# Canons of Dort: Is this a straw man? or Why was this rejection written?



## ReadBavinck (Apr 30, 2006)

Canons of Dort: Head 2, rejection 2.



> The true doctrine having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
> 
> II. Who teach: That it was not the purpose of the death of Christ that He should confirm the new covenant of grace through His blood, but only that He should acquire for the Father the mere right to establish with man such a covenant as He might please, whether of grace or of works. For this is repugnant to Scripture which teaches that "œJesus has become a guarantee of a better covenant"¦the new covenant" and that "œit has no power at all while the testator lives" (Heb 7:22, 9:15,17).



I would, of coures, agree; but I've never heard of anyone holding to this. I am sure this is because of my historical ignorance. Who were these people? Can anyone tell me why this needed to be written, and give my straw man a heart? 

Thanks,

Christopher Chelpka

[Edited on 5-1-2006 by CJ_Chelpka]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 30, 2006)

All of Dorts Rejections were made to the arguments of the Remonstrants. There may not be any modern arminians who argue that way, but modern arminians are much less influenced by covenant theology than the days of Dort.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CJ_Chelpka_
> Canons of Dort: Head 2, rejection 2.
> 
> 
> ...



This is a particularly important rejection. Dort wasn't just about predestination. One of the major issues for the orthodox at Dort was the doctrine of justification. 

The Remonstrants were suggesting a revision of covenant theology, not unlike that of the FV. Jesus was said to have established a covenant of grace whereby God would graciously accept our best efforts. The medievals called such a system "congruent merit." Some of the FV are proposing exactly this. 

rsc


----------

