Rejectio Errorum (Caput II: De Morte Christi)
Introduction: Orthodox Teaching and Rejected Errors
The Synod sets forth the orthodox teaching and rejects the errors of those who hold it.
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those
A Definite Plan of Salvation
The Synod rejects the idea that Christ died without a definite plan to save anyone, calling it an insult to God’s wisdom and Christ’s merit.
Those who teach that God the Father destined his own Son to the death of the cross without any definite and fixed plan for saving anyone by name — so that the obtaining of Christ's death could stand firm in its own necessity, usefulness, and dignity, and could be perfect, complete, and whole in every respect, even if the redemption obtained had never been applied to any individual person at all. For this claim is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and the merit of Jesus Christ, and it contradicts Scripture. For thus says the Savior: 'I lay down my soul for the sheep, and I know them.' John 10 15, 27. And concerning the Savior, the prophet Isaiah says: 'When he makes himself a sacrifice for guilt, he will see offspring, he will prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.' Isaiah 53. 10. Finally, it overturns the article of faith by which we believe in the Church.
Christ’s Blood and the New Covenant
The Synod rejects the claim that Christ’s death only secured for the Father a right to establish a new covenant, rather than truly establishing it.
Those who teach that this was not the purpose of Christ's death — that he might, in reality, establish with his own blood a new covenant of grace — but only that he might secure for the Father a bare right, of whatever kind, to enter anew into a covenant, whether of grace or of works, with human beings: For this contradicts Scripture, which teaches that Christ was made the sponsor and mediator of a better — that is, a new — covenant. Heb. vii. 22. And a testament is only ratified among the dead. Heb. ix. 15, 17.
Merit, Salvation, and the Pelagian Error
The Synod rejects the teaching that Christ did not merit salvation for anyone, warning that this revives Pelagian error.
Those who teach that Christ, through his own satisfaction, certainly did not merit salvation itself for anyone at all, and that the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation was not merited either, but that he only acquired for the Father the power or the full will to act anew with people and to prescribe new conditions of whatever kind he might wish, conditions whose fulfillment depends on human free choice, and that therefore it could have happened that either no one or everyone would fulfill them. For these people think too basely concerning the death of Christ: they by no means acknowledge the primary fruit or benefit brought forth through it, and they call back the Pelagian error from the underworld.
True Justification and the Reception of Socinus
The Synod rejects the teaching that faith itself, rather than Christ’s merit received by faith, is counted as our righteousness before God.
Those who teach that the new covenant of grace that God the Father established with humankind through the death of Christ does not mean this: that through faith — insofar as it lays hold of Christ's merit — we are justified and saved before God, but rather this: that God, having set aside the demand for perfect obedience to the law, should regard faith itself and the imperfect obedience of faith as the equivalent of the perfect obedience of the law, and should graciously count it as worthy of the reward of eternal life. For they contradict Scripture: 'We are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that was made in Jesus Christ, whom God put forward as a propitiation through faith in his blood.'✦ Rom. 3 24, 25. And together with the impious Socinus, they introduce a new and strange justification of human beings before God, against the consensus of the whole Church.
Original Sin and Universal Reconciliation Refuted
The Synod rejects the claim that all people are already reconciled and free from the guilt of original sin.
Who teach that 'all human beings have been brought into a state of reconciliation and into the favor of the covenant, so that no one is liable to condemnation, or to be condemned, on account of original sin, but that all are free from the guilt of that sin.' For this statement runs counter to Scripture, which declares that by nature we are children of wrath.✦ [Ephesians✦ 2.✦ 3.]✦
Atonement, Application, and the Poison of Pelagianism
The Synord rejects the notion that the difference in who benefits from Christ’s death depends on human free choice rather than effective mercy.
Those who draw a distinction between atonement and its application so as to plant this opinion in the minds of the careless and the inexperienced: that God, so far as he himself is concerned, willed to confer on all people equally those benefits purchased by the death of Christ, but that certain people become sharers in the forgiveness of sins and in eternal life before others — that this distinction depends on their own free choice, as they apply themselves to grace offered without distinction, and not on the singular gift of mercy working effectively in them so that they might apply that grace to themselves before others. For while these men pretend they are setting forth this distinction with a sound meaning, they are trying to administer the pernicious poison of Pelagianism to the people.
Christ Died Even for the Elect
The Synod rejects the idea that Christ did not truly die for the elect, since they still needed His death.
Those who teach that Christ, for those whom God supremely loved and chose for eternal life, neither could have died, nor ought to have died, nor did die — since such people have no need of Christ's death. For they contradict the Apostle when he says: Christ loved me and handed himself over for me.✦ Galatians. 2. 20. Likewise, who is it that would bring charges against God's elect?✦ God is the one who justifies.✦ Who is it that would condemn?✦
Christ’s Love and the Good Shepherd
Scripture testifies that Christ died for His sheep and commands us to love one another with the same self-giving love.
It is Christ who died. Romans 8 verses 33, 34 — surely, for them. And to the Savior declaring, 'I lay down my life for my sheep,' John 10:15. And, 'This is my commandment: that you love one another, just as I have loved you.'
The Greatest Love
The Synod closes with Christ’s own words that no one has greater love than to lay down his life for his friends.
No one has a greater love than this: that he would lay down his life for his friends.✦ John. 15. 12, 13.
Read the original Latin
Exposita doctrina orthodoxa, rejicit Synodus errores eorum:
Qui docent, ‘Quod Deus Pater Filium suum in mortem crucis destinaverit, sine certo ac definito consilio quemquam nominatim salvandi, adeo ut impetrationi mortis Christi sua necessitas, utilitas, dignitas sarta tecta, et numeris suis perfecta, completa atque integra constare potuisset, etiamsi impetrata redemptio nulli individuo unquam actu ipso fuisset applicata.’ Hæc enim assertio in Dei Patris sapientiam meritumque Jesu Christi contumeliosa, et Scripturæ contraria est. Sic enim ait Servator: Ego animam pono pro ovibus, et agnosco eas. Johan. x. 15, 27. Et de Servatore Esaias propheta: Cum posuerit se sacrificium pro reatu, videbit semen, prolongabit dies, et voluntas Jehovæ in manu ejus prosperabitur. Esai.
liii. 10. Denique, articulum Fidei, quo Ecclesiam credimus, evertit.
Qui docent, ‘Non fuisse hunc finem mortis Christi, ut novum gratiæ fœdus suo sanguine reipsa sanciret, sed tantum, ut nudum jus Patri acquireret, quodcunque fœdus, vel gratiæ, vel operum, cum hominibus denuo ineundi.’ Hoc enim repugnat Scripturæ, quæ docet, Christum melioris, id est, novi fœderis Sponsorem et Mediatorem factum esse. Heb. vii. 22. Et, Testamentum in mortuis demum ratum esse. Heb. ix.
15, 17.
Qui docent, ‘Christum per suam satisfactionem, nullis certo meruisse ipsam salutem et fidem, qua hæc Christi satisfactio ad salutem efficaciter applicetur, sed tantum Patri acquisivisse potestatem vel plenariam voluntatem, de novo cum hominibus agendi, et novas, quascunque vellet conditiones, præscribendi, quarum præstatio a libero hominis arbitrio pendeat, atque ideo fieri potuisse, ut vel nemo, vel omnes eas implerent.’ Hi enim de morte Christi nimis abjecte sentiunt, primarium fructum seu beneficium per eam partum nullatenus agnoscunt, et Pelagianum errorem ab inferis revocant.
Qui docent, ‘Fœdus illud novum gratiæ, quod Deus Pater, per mortis Christi interventum cum hominibus pepigit, non in eo consistere, quod per fidem, quatenus meritum Christi apprehendit, coram Deo justificemur et salvemur; sed in hoc, quod Deus, abrogata perfectæ obedientiæ legalis exactione, fidem ipsam et fidei obedientiam imperfectam pro perfecta legis obedientia reputet, et vitæ æternæ præmio gratiose dignam censeat.’ Hi enim contradicunt Scripturæ, Justificantur gratis, ejus gratia, per redemptionem factam in Jesu Christo, quem proposuit Deus placamentum per fidem in sanguine ejus. Rom. iii. 24, 25. Et cum impio Socino, novam et peregrinam hominis coram Deo justificationem, contra totius Ecclesiæ consensum, inducunt.
Qui docent, ‘Omnes homines in statum reconciliationis et gratiam fœderis esse assumptos, ita ut nemo propter peccatum originate sit damnationi obnoxius, aut damnandus, sed omnes ab istius peccati reatu sint immunes.’ Hæc enim sententia repugnat Scriptura, affirmanti nos natura esse filios iræ. [Ephes. ii. 3.]
Qui impetrationis et applicationis distinctionem usurpant, ut incautis et imperitis hanc opinionem instillent: Deum, quantum ad se attinet, omnibus hominibus ex æquo ea beneficia voluisse conferre, quæ per mortem Christi acquiruntur; quod autem quidam præ aliis participes fiant remissionis peccatorum, et vitæ æternæ, discrimen illud pendere ex libero eorum arbitrio, se ad gratiam indifferenter oblatam applicante, non autem ex singulari misericordiæ dono, efficaciter in illis operante, ut præ aliis gratiam illam sibi applicent. Nam isti, dum simulant se distinctionem hanc sano sensu proponere, populo perniciosum Pelagianismi venenum conantur propinare.
Qui docent, ‘Christum, pro iis, quos Deus summe dilexit, et ad vitam æternam elegit, mori nec potuisse, nec debuisse, nec mortuum esse, cum talibus morte Christi non sit opus.’ Contradicunt enim Apostolo dicenti: Christus dilexit me, et tradidit seipsum pro me. Galat. ii. 20. Item, Quis est, qui crimina intentet adversus electos Dei? Deus est is, qui justificat. Quis est qui condemnet?
Christus est, qui mortuus est. Rom. viii. 33, 34: nimirum, pro illis. Et Salvatori asseveranti, Ego pono animam meam pro ovibus meis, Johan. x. 15. Et, Hoc est præceptum meum, ut diligatis alii alios, sicut ego dilexi vos.
Majorem dilectionem nemo habet, quam ut ponat animam suam pro amicis. Johan. xv. 12, 13.
Scripture echoes
- ↩Rom.3.24-Rom.3.25 — being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Rom.3.25 — whom God put forward as a mercy seat through faith in His blood, to show His righteousness because of the passing over of sins previously committed
- ↩Eph.2.3 — Among them we too all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath, just like the rest.
- ↩Eph.2.3 — Among them we too all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath, just like the rest.
- ↩Eph.2.3 — Among them we too all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath, just like the rest.
- ↩Eph.2.3 — Among them we too all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath, just like the rest.
- ↩Gal.2.20 — I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
- ↩Rom.8.33 — Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies.
- ↩Rom.8.34 — Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus—the one who died, and more than that, was raised—who is also at the right hand of God, and who also intercedes for us.
- ↩Rom.8.34 — Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus—the one who died, and more than that, was raised—who is also at the right hand of God, and who also intercedes for us.
- ↩John.15.13 — No one has greater love than this: that someone lay down his life for his friends.
Canons of Dort (Dordtsche Leerregels) companion
Finish the Canons in daily portions
The full Canons of Dort, readable in modern English, delivered daily in the free Chosen Portion iOS app
Dort was written to steady doubting believers through ordered doctrine; Chosen Portion delivers those same articles as a steady daily reading practice.
- Complete all 9 chapters in about 3 weeks at 5 minutes a day
- Every article and rejected error in modern readable English
- Move straight on to the Augsburg Confession and 78+ other works