The Riddleblog

“Unbelief Man's Responsibility” -- Article Six, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 6: Unbelief Man’s Responsibility

However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

______________________________________

At this point, the authors of the Canons must respond to the perennial and nagging question raised by the biblical teaching about the death of Christ. “Why is it that if Christ died for all, not all are saved?” This is especially the case in light of the Reformed distinctive that Christ’s death was designed to save God’s elect, not merely make all people hypothetically “savable” if they do what God asks them to do–repent and believe.

You have undoubtedly heard questions such as the following. “If the preaching of Christ crucified is the power of God unto salvation, why do not all believe the gospel when it is preached to them?” Where does the fault truly lie when someone does not believe the message of Christ crucified and then perishes eternally?

Since Reformed Christians contend that God alone can save those dead in sin, and since not all are saved, the Arminian will object that the Reformed understanding of the atonement makes God to blame when someone is lost, because God supposedly did nothing to provide for their salvation–the death of Christ being “limited” to the elect. On the Reformed understanding of particular redemption (God will save his elect), is not God himself to blame because he is not being fair in not choosing everyone to be saved? Does this mean that God somehow prevents certain individuals from believing and coming to faith in Christ when he chooses others to be saved, as is so often charged?

To read the rest, follow the link below

"The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All" -- Article Five, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

__________________________________________

Having labored in articles 1-4 to establish that the purpose of the death of Christ is to be found in the satisfaction of God’s wrath toward sinners who have sinned against his infinite holiness, the Canons now make the point that the very nature of the saving work of Christ demands that it be proclaimed universally to sinners. The proclamation of the cross of Christ (i.e., the gospel) is the primary means by which God calls his elect to faith.

In article 3 of the first head of doctrine, the Canons teach that God has not only ordained the ends (who will be saved), he has also ordained the means by which he will save them (the preaching of the gospel). Scripture connects the end (the salvation of God’s elect), with the means by which God saves his elect; the death of his only begotten son, whose shed blood is more precious than gold or silver.

The previous articles under the second head of doctrine (1-4) make the case that the death of Christ is the only possible means by which God’s anger towards sinners can be satisfied and turned away from them (as a propitiation). Therefore, it is the gospel–defined by Paul as the proclamation of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) proclaimed in such a way that Christ’s death is publicly placarded before sinners (Galatians 3:1)–which must be proclaimed to sinners. This is so that sinners might understand that God’s anger toward them is satisfied only by the death of Christ. Called to faith through the message of Christ crucified, sinners will trust in the satisfaction of Christ to save them from God’s anger toward their sin. Once in Christ through faith, sinners receive the forgiveness of sins, and the free gift of eternal life.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerApril 17, 2024Evangelism, Preaching the gospelComment

"The Reasons for This Infinite Value" -- Article Four, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 4: Reasons for This Infinite Value

This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God’s anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.

_____________________________________

At this point, it is important to state with some precision what is implied in the previous articles. The reason why Jesus’s death can satisfy God’s justice and anger toward our sin is found in Christ’s incarnation. Jesus is the God-man who suffers and dies for us in our place. Since he is truly human, Jesus possesses our nature, and therefore can identify with us so that our sin can be imputed to him. He is one with us in every respect—sin excepted. As true man and the Second Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), Jesus Christ stands in our place as our representative before God, just as did Adam in Eden as the biological and federal head of the human race. But unlike Adam, Jesus Christ endured all temptation without sin and lived a perfect life in fulfillment of all righteousness.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerApril 3, 2024Substitutionary atonementComment

"The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death" -- Article Three, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death

This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

________________________________________

At this point, the Canons address the question of the efficacy (value) of Christ’s satisfaction made upon the cross. Since the Reformed “limit” the saving benefits of the death of Christ to the elect only (a source of great controversy and misunderstanding, and addressed in part in article three), it is important for the authors to clarify that Christ’s death is not limited in any sense when considering the matter of the value of the death of Christ in terms of removing the guilt and breaking the power of sin so as to satisfy God’s justice.

This is the question article three seeks to address. If Christians affirm that there is such a thing as eternal punishment for the guilt of sin (Hell) and that Hell is populated by particular individuals, then one must limit the atonement either to its extent or its efficacy. Should we affirm that Jesus died for individuals whom he does not save? If we answer “yes” to that question, then we limit the power (efficacy) of Jesus’s death to save–Christ dies for people who perish eternally. If we ask “is it God’s intent to save each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age?” and answer “no,” then we limit God’s intention to the salvation of his elect, which the death of Jesus actually accomplishes. Either way, we limit the death of Jesus as to its power (Christ dies for those who are not saved thereby limiting the cross’s efficacy) or its extent (through the death of Jesus, God will actually and truly save his elect, not merely render all people “savable”).

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerMarch 20, 2024The Infinite Value of Christ's deathComment

"The Satisfaction Made by Christ" -- Article Two, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 2: The Satisfaction Made by Christ

Since, however, we ourselves cannot give this satisfaction or deliver ourselves from God’s anger, God in his boundless mercy has given us as a guarantee his only begotten Son, who was made to be sin and a curse for us, in our place, on the cross, in order that he might give satisfaction for us.

______________________________________

In the second head of doctrine, the Canons make the critical point in articles 2, 3, 4, that there is absolutely nothing that sinful men and women can do that turns aside (or satisfies) the wrath of God. This was also explained in the opening article of the first head of doctrine (Article One: God's Right to Condemn All People).

Since God’s wrath toward us results from our sin against his infinite majesty (both in Adam, and because of our actual sin), his justice demands that the satisfaction made be equal to the offense (Romans 3:25-26). Such satisfaction must be offered in order for the guilt of our sins to be forgiven. Because the offense is against the Holy God, there is no way a sinful person could satisfy God’s infinite justice and holiness. As the Heidelberg Catechism puts it in questions 16 and 17, the one who dies for our sins must be truly human because “God’s justice demands that human nature, which has sinned pay for its sin,” but goes on to remind us that one “sinner could never pay for others.” This is why, as the catechism notes, the one who offers the sacrifice must also be true God, “so that by the power of his divinity, he might bear the weight of God’s anger in his humanity and earn for us and restore to us righteousness and life.”

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerMarch 6, 2024Satisfaction of God's justiceComment

"The Punishment Which God’s Judgment Requires" -- Article One, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 1: The Punishment Which God's Justice Requires

God is not only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. His justice requires (as he has revealed himself in the Word) that the sins we have committed against his infinite majesty be punished with both temporal and eternal punishments, of soul as well as body. We cannot escape these punishments unless satisfaction is given to God's justice.

______________________________________

Background:

In the first head of doctrine, the authors of the Canons set out their treatment of human sinfulness (total depravity) and divine mercy (unconditional election), commonly known as the first two points of Calvinism.

The Canons established that all men and women have fallen in Adam, and are guilty before God from birth because Adam acted as our divinely chosen representative in Eden so that the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed (or reckoned, or accounted) to us (Romans 5:12-19). But we are also guilty for all of our own sinful actions which spring forth from sinful human nature.

This is what we mean when we speak of “total depravity.” This does not mean that we are always as bad as we possibly can be, only that sin has infected our entire person, from head to toe, and that there is no part of human nature that is not tainted, stained, or corrupted because of the fall of our race into sin.

Several lines of biblical argument make this clear. Paul indicates that we are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3) and dead in our sin (Colossians 2:13). In Matthew’s gospel (7:15 ff.) Jesus describes our fallen race as bad trees which can only bear bad fruit. As our Lord tells us, this bad fruit is the visible manifestation of our hidden wickedness and depravity.

On a practical level this means that we are born in sin, and apart from God's grace our wills are in bondage to our sinful nature. We use the good gifts which God has given to us for sinful (self-centered) purposes. Lacking faith, we cannot please God (Hebrews 11:6). We sin because we are sinners. We sin because we like to sin. Since the wages of sin is death, we are all subject to the curse. Left on our own, and to our own devices, we do not want Jesus as our Lord. Instead, we desire to be lord of our own lives. We go our own way, not overly concerned about God showing his mercy to us, since we do not think that we really need it, Besides, we mistakenly think that God is obliged to extend his mercy to us any way.

To read the rest, follow the link below

"The Error of Teaching That Some People Are More Predisposed to Believe Than Others" -- Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (IX)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .

IX. Who teach that the cause for God’s sending the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely God’s good pleasure, but rather that one people is better and worthier than the other to whom the gospel is not communicated.

For Moses contradicts this when he addresses the people of Israel as follows: “Behold, to Jehovah your God belong the heavens and the highest heavens, the earth and whatever is in it. But Jehovah was inclined in his affection to love your ancestors alone, and chose out their descendants after them, you above all peoples, as at this day” (Deut. 10:14–15). And also Christ: “Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! for if those mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matt. 11:21).

___________________________________

The last major error to be refuted by the Canons under the first head of doctrine is that which teaches that the preaching of the gospel and the response to it in a particular time and place, is not ordained by God. It is not as if the acceptance of the good news came about because some who heard the gospel are wiser, more spiritual, or that some individuals are simply more emotionally disposed to believe than others when the gospel first comes to them. No, Scripture is clear—all people are equally sinful, and equally resistant to the message of God's free grace in Christ. Humanly speaking, no one has any advantage over others.

Arminians have often charged that if the Reformed view of election is actually taught in Scripture, then what incentive would there be to evangelize the nations or support the cause of missions since God has already decreed who will believe and who will not? But this objection boomerangs on the Arminian, as the Canons note, because this implies that those who accept the gospel (on the Arminian scheme) are able to use their powers and advantages (some might say “privilege”) that God has given them, while those who do not accept the gospel and who do not take advantage of these powers, must somehow be more wicked, suffer from a greater depravity, or suffer from a greater ignorance of the things of God, than do those who do take advantage of these things.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerJanuary 31, 2024Election and MissionsComment

"The Error of Teaching That Reprobation Results from a Misuse of Human Freedom" -- Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (VIII)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .

Who teach that it was not on the basis of his just will alone that God decided to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state of sin and condemnation or to pass anyone by in the imparting of grace necessary for faith and conversion.

For these words stand fast: “He has mercy on whom he wishes, and he hardens whom he wishes” (Rom. 9:18). And also: “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matt. 13:11 ). Likewise: “I give glory to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding, and have revealed them to little children; yes, Father, because that was your pleasure” (Matt. 11:25–26).

____________________________________________

The error identified and refuted in paragraph eight of the refutations is one which attempts to locate the ground of reprobation in people’s misuse of their freedom, not in the sovereign will of God. According to this error, people somehow manage to reprobate themselves by using their free will in such a way as to disqualify themselves from that which they could have otherwise obtained–salvation from sin. These people could have co-operated with God’s grace, and then believed the gospel. Instead, they “chose poorly,” as someone once put it.

This erroneous notion results from the Arminian contention that despite the fall of the human race into sin, men and women are still able to co-operate with the grace of God. When they do so, they are thereby inclined to believe, repent, and live in holiness before God. When the logic of the Arminian view is applied to those whom do not chose co-operate with God’s grace (the reprobate), the reason given as to why these people are not numbered among the elect is because they did not choose to believe, repent, and live a holy life before God. To put it crudely, they reprobate themselves by not co-operating with God’s grace.

To read the rest, follow he link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerJanuary 15, 2024Election and the Will of God Comments

"The Error of Teaching That Our Election Is Secured By Human Obedience" -- Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (VII)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .

VII. Who teach that in this life there is no fruit, no awareness, and no assurance of one’s unchangeable election to glory, except as conditional upon something changeable and contingent.

For not only is it absurd to speak of an uncertain assurance, but these things also militate against the experience of the saints, who with the apostle rejoice from an awareness of their election and sing the praises of this gift of God; who, as Christ urged, “rejoice” with his disciples “that their names have been written in heaven” (Luke 10:20); and finally who hold up against the flaming arrows of the devil’s temptations the awareness of their election, with the question “Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen?” (Rom. 8:33)

_____________________________________

Roman Catholic theology contends that any notion of the assurance of salvation inevitably leads to presumption and laxity in the Christian life, which Rome identifies as the sin of presumption. So too, many Arminians have argued that the ground of election is to be located in a Christian’s personal performance (faith, good works, and our own efforts at persevering to the end).

According to the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,

No one...so long as he lives this mortal life, ought to regard to the sacred mystery of divine predestination, so far presume as to state with absolute certainty, that he is numbered of the predestined, as if it were true that the one justified either cannot sin any more, or, if he does sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance. For except by special revelation, it cannot be known who God has chosen to Himself. (Sixth Session, Chapter XII).

As Rome sees the matter, no one can know that they are numbered among the elect. This lack of assurance supposedly motivates the faithful to lead godly lives and to persevere in good works to the end of their lives, so that they may be delivered from eternal loss (or shorten their time in purgatory). In this scheme, the proper motivation for perseverance and good works is the fear of divine chastisement and/or eternal punishment. Clearly, Rome was worried that believers who possessed assurance of their salvation would become morally lax, and live lives indifferent to good works and holy living.

To read the rest, follow the link below

"The Error of Teaching That Election is Changeable" -- Rejection of Errors, First head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (VI)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .

VI. Who teach that not every election to salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the chosen can perish and do in fact perish eternally, with no decision of God to prevent it.

By this gross error they make God changeable, destroy the comfort of the godly concerning the steadfastness of their election, and contradict the Holy Scriptures, which teach that the elect cannot be led astray (Matt. 24:24), that Christ does not lose those given to him by the Father (John 6:39), and that those whom God predestined, called, and justified, he also glorifies (Rom. 8:30).

_____________________________________

Another error associated with certain forms of Arminianism derives from the formulation of the dual decree described in the previous refutation of errors (paragraph five). In this instance, the Arminian argues, God will never withhold his salvation from those who do indeed repent, believe, and live holy lives before him. But since election is not absolute, and in this regard is only general and universal, there is no guarantee that those who are chosen by God will persevere in faith to the end, and therefore be saved.

As we have seen, the argument runs as follows. God has determined the plan of salvation, but has not chosen the specific individuals who are themselves to be saved. Those who fulfill God's requirements are considered to be numbered among the elect if they persevere.

The problem with this should be obvious. Those who are presently in Christ through faith, can take no comfort in the fact of their election, because there is absolutely no guarantee that they will believe in Jesus until death. This places the onus on the individual to persevere in the Christian life, and does not give the believer the comfort of knowing that it is Christ who is even now ensuring that the elect will persevere to the end and be saved (cf. Luke 22:32; 1 John 2:1-2).

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerDecember 8, 2023election is unchangeable Comment

The Error of “Basing Election on Human Action” -- Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (Five)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .

V. Who teach that the incomplete and nonperemptory* election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness. And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

This runs counter to the entire Scripture, which throughout impresses upon our ears and hearts these sayings among others: Election is not by works, but by him who calls (Rom. 9:11-12); All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48); He chose us in himself so that we should be holy (Eph. 1:4); You did not choose me, but I chose you (John 15:16); If by grace, not by works (Rom. 11:6); In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son (1 John 4:10).

nonperemptory: not completed immediately and finally, used here of God’s decree

________________________________________

At this point, the authors of the Canons are responding to one of the more technical forms of Arminianism, then prevalent in the Netherlands. Here again, the primary error to be refuted is the attempt to locate the ground, or basis, for God’s election in a free action of the creature to which God responds. In this particular species of Arminianism, it was argued that God elected to save those who will believe the gospel and who will persevere in faith to the end. God’s decree is therefore a general decree to save those who do, in fact, believe, repent, and live in holiness before God.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerNovember 24, 2023Election Unchangable, Election not based on foreknowledgeComment

The Error of "Exalting Human Ability" -- Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (Four)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those,

IV. Who teach that in election to faith a prerequisite condition is that man should rightly use the light of nature, be upright, unassuming, humble, and disposed to eternal life, as though election depended to some extent on these factors.

For this smacks of Pelagius, and it clearly calls into question the words of the apostle: “We lived at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in transgressions, made us alive with Christ, by whose grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with him and seated us with him in heaven in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages we might show the surpassing riches of his grace, according to his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God) not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph. 2:3–9).

_________________________________________________

The fourth error rejected by the authors of the Canons is still quite popular today. This is the idea that God elects those who through natural ability and spiritual insight, place themselves in a position to receive grace from God. In other words, they are able to prepare themselves to receive and act upon God’s grace. At its heart, this is the ancient heresy of Pelagianism, which holds that even after the fall of our race into sin, humans retain the ability to save themselves. This amounts to an outright denial of sola gratia (grace alone). It also denies the biblical teaching about election as set forth in articles one through nineteen of the first head of doctrine in the Canons.

In the Pelagian scheme, grace is understood to be the communication of right information about what God requires of us, so that the creature (who retains sufficient natural ability) can do what is necessary to be saved. The Pelagian road is built upon human ability, and inevitably leads to the dead-end of works-righteousness.

Unfortunately, this very flawed idea is very common in much of American Evangelicalism. In large measure, it was bequeathed to us by Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875), who wrote in his Systematic Theology, “Regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love and benevolence; or, in other words, in turning from the supreme choice of self-gratification, to the supreme love of God and the equal love of his neighbor. Of course the subject of regeneration must be an agent in the work” (Systematic Theology, 224).

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerOctober 18, 2023Pelgianism, natural ability Comments

I Was Recently a Guest on the Renewalcast Discussing the Canons of Dort

Here’s the link: Renewalcast on The Canons of Dort: Human Corruption and Conversion

The Canons of Dort, Reformed ResourcesKim RiddlebargerOctober 17, 2023Human corruption and conversionComment

"The Error of Imputing Faith as Righteousness" -- Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (3)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .

III. Who teach that God’s good pleasure and purpose, which Scripture mentions in its teaching of election, does not involve God’s choosing certain particular people rather than others, but involves God’s choosing, out of all possible conditions (including the works of the law) or out of the whole order of things, the intrinsically unworthy act of faith, as well as the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation; and it involves his graciously wishing to count this as perfect obedience and to look upon it as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

For by this pernicious error the good pleasure of God and the merit of Christ are robbed of their effectiveness and people are drawn away, by unprofitable inquiries, from the truth of undeserved justification and from the simplicity of the Scriptures. It also gives the lie to these words of the apostle: “God called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of works, but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9).

__________________________________________________

This particular Arminian error may be the most pernicious, since at first glance. it appears to come close to the truth, but nevertheless bases the ground of our salvation upon an act of the creature, not in the decree of God and the merits of Christ. This argument is often presented by more capable Arminian theologians.

In this instance, the Synod of Dort rejects the error of those who argue that God determines the way of salvation (faith in Christ, not good works), but at the same time also contend that God’s purpose does not involve the election of specific individuals who are to be saved. God’s purpose in election is limited to determining how people are to be saved, not who will be saved. To put the matter another way, God chooses a method of salvation, not the individuals whom he will save.

To read the rest, follow the link below

"The Error of Denying a Fixed, Single Decree of God" -- Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (2)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .

II. Who teach that God’s election to eternal life is of many kinds: one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and the latter in turn either incomplete, revocable, nonperemptory (or conditional), or else complete, irrevocable, and peremptory (or absolute). Likewise, who teach that there is one election to faith and another to salvation, so that there can be an election to justifying faith apart from a peremptory election to salvation.

For this is an invention of the human brain, devised apart from the Scriptures, which distorts the teaching concerning election and breaks up this golden chain of salvation: “Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).

________________________________________________

At this point, the Canons deal with the problem created by basing election upon something other than a single decree of God. The authors of the Canons are likely addressing the Lutheran conception of God’s decree as two-fold, in which it is argued that God has an antecedent (or prior) will to save all (which is general and indefinite) and a consequent will to save only those who believe in Christ and who do not resist grace (particular and definite).

The Reformed contend that while this is a sincere attempt to do justice to the problems associated with God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, instead of effectively summarizing what the Scriptures so clearly teach (God’s decree is to save a fixed number of elect sinners), this error actually presents a complicated and rationalistic model which avoids the plain teaching of Scripture about the nature of God’s eternal purpose.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerSeptember 18, 2023God's single decree in electionComment

"The Error of Basing Election Upon Foreseen Faith" — The Rejection of Errors, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (1)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those . . .

I. Who teach that the will of God to save those who would believe and persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decision of election to salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decision has been revealed in God’s Word.

For they deceive the simple and plainly contradict Holy Scripture in its testimony that God does not only wish to save those who would believe, but that he has also from eternity chosen certain particular people to whom, rather than to others, he would within time grant faith in Christ and perseverance. As Scripture says, “I have revealed your name to those whom you gave me” (John 17:6). Likewise, “All who were appointed for eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48), and “He chose us before the foundation of the world so that we should be holy…” (Eph. 1:4).

________________________________________________

The first error to be rejected by the Synod is one of the most common, and held by many Christians today. As set out in articles one-eighteen of the Canons, the Bible teaches that election is grounded God’s love for lost and fallen sinners. Scripture tells us that God decrees to elect Jesus Christ to be the savior of the world, and to be the mediator of the covenant of grace (John 6:38-40; Ephesians 1:4; 3:11; 1 Timothy 2:5). God’s purpose in this is to save that multitude of sinners fallen in Adam, people who are individually chosen to be saved according to God’s eternal purpose for each. The number of those chosen to be saved is so great that they cannot be counted (Revelation 7:9).

The error to be rejected here is that of trying to locate the ground (basis) for election in something that God foresees within the creature, namely faith and repentance. Scripture, on the other hand, very clearly teaches that fallen creatures cannot come to faith in Jesus Christ apart from a prior work of God’s grace (John 6:44), enabling them to do so (1 John 4:10). There is no faith or repentance to be foreseen unless and until God grants it to the creature.

“The Proper Attitude Toward Election and Reprobation” — Article Eighteen, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 18: The Proper Attitude Toward Election and Reprobation

To those who complain about this grace of an undeserved election and about the severity of a just reprobation, we reply with the words of the apostle, Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? (Rom. 9:20), and with the words of our Savior, Have I no right to do what I want with my own? (Matt. 20:15). We, however, with reverent adoration of these secret things, cry out with the apostle: Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways beyond tracing out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Or who has first given to God, that God should repay him? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen (Rom. 11:33-36).

__________________________________

We come to the final article of the First Head of Doctrine—the first point of the so-called five points of Calvinism. Article eighteen addresses the matter of how we, as the people of God, are to respond to the biblical teaching about election and reprobation. There are at least four possible responses to these doctrines, although the Canons take note only of two. We begin by dealing with the two responses identified in article eighteen.

The first possible response one might have comes from those who, when faced with this doctrine, react by calling God’s fairness into question. As the Canons note, “to those who complain about this grace of an undeserved election and about the severity of a just reprobation, we reply with the words of the apostle, Who are you, O man, to talk back to God? (Rom. 9:20),” and with the words of our Savior, “have I no right to do what I want with my own? (Matt. 20:15).” Like it or not, God is our creator and is absolutely sovereign over us. He does what he wills with his creatures and with his creation. As the fallen children of Adam, we must deal with the fact that were it not for the electing grace of God, all of us would remain unbelievers, under his just judgment.

To read the rest, follow the link below

"The Salvation of Deceased Infants of Believers" -- Article Seventeen, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 17: The Salvation of Deceased Infants of Believers

Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.

_________________________________

Because of human sin, and the fact that the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to all of his descendants, terrible tragedies do occur. Ours is a sinful and fallen race. We are weakened in body because of the inherited corruption passed down to us from our first father, Adam. Furthermore, we are subject to the sinful actions of our fellow sinners. Because we are under the curse, we will all die. As one of the sages of popular culture puts it, “nobody gets out of here alive.”

One of the worst consequences of the Fall of Adam and the curse is the death of a child. It is bad enough that children, now grown, must bury those who brought them into the world, and loved, cared and provided for them. It is even worse when parents are forced to bury a child who never lived to adulthood. If such a tragedy is not a graphic picture of the reality which is the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his progeny, then I don’t know what is.

To read the rest, follow the link below

"Responses to the Teaching of Reprobation" -- Article Sixteen, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Responses to the Teaching of Reprobation

Those who do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ, but who nevertheless use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us—such people ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to count themselves among the reprobate; rather they ought to continue diligently in the use of the means, to desire fervently a time of more abundant grace, and to wait for it in reverence and humility. On the other hand, those who seriously desire to turn to God, to be pleasing to him alone, and to be delivered from the body of death, but are not yet able to make such progress along the way of godliness and faith as they would like—such people ought much less to stand in fear of the teaching concerning reprobation, since our merciful God has promised that he will not snuff out a smoldering wick and that he will not break a bruised reed. However, those who have forgotten God and their Savior Jesus Christ and have abandoned themselves wholly to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh—such people have every reason to stand in fear of this teaching, as long as they do not seriously turn to God.

________________________________________

There are a number of possible responses people can have to the teaching of reprobation. The Canons deal with three of them. The first group of people identified by the Canons are “those who do not yet actively experience within themselves a living faith in Christ or an assured confidence of heart, peace of conscience, a zeal for childlike obedience, and a glorying in God through Christ, but who nevertheless use the means by which God has promised to work these things in us.” This category refers to those who have not yet come to saving faith in Christ. These people cannot yet say that they are trusting in Christ, although they may be wrestling with the guilt of their sins, and may even be convinced of the truth of Christianity.

This group includes the older children of believers who have been baptized, but have not yet made profession of faith. But there are others we need to consider–not mentioned by the Canons–who, at this point in time, appear to have no interest in Christ. Although this is currently the case does not mean that all such people are numbered among the reprobate, nor can we treat them as such, even if they appear to be notorious evil doers.

To read the rest, follow the link below

The Canons of DortKim RiddlebargerJuly 17, 2023The doctrine of reprobation, Teaching ReprobationComment

"Reprobation" -- Article Fifteen, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

Article 15: Reprobation

Moreover, Holy Scripture most especially highlights this eternal and undeserved grace of our election and brings it out more clearly for us, in that it further bears witness that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God’s eternal election—those, that is, concerning whom God, on the basis of his entirely free, most just, irreproachable, and unchangeable good pleasure, made the following decision: to leave them in the common misery into which, by their own fault, they have plunged themselves; not to grant them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but finally to condemn and eternally punish them (having been left in their own ways and under his just judgment), not only for their unbelief but also for all their other sins, in order to display his justice. And this is the decision of reprobation, which does not at all make God the author of sin (a blasphemous thought!) but rather its fearful, irreproachable, just judge and avenger.

_____________________________________

If the biblical teaching about election is difficult for us to grasp, the biblical teaching about reprobation is that much more difficult. Like it or not, we must face the fact that if God chooses to save a vast multitude of sinners (Revelation 7:9), but not all of Adam’s fallen children, then God must also in some manner deal with those whom he has not chosen. This bring us to the doctrine of reprobation.

Before we define the doctrine (below) several cautions are in order. Although many try to avoid the subject at all costs, the fact of the matter is that we must wrestle with the biblical teaching about reprobation (cf. Romans 9:1-23) because this is a revealed doctrine every bit as much as is election.

It is wise to begin by pointing out if sinful human curiosity is a problem when we talk about election, such speculation is a far greater problem when we come to the subject of reprobation. Here, of all places, we must be very careful to teach only what Scripture teaches, and we must go no further.

To read the rest, follow the link below