I call upon You, Lord, God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob and Israel, You who are the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of your mercy, was well-pleased towards us so that we may know You, who made heaven and earth, who rules over all, You who are the one and the true God, above whom there is no other God; You who, by our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit, give to every one who reads this writing to know You, that You alone are God, to be strengthened in You, and to avoid every heretical and godless and impious teaching.

St Irenaeus of Lyons, Against the Heresies 3:6:4


REJECTIO ERRORUM: The Causes and Controversies of the Synod of Dort


INTRODUCTION
             Sacrosancta Synodus Dordrechti!” was the doxological cry of Wolfgang Meyer, a delegate from Basel to the synod of Dort, upon every subsequent mention of the solemn assembly.[1]  “The Arminian controversy (which culminated at the Synod of Dort),” says Schaff, “is the most important which took place within the Reformed Church.”[2]  Regarding the learning and piety represented at the synod, Schaff goes further, remarking that it was “as respectable as any ever held since the days of the Apostles.”[3]  Perhaps the most generous accolades for the synod come from the pen of Cunningham, who remarks, “The synod of Dort, representing as it did almost all the Reformed churches, and containing a great proportion of theologians of the highest talents, learning, and character, is entitled to a larger measure of respect and deference than any other council recorded in the history of the church.”[4]  Granting, therefore, the pride of place that the synod of Dort maintains in the development of Church history and the historical theology of the Church, a careful examination of its causes and controversies is highly warranted.  
A succinct historical overview of the synod of Dort
            In purely historical terms, the synod of Dort was a gathering of representatives of the international Reformed community intended to resolve certain doctrinal difficulties which had arisen in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 17th century.  The synod was held in 1618—19 by the invitation of the government of the Netherlands.  There were sixty-two representatives of the Dutch provinces and twenty foreign delegates.[5]  Eighteen of the delegates were secular commissioners; the foreign delegates included men from England, the Palatinate, Hesse, Switzerland, Bremen, and France.[6]  The synod “held one hundred and fifty-four formal sessions, besides a larger number of conferences.”[7] 
            The spark that set what is known as the Arminian (or quinquarticular) controversy ablaze in the Netherlands,[8] and which lead ultimately to the synod of Dort, was a vivacious and continuous debate between two professors, both from the University of Leiden.  Dutch theologian Jacobus (or anglicanized, James) Arminius “disputed bitterly” with the staunch supralapsarianism[9] of Franciscus Gomarus (or Gomar).[10]  Arminius proposed a modified Calvinism, and argued for alterations to be made to the National Church’s symbol, the Belgic Confession.[11]  After Arminius’ death in 1609,[12] his moderate comrades took up the cause, and in 1610 they compiled their ideas in a formal statement titled the Remonstrance.[13] This was quickly met by the Counter-Remonstrance, coming from the orthodoxy of the Dutch pastors and theologians, which lead to the Arminians’ application to the government for resolution through a convocation of the National Synod in Dordrecht (or Dort).  Ironically, like the Donatists before them, the teaching of the Arminians was condemned by the very synod they convoked.[14]
THE CAUSES OF DORT
The Political Backcloth of Early 17th Century Netherlands
In the late 16th century, the Netherlands had two different yet tightly related political foci on the horizon.  On the one hand, there was the revolt against Spain and Phillip II’s monarchial dominion over the seven northern provinces of modern Holland.  On the other hand, there was also the Dutch revolt against the Roman church and pope.  England and her queen Elizabeth provided support to the Netherland revolution.  This was largely to spite Philip II, who was attempting to claim the throne of England through the rights of his dead wife, Mary Tudor.[15]  By mid-century, Philip II pressed his Inquisition hard throughout the Netherlands.  In 1659, under the vice-regency of Duke of Alva, who was backed by 10,000 trained Spanish soldiers, Philip II began “a reign of terror.”[16]  After much life lost, the Dutch opposition came under the leadership of William of Orange, also known as the Silent.  Experiencing great losses on land, the Dutch successfully took to the sea, suffocating the Spanish seafaring commerce.  By the early 1580s, the seven provinces secured politico-ecclesiastic sovereignty.  England’s defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 assisted further in protecting the Dutch from being recaptured by Spain.[17] 
The Religious Backcloth of Early 17th Century Netherlands
            “Up to 1525 those who accepted the Reformation (in Holland) followed Luther, but the Anabaptists gained a strong following from that date until about 1540.  From 1540 the Reformation in Holland proceeded along Calvinistic lines.  By 1560 the majority of Protestants were Calvinistic.”[18]  “Thus Dutch Calvinism enjoyed an almost unique quasi-Establishment position.”[19]  
The history of Arminius vs. Gomarus
It was out of this ardently Calvinistic atmosphere that the Arminian controversy arose.  As mentioned above, it was Jacobus Arminius, who was the initial protagonist of the movement, and from whom the movement took its name, Arminianism.[20]  Arminius was a native Dutchman, who had studied theology under the tutelage of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor, in Geneva.[21]  Arminius, in fact, “considered himself a true follower of Calvin.”[22]  Arminius returned to his Holland homeland in 1563.  He was shortly thereafter made professor of theology at the eminent University of Leiden.  He was astoundingly popular, not only for his pedagogical prowess but also for being the only native Dutchman on the school’s faculty.[23]
In 1604, Franciscus Gomarus, who also held a professorship at Leiden, opposed Arminius’ teaching with strident force, regarding the doctrine of predestination, and five other “knotty points” of Calvinism.[24]  Gomarus’ response should not have surprised anyone.  Arminius was suggesting that the Calvinism reflected in the confessional standards of the Dutch Reformed tradition risked making God the author of sin and man an automaton.[25]  Cairns provides a good contrast between the position of Calvin and Holland’s orthodoxy and that heterodox teaching of Arminius, which may be charted as follows.[26]
Table 1


CALVIN-DUTCH ORTHODOXY
 JACOBUS ARMINIUS
On Fallen Humanity’s Depravity and Ability
Calvin held that man’s will was so thoroughly affected by the fall and sin that any salvific move in the direction of Christ’s gospel was entirely the result of divine grace (hence, salvation is a monergistic work of God).
Arminius agreed that humanity was under the God’s righteous wrath, but that could still initiate his own salvation once God had bestowed the primary grace (hence, salvation is a synergistic work, man and God cooperating). 
On the Doctrine of Election
Calvin taught that the election of some to everlasting life and others to condemnation was founded in God’s unconditioned decree; faith being a gift of grace.
Arminius taught that the election of some individuals to everlasting life was founded in God’s foreknowledge of then-future subjects’ personal exercise of faith.
On the Extent of the Atonement[27]
Calvin maintained that Christ’s atoning work was limited to the elect, and designed so.
Arminius taught that the atonement was universal in its design, but made effective by the believer’s faith.
On Divine Grace
Calvin believed that efficacious grace toward the elect was irresistible.
Arminius believed that God’s grace toward the sinner could be resisted; man could reject the inward call to salvation.
On the Final Perseverance of the Saints
Calvin maintained that the elect, who had experienced the work of grace, would not neither could fall finally and fatally away from salvation, but would persevere to the end.
Arminius maintained that while God would continue to bestow upon the believer the necessary grace to persevere, the believer could resists God’s offer and thus fall away, losing their salvation. 

The above table evidences the five ‘knotty points’ of contention between Arminius and Calvin, and so between Arminius and Dutch orthodoxy, who were heirs of Calvin’s soteriology and anthropology.  Moreover, the respective five points of each of these theologians became the battle banners for their followers in the succeeding decades. 
The continued debate—the road to Dort
Arminius suffered an untimely and painful death in 1609.  Just after his death, his successor to the chair of theology at Leiden, Simon Episcopius, and Janus Uytenbogaert, a preacher from Hague, became the champions of the Arminian perspective.[28]  In addition to these two men, many other
students of  both Gomarus and Arminius filled clerical posts throughout the Dutch Republic and continued the controversy.  The debate ranged beyond the academic world as city councils and church councils were also divided over the issues and two political leaders became involved.  Oldenbarnevelt, the unofficial president of the estates of Holland, took the side of the Arminians, and Maurice of Nassau, who controlled the army, took the side of the Calvinists.  By this time the two side in the debate were identified by labels: the Arminians were called ‘Remonstrants’ and the Calvinists were called ‘Counter-Remonstrants’ because in 1610 forty-four ministers, many of whom had been students of Arminius, presented a remonstrance in which they stated their position.[29]
           
The presentation of the Remonstrance lead to the ordering of a conference, which was held in Hague, home of Uytenbogaert, in 1611; the conference was fruitless, however.  There then was another discussion held at Delft in 1613; and in 1614, headed by Hugo Grotius (himself an Arminian sympathizer), was the edict of the States of Holland, which also sought for peace and resolution.  Neither of these latter two attempts was any more helpful than the former in resolving the issues.[30]  “At last, after a great deal of controversy and complicated preparations, the National Synod of Dort was convened by the States-General, Nov. 13, 1618, and lasted till May 9, 1619.”[31]  It was to be this venerable assemblage of scholars, theologians and statesmen that would settle the controversy. 
THE CONTROVERSIES OF DORT
            The synod delegation was overwhelmingly Calvinistic.  “It was really an international Calvinistic assembly because 28 of the 130 present were Calvinists…the Arminians came before the meeting in the role of defendants.”[32]  Episcopius only aggravated the situation when he “asked for permission to address the Synod and then launched into an hour and a half oration detailing the Remonstrant position and their oppression at the hands of the Calvinist Reformed.  The speech was powerful and soon circulated throughout the Netherlands and beyond.  The Remonstrant protest, however, was short-lived. The president of the synod expelled them for refusing to cooperate, and the synod decided to judge them from their writings.”[33]  Their writings reflected in essence the same ideas on the five points of Arminius, as set forth in Table 1 above; therefore, only a succinct statement of the five points of the Remonstrance is necessary here. 
The soteriological and anthropological points of contention—the Remonstrance
            The Remonstrance is first negative, and then positive.[34]  It began by challenging the supralapsarian view of the eternal decree and then moved on to four other points of anthropology and soteriology.  Their first repudiation was toward the supralapsarian doctrine that God, before either the creation of man or his fall, by immutable decree, elected some to eternal life and others to eternal death, without any regard to righteousness or sin, obedience or disobedience, but based solely on his good pleasure.[35]  The second negative point was against the sublapsarian view of predestination, that “God, in view of the fall, and in the just condemnation of our first parents and their posterity, ordained to exempt a part of mankind from the consequences of the fall, and to save them by his free grace, but to leave the rest, without regard to age or moral condition, to their condemnation, for the glory of his righteousness.”[36]  In contradistinction to both of these formulae, the Arminians contended that predestination was conditional.  “Election and condemnation are thus conditioned by (God’s) foreknowledge, and made dependent on the foreseen faith or unbelief of men.” [37] 
            The third point of contest was the Calvinistic view of the atonement that, “Christ died, not for all men, but only for the elect.”[38]  Against this, the Arminians argued for a universal atonement.  Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, and his grace extends to all.[39]  Third, orthodox Calvinism taught that though the external offer and call of the gospel goes out to all men, the elect benefit from the Holy Spirit’s efficacious working of grace, and so must come to repentance and faith, laying hold of the proffered salvation.  The Third Article of the Remonstrance, however, resisted the Calvinistic doctrine of grace, stating instead that, the necessary prevening grace, which is necessary for any spiritual life, is a co-operating and assisting grace, which is not irresistible, for most, they highlighted, do in fact resist the Holy Spirit. 
            Finally, the Arminians rejected “that those who have received this irresistible grace can never totally and finally lose it, but are guided and preserved by the same grace to the end.”[40]  Instead, the Fifth and finally point of the Remonstrance set forth the uncertainty of perseverance.  They reasoned that while grace was sufficient and necessary for persevering to the end, “it has not yet been proven from the Scriptures that grace, once given, can never be lost.”[41]  “These doctrines [those of the Calvinists’ laid down in the Belgic Confession], the Remonstrants declare[d], [were] not contained in the Word of God nor in the Heidelberg Catechism, and are unedifying, yea dangerous, and should not be preached to Christian people.”[42]

The ruling of the Synod—rejectio errorum
            The synod assembled at Dort condemned the objections and teachings of the Remonstrants on April 24, 1619.  On May 6 the same year, sentences were passed on their leadership; and, on July 5 these leaders were pack into wagons and driven into exile.[43]  Many Remonstrant preachers were banished and over 200 lost their pulpits.[44]  The synod countered the Remonstrance with five counter-points, which largely reaffirmed and elaborated five points of the original teaching of the Belgic Confession.  These have come to be known as the Canons of Dort,[45] and were subsequently added to the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession, thus creating what is now called the three forms of unity or “formulas of concord.”[46]  The synod of Dort, 1618—1619, reasserted strict Calvinism.[47]  Thus, “Calvinism triumphed in the Synod of Dort, and excluded Arminianism.”[48] 
CONCLUSION
            The synod of Dort was the most important Church council to come out of the Reformation, and perhaps even the entire history of the Church.[49]  True to her historical and political context, the Dutch church maintained a strong wedding of church and state.  This admixture of politics and ecclesiology provided strong impetus as the Arminian controversy grew stronger.  What began as an intermural debate between two of Leiden’s most eminent theologians became an international struggle that reverberated through the Reformed church in Europe.   Once convened, it is not hard to sense the inequity and imbalance between the representations of the two camps.  It is well to remember, however, that at that moment Arminianism was a minority schism or aberration from prevailing orthodoxy.  The written arguments set forth in the Remonstrance were found seriously wanting by the synodal authorities, and the final pronouncement was rejectio errorum—the rejection of the error.  
              As Manschreck observes, “Calvinism rode the wave of the future and greatly influenced Christian life and culture during the next 400 years.”[50]  Proof of this remark is evidenced in recent, popular periodicals in both the secular and sacred markets.  In 2009, Christianity Today featured John Calvin’s ministry, and as important, his continued influence and legacy in the Western church today.[51]  Therein, George summarizes the renaissance of Reformed theology that is sweeping across demographic and denominational lines in the modern church. 
These things are not new, but they are getting a new hearing among Christians today. According to a recent survey, some 30 percent of recent graduates from seminaries affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant denomination, identify themselves as Calvinists.

In 2009, there are more writings in print by 19th-century Calvinist pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon than by any other English-speaking author living or dead. Among those reading Spurgeon, as well as the writings of J. I. Packer, John Piper, and R. C. Sproul, are thousands of young Christians who flock to the Passion and Together for the Gospel conferences, hundreds of pastors who have planted churches affiliated with the growing interdenominational Acts 29 movement, and charismatic Calvinists who resonate with C. J. Mahaney, Joshua Harris, and the Sovereign Grace churches.[52]

It is important to note that it is not the Westminster Standards or even the Belgic Confession that serves as the tie that binds this mixed medley of Reformed evangelicals together; it is the five points of Calvinism, as recorded in the Canons of Dort that binds them.  This resurging interest and commitment to the Canons by this growing number of evangelicals has been coined the New Calvinism.  So strong is the voice and sweeping is the influence of the New Calvinism that even a source as unsympathetic to the Christian community as Time Magazine has taken notice.  Time recognized that the New Calvinism is number three of the top 10 ideas that are changing our world today.[53]   
The debate that began four centuries ago between Arminius and Gomarus is hardly less intense and, unfortunately, hardly more civil today than it was then.  Nevertheless, the evidence is clear: the decision and the dropped gavel at the Synodus Dordrechti still echoes in our times with mounting strength and influence. 








WORKING OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION

            A. Acclaim for the synod and thesis
            B. A succinct historical overview of the synod of Dort
           
II. THE CAUSES OF DORT

            A. The political backcloth of early 17th century Netherlands
            B. The religious backcloth of early 17th century Netherlands
                        1. The history of Arminius vs. Gomarus
                        2. The continued debate—the road to Dort
                         
III. THE CONTROVERSIES OF DORT

            A. The soteriological and anthropological points of contention—the Remonstrance                        B. The ruling of the Synod—rejectio errorum

V. CONCLUSION
















SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY


Boettner, Loraine, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.  Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing: Phillipsburg-New Jersey (1932).

Cairns, Earle E., Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, Third Edition.  Zondervan Publishers: Grand Rapids Michigan (1996).

Christian Classics Ethereal Library, “Synod of Dort.” http://www.ccel.org/creeds/canons-of-dort.html (accessed Mar. 1, 2011). 

Cunningham, William, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation.  The Banner of Truth Trust: London, England (1967). 

Dewar, Michael, “The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort: Assembling and Assembled; Returning and Returned.” Churchman 106/2 (1992).  http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_106_2_Dewar.pdf
                  (accessed Feb. 25, 2011).

Ellis, Mark A., The Arminian Confession of 1621: Introduction, Pickwick Publications: Eugene, Oregon (2005). http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Ellis.%20Arminian%20Confession%201621%20(Intro).pdf (accessed Feb. 18, 2011).

Ferguson, Sinclair B., David F. Wright editors, New Dictionary of Theology.  InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois (1988).

George, Timothy, “John Calvin, Comeback Kid: Why the 500-year-old Reformer retains an enthusiastic following today.”  Christianity Today, Sept. 8, 2009. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/september/14.27.html (accessed Feb. 19, 2011). 

Heinze, Rudolph, W., Reform and Conflict: From the Medieval World to the Wars of Religion, A.D. 1350 – 1648, Volume Four in The Baker History of the Church.  John D. Woodbridge & David F. Wright editors.  Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Michigan (2005).  

Manschreck, Clyde L., A History of Christianity in the World, Second Edition.  Prentice-Hall: New Jersey (1985). 

Schaff, Phillip, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume I: The History of the Creeds. Sixth Edition, Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Michigan (2007).


Time Magazine, “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now: The global economy is being remade before our eyes. Here's what's on the horizon,” (cover story) March, 2009. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1884779,00.html (accessed Feb. 18, 2011).

Van Biema, David, “The New Calvinism.”  Time Magazine, Mar. 12, 2009. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html (accessed Feb. 18, 2011).


[1] Michael Dewar, “The British Delegation at the Synod of Dort: Assembling and Assembled; Returning and Returned.” Churchman 106/2 (1992). http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_106_2_Dewar.pdf (accessed Feb. 25, 2011), p. 1.  Likewise, Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume I: The History of the Creeds. Sixth Edition, Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Michigan (2007), p. 515.

[2] Schaff, 509.  (Parenthesis mine).

[3] Ibid., 514

[4] William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation.  The Banner of Truth Trust: London, England (1967), p. 367. 


[5] R. Nichole, “Dort, Synod of,” pp. 207—08 in New Dictionary of Theology.  Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright editors. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois (1988), p. 207. Op cit.

[6] Schaff, pp. 512—13.

[7] Ibid., p. 513.  

[8] So Schaff, pp. 509, 516. 

[9] Supralapsarian is the view of eternal decree which is maintained by those “who go above and beyond the fall, and regard the object of the decree of predestination as man or the human race, viewed as not yet created and fallen but simply as to be created.”  Contrarily, those who regard the object of the decree of predestination as man or the human race as both having been created and already fallen are considered sub or infralapsarians.  See Cunningham, pp. 359—60.  For a sequential analysis of the logical ordering of each position’s view, see Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.  Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing: Phillipsburg-New Jersey (1932), pp. 126—30.

[10] Clyde L. Manschreck, A History of Christianity in the World, Second Edition.  Prentice-Hall: New Jersey (1985), p. 192. 

[11] Rudolph W. Heinze, Reform and Conflict: From the Medieval World to the Wars of Religion, A.D. 1350 – 1648, Volume Four in The Baker History of the Church.  John D. Woodbridge & David F. Wright editors.  Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Michigan (2005), p. 347.  
[12] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church, Third Edition.  Zondervan Publishers: Grand Rapids Michigan (1996), p. 317.

[13] Ibid. 

[14] Schaff, p. 511.

[15] Cairns, p. 315.

[16] Ibid., p. 316.
[17] Ibid. (This paragraph is a periphrastic summary of Cairns’ work, p. 316).

[18] Ibid.

[19] Dewar, p. 2.

[20] However, “We may rightly regard [Simon Episcopius] as the theological founder of Arminianism, since he both developed and systematized ideas which Arminius was tentatively exploring before his death and then perpetuated that theology through founding the Remonstrant seminary and teaching the next generation of pastors and teachers.” Mark A. Ellis, The Arminian Confession of 1621: Introduction, Pickwick Publications: Eugene, Oregon (2005). http://evangelicalarminians.org/files/Ellis.%20Arminian%20Confession%201621%20(Intro).pdf (accessed Feb. 18, 2011).

[21] Heinze, pp. 346—47

[22] Ibid. Hear Arminius himself on Calvin: “But after the reading of Scripture, which I vehemently inculcate more than anything else, which the entire academy can testify and of which my colleagues are conscious, I encourage the reading of the commentaries of Calvin, which I extol with the greatest praise…. For I say that he is incomparable in the interpretation of Scripture, and his comments are better than anything which the Fathers give us.” As cited by Ellis, The Arminian Confession of 1621.

[23] Heinze, p. 347.

[24] Dewar, p. 2; Heinze, p. 347.

[25] Cairns, p. 317.

[26] This material is indebted to, and follows relatively closely, Cairns assessment, p. 317.

[27] Note that Calvin taught Christ’s atonement was sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis (i.e., sufficient for all, effective for the elect).  Schaff, p. 518.  A limitation of the atonement is unavoidable: Calvinism limits not its sufficiency but its designed extent; Arminianism limits its actual effect, subordinating its intent to the human exercise of faith.  Cairns’ remark on p. 317, upon which the above table is based, gives the appearance that Calvin held a reductionistic view of the sufficiency of the atonement.  This note, and Schaff’s observation, serves to correct this misrepresentation.  

[28] Schaff, p. 511.
[29] Heinze, p. 347. Uytenbogaert’s eminence in the Arminian camp is again evident by his role as the formulator and author of the remonstrative thesis presented to Holland’s representatives in1610.  See Schaff, 512.

[30] Schaff, p. 512.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Cairns, p. 318.
[33] Ellis, The Arminian Confession of 1621.

[34] Schaff, p. 516. Op cit.

[35] This section follows the Remonstrance as recorded by Schaff, pp. 516—19.  It is here worthy of mention that the supralapsarian view of the decree as represented by Gomarus was not the majority view at the synod, neither has it been nor is it now the majority view among even the most strident Calvinists.  For more on this, see, Boettner, pp. 126f; Cunningham, pp. 359—60, 367. 

[36] Schaff, p. 517.

[37] Ibid. (Parenthesis added). 
[38] Ibid. p. 518.

[39] Ibid. Op cit.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid. p. 519.

[42] Ibid. p. 517.
[43] Ellis, The Arminian Confession of 1621.

[44], p. 192—93. Op cit.

[45] Both in Table 1 and throughout section III: A (i.e., The soteriological and anthropological points of contention—the Remonstrance) a summary statement of the position of the synod (which is commonly symbolized by the English mnemonic device T.U.L.I.P with each letter representing one head of doctrine), as fleshed out in the Canons of Dort, was duly presented.  An unabridged form of the Canons may be referenced at Christian Classics Ethereal Library, “Synod of Dort.” http://www.ccel.org/creeds/canons-of-dort.html (accessed Mar. 1, 2011). 

[46] Heinze, p. 348.

[47] Manschreck, p. 193. Op cit.

[48] Schaff, p. 509.

[49] Let the reader review Cunningham’s estimation at fn. 4.
[50] P. 193. 

[51] Timothy George, “John Calvin, Comeback Kid: Why the 500-year-old Reformer retains an enthusiastic following today.”  Christianity Today, Sept. 8, 2009. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/september/14.27.html (accessed Feb. 19, 2011). 

[52] Ibid.
[53] Time Magazine, “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now: The global economy is being remade before our eyes. Here's what's on the horizon,” (cover story) March, 2009. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1884779,00.html (accessed Feb. 18, 2011).  Also see the feature article on the topic: David Van Biema, “The New Calvinism.”  Time Magazine, Mar. 12, 2009. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1884779_1884782_1884760,00.html (accessed Feb. 18, 2011).


No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment