The Canons Of Dort Re.P.R

Second Head of Doctrine,Article 8.

For this was the sovereign counsel,and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father,that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect,for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith,thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation:that is,it was the will of God,that Christ by the blood of the cross,whereby he confirmed the new covenant,should effectually redeem out of every people,tribe,nation,and language,all those,and those only,who were from eternity chosen to salvation,and given to him by the Father;that he should confer upon them faith,which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit,he purchased for them by his death;should purge them from all sin,both original and actual,whether committed before or after believing;and having faithfully preserved them even to the end,should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in his own presence forever.

 

The Second Head of Doctrine...

Of The Death Of Christ,Article 9.

The purpose proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect,has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished,and will henceforwards still continue to be accomplished,the gates of hell vainly opposing,so in due time may be gathered together into one,and that there never be wanting a church composed of believers,founded in the blood of Christ,which may steadfastly love,and faithfully serve him as their Savior,who as a bridegroom for his bride,laid down his life for them upon the cross,and which may celebrate his praises here and through all eternity.

_____________________________________________________________

The above was taken from the book :The Voice Of Our Fathers : An Exposition Of The Canons Of Dordrecht,by Homer Hoeksema.Mr.Hoeksema (the son of the more famous or infamous in some circles -- Herman Hoeksema) rendered the traditional English wording a bit differently.

BTW,'P.R.' in my original heading means 'Particular Redemption'.Dort was specific about Specific Redemption.

 

1st Head Of Doctrine : Article 7

On Predestination

Election is the unchangeable purpose of God,whereby,before the foundation of the world,he hath out of mere grace,according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will,chosen,from the whole human race,which had fallen through their own fault,from their primitive state of rectitude,into sin and destruction,a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ,whom he from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect,and the foundation of Salvation.
This elect number,though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others,but with them involved in one common misery,God hath decreed to give to Christ,to be paid by Him and effectually to call and draw them to his communion by his Word and Spirit,to bestow upon them true faith,justification and sanctification;and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of his Son,finally,to glorify them for the demonstration of his mercy,and for the praise of the riches of his glorious grace;as it is written:"According as he hath chosen us in him,before the foundation of the world,that we should be holy,and without blame before him in love;having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,according to the good pleasure of his will,to the praise of the glory of his grace,wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." Eph.1:4,5,6.And elsewhere: "Whom he did predestinate,them he also called,and whom he called,them he also justified,and whom he justified them he also glorfied." Rom.8:30.

 

The point of this thread is to demonstrate that the Canons of Dort are specific about particular redemption.But you don't read too well so I guess you didn't pick that up.

Ever the neologist.

No.What I quoted is very biblical.Scriptural language was used throughout.You oppose what the Bible teaches.

 

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about but you really don't care;do you?I would suggest a lot more reading before you spout-off on this and other subjects in which you have nary a clue.

 

This quote was from my OP.There is no room here for the Amyraldian idea that God willed for Christ to die for anyone beyond the elect.

I had said that I have the book :The Voice Of Our Fathers :An Exposition Of The Canons Of Dordrecht,by Homer Hoeksema.He devoted 3 and a half pages commenting on this article.He gives his understanding of Limited Atonement based on the Dort quote above.Here's a sample:

It means that God never intended anything else than that the quickening (life-giving)and saving efficacy (efficacy is actual power and energy to save and to make alive)should extend to the elect only...Any other conception of election than that which is maintained by the Canons,that is,a sovereign,eternal,unchangeable,definite,personal election,vitiates and makes null and void any real saving efficacy in the death of Christ.And it is worthy of note not only that the Canons here make the limitation of atonement a divinely sovereign limitation,but that they literally speak of the purpose of God in the sense of intention.For the English "purpose" in this article is the Latin intentio.God's counsel,His will,and His intention are identical in the article.There is absolutely no room left for another purpose,will,intention,or counsel of God according to which He after all desires the salvation of all men.(pages 373,374)

 

Brandon,it's already way past my bedtime here.My last post begins to address your prior post.This is going to be a heavy investment of my time and energy -- but I am willing to do it. I think that the Reformed Creeds and the Canons of Dort in particular, do in fact negate the possibility that an Amyraldian would be comfortable with the position of the Fathers (back in the early 17th century).

 

I just don't get it BJ.How much clearer does it have to be in the Canons?From Head 2,article 8 that I have quoted twice some excerpts follow :"...it was the will of God...should effectually redeem out of every people,tribe,nation and language all those,and those only,who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to him by the Father;...He purchased for them by His death."

The word "effectually" is included in the text,but so what?I don't see where this comforts the Amyraldian.

Dort does indeed pronounce on this issue. A hypothetical universalist is given no protection with the Canons of Dort.

 

Head One,Article 8:Of Divine Predestination

There are not various decrees of election,but one and the same decree respecting all those,who shall be saved,both under the Old and New Testament:since the Scripture declares the good pleasure,purpose and counsel of the divine will to be one, according to which he hath chosen us from eternity,both to grace and glory,to salvation and the way of salvation,which he hath ordained that we should walk therein.

 

Head One,Rejection Of Errors,Paragraph 2

Of Divine Predestination

Who teach:That there are various kinds of election of God unto eternal life: the one general and indefinite,the other particular and definite;and that the latter in turn is either incomplete,revocable,non-decisive and conditional,or complete,irrevocable,decisive and absolute.Likewise:that there is one election unto faith,and another unto salvation,so that election can be unto justifying faith,without being a decisive election unto salvation.For this is a fancy of men's minds,invented regardless of the Scriptures,whereby the doctrine of election is corrupted,and this golden chain of our salvation is broken:"And whom he foreordained,them he also called;and whom he called,them he also justified;and whom he justified,them he also glorified."Rom.8:30.