I found this following quote very provocative, it is Pierre du Moulin — a leading voice in French Reformed orthodoxy (Classic Calvinism) — who was elected moderator of the national synod of Alais (1620); this synod represented the situation wherein the conclusions of the Synod of Dort were introduced into the French theological landscape. Here is du Moulin:

I N. N. do Swear and Protest before God, and this Holy Assembly that I do receive, approve and imbrace all the Doctrines taught and decided by the Synod of Dort, as perfectly agreeing with the word of God, and the Confession of our Churches. I Swear and Promise to persevere in the Profession of this Document during my whole Life, and to defend it with the utmost of my power, and that I will never, neither by Preaching nor Teaching in the Schools, nor by Writing depart from it. I declare also and I protest that I reject and condemn the Doctrine of the Arminians, because it makes God’s Decree of Election depend upon the mutable Will of Man, and for that it doth extenuate and make null and void the Grace of God; it exalteth Man, and the powers of Free Will to his destruction, it reduceth into the Church of God old, ejected Pelagianisme, and is a Mask and Vizard for Popery to creep in among us under that disguise, and subverteth all Assurance of Everlasting Life and Happyness. And so may God help me, and be propitious to me, as I swear all this without any Ambiguity, Equivocation or mental Reservation. (See Brian Armstrong quoting Quick quoting du Moulin, “Calvinism And The Amyraut Heresy,” 134)

I think this represents an ‘confession’ of sorts, one that Calvinists or ‘Reformed orthodox’ today could totally sign off on and applaud as their own. I suppose what I find provocative about this kind of resolve, by du Moulin, is that he sees the articulation provided by Westminster as Gospel truth. I can understand, and even agree, to a point, with this kind of passion and devotion; but, a problem can arise when ‘confessions’, that are particularly situated (historically) take on an air of ‘universal’ viability and vitality for the ‘whole body of Christ’. In other words, when synod’s decisions become binding for the church of Christ — given their relative situadeness — this poses problems (sectarian problems). Pierre du Moulin, given his situation, and historical circumstance, believed that the synod of Dort was representative of THE ‘Gospel’ message itself — and maybe it was in 17th century Europe; but given its relative nature, how is it that Dort should function as universally binding and representative of the ‘Gospel’ today?