Carey Ministers Conference 2019 Day 2 Session 1

Our first session of the second day was led by Robert Strivens and was on Baptists and the Synod of Dort.

It was a clear and very helpful session.

Factors leading up to the Synod of Dort

1. Theological: Arminius

Human will, origin of sin

2. Political: Johan van Oldenbarneevelt, Advocate of Holland

More state control, Looser interpretation and application of the Belgic Confession, foreign policy issues

After the death of Aminius (1609)

Johannes Uyttenbogaert provided theological leadership

Remonstrance of 1610 (five points) Counter-remonstrance 1611

Prinz Mauritius gains upper hand and backs counter Remonstrants, 1617

Oldenbarnevelt arrested and executed (May 13, 1619)

The Synod

Convened November 13, 1618 in Dordrecht

10 colleges of Dutch reps, plus delegations from Germany, Switzerland, Britain - 31 Dutch, 28 others

The Remonstrants at the Synod

Arrived, December 6, 1618

Presented their sententiae an expansion of the five points

Expelled January 14, 1619

Formal conclusion May 29, 1619 (180 sessions)

The canons of Dort

Latin English translation see https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort

Five heads

Canons of Dort overview

Election unconditional not based on God's foresight and individual

Atonement sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect

Humanity totally lost in sin and unable to do anything towards salvation

All and only the elect are called irresistibly to saving faith in Christ

The elect unfailingly persevere in saving faith to eternal life

Closer analysis

Election unconditional not based on God's foresight and individual

1. God would be just in leaving all to perish in their sin - no obligation to save any

2. Out of love for the world God sent his Son to save those who believe

3. God sends preachers to carry this good news to all the world

4. Those who reject the good news perish while those who believe are saved

5. Responsibility for unbelief lies with the unbeliever; believer owes all to grace

6. Reason some believe and others do not rooted in God's eternal decree

7. Full, formal statement on election

Election 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, God 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. God 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 God decreed to give to Christ those chosen for salvation, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ’s fellowship through the Word and Spirit. In other words, God decreed to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of the Son, to glorify them.

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

8-11. Classifications

12, 13. Assurance

14. How to teach the doctrine

15. Reprobation

16. Comfort for the sincere seeker

17. Salvation of infants

18. Concluding doxology

Second head (atonement)

Remonstrance: Christ died for every individual, obtaining reconciliation and forgiveness, but conditionally.

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 the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation.

It was also God’s will that Christ 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.

Third and fourth heads (sin and calling)

.. 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.

There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in all people after the fall, by virtue of which they retain some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrate a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behaviour. But this light of nature is far from enabling humans to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him—so far, in fact, that they do not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways they completely distort this light, whatever its precise character, and suppress it in unrighteousness. In doing so all people render themselves without excuse before God.

Fifth head (perseverance)

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. Etc.

Four reasons Baptists should bother with the Canons of Dort

The canons

1. Provide a clear exposition of the doctrines of grace which we are in danger of forgetting

2. Address the hyper-Calvinist issue, a perennial one in any recovery of the doctrines of grace

3. Are pastorally useful and avoid our being theologically arid and unfruitful

4. Form part of our Particualr Baptist theological adn confessional heritage

In conclusion he spoke of the importance of taking seriously our Reformed and Puritan heritage. This involves a careful and sustained study of the writings of this heritage and careful attempts to pass it on to the rising generation. This needs to be something we are all involved in. The heritage belongs as much to Baptists as to others. lets be committed to exploring it.

Westminster Conference 2017 Day Two

We have had another good day here in Oxford Street. The first two sessions were taken up with the connected subjects of Jacob Arminius and the Synod of Dort. Phil Arthur gaveus the background to Arminius himself and his writings and then Benedict Bird described the Synod of Dort which began nine years after Arminius's death in November 1618 (it went on until the folliwng year). It was good to have the details set out. We had good discussions especially as there were Arminians present. We also touched on the halfway house of hypothetical atonement or Amyraldianism.
Traditonally, the closing paper is a biography with no discussion. This is the third message I've heard on William Williams Pantycelyn this year and perhaps th ebest - may be because it was given by a minister (Mark Thomas from Wrexham).

LORD, I long to be in thy Presence, 
Tis my Joy and whole Delight;
Sweeter than delicious Honey,
Fairer than the Morning Light;

All the Assaults of Sin and Satan,
I could stedfastly withstand,
And would stem all Woes and Perils,
Having Thee at my right Hand.

I can suffer every Affliction,
And encounter every Foe,
And the Depths of flowing Jordan
Venture also fearless thro',

Only let thy gracious Presence
Then my feeble Soul assist, 
Tis thy Strength eternal only,
That can conquer and resist.

Death and Hell, and all Destruction,
Shake and tremble at thy Might;
And thy Presence hush to Silence
All the roaring Wolves of Night.

Lord Jehovah! Lord Almighty!
Is thy gracious holy Name,
O let me, unworthy Sinner,
Feel the Power of the same.

Good days. Next year we meet again, God willing December 4 and 5

Antinomianism, Legalism, Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism

I noticed this quotation in Tim Keller's new book on preaching

Referring to legalism and antinomianism he says

 

“Both come from the belief that God does not really love us or will our joy, and from a failure to see that “both the law and the gospel are expressions of God’s grace.” For both the legalist and the antinomian, obedience to the law is simply the way to get things from God, not a way to get God, not a way to resemble, know, delight, and love him for his sake.” (p 55)

 

It reminded me of the way John MacLeod in Scottish Theology (recently republished by Banner of Truth) also sees two opposite errors having a surprisingly similar source. This time Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism.

 

In regard to the claims of God, each of these extremes worked from a common principle which they turned to opposite ends. The Hyper Calvinistic brethren held that there is no worldwide call to Christ sent out to all sinners to whom in the letter the Gospel comes, neither are all bidden to take Him as their Saviour. On the other hand, they maintained that Christ is held forth or offered as Saviour to those only whom God effectually calls. They reasoned that man, as a bankrupt in spiritual resources, cannot be called upon to do what is out of the compass of his power. He can neither repent nor believe. So it was out of place to call upon him to do what he cannot do.

In this, when we look into it, we find the common Arminian position that man’s responsibility is limited by his ability. The Arminian holds to the presence of a certain ability in those that are called; otherwise sinners could not be called upon to repent and believe the Gospel.

Each side takes up the principle from its own end. They fail together to recognise that the sinner is responsible for his spiritual impotence. It is the fruit of sin; and man’s sin does not destroy nor put out of court God’s right to ask for an obedience alike in service and repentance and faith that His sinful creatures have disabled themselves from yielding to Him. His title to make His demand is entirely and absolutely unimpaired. He claims but His own when He bids man, made in His likeness and for His glory, serve Him and be the doer of His will as He makes it known. When He calls upon him to repent He but asks what He is entitled to. When He bids the sinner who needs the Saviour receive Him, as His own, He is altogether within His rights in doing so. There is a glorious superiority to man’s reasonings shown by Him who bids the deaf to hear and the blind to look that they may see.