The "Canons of Dordt" and Common Grace (5)

.

Dear forum members,
.
The period after the reformation was a time of writing creeds. In all the history of the church there has never been such a rich period of doctrinal advance and creedal formulation. All the major creeds of the reformation were written in the first 125 years that followed the work of Luther, Calvin and Knox. The last two creeds of importance, omitting for the moment the Helvetic Confession, were the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession of Faith, both written in the 17th century.
.
The Canons of Dordt and the events leading up to the Synod of Dordt, are our concern in this installment. The Canons was unique among all the creeds of the reformation because it was occasioned by a fierce attack against the doctrines of sovereign and particular grace. That attack was launched by a man named Jacobus Arminius, and his followers became known as Arminians.
.
(Right: Synod of Dordt meeting at Dordrecht, The Netherlands)
.
The Canons of Dordt was written in five chapters, each chapter devoted to a refutation of one point of the teachings of the Arminians. The five chapters are: Sovereign and eternal predestination, including election and reprobation – over against the Arminian teaching of conditional predestination; Particular redemption – over against the Arminian doctrine of universal atonement; Total depravity – over against the Arminian doctrine of the free will of man; Irresistible grace – over against the Arminian teaching that the grace of the Holy Spirit could be resisted; and the Preservation of the saints – over against the teaching of the Arminians that a man, although once saved, could lose his salvation and ultimately perish in hell.
* * * *
It is somewhat ironic that some 20th century supporters of the well-meant gospel offer, especially in Reformed circles, appeal to the Canons in support of their position. This appeal is ironic because the Canons were actually written against the position of the Arminians that grace is offered and available to all, and that the actual reception of it depends on the choice of man’s will.
.
The two articles in the Canons, to which supporters of the well-meant offer have appealed, are Canons 2.5 and Canons 3/4. 8, 9. Canons 2.5 reads: “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 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.”
.
This is a very beautiful and important article. It clearly defines the contents of the preaching of the gospel and it raises a bar against all Hyper-calvinism. Hyper-calvinism is a charge frequently leveled against all opponents of the well-meant gospel offer, but is really only a red herring that makes use of careless name-calling. It is intended to brand those who deny the well-meant offer with evil. The article itself prevents one from teaching the main error of the Hyper-calvinists. They deny that all men who hear the gospel are, by the gospel, called to repent and to believe in Christ. They teach that the command, proclaimed in the gospel, that all who hear are called to repentance and faith in Christ is wrong; God calls to faith and repentance only his elect. But I intend to discuss this aspect of the question of the well-meant offer in a later installment.
.
The article, does not, however, teach an offer. Those who claim that it does maintain, I would suppose, that “the command to repent and believe” is, in fact, an offer. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that there is a considerable difference between a command and an offer. I may offer a man fifty dollars if he will cut my lawn; it is then up to him whether he does it or not. But that is quite different than saying to a man: “I order you to cut my lawn and you will be punished if you refuse.” So God does not offer salvation to all men; but He does command all men to repent of their sin and believe in Christ.
.
He is God and has the right to issue such a command. And man, creature that he is, must obey or be destroyed. He does not say to a man: “I love you and want you to be saved; please believe in Christ and I will save you;” no, He says to man: “Repent or go to hell.”
It is impossible to find and offer anywhere in this article.
.
Canons 3/4, 8, 9 reads: “As many as are called by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God has most earnestly and truly shown in His Word what is pleasing to Him, namely, that those who are called should come to Him. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life and rest to as many as shall come to Him and believe on Him” (Article 8). “It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon 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 the world, and produce no fruit. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt.13)” (Article 9).
.
It is my understanding of the appeal of common grace supporters to this article as proof of a well-meant offer is because they assume that the word “offer” in Article 9 refers to the well-meant offer with its idea that God loves all and offers salvation to all who hear the gospel. However, as we noticed in an earlier article, the Latin word offere (the Canons were written in Latin) means “to present, to set forth, to set before the face of one.”
.
The article teaches the following truths, at least as far as the question of the well-meant gospel offer is concerned. God’s calling to those who hear the gospel is serious and means what it says, and that it is well-pleasing to Him that men do what He commands. He is not playing games with men when he commands them to repent and believe in Christ. He is not commanding them to do something to which He is indifferent. He does not say to men that they must repent and believe in Christ, but does not really mean what He says, and does not care whether they obey or not. God never has any pleasure in sin, nor delights in disobedience.
.
Presumably, the defenders of the gospel offer, because, so they say, God is well-pleased with the repentance and faith of those who hear the gospel, must also desire that all be saved. And this desire that all be saved implies that God loves all and that Christ died for all.
.
This is indeed a problem that requires our investigation. It is not a new problem. It was already addressed by Francis Turretin, an ardent opponent of the well-meant offer. Whether his explanation is adequate is another matter, and we intend, God willing, to discuss this problem somewhat later – as well as Turretin’s answer to this objection. It is sufficient to say now that the command of God to repent from sin and believe in Christ is a command rooted in the creation ordinance. God created man good and upright and able to keep God’s law. Man’s fall is his own fault, and for it he is culpable before God. All men are responsible for Adam’s sin, for Adam was the federal head of the entire human race. But all men are responsible also for obedience to God, even after they fell. God does not, as it were, say to fallen man: “I am so sorry that you fell into sin. I see your sad plight and your inability to do what I originally commanded you to do. I will not, therefore, require obedience of you any longer.” Such a position would be contrary to God’s own infinite holiness and justice. God still insists that man obey Him. An inability that is man’s own fault is no excuse for disobedience. And God is very serious about this.
.
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. Mans 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).
.
But a more detailed examination of this question will have to wait.
.
Greetings and blessings to all,
.
Prof. Herman Hanko.