Church: it’s you AND me

One of the frustrating things about Christianity is the frequency with which we cannot answer simply what seem to be simple questions. Here are a few: “Is it right to work at your normal job on the Lord’s Day?” “Does a growing Church prove the preacher is faithful to the Scriptures?” and “May I take a drink of alcohol now and again?” The simple answer, and the one most frequently given to each of these questions is “No.” The more correct answer is: “It depends …”

The past few months have made all of us think about the question of worship – Is worship something we offer to God as individuals or something offered as a group – as a gathering of his people? Like the questions above the real answer is “It depends …” As the title of this article indicates, it depends on how you view the Church. We may see it as you (as you) and me (as me) who meet yet retain our individuality – and this is the way many today understand the nature of the Church. Peter is clearly not Paul and each one makes his own individual and necessary contribution to the Church. It is the vital nature of the individual, even of the lowliest individual, contribution to the working of the whole which seems to be the focus of chapters 12-14 of 1^st Corinthians.

Important, however, though each one’s part is in the Church, it is unwarranted to place too much emphasis upon the individual. In first few chapters of the same letter the Apostle Paul reminds the readers that he, Apollos and Peter were merely workers in God’s garden and that they as a Church were that garden. Their individual tasks might differ and, in that task each was doing his best to be faithful but they were all there to work for the benefit of the whole. In the three chapters mentioned above Paul includes the same idea by reminding the reader that the different gifts of the Spirit are all intended for the benefit of the body. The Church is truly you (as you) and me (as me) but it is as we work together that we are clearly recognized as the Church.

Though there is truth in all the descriptions of the Church given so far, almost any society of man can be described in the same terms. In fact, the names “Church,” “Assembly” and even “ἐκκλησία” may be, and have been, used to describe a gathering of people with no implications as to their purpose. What makes a group of people a church is not whether they are viewed as individuals, or as a group or even that they come together to encourage one another – it’s something else. Church, we are reminded, is where we come together to sing praises to God and are encouraged to honor him a bit more faithfully in the way we live. It is this concept, almost that of a modern seminar, that is at the heart of Pliny the Younger’s description sent to his Emperor of the services of the Church of his day.

While this representation of the Church is closer to the truth, even this description is flawed. Almost any seminar may “provoke us to love and good deeds,” though the definition of those terms may vary. The flaw lies in the focus on the members thus giving the impression the Church exists for their benefit. Some actually go so far as to evaluate a congregation’s worth by the way interaction with its members makes them feel. It is easy to become so comfortable with our rituals that we can believe the Church exists for the benefit of its members. While this is partly true, missionaries have a way of reminding us the Church exists mostly to benefit unbelievers.

Surely this provides us with the clue which lets us recognize what the Church actually is. We must begin with Paul in recognizing the Church is gathered together, not by common interest alone it is God who makes anyone a part of it. It is he who gives us the talents required to build the Church and it is he who gives the insights that will convict unbeliever, call them to account and disclosing the secrets of their hearts cause them will fall on their faces and worship God, declaring God is certainly among us. In the interests of truth that is how each and every one of us came to be members of the Church. It may not have been as dramatic as that as the Apostle Paul’s experience but it is certainly through the Church members that we come to understand who we are and why we need to change and, in every case, God uses them to show us the hidden things of our hearts. And sometimes they are not even aware that has been done.

Jesus described this event as “the wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going;” applying it to “everyone who is born of the Spirit.” We may se the results of the Spirit’s work when the unbeliever is convicted, falls down and worships God, declaring God is among us but we can neither predict when, or even if, such a thing will happen. That being the case there is no place for pride in our Church membership we were added because of our need and none of us is any better than any other – including the unbeliever who comes to visit. It is God who makes us, each and every one of us a part of his Church and we exist in order to make clear to the world how wonderful and worthy of praise he is. As a painting may appear to be only a series of smears of paint on a canvas until it is complete when it reveals the genius of the painter so the Church will in time reveal the true glory of God. Peter describes us as living stones brought together to become the temple of God – a temple based on a promise that includes you and me, our children and as many as the Lord calls to himself.

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

Loraine Boettner wrote a book by this name in 1932. In the Introduction he gave some very clear arguments why it was important to give the subject some serious and unbiased study. One of the disturbing elements in the usual attitude to predestination is the cavalier way the views of some of the greatest minds of Christendom are dismissed as of no interest to modern thinkers. Is it really of no interest to discover why our society and principles are indebted to their thinking? If we neglect the roots of our culture we have only ourselves to blame when we lose those freedoms and attitudes we cherish. Our society is founded on the precepts taught in a book that was already over 2000 years old when the last of its sections (The New Covenant — or Testament) was added. This was one of the key precepts.

That a subject (or even a synopsis of the subject) cannot be reduced to a 140-word tweet seems unacceptable to those who have no time for reflection, let alone cogitation. One would imagine that it ought to make a great deal of difference whether we believe our lives are governed by forces outside of our control (the deterministic main precept of evolution) or by someone who cares deeply for us as those created to be the responsible governors of his world. Boettner does a better job of introducing the subject than this writer. Though the cultural context is nearly 100 old, most of what he says is at least as relevant today as when it was written. Here’s his introduction to the subject:

Introduction

The purpose of this book is not to set forth a new system of theological thought, but to give a re-statement to that great system which is known as the Reformed Faith or Calvinism, and to show that this is beyond all doubt the teaching of the Bible and of reason.

The doctrine of Predestination receives comparatively little attention in our day and it is very imperfectly understood even by those who are supposed to hold it most loyally. It is a doctrine, however, which is contained in the creeds of most evangelical churches and which has had a remarkable influence both in Church and State. The official standards of the various branches of the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches in Europe and America are thoroughly Calvinistic. The Baptist and Congregational Churches, although they have no formulated creeds, have in the main been Calvinistic if we may judge from the writings and teachings of their representative theologians. The great free church of Holland and almost all the churches of Scotland are Calvinistic. The Established Church of England and her daughter, the Episcopal Church of America, have a Calvinistic creed in the Thirty-nine Articles. The Whitefield Methodists in Wales to this day bear the name of “Calvinistic Methodists.”

Among the past and present advocates of this doctrine are to be found some of the world’s greatest and wisest men. It was taught not only by Calvin, but by Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon (although Melanchthon later retreated toward the Semi-Pelagian position), by Bullinger, Bucer, and all of the outstanding leaders in the Reformation. While differing on some other points they agreed on this doctrine of Predestination and taught it with emphasis. Luther’s chief work, “The Bondage of the Will,” shows that he went into the doctrine as heartily as did Calvin himself. He even asserted it with more warmth and proceeded to much harsher lengths in defending it than Calvin ever did. And the Lutheran Church today as judged by the Formula of Concord holds the doctrine of Predestination in a modified form. The Puritans in England and those who early settled in America, as well as the Covenanters in Scotland and the Huguenots in France, were thorough-going Calvinists; and it is little credit to historians in general that this fact has been so largely passed over in silence. This faith was for a time held by the Roman Catholic Church, and at no time has that church ever openly repudiated it. Augustine’s doctrine of Predestination set against him all the half-hearted elements in the Church and arrayed him against every man who belittled the sovereignty of God. He overcame them, and the doctrine of Predestination entered the belief of the universal Church. The great majority of the creeds of historic Christendom have set forth the doctrines of Election, Predestination, and final Perseverance, as will readily be seen by any one who will make even a cursory study of the subject. On the other hand Arminianism existed for centuries only as a heresy on the outskirts of true religion, and in fact it was not championed by an organized Christian church until the year 1784, at which time it was incorporated into the system of doctrine of the Methodist Church in England. The great theologians of history, Augustine, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Zanchius, Owen, Whitefield, Toplady, and in more recent times Hodge, Dabney, Cunningham, Smith, Shedd, Warfield, and Kuyper, held this doctrine and taught it with force. That they have been the lights and ornaments of the highest type of Christianity will be admitted by practically all Protestants. Furthermore, their works on this great subject have never been answered. Then, too, when we stop to consider that among non-Christian religions Mohammedanism has so many millions who believe in some kind of Predestination, that the doctrine of Fatalism has been held in some form or other in several heathen countries, and that the mechanistic and deterministic philosophies have exerted such great influences in England, Germany, and America, we see that this doctrine is at least worthy of careful study.

From the time of the Reformation up until about one hundred years ago these doctrines were boldly set forth by the great majority of the ministers and teachers in the Protestant churches; but today we find far the greater majority holding and teaching other systems. It is only rarely that we now come across those who can be called “Calvinists without reserve.” We may quite appropriately apply to our own churches the words of Toplady in regard to the Church of England: “Time has been when the Calvinistic doctrines were considered and defended as the Palladium of our Established Church; by her bishops and clergy, by the universities, and the whole body of the laity. It was (during the reigns of Edward VI, Queen Elizabeth, James I, and the greater part of Charles I) as difficult to meet with a clergyman who did not preach the doctrines of the Church of England, as it is now to find one who does. We have generally forsaken the principles of the Reformation, and Ichabod, or ‘the glory is departed,’ has been written on most of our pulpits and church-doors ever since.” [1]

The tendency in our enlightened age is to look upon Calvinism as a worn-out and obsolete creed. At the beginning of his splendid article on “The Reformed Faith in the Modern World,” Prof. F. E. Hamilton says, “It seems to be tacitly assumed by a large number of people in the Presbyterian Church today that Calvinism has been outgrown in religious circles. In fact, the average church member, or even minister of the gospel, is inclined to look upon a person who declares that he believes in Predestination, with a glance of amused tolerance. It seems incredible to them that there should exist such an intellectual curiosity as a real Calvinist, in an age of enlightenment like the present. As for seriously examining the arguments for Calvinism, the idea never enters their heads. It is deemed as out of date as the Inquisition, or the idea of a fiat world, and is looked upon as one of the fantastic schemes of thought that men held before the age of modern science.” Because of this present day attitude toward Calvinism, and because of the general lack of information concerning these doctrines, we regard the subject of this book as one of great importance.

It was Calvin who wrought out this system of theological thought with such logical clearness and emphasis that it has ever since borne his name. He did not, of course, originate the system but only set forth what appeared to him to shine forth so clearly from the pages of Holy Scripture. Augustine had taught the essentials of the system a thousand years before Calvin was born, and the whole body of the leaders of the Reformation movement taught the same. But it was given to Calvin with his deep knowledge of Scripture, his keen intellect and systematizing genius, to set forth and defend these truths more clearly and ably than had ever been done before.

We call this system of doctrine “Calvinism,” and accept the term “Calvinist” as our badge of honor; yet names are mere conveniences. “We might,” says Warburton, “quite as appropriately, and with equally as much reason, call gravitation ‘Newtonism,’ because the principles of gravitation were first dearly demonstrated by the great philosopher Newton. Men had been fully conversant with the facts of gravitation for long ages before Newton was born. These facts had indeed been visible from the first days of creation, inasmuch as gravitation was one of the laws which God ordained for the governing of the universe. But the principles of gravitation were not fully known, and the far-reaching effects of its power and influence were not understood until they were discovered by Sir Isaac Newton. So, too, was it with what men call Calvinism. The inherent principles of it had been in existence for long ages before Calvin was born. They had indeed been visible as patent factors in the world’s history from the time of man’s creation. But inasmuch as it was Calvin who first formulated these principles into a more or less complete system, that system, or creed, if you will, and likewise those principles which are embodied in it, came to bear his name.” [2]

We may add further that the names Calvinist, Lutheran, Puritan, Pilgrim, Methodist, Baptist, and even the name Christian, were originally nicknames. But usage has established their validity and their meaning is well understood.

The quality which gave such force to Calvin’s teaching was his close adherence to the Bible as an inspired and authoritative book. He has been referred to as preeminently the biblical theologian of his age. Where the Bible led, there he went; where it failed him, there he stopped short. This refusal to go beyond what is written, coupled with a ready acceptance of what the Bible did teach, gave an air of finality and positiveness to his declarations which made them offensive to his critics. Because of his keen insight and power of logical development he has often been referred to as merely a speculative theologian. That he was a speculative genius of the first order is, of course, not to be denied; and in the cogency of his logical analysis he possessed a weapon which made him terrible to his enemies. But it was not on these gifts that he depended primarily when forming and developing his theological system.

Calvin’s active and powerful intellect led him to sound the depths of every subject which he touched. In his investigations about God and the plan of redemption he went very far, penetrating into mysteries concerning which the average man seldom if ever dreams. He brought to light a side of Scripture which had as yet been very much in the shade and stressed those deep truths which in the ages preceding the Reformation had comparatively escaped notice in the Church. He brought to light forgotten doctrines of the apostle Paul, and fastened them in their full and complete sense upon one great branch of the Christian Church.

This doctrine of Predestination has perhaps raised a greater storm of opposition, and has doubtless been more misrepresented and caricatured, than any other doctrine in the Scriptures. “To mention it before some,” says Warburton, “is like shaking the proverbial red flag before an enraged bull. It arouses the fiercest passions of their nature, and brings forth a torrent of abuse and calumny. But, because men have fought against it, or because they hate it, or perhaps misunderstand it, is no reasonable or logical cause why we should turn the doctrine adrift, or cast it behind our backs. The real question, the all-important question, is not: How do men receive it? but, Is it true?” [3]

One reason why many people, even supposedly educated people, are so quick to reject the doctrine of Predestination is because of pure ignorance of what the doctrine really is and of what the Bible teaches in regard to it. This ignorance is not at all surprising when one considers the almost complete lack of Bible training in our day. A careful study of the Bible would convince many people that it is a very different book than they assume it to be. The tremendous influence which this doctrine has exerted in the history of Europe and America should at least entitle it to a respectful hearing. Furthermore, we submit that according to all the laws of reason and logic a person has no right to deny the truth of a doctrine without first having studied in an unprejudiced manner the evidence on both sides. This is a doctrine which deals with some of the most profound truths revealed in Scripture and it will abundantly repay careful study on the part of Christian people. If any are disposed to reject it without first making a careful study of its claims, let them not forget that it has commanded the firm belief of multitudes of the wisest and best men that have ever lived, and that there must, therefore, be strong reasons in favor of its truth.

Perhaps a few words of caution should be given here to the effect that while the doctrine of Predestination is a great and blessed Scripture truth and a fundamental doctrine of several churches, it must never be looked upon as the sum and substance of the Reformed Faith. As Dr. Kuyper has said, “It is a mistake to discover the specific character of Calvinism in the doctrine of Predestination, or in the authority of Scripture. For Calvinism all these are logical consequences, not the point of departure — foliage bearing witness to the luxuriousness of its growth, but not the root from which it is sprouted.” If the doctrine is detached from its natural association with other truths and exhibited alone, the effect is exaggerated. The system is then distorted and misrepresented. A statement of any principle, in order to be true, must present it in harmony with all the other elements of the system of which it forms a part. The Westminster Confession of Faith is a balanced statement of this system as a whole, and it gives due prominence to those other doctrines, such as the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the Inspiration of the Scriptures, Miracles, the Atonement, Resurrection, the personal return of Christ, and so forth. Furthermore, we do not deny that the Arminians hold many and important truths. But we do hold that a full and complete exposition of the Christian system can be given only on the basis of the truth as set forth in the Calvinistic system.

In the minds of most people the doctrine of Predestination and Calvinism are practically synonymous terms. This. however, should not be the case, and the too close identification of the two has doubtless done much to prejudice many people against the Calvinistic system. The same is true in regard to a too close identification of Calvinism and the “Five Points,” as will be shown later. While Predestination and the Five Points are all essential elements of Calvinism, they by no means constitute its whole.

The doctrine of Predestination has been made the subject of almost endless discussion, much of which, it must be admitted, was for the purpose of softening its outlines or of explaining it away. “The consideration of this great doctrine,” says Cunningham, “runs up into the most profound and inaccessible subjects that can occupy the minds of men, — the nature and attributes, the purposes and the actings of the infinite and incomprehensible Jehovah, — viewed especially in their bearings upon the everlasting destinies of His intelligent creatures. The peculiar nature of the subject certainly demands, in right reason, that it should ever be approached and considered with the profoundest humility, caution, and reverence, as it brings us into contact, on the one side, with a subject so awful and overwhelming as the everlasting misery of an innumerable multitude of our fellow men. Many men have discussed the subject in this spirit, but many also have indulged in much presumptuous and irreverent speculation regarding it. There is probably no subject that has occupied more of the attention of intelligent men in every age. It has been most fully discussed in all of its bearings, philosophical, theological, and practical; and if there be any subject of speculation with respect to which we are warranted in saying that it has been exhausted, it is this.

“Some, at least, of the topics comprehended under this general head have been discussed by almost every philosopher of eminence in ancient as well as in modern times. All that the highest ability, ingenuity, and acuteness can effect, has been brought to bear upon the discussion of this subject; and the difficulties attaching to it have never been fully solved, and we are well warranted in saying that they never will, unless God gives us either a fuller revelation or greatly enlarged capacities, — although, perhaps, it would be more correct to say that, from the very nature of the case, a finite being can never fully comprehend it since this would imply that he could fully comprehend the infinite mind.” [4]

In the development of this book much use has been made of other books in order that this one may contain the very cream and quintessence of the best authors on the subject. Consequently many of the arguments found here are from men very superior to the present writer. Indeed, when he glances at the whole he is inclined to say with a celebrated French writer, “I have culled a bouquet of varied flowers from men’s gardens, and nothing is my own but the string that binds them.” Yet much is his own, especially as regards the organization and arrangement of materials.

Throughout this book the terms “predestination” and “foreordination” are used as exact synonyms, the choice being deterrained only by taste. If a distinction be desired the word “foreordination” can perhaps better be used where the thing spoken of is an event in history or in nature, while “predestination” can refer mainly to the final destiny of persons. The Scripture quotations have been made from the American Standard Version of the Bible rather than from the King James Version since the former is more accurate.

The author wishes particularly to thank Dr. Samuel G. Craig, Editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Dr. Frank H. Stevenson, President of the Board of Trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary, Dr. Cornelius Van Til, Professor of Apologetics in Westminster Theological Seminary, Dr. C. W. Hodge, Professor of Systematic Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary, under whose supervision this material in much shorter form was originally prepared, and Rev. Henry Atherton, General Secretary of the Sovereign Grace Union, London, England, for valuable assistance.

This book, we repeat, is designed to set forth and defend the Reformed Faith, commonly known as Calvinism. It is not directed against any particular denomination, but against Arminianism in general. The author is a member of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., but is well aware of the radical departure which the rank and file of Presbyterians have made from their own creed. The book is sent forth with the hope that those who profess to hold the Reformed Faith may have a better understanding of the great truths which are here treated and may value their heritage more highly; and that those who have not known this system, or who have opposed it, may be convinced of its truth and come to love it.

The question which faces us then, is, Has God from all eternity foreordained all things which come to pass? If so, what evidence do we have to that effect. and how is the fact consistent with the free agency of rational creatures and with His own perfections?

End Notes:

[1] Preface to Zanchius’ Predestination, p. 16.

[2] Calvinism, p. 2.

[3] Calvinism, p. 23.

[4] Cunningham, Historical Theology, II, people. 418, 419.

God’s Decree and Freedom

We often meet those who would have us explain how it is that God can be absolutely sovereign and yet man is responsible for his actions. Whenever this discussion arises, the Calvinist is usually accused of making man a robot and God a tyrant. One difficulty faced in making the attempt to explain the solution to the problem is that the person asking the question has often made up his (or her) mind about the issue already. A second difficulty is that the answer requires us to keep certain distinctions before us we consider the matter.

When, therefore, we run across an explanation that is clear and thorough – one that gives biblical examples which demonstrate the reality of the argument it is overwhelmingly tempting to share it with everyone. This is the case with this extract taken from WGT Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology. It is found in volume One of his three-volume set. The extract includes pages 401 to 404 of the version I downloaded from the Internet.

In the previous chapter, he established the difference between the way God understands history (he does not perceive a succession of events or times but comprehends everything at once) and the way we do – as creatures (we have to see things as a succession of events because we are not omniscient). He also makes the point that to comprehend an event it is necessary to consider it as if it has already come into existence. A future event which may or may not come into being may only be planned for if we suppose it has and allow for each likely result which comes about because of its existence. We cannot plan for these likely results apart from such a supposition. In this section he turns to consider what is called the immutability of the decree of God. This is because God declares he does not change. I hope this extract is helpful. I have made some changes in paragraphing and includes some emphasis so it is easier to read. Apart from those changes the extract is as it was in the original.

“4. The Divine decree is immutable. There is no defect in God, in knowledge, power, and veracity. His decree cannot therefore be changed because of a mistake of ignorance, or of inability to carry out his decree, or of unfaithfulness to his purpose.‘He is in one mind, and who shall turn him?’¹ ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.’² The immutability of the Divine decree is consistent with the liberty of man s will. ‘God ordains whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty, or contingency, of second causes taken away, but rather established.’³ This is the doctrine of Christ. He asserts that his own crucifixion was a voluntary act of man, and also decreed by God. ‘They have done unto Elias whatsoever they listed (ὅσα ἠθέλησαν): likewise shall the Son of man suffer of them,’⁴ ‘The Son of man goeth as it was determined (ὡρισμένο), but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed,’⁵ In Acts 2: 23, it is said, that Christ was ‘delivered by the determinate counsel of God,’ and ‘by wicked hands was crucified and slain.’

“Respecting the alleged contradiction between the Divine decree and human freedom, the following particulars are to be noticed:

“(a) The inspired writers are not conscious of a contradiction, because they do not allude to any, or make any attempt to harmonize the two things. If a self-contradiction does not press upon them, it must be because there is no real contradiction. Revelation presents that view of truth which is afforded from a higher point of view than that occupied by the finite mind. Revealed truth is truth as perceived by the Infinite intelligence. If no contradiction is perceived by God in a given case, there really is none. The mind of Christ evidently saw no conflict between his assertion that he was to be crucified in accordance with the Divine decree, and his assertion that Judas was a free and guilty agent in fulfilling this decree.

“(b) There is no contradiction between the Divine decree and human liberty, provided the difference between an Infinite and a finite being is steadily kept in mind. There would be a contradiction, if it were asserted that an event is both certain and uncertain for the same being. But to say that it is certain for one being, and uncertain for another, is no contradiction. The difference between the omniscience of an Infinite being, and the fractional knowledge of a finite being, explains this. For the Divine mind, there is, in reality, no future event, because all events are simultaneous, owing to that peculiarity in the cognition of an eternal being whereby there is no succession in it. All events thus being present to him are of course all of them certain events. But for a finite mind, events come before it in a series. Hence there are future events for the finite mind; and all that is future is uncertain. Again, it would be self-contradictory, to say that an act of the human will is free for man, and necessitated for God.

“But this is not said by the predestinarian. He asserts that an act of human will is free for both the Divine and the human mind, but certain for the former and uncertain for the latter. God as well as man knows that the human will is self-moved, and not forced from without. But this knowledge is accompanied with an additional knowledge on the part of God, that is wanting upon the part of man. God, while knowing that the human will is free in every act, knows the whole series of its free acts in one intuition. Man does not. This additional element in the Divine knowledge, arises from that peculiarity in the Divine consciousness just alluded to. All events within the sphere of human freedom, as well as that of physical necessity, are simultaneous to God. Man’s voluntary acts are not a series for the Divine mind, but are all present at once, and therefore are all of them certain to God. From the view-point of the Divine eternity and omniscience, there is no foreknowledge of human volitions. There is simply knowledge of all of them, at once.

“(c) The alleged contradiction arises from assuming that there is only one way in which the Divine omnipotence can make an event certain. The predestinarian maintains that the certainty of all events has a relation to the Divine omnipotence, as well as to the Divine omniscience. God not only knows all events, but he decrees them. He makes them certain by an exercise of power; but not by the same kind of power in every case. God makes some events certain by physical power; and some he makes certain by moral and spiritual power. Within the physical sphere, the Divine decree makes certain by necessitating; within the moral sphere, the Divine decree makes certain without necessitating. To decree, is to bring within a plan. There is nothing in the idea of planning that necessarily implies compulsion. The operations of mind, as well as those of matter, may constitute parts of one great system, without ceasing to be mental operations. God decrees phenomena in conformity with the nature and qualities which he has himself given to creatures and things. God s decrees do not unmake God s creation. He decrees that phenomena in the material world shall occur in accordance with material properties and laws; and phenomena in the moral world, in accordance with moral faculties and properties. Within the sphere of matter, he decrees necessitated facts; within the sphere of mind, he decrees self-determined acts; and both alike are certain for God. The Westminster Confession⁶ affirms, that ‘the liberty or contingency of second causes is not taken away, but rather established’ by the Divine decree.

“If God has decreed men’s actions to be free actions, and as free actions, then it is impossible that they should be necessitated actions. His decree makes the thing certain in this case, as well as in every other. The question how God does this, cannot be answered by man, because the mode of the Divine agency is a mystery to him. The notion of a decree is not contradictory to that of free agency, unless decree is defined as compulsion, and it be assumed that God executes all his decrees by physical means and methods. No one can demonstrate that it is beyond the power of God to make a voluntary act of man an absolutely certain event. If he could, he would disprove the Divine omnipotence. ‘God, the first cause, ordereth all things to come to pass according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, or freely and contingently.’⁷ The self-determination of the human will is the action of a free second cause. It is therefore decreed self-determination. In the instance of holiness, the certainty of the self-determination is explicable by the fact that God works in man ‘to will and to do.’ In the instance of sin, the certainty of the self-determination is inexplicable, because we cannot say in this case that God works in man ‘to will and to do.’“⁸

1 Job 23: 13

2 Is. 46: 10

3 Westminster Confession, III. i

4 Matt. 17: 12

5 Luke 22: 22

6 Westminster Confession, III. i.

7 Westminster Confession, V. ii. Turretin: Institutio, VI. vi. 6

8 WGT Shedd “Dogmatic Theology” Section III, Theology (Doctrine of God) Chapter VI, The Divine Decrees, (ebook version – .pdf format) pp 401-404

The Terrible Decree

 

Dordrecht in the Nederlands, site of the Synod held from Nov. 1618 to May 1619.

The Canons of the Synod in Dordrecht dealt with the claim that “the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, …” imply “… that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety.” These charges were made by the Remonstrants in the 1600s and have been reiterated until today by those who reject the findings of the synod. In the past at least some of those who argued against predestination had read what the synod had to say. In our day the usual tendency is to read or listen to what some advocate of Calvinism has to say, especially about “unconditional election” and assume that this means the same as the quoted passage above. The synod, however, evaluated this charge, together with some others that were similar in character by saying “… the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, [the charges] but even detest [them] with their whole soul.”

The “terrible decree” of our title is that of reprobation; the one which the Remonstrants claimed was necessarily implied by the doctrine of predestination and the points annexed to it. What made the doctrine so terrible in the Remonstrants’ eyes were the implications they drew from the symmetry they assumed was true of the doctrine of God’s decrees. To be fair there were, and are, some who did not hesitate to argue for a certain symmetry in the way these decrees operated. It was, however, unfair to claim that even the teaching of these pastors of the Church makes “God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical and hypocritical” or that “if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation” or that “God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestined the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose” or even that “many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers’ breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them”

The principle at the heart of the conflict was that the Reformed Churches presented the doctrine of predestination as if reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety, in the same manner as election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works. It is to that charge that we respond in this post. First the Canons begin by spelling out the problem to which predestination is the solution; the state of man as a sinner under the just condemnation of God. Then follows the satisfaction provided by God, based upon his love for  the world; he sent his only begotten Son to die on their behalf. And, so that men might escape the condemnation and punishment due because of their sin, God required preachers to call all men everywhere to repentance and faith. This message makes a distinction between the hearers depending on their response to it. Those who accept it and embrace the Saviour it holds forth are blessed. Those who do not believe the gospel are under the wrath of God.

The Canons trace the unbelief of some to man himself and expressly making the point that it in no way comes from God. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, is from God. “The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is no wise in God but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God.” (Article 5) The next article and Article 7 continue this thought while focusing on the election of man to salvation. That some receive faith comes from the decree of God says Article 6, detailing the way it is applied to the elect and making the point that God discriminates as he wills between men “equally involved in ruin.” In describing his treatment of the reprobate the Canons use this language: “… while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin.” Key to our understanding of this is the distinction the Canons make that the cause of some men’s salvation is the decree of God but the reason some men are lost because God leaves them to their own wickedness and obduracy. Election is set before us as God’s choice to save some from fallen mankind and to leave others to suffer the results of the sin and misery that they both deserved. The issue would not be a problem if men did not allow their rebellion against God to not only govern their choices (so that they reject the solution God sets before them) but to also rule their tongues so that they speak harshly against the mercy and goodness of God in providing a solution for anyone!

Let’s allow the Canons to speak for themselves. Examine what they say and see if my summary is a fair presentation of their teaching:

Article 1

As all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death, God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin, according to the words of the apostle: “That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God” (Romans 3:19). And: “For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). And: “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

Article 2

But in this the love of God was manifested, that “He sent his only begotten Son” into the world, “that whosoever believes on him should not perish, but have eternal life” (1 John 4:9; John 3:16).

Article 3

And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings to whom He will and at what time He pleases; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent?” (Romans 10:14, 15).

Article 4

The wrath of God abides upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it and embrace Jesus the Saviour by a true and living faith are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them.

Article 5

The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is no wise in God but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: “By grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). Likewise: “To you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him,” etc. (Philippians 1:29).

Article 6

That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God’s eternal decree. “For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18, A.V.). “Who works all things after the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest it to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.

Article 7

Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation.

This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit; to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy, and for the praise of the riches of His glorious grace; as it is written: “Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:4-6). And elsewhere: “Whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Romans 8:30).

Article 8

There are not various decrees of election, but one and the same decree respecting all those who shall be saved, both under the Old and the New Testament; since the Scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose, and counsel of the divine will to be one, according to which He has chosen us from eternity, both to grace and to glory, to salvation and to the way of salvation, which He has ordained that we should walk therein (Ephesians 1:4, 5; 2:10).

Article 9

This election was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to the testimony of the apostle: “He hath chosen us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy, and without blemish before him in love” (Ephesians 1:4).

Article 10

The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election; which does not consist herein that out of all possible qualities and actions of men God has chosen some as a condition of salvation, but that He was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to Himself, as it is written: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, etc., it was said unto her (namely, to Rebekah), The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:11-13). “And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).