Q. 1. “What is the Reformed
truth of Predestination?”
The
Reformed truth of predestination is that God has decreed, willed, and intended
that some be saved and others not be saved. God determines to save a certain,
definite number of people in Christ, whose names are written in His book of
life from eternity. This is the Reformed doctrine of election. At the same
time, God determines not to save a certain, definite number of people, all
those who are not in Christ. This is the Reformed doctrine of reprobation.
Predestination
is unconditional. God determines to save this specific number
of people, not because He saw ahead of time that they were going to believe or would be “save-able.” God
chose His friends unconditionally. To illustrate, our choosing of friends is conditional. It must be, most often. A Christian girl or
boy who wants to date must be selective and say, “I will date on one condition—that
(among other things) you are a Christian.” God’s choosing of His friends was not conditional. He did not choose them because
of what they were or would become. Also, God determined to pass
by others in this decree of election, not
because He saw that they were going to reject Him. God rejected them
unconditionally.
There
is so much Biblical proof for this that the difficulty is choosing the few
texts that are clearest. In Ephesians 1:3-5 Paul says,
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly
places in Christ; according as he
hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love: having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself,
according to the good pleasure of his will (see also Deut. 7:6; Rom. 9:11; Eph. 1:11; etc.).
That
predestination is unconditional is seen in a number of passages, especially Deuteronomy 7:7-8, “The Lord did not set
his love upon you nor choose you [that’s electing love!], because ye were more
in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: but because
the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto
your fathers ...” (If ever I loved a petitio
principii [circular reasoning] it is this! The Lord
loves you because He loves you!)
This
comes out especially in Ephesians 1. God chose a people, not
because they would
be holy, but He chose them in
order that they might be holy. His election brings holiness. Good works are the fruits, not
the roots, of election. What standard was used by God for His election of us?
“According to the holiness of the people?” “According to the faith of the people?” “According to their good
works?” Never. “According
to the good
pleasure of his own will,”
He chose a people.
That reprobation
is unconditional is seen in more than one place. John 10:26 is a key text, “Ye believe not, because ye
are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” They are unbelievers because God did
not choose them. I Peter 2:8 brings that out as well. Jesus Christ is “a
stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the
word, being disobedient: whereunto also
they were appointed.”
Then it goes on, “But ye are a chosen
generation ...”
A
reminder is in place here that predestination, election and reprobation, is a
fundamental truth of the Reformed faith, a non-negotiable of the Reformed
standards, the first of the five points of Calvinism: Unconditional election
(predestination).
This
is confessionally Reformed.
The Heidelberg
Catechism, Question 52 says that God “shall translate me and all
his chosen ones to himself into heavenly joys and
glory.” Question 54, on the church, has: “The Son
of God gathers, defends, and preserves ... a church chosen to everlasting life.” The Belgic
Confession becomes more clear, especially regarding
the unconditionality of election, in Article 16: “God ... delivers ... all whom
he ... hath elected in Christ
... without any respect to their works ...” The Canons
of Dordt I:7 claim: “Election is the unchangeable
purpose of God whereby ... he hath chosen
... a certain number of persons to redemption
in Christ ...” And in I:9: “This election was not founded upon
foreseen faith ... or any ... good quality ... in man ...” In II:8: “This was the sovereign counsel and
most gracious will and purpose of God ... that the ... efficacy of the ... death
of his Son should extend to all the
elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith ...
That is, it was the will of God that Christ ... should effectually redeem ...
all those and those only who were from eternity chosen to salvation ...”
(Source: Prof. Barry
Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
#######################################
Q. 2. “How does the “free
offer” (or “well-meant offer”) deny the Reformed truth of Predestination?”
The free offer either explicitly or implicitly denies
predestination. The first point (of 1924) and the free offer teach that God’s
love is for all who hear the preaching of the
Gospel. But election is that the love of God in Christ is eternally directed
toward some,
definite,
particular men, willing their salvation and effectually accomplishing it (see Deut. 7:6-8 and Rom. 8:28-39).
The free offer of the gospel (explicitly or implicitly) either
makes election universal, or conditional, or both. If God wills the salvation
of all men, then He must will the salvation of those whom he has not chosen.
How can that be? Then God must have chosen all those to whom He offers
salvation; or salvation must be conditioned by man's believing—both of which we
have seen are not biblical and not confessional. How can God sincerely offer
salvation to all men when He has decreed (in predestination) not to save some
of them? Can He be sincere in that, His “expression of love?”
Another way, out of the horns of the “free offer’s” dilemma—besides
to deny predestination—is to say that this is a contradiction in the Bible that
we cannot fathom. Friends, the Bible is not contradictory. “God wills to save them; God does
not will to save them”? The Bible
is mysterious and unfathomable, but it is not contradictory.
Not only does the free offer undermine the truth of unconditional
predestination, it undermines other of the five points of Calvinism. If God’s
grace is extended in the preaching to all men, then God’s grace is not
irresistible, as all Calvinists and Reformed teach, but resistible, as the
Arminian teaches, for not all are saved by it. If God’s grace in the preaching
is for all, from where did this grace come? (And the grace in the preaching is
certainly not common, but a saving, special grace.) All grace is from the cross
of Christ. But if this grace in the “offer” came from the cross of Christ, then
the atonement is not limited, but universal. Or, if God offers salvation to all
men in the preaching, His offer is not sincere, since His Son did not die for
all men. And if God’s desire in the preaching is to save all, then our
Almighty, sovereign God is frustrated in His desires.
(Source: Prof. Barry
Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
#######################################
Q. 3. “What is your response
to the free offer position?”
In our defence of our denial of the free offer, we ask a question.
In the view of the free offer, why are some saved in the preaching
and others not? The answer cannot be the
grace of God, because
the grace of God comes to all in the preaching. The answer cannot be the will of God in the preaching,
because the will of God is to save all alike. There are two alternatives:
Either it is due to the free will of the sinner (clearly Arminian) or it is a
paradox. But the Bible is not contradictory, flatly contradictory.
There is a defence of the free offer in a number of texts that
supposedly refer to God’s desire and will to save all men. But the Reformed man
must be careful in his interpretation of them. The Arminians at Dordt had a
basketful of proof texts. It is striking that most of the texts appealed to in
support of the free offer of the gospel are the same texts used by the
Arminians at Dordt. The Reformed believer will consider seriously the
interpretation of these texts by John Owen, Francis Turretin and John Calvin,
before he says that the interpretation which denies the “free offer” is a
ruthless, arbitrary distortion of the texts. Our defence is that Scripture
interprets Scripture, and that one text does not contradict another. This is a
fundamental principle of Reformed hermeneutics.
The testimony of the Canons, the expression of the faith
of every Reformed believer, speaks loudly and clearly on the question of the
will of God to save: “For this was the sovereign
counsel and most gracious will
and purpose of God ... that the ...
efficacy of the ... death of His Son should extend to all
the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of ... faith ...”
(II:8; emphasis mine; BG).
(Source: Prof. Barry
Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at Common Grace”)
#######################################
Q. 4. “In your denial of the ‘free offer’ (or ‘well-meant
offer’) does this mean that the preacher must not preach to all promiscuously? Does it mean that he does not call
all men to repent and believe? Does
it mean that God does not promise
salvation to all who will believe?”
[Our]
denial of the free offer does not mean that the preacher must not preach to all
promiscuously. He must! It does not mean that he does not call all men to
repent and believe. He does! It does not imply that God does not promise
salvation to all who will believe. God most certainly does!
[Our]
denial of the free offer means this: that we deny that there is grace in the preaching to all men, that we deny
that the preaching expresses God’s desire and purpose and intent to save all men. He most certainly does
not. Else they would be saved, because He is a sovereign, powerful God.
#######################################
Q. 5. “How do you define election?”
“Election is God’s eternal, sovereign, and gracious
good-pleasure to save to eternal glory some men through the means of faith in Christ.”
(Prof. Barry Gritters, The Standard
Bearer, vol. 77, no. 5 [Dec 1, 2000])
“Election is the unchangeable purpose of God,
whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath 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 … a certain number
of persons to redemption in Christ …” (Canons
of Dordt, I:6)
“Election is the eternal and sovereign decree of
God to lead the church as the body of Christ, with all its individual members,
each in his own position, to eternal salvation and glory.” (Herman Hoeksema, “Reformed Dogmatics,” vol. 1, p. 231)
“[Election] is that part of God’s counsel in
which He, from before the foundation of the world, has determined which
individuals will have a glorious place in the final unity of all things.
Election may be defined as God’s appointment of individuals to the glory of the
new and everlasting creation. Election is indeed discriminating. It implies
that God has chosen some in distinction from others. Nevertheless it is chiefly
predestination. And, therefore, election in this connection is to be defined as
that decree of God by which He sovereignly and freely, out of pure grace,
without respect to merits, chose to give some a place
with Christ in eternal glory … The primary
purpose is the glorification of God. The motive is deepest love. He desired to
glorify His children with a glory which they could never have
attained in the first Adam … Moreover,
election is personal. God has known His own by name from eternity. But election
is to be thought of organically. For, although election deals with individuals
and is personal, yet it is also true that the elect form a unity in Christ, a
glorious inheritance of God in which each has his own place. The elect
constitute the body of Christ, in which each member is chosen to a certain
personal destination, to his own place in the body.” (Herman Hoeksema, “The Place of Reprobation
in the Preaching of the Gospel”)
#######################################
Q. 6. “How do you define ‘reprobation’?”
“Divine
reprobation, or rejection, is the eternal decree of God which appoints certain,
definite persons to everlasting damnation for their sin. It is a part of God’s
predestination: He determines beforehand that, the eternal destiny of some,
particular persons shall be hell.” (Prof.
David J. Engelsma, The Standard Bearer, vol. 55, no. 2, p. 36)
“Reprobation is the eternal, sovereign, and
righteous good pleasure to condemn others to eternal damnation on account of
their sin, as manifestations of His justice, and to serve the purpose of the
realization of His elect church.” (Prof.
Barry Gritters, The Standard Bearer, vol 77, no. 5 [Dec 1, 2000])
“not all, but some only are elected, while others
are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God … hath decreed to leave in the
common misery … and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of
conversion.” (Canons of Dordt, I:15)
“the eternal and sovereign decree of God to
determine some men to be vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction in the way of
sin, as manifestations of His justice and to serve the purpose of the
realization of His elect church” (Herman
Hoeksema, “Reformed Dogmatics,” vol. 1, p. 231)
#######################################
Q. 7. “Why did God reprobate? What is the purpose of
reprobation?”
Why did God
reprobate? You say: To the glorification of His name. Correct. We agree. God
the Lord has wrought all things for His own sake, even the wicked to the day of
evil. We grant that. But the question arises: Is God the Lord glorified to a
greater extent by having reprobated some, rather than if He had saved all?
Granted that the damnation of the reprobate glorifies Him eternally, would His
honour not have been greater if He had saved all? Again you say, No, because
then His righteous indignation would never have been revealed. But is that
true? We agree, of course, that in the destruction of the reprobate God reveals
His righteous anger and is thereby glorified. Was that anger not sufficiently
revealed in the suffering of Christ?
Every time
the same question confronts us: Why has God reprobated some? To find an answer
to this we must place ourselves before the question: What is the relation of election
to reprobation? Do these form a dualism? Then there is dualism in God also;
then God is a God of highest love, and at the same time of deepest hatred. This
surely is impossible. God does not desire the destruction of the reprobate in
the same way in which He delights in the salvation and glory of His chosen
people. Therefore we maintain that Scripture gives the following in answer to
this very important question: Reprobation exists in order that election may be
realized; reprobation is necessary to bring the chosen to the glory which God
in His infinite love has appointed for them.
God loved
His people with an infinite love. In His great love He determined to lead them
to the glory He had appointed for them in Christ. If He determined to attain
this greatest glory and lead the elect into it, it was necessary for Him,
reverently speaking, to reprobate some. Not because all could not find a place
in that glory, for then the question would arise, Why did God decree to create
more people than could assume a place in the organism of the body of Christ?
But because those who are presently to be damned must for a time serve the
salvation of the elect, be it in an antithetical manner. In this sense,
reprobation is a divine necessity. In this sense, the reprobate exist for the
sake of the elect. They are in a certain sense the price, the ransom, which God
pays for the higher glory of His children.
Of course,
you will ask if we can prove this. We think we can. In the first place, we wish
to refer you to the fact that this idea is not strange to God’s general
revelation in nature and in history. You find it proved in the life of the
nations and of people in particular. On many monuments erected in honour of our
soldiers who lost their lives on the battlefield, you may read the inscription,
“They gave their lives that we might live.” Here is a figure of election and
reprobation as we are now considering it. How often it occurs that thousands
lose their lives on the battlefield in order that others may live. They do not
merely give their lives, but it is required of them. They were reprobated that
the nation might live.
It is no
different in the lives of individuals, or individual persons and animals. The
mother gives life to her child, not infrequently at the expense of her own. It
is virtually always true that one generation lives and dies to make room for
the next. There are species of animals in which the male dies after mating. The
male is cast off (reprobated) to give life to the young.
According to
the Scriptures, it is no different in the plant kingdom. When a farmer sows
seed in his field, he sows much more than he needs. When the seed falls into
the earth and dies, there appear not only the kernels of wheat, for which the
seed was planted, but also the stem, the straw, and even the chaff. Without the
stem and the chaff the grain could never have germinated and ripened. The stem
and the chaff serve the grain, the seed. Yet both will presently be burned by
fire in order that the grain may be gathered into the barn. Here also we find
election and reprobation, and in such a way that the latter serves the former,
and is necessary to it.
Yet this is
not all. Not only do you find a figure of this truth in the general revelation
of God, but it is also literally proved in Scripture, both in various texts and
in the historical accounts. The Lord declares in Isaiah 43:4 to
Israel, “Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I
have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.”
It is true that this passage refers to that which the Lord did for Israel in
the past. But it is also true that this passage refers to the eternal counsel
of God’s good pleasure. For indeed God has loved His people from eternity. In
His counsel they are precious in His eyes. Thus the text refers to the eternal
love of God. In that eternal love He has desired to glorify and magnify His
people, and to lead them to the highest possible glory in His eternal
inheritance. The text says that, in order to accomplish this, God has given
other people in the place of His chosen people. Because He loved His people,
those others had to pay for Israel’s salvation with their own lives. Israel’s
history proves this time and time again. Pharaoh and his host perish. They must
serve Israel temporarily, but God does not hesitate to give people for the life
of His people. When Israel enters Canaan, people are again given in the place
of Israel. This is effectuated by the sins of these people. They have filled
the measure of iniquity at the time when Israel must enter into the rest and
are destroyed to make room for Israel. So it is throughout the history of
Israel. Babylon also serves a purpose, namely, to chastise Jerusalem. Yet,
hereby it makes itself ripe for judgment. And when it has served to realize
God’s counsel, Babylon is destroyed.
Thus it is
literally presented in Proverbs 11:8: “The righteous is delivered out of
trouble and the wicked cometh in his stead.” The idea here is that the ungodly
serve to deliver the righteous out of trouble, to glorify them. And having done
so they perish for their sins. Still stronger is the language of Proverbs
21:18: “The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor
for the upright.” Here again we have the idea that God gives the wicked as a
ransom, which He pays to glorify the righteous.
Naturally,
this does not detract from the other truth that in reprobation God also reveals
His righteousness, and is glorified in revealing His holy name. Indeed, these reprobate
do not serve the salvation of the elect willingly, but as godless, and in spite
of themselves. For this reason, they become guilty in serving this purpose, and
are worthy of condemnation. Thus, in serving God’s purpose they become ripe for
destruction. Just as chaff ripens for destruction while it serves the grain, so
the godless become ripe for perdition while they serve the elect.
More evident
this is in the case of our Saviour Himself. Surely for the glorification of the
elect, the blood of the Saviour must flow. But if this blood is to flow, there
must be a wicked and reprobate world to shed it. There must be a Judas who
betrays Him; there must be a Sanhedrin that condemns Him; there must be a
mighty and godless Roman power that finally brings Him to the cross. In all
this, the reprobate serve for the glorification of the elect. Without that
ungodly world, the cross cannot be imagined. But the situation is also thus
that the world, in crucifying the Saviour, through which it serves for the glorification
of the elect, becomes ripe for destruction.
As it was
then, so it is now. So it will be to the end of the world. And when the end
shall come, the ungodly shall be righteously condemned and damned, in sin
having served God’s counsel. The elect shall be eternally glorified with the
Saviour in the inheritance of the saints. Thus we conclude that in the unity of
God’s plan, reprobation necessarily serves election. God’s love toward His
people reigns supreme in His counsel. To reveal and to realize this love fully
He brings into existence people who must finally be damned. Reprobation is the
necessary antithetical counterpart of election.
(Herman Hoeksema, “The Place
of Reprobation in the Preaching of the Gospel”)
#######################################
Q. 8. “What does it mean to say that reprobation is unconditional?”
[Unconditional reprobation basically means
that when] God reprobates, He does not do so because of the unbelief or
unworthiness of those whom He rejects. Why does God reprobate this man or that
man? For so it seemed good to Him. God’s eternal good pleasure. The potter has
power over the clay … [They] are not rejected because they are sinners, or all sinners would be rejected. (Prof. Barry Gritters, “Defending Sovereign
Reprobation from Hyper-Calvinism”)
#######################################
Q. 9. “Where do Scripture or the confessions teach that
reprobation is unconditional?”
That the Reformed doctrine teaches
unconditional reprobation is plain from the Canons
themselves. It is also plain from the vehement objections at the Synod of
Dordt. What objections would there be to a doctrine that holds that God
rejected some because He foresaw that they would reject Him? What violent
objections would be raised to that? The Canons
and Reformed believers who hold to unconditional reprobation stand in good
company with the apostle Paul who, because he also taught unconditional double
predestination, heard the very same objections (Rom. 9:14ff.). When Paul (and
Dordt) face the unbeliever’s challenge to the doctrine of reprobation, they
appeal to God’s sovereignty, not God’s justice or righteousness. This
reinforces the truth that reprobation is not conditional. (Prof. Barry Gritters, “Defending Sovereign Reprobation from
Hyper-Calvinism”)
#######################################
Q. 10. “Must reprobation be preached? Can’t we just … leave it
out?”
Surely
reprobation must be preached. This follows from the very fact that God has
revealed it, and the complete counsel of God must certainly be preached. We can
understand this necessity. Without the preaching of reprobation, not only can
election, its counterpart, not be preached, but neither can justice be done to
God’s electing love. God’s great love must always be our chief concern. That
love is manifested in this that He has given His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
However, this becomes still more glorious if we understand that to realize this
love, God has given people in the stead of His people, and given the wicked as
a ransom for the righteous.
Secondly, it
surely must become evident in the preaching that God is sovereign, also when a
part which He first formed falls away. When we see a farmer pull out the little
plants which he had previously planted, it seems sad and foolish to us, until
we understand that this has its purpose. So too it is with the work of God.
Unless we consider the matter from God’s viewpoint, and unless we are
enlightened by His wise counsel, the world’s history seems a great pity, a
great misery. For, although God is the ultimate Victor and will finally glorify
His people, the fact remains that many creatures which He had first formed are
eternally lost through the wiles of the devil and the powers of death and sin.
Not so, if we present reprobation in the proper light. Then God remains
sovereign. There is then no accident. Whatever God does is well done, for He
does all things in wisdom.
We must not
surrender an inch of ground to the idea that God wills to save all, some of
which are nevertheless lost. God’s counsel shall stand, and He shall remain
sovereign—sovereign in regard to eternal life, and at the same time sovereign
in regard to eternal perdition. Therefore reprobation must be preached; for God
must remain sovereign even over the kingdom of darkness. Reprobation must be
preached to the congregation from the viewpoint of election. The believers must
understand that salvation is not of him that runneth, nor of him that willeth,
but of God that sheweth mercy. According to God’s good pleasure they have
received a place in the consummation of all things. This means so much more to
us when we understand that God could also sovereignly have reprobated us. There can be no question that
reprobation should be preached, if one wishes to divide the Word of truth
properly. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Place of Reprobation in the Preaching
of the Gospel”)
Whether dispensational or Reformed, every
pastor is bound by God to preach His whole counsel, which includes the doctrine
of reprobation. Every Reformed pastor is worthy of deposition if he does not,
since in the Formula of Subscription he has promised to the consistory and
congregation that he will “diligently … teach and faithfully … defend” this
doctrine. How can any man promise to “refute and contradict” errors that
militate against reprobation, and “keep the church free from such errors” if he
does not preach the truth of reprobation? Besides, the Canons themselves require preaching reprobation: “… the doctrine of
divine election (which decree itself passes by many, BG) … is still to be
published in due time and place in the church of God, for
which it was peculiarly designed …”
(Prof. Barry Gritters, “Defending
Sovereign Reprobation from Hyper-Calvinism”)
#######################################
Q. 11. “How should reprobation be preached? What is the place
of reprobation in the preaching of the gospel?”
In the first
place, it has become evident that we must not have sermonettes devoted to
reprobation. This is also true of election. This is true of every aspect of the
truth. He who occasionally preaches only on election, without relating it
whatsoever to reprobation, is not preaching election. This is still more true
of reprobation, which is the antithetical counterpart of election. It belongs
with election. It can be understood only in the light of election. It must
accordingly be presented in its relation to election.
It is also
evident that, when preaching on election and reprobation, we must not place
them dualistically over against each other. They are not on the same level.
They are not corresponding halves of the same thing, but together they form a unity.
Reprobation should always be presented as subordinate to election, as serving
the latter according to God’s counsel. From this it follows that reprobation
should not be preached with a certain delight in the doctrine. He who is
forever preaching reprobation shows not only that he is harsh and cruel, but
also that he has not understood the work of the Lord God. God’s love remains
the central thought. He has chosen in His eternal love; and, for the sake of
this love, He has also reprobated. Thus all God’s work becomes a beautiful
organic unity. In this way He is and remains God, and He alone. (Herman Hoeksema, “The Place
of Reprobation in the Preaching of the Gospel”)
Scripture rarely speaks of election
without showing why God elected: “that we should be holy and
without blame before him …” We were “created in Christ Jesus (according to his
election of us) unto good works, which God before ordained (according to His
election of us) that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). “I have chosen you
and ordained you that ye should go and bring forth fruit” (John 15:16).
According to Scripture, election must be taught in connection with God’s
purposes of works (fruit) to His glory. Likewise, reprobation must not be
spoken of without asking why God reprobated. At the end of Canons I:15, the Reformed faith teaches that reprobation “declares
him (God) to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous judge and avenger
thereof.” The article begins by saying that reprobation’s place is “to
illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election …” (Canons I:15). Beautifully, this is the
Reformed guard against hyper-Calvinism: every mention of reprobation must be to
magnify the unmerited grace of God shown to me.
Right here, we face the danger of
“over-emphasizing the sovereignty of God.” It has been said that it is
impossible to do this. No one, they say, can emphasize sufficiently the
sovereignty of God. That statement, I fear, though true in itself, may well
miss the point. The point is not whether God’s sovereignty is emphasized
sufficiently, but whether it is so emphasized that the people in the pew do not
hear anymore (if they are even mentioned) the purposes of
God’s sovereignty in election and reprobation, the calling
they
have in response to these truths and realities. They have heard the sovereign
grace of election, but not that God chose “in order that we might be holy.” If
the call to a holy life is missing, the sovereignty of God has been wrongly
taught.
If the grace of God to us over against the dark background of reprobation as
the most humbling reality is missing, the sovereignty of God
has been wrongly emphasized.
For example, a minister who preaches on
the commandments does grave injustice to the truth if he does not point the
people of God both to the reason for our obedience and the power for our
obedience in Jesus Christ. So also the minister who preaches election and
reprobation does grave injustice to the truth if he only tacks on to the end as
an afterthought the truth of the purposes of God in His decrees. He fails
properly to balance his presentation of the truth in both cases.
… Finally, when a Reformed minister or
member, with a kind of relish, looks for every opportunity to preach and
mention reprobation, he betrays a spirit of hyper-Calvinism. He does not live
in the spirit of Calvin who called it “that awesome (horribilis:
astonishing,
dreadful) decree.” He does not live with the heart of Paul who, though he did
not hesitate to teach it, cried at the thought of many perishing in their
unbelief according to God’s reprobation of them. But Paul’s great heaviness and
continual sorrow is not this man’s. This man cannot wait to get to the coffee
shop to exhibit his orthodoxy in a tenacious defense of sovereign reprobation.
There he displays with his “orthodoxy” a cruel-hearted attitude towards those
who perish. In a sick way he has perverted the teaching of the Reformed faith. (Prof.
Barry Gritters, “The Standard Bearer,” vol. 77, no. 6 [Dec 15, 2000], p. 140)
#######################################
Q. 12. “Instead of ‘reprobate,’ why not just call them the
‘non-elect’?”
Too often the reprobate are represented as simply
being the “non-elect,” “passed over,” and “left without mercy.” These
descriptions are true in their context, but they are not the whole truth. There
is a positive decree which has been issued, and is being executed, with regard
to the reprobate, such that it is necessary to think of those whom God has not
elected as “fitted to destruction,” of those who are passed over as “hated,”
and of those who are left without mercy as “hardened.” And all this, as John
Calvin expressed it, “as yet undefiled by any crime”
[Calvin, Institutes, 3.22.11].
For reprobation, like election, is apart from works, lest God’s will be
conditioned on anything in the creature. (Rev.
Matthew Winzer, “Murray on the Free Offer: A Review”)
#######################################
Q. 13. “What is equal ultimacy?”
The
phrase, “equal ultimacy,” refers to the two parts of predestination, election
and reprobation. Recently, Presbyterians, particularly Orthodox Presbyterians,
have come up with the phrase in order to deny the “equal ultimacy” of election
and reprobation. The phrase is ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so. If it means
that the two parts of predestination are not of equal importance to God and to
the church, it is true. Election is the more important. Reprobation only serves
the grace of election. But many theologians employ the phrase in order to
weaken, set aside, and even deny reprobation. Then the phrase is false
doctrine. Reprobation is equally sovereign, unconditional, and eternal with
election. When one uses the phrase, what is necessary is to ask him what he
means by it. (Prof. David J. Engelsma, 23/04/2018)
Equal
ultimacy means that as election is the fountain and cause of faith and good
works so also reprobation is the fountain and cause of impiety.
I
find the explanation of the refutation of the error of equal ultimacy solved in
our Canons, in the Conclusion. I
refer particularly (although one should read carefully the whole Conclusion) in
these words: “… that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain
and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of impiety…”
The
Conclusion is describing the false accusations the Arminians made of God’s
sovereignty in election and reprobation. Of them the Conclusion says, “which
the Reformed Churches do not
acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.”
By
the statement on reprobation, the fathers do two things: 1) They refuse to say
that reprobation is the fountain of impiety; and 2) they say that although God
is the “cause” of faith and good works, he is not the cause of impiety. They
said this even though there was an influential delegate in the Reformed
Churches, Maccovius by name, who taught that reprobation was the cause of
impiety. (For more on this, see my chapter in Portraits
of Faithful Saints on
Gomarus.)
The
fathers did not here define how the relation between reprobation and sin must
be considered, but the Canons,
especially chapter 1, teach that to say reprobation is the cause of sin is
wrong. Equally wrong was the notion that sin is the cause of reprobation, which
is conditional reprobation–which the Arminians taught. The only phrase that
could explain the relation (and beyond that they did not dare to go) was that
reprobation is sovereignly accomplished “by way of sin” for which man remains
responsible. (Prof. Herman C. Hanko)
[The]
specific point of this slander [that the Reformed Churches allegedly teach that
“in the same manner in which election is the fountain and cause of faith and
good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety”] and of its
repudiation ought to be noted carefully. It concentrates in the words “in the
same manner.”
According
to this calumny, the Reformed Churches are slandered as teaching that “reprobation
is the cause of unbelief and impiety in
the same manner in which election is the fountain and the cause of
faith and good works.” In other words, this is the old charge that just as the
Reformed view teaches that God is the Author of faith and good works, so He is
the Author of unbelief and sin. The point of this repudiation of the Arminians’
calumny is precisely that while election is the sovereign cause of faith and
good works, and reprobation is the sovereign cause of unbelief and impiety,
they are not causes in the same manner.
Election
is the cause in the sense of being the fountain
of faith and good works, so that God is the Author of our salvation. Faith and
all the blessings of salvation flow forth from election as water flows forth
from a fountain. But reprobation, while being the cause, the sovereign cause,
of unbelief and impiety, is not the fountain of these. Unbelief and impiety do
not flow forth from the fountain of reprobation, and God is not the Author of
unbelief and sin.
All
of this is quite in harmony with the teachings of Canons I, Articles 6 and 15. That some do not receive the gift of
faith indeed proceeds from God’s eternal decree. God is not the Author of their
unbelief, but according to His decree He withholds from them the gift of faith.
Nor according to Article 15 is God the Author of sin. In fact, this is explicitly
denied in Article 15. (Prof. Homer C.
Hoeksema, “The Voice of Our Fathers” [RFPA, 1980], pp. 852-853)
Position 1:
“… that God takes delight in the
damnation of the non-elect as he does
in the salvation of the elect; [or] that He effectuates the damnation of the
reprobate as he does the
salvation of the elect”
Position
2:
“… that the salvation of the elect and
the damnation of the reprobate are equally certain: both are unalterably
determined in God’s eternal counsel.”
… To deny [the latter] is a serious
departure from the truth.” (Rev. Herman
Hoeksema, The Standard Bearer, vol. 39, no. 18 [July, 1963], p. 414)
#######################################
Q. 14. “So election and reprobation
are not of the same importance?
[Reprobation] is not of the same weight as
election, but lesser. Election is always on the foreground; reprobation on the background.
Election is the master; reprobation the servant. Election is served by
reprobation as chaff serves wheat. Reprobate Pharaoh serves elect Israel.
Reprobate Judas serves elect Jesus Christ and, through His crucifixion, the
church. Let every believer defend the truth of reprobation for the sake of
election, for the sake of Jesus Christ. (Prof.
Barry Gritters, “Defending Sovereign Reprobation from Hyper-Calvinism”)
#######################################
Q. 15. “If this be the relation
which God sustains to the reprobate, why does He allow them to be partakers
with the elect in the generous invitation of gospel promises and in the
ingenuous proclamation of gospel commands?”
This question is appropriately answered with
another question. If God did not send gospel promises and commands to them,
would that be proof enough that He had no desire or love for them? The report
gives an uncertain sound in this regard. It sometimes asserts that God’s desire
and delight is for all men to be saved, but at other times it is restricted to
“those to whom the offer comes.”15 It is
difficult to defend the hypothesis that God desires the salvation of those whom
He deprives of the message of salvation.
But to give a positive answer to the question, it
is for the elects’ sake, as Samuel Rutherford argued:
How then cometh
the Gospel to them? Ans. It comes to them, 1. Not from Christ as
their Surety, since he prays not for any Mediation of his own towards them: But
2. for the Elect’s sake: so Paul, Act. 13.26. Men and brethren,
children of the stock of Abraham, and who among you feareth God, to you ... is
the word of salvation, to you and for your cause, that ye may be saved, is
the Gospel, sent. 2 Corin. 4.15. For all things, our
suffering, our dying, are ... for your sake. 2 Tim.
2.10. Therefore I indure all things ... for the Elect’s
sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Jesus Christ, with
eternall glory. Hence, there is no salvation but that which is in Christ
Jesus our Lord, the Author and Cause ... and meriting
Procurer of eternall salvation, Hebr. 5.9.16
The gospel cannot be regarded as having any
intention of benefit for the reprobate simply because the benefits it holds out
to its hearers were only procured by Christ for the elect. If there were any
benefit to be obtained by the reprobate, why do they not all hear the gospel?
No, their hearing of the gospel must be due to the fact that those who are sent
to publish it are “unacquainted with [God’s] particular purpose,”17 and cannot distinguish between the elect and
the reprobate. The Lord, in His providence, sends the gospel to wherever He has
His elect that they might be made partakers of the benefits revealed therein;
and this gospel is published indiscriminately to all, lest the restricting or
limiting of it should result in any of the elect not hearing, and so, not
obeying its message.
Herein something might be predicated of the genuine
expression of earnest desire to be sounded forth to all men without exception:
it is by the ministers of the gospel who are sent forth to preach to every
creature and to beseech men to be reconciled to God. As Augustine has moved, and
as John Calvin has seconded: “‘For as we know not who belongs to the number of
the predestined or who does not belong, we ought to be so minded as to wish
that all men be saved.’ So shall it come about that we try to make everyone we
meet a sharer in our peace.”18
-----------------
FOOTNOTES:
15. Writings, p. 114.
16. Samuel
Rutherford, The Covenant of
Life Opened (Edinburgh:
Printed by Andro Anderson, 1655), p. 341. The breaks in the text are merely the
omissions of original Greek words, and as their meanings are provided, the
sense is not distorted.
17.
John Owen, Works,
Volume 10, p. 300.
18. John Calvin, Institutes III. xxiii. 14; Volume 2, p. 964.
(Rev. Matthew Winzer, “Murray
on the Free Offer: A Review:”)
#######################################
Q. 16. “You say that those who deny
reprobation are not true Calvinists, but are hypo-Calvinists who fall short of
Calvinism?”
Yes, as reprobation is clearly taught in Canons
of Dordt, head 1, article 15:
What peculiarly tends to illustrate and
recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election, is the express
testimony of sacred Scripture, that not all, but some only are elected, while
others are passed by in the eternal election of God; whom God, out of his
sovereign, most just, irreprehensible and unchangeable good pleasure, hath
decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged
themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of
conversion; but leaving them in his just judgment to follow their own ways, at
last for the declaration of his justice, to condemn and punish them forever,
not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins. And
this is the decree of reprobation which by no means makes God the author of sin
(the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares him to be an awful,
irreprehensible, and righteous judge and avenger thereof.
… also, head 1, article 18:
To those who murmur at the free grace of
election, and just severity of reprobation, we answer with the apostle: “Nay,
but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” Romans 9:20, and quote the language of
our Savior: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?” Matthew 20:15. And therefore with holy
adoration of these mysteries, we exclaim in the words of the apostle: “O the
depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable
are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind
of the Lord, or who hath been his counselor? or who hath first given to him,
and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to
him are all things: to whom be glory for ever. - Amen.
… and also head 1, rejection of errors, 8:
[We reject 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.
#######################################
Q. 17. “How do we reconcile the eternal decree of election and
reprobation with the idea that the reprobate have a responsibility to repent
and believe, even though they cannot?”
Regarding
your question, no reconciliation between reprobation and the responsibility of
the totally depraved, reprobate sinner is necessary, because there is no
opposition between the two truths. The inability of the sinner to believe does
not relieve him of the duty to believe, or deflect from him the solemn calling
of God that he believe. It is the sinner’s fault that he cannot believe. God
made man upright, but man’s present condition of depravity is man’s fault.
Question 9 of the Heidelberg Catechism explains the justice of God to require
faith and perfect obedience of fallen, unable man:
Q. 9. Doth not God then do injustice to
man, by requiring from him in His law that which he cannot perform?
A. Not at all; for God made man capable of
performing it; but man ... deprived himself and all his posterity of those
divine gifts.
As
for reprobation and responsibility, the decree appointing some humans to
eternal perdition includes that the condemnation of the sinner takes place in
the way of his own unbelief and other sins and on account of his unbelief.
Article 15 of the Reformed creed, the Canons of Dordt, confessing reprobation, states:
[God]
hath decreed [in reprobation] to leave [some] in the common misery into which
they have wilfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith
and the grace of conversion; but leaving them in His just judgment to follow
their own ways, at last for the declaration of His justice to condemn and
punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all
their other sins ...
Reprobation
is not God’s forcing men to sin and abide in unbelief. God is not, according to
the Reformed faith, the “author of sin.” Reprobation confesses that men plunge
themselves, “wilfully,” into sin and themselves willingly refuse to believe and
commit all their other sins. God decrees not to save some of them, which
salvation He owes no one, but graciously gives to the others. As for the
ultimate explanation of God’s decree that some perish in their sins, God is sovereign
as God. He may do with His creature, man, as seems good to Him. Read Romans 9
carefully, especially verses 20 onwards. The potter may do with the clay as he
pleases. Man may not criticize God: “Who art thou, O man,” etc. (v. 20)?
One
who questions the eternal decree of predestination, including reprobation,
takes the positions that God owes salvation to all humans and that mere man may
call God to account. (Prof. David J.
Engelsma)
#######################################
Q. 18. “What is the whole ‘infralapsarianism vs
supralapsarianism’ debate about?”
The debate between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism
concerns the order of the elements in God’s decree, specifically the relation
between the decree of predestination and
that of the fall. “Infra” (under, or after) maintains that the decree of predestination comes after the decree
of the fall. “Supra” (above,
or before)
maintains that the decree
of predestination precedes
the decree of
the fall … The
debate between “supras” and “infras” is almost always confused by the failure
to see that the matter is in the order of the decrees. True infralapsarianism
does not teach that God decreed to save after the fall took place. Rather, the decree
of
predestination comes after the decree of the fall. (Prof. Barry Gritters, “Defending
Sovereign Reprobation from Hyper-Calvinism”)
#######################################
Q. 19. “Isn’t ‘supralapsarianism’ hyper-Calvinism?”
A
proper understanding of supralapsarianism is not hyper-Calvinism. If supralapsarianism
were such an exaggerated form of Calvinism that perverts the faith, the supralapsarians
at Dordt would have been condemned and explicitly rejected in the Canons. Instead, both at Dordt and in
subsequent years, supralapsarians have been received as fellow Reformed
believers. (Prof. Barry Gritters,
“Defending Sovereign Reprobation from Hyper-Calvinism”)
#######################################
Q. 20. “What important aspects of biblical truth are taught in
both positions (supra and infra)?”
Both
views teach that reprobation is an eternal, sovereign, unconditional decree.
Supralapsarianism emphasizes the biblical truth that the main purpose of God in
His counsel with election and reprobation is His own glory in Jesus Christ. Who
would deny this? God’s glory in Christ has the pre-eminence in God’s counsel.
First is Christ, then is election and reprobation. We are chosen “in Christ.”
God created all things “by Christ” and “for Christ” (Col. 1:15, 16).
Infralapsarianism, on the other hand, emphasizes the biblical truth that those
whom God chose and those whom God rejected appeared in the mind of God as
fallen and depraved sinners. Who would deny this? He chose us in order that we
might become holy
(see Eph. 1:4). God did not choose good people, or even neutral people, but
depraved sinners in need of redemption. (Prof.
Barry Gritters, “Defending Sovereign Reprobation from Hyper-Calvinism”)
#######################################
Q. 21. “What hyper-Calvinistic dangers can sometimes be taken
as implications of the supralapsarian position, if one is not careful?”
Let
no one say, as (if I remember correctly) one poet once mocked the Reformed
faith, putting in her mouth the exclamation: “Oh, glorious fall!” Let no one be
so cavalier with these holy things of God that he glories in sin because “on
account of sin Christ came.” (Prof.
Barry Gritters, “Defending Sovereign Reprobation from Hyper-Calvinism”)
#######################################
Q. 22. “When are the elect ‘in Christ’? I understand that
election is ‘in Christ’ (Eph. 1:4), but there are a few Scriptures that seem to
say we are not ‘in Christ’ until the moment we believe or are regenerated: such
as II Corinthians 5:17: ‘Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new’, and
Romans 16:7: ‘Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners,
who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.’”
You
remark a truth of salvation that is of the utmost importance: union with Christ. And this is the fundamental idea of the
covenant of grace. Such is the significance
of union with Christ that in treating of the doctrine of salvation in his
Institutes Calvin began, not with regeneration as one might have expected, but
with union with Christ: “to share with
us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell
within us … We are said to be ‘engrafted into him’ (Rom. 11:7), and to put on
Christ [Gal. 3:27].”
The
actual, experiential salvation of an elect may be said to begin with the Holy
Spirit’s having united him to Christ.
This precedes even regeneration in that the new life of Christ, which is
that of the new birth, demands union with Christ beforehand, so that the new
life of Christ can come into the elect sinner.
This is the profound truth of Q. 20 of the Heidelberg Catechism, which presents
faith as the bond that ingrafts us into Christ.
This reality of faith as a bond in Q. 20 is often lost sight of in the
arguments whether faith is a bond or an activity. The profound doctrinal and spiritual truth
that Q. 20 is teaching is that we must be first united to Christ before there
can be any reception of any of the benefits of salvation. Viewing faith as union with Christ, the
Reformed theologian will propose the “order of salvation” as beginning with
faith and only then continuing with regeneration. Union with Christ! This is the primary element of
salvation. And a right understanding of
the covenant will recognize this as the primacy of the covenant.
As
to the question, when does union with Christ begin?, you yourself have hinted
at the answer. It begins in the decree
of election, which was not only the choice of some to be saved in Christ, but
which was the choice in Christ of some to be saved (Eph. 1:4). This implies that Christ Jesus is the first
and primary elect and that the multitude of humans who were chosen were chosen
“after” the choice of Him, for His sake, and to complement His headship of the
body, the church. I note in passing that
the Latin original of the main article on election in the Canons of Dordrecht
does justice to election in Christ, which our English translation
obscures. Our English version has: “chosen … to redemption in Christ,” as
though, not election, but redemption is in Christ. The original of the article has “ad
salutem elegit in Christo,” that is, “chosen in Christ to salvation.” The election itself was in Christ.
The
comfort of this correct view of election, which is eternal, is that the
believer was never apart from Christ.
Eternally, by the gracious decree of God he was (is) in Christ.
The
texts that Calvin appealed to in the passages quoted above, and many more, also
teach a historical, actual, spiritual, experiential union with Christ, which
begins with the work of grace that is the gift of the Holy Spirit, whether one
locates this beginning in faith as a bond, or in regeneration.
There
is then an important union in the decree and an important realization of the
decree in the actual, spiritual union.
I
would add that there is a judicial union in that we were one with Christ in His
atonement for our sins. We died with
Him. One could make a further
application of union with Christ consisting of our resurrection and ascension
with Him so that we are with Him in glory already. I could prove this from
Scripture and the creeds.” (DJE, 04/01/2022)
The gospel's only intent is to convict the world of guilt in regard to sin. Jn. 16:8 Which sin?
ReplyDelete