“The Error of Teaching That Perseverance Is Obtained By Free Will” — The Rejection of Errors, Fifth Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (1)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that the perseverance of true believers is not an effect of election or a gift of God produced by Christ’s death, but a condition of the new covenant which man, before what they call his “peremptory” election and justification, must fulfill by his free will.

For Holy Scripture testifies that perseverance follows from election and is granted to the chosen by virtue of Christ’s death, resurrection, and intercession: “The chosen obtained it; the others were hardened” (Rom. 11:7); likewise, “He who did not spare his own son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not, along with him, grant us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? It is Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised—who also sits at the right hand of God, and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom. 8:32–35).

_______________________________________________

It is an odd feature of Christian theology that doctrinal errors are much more complicated and convoluted in their structure than positive statements and summations of biblical truths. This is the case with the rejection of errors under the five heads of doctrine published at Dort. In these sections, the Canons address specific charges raised against the Reformed churches in Holland in the early 1600s. They tend to be a bit more time-bound than the doctrinal affirmations set forth in the articles, but nevertheless, we hear many of the same kinds of arguments against Reformed doctrines today.

The specific error being addressed is that as a consequence of starting with the premise of human freedom—which, according to Arminians, Adam’s race retains in large measure even after the fall into sin—the possibility of perseverance in faith to the end must likewise be conditioned upon the continual exercise of human freedom (i.e., our free will). This shifts both the merit needed to satisfy God’s demands and the ground of our salvation away from election and our deliverance from the guilt and power of sin—secured for us by Christ’s death upon the cross.

The Reformed affirm that from beginning to end, our salvation is grounded in God’s love and grace, with our faith and repentance arising from the prior regenerative work of the Holy Spirit. But the Arminian contends that we obtain grace by an act of our wills (how much that act is dependent upon God’s grace is a debated point), that we continue to believe through our willingness to do so, and that if we persevere unto the end, it is only because we continued to exercise our freedom to believe until the end of our lives. While the Reformed understand salvation from the guilt and power of sin to be grounded solely in the grace of God, the Arminians instead locate the ground in human willing and freedom.

The authors of the Canons simply cite Romans 8:32–35 and 11:7 in refutation of the Arminian error. Their response reiterates the point made in Article 8.