"God's Right to Condemn All People" -- Article One, First Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort

This Is the First In a New Series — A Short Commentary on the Canons of Dort

Article 1: God’s Right to Condemn All People

Since all people have sinned in Adam and have come under the sentence of the curse and eternal death, God would have done no one an injustice if it had been his will to leave the entire human race in sin and under the curse, and to condemn them on account of their sin. As the apostle says: “The whole world is liable to the condemnation of God” (Rom. 3:19), “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23), and “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

_______________________________________

The Canons of Dort open with due consideration of the human condition after Adam’s fall into sin, guilt, and the curse (death), as set forth in numerous biblical passages, three of which are cited in Article One: Romans 3:19; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23.

But far too often, people do not begin with a biblical perspective on matters of sin and grace, but with a number of flawed cultural assumptions usually tied to optimism regarding human nature, especially those associated with American democracy— “everyone should have a say in things.” This difference in presuppositions explains why there is so much resistance and indignation whenever a Reformed Christian dares mention the “five-points of Calvinism” in a non-Reformed context. Reformed folk understand our redemption from the guilt and power of sin as a divine rescue of people who cannot save themselves, and would not do so even if they could. People who are dead in sin cannot resurrect themselves by an act of will. People who are born guilty for Adam’s sin and a corresponding sinful nature have no interest in Jesus Christ or his gospel. They see no need of redemption, they do not fear judgment since they view themselves as basically good people who truly possess the power to do what God asks of them.

Therefore, according to many of our contemporaries, we should not begin this discussion with the fact of human sin and corresponding inability to save ourselves, but with a kind of democratic egalitarianism. In other words, most Americans already assume the notion to be true that “God isn’t being fair with his creatures, unless everyone has an equal chance at heaven, which he makes available to all.” While it is easy to acknowledge that we are sinners (since it is virtually self-evident that we do bad things and have sinful thoughts), it is not easy to take that admission to the obvious conclusion–because we are sinners, we are guilty before God, and therefore subject to just punishment. In fact, when you take this as far as Scripture does–that we are born as sinners, who are guilty before God, and unable to do anything to save ourselves from God's anger toward our sins–then the debate gets under way.

These typically American presuppositions about human nature are as follows. First, all men and women have an equal opportunity to go to heaven and God would not be acting fairly if any were somehow deprived of that to which they are entitled—they must deprive themselves. Second, of course, all have sinned, but free will and natural ability remain. We are not robots after all. Third, even if we are guilty before God in some sense, we still retain the ability to remove the curse from ourselves with Christ’s help, if only we are willing.

These different presuppositions (the Reformed– “God is holy and just and will punish sin” versus the American ideal– “everyone should be given an equal chance to go to heaven”) explains why Reformed theology strikes so many Americans as strange, unfair, and perhaps even cruel. The theology set forth at Dort does not begin with the rosy estimation that most Americans have regarding human nature. Rather, the Reformed begin with a biblical realism about human sin (we are said to be “dead in sin”) yet maintain great confidence in God’s grace to save his people from their sins.

In Article One, the Canons begin the discussion of sin and grace where Scripture does–the biblical teaching regarding the sinfulness and inability of men and women to save themselves, and with God’s right to punish such. Because we begin with humanities’ sin, guilt, and inability to come to faith, God’s grace is seen as a rescue (indeed a resurrection) of those who truly deserve God’s wrath, but who are instead chosen to be the recipients and beneficiaries of God’s mercies in Christ (a discussion of election and predestination follow in subsequent articles).

This is an long-standing debate in church history. Those in the Augustinian tradition (i.e., who follow Augustine on these matters) emphasize God’s graciousness to sinners—it is God who saves sinners from beginning to end. Those in the Pelagian tradition (Pelagius was Augustine’s theological rival) focus upon humanities’ natural ability—salvation from sin stems from acting upon our knowledge of God’s commands. If God commands something, the Pelagian says, it is only because we have the ability to carry out that command. Ironically, this has more in common with the philosopher Immanuel Kant’s dictum “ought implies can,” than it does with the biblical estimation of human nature after the fall.

But most American Christians have a “semi-Pelagian” view when it comes to matters of sin and grace, Simply put, semi-Pelagians see human salvation from sin not so much as a divine rescue in which men and women who are described as “dead in sin” require a resurrection from death to life before they can even respond to God. Semi-Pelagians often speak of salvation as a kind of transaction in which God contributes grace and men and women contribute faith. He has done his part (sending Jesus to die for all), now its up to you to do yours (trust in Jesus as an act of will) thereby securing salvation.

But as Augustine once said, “the grace of God does not find men fit for salvation, but makes them so.” This is a fundamental choice everyone must make–either we can save ourselves by acting upon the proper information (Pelagianism), or think that God will help us save ourselves if we are willing (semi-Pelgianism), or that God saves sinners who can do nothing to save themselves (Augustinianism).

The Bible speaks to this matter directly. “We are dead in sins and transgressions,” (Ephesians 2:1). We are by nature “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), we “do not seek God” (Romans 3:11), and like the leopard, “we cannot change our spots” (Jeremiah 13:23). In fact, we cannot even come to God unless he first draws us to himself (John 6:44, 65). How, then, can we say, as our contemporaries often do, that our salvation depends upon our choice, our willing, our efforts, even if God helps us do these things?

Scripture is clear that the latter is not the case. In the first chapter of John’s Gospel we read, “to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). And, as Paul says in Romans 9:16, “it does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

Article One of the Canons therefore lays the foundation for everything which follows. We are fallen in Adam and enslaved to sin—we are born with, and currently possess, a sinful nature. God owes us nothing. He has every right to punish sinful rebels. If God does not act first in our lives (the Canons will go on to argue that regeneration precedes faith), no one can have any hope of heaven, nor enjoy the comfort of eternal life. Indeed, the wrath of God remains upon us as it should.

This is where Scripture begins when addressing the matter of sin and grace—the Holy God’s right to justly punish rebellious creatures. This is also where the Canons of Dort begin when responding to the semi-Pelagianism of the Dutch Arminians of the seventeenth century, and whose theology is still alive and well today.