The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Refutation of Errors, Article Seven

Synod condemns the error of those . . .

VII Who teach that Christ neither could die, nor had to die, nor did die for those whom God so dearly loved and chose to eternal life, since such people do not need the death of Christ.

For they contradict the apostle, who says: Christ loved me and gave himself up for me (Gal. 2:20), and likewise: Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died, that is, for them (Rom. 8:33-34). They also contradict the Savior, who asserts: I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15), and My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).
__________________________

As the authors of the Canons conclude the second head of doctrine (which deals with the death of Christ), they make the point that the Arminian error regarding the cross is most easily and effectively refuted by simply looking at those biblical texts which explicitly teach that Jesus Christ died for specific individuals.

Remember that for the Arminian, Jesus Christ did not need to die to satisfy God’s justice.  Accordingly, he did not die for specific sinners, but only potentially for everyone in a general and non-effectual sense.  As we have seen, the Arminian scheme is completely arbitrary, since Christ's redemptive work is not about satisfying the retributive justice of God, but is instead a demonstration of God’s moral governance of the universe and love for sinners.  The cross was not a necessity, but the result of God’s arbitrary decision to save in this manner.  This means that Jesus does not die for the elect so as to satisfy God’s wrath towards them and to secure their salvation (as taught by the Reformed).  Rather, Jesus dies to make everyone savable upon the condition of the exercise of their wills, as manifest in their personal faith in Christ.

The "indefinite" atonement of the Arminians is easily refuted when we look at what the Scriptures teach and as summarized by the Canons:  “Christ loved me and gave himself up for me (Gal. 2:20), and likewise: Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ who died, that is, for them (Rom. 8:33-34). They also contradict the Savior, who asserts: I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:15), and My command is this: Love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).”

What more can be said?

Comments

[TulipGirl]

I'm trying to find an mp3 lecture I listened to about six months ago, and I believe it was a lecture you gave and I either downloaded it from your site or monergism.com . It was primarily about modernism and fundamentalism, and I believe talked quite a bit about Machen. (I'm not sure -- I listened to several lectures in July about the same historic period.) Would you happen to know which lecture(s) I'm recalling? And if so, do you have a link?

Thanks!