The English delegation to Dort didn’t want the Synod to condemn the view that reprobates can be regenerated and justified for a time, only to lose those benefits. The English delegation was successful; this was not among the errors rejected by the Synod.

That is itself a remarkable fact, but the reasoning used is equally so. In A Theologis Ecclesiae Anglicanaae de canonibus formandis alliisque in Synodo Dordacena proposita the delegation declared:

“We ourselves think that this doctrine is contrary to Holy Scriptures, but whether it is expedient to condemn it in these our canons needs great deliberation. On the contrary, it would appear . . .

“1. That Augustine, Prosper and the other Fathers who propounded the doctrine of absolute predestination and who opposed the Pelagians, seem to have conceded that certain of those who are not predestinated can attain the state of regeneration and justification. Indeed, they use this very argument as an illustration of the deep mystery of predestination; which cannot be unknown to those who have even a modest acquaintance with their writings.

“2. That we ought not without grave cause to give offence to the Lutheran churches, who in this matter, it is clear, think differently.

“3. That (which is of greater significance) in the Reformed churches themselves, many learned and saintly men who are at one with us in defending absolute predestination, nevertheless think that certain of those who are truly regenerated and justified, are able to fall from that state and to perish and that this happens eventually to all those, whom God has not ordained in the decree of election infallibly to eternal life. Finally we cannot deny that there are some places in Scripture which apparently support this opinion, and which have persuaded learned and pious men, not without great probability.”

Paragraph 3 is especially noteworthy. First, because it says that the opinion of Augustine and Prosper was still held among Reformed theologians; second because it appeals to the opinion of “learned and pious men.” The English delegation wanted the Synod’s decisions to be guided by opinions actually held within the churches, rather than abstractly deciding “right doctrine” in order to exclude those who held wrong doctrine. In assessing the opinions of these men, they didn’t just look at doctrines held, but at who held the doctrines.

Thanks to Steven Wedgeworth for pointing me to this text.