The Canons of Dort
Today many of us know the work of the Synod as the Canons of Dort under the acrostic “TULIP.” Total depravity; Unconditional election; Limited atonement; Irresistible grace; and Perseverance of the saints. If you have not read the Canons, they are worth working through.
The Canons of Dort were approved at the Synod of Dort 405 years ago today (May 29, 1619). The Synod was a multi-national synod of reformed churches that was called to answer objections to the teaching of Prof. Jacob Arminius of Leiden University and his remonstrators. The Remonstrance taught election based on foreseen faith; Christ’s death was universally meritorious; partial human depravity; and resistible and fallible states of grace.
Pastors, elders, professors, and statesmen from the established churches of the Netherlands, England, Scotland, Wales, Switzerland, and modern-day Germany came together to condemn what is today called “Arminianism” as a heresy against the Word of God. In 34 “rejections of errors” the heresy of Arminianism was condemned by the synod.
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise: History of a Classic Hymn
As the men gathered around the dinner table recalled their happy bygone student days, they particularly recollected the lofty phrasings of their mentor’s prayers. They rehearsed his most striking and memorable catchphrases — many of which now shaped cadences of their own prayer vocabulary. Realizing the riches that their conversation had uncovered, Walter Chalmers Smith began to scribble down their remembrances on a scrap of paper he retrieved from his frock coat. A few days later he transcribed the notes into his commonplace journal, realizing he had the puzzle-piece makings for lyrics that would beautifully balance in adoration of the Lord both the intimate and ineffable.
In 1857, shortly after he was installed as the new pastor of the Roxburgh Free Church on Hill Square adjacent to the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh, Walter Chalmers Smith (1824-1908), began to compose congregational hymns to complement his sermons. He was inspired by the example of the unrivaled father of English hymnody, Isaac Watts, who wrote more than a thousand hymns and psalm settings, often to accompany his sermons at the Mark Lane Chapel across from Tower Hill in London. Ten years later Smith would publish what he would call “the choicest of my labors” in Hymns of Christ and the Christian Life.
The collection included the hymns, “Earth Was Waiting, Spent and Restless,” “Lord, God, Omnipotent,” “Our Portion Is Not Here,” “There Is No Wrath to Be Appeased,” “Faint and Weary, Jesus Stood,” and the classic for which he is best known today, “Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise.”
Smith was born in Aberdeen, the son of Walter and Barbara Smith, and named for both his father and the great Scottish Reformer Thomas Chalmers. His father was a master cabinetmaker and a Reform-minded deacon in the Church of Scotland, so his son was faithfully raised in the lively days of evangelical resurgence during the Ten Years Conflict and the Disruption.
He was educated at the Aberdeen grammar school and at the University of Aberdeen’s Marischal College. After graduation in1841 he began to study for a legal profession but two years later – during the tumult of the Disruption – his faith was stirred to ardency by the example of Dr. Chalmers. He sensed a call to gospel ministry and determined to enter the newly established Free Church’s theological seminary, New College, Edinburgh.
On Christmas morning 1850 he was ordained as the pastor of the Chadwell Street Scottish Free Church in Islington, London, a neighborhood then undergoing dramatic renewal with the construction of the nearby King’s Cross railway station. In 1853 he was called back to Scotland to serve at Milnathort in the parish of Orwell, Kinross-shire. In 1862 he was chosen to succeed Robert Buchanan, who with Dr. Chalmers had been one of the leaders of the Disruption, as pastor at the Free Tron Church, Glasgow. In 1876 he was called to the Free High Kirk, which worshipped in the beautiful New College building designed by William Playfair on the Edinburgh Castle Mound site of the old palace of Princess Regent Mary of Guise. The capstone of his ministry came in 1893 when he was chosen to serve as Moderator of the General Assembly for the Free Church of Scotland.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Answering Objections to Saddleback’s Removal from the SBC
To be in friendly cooperation, a church must have a faith and practice that is in step with the BF&M [The Baptist Faith & Message]. Contradicting what the BF&M says about female pastors is by definition not “closely identifying” with the BF&M. Indeed, it’s a direct contradiction of the BF&M.
I have seen a variety of responses to the news yesterday that the SBC has found Saddleback Church to be out of step with “the Convention’s adopted statement of faith” and now no longer recognizes them as a “cooperating” church (Art. 3, SBC Constitution). As many of you know, the presenting issue is Saddleback’s recognition of a variety of female pastors, including one of their new lead teaching pastors. Having female pastors contradicts our statement of faith, The Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M), which says, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
As you can imagine, many of the public responses have been negative. On social media, some of the commentary has been incendiary and dismissive and therefore not worthy of serious engagement. Other critics simply do not like what Southern Baptists believe. Still, there are two objections that I thought it might be worth the effort to answer.
The first objection appears in a social media thread that Rick Warren himself “liked” on Twitter. The author shares a series of quotations from around the time that the BF&M was adopted in 2000 and observes how many SBC leaders at the time said that the BF&M would never be used to “coerce” Baptist churches. He quotes from one 2000 Baptist Press article which has compelling comments from both Albert Mohler and Adrian Rogers:
“We don’t have the right, the authority or the power to limit anybody,” Rogers noted. “We would resist that. What we are stating is what we believe mainstream Baptists believe…It is not a creed. It is a statement of what most of us believe.”
Other media questions focused on the new BFM’s stance against women serving as senior pastors.
“We would never presume to tell another church whom they may call as a pastor or tell another person whether or not they may serve as pastor,” Mohler said. “We’re not trying to force our beliefs on someone else.”
The author highlights these remarks and others like them to show that the BF&M was never meant to be “binding on individual SBC congregations” (source). He concludes from this that the BF&M was never intended to be a “parameter for cooperation” (source). Both of these observations are wrong and represent a serious misunderstanding of our polity.
Right now in 2023, I heartily affirm what both Adrian Rogers and Albert Mohler said 23 years ago. The SBC does not have the right or authority to tell any church whom they may call as pastor. The SBC has zero authority to tell a church what they can or cannot do or what they must or must not believe. How a church governs itself or chooses its pastors is not what this dispute is about.
This discussion is about whether the SBC has a right to recognize which churches are in friendly cooperation with the convention. Our polity says that the SBC does have that right. Furthermore, the SBC Constitution defines some parameters for determining which churches are in friendly cooperation. The Constitution says it this way:
Read More
Related Posts: -
On Preparing Yourself for Corporate Worship
By simply taking 5-10 minutes to read and meditate on the text your pastor is preaching in advance, you’ll position yourself to listen better. Maybe even read the footnotes in a study Bible as well. This will be easy to do if your pastor is preaching verse by verse through a book of the Bible. You can even personally study the book of the Bible your church is studying in your personal devotional time. By doing so, you’re already meditating on God’s Word. It will help you to feel more engaged during the sermon.
Recently, I went to a conference for my denomination. I slipped up on my diet, affecting my physical and mental health. The three-hour jet lag made me tired. I spent too much time socializing. I wasn’t intentional. As a result, I found myself showing up late for public worship. My practical missteps hurt my experience of worship.
Some Christians bemoan, “But I just don’t get anything out of the church service.” Maybe so. But often when believers express these kinds of sentiments, it’s because we don’t personally prepare ourselves for worship. We think we can haphazardly enter a worship service and assume it will be engaging because it’s a spiritual activity. We assume it’s entirely on the leaders of the church to give us a good worship experience; if we don’t have one, it must be the pastor or the music leader’s fault. But this is not the case.
There are practical and spiritual actions you can take to prepare your soul for worship to help you get more out of the service. If you find yourself wanting more out of your church’s worship services, then take ownership and consider doing the following:
1. Steward your Saturday nights. Steward your Saturday nights well (assuming your church meets on Sunday mornings). Your Saturday night is not exclusively a time of self-indulgent and leisurely activity, but a time to start preparing yourself for the Lord’s Day. In the fall in the American South, many of us stay up late on Saturday nights to watch college football, often derailing our sleep (and attitude). At some point, turn the T.V. off, leave that party, and put your phone on silent mode. Enjoying Sunday worship starts on Saturday night. Be intentional about how you spend your time. And be extra sure to get a good night’s sleep.
2. Read the sermon text in advance.
Read More
Related Posts: