It is not the fault of the gospel nor of Christ,
offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel, and confers on them
various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to
come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves, some of whom when called,
regardless of their danger, reject the word of life; others though they receive
it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their
joy arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away;
while others choke the seed of the word by perplexing cares and the pleasures
of this world, and produce no fruit. This our Saviour teaches in the parable of
the sower, Matthew 13 (Canons, III/IV,
9).
COMMON GRACE ARGUMENT:
Appeal is often made to this article to
overthrow the doctrine of sovereign reprobation and idea that God uses the
gospel as a means to harden the reprobate. Their contention is that the gospel
is always a means of grace to all
that hear it, and if it wasn’t, it would
be the part of the “fault” of why many who are called by the word reject it.
The same also for the doctrine of sovereign reprobation, which, according to
many who promote the “well-meant offer,” is a doctrine which makes God to be
the fault or the one responsible for why many who hear the word reject it, and
therefore would give men an excuse on the judgment day.
But all that begs the question: would the
theologians at Dordt really be so stupid as to say one thing and then
contradict themselves with their next breath? To speak of sovereign double
predestination in the first part of the Canons
(cf. 1.6, 15), and then to say something that directly opposes that??
(I)
Homer
C. Hoeksema (1923-1989)
[Source: The Voice of our
Fathers: An Exposition of the Canons of Dordrecht (RFPA, 2014), pp. 301-307]
From a limited and specific viewpoint this article explains why
many who are called through the gospel do not come and are not converted. To
understand the place of this article in the Canons
and its harmony with the whole truth of the Canons,
it is necessary carefully to observe its limitations. The article does not give
and does not intend to give the ultimate, sovereign reason that many who
are called through the gospel do not come and remain unconverted.
But the article must not be read and cannot even be understood as
though it ignores the sovereign, ultimate reason for the failure of many to
come and to be converted when they are called by the ministry of the gospel.
Exactly because the Reformed truth emphasizes that there is a sovereign reason,
the subject of this article can be treated. That sovereign reason is described
in the first head of the Canons, and
unless we accuse our fathers of theological double-talk, we must understand
what is stated in this article in the light of and within the limitations of
their plain declaration concerning the reason many are unbelieving and go lost
forever.
The position of the fathers thus far is that the reason some do
not receive the gift of faith proceeds from God’s eternal decree. According to
this decree, God leaves the nonelect in his just judgment to their wickedness
and obduracy (Canons 1.6). These are
negative and infralapsarian statements. Undoubtedly supralapsarians would speak
more positively of a divine act of hardening. It makes no difference whether
you assume the infralapsarian or the supralapsarian position. These facts
stand: that some do not receive the gift of faith proceeds from God’s eternal
decree, and according to his decree God leaves the nonelect in their wickedness
and obduracy. Therefore, long before the fathers reach Canons 3–4.9, they have carefully circumscribed the limits wherein
it may be stated that the fault of not coming and of not being converted is in
those who are called. Canons 1.6
could be paraphrased as follows: That some do not receive the gift of coming
and being converted proceeds from God’s eternal decree.
In Canons 1.15 the
fathers propound the truth that some only are elected, while others are passed
by in the eternal decree. They also say there that out of his sovereign, most
just, irreprehensible and unchangeable good pleasure, God has decreed not to
bestow upon the nonelect saving faith and the grace of conversion. Notice the
complete harmony between the language of Canons
1.15 and of Canons 3–4.9. Those upon
whom God has decreed not to bestow saving faith and the grace of conversion are
the same persons as those who do not
come and are not converted when they are called by the ministry of the gospel.
In Canons 1.15 the fathers also
strictly define the limits within which it must be said that the fault of not
coming and of not being converted lies in the called themselves. These same
limits apply to the negative statement of Canons
3–4.9 that the fault is not in God who calls through the gospel and confers
upon them various gifts.
In Canons 2.8 the
fathers teach concerning Christ offered in the gospel that it “was the
sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that
the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should
extend to all the elect, for
bestowing upon them alone the gift of
justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation.” Although the
nonelect are not mentioned, by the word “alone” the article positively excludes them from the quickening and
saving efficacy of the most precious death of God’s Son. Again this sharply
defines the limits within which it must be said that the fault of not coming
and believing is in the called themselves. The Christ offered in the gospel is
the Christ of Canons 2.8, the saving
efficacy of whose precious death was sovereignly destined to extend to
the elect alone and therefore not to those described in Canons 3–4.9 as those who “refuse to come and be converted.”
In Canons 2.8 the
fathers also teach that “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; that he should confer upon them faith, which, together
with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit [the coming and conversion
of Canons 3–4.9 included], he
purchased for them by his death.” Again the fathers clearly circumscribe the
limits within which it may be said that the fault of not coming and being
converted lies in the called themselves.
Do the fathers mean to teach by implication the very opposite of
all this in Canons 3–4.9? Do the
fathers teach that God decreed that not all should receive the gift of faith
and conversion and that Christ’s death would cover the elect only, that
nevertheless now God well-meaningly
offers salvation in the call of the gospel to all who hear the preaching
and is well-intentioned toward all
those to whom the gospel is preached? Anyone who has a mind to read and
understand the Canons must admit that
this is utterly impossible. This would be a flat contradiction. The Arminian
controversy would never have arisen
and the Canons, especially Canons 3–4.9, would never have been
composed had that been the fathers’ doctrinal position. If God in the preaching
of the gospel is well-intentioned
toward all who hear it, elect and reprobate alike, offers them all salvation
upon the condition that they come and be converted, and if many do not come and
are not converted, no one would have
to add that it is their own fault that they are not saved. Any Arminian
believes this. But then you must also teach that the sinner is the sole and
sovereign reason and the sole fault for the failure to be converted and saved.
You must teach that it does not proceed from God’s eternal decree that some do
not receive the gift of faith. And you must also teach that Christ’s death, as
far as God and Christ intended, was to be efficacious for all men, but its efficacy
is limited by the sovereign determination of the sinner.
This is the position many take on the basis of Canons 3–4.9. When the Canons speak of “fault,” they read the
article as though it says “sole reason” and “sovereign cause.” They are not
mindful that the meaning of “offered” is to present,
to set forth, or to propose. They are also not mindful that
“Christ offered” in the gospel is the Christ described in the second head of
doctrine as a Christ for the elect alone. And then the gospel becomes a general,
well-meant offer. This is the explanation of T. Bos: “The gospel must be
preached to all, and that gospel is a well-meaning
invitation on the Lord’s part unto faith and conversion” (T. Bos, De Dordtsche Leerregelen [Kampen: J. H.
Kok, 1915], 156). So also the Christian Reformed Church cited this article in
1924 to support its first point of common grace. They will not accept the
consequences outlined in the last part of the previous paragraph. Rather they
take refuge in the alibi of “mystery.” But the consequences remain, and if such
is truly the idea of the preaching of the gospel, the holy angels and God
himself cannot escape those consequences any more than the believer can.
Make no mistake. The fathers do not and do not intend to throw out
the baby with the bath and to adopt the Arminian position. They do not forget
their strict circumscription of the calling God as the decreeing God and of the offered Christ as the Christ of limited atonement when they consider the negative
reaction of many to the call of the gospel. On the contrary they deal solely
with subject of the “fault” of not coming and of not being converted in
response to the call of the gospel. They are forced to consider this because of
another one of the sordid and backhanded accusations of the Arminians. “Fault” (culpa)
is blameworthiness, or guilt. Because the fathers maintain that God is
absolutely sovereign with regard to the unbelief of those who regard not the
call of the gospel, the Arminians falsely accuse that in the Reformed view God
is the author of the sin of unbelief, that God’s
is the guilt when many do not come and are not converted in response to the
call of the gospel, and that the unbelieving and unconverting sinner cannot at
all be blamed. The idea is the same as the audaciously wicked question of the
objector in Romans 9: “Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his
will?” This is an objection that is traditionally brought only against those
who maintain that God is absolutely sovereign from beginning to end in the
salvation of the elect and in the damnation of the reprobate.
How do the fathers react? Are they quickly vanquished by the
Arminian foe, and do they hasten to point out that the line of the truth is a “double-track”?
Do they fall down before the Arminian blast and concede that the call of the
gospel is a “well-meant offer of salvation to all”? Do they concede defeat and
grant that God on his part is “well-intentioned and gracious to all in the
offer of the gospel”?
By no means! They quietly and firmly answer the arguments: “We affirm that the blame of those who do
not come and are not converted is in the called themselves. The guilt of the
sin of failing to come and to be converted in response to the gospel call is not
to be charged to the gospel, to Christ, or to God.” The guilt of unbelief and
of not being converted cannot be in the gospel, for the gospel is serious and
true and never deceives (Canons
3–4.8). Besides, the gospel is clear so that it can be plainly understood by
those to whom it comes. The guilt cannot be in the Christ set forth in the
gospel, for there is nothing repulsive in him. He is the plain revelation of
the only way of salvation. In him is set forth all the righteousness, justice,
truth, goodness, grace, and mercy of the living God. And that guilt cannot be
laid to God’s charge, for God is completely serious and absolutely truthful in
the gospel call. He declares plainly that it is pleasing to him that men repent
and believe. He promises with an unbreakable promise eternal life and rest of
soul to all those who repent and believe. God does still more. He bestows on
men, also on ungodly, reprobate men, all kinds of gifts. He bestows the gifts
of reason, understanding, and discernment between right and wrong. These gifts
are great and extensive. By them men are enlightened, taste of the heavenly
gift, are partakers of the Holy Ghost, and taste the good word of God and the
powers of the world to come” (Heb. 6:4–5). They have in abundance all the natural
gifts necessary to understand the call of the gospel. One might say that—except
for bestowing upon them grace—God puts them in the most advantageous position
possible with respect to the gospel.
But many still fail to come and to be converted.
The fault lies in man’s corrupt heart, mind, and will. According
to his corrupt heart—and he only is to be blamed that his heart is corrupt—man
despises and rejects the call of the gospel. Because of his corrupt heart, from
which are the issues of his life, the sinner will not and cannot will to
receive what is for his eternal good. He refuses to repent and to believe,
regardless of how clearly the gospel call is sounded, and regardless of how
beautiful is the Christ offered in the gospel, and regardless of how seriously
and truthfully the God and Father of Jesus Christ calls through the ministry of
the gospel.
This sin of unbelief, as is plain from the parable of the seed in
Matthew 13, is manifested in various ways. In some it is a cold and complete
indifference; the gospel has no effect upon them. They are careless and secure
in their sin, and they never stop to consider the gospel call. Others reveal a
temporary faith, paired with a superficial and vanishing joy, that becomes
revealed as temporary and vanishing under the stress and strain of persecution.
In these, too, there is no true faith, and the wicked and corrupt heart must
reveal its corruption sooner or later. In still others the corrupt heart is
revealed in a preference for the things of the earth and the pleasures of the
world. Never does the corrupt heart of the sinner want or receive the things of
God and Christ. Thus it is that through the call of the gospel the sin of
unbelief and the guilt thereof are brought to manifestation.
It is not through the Arminian gospel of a Christ for all and a
general, well-meant offer of salvation, but through the Reformed gospel—the gospel of Scripture, of a sure and unfailing
promise of eternal life to all those who repent and come to Christ, of a most
serious call to faith and repentance, of the demand to repent and believe that
may not be disobeyed because it is God’s demand—that the responsibility for the
sin of unbelief and nonconversion is laid squarely at the door of the
unrepentant sinner.
-------------------------------------------------
(II)
(II)
Prof.
David J. Engelsma
Q. “Does not Canons III/IV.9
contradict the idea that the gospel is ‘an instrument of hardening,’ as some
say? The article states that continued unbelief in the reprobate is ‘not’ due
to the actual gospel being preached (‘It is not
the fault of the gospel …’), but only due to the unbelieving recipient
him/herself. Surely if the preaching were an instrument of hardening,
it would actually be the
fault of the gospel content or presentation?”
Canons III/IV.9 establishes the guilt of the
unbeliever when the gospel is presented to him. The teaching that God’s
purpose with the preaching is the hardening of the reprobate does not deny this
or weaken this in any way. The reprobate is fully responsible for his
rejection of the gospel by his unbelief. But the responsibility of the
reprobate unbeliever does not rule out the sovereignty of God in the matter of
the reprobate’s rejection of Christ in the gospel. On the contrary. The
eternal purpose of God in reprobation is accomplished in the rejection of the
gospel by the reprobate. Paul teaches this explicitly in Romans 9: “...
and whom he will he hardeneth” (v. 18). This is the end of the debate
over God’s two-fold purpose with the preaching. On some, the elect, He has
mercy in the preaching, saving them; others, He hardens, according to His purpose
of reprobation. As for the Canons,
the creed quotes this very text in proof of its assertion that God has decided
not to save all by the preaching, but to pass some by, which passing by is not
essentially different from hardening. See Canons
1. Rejection of Errors 8:
[The Synod rejects the errors of those] Who
teach: That God, simply by virtue of his righteous will, did not decide either
to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and
condemnation, or to pass anyone by in the communication of grace which is
necessary for faith and conversion. For this is firmly decreed: “He hath mercy
on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth,” Romans 9:18.
And also this: “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of
heaven, but to them it is not given,” Matthew 13:11.
Likewise: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst
hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto
babes; yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight,” Matthew 11:25, 26.
-------------------------------------------------
(III)
(III)
Prof. Herman C. Hanko
Article
9 teaches that the fault for man’s
disobedience, therefore, does not rest with the gospel—as if the gospel is
insufficient to point the way to salvation. The gospel is clear and concise.
Man must obey God and believe in Christ. Man’s unbelief is his own fault and
responsibility, and he may not, as the rich man in hell did, blame the gospel
(Luke 16:29-31). (Herman C. Hanko, “Common
Grace Considered” [2019 edition], p. 33)
…
God’s counsel in reprobation is indeed to manifest His righteous justice in
damning sinners to hell, but let it never be forgotten that God executes His
counsel in such a way that man remains
responsible for his sin. God does not make
man sin; man sins willingly and wilfully.
This is clearly the teaching of Article 9 …
If
one should inquire into how it is possible for God to be sovereign also over
the sin of man and still hold man accountable for his sin, let it be clearly
understood that one is shifting the discussion to an entirely different
question; indeed a question over which much ink has been spilled and with which
theologians have struggled for many centuries. Already the old church father,
Augustine, who taught double predestination, but never denied man’s
accountability, dealt with the problem. (Herman
C. Hanko, “Common Grace Considered” [2019 edition], p. 337)
-------------------------------------------------
(IV)
(IV)
More
to come! (DV)
No comments:
Post a Comment