These volumes are a great resource for anyone wanting a thorough, yet concise, representation of Reformed theology from a pivotal point in Church history. I haven't read them all the way through yet, but everywhere I've dipped in has been clear, meaty, and well organized. Lastly, I can attest that these Davenant English-only books are well crafted, like Fred said.
So, the Synod of Dort, a kangaroo court, took out the people they disagreed with, even killing and imprisoning the opposition, and this is the unified theology that resulted? That's the Christian way to do theology??
@@chrismathew2295 Are you saying the early ecumenical councils (one) only let one side make their case, and (two) then were used to kill and imprison Christians who disagreed with them?
@@paulchamberlain4810 Regarding (1), Episcopius and other Remonstrants were invited to make their case from the beginning. But they refused to make a positive case for Arminianism, choosing to begin with various objections to Reformed soteriology. On those procedural grounds, they were removed from the Synod. Regarding (2), why does it matter if it's immediate? My point only is that, historically, the church recognised the authority of the civil magistrate in punishing heretics and maintaining the unity of the church. Theodosius I persecuted the Arians and the Nestorians; the Fourth Council of the Lateran upheld the authority of the state in this regard; the magisterial Reformation practiced the same in Europe and colonial America. So, whatever one makes of this, it isn't unique to the Synod of Dort.
@@chrismathew2295 (1) So the prosecutors wouldn't let their own case be criticized by the defendant? If "procedural grounds" don't allow cross examination so to speak, I think the charge of kangaroo court stands. (2) "Immediate" is important because it points to the intention of the council. There's a difference between something being used for a purpose later or being intended for that purpose. Regarding the "church" using the magistrate to persecute. First, are you saying Arminianism is a heresy like Arianism? I think Fred Sanders will disagree. And persecuting Christians is the same as persecuting Christ himself (Acts 9:4-5). Second, yes, Dort it is part of the tradition of the "church" using the State to persecute those who disagree, including other Christians. And yes, the Puritans in the New World persecuted Baptists and others they disagreed with. But historically, there have been Christian churches that don't believe the sword should be used to spread Christianity, too.
These volumes are a great resource for anyone wanting a thorough, yet concise, representation of Reformed theology from a pivotal point in Church history. I haven't read them all the way through yet, but everywhere I've dipped in has been clear, meaty, and well organized. Lastly, I can attest that these Davenant English-only books are well crafted, like Fred said.
Very excited for this! Glad you guys are back at it!
l just discovered you’re channel. Looking forward to going thur your playlist on these heavy topics, God bless!
So, the Synod of Dort, a kangaroo court, took out the people they disagreed with, even killing and imprisoning the opposition, and this is the unified theology that resulted? That's the Christian way to do theology??
Early ecumenical councils worked in a similar way.
@@chrismathew2295 Are you saying the early ecumenical councils (one) only let one side make their case, and (two) then were used to kill and imprison Christians who disagreed with them?
edit: "two) then were *immediately* used to kill and imprison Christians who disagreed with them?"
@@paulchamberlain4810 Regarding (1), Episcopius and other Remonstrants were invited to make their case from the beginning. But they refused to make a positive case for Arminianism, choosing to begin with various objections to Reformed soteriology. On those procedural grounds, they were removed from the Synod.
Regarding (2), why does it matter if it's immediate? My point only is that, historically, the church recognised the authority of the civil magistrate in punishing heretics and maintaining the unity of the church. Theodosius I persecuted the Arians and the Nestorians; the Fourth Council of the Lateran upheld the authority of the state in this regard; the magisterial Reformation practiced the same in Europe and colonial America. So, whatever one makes of this, it isn't unique to the Synod of Dort.
@@chrismathew2295 (1) So the prosecutors wouldn't let their own case be criticized by the defendant? If "procedural grounds" don't allow cross examination so to speak, I think the charge of kangaroo court stands.
(2) "Immediate" is important because it points to the intention of the council. There's a difference between something being used for a purpose later or being intended for that purpose.
Regarding the "church" using the magistrate to persecute. First, are you saying Arminianism is a heresy like Arianism? I think Fred Sanders will disagree. And persecuting Christians is the same as persecuting Christ himself (Acts 9:4-5).
Second, yes, Dort it is part of the tradition of the "church" using the State to persecute those who disagree, including other Christians. And yes, the Puritans in the New World persecuted Baptists and others they disagreed with. But historically, there have been Christian churches that don't believe the sword should be used to spread Christianity, too.