Prof. Herman C. Hanko
The Arminian controversy, which raged in the
churches of the Netherlands during the last part of the sixteenth century and
the early part of the seventeenth century, did not deal as such with the
question of the free offer of the gospel. Nevertheless, there are two reasons
why a consideration of this controversy is important for our discussion. In the
first place, the Arminians in the defense of their position raised many of the
identical issues that have been repeatedly raised in the discussions concerning
the free offer. Especially in their views of the preaching and the relation
between the preaching and the atonement, they set forth ideas that have been
inextricably woven into the warp and woof of the free offer concept. Secondly,
although the well-known Canons of Dordt were written over against the Arminian
heresies, these same Canons have
been repeatedly appealed to, especially in Dutch Reformed theology, in support
of the idea of the free offer. It is said that the Canons themselves
teach a free offer of the gospel. In fact, the Christian Reformed Church
appealed to the Canons as
confessional proof for the doctrine of the free offer in their decisions on
common grace made in 1924.
While we cannot here discuss all the heresies that
the Arminians taught in the Dutch Reformed Churches, there are especially three
which have bearing on our subject and which we ought briefly to note.
In the first place, the Arminians taught a certain
common grace, i.e., a grace of God that was imparted to all men.12 This
common grace is equated with the light of nature, which constitutes the gifts
left in man after the fall.
The Synod rejects the
errors of those who teach: that the corrupt and natural man can so well use the
common grace (by which they understood the light of nature), or the gifts still
left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a
greater, viz., the evangelical or saving grace and salvation itself. And that
in this way God on his part shows himself ready to reveal Christ unto all men,
since he applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the means necessary to
conversion (Canons, III
and IV, B5).
This light of nature shows God as ready to reveal
Christ to all and by it God applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the
means necessary to receive Christ, to believe and repent. Thus one must use the
light of nature aright to become worthy of saving grace. It was at this point
that the Arminians introduced the idea of free will. And the salvation of man
finally, was made dependent upon the exercise of his free will.
This same view, taught by the Arminians and
condemned by the fathers at Dordt, has reappeared in Reformed theology in
connection with and identification of general revelation and common grace. Wm.
M. Masselink, e.g., taught this in his book, General Revelation and Common Grace,13 and Herman
Bavinck taught the same in his work, Our Reasonable Faith.14
In the second place, the Arminians taught a
governmental and universalistic view of the atonement, and held that in every
sense of the word the atonement was for every individual person. However, this
atonement only made salvation available
and possible for all and thus its
efficacy was denied. The Canons say:
The synod rejects the
errors of those who teach: that it was not the purpose of the death of Christ
that he should confirm the new covenant of grace through his blood, but only
that he should acquire for the Father the mere right to establish with man such
a covenant as he might please, whether of grace or of works....
Who teach: that Christ by
his satisfaction merited neither salvation itself for anyone, nor faith,
whereby this satisfaction of Christ unto salvation is effectually appropriated;
but that he merited for the Father only the authority or the perfect will to
deal again with man, and to prescribe new conditions as he might desire,
obedience to which, however, depended on the free will of man, so that it
therefore might have come to pass that either none or all should fulfill these
conditions.
Who teach: that all men
have been accepted unto the state of reconciliation and unto the grace of the
covenant, so that no one shall be condemned because of it, but that all are
free from the guilt of original sin . . . (Canons II, B, 2, 3, 5).
In connection with these distinct views, the
Arminians also promoted a particular view of the preaching. On the one hand,
they challenged the Reformed position on especially two counts: they claimed
that the Reformed could not preach because they preached only to the elect, but
did not know who the elect were.15 And they claimed that the Reformed
could not preach faith and repentance as the general command of the gospel.
Their own views are set forth, not only in their writings, but also in the
"Opinions" which are relevant to the question of the calling.
Only those are
obligated to believe that Christ died for them for whom Christ has indeed died.
But the reprobate, as they are called, for whom Christ has not died, are not
obligated to this faith, and can, by reason of their contrary unbelief, not be
justly condemned, in fact, if there were such reprobates, they would be
obligated to believe that Christ has not died for them (Quoted from the "Opinions" of
the Arminians on Canons II, 14).
This article is intended to show the
foolishness of the Reformed position that is caricatured. Written with
characteristic vagueness—a vagueness which was deliberately intended, and setting forth
what the Arminian considered to be the Reformed position, it is intended to
prove that the Reformed, who insisted that Scripture taught an atonement only
for the elect, could not confront all with the command to repent and believe.
The reprobate could not be commanded to repent and believe in Christ, for they
would be required to believe something which was not true, namely that Christ
died for them.
All those whom
God calls unto salvation, those He calls seriously, that is, with
an upright and altogether unfeigned purpose and will to save. And we do
not agree with those who hold that God externally calls some whom he does not
will to call internally, that is, does not will that they be actually
converted, even before they have rejected the grace of the calling (Idem).
Notice that the Arminians specifically
state here that it is their position that God calls all with the will and
purpose to save all, that they disagree with those who teach that God does not
will that those who are called externally actually be converted, at least, if
this will of God is said to precede the rejection of the gospel by the wicked.
Here is a clear statement of the Arminian conception of the theology of the
free offer.
There is not
in God such a hidden will which stands over against His will which is revealed
in the Word, that He according to that will (that is, the hidden will) does not
will the conversion and the salvation of the greater part of those whom He
through the word of the gospel, and according to the revealed will, is
seriously calling and inviting unto faith and salvation; neither do we here
acknowledge, as some speak, a holy dissimulation, or a double person in God (Quoted
from the "Opinions" of the Arminians on Canons (III—IV,
8, 9).
It is interesting to note that the
Arminians in their "Opinions" on III and IV, 9
refuse, as more recent defenders of the free offer do, to make a distinction
between the hidden will of God and His revealed will. Calvin taught that
according to His hidden will, God willed the salvation of the elect; and that,
although God commands all who hear the gospel to repent and believe,
nevertheless there is no conflict between God’s will revealed in His Word and
God’s hidden will. Modern day defenders of the free offer of the gospel insist
that according to His hidden will, God desires and wills the salvation only of
the elect, and that according to His revealed will, He desires and wills the
salvation of all men; these two wills stand in flat contradiction to each other
and their harmony remains a mystery. The Arminians also insist that there is
not conflict between God’s hidden will and His revealed will; but they find the
harmony by teaching that according to both God seriously desires and wills the
salvation of all men.
All of these ideas, according to the Arminians
were rooted in universal atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
The price of salvation,
which Christ offered to God His Father, is not only in and by itself sufficient
for the redemption of the whole human race, but also paid for all and every
man, according to the decree, the will, and the grace of God the Father; and
therefore no one is definitely excluded from the communion of the benefits of
the death of Christ by an absolute and antecedent decree of God (Quoted from
the "Opinions" of
the Arminians on Canons II,
1).
Thus the following points were specifically made
by the Arminians and condemned by the fathers at Dordt. Grace is offered to all
men without exception in the preaching of the gospel. This is rooted in an
unlimited atonement, i.e., an atonement that was for every man and for all. The
acceptance or rejection of this offer depends upon the free will of man. The
fathers condemned these when they write:
The Synod rejects the
errors of those who use the difference between meriting and appropriating, to
the end that they may instill into the minds of the imprudent and inexperienced
this teaching that God, as far as He is concerned, has been minded of
applying to all equally the benefits gained by the death of Christ; but
that, while some obtain the pardon of sin and eternal life, and others do not, this
difference depends on their own free will, which joins itself to the grace that
is offered without exception, and that it is not dependent on the special
gift of mercy, which powerfully works in them, that they rather than others
should appropriate unto themselves this grace (Canons II. B, 6). (Italics ours).
This free will involves the exercise of faith that
then becomes the work of man.
Faith is therefore to be
considered as the gift of God, not on account of its being offered
by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at His pleasure or even because God
bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man by the
exercise of his own free will, consents to the terms of salvation, and actually
believe in Christ (Canons III—IV, A, 14). (Italics ours.)
It is not surprising then that the preaching of
the gospel is no longer the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), but is
only an attempt on God’s part to persuade the sinner to accept Christ and walk
in obedience. That this is the teaching of Arminianism is evident from Canons III
and IV, B, 7 where the fathers condemned the error of those who teach:
That the grace whereby we
are converted to God is only a gentle advising, or (as others explain it), that
this is the noblest manner of working in the conversion of man, and that this
manner of working, which consists in advising, is most in harmony with man’s
nature; and that there is no reason why this advising grace alone should not be
sufficient to make the natural man spiritual, indeed, that God does not produce
the consent of the will except through this manner of advising; and that the
power of the divine working, whereby it surpasses the working of Satan,
consists in this, that God promises eternal, while Satan promises only temporal
goods.
From this it is clear that the Arminians, while
teaching the idea of the offer as it is taught in recent times, nevertheless
held to the same doctrines as those who maintain a general offer of the gospel.
It is well to remind ourselves of the fact that these Canons were
the product of the entire Reformed church world of that day and were signed by
all the delegates both foreign and domestic. A
clearer confessional condemnation of the doctrines of the free offer can hardly
be found. And this condemnation was the united opinion of all the churches of
the Reformation.
What makes this all the more important
is the fact that certain delegates from foreign countries, especially from
England and Bremen, defended on the floor of the Synod the Arminian position.16
Although it is true that these delegates too subsequently signed the Canons, it is difficult to imagine how this was possible in the light of the fact that they consistently upheld the Arminian position. The point is, however, that the Arminian viewpoint was given a hearing on the floor of the Synod, not only when the Arminians themselves were permitted to speak, but also through the defense of the Arminian position by the delegates from Britain and Bremen. In spite of this, the fathers refused to adopt any Arminian viewpoint, but rather repudiated it consistently.
The Arminians with whom the Reformed Churches had to do were fundamentally rationalistic. This is important to understand. The system that they were defending was a thoroughgoing system that involved almost all points of doctrine. It was a theological position that proceeded from a rationalistic starting point and which, by rationalistic deduction, demonstrated that departure in one element of the truth leads to departure in every part of it. Thus the Arminianism condemned at Dordt was somewhat different from the Arminianism which appeared later in England under the influence of the Wesleys. In an interesting article on, "Arminianism," Rev. J. I. Packer correctly characterizes the Arminianism of the Wesleys as a Pietistic Arminianism that never developed into a complete theological system. Nevertheless, as Packer also notes, the basic ideas of both were the same.17
There are two or three questions that
we ought to face in connection with our discussion of the Canons.
The first has to do with Canons II, 3 where the fathers speak of the
atoning sacrifice of Christ as “the only and most perfect sacrifice and
satisfaction for sin; (which) is of infinite worth and value, abundantly
sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” It has been sometimes
maintained that here is one place where the fathers definitely speak of a
general atonement in the sense of sufficiency. And, while this is certainly
true, the following points must be remembered.
1) This article was included in the Canons because it was intended to serve as an
answer to the Arminian charge that the Reformed in their doctrine of a limited
atonement or particular redemption did injustice to the sacrifice of Christ and
spoke disparagingly of its value. This accusation the fathers repudiate and in
fact turn the tables on the Arminians and insist that not they, but the
Arminians speak disparagingly of the atonement because the Arminians have a
doctrine of the atonement which teaches that Christ’s sacrifice, made for everyone,
does not even actually save since many go lost.
2) That the fathers did not intend to
teach that actual atonement was made for all men is clear from their statement: “… it was the will of God, that Christ
by the blood of the cross … should effectually redeem … all those, and
those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given
to him by the Father …" (II,
8). (Italics ours.)
3) As is plain from II, 3, the fathers
looked at this “sufficiency” from the viewpoint of the One Who offered this
sacrifice—the eternal Son of God: “this death derives its infinite value and
dignity from these considerations, because the person who submitted to it was
not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God …”
4) It is evident therefore, that the
intent of the article is merely
to state that, taken purely by itself, without any reference to those for whom
Christ died, Christ’s atonement, because He was the eternal Son of God, was of
infinite value in God’s sight. It was sufficient to expiate the sins of the
whole world because it was God’s Son that died; and God’s Son cannot make a
sacrifice which qualitatively speaking is a partial sacrifice.
5) But that this “universal
sufficiency” was intended by the fathers to form the basis for a general offer
of the gospel is totally foreign to their thinking.
The second question has to do with the
claim of some that, after all, the Canons teach a general offer of the gospel.
Those who maintain this refer especially to three articles in the Canons which we quote in full.
Moreover, the
promise of the gospel, is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall
not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command
to repent and to believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations,
and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of
His good pleasure sends the gospel (II, 5).
As many,
however, as are called by the Gospel, are seriously called. For God has
seriously and most truly shown in His Word, what is pleasing to Him, namely,
that the called should come unto Him. He even promises seriously to all those
coming to Him and believing rest of soul and eternal life (III—IV, 8).
That many who
have been called by the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not
converted—of this the fault is not in the gospel, nor in Christ offered
through the gospel, nor in God Who calls through the gospel, and even bestows
on them various gifts, but in the called themselves … (III-IV,
9).18
Concerning these articles we point out
the following:
1) There is no mention in these articles of the
free offer of the gospel in the sense of an intention or desire or will of God,
expressed in the gospel, to save all who hear the gospel. It is true that the
word "offer" is used in III-IV, 9, but, as we have had occasion to
notice earlier, this word was very commonly used to express the idea that
Christ is presented, set forth, proclaimed in
the gospel as the One through Whom God has accomplished salvation. But the idea
that God expresses in the gospel a general desire to save all who hear is an
idea totally foreign to the Canons and can be read into them only by altering
the clear language of the articles and imposing ideas upon the fathers of Dort
which they did not have.
2) II, 5 speaks emphatically of the promise of the
gospel, but insists that this promise of the gospel is very particular; i.e.,
it is only to those who believe in Christ. And it is clear from the rest of the Canonsthat those who
believe in Christ are only the elect ("That some receive the gift of faith
from God, and others do not receive it proceeds from God's eternal
decree," I, 6), who are converted to God by efficacious grace merited in Christ's
limited atonement.
3) II, 5 also speaks of the fact that this promise
ought to be proclaimed everywhere, "to whom God out of his good pleasure
sends the gospel." So the article speaks very clearly of a general
proclamation of a particular promise and this has always been the position held
by the Reformed churches.
4) II, 5 also speaks of the fact that this
promise, generally proclaimed but particular in its contents, is proclaimed
together with the command to repent and believe. In III-IV, 8 & 9 this is
also said to be the call of the gospel. This call is described as being serious
in nature. God requires of all men, through the preaching, that they forsake
their sins and turn from their evil ways, that they believe in Christ Who has
shed His blood for sin. Concerning this point there are two points that ought
to be made.
a) In the first place, no one who stands in the
line of Calvinistic and Reformed thought has ever denied this truth. This is
important to understand. The Reformed have sometimes been charged with being
unable to preach the gospel to all men because they insist that the promise of
the gospel is for the elect alone and no preacher knows who the elect are. But
this is a distortion of the Reformed view. The gospel must be generally preached
both because it is the means whereby God calls out of darkness into light those
whom He has chosen to everlasting life, and because, through this general
proclamation, all men are confronted with the obligation to forsake their sins
and believe in Christ.
b) Nor have the Reformed ever denied that this
command or call is serious. God means exactly what He says. He is not joking
when He comes to all with this command. He is not saying something in the
gospel that is not really true. Quite the opposite is the case. Man was
originally created perfect and upright. When man fell in Adam, he fell by his
own sinful choice. His depravity which made it impossible for him any longer to
serve God becomes his lot in life because for God's just judgment upon the
sinner. But God does not, on that account, require any less of man than He did
at the beginning. God is God. He remains just and holy and righteous in all His
ways. He does not now say: Oh, you are such a poor sinner, no longer able to do
what I have commanded; I will no longer require of you that you serve me and
flee from your sins. It is perfectly all right if you do less than you were
originally required to do. Oh, no! Then God would not be just and righteous.
God still insists that this man serve him. And man is confronted with that
demand every time the gospel comes to him.
It is interesting and important to note that II, 5
speaks of the “promise together with the command to repent and believe,” as
forming the contents of the gospel. It is exactly in this way that God works
His purpose in His elect by enabling them to repent and believe, and it is
exactly because of this that the wicked are responsible for their own failure
to repent and believe. It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered
therein, nor of God Who calls, but the fault lies in the wicked themselves. And
so God is also perfectly just when He casts the wicked forever from His
presence.
It is not difficult to see that all this is a far
cry from the free offer of the gospel as that is presented and defended in our
times. Of this the fathers wanted no part and it is a perversion of our Canons to
try to find support for the idea of the free offer in this Confession. Even R.
B. Kuiper has difficulty finding confessional grounds for his support of the
free offer of the gospel.
He can, finally, only point to two articles in the Canons: Canons II, 5, to which we have referred above and which cannot in any sense of the word be stretched into supporting a free offer, and Canons II, 3 which speaks of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ and which we have discussed earlier in this chapter.19 It is interesting to note, however, that Kuiper argues from this statement on sufficiency to a position which sets forth the fact that Christ’s atonement is also suitable for all, and from there he argues to the position that the atonement is, as far as its sufficiency and suitability are concerned, divinely designed for all. Once again it becomes apparent how the defenders of the free offer of the gospel must in some sense of the word make the atonement of Christ universal. But Kuiper’s argument from the Canons is specious.
To conclude, therefore, we see that although the
issue of the offer as such was not an issue at the time of Dordt, the
Confession of Dordt nevertheless holds to the idea of preaching which has
always been Reformed and no appeal to these Canons can possibly support the idea of a free
offer.
---------------
FOOTNOTES:
FOOTNOTES:
12. It is interesting to note that, while
many who stand in the tradition of Dordt also teach common grace and even
appeal to the Canons in support of
their views, the term itself appears in the Canons
only in the mouth of the Arminians where it is condemned.
15. How interesting and striking it is that this very objection of the Arminians against the Reformed is the same as is repeatedly hurled by the defenders of the free offer of the gospel against those who oppose this heresy.
16. Among the British delegates was to be found a man by name of John Davenant. We call attention to this because we shall have occasion, in a later article, to refer to the teaching of Davenant and what became known as the “Davenant School”—a school represented on the Westminster Assembly.
17. The Manifold
Grace of God, papers read at the Puritan and Reformed Studies Conference, 1968,
pp. 22ff.
18. The translations are taken from The Voice of our Fathers, by Prof. H. C. Hoeksema, a commentary of the Canons of Dort published by the Reformed Free Publishing Association.
19. For Whom Did Christ Die? A Study of the Divine Design of the Atonement, R. B. Kuiper: Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1982; pp. 78ff. This reference to Kuiper’s book is a reference to chapter 5, which is entitled, “Scriptural Universalism” and which, in defense of the free offer of the gospel and of common grace, overthrows everything Kuiper has said in the preceding four chapters.
No comments:
Post a Comment