of the Reformed churches. Hence it clearly appears that those of whom one could hardly expect it have shown no truth, equity, and charity at all in wishing to make the public believe:

–that the teaching of the Reformed churches on predestination and on the points associated with it by its very nature and tendency draws the minds of people away from all godliness and religion, is an opiate of the flesh and the devil, and is a stronghold of Satan where he lies in wait for all people, wounds most of them, and fatally pierces many of them with the arrows of both despair and self-assurance;

–that this teaching makes God the author of sin, unjust, a tyrant, and a hypocrite; and is nothing but a refurbished Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, and Mohammedanism;

–that this teaching makes people carnally self-assured, since it persuades them that nothing endangers the salvation of the chosen, no matter how they live, so that they may commit the most outrageous crimes with self-assurance; and that on the other hand nothing is of use to the reprobate for salvation even if they have truly performed all the works of the saints;

–that this teaching means that God predestined and created, by the bare and unqualified choice of his will, without the least regard or consideration of any sin, the greatest part of the world to eternal condemnation; that in the same manner in which election is the source and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and ungodliness; that many infant children of believers are snatched in their innocence from their mothers’ breasts and cruelly cast into hell so that neither the blood of Christ nor their baptism nor the prayers of the church at their baptism can be of any use to them; and very many other slanderous accusations of this kind which the Reformed churches not only disavow but even denounce with their whole heart.

Therefore this Synod of Dort in the name of the Lord pleads with all who devoutly call on the name of our Savior Jesus Christ to form their judgment about the faith of the Reformed churches, not on the basis of false accusations gathered from here or there, or even on the basis of the personal statements of a number of ancient and modern authorities–statements which are also often either quoted out of context or misquoted and twisted to convey a different meaning–but on the basis of the churches’ own official confessions and of the present explanation of the orthodox teaching which has been endorsed by the unanimous consent of the members of the whole Synod, one and all.

Moreover, the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers.

Finally, this Synod urges all fellow ministers in the gospel of Christ to deal with this teaching in a godly and reverent manner, in the academic institutions as well as in the churches; to do so, both in their speaking and writing, with a view to the glory of God’s name, holiness of life, and the comfort of anxious souls; to think and also speak with Scripture according to the analogy of faith; and, finally, to refrain from all those ways of speaking which go beyond the bounds set for us by the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures and which could give impertinent sophists a just occasion to scoff at the teaching of the Reformed churches or even to bring false accusations against it.

May God’s Son Jesus Christ, who sits at the right hand of God and gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth, lead to the truth those who err, silence the mouths of those who lay false accusations against sound teaching, and equip faithful ministers of his Word with a spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all they say may be to the glory of God and the building up of their hearers. Amen

25 comments so far

  1. How does the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue) fit/tie in with the Dort(d)recht Confession of Faith? In the 18 articles, there is no mention of the TeN Commandments (Exodus 20, 2-17 or Deuteronomy 5, 6-21).

  2. I think that understanding the purpose for the ten commandments can clearly show how the 18 arts. relate directly to them. The 18 arts. most emphatically infer in their content, that there is absolutely no part or room for man to be involved in the work of salvation. Proportionatly, the ten commandments likewise was not meant to be successfully adhered to. God gave them to the people as a rule by which they were to follow, these are our laws, but God gave them knowing that we would fail in carrying them out. While the Hebrews who were present, and accepted the 10 comms. acknowledged them as a standard under which they would be judged, they too understood (for the most part), that they were not saved by them, but that they were to clarify their lost condition before God. Many were believers in the coming promise[future]. The ten-comms were given and received for the purpose of expressing the need for a saviour. The 18 arts. are a declaration of just that; that we are unable, in all areas, to have any part in salvation. That we are to look to the promise[past] of the messiah.

    I think they are very related in my opinion.

  3. The Article 11 is bogus, and obviously false. If Gods decides to change plans, he may do so at will, and no Synod of Dort or anything else can change such a decision. The rest of the articles are concocting a damnation soap intended to reject all humans that don’t fit the model society of a limited set of preachers in a branch of christianity burdened by splits and internal trouble.

    Foremost I reject the Dortian interpretation on Eph. 1.. What it says, is that we shall be grateful to God for our personal gifts aside from the salvation. The talk of “predestination” cannot be interpreted literally according to our limited human understanding, it fails logically if we are assigning God a “will”, free or otherwise.

    Lastly: I reject the notion that Christianity is a legal system. It’s a “moral” system pinpointing for us how “things work” in a deeper meaning, but all development of moral, is a matter of personal spiritual seeking, not to be imposed upon us by any external legalist interpretation system. Only the salvation is by an external force, and that external force is God.

    Me: Lutheran catholic, single predestination (the elect only), all sinners may be saved if they ask for it.

  4. tompa-

    Thanks for the post. Please don’t give up on what you’re looking through on the site.

    (1) That God is unchangeable (“immutable”) is one of His glorious, fundamental, identifying characteristics. It is true of Him in general– “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” (Numbers 23); and it is true of Him as it relates to Him saving His elect– “they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).

    (2) I wonder which “branch of Christianity” you are referring to. Although the details of the Canons are not confessed except by the Reformed and the Presbyterians, its predestinarian substance is prominent in many even competing historic Christian traditions (eg, the Augustinian strand of Roman Catholicism, the Martin Luther-ish strand of Lutheranism), ALL which ground the doctrine in God’s immutable will .

    (3) If you have a problem with “assigning God a will,” your problem IS with Ephesians 1. I mean it says what it says, right? “he predestined us. . .in accordance with his pleasure and will”; “And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ”; “having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.” His will, His will, His will. There is a difference between basely interpreting God’s will, which open theism and Arminian does, and then there is another whole level of interpretive dysfunction that denies the very obvious category, or assigns it such and entirely different meaning as to render it nonsense, which you have done.

    (4) Hard to defend your denial of Christianity as a legal system (depending on what you mean by it) when God gives us laws and will judge us someday, and when the bibical language describing our salvation is forensic (eg, “justification”). We also oppose legalistic interpretive systems and manmade moral rules. But not all systems of doctrine and moral rules are manmade. Some are biblical. As an example, the apostles systematize various parts of OT and even NT Scripture all the time into a coherent ideas. Hey, even your post is a mini-interpretive system, one I trust you do not think is legalistic.

    (5) We do believe that all sinners may be saved if they ask for it. The only ones who will truly understand and acknowledge their sin, and flee to Christ alone for their salvation (“ask for it”), will be the elect, whom God has made alive out of their cold, dead heart to see their need and see their only hope.


  5. 1. I’ve hunted high and low for the origin of the mnemonic TULIP, which I currently assume to be an anglicized simplification of the main Dortmund remonstrances. Are there equivalent mnemonics in other languages?

    2. I view early Calvinism as a system of organization which was very successful in creating robust Reformation governments. Yet through 400 years of history, what took place at Dortmund appears to me to be only a minor schism within Calvinism. 100 years after, Arminian Calvinism flourished – under Wesley (read Calvinism Calmly Considered for his refutation of all 5 Points), the Baptists and later under revivalists and the Holiness movement – and the Gospel was preached. The purer strain of Puritan Calvinism – Congregationalism – apostasized into Universalism, Unitarianism and the like. Gospel preaching died out in favor of dry dogma. Eventually even the dogma itself disappeared.

    3. The Synod used logic to interpret scripture for unscriptural purposes. Infant regeneration is never mentioned in scripture, though it can be reasoned out by torturing Paul’s predestination passages. But why go to that trouble? I expect that in the 1600’s it was useful politically for creating the monolithic Protestant state churches. It’s hardly useful for that purpose today.

  6. Wow, a lot of stuff there Tom. I am not sure what you have studied, but your perspective is grossly inaccurate. One, TULIP is not an acronym which the Reformed came up with. The 17th century Arminians submitted a remonstrance to the estates general in Holland in the early 17th century to protest Calvinistic teaching on 4 points: unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. The synod of Dordt, answered those four points Biblically. In other words, the Arminian remonstrance formed the “talking points” for the debate. Calvinists did not create the acronym as a rhetorical strategy to communicate core principles about the sovereignty of God in salvation. Second, Wesley and the other movements you mention are not Reformed. To be “Reformed” is to subscribe to the confessions produced by the Reformed churches in the 16th and early 17th century; none of those you mention to do that. Third, you charge the Synod of Dordt with allowing logic to ride rough-shod over scripture in order to come up with TULIP; that is contrary to fact. It is Arminianism that allows logic and humanistic presuppositions to ride rough-shod over scripture. There is no Arminian concept of “free will” taught anywhere in scripture. You will search scripture in vain to find the doctrine of “prevenient grace,” which is essential to the logic of Arminian soteriology. On the atonement, Arminians hold to the impossible notion that Jesus died for no one on the cross. Must I go on? I think not. Reformed doctrine is rigorously Biblical; Arminianism imposes humanistically informed logical presuppositions upon scripture. Fourth, I am not sure what you mean by “infant regeneration.” If you mean to say that Reformed theology teaches baptismal regeneration as the basis for baptizing infants of believers, or presumptive regeneration as the basis for baptizing infant children of believers, you are wrong. The Reformed baptize based upon the command of God to administer the sign and seal of the covenant to the children of the covenant. If you mean to say that Reformed theology teaches the possibility of infant regeneration in some cases and that you believe that is in error, then what is the alternative proposition? Either infants dying in infancy all die because they did not reach an age where they could cognitively understand the gospel and then exercise their own will to believe in Jesus unto salvation, or alternatively, at least some must be regenerated by the Spirit in infancy before they die, else they receive eternal damnation on account of original sin. Arminianism cannot escape this dilemma, because it does teach that all men are born totally depraved and are subject therefore to the wrath and curse of God; so, its unclear what your objection is. Fifth, your assertion that the Reformed taught infant baptism as a way to create a monolithic Protestant state church is so hopelessly confused and historically inaccurate that I don’t even know how to respond to it.

    I suggest that you listen to more of the textual sermons and catechetical sermons on the web site in order to get an informed perspective on what Reformed theology is about. Then, we can have a more fruitful discussion and hopefully unravel your misconceptions.

    Thanks for engaging us.

    Pastor John

  7. Sigh. Reverend Sawtelle, I should have kept my opinions about Calvinism to myself. I didn’t want to start a debate, and I apologize. But I do wish you would answer my first question about TULIP. I first wondered if the Dutch used the same mnemonic as the English. I also wonder what the mnemonic is in other countries with Reformed churches such as France.

  8. Since I’m a Baptist, there’s only one thing that really bothers me about your comments above. I quote:

    “The Reformed baptize based upon the command of God to administer the sign and seal of the covenant to the children of the covenant.”

    I was born and raised a Presbyterian. I understand the implications of covenant theology which permit the baptizing of infants. But I did not become a believer while in the Presbyterian church, and Jesus commands his followers – not infants – to be baptized. Following his command, I was finally and really baptized as an adult.

  9. The Reformed argue that the command to baptize covenant children is implicit in the command to circumcise covenant children in Genesis 17. Since the new covenant is the fulfillment of the covenant of grace instituted in Eden after the Fall and then publicly and externally administered to Abraham and his descendants, and since baptism replaces the sacrament of circumcision, the practice of infant baptism under the new covenant is warranted and justified.

    I understand that you were regenerated later in life, but that does not negate the fact that you were a part of the covenant, by baptism, before you believed unto salvation. The baptism you received as an infant in the Presbyterian church was valid and should not have been repeated after your adult conversion experience.

    I hope that you will be willing to reconsider the decision you have made to leave the true church. Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of scripture.

  10. “The Reformed argue”….”leave the true church”….

    Do you really believe what you have just said? That Baptists, Methodists and Nazarenes are not a part of the “true church” because they do not use the Belgic or Westminster confession? And if so what do you find “true” about the “church” known as the UPC that I was raised in?

    Despite parting ways with Whitfield and fulminating against the five points, Wesley argued for a truce – an agreement to disagree – between Arminian and Reformed. As I heard Packer say once when asked whether C.S.Lewis was Arminian or Calvinist: “In theory he was a Calvinist”. Please read more Baxter and less Owens.

  11. I do believe what I said 100%. Belgic Confession article 29 outlines the marks of a true church: proper preaching of the gospel, proper administration of the sacraments, and exercise of church discipline. If a church fails to meet these three criteria, it is a false church. Baptists fail to administer baptism to infants, therefore they are a false church.

    As for Arminianism, it is a false gospel. Churches that preach Arminianism are false churches because they preach false gospels. Paul says in Galatians 1:8, “if we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed.” My friend, you need to take Paul’s words very seriously. False gospel’s are accursed and those who preach them are accursed as well. We are not authorized to form a truce with those who blaspheme Christ by preaching what is so blatantly contrary to scripture.

    By the way, I am not reading Owens, I am reading Calvin.

  12. I also read Calvin (sorry – it’s Owen, not Owens), and in the Institutes he is insistent that adult converts be baptized. Yet in all my years in the UPC I do not recall seeing one adult baptized. Who preaches the gospel then? A Reformed Church which offers a weekly reading of the Belgic Confession, makes no adult converts and baptizes all its infants? Or a Baptist Church which offers gospel preaching (Ephesians 2:8-9), and baptizes its converts and children on belief?

    As I read the Institutes, I understand that infant baptism is only efficacious for the children of believers. This allows multiple generations to enter the covenant family without professing any faith. In effect it’s very similar to Catholic baptism, as the sacrament of baptism saves rather than faith. You may well argue that the Reformed Church is different, but I counter that this very thing has caused once vital Reformed denominations – Congregationalists and Presbyterians – to gentrify and disintegrate.

  13. Notice what you just did, you just changed the discussion from what does God’s word say to results. Your implicit premise is, if it produces results, it must be okay. But that premise is fraught with difficulties. First, it seems that you have equated numbers with results, which is hardly a sound equation. Secondly, if you break God’s law in the process of securing results, you have not glorified God. Simply baptizing great numbers of adults does not constitute a God honoring result if you have preached the wrong gospel and have disobeyed God in the process.

    Let me point out something else as well, the church may preach the gospel faithfully and convert very few people. Isaiah the prophet preached with almost no results. Jesus preached for a few years and had many of his “converts” turn away. We don’t get the sense from the New Testament that Paul converted thousands upon thousands of people; instead, it seems that Paul preached to perhaps thousands upon thousands, but a small percentage of those were actually converted.

    I don’t condone laziness, and if that is the reason why some Reformed churches don’t grow and don’t baptize more adults, then shame on them. But, I will not agree to the position which you propose which is that as long as a church has results it justifies their disobedience to God’s commands and excuses the preaching of a false gospel. It sounds to me like you have more in common with the Rick Warren’s, Joel Osteen’s, and Bill Hybels’ of this world than you do with the apostle Paul and the word of God.

    You draw a simplistic contrast between a Reformed church which merely “offers a weekly reading of the Belgic Confession” with a Baptist church which “offers gospel preaching.” I am unaware of a Reformed church which simply reads the Belgic and that is it. Beyond that, if the Baptist church preaches Arminianism, its not preaching the gospel anyway. Just because it talks about Jesus from the Bible does not mean it preaches the gospel of the Bible; Jehovah Witnesses even do that, and by the way, they make a lot of adult converts, and hold to “believers baptism only” as you and other Baptists do. Perhaps you will want to praise them.

  14. I guess it comes down to what the gospel is, and I see it most succinctly stated in Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16 and I John 1:9. If these are the basis of a person’s faith they should have a desire to follow Jesus’ commands to be baptized and to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with other believers. I do not see this as an assembly line approach. God chose me as an individual. Like Calvin I would expect to see adults responding to the Gospel and being baptized in a healthy church, Reformed or Baptist.

  15. For the record, the first user of Tulip as a mnemonic device appears to be Loraine Boettner in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination first published in 1932.

    Thank you Dr. Boersma and theopedia.com for this information.

  16. Apologies to Rev. John, for I am obliged to agree with Tom on the issue of Baptism. You say: “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of scripture.” Yet, there is no clear indication in scripture, that is, no definitive passage, by which your statement may be grounded. Your justification for infant baptism derives primarily from isolated passages in the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:16, Ephesian 4:5, Hebrews 6:2, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Matthew 19:14, 1 Corinthians 7:14, Colossians 2:11, 12) whereby you make precarious inferences loosely based upon covenant theology (using isolated passages from the Old Testament). Or, better, you have unwittingly accepted the interpretations of Calvin, among others, who had, in the past, actually thought through these issues. At this juncture, I should say that you are certainly, as you say, “warranted” and “justified” in doing so (i.e. attempting such an interpretation).

    However, your very own language presupposes interpretation. As you say: “The Reformed ARGUE that the command to baptize covenant children is IMPLICIT (not explicit) in the command to circumcise covenant children in Genesis 17”, and “the practice of infant baptism under the new covenant is WARRANTED and JUSTIFIED.” Your argument for infant baptism is, as you admit yourself, an argument; that is, an unique interpretation of specific passages within the Bible. To be sure, all this you yourself have already admitted.

    If, with humility and sincerity, you had reflected upon the precariousness of your own position, instead of saying: “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of scripture”, you may have said: “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of the Reformed INTERPRETATION of scripture (that is, according to your own view of scripture; since, it is clear that no passage is to be found which concedes your point with apodictic certainty). Once you admit this point, which you already have done implicitly, and as is implied in your language, only then may we proceed with a fruitful discussion concerning God’s Word – and not the transitoriness of your own word.

    With regard to critical exegesis concerning this particular sacrament, I only say that it is incomplete at best. As in the above example, such arguments are not based solely upon the revealed Word, as Rev. John explicitly contends (but implicitly denies), but upon precarious human inferences as to what God is trying to communicate.

    Thus, I am left only with anecdotal evidence as to the meaninglessness of infant baptism. I myself was baptized as an infant in the Christian Reformed Church. To be sure, I ‘believed’ in God, Christ, and the central tenets of Christian faith (as formalized by the Reformed Church). However, as an adult I denied the Lord, denied Christ, and became a staunch atheist (or, better, a Nietzschean). From this experience I had discovered my ‘secret atheism’, which, before Christ, had unconsciously plagued me my entire life. In the twenty-second year of my life the Lord, in His charity, revealed Himself to me, offering a gift. As I reached out to accept, He demanded of me one one thing: that I lose myself and take up the cross; that I die to self in order that I be reborn in Christ. Henceforth, and for the first time, I renounced my sin (chief among them, my despair). Hitherto the Lord my God, who is a living God, has convicted me unto baptism. This, He says, is to be done as symbolization of my death and birth in Christ, and as a testament to all that I have accepted from my Lord, my God the gift of His Love – His Son Christ Jesus. The Lord made clear to me that my previous baptism, while certainly a dedication of a child to the Lord by the church, was no more than this. In the best case scenario it was not a transformation in Christ, in the worst case scenario it was a mere sprinkling of water upon the head. I sprinkling devoid of significance lest the follower has been verily transformed in Christ. These things the Lord has taught me.

    To be sure, my story is a story of personal revelation. However, the point is not lost. We must continually ask ourselves what it means to become a Christian, a follower of Christ. The self-transformation, the transformation in Christ – in a short, the becoming Christian – is always a precondition for baptism, and concomitant with baptism. This does not even require that we deny the doctrine of election, for only God knows who is elect. For our own part, being finite and subject to temporality, we can only know when we have been, through God’s mercy and charity, transformed in Christ (like Paul and Saint Augustine, among countless others, who were radically transformed in Christ).

    In summary, propounding infant baptism is, at best, an interpretation of scripture, not scripture per se. Moreover, while many in the Reformed Church still believe they are Christian by virtue of being born Christian (that is, by virtue of being baptized) or by being born in a Christian community, such tenets are abhorrent to the Lord our God. Also abhorrent to God is mere belief in the tenets of Christianity. As Saint Peter saith: “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (James 2:17) and “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder.” So, as faith and action cannot be separated, so belief and faith cannot be separated. Rev. John, though you are entitled to proclaiming your doctrine, you would do well to ask yourself this one question: “What does it mean to become a Christian?” For my own part, Christianity is few and far between in the Reformed Church in my community. To be sure, all the members therein were baptized as infants; however, this is where many of their convictions end, and, sadly, infant baptism (though unconscious) is their only and last connection to Christ. So, herein lies the value of infant baptism: that those who take part in the sacrament may be assured of their salvation, so that they may henceforth ignore the word of the Lord, perform their arbitrary and selfish daily rituals, and do – as is abundantly evident in my own community – whatsoever they desire. I do not take salvation for granted. I pray continually that the Lord might have mercy on my wretched soul. I pray earnestly that He may embrace me. These things I do not expect, for I trust the Lord’s mercy and judgement. My concern is only the impossible task of becoming a Christian.

    May God open your heart and fill it with abundant joy.

    With love,

    A servant of the Lord

  17. Re-baptized,

    Since you did not include your name in the post, I will call you re-baptized, given that you were re-baptized as an adult.

    If I am understanding your post correctly you have 2 main claims: one, logical inferences from scripture don’t have the same authority as explicit statements of scripture, and two, your experience invalidates the Reformed argument for infant baptism.

    Let’s take claim #1 first. Setting aside the Protestant principle of Biblical interpretation that an inference from scripture, based upon good and necessary consequence, is scripture itself, let’s work with your principle, that only explicit statements of scripture are scriptural and authoritative. On your own presuppositions, you would deny the Trinity, you would deny the Chalcedonian definition’s statement concerning the relationship of the natures of Christ within the one divine person of Christ, you would deny women the right to take part in the Lord’s Supper, and you would invalidate one of your own arguments against infant baptism, namely, that “self-transformation” is the condition of baptism. On one of your own presuppositions, which is only explicit statements of scripture are authoritative and binding for faith and practice, you must deny the four doctrines listed above, because not one of them rests upon an explicit statement of scripture; rather, they are all based upon good and necessary inference from the text of scripture (except the last one, “self-transformation” is the condition of baptism, which is inference from scripture, although it is not a sound inference from scripture). So, if that is your argument against infant baptism, that it is invalid because it is an inference from scripture, and therefore lacks authority, then just say that. But realize, by saying that, you are rejecting every doctrine that is based upon good and necessary inference from scripture.

    Now, let’s take claim #2 on. Your own experience validates what true baptism is (that functions as the warrant of your argument). The claim with respect to infant baptism is that it’s wrong and unbiblical. The evidence or support for the claim is you got baptized and were an atheist until your adult years, and everyone you know in the Reformed church you grew up with is a hypocrite. Your argument is an appeal to authority. You are the authority on baptism. Your experience is what establishes whether a particular doctrine of baptism is sound or not, and by necessary inference, all other doctrines, since you have argued that at least one doctrine must be based on your authority. I am interested to hear your explanation for why you are the authority which provides the validation for baptism and all doctrine, but so far it has only been asserted, not demonstrated.

    By the way, claim #2 contradicts claim #1, which is that only explicit statements of scripture are binding and authoritative for doctrine and practice, since claim #2 states that you are the one who determines which doctrine and practices are valid, and not explicit statements of scripture.

    For anyone who is interested in what the Reformed argument for infant baptism is, you can read a summary of it in Heidelberg Q & A 74 and Belgic Confession 34, both of which are conveniently located on the web site.

    Grace and peace,

    Pastor John

  18. For further commentary on this subject you may also avail yourselves of Ursinus’ commentary on this very issue at the following link, starting at the bottom of page 365:


  19. These are just two answers by Zacharias Ursinus to common objections:

    “Obj. 1. No doctrine is to be received which the Scriptures do not teach expressly, nor by example. But the Scriptures do not teach the doctrine of infant baptism by any command or example. Therefore, it is not to be received by the church.

    Ans. We deny the minor proposition: for we have the express command, “Baptize all nations,” which includes the children of the church. There are, also, instances recorded in the Scriptures where whole families were baptized by the Apostles, without any intimation that the infant members of these families were excluded. “Lydia was baptized and her household.” The Philippian jailor “was baptized and all his household.” “I baptized also the household of Stephanas.” (Acts 16: 15, 33. 1 Cor. 1: 16.) To this answer the following objections are brought forward:

    Obj. 1(a). But Christ does not expressly command that infants should be baptized.

    Ans. Neither does he expressly say that adults, men, women, citizens, husbandmen, fullers, and other artizans, such as the Anabaptists for the most part are, should be baptized. He commands that all who are included in the covenant and church of God should be baptized, of whatever age race, sex, or rank they may be. Nor is there any necessity that there should be an express reference to every age and rank in general laws and commands; because what is thus enjoined, is binding upon a whole class, and so includes all the separate parts which are comprehended in it. The-Anabaptists themselves do not exclude women from the Lord’s Supper and yet they have no express command, nor example for this practice in the Scriptures. We have a general command in relation to baptism: for it is said, Go, and teach all nations, baptizing &c. This command requires that all who are disciples should be baptized. But infants are disciples, because they are born in the church, and are taught after their manner. Peter, likewise, commands the same thing when he says, “The promise is unto you and your children; therefore be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus”; “Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 2: 39; 10: 47.) Paul teaches the same thing when he says that we are circumcised in Christ, and buried with him by baptism. Therefore, our baptism has taken the place of circumcision, which substitution is equal to an express command.”

  20. Pastor John,

    I am sorry to say that you have entirely misread my argument, and have thus set up a “straw man” in your response. Henceforth, I will attempt to clarify my position as simply as possible.

    First, you say I claim that “only explicit statements of scripture are scriptural and authoritative.” Where, in my initial statement, is this claim to be found? Rather, I said that such interpretations are “incomplete at best” and such logical (human) inferences are “precarious”, that is, not secured absolutely and with certainty. I also admitted that “you ARE certainly, as you say, “warranted” and “justified” in doing so (i.e. attempting such an interpretation).” However, as I go on to say, “your very own language presupposes interpretation. Again, as you put it, “The Reformed ARGUE that the command to baptize covenant children is IMPLICIT (not explicit) in the command to circumcise covenant children in Genesis 17″, and “the practice of infant baptism under the new covenant is WARRANTED and JUSTIFIED.” Your argument for infant baptism is, as you admit yourself, an argument; that is, an unique interpretation of specific passages within the Bible. To be sure, this is not at all my claim, this you yourself have unknowingly admitted in your careless use of language.

    Thus, “claim #1″, as you so aptly put it, is not really a claim at all. I only wished to point out your misuse of language. That is, while you originally said “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of scripture”, you ought to have said: “Failure to baptize the children of believers is a gross and serious violation of the Reformed INTERPRETATION of scripture.” In other words, you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture, as is often necessary (thus I do not deny that logical inferences may be used); however, you should acknowledge (in your language usage) that such an inference presupposes interpretation. This is a basic hermeneutical principle.

    Since we have now established that claim # 1 is actually your claim, not mine, let us examine what you deem to be claim # 2. I admit I was not as clear on this point as I may have been. Nonetheless, you assert that I claim that my “experience invalidates the Reformed argument for infant baptism.” First, my appeal is never to myself, it is to God, as I said: “These things the Lord has taught me” and “Hitherto the Lord my God, who is a living God, has convicted me unto baptism.” Also, I admit that my evidence is “anecdotal” and a matter of “personal revelation” (thus I do not contend that it invalidates the Reformed doctrine, only that I have accepted it as definitive for myself). In fact, I conclude in my summary that “propounding infant baptism is… an interpretation of scripture”, and that “you are entitled to proclaiming your doctrine.” My modus operandi was thereby rhetorical. My concern was to challenge you, through description and sarcasm, to think about what it means to be baptized, and further, what it means to become a Christian (or, as Kierkegaard put it, “Whether Christianity Exists”, that is, whether it is possible to become a Christian within Christendom).

    Therefore, it is quite misleading to say that I make an appeal to authority to invalidate the Reformed doctrine of baptism. My appeal is only ever to God, that is, I have faith that God has revealed to me the meaning of MY baptism (Note Bene: this does not at all invalidate the Reformed argument for baptism). Moreover, you have unwittingly forgotten your own appeal to authority, that is, your appeal to the doctrines and interpretations of John Calvin. What makes John Calvin the ultimate authority? Thus your position has become increasingly precarious. Hermeneutically speaking, you have become twice-divorced from God’s word. Not only must His word pass through your interpretive filter, it must first pass through Calvin’s interpretive filter (and then through your interpretive filter). You have therefore been twice-removed from God, which warns of human construction and idolatry.

    Now that I have cleared up my previous views, let us discuss the issue from another angle. Since it must be admitted that we cannot be CERTAIN of what God says of baptism – that is, it is not clear whether credobaptists or paedobaptists are more justified in their respective logical inferences from scripture – we must pursue a different line of argumentation. Our understanding of baptism will inevitable be determined by how we define baptism, and vice-versa. If, as you argue, we should be baptized as infants, this baptism is to be a sign of covenantal inclusion (as the male children of Israelites were circumcised to signify their external membership in God’s people). However, this is only an external sign of the covenant, not a guarantor of true faith, and not the covenant itself (for certainly true faith is not dependent upon a sacrament). For example, the Old Testament records many Israelites who turned from God and were punished, showing that their hearts were not truly set on serving God. So while all male Israelites had the sign of the covenant performed on them in a once off ceremony soon after birth, such a signifier was external only and not a true indicator of whether or not they would later exhibit true faith in Yahweh. Baptism, on your view, is to be understood only as an external sacrament which signifies the covenant between each individual and God (as it is in the Old Testament). This is justified. However, if you say that all who are to be included in the covenant must be baptized (as infants), you unduly limit the Lord our God Himself. Does not God’s covenant transcend a human sacrament? Certainly it does. If, you say, it does not, you have unwittingly limited God’s covenant to human behavior and signs (and thus unduly limited God, falling again into a form of idolatry). As it is revealed in the New Testament, both Jew and Gentile are now blessed, and thereby included in God’s covenant (whether there is an outward sign or not). As it is said in Genesis 12:3, “in thee [Abraham] shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

    Now, for my own part, I do not define baptism as a sign of the covenant. I understand baptism as a sign of repentance – hence “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38) – and, thus, a commitment through faith (sola fide). The covenant is presupposed and requires no external sign (though, I do not object to such a sacrament). I should qualify that baptism (adult) also is nothing in itself; it is a sign, that is, a human sacrament. It is, I believe, a proclamation of faith. Whether one is truly faithful is determined by God, and God alone.

    So, rather than allowing a sacrament determine who is included in the covenant, or who is truly saved, let us, with the utmost humility (assuming we are absolutely unworthy of salvation), allow God, in all His mercy and judgement, determine who is to be saved. For my part, though I accept God’s mercy, I stand in front of Him with “fear and trembling”, fully conscious of my depravity and wretchedness, and utterly guilty of my salvation.

    Lord, I pray only that your mercy remain with me; this, I know, is dependent on You alone, not upon sacraments, signs, or any thing of this world.

    With Love,

    Nicholas of Smithville,

    A Servant of the Lord

  21. Vic, thank you for the link to the Ursinius text. It serves as a reminder of the 16th century context of this theology. Both Catholics and Lutherans were alarmed by the anarchic Anabaptists, particularly Jan of Leyden, and it is notable that Ursinius lumps them in a class with fullers. It is also worth noting that Ursinius himself separated from the Lutherans. Schism upon schism, each branch of the Reformation steadily growing further apart from the others as time progressed.

  22. Re-baptized Nicholas of Smithville,

    Somehow you still seem to think that an interpretation of scripture is not scripture. You continue to repeat the claim that it is a mere interpretation, a mere argument; that is not what the Reformed are saying. The interpretation is scripture because it is a good and necessary inference from scripture. You cannot continue to say that the Reformed have come up with a third category in between infallible explicit statements of scripture and fallible applications of scripture, called “arguments” or “interpretations” which are sort of quasi-fallible, but only for people who believe in the argument. I am not sure why you continue to argue this, but that is essentially what you are doing. Your argument revolves around the principle that only explicit statements of scripture are scripture; everything else is an “interpretation” or an “argument” as you continue to put, making it appear that these arguments or interpretations are only of limited authority, and therefore not fully binding, except upon the one who propounds it.

    In the first post, I pointed to a few examples of Christian doctrine which are based upon inference from the text of scripture, which are binding doctrines upon all Christians. What will you do with the doctrines of the Trinity, the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, and the practice of women participating in the Lord’s Supper? Will you say that these doctrines are binding only for those who propound these interpretations but not for those who don’t?

    Now, for your argument about baptism. I don’t know of any Reformed people who argue that baptism confers faith or even covenant status upon a believing adult or infant child. Baptism externally and visibly seals an individual into the covenant. It does not mean that a person is saved or elect. Baptism has been instituted by Christ himself to mark out his covenant people externally and is necessary only in the sense of it being a required precept of covenant inclusion, not a required means. The thief on the cross is an example of this. Jesus told him that he would be with him TODAY in paradise; that man was saved and included in the covenant, yet, the man was not baptized before he died. That indicates to us that baptism is not necessary for salvation, it is necessary duty because Christ commands it for ordinary circumstances. The Reformed have not argued it differently. Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics and others argue for baptismal regeneration, which would seem to make it a requirement for salvation and that would seem to tie God’s hands a bit. However, they have arguments which get around that problem.

    If your problem with the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism is that it imposes a limitation on the sovereignty of God in saving his elect, you should be relieved of that because no one is arguing for such a limitation. Certainly you will agree that there have been millions upon millions of infant children of believers who have died either before birth or during birth and never were baptized. Would that mean none of them are going to heaven since they were not baptized? Certainly not! Baptism is not a means of salvation, and we must assume that God is free to act apart from the normal means of grace in extraordinary situations.

    As I conclude, I come back to the beginning; for this discussion to go anywhere, you need to defend your position that only explicit statements of scripture are infallible and binding and that “interpretations” or “arguments” are not. If you don’t we have nowhere else to go. I would be interested to see how you defend your position though.

    Thanks for engaging me in discussion.

    Grace and peace,

    Pastor John

  23. I don’t ever see this type of media as a place to work out the issues around something like the Canons of Dordrecht. I do however commend those who have put forth the effort to educate people about the history of the Reformed theology. I am from the dispensationalist wing of this great doctrine. I would never want you to engage me in an argument about the pros and cons of this view. This seems to be a place to celebrate the work of the reformists and to give light to those who have not considered the long fight to make the five great tenants of Calvinism known. It should be said here that they are a response to the 5 points of the Remonstrance. Everyone should know something about Jacobus Arminius. Who by the way died a Calvinist theologian. His work was done mostly underground on his own time. Thanks for reading my post!

  24. Rev. Adam Kaloostian,
    Pastor John McArthur, in LA GCC holds to the reformed theology. Why he does not baptize infants?

    This is the only subject that I do not understand in URC teaching.

    Thank you.

  25. Nick,
    Pastor John McArthur is ordained by the Independent Fundamental Churches of America which is an organization requiring all ordained members to subscribe to dispensational theology and to the position that only “born again” persons constitute the membership of the church. At least one reason then, why John McArthur does not baptize infants, is because he would violate his vows of ordination. Futhermore, the church he pastors is also a member in the IRCA, which means that if he did baptize infants, either the church would have to fire him or the church would have to dissolve its membership with the IFCA since they would be in violation of the doctrinal standards of that organization.

    Beyond that, there are doctrinal reasons for why McArthur refuses to baptize infants, namely, his commitment to dispensational theology. Dispensational theology posits a radical disjunction between the church under the Old Covenant, and the church under the New. This means then, that Dr. McArthur does not really hold to or teach “reformed theology.” Though we concede that he teaches aspects of so-called “calvinistic” doctrines, he repudiates confessional Reformed theology at many points. That being the case, it is not proper to see Dr. McArthur as “reformed” or a teacher of “reformed theology.” In making these distinctions, we don’t mean to be contentious, in fact, we believe that we are characterizing things as they really stand and in such a way that even Dr. McArthur himself would agree with. Various public statements made by McArthur make it very clear that he does not see himself as “reformed” and does not want his teaching to be identified in that way.

    Confessional Reformed churches see the doctrine of the church and the baptism of the children of believers very differently. While Reformed theology sees a distinction between the New Covenant church and national Israel, it does not see a radical distinction between the NC church and the covenant people of Israel. The reason why Reformed theology holds that there is a basic continuity between the covenant peple of God under both economies of the covenant is because there is one covenant of grace that has been sovereignly administered by God from the gates of Eden, after Adam’s fall, through Abraham and beyond, and its promises have been climactically fulfilled and ratified by the work of Jesus Christ. Since there is but one covenant of grace, and since God has always included children of believers in that covenant, we believe that children of believers are to be baptized and distinguished from the unbelieving world, as was done under the OC by means of circumcision. This does not mean that we believe every baptized child is saved or will be saved any more than circumcision meant a child of an OC member was saved or would be saved by virtue of their covenant standing. However, we hold, based upon scripture, that the promises of the covenant are to the children of believers and we trust and pray that God will confirm those covenant promises which are sealed unto our children in baptism.

    I hope this answer helps. If you would like further clarification feel free to respond.

    Grace and peace,

    Pastor John

Leave a comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *



Subscribe to this post with RSS.


Free curriculum designed for your growth in Christian thinking and living.

What Is the Reformed Faith?

An introduction to the Christian worldview and the basic teachings of the Bible. Learn the basic differences among the main groups in the broad Christian tradition, and that “the Reformed faith” is just a nickname for the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Now available in iTunes.

Heidelberg Catechism Curriculum for Families

An exposition of a most treasured summary of the Bible’s basic teachings. Learn how you can be clear about the glory of Christ in His triumph over our sinful misery, so that you can pass it down to the next generation.

Now available in iTunes.

What We Believe

So that everyone visiting this website and our churches knows exactly what we believe and teach, we state our faith right alongside historic and Reformed Christian churches.

The Ecumenical Creeds

Ancient summaries of basic Bible teachings written in part to defend God’s people against heresies sadly still alive today.

The Three Forms of Unity

500-year-old summaries of basic Bible teachings written in part to defend God’s people from deep-seated theological and moral corruption in all kinds of false churches and movements.

Recent Sermons

Biblical sermons by local URC ministers

Scriptural Sermons

Rev. Tom Morrison
Ephesians 1:7-10 | Redemption and Grace

Rev. Tom Morrison
Ephesians 1:4-6 | Praise Not Speculation

Rev. Tom Morrison
Ephesians 1:3 | Blessing God

Rev. Tom Morrison
Esther 8-10 | Holy War

Catechetical Sermons

Rev. Movses Janbazian
Psalm 143 | The Eyes Are On You

Rev. Movses Janbazian
Psalm 142 | Jesus’ Prayer From The Cave

Rev. Movses Janbazian
Psalm 141 | Serving As A Priest In Exile

More sermons »


Topics covered in the talk show, sermons, and lessons

More topics »

You can also find content...
...by book of the Bible
...by confession / creed

Looking for a Church? Visit these United Reformed Churches or find more churches »

Pasadena, CA
Pasadena United Reformed Church
Pastor Movses Janbazian

Victorville/Apple Valley, CA
High Desert United Reformed Church
Pastor Tom Morrison

Recent Comments


Podcast Feeds

Sinners & Saints

Subscribe with RSS or iTunes

Rev. Movses Janbazian

Subscribe with RSS or iTunes

Rev. Adam Kaloostian

Subscribe with RSS or iTunes

Rev. Tom Morrison

Subscribe with RSS or iTunes

All posts

Subscribe with RSS or iTunes

All comments

Subscribe with RSS