Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those:
II Who teach that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.
For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ “has become the guarantee and mediator” of a better—that is, “a new”—“covenant” (Heb. 7:22 9:15), and that “a will is in force only when someone has died” (Heb. 9:17).
_______________________________
In the “refutation of errors” section of each head of doctrine, the Canons take up some of the more technical and specific teachings of the Dutch Arminians which prompted the Synod of Dort to be called in 1618. The second error identified under the second head of doctrine is the Remonstrant (Arminian) notion that the death of Christ did not actually establish a covenant of grace between God and his elect, but that the atonement merely makes provision for God to into enter into such a covenant with his creatures on the ground of God’s choosing—whether that be faith or works.
This reluctance to understand the covenant of grace as necessarily tied to Christ’s mediatorial work is fallout from the Arminian view of the atonement, which is a species of what is known as the “governmental theory.” The so-called governmental theory of the atonement teaches that the death of Christ supposedly demonstrates God’s love, along with his right to order his universe as he sees fit. In this scheme, the cross of Christ is not seen as a satisfaction of God’s justice, and therefore, a necessary act if sinners are to be saved. Instead, the cross is understood in terms of God’s arbitrary decree that a sacrificial death would be accepted as a payment for sin instead of some other equally valid way.
This means that it was not necessary for Christ to die if God’s elect are to be saved, but that God determined to do things in this way since his rule over the universe and his love for sinners would be most clearly manifest. As the moral governor of his universe, God saw fit to save in this manner. But he was under absolutely no necessity of doing so.
To read the rest, follow the link below
Read More