Synod rejects the error 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 to be rejected is very 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.  This, of course, is utterly Pelagian, and 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 Canons. 

In the Pelagian scheme, grace is merely incidental to our salvation.  Grace is understood as the communication of right information about what God requires of us, so that the creature can do (using their natural ability) what is necessary to be saved.  This road is paved with human ability, and inevitably leads to the dead-end of works-righteousness.  

Unfortunately, this very flawed idea is all-too common in American Evangelicalism.  In large measure, it was bequeathed to us by one Charles Grandison Finney, 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, p. 224]. 

This is simply amazing!  If we jiggle the lever in the right way, and use the right means, we don’t even need the grace of God to be saved.  According to Finney, even after the Fall, we still possess sufficient natural ability to do what God requires of us.   We must be agents and subjects in this work.

The logical consequence of this is that our salvation does not at all depend upon God.  Rather, it depends upon us.  As the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield once remarked in response to Finney, this is not theology at all, this is ethics.  As Warfield put it, “we said that God might be eliminated entirely from Finney’s ethical theory without injury to it: are we not prepared to now say that [God] might be eliminated from it with some advantage to it.”  Sad, but true.

The denial that our salvation begins in God with his gracious decree of election leads to a host of errors and skewed practices.  Finney is the father of American Revivalism, characterized by the frontier tent-meeting and the sawdust trail.  Finney’s revivalist legacy is most clearly seen today in the countless stadiums filled with people being urged to “let God” do this, that, or the other.  Finney is also the father of the alter call and the “evangelistic meeting” which takes place apart from the normal preaching and sacramental ministry of the local church.  It was the stress upon the “new measures,” as Finney called them, that largely served to displace the sacramental and preaching ministry of the church, for the technique-oriented evangelism of modern America.  

In fact, it could be argued that the church growth movement--especially those forms which seek to entice so-called “seekers” to church by removing those things from the church service which offend them (in other words, anything distinctly Christian)--can be traced back to Finney’s new measures.  Now, however, the "new measures" come to us couched in the language of marketing and sales, target groups and demographics.  Whether it be Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, or even Billy Graham, there is no doubt that one branch of each of their respective intellectual family trees, traces back to Charles Finney.  And even if other branches in that same family tree can be traced back to Protestant forebears, these historic Protestant traits are now most certainly recessive.  No doubt, Finney’s theological family tree and familial characteristics now dominate much of the American church.

Again, we need to remind ourselves that the Bible (summarized by the Canons) does not approach this subject from the perspective that everyone is entitled to a chance at heaven, and already possesses the natural ability to get there, if only they will.  The Scriptures do not begin with human freedom, as the Pelagian argues.  The Scriptures begin with the fall of Adam into sin, and the consequences of that event upon the entirety of the human race.  To put in Dwight Moody's terms, this means that we lost our vote and our freedom in the Fall!  And because the entire human race fell with Adam, we are everything that the Scriptures say about us--dead in sin, unwilling and unable to come to Christ through the mere exercise of our will.

Therefore, we must begin this discusison where the Bible does–with the fact of human sinfulness, and with the idea clearly in our minds that no one deserves to go to heaven, and that not one of us can do anything to get there.  To start with the presupposition that unless we have free will to choose God whenever we wish, or else Christianity (and by implication - God) would not be fair, we miss the point.  God does not owe sinners anything.  And if we are thinking this way, we have imbibed way too deeply from our democratic and egalatarian culture.  We are not approaching things, as we should, from the perspective on human nature given us in the Holy Scriptures.

As we have said repeatedly throughout this series, the degree to which we argue that we contribute something to our salvation is the degree to which we deny sola gratia.  It was Charles Spurgeon who said, “he that thinks lightly of sin, thinks lightly of the savior.” 

It is really very simple.  Either God saves sinners who are dead in sin through his sovereign election, calling them forth from the grave when they could contribute nothing, or else sinners have something good within them is that not somehow tainted, corrupted, polluted our damaged by the fall.  As we have seen, the Scriptures teach the former rather than the latter.  To add anything we do to grace alone, is to deny grace alone!  You cannot have it either way. 

As Calvin puts in the Institutes, “Whatever mixture men study to add from the power of free-will to the grace of God, is only a corruption of it; just as if anyone should dilute good wine with dirty or bitter water.”  Since we are sinful from head to toe, from hair to toenail, whatever our contribution we might add to God’s grace, only can serve to pollute, not to activate the grace of God! 

And so when we look to as answers for questions like, “Why does God save this one rather than that one?” we do well to do as Canons remind us,  recall to mind the words of the apostle Paul recorded in Ephesians 2:1-10: 1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

It really is that simple.  God saves sinners.  God does not tell sinners what to do so that they can save themselves. 

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

In the particular error being rejected by the synod, God is said to regard the act of believing (faith) as the ground for the imputation of righteousness to those who believe.  This is frequently associated with consistent Arminianism and the governmental theory of the atonement, found in writers such as John Miley.  As set forth by the Arminians, the act of faith is itself regarded as righteousness by God, because God has decreed to regard faith as though it were righteousness.  Those who hold this view reject the notion that it is the alien righteousness of Christ (the ground of our justification) which is imputed to the believer, through the instrument of faith.  

This formulation enables the Arminians to use the language of “justification by faith," as well as the term “imputation.”  But these terms have been re-defined so that they mean something radically different from what is taught by the Reformed and Lutheran confessions.  

The primary error involved is that the ground of salvation is now located in the action of the creature.  The sinner is said to able to exercise his or her free will to embrace the gracious plan of salvation God has chosen.  The sinner is able to trust in Christ alone (their faith is regarded as justifying righteousness), and willingly rejects the sinful attempt to earn heaven through good works.  Notice, however, that although orthodox language is used throughout, when push comes to shove, the fundamental Arminian assumption remains–namely, that fallen men and women are saved because of something they do (exercise faith), and not because of something God does (elect specific individuals whom he chooses to save, who are unable to exercise faith, and who are "dead in sin").  

A variant of the Arminian position can be seen in throughout contemporary American evangelicalism whenever it is argued that God has done everything possible to provide for your salvation by sending Christ to die for your sins.  But unless you “appropriate” the death of Christ, and unless and until you make Jesus your “personal-Lord-and-Savior,” the death of Christ is of no avail.  As Moody famously put it, God has voted for you, Satan has voted against you, so it is your vote that determines where you will spend an eternity!  

Sadly, such a view reflects American egalitarian culture and democratic optimism, but completely undermines the biblical doctrine of grace alone (sola gratia).  Ironically, those holding this view can boldly affirm sola fide, (since we are justified by faith alone), and yet at the same time must reject sola gratia, (since God’s action is always in response to what the creatures does with his or her own free will).  In this sense grace is strictly potential and available, but is not an effectual and saving act on God’s part.

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 [admitting no refusal or denial] (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 primarily thinking about the Lutheran conception of God’s decree as a two-fold decree, in which it is argued that God has an antecedent will to save all [which is general and indefinite] and a consequent will to save only those who believe 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, this actually presents a complicated and rationalistic model which avoids the plain teaching of Scripture about the nature of God’s eternal purpose.  

As we have repeatedly seen, the Scriptures teach a single decree of election and reprobation, in which the elect are chosen in Christ from before the foundation of the world, that Jesus Christ comes to die for them and to fulfill the law so as to provide for a sufficient righteousness so that sinners may be justified, and that in due time, the Holy Spirit calls those chosen and for whom Christ has died to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of the gospel.  Those not chosen are left where they are, already under the just condemnation of God for their sin in Adam, as well as their actual sins.  

Paul is very clear in Romans 8:28-30 that those chosen are called, those called are justified, and those justified are glorified.  There is not an antecedent will, in which God calls all, but consequently wills to save only those who believe.  Nothing like this can be found anywhere in the biblical text.  Any conception of multiple decrees raises the specter of conflicting wills within God himself—God wills to save all, and God wills to save only those who believe and who do not resist grace.  This obviously, cannot be the case and raises more questions and confusion than answers.

Rejection of the Errors by Which the Dutch Churches Have for Some Time Been Disturbed

The Canons of Dort not only set forth that which Reformed Christians are to believe about predestination and election--the affirmations stated in the first eighteen articles--but they also remind us of those errors that commonly arise in connection with these doctrines, and which are to be rejected.  The Canons do this in the form of “rejection of errors.”  

And so at this point, the Canons now address a series of doctrinal errors, which we as Reformed Christians are to reject.

It is also important to note that the rejection of errors as set forth by the Canons of Dort are much more complicated and technical than the affirmations about what we are to believe.  Sad to say, one of the common objections to the Reformed view of election and predestination is that the Reformed position is supposedly rationalistic, straying far afield from the text of Scripture through the sinful use of speculative human reason.  I think it will soon be very clear that the alternate views set forth by our Lutheran friends, or errors of the Arminians, are far more complex and rationalistic than anything put forth by the Reformed.


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 is one of the most common, and is quite typical of the garden variety Arminianism commonly taught by Evangelicals today. As we have seen in articles one-eighteen, the Bible teaches that election is based upon something good in God, namely his love for lost and fallen sinners.  Scripture very clearly teaches 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.  God's purpose in this is to save that multitude of sinners fallen in Adam, who are individually chosen to be saved according to God’s eternal purpose.  The number of those chosen 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 sees in 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, enabling them to do so.

Those who contend that God elects to save some, based upon his foreknowledge of how people will respond to the gospel when it is preached to them, frequently use the illustration that the decree of election is like a book which God has already read, or a movie that God has already seen.  In other words, God knows the final outcome in advance, and so when God choses the people he will save, he bases his decision upon the supposed free actions of his creatures.   In other words,  God knows in advance who will chose Christ when given the chance, and so he choses them.

This is fatally flawed for a number of reasons.  First, as the Canons note, those who are elect believe only because they were chosen by God, not the other way around.  People who are dead in sin cannot believe unless God makes them willing to believe, and so inclines their hearts through the preaching of the gospel.  Dead people do not live until they are resurrected (in effectual calling and regeneration)!  

Second, the book and movie analogy actually serves the Reformed cause, not the Arminian.  The more fundamental question is, “who wrote the book in the first place?”  "Who authored the screen play?"  "Who wrote the script?"  "Who made the cameras, the paper, the writer?"  The reason why God foreknows the future is not because he knows how things will play out, and then responds to what his creatures will do.  The reason God foreknows the action of his creatures is because God determines what the future holds.  He writes the plot and creates the characters!  

And so we must ask, is not easier to simply bow the knee and affirm what Scripture teaches--election does not depend upon the will of man, but upon the will of God.  As we read in John 1:12-13–“But 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”–and Romans 9:16–“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

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), which is the article dealing with how we as the people of God are to think about election.  There are at least four possible responses to this doctrine, though the canons take note only of two.  Let us begin by dealing with the two responses identified by the Canons.

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, we must deal with the fact that were it not for the electing grace of God, all of us would remain unbelievers, and under the just judgment of God.   

Most of our contemporaries refuse to start with the premise that the entire human race is sinful and fallen in Adam, and will not come to Christ unless God first changes our hearts, and inclines us to believe.  Starting with the egalitarian presupposition of American democracy–in this case that all of us are equally entitled to heaven until we do something to disqualify ourselves–of course, the doctrine of election sounds harsh and cruel.  To someone who comes to the discussion of sin and grace with the assumption that all of us are equally entitled to God's mercy, the teaching of election sounds as though God were depriving us of something to which we were rightly entitled.  

And so when such people complain about the “unfair” nature of election and reprobation, we ought to respond by reminding them that their starting point is incorrect—they have assumed something from the culture, which is not supported by biblical teaching (that all people are dead in sin and unable to come to faith on their own).  In election, God acts in grace and mercy, saving a multitude who would otherwise leap headlong into eternal punishment.  We must understand election as the act of gracious God, rescuing a countless multitude of people from eternal punishment, who, otherwise would not believe.

Another thing that must be considered is the question to which no one wants as answer-- “does not God have the right to do with his creatures as he sees fit?”  It is simply amazing to me that so many of  those who champion  human “free-will” ( the teaching that sin does not effect the way in which we make choices), at the same time argue that while we have free will to do what we want, that God does not have free will to do what he wants!  Thus, we do well when we kindly and charitably remind such people, “who are you--a sinful creature bound to time and space--to talk back to God?”

The second reaction that people may have to this teaching is identified by the Canons as that of humility before the sovereign God.  This is the response of someone who knows the depths of their own sin, and who realizes how much they owe to God as a result.  “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).  

Those who see that God's grace and mercy is wonderfully magnified by this doctrine, willingly bow the knee before God, and confess, “to him be glory forever!”  If we believe that we are dead in sin and can do nothing to save ourselves, how else can we react when we look back at this from the perspective of faith?  We realize that if this doctrine was not true, we too would be dead in sins and transgressions, and that we would have absolutely no interest in Jesus Christ.  If this doctrine were not true, we would have no hope of heaven, and no possibility of eternal life.  As Christians, we are to humbly bow the knee, and confess to our merciful God and savior, “not my will be done, but thine!”

A third reaction, which is not mentioned by the Canons, is one that we commonly find today, and that is apathy about the doctrine, or the denial of its importance.  Many people simply find this subject so difficult, and the division among Christians over this doctrine so troubling, that they will go to the greatest of lengths to avoid the subject all together.  Many are under the assumption that these are matters for debate among theologians, and that the doctrine of election has absolutely no bearing on the Christian life, one way or the other.  

But as Luther correctly pointed out, if we attribute any part of our salvation to an act of our will, we will to that degree, be plagued by doubts and fears, since are weak, sinful, and prone to doubt.  We will always wonder whether what we did was enough, or whether we have done it in the right way.  Thus the doctrine of election is necessary to for us to believe, not only because it is clearly taught in the Scriptures, but because it is also the very foundation of sola gratia.  Without being clear about who does what in the matter of our salvation, we will never be able to live in the comfort of God's grace, nor will we have the proper humility before God.  

How can we bow before our God and worship him as we ought, if we think we are worshiping him because of something good in us, namely our free will, which in this scheme somehow remains untainted by the fall and sin?  Only the justified sinner, who knows that he or she owes everything to God, can even begin to live a life of gratitude before him.  It was Shakespeare who said, “that word `grace’ on the lips of an ungrateful person, is profanity.”

A fourth possible reaction that people might have is one of confusion and intellectual torment.  This applies to those who are in the process of wrestling with these difficult issues and have not yet resolved them.  They still see truth in both sides, or they see the issues as somehow irresolvable at a fundamental level.  This is perhaps the worst condition of all, since it leaves a person in this position feeling as though the Scriptures are not clear, or as though they must live forever in the tension of not being able to solve the problem at hand. 

As Reformed Christians we must be very careful with people caught in this position.  We must take special care with them, answering their questions from the Scriptures as patiently, and as best we can.  We must also remind people in such a position that they should cling to what they do know to be true—namely that Christ died for sinners and that the Bible is true because Jesus Christ rose again from the dead—while they work through issues where they do not see as much clarity.  This is a very difficult position in which to find yourself.  The reason that we get ourselves into these situations is because sin effects our ability to interpret God's word, and not because God's word is not clear.  

We should always do as Calvin so wisely counseled, pray for illumination from the Holy Spirit so that we may read, understand, and handle the word of God correctly.  But nevertheless, those caught in this situation need to resolve it to the best of their ability and satisfaction, and then move on quickly, not dwelling upon the matter any more than is necessary.  Christians are most vulnerable to the whiles of Satan when they are in this very delicate position of doubt, and unresolved conviction about the deep matters of the Christian faith.

Article 17: The Salvation of the 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, unspeakable tragedies 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.  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 is the death of a child.  It is bad enough that children, now grown, must bury those who brought them into the world, and who have 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.

Having raised the brutal reality of the consequences of original sin (guilt, death, and final judgment), the authors of the Canons have also spoken of election (the exercise of God’s mercy) and reprobation (the exercise of God’s justice).  

But at this point, the Canons address the very difficult subject of what happens when infants and small children of believers die in infancy, or in their youth, without ever having made a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ.  Are we to consider such children as elect (and saved)?  Or as reprobate (and lost)?  Even framing the question like this makes us shudder, but it is a question we have all asked (if the truth be known), and the Canons do not shirk from answering it.

While most American evangelicals can fall back upon their Pelagianism and argue for the innocence of such children, we have already seen that the Scriptures do not allow us such an unbiblical escape.  If the Bible is clear about anything, it is clear that our children–however precious they are to us–are sinful from the time of  their conception (Psalm 51:5; 58:3).  Like their parents, they are by nature, children of wrath, and therefore subject to the curse, which is death (Romans 5:12).  

Despite the widely accepted American dogma of an “age of accountability”–that unspecified moment when children supposedly become responsible for their sins, and for any possible rejection of Christ–there is no such doctrine taught anywhere in Scripture.  Sadly, this unsupported dogma holds out the false promise of a salvation apart from Christ, and sets out the false hope that should our children die before they reach the age of accountability, they will automatically go to heaven, because they are “innocent” and never needed saving.

Realizing the myth of human innocence under any circumstances, the Canons point us to an even better source of comfort–not the supposed innocence of our children, but to the merciful God, who in Jesus Christ, provides the means of salvation for all of his elect, including the children of believers.  God’s grace may even extend to all those who die in infancy, but since Scripture is silent on this matter, and all we have is human opinion, we’ll leave that discussion for another time, as the Canons themselves wisely do.

According to the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 7:14), the children of believers (even if only one parent is a Christian) are holy.  They are “set apart” through the faith of a one believing parent, so that all promises made by God to his people under the covenant of grace apply to them.  If we are believers in Jesus Christ, without hesitation we affirm that our children are members of the covenant of grace, the promises of which are signed and sealed unto them though baptism.  As Christian parents, the Canons direct us to find comfort in the tragic case of the death of a child, in the fact that all of the promises of the covenant center in God’s unconditional promise, “I will be your God, and you will be my people.”  We need not count upon the false hope of the innocence of our child to save them.  No, we count on something much, much, greater–the mercies of God in Christ!  

It is because God is absolutely faithful to his covenant promises, and not because our children are somehow “innocent,” we can be confident that those children of believers who die in infancy are indeed numbered among the elect, and go to heaven when they die.  The Canons wisely counsel us not to doubt the election of such children, but to be absolutely confident of being joined with them eternally in the “age to come.”  Why?  Because of God’s covenant promise!  God's grace in Christ trumps human sin.

The promises God makes to us under the covenant of grace give us wonderful comfort in the darkest of moments.  These same promises remind us that God is gracious, and that death and the grave do not have the final word.  God will raise all his own from the dead, ensuring that all his people will one day bask in their promised inheritance together–the children with their parents–as they enjoy their eternal Sabbath rest in the presence of the Savior.

While the promise never removes the pain of death--this side of Christ's second coming--it certainly gives us a sure and certain hope.  Far better to count on the blood and righteousness of Christ, than on the supposed “innocence” of those we love.  And this is why we make our judgments from Scripture, where we find far better promises and a much greater hope.   For it is Scripture which promises us, that should our children die, they are even now beholding the face of that one who redeemed them with his precious blood.

Article 16: 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 are 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. 

If we were Christians suffering under the persecution of one Saul of Tarsus, we would find it very difficult to believe when we heard that such a notorious persectutor of the church was now proclaiming Christ crucified.  But God can save anyone he pleases.  There is also every possibility that we will see deathbed and foxhole conversions, in the cases of those people who do not embrace the Savior—either through sin or through carelessness—until the last possible moment.  The critical point here is that we cannot regard anyone from a worldly point of view, and declare them as “reprobate” until such time as they die rejecting the Savior.

And so, as the authors of the Canons point out—“such people [those who have yet come to saving faith] 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.”  We should exhort all those who do not yet profess faith in the Savior, to continue to attend to the means of grace, especially the proclamation of the word of God, to the end that they may make profession of faith in Christ and thereby be regarded as “professing members” of Christ’s church.

A second group of people identified by the Canons are those, who, “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.”  This group includes those who have made a “profession of faith,” but who still struggle with the assurance of salvation.  These are people with habitual sins, weak consciences, improper theological views of justification and sanctification, and who because of these circumstances, take the biblical teaching about reprobation to mean that they are not numbered among the elect.  Despite all of their efforts, because of the struggle with indwelling sin, they assume that they are in jeopardy of perishing eternally.  Such people live in constant fear and introspection.

Our response to such people is set out as follows:  “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.”  Indeed, as we have pointed out earlier, the struggle with sin, the dissatisfaction with our present level of sanctification, are actually signs that we are numbered among the elect, since those whom God has not chosen, and whom he has left in sin, never struggle with these questions.

A third group, is also identified by the authors of the Canons, and this is “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.”  Here, the Canons are referring to those who after professing faith or joining Christ’s church, then fall away.  These people are spoken of throughout the New Testament as follows.  In 1 John 2:19, John speaks of those who “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” 

The implication is clear.  They fell away because they were not “of us,” that is, they were not numbered among the elect.  They for a time professed faith, but eventually this profession was proven false.  In Galatians 5:4, Paul speaks of those “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”  Here, the apostle is speaking of those who will not give up their confidence in the merit of human good works.  In the worse case scenario, found in Hebrews 6:4-6, the author declares that “For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.”  This is what our Lord is describing in the parable of the sower, recorded in Matthew 13:3ff,

    And he told them many things in parables, saying: “A sower went out to sow.  And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them.  Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil,  but when the sun rose they were scorched. And since they had no root, they withered away.  Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them.  Other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. . . . “Hear then the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.  As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”

Some of those who profess faith are of the poor soil that our Lord describes here.  Faith may flourish for a time, but cannot ultimately take root because of sin and the cares of the world. 

With this last category, it is important to notice that we are not counseled to exercise the care we would with the previous two groups, since the goal here is to make perfectly clear to them the consequences of their actions, lest they not repent—“such people have every reason to stand in fear of this teaching, as long as they do not seriously turn to God.”  In this regard, we are to use the teaching of reprobation much as we would the preaching of the law, namely to terrify the conscience, and to drive them to Jesus Christ who is the mirror of election.  People in this category are not to be comforted, but warned!

The diverse nature of these three categories of individuals make it clear to us why we must exercise great care when we teach, preach and reflect upon this very difficult subject (reprobation).  But the general rule of thumb is clear.  Those who are indifferent to their sin need to be confronted by the law and the fact of the final judgment.  Those wrestling with the guilt of sin, need to hear the gospel, over and over again.  They need to participate in the means of grace, because it is through these things that God strengthens faith and confirms our election.