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