In this episode Dr Clark continues his series on the Canons of Dort where we turn to the Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine on the Application of Redemption by the Spirit to the elect. Synod intentionally repeated themselves in their reply . . . Continue reading →
The Synod of Dort believed that God accomplished salvation only for the elect. Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues his series on the Canons of Dort where we are looking at the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort on the atonement. One of the principals in the Arminian controversy leading up to . . . Continue reading →
At least two delegates at the Synod of Dort (1618-19) were toying with alternate language regarding the atonement. Continue reading →
The Synod of Dort employed language that unequivocally specified the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work for all the elect. Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues his series on the Canons of Dort where we are looking at the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort on the atonement. He reads an email from Victor (from Canada) asking about New . . . Continue reading →
Placing reason under special revelation concerning what God has revealed about the persons of the Trinity. Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues his series on the Canons of Dort where we are looking at the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort on the atonement. In their second head of doctrine, the Remonstrants confessed, in 1610, . . . Continue reading →
The Reformed disagreed with the Remonstrants on their view of whether the offer of the Gospel is really “free.” Continue reading →
We know God analogically because we are only and ever creatures. Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues his series on the Canons of Dort where we are looking at the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort on the atonement. Rationalism is a word that gets tossed around rather casually at . . . Continue reading →
The Reformed disagreed with the Remonstrants on the definition of “reconciliation.” Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues his series on the Canons of Dort where we are looking at the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort on the atonement. In the debate between the Remonstrants (Arminians) and the Reformed, who . . . Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues his series on the Canons of Dort where we are looking at the Second Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort on the atonement. Synod was responding to Remonstrant criticisms that the orthodox Reformed view . . . Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues his series on the Canons of Dort where we are looking at the First Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort, articles 12 and 13. The Synod was responding to the problem of assurance. The . . . Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues his series on the Canons of Dort where we are looking at the First Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort starting with Canons of Dort 1.8. They confessed what they did because the Remonstrants . . . Continue reading →
Perhaps the most fundamental complaint of the Remonstrants against Reformed theology, the concern that most animated Arminius’ desire to revise Reformed theology, was the charge that the Reformed view makes God the author of evil. In his desire to fix this problem . . . Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark returns the series on the Canons of Dort (1619). The second thing that the Reformed did in response to the Remonstrants was to quote two passages: 1 John 1:9 and John 3:16. The Synod of Dort was . . . Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues the series on the Canons of Dort (1619). The first that the Reformed churches of Europe and the British Isles said to the world about their theology, in response to the challenge presented by the Remonstrants, . . . Continue reading →
In this episode Dr Clark continues the series on the Canons of Dort (1619). The Remonstrant (Arminian) narrative has long been that they are victims of Reformed ecclesiastical aggression. The facts, however, tell a different story. The Arminians had powerful ecclesiastical, political, . . . Continue reading →