The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Refutation of Errors, Article Six

Synod condemns the errors of those . . .

VI Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.
_________________________________

In order to use biblical terminology about the cross, while at the same time denying that the death of Christ is a true satisfaction for sins, as well as a literal payment of our debt to God, Arminians will contend that the death of Christ is “for all,” but “not all” are forgiven until the merits of Christ are appropriated by the sinner through an exercise of the will.

To explain how this can be, the Arminian sets up a scheme in which the death of Christ is said to be for all, but is not effectual for any until it is actually "appropriated"–i.e, the death of Christ does not accomplish redemption for anyone, but has the potential to save everyone who believes. This means that only those who exercise their free-will and believe the gospel are saved, since the atonement is only provisory and ineffectual until actually appropriated.

This enables the Arminian to argue for a doctrine of grace alone, connect salvation to the death of Christ, and still champion justification by faith alone.  But this is theological smoke and mirrors.  In the words of one sage, this is mere “word magic.”

As the Canons point out, the very idea that the death of Christ is “for all” but only in a provisional sense and, therefore, truly effective for none until it is appropriated, is mere sophistry and simply confuses those who have never thought about the issue from a biblical perspective.

As the Canons have repeatedly made plain, the Bible never speaks of a provisional atonement, generic grace, or a prevenient grace which remits the guilt of original sin and restores freedom of the will to all. The Scriptures speak only of an effectual satisfaction of God’s wrath made by Christ on behalf of those specific individuals given him by the Father.

In Reformed theology Christ’s atonement is not made effectual by the sinners “appropriation” of it through an act of will.  Rather, the merits of Christ are applied by the Holy Spirit to the sinner, who then receives the merit of Christ through faith alone--that faith being the gift from God (Ephesians 2:8) arising through the preaching of the word (Romans 10:17).

If the Arminian is correct, sinners are not saved through the cross and the merits of Christ, but are saved by an exercise of the sinful human will, since the cross is ineffectual until it is appropriated.  Again, no matter how loudly the Arminian champions "grace alone" and "faith alone", in the Arminian scheme it is an act of the will and not the death of Christ which actually saves! This is nothing but the pure poison of Pelagianism.

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Refutation of Errors, Article Five

Synod condemns the error of those . . .

V Who teach that all people have been received into the state of reconciliation and into the grace of the covenant, so that no one on account of original sin is liable to condemnation, or is to be condemned, but that all are free from the guilt of this sin.

For this opinion conflicts with Scripture which asserts that we are by nature children of wrath.
________________________________

This error is yet another fruit of the governmental theory of the atonement as championed by many Arminians. The Arminian Articles of 1610 put it this way: “Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and every man, so that he hath obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer.”

This gets us right back to the root of the whole problem--the nature of God’s justice, as well as the design of the atonement.  For the Arminian, the atonement reconciles entire the world to God, redeems the world unto God, and provides for the forgiveness of sin for each and every person who has lived in each and every age.  Even the guilt of original sin is supposedly remitted!

But under the terms of the Arminian doctrine, the atonement--while having the potential to save everyone--saves not one particular individual.  Indeed, countless millions of those whom Christ has reconciled, redeemed, and forgiven, will perish anyway--and this despite the fact that all of this has been done for them freely by Christ. 

On the Arminian scheme, people do not perish because of their guilt before God--this has been removed by Christ's death--but because they used their freewill to reject what was done for them.  So, to put it another way, people suffer the consequences of their own actual sins, as well as for the sin of unbelief.  This makes unbelief that one sin which Christ's death cannot remit.  It seems to me that this is the one sin which actually condemns us (if Arminianism be consistent).

This scheme is passed off as supposedly magnifying God’s love, justice, and fairness to his creatures.  Theoretically, no one is left out.  Those who suffer eternal loss do so because they choose not to believe, and thereby exclude themselves from the benefits of Christ's death.  No one is unjustly punished for the sins of another.  And God is not being unfair, since everyone is potentially reconciled, redeemed, and forgiven.  Men and women perish eternally, not because they are guilty, but because they choose not to believe.

The problem with this is that this entire scheme is a gigantic mirage, even though biblical texts are actually cited by the Arminians.  As we have seen, what does the Arminian do with John 10 and 17, Ephesians 1 and 2, Romans 8:28-30, and a host of other such passages, which do indeed teach that God’s saving operations are directed to the specific individuals whom he does intend to save?  There are no texts anywhere in the Bible which teach an impersonal and generic plan of redemption!  And what about all of those texts we have already covered which teach that even after the death of Christ, we are still by nature children of wrath, and therefore subject to the just condemnation of God (i.e. Ephesians 2:1, 6; Colossians 2:13)?

But wait a minute, the Arminian will plead! What about 2 Corinthians 5:19 and Romans 5:18-19, where Paul supposedly clearly teaches that Christ’s death remits all sin, without exception?

Let us look at these in some detail.  In 2 Corinthians 5:17 and following, Paul writes, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.  The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” To start with, the passage is referring to those who are “in Christ.”  They participate the new creation, that is, in the age of salvation brought by Christ.  Those in Christ no longer belong to the old age—the age of works righteousness, they belong to the new age of resurrection life.  Says Paul in v. 18-19, “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” 

If by “the world”, Paul means each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age, why are any lost, since their sins are not counted against them?  Where in this text does Paul speak of the atonement in Arminian terms—God potentially reconciles all people, provided they believe? Paul says God has reconciled us!

This becomes especially clear in the latter part of the verse (and also in verse 20) when Paul connects God’s reconciliation in Christ with preaching: “entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”  If you are in Christ, you are reconciled.  If you are not in Christ, you are not reconciled.

How would the command to “be reconciled” make any sense on the Arminian scheme, since supposedly this has already been done for everyone without exception.  Paul’s command should be “choose not to be unreconciled!!!”  The particular nature of Paul’s words are very clear in verse 21. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”  Note again the particular language that the apostle uses. God made Christ to be sin for our sake—i.e., the elect, those chosen in Christ, not generically for the world.  And note carefully, we became the righteousness of God in Christ. Again this passage clearly teaches that Paul has in mind a specific group that are reconciled in Christ, and that the message of reconciliation is to be proclaimed to all, since as you may recall, God has connected the ends—the salvation of his elect—with the means, the preaching of the gospel.

The Arminian notion that this passage teaches a universal remission of sin is simply not here.

Paul also says in Romans 5:18-19 that “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.” 

First, the text clearly teaches something that is completely foreign to the Arminian scheme, namely that the actions of one [obedience or disobedience], whether that be Adam or Christ [on behalf of the two covenants and eschatological ages they represent], can be imputed or reckoned to another.  This is a death blow to the Arminian system which has argued that such representation is “unfair” and “unbiblical.”

The passage also teaches that through the one man’s disobedience, “the many” were made [declared] sinners. That is, through Adam’s act of disobedience, the many—all those represented by Adam under the covenant of works and who are enslaved under “this age”—were made, or better, declared sinners. This is also fatal to the Arminian notion of individual responsibility with no corporate solidarity.  The passage also teaches that through one act of sin all people were condemned, which is yet another problem for the Arminian conception of the justice of God!

Who is in view, then, when Paul says that through the obedience of one there was now life for all and righteousness for the many?  The answer is simple.  Paul is speaking in terms of two covenants.  The first is a covenant of works in which Adam represents all men and women without exception.  The second is a covenant of grace, made with Christ on behalf of the elect.  The “all" here is simply referring to all those in Christ.  If not, we have a universal justification of all men and women who have ever lived, in each and every age, without exception!  If the Arminians are correct, people are then lost and punished eternally after they have been justified.  That makes no sense.

The Arminian interpretation of these passages undoes the force of Paul’s analogy between Christ and Adam as the federal heads of two distinct covenants.  Thus the Arminian notion of a universal remission of original guilt is not found in Romans 5:12-19 either!

Therefore, the authors of the Canons are correct to assert that the Arminian “opinion conflicts with Scripture which asserts that we are by nature children of wrath.”

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Refutation of Errors, Article Four

Synod condemns the error of those . . .

IV. Who teach that what is involved in the new covenant of grace which God the Father made with men through the intervening of Christ's death is not that we are justified before God and saved through faith, insofar as it accepts Christ's merit, but rather that God, having withdrawn his demand for perfect obedience to the law, counts faith itself, and the imperfect obedience of faith, as perfect obedience to the law, and graciously looks upon this as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

For they contradict Scripture: They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ, whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood (Rom. 3:24-25). And along with the ungodly Socinus, they introduce a new and foreign justification of man before God, against the consensus of the whole church.

_________________________________

Although it is easy to overlook, one thing we must be clear about is the fact that the Arminian view of the justice of God and the nature of the atonement, inevitably distort the Reformed and biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.

The Arminian does so by defining justification in such as way that the biblical ground of the doctrine (the imputed righteousness of Christ) is transformed into a doctrine of human merit. This can be a difficult point to prove, because Arminians use the biblical language of forgiveness, imputation, and “faith alone.”  But all of these terms are redefined in a manner which does not comport with the biblical usage of these words, nor with the doctrine of the Reformers.

According to the Arminian system, justification must be understood as follows. All men and women have a universal tendency toward sinfulness.  But the death of Christ secures a prevenient grace for all men and women, which enables all men and women to use their free-will to seek after God and righteousness, and then come to Christ in faith.  Since God has arbitrarily decided that he will regard the blood of a sacrificial victim as a sufficient demonstration of his love and justice (thereby allowing him to remit sin), he has also determined that when someone exercises faith in Christ, he will arbitrarily regard the exercise of faith as though it (i.e., a person’s faith) were righteousness.

In the Arminian scheme, God regards the faith of the sinner as though it were “imputed righteousness.”  This enables the Arminian to say that we are saved by “grace alone” (since prevenient grace supposedly enables all to use their free-will and believe) and by “faith alone” and not by good works (since God has determined to regard the exercise of faith as righteousness).

From the Reformed perspective, the Arminian scheme completely undercuts “grace alone” (since grace is non-specific, non-effectual, and simply enables people to exercise their free-will) as well as justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone (since faith as instrument does not receive the saving benefits of Christ secured by his active and passive obedience, but is instead the one work that we must do, and when we perform that work, God regards it as righteousness).

To put it yet another way, faith is not the means through which God reckons to us the righteousness of another (in this case, the righteousness of Christ).  Instead, God regards the act of faith (or the presence of faith) as though it were righteousness. This amounts to a denial of what the Reformers taught, as well as a denial of the teaching that we are justified by the righteousness of another, namely Christ’s righteousness earned through his active obedience.

The Arminian can do this, and still use biblical language since Arminianism has always been quite successful in redefining the biblical terms, and because the whole Arminian scheme is not based upon the necessity of the satisfaction of God’s retributive justice, but upon God’s arbitrary decision to display his love and justice in the cross.  For the Arminian, if God can arbitrarily determine that the death of Christ satisfies God’s need for justice and displays his love, God can also arbitrarily determine that he will regard our exercise of faith as though it were righteousness.

For the Reformed Christian, the death of Christ is a necessity if any are to be saved, because God’s justice must be satisfied and our debt to him must be paid in full.  If we are to be regarded as righteous before him, we must have the guilt of our sin removed, and we must have a perfect righteousness imputed to us, so that when God acquits us, he does so because his justice is satisfied, and because the sinner can be truly called righteous because he or she possesses the righteousness of none other than Christ himself!

The Arminian system has no real need for an active obedience of Christ in fulfilling all righteousness during his earthly ministry.  This is why living the Christian life is popularly described in terms of using our free-will to follow in Jesus’ footsteps, and in “doing what Jesus would do.”  This view does not see the Christian life as a life lived in obedience to the law as a rule of gratitude, but Christians must do as Jesus did so as to continue on in the righteousness we have earned in order not to be lost eternally.

In crasser forms of the Arminian scheme, the life of Christ is primarily an example for us follow, and is not seen as the Reformed have understood it, namely as the mediator of the covenant of works, come to earth to fulfill all righteousness in his own perfect obedience to the Law, which is then reckoned to the sinner.  This also means that the Arminian has no real necessity of the passive obedience of Christ, wherein Jesus willingly offers himself up for our sins.  For the Arminian, the atonement is not effectual, but only provisory, and therefore not necessary, but arbitrary.  We really are talking about two distinct religious systems here, and these two can mix as little as fire and water.

When evangelicals talk about being a “four-point” Calvinist, or even worse, when they identify themselves as “Calminian,” it is clear that they have never thought about these matters in a systematic, or comprehensive way. The Reformed starting point (today depravity) leads to a system in which it is sovereign grace which necessarily saves from beginning to end.  If your fundamental assumption is that you must begin with human freedom–as it is in Arminianism–synergism is the necessary outcome.

The Reformed are quite correct to remind the Arminian that this teaching does indeed “contradict Scripture.”  For the bible declares that men and women “are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ, whom God presented as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood (Rom. 3:24-25). And along with the ungodly Socinus, they introduce a new and foreign justification of man before God, against the consensus of the whole church.”

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors, Article Three

Synod condemns those . . .

III Who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them.

For they have too low an opinion of the death of Christ, do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.
_________________________________

The third error promulgated by the Dutch Arminians to be dealt with by the authors of the Canons, is an error which is also tied to the modified governmental theory of the atonement, typical of Dutch Arminianism.  As devotees of the governmental theory see it, the death of Christ does not merit or accomplish anything in particular. Rather, through the death of Christ, God’s love and moral governorship of the universe is displayed, since the death of Christ supposedly shows us how seriously God regards human sinfulness.

As the Arminian theologian Limborch states, “the death of Christ is called a satisfaction for sin; but sacrifices are not payments of debts, nor are they full satisfactions for sins; but a gratuitous remission is granted when they are offered.” Notice the slippery use of language by the Arminian, since the Arminian declares that the death of Christ is a "satisfaction."  But when doing so, they mean something far different than do the Reformed and the biblical writers when they use the same term. For Limborch and the Arminians, “the atonement is a satisfaction.” But it is a "satisfaction" because it demonstrates how seriously God takes sin, and because God has arbitrarily determined to accept it as such.

Notice in the Arminian scheme what the atonement is not. The death of Christ is not the payment in full of the debt we owe to satisfy God's holy justice because of our sins.  Nor is the atonement a payment for sin which is in any sense directly connected to the retributive justice of God--in which sin must be punished to the exact degree that it is an offence to God's holiness.

Remember, the Reformed have previously argued in great detail that even a single sin requires infinite punishment, since even a single sin is an offence to God’s infinite holiness. For the Arminian, however, God arbitrarily decides to accept the sacrifice of Christ as a "satisfaction," just as he arbitrarily decided to accept the blood of bulls as a sacrifice for sin under the Old Covenant.  These are not seen as a payment, or necessary to satisfy his retributive justice. Instead, God’s arbitrary decision to accept these things means that the purpose of the sacrifice and the satisfaction is simply to demonstrate that God takes sin seriously, and that in the cross his justice is displayed.  In the Arminian scheme, there is no necessity whatsoever for Christ to die if sinners are to be saved.  The cross may be the best way, but not the only way.

An additional bit of fall-out from Arminian's governmental theory of the atonement arbitrarily linking the death of Christ to God’s saving purpose, is now addressed by the Canons. This is the notion that the atonement is not necessary if any are to be saved, and that the death of Christ is not required to secure faith for the elect.  According to the Arminians, even after the Fall, men and women supposedly retain some measure of free-will. 

In classical Arminianism, the cross, as a demonstration of God’s love and justice, is not effectual, only provisory.  Since the atonement secures prevenient grace for all, the Arminian contends that the death of Christ is for all people in general, but for no one in particular.  Therefore, the cross of Christ does nothing for anyone until such time as a person uses their free-will and "appropriates" and "co-operates" with this universal grace, which then enables them to come to faith. This means that the death of Christ is of no avail for anyone.  It merely makes provision for all who choose to believe. Those who use their free-will and co-operate with grace, can thereby come to faith in Christ, and finally receive the benefits of his death. This, of course, finds no support in Scripture.

As we have seen throughout Dort's Second Head of Doctrine, the saving operations of God are nowhere in Scripture said to be directed to the world in general, but always directed to the specific individuals whom God intends to save. We have also seen that the Scriptures teach that the wills of all men and women are not free, but remain in bondage to the sinful nature. Therefore, they cannot exercise their free-will and come to faith in Christ, since they are enslaved to sin. They do not want to believe the gospel, nor embrace the Savior through faith.

The Scriptures clearly teach that until we are “made alive in Christ” (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13), until we are drawn to Christ (John 6:44; 65), until we are born again (John 3:3-6), and unless and until we are transformed from bad trees into good trees, we cannot believe (Matthew 7:15 ff). It is the death of Christ, which, in a certain sense can be said to purchase faith for the elect.  This does not mean that God believes for the person who comes to faith, but it does mean that God alone can change the human heart from a heart of stone into a heart of flesh.  God alone can change us from a tree which can only bear bad fruit, into a tree which bears fruit in keeping with repentance.  He does this for all those for whom Christ has died.  In that sense then, it is the death of Christ which secures for the elect faith and repentance, since it is the death of Christ which effectually turns aside God’s wrath toward his elect, thereby enabling him to grant them eternal life and the new birth, which inevitably manifests itself in conversion, i.e., “faith and repentance.”

And yet the Arminian stubbornly refuses to admit this.  They cling to the notion that for the cross of Christ to be of any benefit whatsoever, the sinner must use their own free-will and "appropriate" the death of Christ and apply its saving benefit to themselves.  What the Arminian will not accept is that this is the very thing sinners cannot do!  Paul puts it rather plainly, I think.  “No one seeks for God” (Romans 3:11).

Fortunately, the Scriptures tell us that it is God who seeks sinners.  He seeks them through the proclamation of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:18 ff), which effectually secures for God’s elect—all those who believe—a satisfaction of God’s wrath and anger toward these elect sinners, thereby purchasing faith and repentance for all of his elect.

Arminians leave us with a God who cannot save unless we willingly co-operate with his grace.  They leave us with a cross that does not forgive our sins until we appropriate it for ourselves.  The Arminian atonement only makes provision for us to use our free-will and come to Christ.  Therefore, the Arminian has “too low an opinion of the death of Christ.”  They “do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.”

While this was certainly a problem in 17th century Holland, one liberal Protestant theologian has written this about our own age--“America is very much in favor of this Pelagian idea that every individual can always make a new beginning, that he is able by his individual freedom to make decisions for and against the divine.” The transformation of much of Evangelical theology into psychology--coupled with the American notion that the essence of all religion is to be located in personal morality and spirituality and is not a matter of belief and doctrine--is also a pernicious fruit of the Pelagian heresy. Since “Pelagianism said that good and evil are performed by us; they are not given. If this is true, then religion is in danger of being transformed into morality” (Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, 124-125).

If Christianity is essentially a matter of the exercise of the will, and the focus falls upon the correct choice, it is almost inevitable that Christianity will degenerate into a system of ethics without emphasis upon a preached gospel.

This certainly helps explain, in part, why so much of the American religion focuses upon choices and action (not sin and grace), and why the Reformed distinctives of total depravity, unconditional election, and particular redemption, rub against the deepest grain of the fabric of American life, which is intrinsically optimistic and Pelagian.

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors, Article Two

Synod condemns the errors of those . . .

II Who teach that the purpose of Christ's death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.

For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ has become the guarantee and mediator of a better--that is, a new-covenant (Heb. 7:22; 9:15), and that a will is in force only when someone has died (Heb. 9:17).
_______________________________

The Canons now turn to some of the more technical and specific errors of the Dutch Arminians. The first of these errors is the Arminian notion that the death of Christ did not actually establish a covenant of grace between God and his elect, but that the atonement merely makes a provision for God into enter into a covenant with his creatures on the ground of God's choosing—whether that be faith or works.

This is fallout from the Arminian view of the atonement, which is really a species of what is known as the governmental theory of the atonement, in which the death of Christ supposedly demonstrates God’s love, along with his right to order his universe as he sees fit.  In this scheme, the cross of Christ is not seen as a satisfaction of God’s justice, and therefore, a necessary act if sinners are to be saved.  Instead, the cross is instead understood in terms of God’s arbitrary decree that a sacrificial death would be accepted as a payment for sin.

This means that it was not necessary for Christ to die if God’s elect were to be saved, but that God determined to do things in this way, since his rule over the universe, and his love for sinners would be most clearly manifest.  In other words, God as the moral governor of his universe, saw fit to save in this way.  But he was under absolutely no necessity of doing so.

Let us be careful to not lose sight of the forest through the trees. The essence of the Arminian view of the cross is that the death of Christ is not a satisfaction of God’s justice in punishing sin—the Arminians believe this would make God a cruel God who must exact his pound of flesh.  The cross is a demonstration of God’s love for a lost and fallen world, as well as a display of his wisdom and justice. God did not have to save sinners in this way, but he did determine that if he were to save, this would be the best way to do it.

This view stands in sharp contrast to the Reformed view, in which it is argued that God did not have to save any, but in his grace he determined to save some, and once he did so, the cross was the only possible way for any to be saved because God’s holy justice must be satisfied. While no Reformed Christ would want to argue that the death of Christ was anything less than a picture of God’s love for a lost and fallen world, the cross is certainly that and more. For the cross is also a glorious demonstration of God’s justice in punishing Christ for the sins of the elect. In the cross both the love and justice of God is openly displayed for all to see. We need not, as the Arminian does, sacrifice God’s justice to supposedly magnify God’s love.

For the Arminian, the cross of Christ is not at all necessary. The death of our Lord is merely the best way among a number of possible choices for God to display his love and moral governorship over the world that he has made. Therefore, it was not necessary for Christ to die.  Rather, it was an arbitrary choice on God’s part, and this means was chosen since it accomplished what God wanted to accomplish.

Let us be perfectly clear here. The Arminian notion of the death of Christ cannot at all be seen to magnify the love of God, since if there were any other way to save, and then God sent Christ to die in unspeakable anguish, God is not loving, but utterly cruel.  In demonstrating the weakness of this position, one theologian uses the following analogy.  It would make no sense at all for someone's parents to kill their siblings in their presence as a means of demonstrating how much they loved them, and to demonstrate how seriously they regarded their sin.

Basically, that is the Arminian view of the cross. Christ dies a horrific death to show God’s love and moral governorship, yet the cross does not actually accomplish anything or satisfy God’s wrath and anger toward sin. So, while the Arminian argues that the Reformed Christian believes in a cruel God who elects some and not others, a God who must exact a precise payment for sin, in reality it is the Arminian who has a cruel God.  The Arminian God punishes his own son, needlessly, when there were other possible ways to do the same thing. As B. B. Warfield once reminded us, if the cross were not necessary to satisfy God’s justice, why did God not accept some other way, such as our repentance or our good works. God could have done so, and accomplished the same thing without Christ having to die? That these possible ways of salvation were not chosen, shows how arbitrary the whole Arminian conception actually is.

To be more specific, the section of the refutation of errors is dealing with the fact that the Dutch Arminians were arguing that the covenant of grace was just such an arbitrary way for God to save his people. God arbitrarily determined that the death of Christ would establish the covenant of grace as the best way for God to save. But the Canons are quick to note that the Scriptures speak of Christ’s mediatorial work, not as an arbitrary decision by God, but as an absolute necessity if any were to be saved. “For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ has become the guarantee and mediator of a better--that is, a new-covenant (Heb. 7:22; 9:15), and that a will is in force only when someone has died (Hebrews 9:17).”

Here again, the critical factor is this.  Why does Christ die?  According to the Reformed Christian, Christ's death is a necessity, and it is absolutely effectual in that it accomplished exactly what God intends--the salvation of his elect. But for the Arminian, the death of Christ is arbitrary and merely provisory.

Clearly, we are dealing with two different approaches to the gospel.  In the Reformed estimation, God’s grace and love are magnified in the fact that he goes to such remarkable lengths to satisfy his justice toward sinners who do not all at deserve it.  This preserves grace alone.  The other way is that of the Arminian, who argues that Christ did not need to die, but that God thought it the best means of enticing sinners to exercise their free-will and believe in Christ. Since the latter is “synergistic,” grace alone is sacrificed, and the cross does not actually save anyone.

Sadly, this is the religion of modern America and it fails miserably to account for all the Scriptural teaching about the death of Christ.

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors, Article One (part two)

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

I. Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.

For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the Church.

_________________________________

Part Two (Click here: Riddleblog - The Latest Post - The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors, Article One (part one)

A second presupposition we must consider is the Arminian conception of the fall of Adam and the doctrine of prevenient grace. For the Arminian, the fall of Adam introduced sin into the world, in terms of Adam’s bad example (in the more crass Pelagian versions) and in the universal human tendency toward sinfulness. The problem is that this seriously underestimates and depreciates what the Scriptures actually teach about human sinfulness.

The fall of Adam does not merely leave us with the bad example of Adam for all of his children to follow. Nor does the fall introduce a universal tendency toward sin. When Adam fell into sin, he plunged the entire world into guilt and condemnation. Furthermore, Adam's act of disobedience was imputed, or reckoned, to all of his descendants, since Adam acted for us and in our place as our federal head (cf. Romans 5:12-19). This means were are guilty for Adam’s act of sin (by imputation).  We are all born with something much worse than a mere tendency to sin. We are guilty before God since Adam acted on our behalf as our representative. In fact, according to the Scriptures, if left to ourselves we can do nothing but sin. As we have seen, the Canons have already set forth this point in some detail.

With these two presuppositions in place, the Arminian necessarily begins the discussion of sin and redemption with an overly optimistic assessment of human nature. According to Arminians, the fall is real and serious. The fall does indeed create in human nature a tendency toward evil, but the fall does not leave us totally enslaved to sin, and therefore unable to do any good at all, as the Reformed believe (and as Scripture teaches).

Directly connected to this conception of the fall is the Arminian teaching regarding what is commonly called “prevenient grace.” As the Arminian sees it, Adam’s descendants are born with the tendency toward sin, and by acting upon this tendency, we incur God’s wrath because of our actual sins. But since God is gracious, God grants to all men and women a measure of grace which enables them to believe in Christ despite this tendency to sin. In the words of one Methodist theologian, prevenient grace is necessarily connected to the death of Christ. “Human will, because of the Fall is not free, but through Christ’s atoning work there is a universal grace which restores human freedom” (Thomas Langford, Practical Divinity: Theology in the Wesleyan Tradition, 33).

Through the death of Christ, God is able to provide a measure of grace for all, which enables men and women (if only they will) to overcome their tendency toward sin, and to come to faith in Christ. This supposedly gives the Arminian the ability to argue for both universal human sinfulness (because of the fall) and universal grace which is secured through the cross of Christ.

But as B. B. Warfield once pointed out, when you look at this closely, the Arminian’s assertion of grace alone is strictly theoretical. When “push comes to shove” we are still left with the teaching that those who are saved, are saved not because God saved them when they were dead in sin, but because they used their free will to take advantage of God’s “provisional” grace so as save themselves with God’s help! There is simply no way around the fact that in the Arminian system if anyone is to be saved, it is because they used their free will to co-operate with God’s provision in Christ, no matter how loudly they may declare that they believe in “grace alone.”

The Reformed Christian is correct to remind the Arminian that they will have a very difficult time finding even a single biblical text which remotely hints at an ineffectual, provisional and prevenient grace, which enables us to save ourselves. As we have seen, the Arminian will look in vain for a single biblical text which attributes to the fallen human will the ability to come to Christ apart from a prior act of God upon the sinner. For Paul it is as simple as “but God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved” (Ephesians 2:1-5; Colossians 2:13).

The Reformed distinctive that God’s redemptive acts are directed to the specific individuals whom he intends to save, is found throughout the Scriptures. As we have seen in Ephesians 1, Paul is clearly speaking of specific individuals who have been chosen “in Christ” from before the foundation of the world. As Paul puts it here, God chose us before the world began in Christ to be holy and blameless. In love, we are told, God predestined us and in Jesus Christ we have redemption from our sins through the shedding of his blood. Paul goes on to say that those same ones chosen in Christ, and redeemed by his blood, are the same ones sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. Not only does this passage point out the Trinitarian nature of salvation—the Father decrees to save his elect, the Son accomplishes redemption for those who the Father chooses, and the Spirit applies Christ’s benefits to those who the Father has chosen and for whom the Son has died—it also clearly teaches that there is a specific group in view who are chosen, redeemed and sealed.

In this passage we clearly see that redemption is on behalf of those chosen in Christ to be holy and blameless. These are specific individuals in view—those chosen by the Father—not the “world” generically. We see nothing of the Arminian scheme here which would have us to believe that the Father wants to save all, but can only save those who exercise their free will. The Son dies for all, effectually saves none, and who’s death can only be of avail for those who use their free will to come to him in faith. The Spirit calls all, but the only ones who come are those who are willing and who let the Holy Spirit have his way with them. This is, of course, patently absurd, but is what the Arminian believes.

The same emphasis upon the salvation of specific individuals is found in Romans 8:28-30 in what is often called the “golden chain” of salvation. As Paul declares: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”

Here again we see a group of specific individuals that God has foreknown (i.e., “foreloved”), which corresponds perfectly to the same group described by Paul in Ephesians 1 as those “chosen in Christ.” These same individuals are also said to be predestined, called, justified and glorified. The same people who are foreknown by God, are the same people whom he brings safely to glorification. Again, there is nothing approaching the Arminian scheme in the passage here in which God foreknows those who will use their free-will to believe, and only then are they said to be predestined. There is nothing here of a calling which is ineffectual or dependent upon the will of a fallen rebel in Adam. Paul knows nothing of a verdict of not-guilty, which can subsequently be reversed if the justified sinner commits certain sins or else ceases to believe. For Paul, all those foreknown by God, will end up being glorified. It is clear, then, that God directs his grace specifically to the individuals he intends to save.

John 17 is also replete with multiple references in which Jesus speaks of a certain and definite number of people given him by the Father before the world began. Indeed, Jesus says that he has revealed himself not to the world, “provisionally,” but effectually to those “whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word” (John 17:6). There is clearly a certain and specific number of individuals involved—those given him by the Father. As Jesus himself goes on to say in his prayer, “I pray for them,” that is for those given to him by the Father, but “I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.” It is clear from our Lord’s great high-priestly prayer that from eternity past the Father has given a definite and certain number of sinners to Jesus Christ (the elect) and that our Lord’s redemptive work is to accomplish what is necessary for them to be saved. Jesus is quite clear here. I am not praying for the world but for those given me by the Father. At least in our Lord’s mind, his redemptive work was to be performed not for the world generically or impersonally, but specifically for those given him by his Father.

This conception also helps explain that a text such as 1 John 2:2, which is often considered by Arminians to be the death knell of Calvinism, is in fact, additional evidence that the Reformed understanding of the death of Christ is indeed the biblical one. As John says, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Here John says, Jesus’ death is for the sins of the whole world. How, then, can the Reformed understanding of the atonement be true? Christ dies for all. Right?

But consider the passage more closely. John is describing our Lord’s priestly office and he specifically says that Jesus is the paracletos, the “defense attorney” or “counselor” who speaks to the Father in our defense. Several things are in view here. First, John says that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins. A propitiation is an offering made to appease the wrath of an angry god. In this case, the death of Jesus is said to turn aside God’s wrath towards sinners. There is not even the slightest hint here that Jesus makes some kind of “provision” for sinners, since John says that his death actually and effectually turns aside God’s wrath toward those for whom he is dying. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins.

So what is the result if the Arminian position that Christ dies for all without exception is indeed the correct interpretation of 1 John 2:2? First of all it means that Jesus dies to turn aside God’s wrath toward all sinners, but that all sinners are not saved. This means that either Jesus’ death cannot cover certain sins such as unbelief, when John says that Jesus died for “all of our sins” which seems to admit of no exception, including the sin of unbelief, or else, we must conclude that Christ turns aside God’s wrath toward sinners who then perish eternally after God’s wrath toward them has been turned away.

Think about this carefully for a minute. For the Arminian, Jesus dies for people he does not actually save. If Jesus dies for someone’s sins but they die in unbelief and are lost, then either Christ’s death is not sufficient to remove all sin, or else the person is punished for their own sins after Christ has supposedly paid for them on the cross. If this is true, we cannot at all say that it is Christ’s death which saves us. The Arminian scheme necessarily moves the ground of our salvation away from the death of Christ to our act of faith which appropriates the death of Christ. This obviously creates tremendous problems!

Second, as the high priest, Jesus not only lays down his life as a propitiation, but he also is the advocate or defense attorney for all those for whom he dies. John clearly indicates that Jesus intercedes for those for whom he dies. If he dies for all without exception he intercedes for all without exception. But consider the following dilemma raised by the Arminian notion of a conditional and provisory salvation. Can Jesus’ prayers go answered by the Father? Can Jesus pray for someone, and not have the Father answer the prayer of his own dear Son? Indeed, let us not forget that John has already noted that our Lord does not pray for the world generically, but only for those given to him by the Father.

In fact, in the very same Epistle of First John, John says, using the exact same phrase, that “the whole world” is under the control of the evil one (John 5:19). Now we must ask, “can the phrase `the whole world,’ as used in this verse actually mean each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age?” Is each and every person who has ever lived in each and every age under the control of the evil one? Of course not. John uses the term rhetorically in 1 John 5:19 to mean a “great many” or a “vast amount.” This then, is how we must view the phrase the “whole world,” in 1 John 2:2. Jesus died for our sins, and not only for ours, but for those of a great many scattered throughout the world. And for these, his propitiatory death and high priestly intercession are indeed effectual.

Consider the Arminian alternative. Jesus dies for people he does not save. His death does not save. Even worse, our Lord intercedes for those for whom he dies but his prayer for them is not answered and they perish anyway. Thus, what may appear at first glance to be text which supports the Arminian understanding of the gospel, actually exposes the weakness of the entire Arminian scheme.

This is why the authors of the Canons insist that we declare that Jesus died for a fixed number of people that he knew by name from before the foundation of the world, namely the elect. If not, the very work of Christ is called into question and the ground of salvation is moved from the cross to our faith. This is injurious to the character of the gospel itself. As the authors put it, “the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10).”

Either God alone saves, or else God requires our help. And this is where Arminianism inevitably leads us.

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Rejection of Errors, Article One (part one)

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

I. Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ's death obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual fact been applied to any individual.

For this assertion is an insult to the wisdom of God the Father and to the merit of Jesus Christ, and it is contrary to Scripture. For the Savior speaks as follows: I lay down my life for the sheep, and I know them (John 10:15, 27). And Isaiah the prophet says concerning the Savior: When he shall make himself an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days, and the will of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10). Finally, this undermines the article of the creed in which we confess what we believe concerning the Church.

_________________________________

In rejecting the Arminian errors regarding the death of Christ, the authors of the Canons now turn to the weakest point in the so-called “universal atonement” position. In the Arminian scheme of redemption, the death of Christ does not actually save any of those for whom Christ is said to have died. What many regard as the strength of the Arminian view–its univeralism and emphasis upon the assertion that “Christ died for all” without exception–is seen by the Reformed not as a strength, but as a serious departure from biblical teaching.  Yes, the Scriptures teach that Christ died for all those given him by the father.  The Scriptures do not teach that Jesus' death makes the entire world potentially "saveable."

Exposing this error is what the authors of the Canons are getting at when they state the error in view is the Arminian notion that God supposedly appointed Christ to die for sinners, yet without any fixed or definite plan to save any one particular sinner by name. Under the Arminian conception of salvation, the death of Christ said to be “for all,” because the atonement only makes the entire world “savable” upon the condition of faith in Christ.  But notice that the death of Christ does not actually save anyone. In this scheme, the atonement is said to be “for all” because it can potentially save all. In fact, as the Arminian understands fallen human nature and prevenient grace (to be discused in part two), all can potentially believe, despite the fall of Adam.

Let it be noted that under this conception, the death of Christ actually saves no one, nor does it secure anything for our salvation, until such time as it is “appropriated” or “applied” by the sinner to themselves through the means of faith. This is a very important point.  This gets to the heart of what many Reformed theologians have pointed out as the most distinguishing characteristic of the Reformed understanding of the plan of redemption, and that which sets the Reformed conception of salvation apart from all other branches of the Christian family. According to B. B. Warfield, “the saving operations of God are directed in every case immediately to the individuals who are being saved. Particularism in the process of salvation becomes the mark of Calvinism” [Warfield, Plan of Salvation, 87].

The Reformed Christian does not believe that the death of Jesus makes the whole world “savable.”  Rather, the Reformed Christian believes that God actually saves his elect through the death of Christ, and that God’s grace is directed to the specific individuals whom God intends to save. In other words, those whom God has chosen are the particular individuals for whom Christ is said to have died.

This, of course, stands in sharp contrast to the universalism of the Arminian system, which argues that Christ dies for no one in particular, but for everyone in general. This distinction colors everything that we as Christians believe about sin and grace. Does God direct his saving activity to the specific individuals he intends to save? Or does God direct his saving operations to no one in particular, and only to the world in general (impersonally)?

At the end of the day, this is the fundamental difference between the Reformed Christian and the Arminian. This is the particular atonement of the Reformed, versus the universal, non-specific view of salvation of the Arminian. The Reformed see the death of Christ as effectual, securing the salvation of the elect (and particular elect individuals). The Arminians, on the other hand, see the death of Christ as merely provisional. Christ’s death makes salvation possible for the whole world, but it saves no one specifically.

Before we get to the specifics of the Arminian error in regards to the death of Christ, we need to back up for a moment and identify the underlying presuppositions of the Arminian scheme of redemption. There are several we must keep in mind.

First, the Arminian begins with the assumption that human freedom is the starting point for any truly biblical theology. As Methodist theologian John Miley once put it: “Freedom is fundamental in Arminianism.” And because human freedom is the Arminian fundamentum, the entire Arminian system of thought is developed accordingly.

With human freedom assuming a central role for the Arminian, Miley goes on to note that the logical consequence of building upon this starting point is that Arminian must hold “accordingly the universality and provisional nature of the atonement, and the conditionality of salvation. In this matter,” says Miley, Arminianism “is thoroughly synergistic” [John Miley, Systematic Theology, II.275].

If we begin with the notion that human freedom is central to our system of theology, we must necessarily conclude that the death of Christ is not effectual and actually accomplishes God’s eternal purpose, which is the salvation of God’s elect. Instead, we must conclude that the death of Christ is merely provisory. The atonement makes a universal provision for the salvation of those who exercise their freedom, and who use the freedom given then come to faith in Christ. This means that it is not the death of Christ which saves, but it is the sinner who saves himself by coming to Christ in faith.

Thankfully, Dr. Miley is crystal clear here—Arminianism, of necessity, requires a salvation conditioned upon a co-operative act of the human will in conjunction with the grace of God. Therefore, Arminianism is necessarily synergistic.

In the strictest sense then, consistent Arminianism denies what is known as sola gratia [grace alone] since we are not saved by God’s gracious act in this view, but we are saved by human co-operation with the grace of God, which is only provisional and ineffectual until we act upon it. This is why Arminianism at best is semi-Augustinian, and much more likely semi-Pelagian.

[Part two to follow]

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article Nine

Article 9: The Fulfillment of God's Plan

This plan, arising out of God's eternal love for his chosen ones, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it.  As a result the chosen are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ's blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and--here and in all eternity--praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride.
___________________________________

In concluding the second head of doctrine, the authors make the obvious and important point that nothing whatsoever can thwart God’s redemptive purposes--not human sin, nor the sinful human will.  God's plan is perfect, and God's purposes are immutable.

As stated above, God has decreed to save sinners whom has known by name from all eternity (Psalm 139, Ephesians 1:4).  God chose to save his elect in Christ, who has now accomplished everything that is necessary for our redemption.  The blessed Holy Spirit then applies the merits of Christ to these elect sinners, creating faith and sealing them until the day of redemption (cf. Ephesians 1:3-14).  Since it is the Triune God who acts to save his people from their sins, nothing can frustrate God’s plan of redemption.

Scripture clearly teaches us that the gates of hell can never prevail against Christ, or his church (Matthew 16:18).  Scripture tells us that there will always be a church of Jesus Christ upon the earth (Matthew 28:20), though in some ages and places Christ’s church may be small, persecuted, and struggling, while in other times and places, it will be large, triumphant, and prosperous. 

As the Canons remind us, the church is Christ’s chosen bride, and even now our gracious God is preparing this bride for his own Son.  One day that church, composed of all those chosen Christ, will be a radiant bride who is without wrinkle, spot or blemish—a church which has been purchased from every race, tribe and tongue under heaven, to God's own honor and glory. 

This is what God has decreed to do, and this is what he does.  Because of his unspeakable grace to those of us who deserve eternal punishment, God's unshakable plan of redemption reminds us that instead of getting what we deserve (eternal punishment), we are now the bride of Christ, and we will spend eternity in God’s presence, worshiping our Triune Creator-Redeemer for endless ages.

To God alone be the glory!

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article Eight

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation.  In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

__________________________________

Since the authors of the Canons have noted that the death of Christ is designed by God to satisfy the demands of his holy justice on behalf of his elect, and since the Canons have also pointed out that sinners cannot believe the proclamation of Christ crucified unless they are given the gift of faith through the preaching of the gospel, it is now important to tie these two things together. 

In article 8, the authors state that the cross was ordained by God for the express purpose of actually redeeming the elect, those chosen by God in Christ from before the foundation of the world.  There is not a hint anywhere in Scripture that it was God's intention to make everybody savable, if only they use their free will and natural ability to come to Christ.

As the Canons put it, “For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation.” 

In the Reformed understanding of the plan of redemption, God has decreed to save his elect in Christ, then in the fullness of time God sent Jesus Christ to accomplish what was necessary for his elect to be saved.  Jesus came to die for their sins, thereby satisfying God’s justice.  Jesus also fulfilled the law during his messianic mission, so that the elect can be provided with a perfect righteousness of Christ.  And then Scripture teaches that God sent the Holy Spirit to call all those whom God has chosen and for whom Christ has died, to come faith and repent of their sins through the proclamation of the gospel.

From the Reformed perspective, the father graciously elects in Christ, the son redeems those whom the father has chosen and the Holy Spirit calls those whom the father has chosen, and for whom the son has died to faith.  There is a wonderful and perfect biblical symmetry here.  The inter-Trinitarian covenant of redemption made in ages past, in which the father elects Christ to be the mediator of the covenant of grace comes to fruition in time and space with Christ dying for God’s elect, and the Spirit calling all those whom God has chosen to faith in Christ without fail. 

This inter-Trinitarian covenant is seen in John 17, where Jesus repeatedly speaks of those given him by the father before the world began, and the Trinitarian nature of redemption is clearly spelled out by Paul in Ephesians 1:3-14 (cited in the previous article).

Again, far from being an invention of the Reformed, this wonderful biblical symmetry is spelled out by Paul in the first chapter of Ephesians.  Election is said to be “in Christ,” thereby accomplished before the foundation of the world.  According to Paul it is in Christ’s work for us during his earthly ministry that we have redemption and the forgiveness of sins, and through the shedding of his blood God’s justice is fully satisfied.  Then, at a particular point in time, believers are called to faith through the Holy Spirit, they believe the gospel, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.
 
It is from this biblical theme of redemption decreed, accomplished and applied that the Reformed tradition develops the idea of "irresistible" grace, which simply means that all of God’s elect will eventually come to faith.  The term “irresistible” grace is, unfortunately, a bit misleading.  The term is intended to convey the idea that the elect cannot resist the call of God, when the elect do in fact resist.  Many of us “resisted” the call of God for a time.  This is why it is better to replace the term "irresistible grace" with the term, "effectual calling." 

While we resist the call of God because we are sinful, nevertheless, through the gospel, the Holy Spirit sovereignly changes us from people who are dead in sin, into people who are alive in Christ.  Once made alive, we then believe and embrace the Savior through faith, receiving the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.  But until we do come to faith, we resist the call of God.

This, then, is why the authors can state without equivocation that “it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.” 

God elects in Christ.  Christ dies for God’s elect.  The Holy Spirit then applies the merits of Christ to all those, but only those, whom God has chosen, and for whom the son has died.  Not only do we have the Trinitarian symmetry, we also have the so-called "five points" of Calvinism. 

Total depravity refers to the effects of the fall and is manifest in our inability to come to faith, apart from a prior work of God on our behalf. 

We have unconditional election—God choosing to save a multitude so vast that no man can count them. 

Then there's limited atonement—or better "particular redemption," as Christ comes to die for those for who the father has chosen by satisfying God’s anger toward their sins. 

Irresistible grace (effectual calling) is simply the idea that those whom the father has chosen, and for whom the Son has died, will be called by the Holy Spirit through the gospel to faith n Christ. 

Finally, there's the doctrine of perseverance.  Those whom God has chosen, for whom the Son has died, and who the Spirit has called to faith, will be kept [or preserved] by the Spirit until the day of redemption. 

Therefore, our salvation is clearly Trinitarian in its design and execution.

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Article Seven

Article 7: Faith God's Gift

But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ's death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely from God's grace--which he owes to no one--given to them in Christ from eternity.
___________________________________

Since we are fallen by nature, and can do nothing on our own to come to faith in Christ–indeed, we cannot even do anything to prepare ourselves to come to faith apart from a prior act of God on our behalf–the Canons again remind us that faith does not arise because fallen sinners have the power, desire, or the ability to believe the gospel when it is preached to them.

The Scriptures repeatedly tell us that faith is a gift from God.  In fact, faith only arises in the human heart when the Holy Spirit creates it in the human heart through the preaching of the gospel.  As Luther once pointed out, God creates faith in the heart, just like he created the world from nothing.  Unless and until God does this, we gladly remain unbelievers.

This very point is made several times in passages such as Ephesians 1:3-14 and Romans 10:9-17, where Paul states,

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”  16  But they have not all obeyed the gospel.  For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ

As can be seen in these two representative passages, the Scriptures are crystal clear about the source of faith--it comes from God through the word.  Sadly, many of our contemporaries continue to stumble over these words, unable to shake their confidence in the fallen human will. 

Only those whom God has chosen from before the foundation of the world truly come to faith in Christ.  Inevitably, they do come to Christ because they are drawn to Christ and then enabled by God to trust the Savior.  When the gospel is preached to the elect, God creates faith in their hearts, and they respond to the proclamation of the gospel by trusting in Christ alone. 

The Scriptures teach, (as do the Canons, which summarize the biblical teaching), that faith itself is a gift from God.  This creation of faith is directly connected to the preaching of the gospel.  Hence, if we wish to see people come to faith in Christ, it is useless to entice them, manipulate them, or appeal to their so-called “felt needs.”  They cannot, and will not, come to Christ because they remain dead in sin. 

The biblical solution to the problem of human inability to trust Christ is a simple one.  If we wish to see people come to faith in Christ, then we preach Christ to them as clearly and as directly as we can, trusting that the blessed Holy Spirit will create faith in their hearts through the means of the gospel proclamation. 

Once again, we must keep in mind that the end (the salvation of God’s elect) is directly connected to the means (the preaching of the gospel).  Let us not divide what God has so carefully and wonderfully joined together.  Faith is a gift created in the heart by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel.