As many as are
called by the gospel are unfeignedly called; for God hath most earnestly and
truly declared in his Word what will be acceptable to him, namely, that all who
are called should comply with the
invitation. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life and rest to
as many as shall come to him, and believe on him” (Canons of Dordt, III/IV, 8, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom [New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers,
1877], p. 589).
Alternate [correct] Translation:
As many as are
called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and
truly shown in his Word what is pleasing to him, namely, that those who are called should come to him. He, moreover,
seriously promises eternal life and rest to as many as shall come to him and
believe on him (Canons of Dordt,
III/IV, 8, in The Confessions and the
Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches [PRCA, 2005], p. 168).
COMMON GRACE
ARGUMENT:
Proponents of “common
grace” and the “well-meant gospel offer” find support for their theory in an
erroneous translation of this article of the Canons. It is contained in Philip Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom. But if the translation is incorrect, so if the
argument that is based on it.
(I)
David J. Engelsma
[It] is worth noting that the Latin original of the
phrase, “should comply with the invitation,” is: “ut vocati ad se veniant.” The
literal translation of the phrase is: “that the called should come to Him.” . .
. What [the defender of the well-meant offer] must prove is that God on His
part, with this serious call desires, or intends, or wills the salvation of all
who are summoned, because He is gracious to them, that is, has an attitude of
favor towards them. The Canons
certainly suggest nothing of this gracious attitude and desire for salvation on
the part of God towards all men. . . . [On the contrary,] the Canons as [confess] particular grace,
governed by predestination, expressed in a limited atonement, and effectual by
the regenerating work of the Spirit within and upon the elect, and the elect
only.
---------------------------------------------------
(II)
Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)
Superficial, too, and erroneous, is the quotation the
complainants offer from the Canons,
and the argument based on this erroneous quotation. The quotation as it appears
in the Complaint is as follows:
As many as are called by the gospel, are unfeignedly
called. For God hath most earnestly and truly declared in His Word what will be
acceptable to him; namely, that all who are called should comply with the
invitation (Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine, art. 8).
And the argument the complainants base on this
quotation is as follows:
In the course of his examination, Dr. Clark did indeed
express agreement with this teaching of Dort, but he made it clear that in
doing so he conceived of the gospel as a command … He said that it is the
preceptive will of God that those who hear shall believe the gospel, and it is
“acceptable” to God that they do so because he insists on being obeyed. But the
Synod of Dort obviously meant much more than that when it employed the word
“acceptable.” That appears from its description of the gospel as an invitation,
from its insistence that all who are called are called “unfeignedly,” as well
as from the fact that it was refuting the Arminian contention that the Reformed
faith leaves no room for a sincere offer of salvation made by God to the
reprobate. What the authors of the Canons
had in mind was that God has “no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that
the wicked turn form his way and live” [Ezekiel 33:11].
Now, we do not have to defend Dr. Clark’s position
that the gospel is a command. This is not the point we wish to make. Nor is it
our purpose at present to refute the interpretation the complainants give to
this passage of the Canons, though it
may be remarked that on the face of the matter it seems very farfetched.
Surely, if it had been the intention of the fathers of Dordt to express that
God sincerely seeks the salvation of the reprobate, they could have chosen less
ambiguous words.
But the point we do wish to make is that the
complainants very superficially quote a wrong translation, arrive at the
conclusion that the Canons
characterize the Gospel as an invitation, and make this error the basis of
their argument against Dr. Clark’s refusal to call the Gospel by that name.
If laymen, who have access only to existing
translations, make such errors, it is excusable. But that men of learning—who
are able to consult the Latin original, and, besides, are acquainted with the [Dutch]
translation of the Canons—make such
blunders is not to be excused. When they, nevertheless, do meet their opponents
with such erroneous arguments, they give evidence of having done very
superficial and careless work.
Fact is, that the Canons,
in the passage quoted, do not describe the gospel as an invitation at all. The
Latin original is as follows: “… Serio
enim et verissime ostendit Deus
verbo suo, quid sibi gratum sit, nimirum, ut vocati ad se veniant …” That
is: “God seriously and truly declares in His Word what is pleasing to him,
namely, that the called come unto him.” And this is correctly rendered in the Dutch translation:
“... Want God betoont ernstiglijk en waarachtiglijk
in Zijn Woord, wat Hem aagenaam is, namelijk, dat de geroepenen tot Hem komen
...”
The passage, therefore, does not describe the gospel
as an invitation. And the argument that is based on this wrong translation must
fall together with the translation.
As far as this passage of the Canons is concerned, Dr. Clark does not have to call the gospel an
invitation and retains the right to his interpretation that it is a command and
that the command obeyed is pleasing to God, because it is pleasing to him that
men glorify him. This interpretation is given of the eighth article of the Canons, III, IV, more than once. (See, for example, Ds. T. Bos, De Dorstsche Leerregelen, page 155.)
But whether this is the correct interpretation of the
passage or not, the complainants should not make the blunder of basing an
argument on an erroneous translation.
(b)
In passing, we wish to remark that someone might
well serve a gravamen against the English translation of this article of the
confession, at least if, as it appears in our Psalter, it has tacitly been adopted by our Protestant Reformed Churches. If that is not done, the entire
article should be re-examined and after approval should be adopted by us, since
we do need an official English translation of the Three Forms of Unity.[6] The translation that we have at present is
of the Reformed (Dutch) Church of America. This article has been
translated in such a way that the meaning is vague and has received an Arminian
flavor. Indeed, the Dutch translation, (“That those called should come to Him”)
is translated as, “That all who are called should comply with the invitation.”
This is very poor, but also a deceptive translation that can give occasion for
the thought that Rev. Keegstra’s general offer is included in the calling. This
translation not only fails to translate the Dutch, but it also fails to
translate the Latin, in which the Canons
were composed. There we read: ut vocati
ad se veniant (that the called should come to Him).
---------------------------------------------------
(III)
More to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment