# Canons of Dort and Predestination



## W.C. Dean (May 10, 2020)

Greetings everyone, I recently saw Rev. Buchanan post on Jonathan's paedobaptist thread that many who consider themselves predestinarians or Reformed have never even read the Canons of Dort. The Reverend was inadvertently speaking to me. I have studied and affirmed the doctrines of TULIP for almost 8 months or so (I am still amazed at how quickly the Lord has progressed me, although I still have much a Christian life to live, I went from knowing next to nothing about Christianity to affirming the WCF) and I had never read the Canons of Dort. As of today I have read the first head and half of the second head. I am incredibly impressed by how well they articulate the doctrines, and present them in a very easy to understand way. The version I am reading is not modernized in any way (as far as I know), just translated from the original Dutch, and whoever actually crafted the words in the document was an excellent writer. It is very easy to comprehend, while still very rich. I would call it plain, in a good way. Nothing is presented that even seems extra-biblical. It seems like everything written comes exclusively from the passages cited. All that said, I have some questions so far about the first head, of Divine Predestination. 

Head 1, Article 7

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*... 

My question is about the choice of words. The article elaborates that God chose the elect out of the fallen mass of humans, and it also states (with Ephesians 1:4) that he did so before the foundation of the world. Is this espousing a lapsarian view? Is it a contradiction? Obviously the last question is hyperbole, but in my initial reading it seems to be somewhat contradictory. "Before humans existed or sinned he chose the elect out of those who had fallen." Is this the infralapsarian view? That God in eternity past chose the elect out of the fallen mass of those who had not yet fallen? I haven't studied the lapsarian views very extensively at all but with a quick glance at the two beliefs, I consider myself a supralapsarian. Could some of you point to resources to read or listen to about this subject? Thank you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Guido's Brother (May 10, 2020)

The Canons of Dort are commonly recognized as presenting a more infralapsarian view.

A good resource is Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619, Peter Y. De Jong, ed.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## timfost (May 10, 2020)

You may find this portion of Fesko's _The Theology of the Westminster Standards _helpful:

"The divines did not want to write an academic theological treatise, but they nevertheless engaged in a number of technical debates in the course of writing the Standards. One such issue was the question of the object of predestination. In other words, when God elects people unto salvation, does he take sin into account? Does God predestine people apart from any consideration of sin and the fall, or does he choose people that are already considered as fallen and thus in need of redemption? And if God does account for the fall, how does he do so? The Confession does not explicitly address this particular question, but it does lean in the direction of infralapsarianism. Briefly, infralapsarians argue that in the decree the object of predestination is created and fallen man. Supralapsarians, on the other hand, argue that in the decree the object of predestination is man as creatable and liable to fall.63 In the past, some confessional documents left the issue completely undefined, such as William Whitaker’s Lambeth Articles (1595), which state, “God from eternity has predestined some men to life, and reprobated some to death” (§ 1). However, the Synod of Dort (1618–1619) expressly decided in favor of infralapsarianism, though it makes no mention of supralapsarianism: “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.”64 The Confession takes a similar path: “As God hath appointed the Elect unto glory; so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his Will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ” (3.6, emphasis added). The divines could have simply written: “they who are elected are redeemed by Christ.” In the assembly’s Annotations, for example, we find the following explanation of Romans 9:21, reflecting the infralapsarian view with its mention of election from the corrupt mass of humanity: “By this metaphor,” namely, the potter’s lump of clay, “is intimated the originall of all mankind out of one bloud, Act. 17.26. out of this corrupt masse, it is in Gods power of his free will to appoint some to everlasting glory, and others to everlasting shame and ignominie.”65 The divines, therefore, specifically chose to indicate that God predestined fallen man to eternal life. But like the Synod of Dort before them, the divines make no mention of supralapsarianism."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## timfost (May 10, 2020)

BTW, I'm glad you're reading Dort. I love reading it and find it immensely encouraging.


----------



## 149-deleted (May 13, 2020)

Also, here's Berkhof in his _Systematic Theology_:
Finally, attention is also called to the fact that the Reformed Churches in their official standards have always adopted the infralapsarian position, even though they have never condemned, but always tolerated, the other view. Among the members of the Synod of Dort and of the Westminster Assembly there were several Supralapsarians who were held in high honour (the presiding officer in both cases belonging to the number), but in both the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession the infralapsarian view finds expression.


----------

