The Canons of Dort

andandandandand

T-U-L-I-P

Lim Jyh Jang, Lim Jyh Jang, Lim Jyh Jang, Lim Jyh Jang, Lim Jyh Jang, PastorPastorPastorPastorPastor

Pilgrim Covenant ChurchPilgrim Covenant ChurchPilgrim Covenant ChurchPilgrim Covenant ChurchPilgrim Covenant Church

October–November 2000

ContentsPage

The Canons of Dort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Total Depravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Unconditional Election . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Limited Atonement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Irresistible Grace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Perseverance of the Saints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Practical Implications of Calvinism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Canons of Dort ••••• 3

In less than a month’s time1, many Reformedchurches around the world would be commemorat-ing the Great Protestant Reformation which begunin Germany on 31 October, 1517. On that providen-tial day, Martin Luther nailed his famed 95 Theseson the door of the castle church of Wittenberg. In notime, without Luther’s knowledge, this paper wascopied, and reproduced in great numbers with thethen recently invented printing machine, and dis-tributed throughout Europe. This paper was to beused by our Sovereign Lord to ignite the Reforma-tion, which saw the release of the true Church ofChrist from the yoke and bondage of Rome. Fourhundred and eighty-three years have gone by sincethen. Today, there are countless technically Protes-tant churches (i.e., those which can trace back tothe Reformation in terms of historical links) aroundthe world, but there are few which still rememberthe rich heritage of the Reformers. In fact, a greatnumber of churches which claim to be Protestanthave, in fact, gone back to Rome by way of doctrineand practice, and some even make it their businessto oppose the Reformers and their heirs.

I am convinced that one of the chief reasons for thisstate of affair in the Protestant Church is a contemp-tuous attitude towards past creeds and confessionsand the historical battles against heresies. When, forexample, there are fundamental defenders of the faithteaching in Bible Colleges, who have not so much asheard of the Canons of Dort or the Synod of Dort,

The Canons of Dortbut would lash out at hyper-Calvinism, then youknow that something is seriously wrong within thecamp. Yet, this is indeed what is happening. Mostbelievers in the pews are not comfortable with theo-logical jargons, not to mention being able to detectthe incursion of subtle errors into the church. Butwhen ministers of the Gospel are also unconcernedabout what errors have already been dealt with bythe Church in the ages of learning in the past, thenwe know the floodgates of apostasy are being opened;and who knows how far the torrents will carry theChurch in the next generation? The attitude ofpreachers, we must remember, will inevitably rub offon the members of the church, some of whom maybecome leaders of the church by and by.

It is for this reason, I believe, that we must go backto our past. We must remember the great work ofGod in and through the Church in the past, and seekto learn from the mistakes of our forebears (cf. Deut2:30; 3:3; Ps 105:5–6). It is especially pertinent forus to do so as we remember the Great Reformation.

Last year2, we look at five key Reformers who weregreatly used by God to shape His Church. This year,we shall move a hundred years ahead to look in-stead at the history and doctrine of the Canons ofDort (or Dordrecht). In this article, we shall take aquick look at the events leading up to the Synod ofDort. From next Lord’s Day, we shall examine thedoctrine of the Canons in the order of the well-known

1 This article was written on 15 October, 2000. 2 That is, 1999.

4 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

acronym, T-U-L-I-P, that has developed since then.Since the attitude of disdain for historical theologyis already quite entrenched in many of our hearts,it would be needful that the doctrinal articles bederived directly from the Scriptures rather thanfrom the Canons (which we believe to be consist-ent with Scriptures). But we shall quote the canonwhere appropriate to show the wisdom, foresightand biblical fidelity of the framers of the Canons.

In BriefThe Canons of Dort was the product of a synod ofReformed churches, which met between the 13 No-vember, 1618 and 6 May, 1619 in Dort, Holland, toexamine the teachings of the disciples of JacobusArminius, known as the Remonstrants. These hadwanted their articles of faith to be adopted by thechurches in Holland, and so had petitioned theDutch Parliament with a Remonstrantia contain-ing five points. The parliament called for the Synod,and the result was that the five articles of theRemonstrantia were condemned. The Canons ofDort documented the findings of the Synod. Thefull and revealing title of the document reads:

Judgement of the National Synod of the Re-formed Churches of the United Netherlands: heldin Dordrecht in the year 1618 and 1619; whichwas assisted by many excellent theologians ofthe Reformed Churches of Great Britain, the Elec-toral Palatinate, Hessia, Switzerland, Wetteraw,Geneva, Bremen, and Emden: Concerning thewell-known five heads of doctrine, about whicha difference arose in the Reformed Churches ofthe said United Netherlands.

In all, 81 theologians (56 Dutch and 25 foreign)met for 154 sessions, and at the end of it condemnedthe five points of the Remonstrantia as being con-trary to Scripture and heretical. The articles of theCanons were essentially a systematic apology of thedoctrine of salvation as taught by John Calvin.Though the Canons themselves were only adopted

by the churches of Dutch origin, as part of the threeForms of Unity (which include the Belgic Confes-sion and the Heidelberg Catechism), the findingsof the Synod were and are held in great esteem inCalvinistic churches throughout the world, and theessence of it, as summarised in the Five Points ofCalvinism or TULIP (the national flower of Hol-land!), is regarded as the yardstick of Calvinisticorthodoxy in most English-speaking churches inthe world.

Jacobus ArminiusJacobus Arminius (c. 1559–1609), also known asJacob Haemensz, was born in Oudewater, Holland.Although Arminius was, in fact, not the originatorof the doctrine of the Remonstrantia, and had, fur-thermore, already died for about 10 years by thetime the Synod of Dort was convened, it is not with-out historical reasons why the doctrine refuted bythe Synod is popularly known as Arminianism.Arminius was, after all, the man who made thedoctrine espoused by his students popular.

In 1576, at 17 years old, Arminius was enrolled asa theological student in the University of Leiden (orLeyden). Five years later, in 1581, he went to Ge-neva, and there studied under Theodore Beza, whohad succeeded John Calvin as lecturer in theology.It appears, however, that Arminius was never reallycomfortable with Beza’s doctrine of election and rep-robation, though he did not show it.

Not long after his call to a pastorate in Amsterdamin 1587, Arminius was asked to refute a pamphlet,written by a man by the name of Coornhert, criti-cising Calvin and Beza’s doctrine of predestination.With personal discomfort and unresolved questionsin his heart, it was not surprising that instead ofbeing able to refute Coornhert’s objections,Arminius was won to his side. And soon, his theo-logical biases began to surface in his sermons, suchas when he preached that Paul was referring to

Canons of Dort ••••• 5

himself as an unconverted man in Romans 7:14–25. We need only to read the text to know the impli-cation of his view, for it would make Paul able todesire to do good while unregenerated, which wouldmean that he was not radically depraved in hisheart. Soon, Arminius began to be vigorously op-posed by Plancius, one his fellow ministers in Am-sterdam.

Arminius was a popular man in the pulpit. And hewas a brilliant scholar, refined in manners and ap-pearance. Most importantly, he had many power-ful friends in the government. At that time the uni-versities were under state rather than church con-trol, and so despite the controversy that was inten-sifying in Amsterdam as Arminius began preach-ing from Romans 9, he was appointed to the chairof theology at the Academy of Leyden.

At first, Arminius was opposed strongly byFranciscus Gomarus who was then a professor oftheology at Leyden. But Arminius managed to per-suade Gomarus of his orthodoxy by subtlety andcraft, and Gomarus relented. Later Gomarus wasto regret his decision, for as soon as Arminius wasin the chair, then he began promoting his heresiesto the students. In this way the doctrines of Arminiusbegan to spread abroad, and soon the whole coun-try was in turmoil and several conferences werecalled to settle the disputes.

Before anything could be settled, however, in Octo-ber of 1609, Arminius died. His followers, however,continued to pursue their teacher’s purpose. Thefollowing year, under the influence of a powerfulcourt preacher, Janus Utyenbogaert, the disciplesof Arminius gathered together in the city of Goudato draw up a document known as theRemonstrantia. By this document, the party hopedto have the parliament call for a revision (morelike re-writing) of the existing confessions of theDutch churches.

The RemonstrantiaThis document of the Arminians, being designedto subvert the established doctrine of the church,was drafted very craftily so as to give an impressionthat it is consistent with orthodoxy. In fact, my guessis that most of us who read this document todaywill have difficulty finding fault with it at all! Ofcourse, in part, this is due to the ulterior care withwhich it was written, but I suspect, the lack of theo-logical sensitivity that characterises most of us to-day is to be blamed too.

Those interested to examine the articles may findthem in Dutch, Latin and English in Philip Schaff,Creeds of Christendom (Baker, reprinted 1995),3.545–49. We reproduce just the first two articles,which most clearly show the Remonstrants’ depar-ture from orthodoxy:

Article I. That God, by an eternal, unchangeablepurpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foun-dation of the world, hath determined, out of thefallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, forChrist’s sake, and through Christ, those who,through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall be-lieve on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere inthis faith and obedience of faith, through thisgrace, even to the end; and, on the other hand,to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sinand under wrath, and to condemn them as al-ienate from Christ, according to the word of thegospel in John 3:36… and according to otherpassages of Scripture also.

Article II. That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ,the Saviour of the world, died for all men andfor every man, so that he has obtained for themall, by his death on the cross, redemption andthe forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actuallyenjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer,according to the word of the Gospel of John3:16…. And in the First Epistle of John 2:2….

6 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

Are you able to detect the heresy? If not, you willfind the other three articles even more subtle. Inthe first article, the doctrine being proposed is thatGod’s election and reprobation is based upon God’sforeknowledge, i.e., those whom God foresaw willbelieve were elected, those He foresaw would rejectthe Gospel were reprobated. The Remonstrants verycarefully avoided saying,—that election is there-fore conditional, and that salvation is therefore notsovereignly brought about by God though it be bygrace,—which is what they were teaching. In thesecond article, it is essentially teaching that Christdid not die to save. Rather, He died for all withoutexception to make salvation possible; and whethera person is saved depends on his response to theGospel.

In a nutshell, the other three articles teach that manhas the ability to do good when assisted by the HolySpirit, but the Holy Spirit’s help may be resisted anda Christian may lose his salvation.

The Great SynodThe Synod was convened in November, 1618;though it did not begin to deal with the Arminiansuntil 6 December. In line with proper ecclesiasticalprocedures and the principle that accepted veritiesare to be regarded as truth unless proven otherwise,the Synod was appointed to examine and try theArminians. Johannes Bogerman, the pastor ofLeuwarden, a fiery and capable Contra-Remon-strant, was elected the president of the Synod.

The Arminians were naturally unhappy with thisarrangement, and vehemently protested against thefact that their polemical opponents had been setover them as judges. From the onset, therefore, theytried to stall the proceedings. First, they attemptedunsuccessfully to get Bogerman replaced. Then,rather than submitting themselves to the exami-nation of the Synod and defending themselves doc-trinally, they kept asking for more time to prepare

their opinions. Not only that, they also tried to winthe sympathy of the foreign delegates by depictingthe national delegates as schismatics and persecu-tors of the innocent and simple.

It should be noted that though the national del-egates were almost consistently Calvinistic, someof the foreign delegates were not so. The delegatesfrom Bremen appeared to be totally in agreementwith the Arminians. Also among the delegation offive from Great Britain, there were clearly those wholeaned either to Arminian or Amyraldian (mid-waybetween Calvinism and Arminianism) position.

By 14 January, 1619, when the Arminians again re-fused to submit to the authority of the Synod in thematter of their examination, Bogerman’s patienceran out. He burst out:

The foreign delegates are now of the opinion thatyou are unworthy to appear before the Synod.You have refused to acknowledge her as yourlawful judge and have maintained that she isyour counter-party; you have done everythingaccording to your own whim; you have despisedthe decisions of the Synod and of the PoliticalCommissioners; you have refused to answer; youhave unjustly interpreted the indictments. TheSynod has treated you mildly; but you have—as one of the foreign delegates expressed it—“begun and ended with lies.” With that eulogywe shall let you go. God shall preserve His Wordand shall bless the Synod. In order that she beno longer obstructed, you are sent away! You aredismissed, get out!

With the departure of the Arminians, the Synodcould finally get down to work. Though the formercould no longer present their arguments person-ally, they were allowed to submit written defencesof their position. This they did, and wrote rathervoluminously. A committee was appointed by theSynod to consider these writings and to write a doc-trinal consensus of the Synod together with rejec-

Canons of Dort ••••• 7

tion of errors. This was completed in about threemonths, and was signed by all the delegates.

ConclusionWith the probable exception of the Westminster As-sembly, the Synod of Dort was possibly the greatestassembly of notable Reformed scholars to havegathered to deliberate on any doctrinal issue. Somemay question the nature of the proceedings in theSynod, that it did not give occasion for irenic de-bate such as in the case of the Westminster Assem-bly, but when we examine the Canons of Dort (seeSchaff, Creeds, 550–597; Thomas Scott, The Arti-cles of the Synod of Dort [Sprinkle Pub., 1993];Homer Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers [RFPA,1980]) and the doctrine it propounds, we see thatthere is really little to debate about. At stake was thedoctrine of the sovereignty of God, as well as, anunbiased and logical interpretation of the Word ofGod.

We may say that it was by the providence of Godthat the controversy arose in the first place; forthrough it the Church was not only enriched witha Creed to serve as a standard for future churches,but also caused to see the logical beauty and self-consistency of the biblical doctrine of salvation asrevealed in the Word of God. As we examine the fivepetals of the TULIP in the next five articles, I be-lieve this assertion would become clearer to thepraise and glory of our Almighty God who has re-vealed all things for our instruction and enjoymentof Him.

8 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

The Five Points of Calvinism,—viz., Total Deprav-ity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Ir-resistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints,—provide perhaps the most succinct, logical and bibli-cal way of understanding God’s work of salvation ofsinners. These five points were never presented byJohn Calvin in this way. They are derived, with somere-ordering, from the Canons of Dort (e.g., TotalDepravity corresponds to the third Head of the Can-ons of Dort). But all five propositions may be foundto be more or less clearly taught in Calvin’s writings.

As we examine the five points, two things will be-come clear. Firstly, these points can be individuallyderived from the Scripture and not from human ex-perience. And so when we study these points of doc-trine, we are simply studying a biblical doctrine withthe help of a systematic framework. Secondly, thesepoints are logically tied to one another so that it isreally impossible to take any one point out or changeany point without falling into irrationality. BiblicalChristianity, we must remember, is not irrationalbecause the Bible is inerrantly and infallibly inspiredby God. Though we may not fully comprehend God,we know that God cannot possibly be contradictory,or there is no way for man to know Him at all. So nocontradictory propositions can possibly be derivedfrom the Scripture when it is properly exegeted. Thus,because of the logical consistency of the Five Points,anyone who denies any of the five points will, by logi-cal necessity, deny all the other four points too. Wewill demonstrate this when we look at Limited Atone-ment.

Now, if you have never had any instruction on theFive Points of Calvinism, you may want to skip therest of the introduction and begin reading at the firstsection in the main text1. The rest of the introduc-tion does require a little background knowledge ofthe doctrine to make sense. But if you have had anyinstruction on Calvinism and know something aboutwhat Total Depravity means, then read on.

Let us begin with a couple of important quotationson the doctrine we are considering:

1. That man has not saving grace of himself, notof the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, inthe state of apostasy and sin, can of and by him-self neither think, will, nor do any thing that istruly good (such as saving Faith eminently is);but that it is needful that he be born again of Godin Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed inunderstanding, inclination, or will, and all hispower, in order that he may rightly understand,think, will, and effect what is truly good, accord-ing to the Word of Christ, John 15:5: “Without meye can do nothing.”

2. In [the state of man after the Fall], the Free Willof man towards the True Good is not onlywounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened;but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: Andits powers are not only debilitated and uselessunless they be assisted by grace, but it has no pow-ers whatever except such as are excited by Divine

Total Depravity

1 “Total Depravity Defined” on page 10.

Total Depravity ••••• 9

grace: For Christ has said, “Without me ye can donothing.” St. Augustine, after having diligentlymeditated upon each word in this passage speaksthus: “Christ does not say, Without me ye can dobut little; neither does He say, Without me, ye can-not do any arduous thing, nor Without me ye cando it with difficulty: But he says, Without me yecan do nothing! Nor does He say, Without me yecannot complete any thing; but Without me yecan do nothing.”

Can you agree with the statements above? Now con-sider the following quote:

Total depravity does not mean that man is not ableto do good towards his fellow men. It does how-ever mean that man’s nature is wholly sinful, cor-rupt, and perverse to the extent that sin has af-fected his parts rendering him absolutely incapa-ble of saving himself from the judgement tocome… Even when man performs good works,his motives for doing so are often not pure.

Compare this quote with the earlier two quotations,and I am sure that if you have even a vague idea ofwhat is Total Depravity, you will find the first twoquotations to be much more stronger expressionsof the doctrine. But, the shocking news is that thethird quotation is from a professedly Calvinistic theo-logian, whereas the first quotation is the Third Ar-ticle of the Remonstrantia, and the second quo-tation is from Jacobus Arminius (The Works of JamesArminius, vol. 2, trans. James Nichols [Baker, re-printed 1996], 192)! I suspect that the true Ar-minian would even object to the third quotationas being more Pelagian than Arminius was, albeitits vagaries.

Over the years, I have come to realise that many whoclaim to be Calvinistic or to understand the FivePoints of Calvinism have only a very vague idea ofthis doctrine and, as a result of it, they either carica-ture the Arminians or promote a kind of Calvinismthat is neither scriptural nor confessional.

The object of this, and the following articles, is anattempt to present the Five Points as clearly and pre-cisely as possible. But familiarity breeds contempt,and I am afraid that, if you do not give some careand thought as you read, you may not benefit at allfrom the articles, and your idea of Calvinism mayremain at best vague or at worst some form of Armin-ian notion.

But before I leave the introduction to explain thedoctrine of Total Depravity, I must quickly remarkthat though Arminius and the Arminians do hold tothe total fall of man (unlike Pelagians), they alsobelieve that fallen men can co-operate with the HolySpirit to bring about regeneration. That is, thoughthe will of man by itself cannot achieve any real good,it can,—assisted by prevenient grace (i.e., grace thatis before salvation) or common grace (as purchasedby the death of Christ for all men),—respond to thecall of the Gospel. Remember that when the Armin-ians speak about being “born again” they do notmean as the Calvinists do: that it is a sovereign act ofGod, which is irreversible. Arminius makes this clearwhen he teaches that “regeneration and illumina-tion is not completed in one moment; but that it isadvanced and promoted, from time to time, by dailyincrease” (Op. Cit., 195). By “illumination” in thiscontext, Arminius is essentially referring to the in-ternal vocation (call) of God to an hitherto unre-generate person to embrace Christ as Saviour andLord. For the Calvinist, this call is irresistible. But forArminius:

Internal vocation is granted even to those who donot comply with the call.

All unregenerate persons have freedom of will, anda capability of resisting the Holy Spirit, of reject-ing the proffered grace of God, of despising thecounsel of God against themselves, of refusing toaccept the Gospel of grace, and of not opening toHim who knocks at the door of the heart; and thesethings they can actually do, without any differ-ence of the Elect and Reprobate.

10 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

The two carefully crafted Arminian statements quotedearlier sound very orthodox because they neglect tomention all these additional facts. But you can seehow the same statements provide for what we aremaking explicit here (see Canons, Heads 3 & 4, Rej.5).

Total Depravity DefinedTotal Depravity refers to the fact that man’s moralnature since the fall is corrupt, perverse and sinfulthroughout, so that nothing he does, think, or speak,can be in any way good or pleasing in God’s sight atall. Note that Total Depravity does not mean that sincethe fall, man has become as utterly depraved as hecan be, else the world would be filled with psycho-paths or Hitlers. Neither is the doctrine concernedat all on whether a deed may appear to be benevo-lent and good in the eyes of man. But Total Deprav-ity does mean that all that the natural man does,including what appears to be good in the sight ofman, is sinful in God’s sight (see Canons, Heads 3& 4, Art. 4). Even his righteousnesses are as filthyrags in the eyes of God (Isa 64:6). The natural manis enslaved to sin and Satan, blind to truth and re-bellious towards God. He is dead in sin, not just mor-ally sick.

Another way of thinking about Total Depravity is tothink of it as Total Inability, i.e., that the natural manis unable to do any that may be regarded by God asgood, and therefore contributory to his own salva-tion. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF9.3) views Total Depravity from this angle:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath whollylost all ability of will to any spiritual good accom-panying salvation [Rom 5:6; 8:7; Jn 15:5]; so as,a natural man, being altogether averse from thatgood [Rom 3:10, 12], and dead in sin [Eph 2:1,5; Col 2:13], is not able, by his own strength, toconvert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto[Jn 6:44–65; Eph 2:2–5; 1 Cor 2:14; Tit 3:3–5].

Essentially, this would also rule out the Arminiannotion that the natural man can exercise faith andso co-operate with the Holy Spirit to respond to thecall of the Gospel. The only way man can be saved isif God sovereignly, monergistically (God workingalone) frees him from his natural bondage to sin,and translates him into the state of grace so that heis enabled freely to will and to do that which is spir-itually good, including evangelical repentance andfaith (see WCF 9.4).

Yet another way of looking at Total Depravity is tothink of it as Radical Corruption. This refers to thefact that the natural man is corrupt in his heart orthe core of his being. The heart is the well-springfrom which all that a person does, thinks or says,flows. Thus Solomon tells us: “Out of [thy heart]are the issues of life” (Prov 4:23). Thus the Lord Him-self says: “A good man out of the good treasure ofthe heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil manout of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things”(Mt 12:35; cf. 7:18; 15:19). Now, if the heart is cor-rupt, than nothing that the will does can be good.

We must remember that the liberty of man’s will wasnot affected by the Fall. But the will is not free to actindependently. It is always bounded to the heart ofman, and always does what the heart regards as mostdesirable. Since the heart of the natural man is cor-rupt and hates God, it can never desire God, and sothe will can never choose God. And since the loveand glory of God is never in the heart of the naturalman, his motive can never be pure, and he does notfail to sin in every exercise of his will. When we thinkof Total Depravity as Radical Corruption, we see im-mediately that the door of salvation is not shut toanyone. But the natural man hates the owner of thehouse and will flee from the door, unless his heart ischanged.

This fact alone would destroy the Arminian argu-ment that the ability to obey the Gospel must be uni-versal, viz.: (1) God cannot command us to do any-

Total Depravity ••••• 11

thing beyond our ability, for otherwise He cannot holdus responsible for failing to obey. (2) The Word ofGod does command all men without exception toobey the Gospel on the pain of damnation. (3) There-fore the ability to obey the Gospel must be universal.

Notwithstanding the sovereign predestination ofGod, the inability of the reprobate to obey the Gospelrests in their hearts. But there is more, for the Scrip-ture proves beyond doubt that the natural man istotally depraved.

Total Depravity ProvenThe doctrine of Total Depravity is seen throughoutthe Scriptures. Particularly, there are verses and pas-sages, which speak of its source and propagation;and there are verses, which speak of its universality;and there are verses, which clearly indicate the depthof our depravity.

Its Source and PropagationIts Source and PropagationIts Source and PropagationIts Source and PropagationIts Source and PropagationWhen Adam and Eve fell into sin, they did not fall asprivate individuals. Adam was God’s appointed rep-resentative for all mankind who would descend fromhim by natural generation.

When Adam fell, his Fall affected all mankind in twoprinciple ways,—comprehended in the theologicalterm Original Sin,—namely: (1) all men are im-puted (credited) with his guilt and so are regardedas guilty before God; (2) all men inherit Adam’s fallennature. Our catechism expresses the doctrine el-egantly:

The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell,consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the wantof original righteousness, and the corruption ofhis whole nature,—which is commonly calledOriginal Sin; together with all actual transgres-sions which proceed from it (WSC 18).

Firstly, the fact that we are imputed with Adam’s guiltis clearly taught particularly by the Apostle Paul, such

as when he insists: “Wherefore, as by one man [i.e.,Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin;and so death passed upon all men, for that all havesinned” (Rom 5:12); and “For as in Adam all die,even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor15:22).

Just as the righteousness of Christ is imputed on Hiselect whom He represents, the guilt of Adam wasimputed on the world. Now, if you think of Total De-pravity from the angle of Total Inability or RadicalCorruption, it will probably occur to you that the guiltof Adam’s sin does not directly affect our motions inlife. But think for a moment of infants dying in in-fancy or in the mother’s womb. Such may not haveoccasions yet to engage in actual transgressions, butare they not regarded as sinners in the sight of Godtoo? Yes, for “all have sinned” (Rom 5:12). Even electinfants dying in infancy must be “regenerated [toremove original inclination to sin], and saved byChrist [by the application of His blood], through theSpirit” (WCF 10.3).

Secondly, the fact that all mankind, descending fromAdam by ordinary generation (i.e., not supernatu-rally conceived), inherits Adam’s fallen nature is at-tested by Job: “Who can bring a clean thing out of anunclean? not one” (Job 14:4). His friend Eliphazcorrectly concurred: “What is man, that he shouldbe clean? and he which is born of a woman, that heshould be righteous?” (Job 15:14).

David was essentially expressing the same notion inhis penitential psalm: “Behold, I was shapen in in-iquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps51:5). Note that David was not so much as referringto his mother’s sin, as if to blame his sin on hismother. He was rather referring to the fact that hewas a sinner from birth. We sin because we are sin-ners, we do not become sinners because we sin. “Thewicked are estranged from the womb: they go astrayas soon as they be born…,” says David (Ps 58:3).

12 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

Its UniversalityIts UniversalityIts UniversalityIts UniversalityIts UniversalityThe fact that Adam’s depravity passes down to all menought to be sufficient to convince us of its universal-ity—that it affects all except the Lord Jesus Christwho was not born of ordinary generation. But theScripture leaves us without doubt by clear statementswhich specifically focuses on the universality of de-pravity. The Psalmist reflects this thought in variousverses, such as: “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniq-uities, O Lord, who shall stand?” (Ps 130:3) and “Andenter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thysight shall no man living be justified” (Ps 143:2).The point is, if God were to judge men without mercy,none will be innocent because all have sinned. Paulconfirms this doctrine in his epistle to the Romans:

… we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles,that they are all under sin; As it is written, There isnone righteous, no, not one… They are all goneout of the way, they are together become unprofit-able; there is none that doeth good, no, not one(Rom 3:9–10, 12).

Its DepthIts DepthIts DepthIts DepthIts DepthWe have seen that Total Depravity extends to thewhole world without exception. We must prove nowthat Total Depravity extends to the whole being ofman. This is most emphatically taught in the Scrip-tures using several imageries.

Firstly, the Apostle Paul declares that while we werenatural men, we “were dead in trespasses and sins”(Eph 2:1; cf. Col 2:13). This is a most importantimagery, which we should constantly bear in mind.An unregenerate man is spiritually dead. He can becompared to Lazarus in the grave, but not to sickman who can stretch out his hand to take a life-sav-ing pill.

Secondly, the heart of the natural man is blind andhis understanding is dark: “Having the understand-ing darkened, being alienated from the life of Godthrough the ignorance that is in them, because of

the blindness of their heart” (Eph 4:18). His “heartis deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked”(Jer 17:9). And he cannot savingly understand any-thing spiritual: “But the natural man receiveth notthe things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolish-ness unto him: neither can he know them, becausethey are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).

Thirdly, the natural man is described as being anenemy of God (Rom 5:10) whose “carnal mind isenmity against God: for it is not subject to the law ofGod, neither indeed can be” (Rom 8:7). He is a slaveto sin (Rom 6:20) and a captive of Satan to do hiswill (2 Tim 2:26; cf. 1 Jn 3:10). By this imagery, wesee than the natural man cannot possibly do any-thing to please God at all. He is radically corrupt andtotally unable.

The Consequence ofTotal Depravity

What is the consequence of Total Depravity? Simplystated: man has “wholly lost all ability of will to anyspiritual good accompanying salvation [and] is notable, by his own strength, to convert himself, or toprepare himself thereunto” (WCF 9.3). This fact isagain very clearly taught in the Scripture: “Can theEthiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to doevil” (Jer 13:23). In fact, since the natural man doesnot understand spiritual things, he does not seek af-ter God: “There is none that understandeth, there isnone that seeketh after God” (Rom 3:11).

The corollary to this fact is that a sovereign inter-vention by God is necessary for a man to enter intothe kingdom of God. The Lord Jesus Himself tells us:“No man can come to me, except the Father whichhath sent me draw him” (Jn 6:44a) and “Except aman be born again, he cannot see the kingdom ofGod” (Jn 3:3). It is only in the new birth that the giftof saving faith (Eph 2:8) is granted.

Total Depravity ••••• 13

We shall see more of these verses on regenerationand others in our article on Irresistible Grace. Butfor now, we should already realise that were it not forGod’s intervention, none of us will ever believe theGospel. Such a thought ought to humble us to thedust while at the same time fill our hearts with grati-tude to the Triune God who loves us with an ever-lasting love, provided the propitiation for our sinsand changed us sovereignly.

ConclusionThe Arminians are wrong that man can co-operatewith the Holy Spirit to effect his regeneration. Howcould he when his will is captive to his radically de-praved heart and the Scripture testifies that nothinghe does in his natural state can please God? TheArminians may require only one stitch to the gar-ment of salvation, but according to them our des-tiny is in that stitch; while according to the Bible,that stitch if added would pollute the righteousnessneeded for our salvation, and would make the deathof Christ insufficient to save anyone.

Thank God for the doctrine of Total Depravity, for byit I realise what a worm I am, that falling on myknees before my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I maysay with the psalmist: “What is man, that thou artmindful of him? and the son of man, that thou vis-itest him?” (Ps 8:4).

14 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

Let us begin our examination of the second petal ofour Calvinistic Tulip (First Article in the Canons ofDort), with a few of definitions, because we canhardly escape using these terms in this study.

The first term we must define is “election.” Electionvery simply refers to the act of God in choosing apeople unto Himself. Or, to put it in individualisticterms, it refers to God’s choosing of certain individu-als to be saved. The Canons of Dort puts it this way:

Election is the immutable purpose of God, bywhich, before the foundations of the world werelaid, He chose, out of the whole human race, fallenby their own fault from their primeval integrityinto sin and destruction, according to the mostfree good pleasure of His own will, and of meregrace, a certain number of men, neither better norworthier than others, but lying in the same mis-ery with the rest, to salvation in Christ; whom Hehad, even from eternity, constituted Mediator andHead of all the elect, and the foundation of Salva-tion… (Head 1, Art. 7).

The second term is “predestination.” The most ob-vious meaning of this term speaks of God predeter-mining our final destination, i.e., the final destina-tion of our souls. But remember that biblical pre-destination comprehends not just our final destina-tion, but all that happens in time and space as wehead towards the final destination. To put it in an-other way, election marks out the elect, while pre-destination marks out their steps (Ps 37:23; Prov 4:18;Heb 12:1).

Unconditional Election

A third term must also be mentioned, namely, “rep-robation.” This is the antithesis of “election.” If Godchose some individuals from all mankind to be saved,it follows that He must have ordained all the rest towrath for their sin, and therefore pass them by whenHe extends grace to the elect for their salvation. TheApostle Paul calls the reprobate: “vessels of wrath fit-ted to destruction” (Rom 9:22). The WestminsterConfession of Faith describes reprobation and thereprobate thus:

The rest of mankind, God was pleased, accordingto the unsearchable counsel of His own will,whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy asHe pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign powerover His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain themto dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praiseof His glorious justice (WCF 3.7).

ArminianConditional Election

With these definitions in mind, let us begin by con-sidering a definition of the doctrine of election, viz.:

That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purposein Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation ofthe world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sin-ful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake,and through Christ, those who, through the graceof the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his SonJesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedi-ence of faith, through this grace, even to the end;and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigibleand unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to

Unconditional Election ••••• 15

condemn them as alienate from Christ, accord-ing to the word of the gospel in John 3:36: “Hethat believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: andhe that believeth not the son shall not see life; butthe wrath of God abideth on him,” and accordingto other passages of Scripture also.

If you have been reading the first two articles in thisseries, you will probably be quite on your guard asyou read this statement. You will probably suspectthat there is something wrong with it. And so thereis, for it is actually the first article of theRemonstrantia. But can you detect what the prob-lem is? I am afraid that without prior warning, manyof us will simply accept the statement as biblical, andeven with warning, many of us may have difficultypin-pointing where exactly the error in the statementis. Such is the theological lethargy of our days.

Well, the error lies in the fact that though the Armin-ians have to admit that predestination is taught inthe Scripture, they refuse to admit the obvious mean-ing and implications of the doctrine as derived fromthe Scripture: namely, that the will of God and notour own will is the alone First Cause of our salva-tion. In other words, when the Arminians says thatGod “hath determined” to save those who “throughthe grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this hisSon Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obe-dience of faith, through this grace, even to the end,”what they mean is that God had determined to savethose whom He foreknew would exercise faith (as-sisted by prevenient grace) to believe and perseverein the Lord Jesus Christ.

The favourite proof-text of the Arminians in supportof their error is Romans 8:29–30:

For whom He did foreknow, He also did predes-tinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,that he might be the firstborn among many breth-ren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them healso called: and whom he called, them he also

justified: and whom he justified, them he alsoglorified.

The argument is that since the Apostle Paul placesforeknowledge before predestination, it must be thatforeknowledge (of the person’s faith) is the basis ofpredestination. This is, however, far from what Paulis saying.

Firstly, a straightforward interpretation of the versewould suggest that foreknowledge here must be re-ferring essentially to election in Christ or being lovedin Christ (Eph 1:4). Paul is simply saying that Godpredestinates those He elects, and therefore loves andknows.

Secondly, Paul goes on to speak about what Godwould do for those He foreknew, namely: call, justifyand glorify. Notice how Paul uses the past tense foreach of these acts, including “glorified.” This im-plies that the acts follow one after another in an un-broken chain so that none who were foreknownwould not be called, justified or glorified. There issimply no room for any condition based on humanresponse in the chain. Even the call must refer tothe effectual call which leads to justification, for if itrefers to the external call of preaching, then all whohear the Gospel would be saved. In other words, Paulwas saying that salvation is the work of God frombeginning to end. It simply does not make sense forhim to be saying that God predestinates those He fore-knew will come to faith and persevere. Even if theArminian does not agree with the doctrine of TotalDepravity which we have already explained, this text(Rom 8:29–30) does not allow for any contributionon the part of man to his own salvation.

Thirdly, if Paul means that predestination is accord-ing to God’s foreknowledge, then predestination ef-fectively means nothing, since the elect will reachtheir final destination based on their own efforts(though assisted by prevenient grace).

16 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

BiblicalAbsolute Predestination

The doctrine of unconditional election has its foun-dation not only in the eternal love of God in Christ,but also in the fact that God has ordained all thingsthat come to pass according to the counsel of Hisown will. This doctrine is in fact suggested by theApostle Paul just one verse before the text used bythe Arminians to prove their doctrine of election byforeknowledge, for he says: “And we know that ALLthings work together for good to them that love God,to them who are the called according to his purpose”(Rom 8:28, cap. emph. mine). It would be impossi-ble for “ALL things [to] work together for good tothem that love God” if God is not in sovereign con-trol over everything. If God be not in control overjust one thing, then the proposition that “all thingswork together for good to them that love God” is nolonger true.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (§3.1–2)states the doctrine most succinctly:

I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise andholy counsel of His own will, freely and unchange-ably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, asthereby neither is God the author of sin, nor isviolence offered to the will of the creatures, nor isthe liberty or contingency of second causes takenaway, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or cancome to pass upon all supposed conditions; yethath He not decreed any thing because He fore-saw it as future, or as that which would come topass upon such conditions.

This doctrine of absolute predestination is questionedby many because it seems to be counter-intuitive, andappears to make men robots. But the fact that it isbiblical can hardly be doubted. For example, God saidthrough Isaiah:

Remember the former things of old: for I am God,and there is none else; I am God, and there is none

like me, Declaring the end from the beginning,and from ancient times the things that are not yetdone, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I willdo all my pleasure (Isa 46:9–10).

That the counsel of God comprehends and deter-mines all things and events of every kind,—whethergreat and small, good or evil,—is also clear fromScripture. In the first place, even events that appearinsignificant, such as the dropping of our hair fromour head, are brought about by God according tothe counsel of His will (Mt 10:30). In the secondplace, even things that appear to happen by chancehave been decreed and are brought about by thecounsel of the Lord: “The lot is cast into the lap; butthe whole disposing thereof is of the LORD” (Prov16:33). In the third place, disasters are ordained andbrought to pass by God: “I form the light, and createdarkness: I make peace, and create evil [i.e., disas-ter]: I the LORD do all these things” (Isa 45:7; cf.Amos 3:6b). In the fourth place, even the acts of thewicked are ordained by God: “The LORD hath madeall things for himself: yea, even the wicked for theday of evil” (Prov 16:4). This, God does withoutviolating the freedom and responsibility of His crea-tures. So Judas was condemned though it was de-creed that Christ would be delivered by him (see Mat-thew 26:24). So Peter, in his sermon at Pentecost,condemned the Jews for their wickedness of slayingthe Lord though He was “delivered by the determi-nate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23;see also Acts 4:28).

It is clear that whatever happens in this world, it isbrought about by God according to the counsel ofHis will. The counsel of God is His living will. It issovereignly efficacious. No contingencies can frus-trate God’s will because all power belongs to Him (Ps62:11b). It would hardly be possible to conceive ofGod’s choice of the elect as being contingent uponGod’s foreknowledge of what man would do. Surely,God knows all things because He sovereignly decreed

Unconditional Election ••••• 17

them and brings them to pass. The god of the con-sistent Arminian, who knows what is going to cometo pass, not because he ordained all things, but be-cause he simply foresaw all things, is simply not theGod of the Bible, but an impotent god of man’s im-agination.

BiblicalUnconditional Election

A consideration of the absolute sovereignty of Godought to convince us that our election is uncondi-tional. But there is more. The Bible explicitly informsus of that fact, to kill any remnant of pride that wemay retain.

First of all, the Apostle Paul explicitly declares thatour election is made before the foundation of theworld, according to the good pleasure of the will ofGod and His eternal love for us on account of ourbeing represented by Christ:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord JesusChrist, who hath blessed us with all spiritual bless-ings in heavenly places in Christ: According as hehath chosen us in him before the foundation ofthe world, that we should be holy and withoutblame before him in love: Having predestinatedus unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ tohimself, according to the good pleasure of his will,To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein hehath made us accepted in the beloved.… In whomalso we have obtained an inheritance, being pre-destinated according to the purpose of him whoworketh all things after the counsel of his ownwill (Eph 1:3–6, 11).

Secondly, the Scripture is emphatic that election isnot conditioned on our good works (including ourresponse to the Gospel). Paul was making this pointwhen he tells us that God has already declared Hislove for Jacob rather than Esau (who were twins)even before they were born or capable of doing anygood or evil:

(For the children being not yet born, neither hav-ing done any good or evil, that the purpose of Godaccording to election might stand, not of works,but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, Theelder shall serve the younger (Rom 9:11–12).

The same thought of unconditional election appearselsewhere, e.g., “… there is a remnant according tothe election of grace. And if by grace, then is it nomore of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.…”(Rom 11:5–6); and “[God] hath saved us, and calledus with an holy calling, not according to our works,but according to his own purpose and grace, whichwas given us in Christ Jesus before the world be-gan” (2 Tim 1:9; italics emph. mine).

Thirdly, the Scripture teaches in numerous placesthat faith and repentance are the fruit of election.For example, “For we are his workmanship, createdin Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hathbefore ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph2:10; cf. Eph 1:4). Thus the Lord Jesus Christ declaresthat all who come unto Him are those whom theFather have given Him in the first place, i.e., electedbefore the foundation of the world: “All that the Fa-ther giveth me shall come to me; and him thatcometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn 6:37).We believe because Christ first laid down His life forus: “But ye believe not, because ye are not of mysheep” (Jn 10:26, cf. 10:14–15). This same truth offaith being the fruit of election is highlighted by Luke:“… and as many as were ordained to eternal lifebelieved” (Acts 13:48b).

If faith and repentance be the fruit of the elect, ourelection certainly cannot be conditioned on them.

Fourthly, God claims to have the sovereign preroga-tive to elect whom He will:

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have Ihated.… So then it is not of him that willeth, norof him that runneth, but of God that shewethmercy.… Hath not the potter power over the clay,

18 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

of the same lump to make one vessel unto hon-our, and another unto dishonour? (Rom 9:13, 16,21).

The biblical evidence from these four angles is clear,and the conclusion inescapable: Our election is en-tirely gratuitous, and based on God’s sovereign goodpleasure. In other words, our election is uncondi-tional.

ConclusionThe doctrine of unconditional election and sovereignpredestination is controversial only because manrefuses to summit to the God’s declaration of Hismajestic sovereignty and man’s dismay nothingness.Because of this, many objections are harnessedagainst the doctrine.

Some say: “The doctrine is ridiculous because itmakes God drag ungrateful sinners kicking andscreaming into the kingdom, while denying entranceto those who truly want to enter into it.” It does nottake much to answer this objection, for no one isever dragged into the kingdom kicking and scream-ing. Anyone who enters the kingdom enters as onewho is born again and finds Christ to be lovely be-yond all measures (Jn 3:3). On the other hand, noone is denied entrance into the kingdom who wantsto enter into it, because no fallen man will ever wantto enter, but the elect whom the Lord grants effica-cious grace.

Some others object that unconditional electionmakes it immoral for God to hold those who re-ject the Gospel responsible for their unbelief. Thisagain is easily answered, for none who reject theGospel can honestly say: “God prevented me frombelieving.”

Yet others say: “God is unfair to save only a few.”The Apostle Paul anticipates this question and an-swers it in Romans 9:14–15.

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteous-ness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses,I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, andI will have compassion on whom I will have com-passion.

The point is, we are saved by God’s unmeritedmercy and grace. If we really want fairness, then weare really asking for strict justice, in which caseall deserve to perish. Does a prisoner in the deathrow for treason have the right to charge the kingfor unfairness if he chooses, according to his mercy,to release another prisoner guilty of the samecrime? Such a person would surely deserve thegreater condemnation.

O glorious grace! I was dead in trespasses and sin,without hope in this world, deserving nothing butGod’s wrath. I hated my Maker, and the only onewho could save me. Yet God, in His boundless love,sent His only begotten Son to suffer and die for me,and then, in the fullness of time, sent His Spirit toopen my eyes so that I could see my bleeding Sav-iour nailed to the Cross for my crime. What can myresponse be, but a humble, “Why me, Lord?”

Limited Atonement ••••• 19

This third point of Calvinism (Second Head of theCanons of Dort), is perhaps that most debated pointon the doctrine of salvation in the modern church.But interestingly, the Arminian article on this pointis the most explicit of the five articles of theRemonstrantia:

That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Saviourof the world, died for all men and for every man,so that he has obtained for them all, by his deathon the cross, redemption and the forgiveness ofsins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgive-ness of sins except the believer, according to theword of the Gospel of John 3:16: “God so loved theworld that he gave his only-begotten Son, thatwhosoever believeth in him should not perish, buthave everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle ofJohn 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins;and not for ours only, but also for the sins of thewhole world” (Remonstrantia, Art. II).

Understandably, this article,—that Christ died forthe world without exception,—would be affirmed byalmost all professedly evangelical churches aroundthe world since the majority of such churches (esp.in America) are Arminian. But to complicate thematter, there are those who profess to be Calvinisticand fundamental, who would also defend the Armin-ian doctrine on this point. This is particularly trueof churches that are professedly Dispensational (seePCC Bulletin, vol. 1, issue 51). And to further com-plicate the matter, there are also churches that claimto be Reformed and Calvinistic which would eitheragree to this statement wholesale or adopt an

Limited AtonementAmyraldian position (see PCC Bulletin, vol. 1, issue7). Often this capitulation to Arminianism is throughthe influence and infiltration of Dispensationalisminto the churches. Be that as it may be, the doctrineof Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption isoften so abhorred in some fundamental churchesthat members who hold to them find it impossible tocontinue in fellowship and membership.

But all these are not important. What is important iswhether the doctrine is biblical. If it is, we must holdon to it tenaciously and preach it unashamedly. If itis not, then we must reject it and denounce it.

It is my contention that the Canons is right: Christdid not die for the world to save the world withoutexception (Universalism), neither did He die for theworld to make man saveable (Arminianism), nor didHe die hypothetically for the world, though actuallyfor the elect (Amyraldism).

Note that when we speak of Limited Atonement, weare not saying that the atonement is limited in power,but we are saying that the purpose of Christ’s atone-ment is specifically for the salvation of His elect alone.It is not intended for the reprobates. To put it in an-other way, we are saying that Christ suffered and diedin the place of His elect (i.e., a substitutionary death;cf. Heb 9:28) to pay the penalty of their sin, to satisfythe justice and wrath of God and to reconcile themto God (i.e., a propitiatory death, cf. Rom 1:18). Thisis achieved by a double imputation on the Cross, forthere the sin of the elect throughout the ages wasimputed on Christ, who paid the penalty due by His

20 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

suffering and death (Isa 53:4, 6, 11; 1 Pet 2:24; Col2:14; Heb 9:28); and there the righteousness of Christmerited throughout His perfectly righteous life wasimputed on the elect (cf. Rom 3:22; 5:17).

The intent of His death was the salvation of His electalone, and therefore the extent (i.e., for whom) ofHis atonement is the elect alone. There is no realdifference between the intent and extent of the atone-ment as some have of late promoted. Calvinists maydiffer on the doctrine of the Well-Meant offer of theGospel, but that should be treated as a different,though related subject.

We shall proceed to demonstrate that the doctrine ofLimited Atonement is scriptural in a few steps. First,we must show that logically only Limited Atonementmakes sense. Secondly, we must show that the Scrip-ture clearly teaches that Christ did not die for every-one without exception, and thirdly, we must answersome objections to the doctrine.

Logical DerivationIn the first place, arguing from the integrity of theFive Points of Calvinism, we note that (1) all menare totally depraved and will die in sin unless Godintervenes; and (2) God has unconditionally electedsome to salvation. Putting these two points together,we must infer that God wills and desires the salva-tion only of the elect, and therefore, it stands to rea-son that Christ, who is God, died only to save theelect.

In the second place, we note that God is perfectly justand will punish all sins. Either they are punished inChrist (for those He represents) or they will be pun-ished in the sinners themselves (for the reprobate).This being the case, if Christ died for all the sins ofall men, all men will be saved. On the other hand, ifHe did not die for any one sin of any individual, thatindividual will have to pay for the sin himself witheternal death: for every sin against an infinite God is

deserving of eternal death. The great Puritan JohnOwen puts the argument across beautifully:

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ un-derwent the pains of hell for, either [1] all the sinsof all men, or [2] all the sins of some men, or [3]some sins of all men. If the last [3], some sins ofall men, then have all men some sins to answerfor, and so shall no man be saved…. If the sec-ond [2], that is it which we affirm, that Christ intheir stead and room suffered for all the sins of allthe elect in the world. If the first [1], why, then,are not all freed from the punishment of all theirsins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief, theywill not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin ornot? If not, why should they be punished for it? Ifit be, then Christ underwent the punishment dueto it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder themmore than their other sins for which he died frompartaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not,then did he not die for all their sins (The Death ofDeath in the Death of Christ [BOT, reprinted1959], 61–2).

The Arminian conception of the death of Christ, thatit simply makes salvation possible, really means thatChrist’s death is not sufficient for the salvation ofanyone. This is “Limited Atonement” where the limitis not on whom Christ died for, but on the power andvalue of the death of Christ!

In Arminianism, the atonement of Christ is like agreat wide bridge that reaches half-way across, butfor the Calvinist, the atonement is like a narrowbridge that reaches all the way across.

Biblical EvidenceThe biblical evidence for Limited Atonement can beclassed under two categories:

Christ Did Not Die for EveryoneChrist Did Not Die for EveryoneChrist Did Not Die for EveryoneChrist Did Not Die for EveryoneChrist Did Not Die for EveryoneWe have an indication in the Old Testament that theLord would die only for a limited number of people.

Limited Atonement ••••• 21

In particular, the Prophet Isaiah, in speaking aboutthe substitutionary death of Christ, tells us that Christshall “justify many; for he shall bear their iniqui-ties” (Isa 53:11). In other words, Christ will justifymany by bearing their iniquities, which also meanHe would not bear the iniquity of everyone.

Thus, the Lord Jesus Himself taught His disciples:“For even the Son of man came not to be ministeredunto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransomfor many” (Mk 10:45). He did not give His life aransom for all, but for many. Then when institut-ing the Lord’s Supper, He declares: “For this is myblood of the new testament, which is shed for manyfor the remission of sins” (Mt 26:28).

Who is the “many” that the Lord refers to? The Lordleaves us without doubt that it is His sheep or Hiselect: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep,and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me,even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life forthe sheep” (Jn 10:14–15). It is clear that by “thesheep,” the Lord is referring to His sheep, for He goeson to rebuke those who are not His: “But ye believenot, because ye are not of my sheep” (Jn 10:26).Christ, by His own testimony, died for His sheep, Hispeople, the elect. Those who are not His sheep arenot the elect, and will not believe.

The same thought of particularlism in the redemp-tion purchased by Christ is echoed by the Apostles.Paul declares: “If God be for us, who can be againstus? He that spared not his own Son, but deliveredhim up for us all, how shall he not with him alsofreely give us all things?” (Rom 8:31b–32). Who isthis “us”? Paul does not leave us to guess: It is theelect of God, for he continues: “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God thatjustifieth” (Rom 8:33).

In another passage, Paul seeking to encourage hus-bands to love their wives to the point of being willingto die for them, urges: “Husbands, love your wives,

even as Christ also loved the church, and gave him-self for it” (Eph 5:25). Christ did not lay down Hislife for the world, but for His bride, the Church.

This explains why the Lord specifically indicates inHis High Priestly Prayer that He does not pray foreveryone, but for as many as have been given to Him,i.e., His elect:

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, thathe should give eternal life to as many as thou hastgiven him.… I pray for them: I pray not for theworld, but for them which thou hast given me; forthey are thine.… Neither pray I for these [i.e.,those who have already believed] alone, but forthem also which shall believe on me through theirword (Jn 17:2, 9, 20).

It would be absurd to think of Christ dying an ago-nising death for everyone in the world and then re-fusing to pray for them. It has to be that He is notconcerned to save the world, but to save His elect forwhom He died, and so continues to intercede for themand them alone (Heb 7:14–15).

Christ Died to Save,Christ Died to Save,Christ Died to Save,Christ Died to Save,Christ Died to Save,Not to Make Salvation PossibleNot to Make Salvation PossibleNot to Make Salvation PossibleNot to Make Salvation PossibleNot to Make Salvation Possible

The Lord Jesus Christ affirms emphatically that Hismission was to save the lost: “For the Son of man iscome to save that which was lost” (Mt 18:11; Lk19:10). Never does He say that He came to make sin-ners saveable. The Apostles, accordingly, refer to thework of Christ in definite terms.

Thus, the Apostle Paul declares: “Christ Jesus cameinto the world to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15); and“we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”(Rom 5:10).

Thus, the Apostle Peter affirms: “[Christ Himself]bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we,being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness:by whose stripes ye were healed” (1 Pet 2:24; cf. 1Pet 3:18).

22 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

Thus, the writer of Hebrews emphatically asserts thatChrist had already obtained salvation for us with thecompletion of His sacrifice of Himself: “Neither bythe blood of goats and calves, but by his own bloodhe entered in once into the holy place, having ob-tained eternal redemption for us” (Heb 9:12).

Notice how the Apostles use the past tense in theseverses to indicate that the work of redemption is com-plete and our salvation depends on nothing else.

Someone may object: “But if Christ came to makesalvation possible, it would also be right to say thatHe came to ‘save sinners,’ just as a man who throwsa life-buoy to a drowning person is said to be savinghis life.”

But one thing must be borne in mind: There is acolossal difference between a drowning man and aman dead in sin. A man dead in sin cannot helphimself. If Christ merely makes salvation possible,he would never be saved.

If Christ came to save, and the salvation of the sin-ner depends on nothing else but what Christ has donein suffering and dying for them, then it follows thatChrist must have died only for a limited number ofsinners, for, obviously, not every sinner is saved. In-deed, if Christ died for everyone without exception,than God would be unjust to punish any sinner fortheir sin, for it would mean that He would be pun-ishing them twice: once in Christ, and another timein themselves. Moreover, the idea would make Godself-contradictory, for in Christ “dwelleth all the full-ness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9).

‘Problem’ PassagesWe have seen how the Scripture clearly, consistentlyand logically shows that the atonement of Christ islimited by design. However, there are admittedly, sev-eral texts in the Scripture which appear to be speak-ing of the death of Christ in universalistic terms. In

this section, we must briefly deal with some of thesepassages. In the interest of space, we shall not quotethe verses, but do request our readers to look themup in the Bible.

John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42;John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42;John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42;John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42;John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42;1 John 2:2, 4:141 John 2:2, 4:141 John 2:2, 4:141 John 2:2, 4:141 John 2:2, 4:14

Arminians and those with Arminian tendencies willoften cite these verses and simply declare that “Godloves the world and Christ died for the world”—bywhich they mean every person who ever lived. Butthese verses are easily explained by the fact that theword “world” (kovsmo~, cosmos) has at least eightdifferent meanings in the New Testament. For ex-ample, in Luke 2:1, “the world” obviously refers tothe Roman world under the rulership of CaesarAugustus; in Acts 17:24, it refers to the entire createdorder; and in John 15:18, it obviously refer to theunbelieving world. In fact, one needs only to exam-ine the 187 times the word kovsmo~ occurs in theNew Testament to realise that it very seldom refers to“every single human being who ever live” (such asin Romans 3:19). Anyone who tries to use the word“world” or kovsmo~ to speak about Christ dyingfor everyone without exception is simply graspingstraw.

What is the meaning of the word “world” as used bythe Apostle John in all these passages? Well, what-ever the meaning be, it cannot be “world withoutexception.” If this is the meaning in John 1:29 or 1John 2:2, then God would be guilty of injustice if Hepunishes anyone in hell, for Christ would have madethem in the sight of God not-guilty by taking awaytheir sin. If John 3:16 refers to the world without ex-ception, then we must conclude that God loves allwho are in hell, being punished for their sin, andthat passages such as Romans 9:13 and Psalm 11:5are wrong. Again, if John 4:42 and 1 John 4:14 referto the world without exception, then we must con-clude that Christ failed in His mission because it isevident that not the whole world is saved.

Limited Atonement ••••• 23

Some very good sound Calvinistic theologians, suchas John Owen, John Gill, A.W. Pink, George Gillespie,Samuel Rutherford, Herman Hanko, etc., hold that“the world” in these passages refers to the “world ofthe elect.” This view has merits and fits very well withthe doctrine of Limited Atonement.

Personally, however, I prefer to see it as “world with-out distinction.” That is to say: (1) The Gospel pas-sages refer to Christ as being not only the Saviour ofthe Jews but also of the Gentiles, without distinguish-ing between the elect and the reprobate. Ultimately,Christ is the Saviour only of the elect, but here theemphasis is not on who Christ is particularly saving,but on the fact that those He saves (the elect) are notrestricted to the Jews. (2) The epistle passages carrythe same idea, but contrast between those already inthe church and those outside of it.

For example, John 4:42 is a statement made by theSamaritans to indicate that Christ is the Saviour notonly of the Jews, but Samaritans and Gentiles as well(contrast with Jn 4:22). Moreover, if John 3:16 refersto the “world of the elect” then it seems superfluousfor the Lord to say: “whosoever believeth in himshould not perish,” for all the elect will certainly be-lieve. The fact is that the statement makes no directmention of the elect, but only that God’s love is notconfined to the Jews. It is true that God’s love ulti-mately rests only upon the elect, but this is a propo-sition that must be found in other passages. Andagain, note how 1 John 2:2 parallels the propheticstatement of Caiaphas that: “Jesus should die for thatnation [Israel]; And not for that nation only, but thatalso he should gather together in one the childrenof God that were scattered abroad [i.e., the elect ofGod in the other nations in the world]” (Jn 11:51–52). Caiaphas was prophetically saying that Christwould be the propitiation for sins of the elect in Is-rael: and not for only for them, but also for the sinsof the elect of God in other nations.

1 T1 T1 T1 T1 Timothy 2:4, 4:10imothy 2:4, 4:10imothy 2:4, 4:10imothy 2:4, 4:10imothy 2:4, 4:10These two verses are also commonly urged to meanthat God desires to save all men, and that the onlyreason why not all men are saved is because Godhas left the final decision to men. First of all, “allmen” in 1 Timothy 2:4 does not refer to all men with-out exception, for in the immediate context, Paulmakes it clear that “all men” refers to all classes ofmen:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications,prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, bemade for all men; For kings, and for all that arein authority; that we may lead a quiet and peace-able life in all godliness and honesty (1 Tim 2:1–2).

Secondly, the context of 1 Timothy 4:10 suggests thatPaul is not referring to salvation from sin and Sa-tan, else the verse would suggest that “all men” arein a certain sense saved. We agree with Calvin that:

… the word swth;r is here a general term, anddenotes one who defends and preserves. He meansthat the kindness of God extends to all men. Andif there is no man who does not feel the goodnessof God towards him, and who is not a partaker ofit, how much more shall it be experienced by thegodly, who hope in him? (in loc.).

2 Peter 3:92 Peter 3:92 Peter 3:92 Peter 3:92 Peter 3:9This is another favourite text of the Arminians toshow that God desires that all without exception cometo repentance since Christ died for all. However, ifthat is the case, then the verse would either implyuniversal salvation since God can and does carry outHis will, or it would imply that Christ will never re-turn since God does not wish that anyone shouldperish, but when Christ returns every unbeliever inthat generation will perish regardless of whether theyhave been “given sufficient time” to repent or not.

The fact is that the words “all” and “any” in theverse are clearly restricted by the pronoun “us.” Pe-

24 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

ter is clearly referring to believers (and, by exten-sion, all the elect) when he says, “The Lord is notslack concerning his promise… but is longsuffer-ing to us-ward” (cf. 2 Pet 1:1–4; Acts 2:39).

Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22;Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22;Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22;Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22;Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22;2 Corinthians 5:14–152 Corinthians 5:14–152 Corinthians 5:14–152 Corinthians 5:14–152 Corinthians 5:14–15

The surface reading of 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Ro-mans 5:18 does suggest that Christ died for all. Butwe need not take much effort to discover that the“all” in the context of both verses mean “all the elect”as contrasted with all who are represented by Adam.Likewise, in 2 Corinthians 5:14–15, Paul was writ-ing to encouraged the believers with the fact thatChrist died for them and therefore, they “should nothenceforth live unto themselves, but unto him whichdied for them.” The verse would not make sense if“all” refers to everyone in the world.

2 Peter 2:12 Peter 2:12 Peter 2:12 Peter 2:12 Peter 2:1On surface reading, this verse does suggest that Christdied to purchase redemption even for the false teach-ers and prophets. But again, it cannot be that any-one purchased by Christ could perish (Rom 8:34–35). It must be that here Peter is using a form of adhominem argument by which he points out thatthese false teachers actually claim that Christ boughtthem too.

ConclusionWe have shown that Limited Atonement is a biblicaldoctrine. The Arminian, rather than having anatonement that is unlimited, is really propoundingan atonement of Christ that is weak and powerlessto save. Worst than that, it makes God to be a failurebecause He desires to save all mankind, but His planhas largely been frustrated because the greater partof all mankind is currently in hell because of unbe-lief. In fact, He would not only be a failure, but wouldalso be contradictory, for He desires to save all man-

kind, but left the greater part of all nations in OldTestament times in darkness, and a large number ofpeople in the world today without any opportunity tohear the Gospel. It is no wonder that Arminianismleads so easily to liberalism. After all, the god pic-tured in Arminianism is an impotent god who ishelpless to save. How could anyone of us, knowingthis fact, be apathetic as to whether Calvinism orArminianism is right?

Irresistible Grace ••••• 25

Calvinistic theologians generally distinguish betweenthe external call of the Gospel and the internal callof the Word and the Spirit. The external call of theGospel is given in the preaching of the Gospel, andcalls all without exception to repent of sin and be-lieve in Christ. This call is resistible, and thus theLord teaches: “For many are called, but few are cho-sen” (Mt 22:14; cf. Jn 8:43–44a). On the other hand,the internal call is given only to the elect. This call,which is referred to in Romans 8:30, involves theplanting of spiritual ears in the heart by the HolySpirit, and is therefore always efficacious. The West-minster Confession of Faith speaks of this effectualcall thus:

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life,and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed andaccepted time, effectually to call, by His Word andSpirit, out of that state of sin and death in whichthey are by nature, to grace and salvation by JesusChrist; enlightening their minds spiritually andsavingly to understand the things of God; takingaway their heart of stone, and giving unto theman heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by Hisalmighty power, determining them to that whichis good; and effectually drawing them to JesusChrist; yet so as they come most freely, being madewilling by His grace (WCF 10.1).

When the Calvinist speaks about Irresistible Grace,he is referring to the nature of this efficacious call.

Controversy with ArminiansWe are plucking the petals of TULIP one by one inorder, in our discussion of the Five Points of Calvin-

Irresistible Graceism. This order in the acronym beautifully showsthe work of the Triune God in our salvation: TheFather electing unconditionally, the Son dying forthe elect, and the Holy Spirit quickening the electwho are by nature dead in sin, and planting spir-itual ears so that they may respond to the Gospel.

However, this may not be the best order to discussthe subject because the doctrine of Irresistible Gracefollows logically the doctrine of Total Depravity. Inthe Remonstrantia, the Arminian expression whichcorresponds to this doctrine is found in Article IV,which immediately follows Article III on Freewill orthe ability of man (antithesis of Total Depravity). Thefathers of Dort, when drafting the Canons, whichfollows the order of the Remonstrantia, found itnecessary to treat the two articles together, viz. HeadIII & IV: “Of the Doctrine of Man’s Corruption, andof the Method of His Conversion to God.” This is be-cause it is quite impossible to know how the Armin-ians differ from the Calvinists in the third article with-out bringing in the fourth article. In the same way,we cannot get a full picture of Total Depravity with-out at least some reference to Irresistible Grace.

The reason for this is that the Arminians also claimto hold to Total Depravity and that without grace notone may be saved. Thus, a Calvinist reading the thirdarticle of the Remonstrantia by itself will probablyagree with it wholeheartedly. It is only when we be-gin to discuss what grace is and does, that we beginto see where the two systems differ. When the Calvin-ist speaks about grace in the salvation of sinners, heis referring to God sovereignly and monergistically

26 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

changing the heart or nature of the sinner so thathis will, which is bounded to his inclination whichis hitherto dead to sin, is now made alive and freedfrom the bondage of sin to embrace Christ (see Can-ons Heads 3 & 4, art. 11). Arminius, on the otherhand, writes: “grace is so attempered [sic] and com-mingled with the nature of man, as not to destroywithin him the liberty of his will, but to give it a rightdirection, to correct its depravity, and to allow manto possess his own proper motions” (Works 1.628–9). Note also that for the Arminians, regenerationdoes not involve a permanent change. This is whythe Fourth Article of the Remonstrantia (shrewdly)refers to the operation of grace in the lives of the re-generate rather than unregenerate. For them, nosubstantive change is wrought by regeneration,whereas for a Calvinist the change is drastic, and isthe very subject of the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.

From a different angle, one way of looking at thedifference is that Calvinists believe that grace is par-ticular and monergistic: that it proceeds from thefountain of God’s electing love and sovereignly bringsabout regeneration and conversion; whereas Armin-ians hold that grace is universal and synergistic: thatit proceeds from Christ’s death for the world and co-operates with the freewill of man to effect faith andregeneration.

Another way of looking at the difference is as pro-posed by Arminius himself when he quite rightlyasserts: “The whole controversy reduces itself to thesolution of this question, ‘Is the grace of God a cer-tain irresistible force?’” (Works 1.664). We would ofcourse not say that God’s converting grace is an “ir-resistible force,” which is an Arminian caricature tosuggest that Calvinism teaches that the elect areforced into the kingdom kicking and screaming. Butit is fair to say that the difference is whether grace isresistible or irresistible, or whether grace properlydenoted is necessarily efficacious or not. Thus thefourth article of the Remonstrantia insists that grace

“is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concern-ing many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts7, and elsewhere in many places.”

We will have to examine the Scripture cited as wellas others cited by Arminius, but before we do so, it isuseful, I believe, to think for a moment what theArminians are essentially saying. They are saying thatwhen the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit tries Hisbest to woo the hearer to believe, but that ultimately,it is the hearer who finally decides if he wants to be-lieve. If the hearer refuses to believe, there is noth-ing the Holy Spirit can do about it. In this way,whether we profess to hold to Unconditional Elec-tion or not, we will have to conclude that God’s gracecan be rejected and His will can be frustrated.

Verses that Suggest‘Resistible Grace’

Although the Remonstratia asserts that “it is writ-ten concerning many, that they have resisted the HolyGhost… in many places,” it does not give any spe-cific examples. Arminius, however, lists three classesof verses, viz: (1) such as teaches that grace is capa-ble of “being resisted”—Acts 7:51; (2) such asteaches that grace can be “received in vain”—2 Cor-inthians 6:1; and (3) those that suggest that “it ispossible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it;and to refuse all co-operation with it”—Hebrews12:15; Matthew 23:37; Luke 7:30 (Op. Cit., 1.629).These verses must be examined. But once again, inthe interest of space, we will not quote the text butrequest the readers to check them up in the Bible.

Acts 7:51Acts 7:51Acts 7:51Acts 7:51Acts 7:51This verse does indeed teach that the Holy Ghost canin some sense be resisted. Firstly, He is resisted whenthe hearers resist the Holy Spirit speaking to them bythe prophets, Apostles and ministers of the Gospel.Secondly, He is resisted when the hearers resist theconvictions and dictate of their own conscience when

Irresistible Grace ••••• 27

their minds are in some sense irradiated with somesparks of truth by the Holy Spirit (cf. Hebrews 6:4and Calvin in loc.).

In other words, the resistance against the Holy Spiritthat this verse speaks about is resistance to the workof the Spirit in the external call of the Gospel, whichno Calvinist will deny is possible. But the externalcall for the reprobate, in the final analysis, can hardlybe regarded as grace, for to these God “designs thecall to be a savour of death [cf. 2 Cor 2:16], and theground of a severer condemnation” (ICR 3.24.8). Inany case, this verse does not at all suggest that theHoly Spirit’s work of regeneration can be resisted.

2 Corinthians 6:12 Corinthians 6:12 Corinthians 6:12 Corinthians 6:12 Corinthians 6:1

Again, this verse does not refer to the regeneratingwork of the Spirit in the heart of sinners; rather, itrefers to the preaching of the Gospel (cf. 2 Cor 6:2).The offer of the Gospel is here denoted “grace of God”simply because it is a presentation of God’s grace. Itmay be argued, from what we have said regardingActs 7:51, that it seem incongruous to call the preach-ing of the Gospel “grace of God.” But we must re-member that the primary purpose of the Gospel isfor salvation rather than condemnation (Jn 3:17).Moreover, as Paul is addressing the members of achurch of Christ, it is perfectly natural that he speaksof the Gospel in the designation as it appertains thebetter part of the congregation, namely the elect. Inother words, the Gospel to the church viewed organi-cally (as a whole) is the offer of God’s grace, and thereprobate are those who would receive the “grace ofGod in vain.”

Hebrews 12:15Hebrews 12:15Hebrews 12:15Hebrews 12:15Hebrews 12:15

In this verse, it is unlikely that the phrase “grace ofGod” refers to the Gospel. Rather it probably refersto the work of grace pertaining to regeneration andconversion, albeit, the Apostle is not writing to anindividual but to a body of believers with the possi-

bility of false professors being found in it. Again withthe principle that the whole is to be known by thebetter part, the congregation regarded as a whole maybe said to have received grace. But ultimately, thosewho “fail of the grace of God” were never, in the firstplace, recipients of grace (cf. Mt 24:13).

Matthew 23:37Matthew 23:37Matthew 23:37Matthew 23:37Matthew 23:37We assume that Arminius is using this verse to showthat Christ desired the salvation of the Jews, but Hisdesire is frustrated because they refused to come toHim, and this implies that the grace of God can befrustrated. But this interpretation could only standif, in the Lord’s statement, “Jerusalem” refers to thesame group of people as “thy children.” But a plainreading of this verse would show us immediately thatthis is not the case. Although “Jerusalem” as a city ispersonified in the Lord’s statement, His statement canonly be understood substantively if we view it as be-ing received by the religious and political representa-tives of city. In other words, “O Jerusalem, Jerusa-lem” would refer to the leaders while “thy children”would refer to the (elect) citizens in the city. The re-sistance to being gathered under the wings of Christcome not from those whom Christ desired to gather,but from the opposition of the leaders of the city.Whatever we may derive from this verse, it certainlydoes not mean Christ desires the salvation of every-one in Jerusalem, much less the world.

Luke 7:30Luke 7:30Luke 7:30Luke 7:30Luke 7:30The “counsel of God” must surely refer to the re-vealed will of God, rather than the decretive will ofGod since the latter cannot be known, much less re-jected. Therefore, this verse again furnishes no proofthat grace is resistible.

Irresistible Grace ProvenIn order to prove Irresistible Grace, we need only toprove (1) that the natural man will not choose Christ;(2) that regeneration is wholly a work of the Holy

28 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

Spirit without any co-operation from the sinner; and(3) all who are elect will come to Christ.

The Natural ManThe Natural ManThe Natural ManThe Natural ManThe Natural ManWill Not Choose ChristWill Not Choose ChristWill Not Choose ChristWill Not Choose ChristWill Not Choose Christ

If the natural man is able, by prevenient grace (graceprior to regeneration) or otherwise, to choose Christ,and all who come to Christ come through co-opera-tion with prevenient grace, then it must follow thatthe grace that leads to salvation is resistible. On theother hand, if no one,—whether elect or repro-bate,—has any ability to choose Christ, and yet theelect are saved, then it must follow that the grace ofconversion is particular and irresistible.

When we examine the Scriptures we find that it isindeed true that the natural man cannot chooseChrist. We have seen this fact more or less when weexamined the doctrine of Total Depravity, so we willsimply highlight some verses from Scripture here.First, the Lord says: “No man can come to me, ex-cept the Father which hath sent me draw him” (Jn6:44a). The word translated “draw” (eJlkuvw,helkuô) is never used to mean “persuade” or “woo”or “co-operate with.” This can be seen in the six othertimes in the New Testament, that it is used in a dif-ferent context with John 6:44. In these instances,the word is used to describe the drawing of a sword(Jn 18:10); the dragging up of a net (Jn 21:6, 11);dragging a person by force (Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jas 2:6).In none of these cases do we find the objects beingdrawn co-operating. So, it is quite clear that whenthe Lord say “except the Father… draw him,” He isreferring to a sovereign work rather than simplymoral persuasion.

Although man is a free agent, his will is bounded tohis inclination which, prior to regeneration, “loveddarkness rather than light” (Jn 3:19). His will is takencaptive by Satan, and he cannot but sin. Paul ex-presses this fact when he suggests that in our unre-generacy, we walked “according to the course of this

world, according to the prince of the power of the air,the spirit that now worketh in the children of diso-bedience…, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and ofthe mind; and were by nature the children ofwrath…” (Eph 2:2–3).

Regeneration is WhollyRegeneration is WhollyRegeneration is WhollyRegeneration is WhollyRegeneration is Whollya Wa Wa Wa Wa Work of the Spiritork of the Spiritork of the Spiritork of the Spiritork of the Spirit

The grace of regeneration can only be resistible if itis received synergistically: through the co-operationof the wills of man and of God. But we find in theScripture, that this is not the case. Regeneration isalways portrayed as wholly and sovereignly the workof the Spirit. This fact is taught very powerfully andclearly in the Scriptures by the use of several meta-phors to describe regeneration.

The Lord Himself uses the metaphor of child-birthand blindness when He told Nicodemus: “Verily, ver-ily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, hecannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3). One whois not born again is blind in his heart (Eph 4:18),cannot see the kingdom of God (with spiritual eyes),and so there is no way for him to enter into it. Butjust as a baby is totally passive in childbirth so is aman being born again by the will of God throughthe Spirit of Christ (see John 1:12–13). The new birthor regeneration, in other words, is monergistic. It istotally the work of the Spirit with no contributionfrom man. Similarly just as a blind man cannot helphis own blindness, a spiritually blind man cannothelp himself, but needs the healing of the Lord(through regeneration).

Another metaphor, which is used both by the Lordand the Apostle Paul, is that of resurrection from thedead. The Lord says: “For as the Father raiseth upthe dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Sonquickeneth whom he will” (Jn 5:21; see also John5:24–25). Writing to the Ephesians, Paul says, “ButGod, who is rich in mercy, for his great love where-with he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins,

Irresistible Grace ••••• 29

hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace yeare saved)” (Eph 2:4–5; cf. Col 2:13).

This metaphor is especially important because itshows us that the unregenerate person is not asArminius claimed him to be: a beggar who is able toextend his hand to receive alms. Arminius had ar-gued that such a stretching out of the hands to re-ceive the gift does not at all make the gift not a ‘puregift’ (Works 2.52). But the fact is that the Scripturetells us the sinner is dead. He has to be made alive.Before he is made alive, he contributes precisely noth-ing to the receipt of the gift.

Indeed, Paul goes on to say that even our faith is agift of God: “For by grace are ye saved through faith;and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not ofworks, lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8–9). Ofcourse, faith is not something that can be pouredinto the heart, and so it must be a gift by way of spir-itual resurrection, or effectual calling.

Yet another metaphor of regeneration is that of heartchange representing a total change in nature. Thisis particularly used by the Lord through Ezekiel andJeremiah, for example, He said through Ezekiel:

And I will give them one heart, and I will put anew spirit within you; and I will take the stonyheart out of their flesh, and will give them an heartof flesh: That they may walk in my statutes, andkeep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shallbe my people, and I will be their God (Ezk 11:19–20; cf. 36:26–27; Jer 31:33).

Notice how the words “I will” are repeated and em-phasised to indicate that the change will be effectedby God sovereignly, without co-operation from thesinner.

In the same vein of thought, in the New Testament,Luke uses the idea of an opening of the heart to de-scribe the conversion of Lydia: “And a certain womannamed Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira,

which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart theLord opened, that she attended unto the things whichwere spoken of Paul” (Acts 16:14). Notice the order:The Lord opened her heart, and then she attended tothe Gospel. Again, it should be noted that this changeof heart, which results in repentance and faith, isnot something that is self-generated, but is grantedsovereignly by God (Acts 11:18; Phil 1:29; 2 Tim 2:25–26).

So great is this change in heart or nature, that theScripture speaks the regenerate as being a “new crea-tion”: “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is anew creature: old things are passed away; behold, allthings are become new” (2 Cor 5:17; see also Gala-tians 6:15).

If we examine all these instances of Scripture with-out bias, it is hard to escape the conclusion that theregenerating grace of God is wholly the work of theSpirit without any co-operation from the sinner. Ifthat is so, then, it necessarily follows that the graceof regeneration is irresistible: there is no room forco-operation, much less resistance.

All the Elect Will ComeAll the Elect Will ComeAll the Elect Will ComeAll the Elect Will ComeAll the Elect Will ComeYet another argument for the particularity and effi-cacy of the grace of regeneration is the fact that allwho are elect will be saved. In other words, all whomGod intends to save will be irresistibly drawn to Christ.Again, this is clearly taught in the Scripture.

First, the Lord says: “All that the Father giveth meshall come to me; and him that cometh to me I willin no wise cast out” (Jn 6:37). In other words, allwho are elected will come.

Luke, writing under the inspiration of the Spirit, af-firms this fact when he describes the conversion ofthe Gentiles in these words: “And when the Gentilesheard this, they were glad, and glorified the word ofthe Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternallife believed” (Acts 13:48).

30 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

The Apostle Paul puts it in another way when hepaints the order of salvation as an unbroken chainof God’s work beginning from election (foreknow)to calling to glorification:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predesti-nate to be conformed to the image of his Son, thathe might be the firstborn among many brethren.Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he alsocalled: and whom he called, them he also justi-fied: and whom he justified, them he also glori-fied (Rom 8:29–30).

Notice how Paul speaks about the certainty of glori-fication for all the elect. If all the elect will definitelyattain unto glorification, and the grace of God is onlyfor the elect, then it follows, once again, that the graceof conversion is irresistible.

ConclusionI believe we have proven beyond doubt that the graceof God in conversion is irresistible. Many Calviniststoday talk about common grace. I have no great dif-ficulty with the thought, if by it is meant that Godsends the rain and the sunshine on all without dis-tinction (Mt 5:45). However, we must be careful notto extrapolate from there that God therefore desiresall to be saved; or that common grace is prevenientgrace which so assists, awakes, follows and co-oper-ates with the unregenerate without distinction so thatall who comes under the preaching of the Gospel isable to exercise faith unto salvation without beingirresistibly drawn by Christ. Such a doctrine is in-herently Arminian.

One of the most powerful illustrations of salvation isentering a door: “I am the door: by me if any manenter in, he shall be saved” (Jn 10:9).

Hearing the outward call is like seeing the door tosalvation, but left to ourselves, we would refuse toenter it. The world and sin seem to have so muchmore to offer. But when the Holy Spirit grants us a

new birth, we find the door compellingly attractive,and we enter into it willingly. No, we are not draggedthrough the door kicking and screaming; we enterin willingly, our hearts having been changed. Weenter, thinking that we have found the door. But oncewe enter the door, we discover that written at the backof the door are the words: “You have not found me, Ihave found you.” It was the Father who marked usout from eternity in the first place; Christ had in thesecond place paid for our sin; and the Holy Spirithad made us alive, and implanted spiritual ears andeyes to see the door and to behold the majesty andgreatness of the King.

Calvinism alone is true to the Scripture and highlyexalts the sovereignty and glory of God. Arminian-ism exalts human free will and leads to humanismand liberalism. Arminians have also no real argu-ment against the soteriology of Roman Catholicism(which is semi-Pelagian or Arminian) or even thosewho hold to Baptismal Regeneration (which isfounded on the premise that faith precedes regen-eration and therefore it is not wrong to add baptismbefore regeneration).

Perseverance of the Saints ••••• 31

We are studying the final petal of the Calvinisticflower, which is also the final head of the Canons ofDort under the same name. In simple terms, thisdoctrine answers the question: Can a regenerate andjustified person fall from the State of Grace? TheCalvinists says no! The Arminians, at least theRemonstrants, appear from the Remonstrantia tobe unsure. We will briefly analyse their positionshortly, but it will be helpful for us first to commenton the various other phrases that professing Calvin-ists use to describe this doctrine so that we have aclearer understanding of what it entails.

Synonyms?First, one of the most common phrases used is “Eter-nal Security.” This phrase is very popular among Dis-pensationalists, but it often belies the acceptance ofthe concept of “Carnal Christians.” We will say moreabout “Carnal Christians” in another issue, but verysimplistically, it teaches that once a person has prayedto receive Christ, he will be saved even if he exhibitsno repentance for sin and therefore does not haveChrist as Lord. According to those who hold to thisdoctrine (mostly Dispensationalists), such a personwill be saved as by fire. “Eternal Security,” when it isthus coloured with this doctrine of Carnal Christi-anity, is far from what the Synod of Dort propounded.The Synod taught “Perseverance of the Saints,” not“Preservation of Sinners.”

The second phrase, which is commonly used, is:“Once saved always saved!” This phrase is often usedwith the same significance as “Eternal Security,” but

Perseverance of the Saintsit is sometimes used by Calvinists who wish to maketheology more easily acceptable to modern Chris-tians—many of whom have a distaste for theologi-cal terms. Unfortunately, this phrase has contributedto the common modern notion that God’s work ofsalvation in the life of the sinner is completed whenthe sinner “prays to receive Christ.” One of the ef-fects of this misunderstanding is that many modernbelievers would find it very jarring to read importanttheological statements, such as in the WSC 91, whichspeaks about the sacraments becoming “effectualmeans of salvation.” And so there are some (includ-ing well-known writers!) who, on account of thesestatements, assert that the Westminster divines taughtbaptismal regeneration and salvation by works. Thefact is that the older theologians have more correctlyreflected the usage of the term “salvation” in Scrip-ture (e.g., Phil 2:12; 1 Thes 5:8; etc.) when they speakabout salvation as including the work of sanctifica-tion of the Spirit of Christ.

One other phrase that is commonly used, often byvery sound Calvinistic theologians, is “Preservationof the Saints.” This term has great merit and is espe-cially useful to emphasise the fact that the only rea-son why a Christian remains a Christian once he isregenerated and justified is the power of God. Per-sonally, however, I would still prefer the wordings ofthe Canons, for it especially emphasises the fact thatthe saints (Christians) persevere as saints through-out their Christian journey. In this way, two of thecommon Arminian objections to the doctrine,—viz.:(1) that it promotes carnal security; and (2) that

32 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

there are many real life examples of Christians whofall out and denounce the faith,—are answered. Thefact is, all Calvinists will maintain that anyone whoselife shows no evidence of the working of grace can-not be regarded as a true Christian; and anyone whodoes not persevere to the end has simply never beena true Christian, united with Christ and possessing atrue living faith in Him, in the first place. Positively,this means that: “They whom God hath accepted inHis Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by HisSpirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away fromthe state of grace; but shall certainly persevere thereinto the end, and be eternally saved” (WCF 17.1).

The Arminian ContentionAlthough there are many flavours of Arminianismtoday, it is helpful for us to look at what was submit-ted to the Synod of Dort by the Arminians so that wemay better understand what the Calvinistic or bibli-cal doctrine is:

That those who are incorporated into Christ by atrue faith, and have thereby become partakers ofhis life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power tostrive against Satan, sin, the world, and their ownflesh, and to win the victory; it being well under-stood that it is ever through the assisting grace ofthe Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists themthrough his Spirit in all temptations, extends tothem his hand, and if only they are ready for theconflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive,keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craftor power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked outof Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ,John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck themout of my hand.” But whether they are capable,through negligence, of forsaking again the firstbeginnings of their life in Christ, of again return-ing to this present evil world, of turning away fromthe holy doctrine which was delivered them, oflosing a good conscience, of becoming devoid ofgrace, that must be more particularly determined

out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves canteach it with the full persuasion of our minds.

Firstly, notice that the Arminians agree that “thosewho are incorporated into Christ by a true faith…[cannot] be misled nor plucked out of Christ’shands.” But, secondly, notice how they emphasisethat the Christian is preserved only by the “assistinggrace of the Holy Ghost.” In other words, the Chris-tian remains a Christian by his own effort, assistedby grace. Remember that for the Arminians, regen-eration does not involve a permanent change. Andso, thirdly, since the freewill of the Christian is thefinal determining factor in the Christian life, it can-not be certain from a theological standpoint to as-sert whether the Christian is “capable, through neg-ligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings oftheir life in Christ… of becoming devoid of grace.”

The Response of DortWhat did the Synod of Dort say to the Arminian con-tention? First, they reassert the fact that a Christianis a Christian by the purpose of God or, in other words,the perseverance of the saints flows from the foun-tainhead of the electing grace of God (Head 5, arts.1, 6; rej. 1). Secondly, they insist that the Christian isregenerated (permanently) by the Holy Spirit and setfree from the dominion and slavery of sin (art. 1).This means that the Christian has a new heart orprinciple of life which is not naturally inclined tosin as in the case of the unregenerate. But thirdly,the Christian is “not entirely in this life [free] fromthe flesh and the body of sin” (arts. 1, 2). In otherwords, the Christian has remaining corruption, andthough by the grace of God, he is able and desirousto resist temptation, he is also capable of falling intosin (arts. 3, 4). Nevertheless, fourthly, “God is faith-ful, who confirms them in the grace once mercifullyconferred on them, and powerfully preserves themin the same unto the end” (arts. 3, 7). And fifthly, itmust be remembered that the saints persevere “not

Perseverance of the Saints ••••• 33

by their own merits or strength, but by the gratui-tous mercy of God… [so that] they neither totallyfall from faith and grace, nor finally continue in theirfalls and perish” (art. 8).

In a word, the Synod of Dort disagrees with theArminians that the perseverance of the saints is de-pendent on the effort of the saints. Rather, it insiststhat the saints persevere because God sovereignly pre-serves them in grace. He does so by firstly preservingthe immortal seed, by which they are regenerated (1Pet 1:23; 1 Jn 3:9); and secondly, by “His own Wordand Spirit, He assuredly and efficaciously renewsthem to repentance” (art. 7). God, in other words, isthe author and cause of our perseverance.

Also, the Calvinistic position follows logically fromthe other four points, which we have already provenfrom Scripture. For example, if God has elected un-conditionally every Christian who will be saved, itfollows that none who is elected will be lost; for oth-erwise, it would either mean that God is not sover-eign or that election can only be understood retro-spectively, which also means that God did preciselynothing when it is said that He elected. Additionally,if Christ died to pay for the penalty of the sin of theelect, then if any of the elect perish, it would meanthat the death of Christ is insufficient even to pay forthe sins of these who perished.

Perseverance of the SaintsProven Biblically

The Westminster Confession of Faith, which waswritten some years after the Canons of Dort, not onlyprovides the most succinct and eloquent definitionof the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints; butit also provides the most comprehensive argumentfrom Scripture for the doctrine:

This perseverance of the saints depends not upontheir own free will, but upon the immutability ofthe degree of election, flowing from the free and

unchangeable love of God the Father; upon theefficacy of the merit and intercession of JesusChrist, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed ofGod within them; and the nature of the covenantof grace: from all which ariseth also the certaintyand infallibility thereof (WCF 17.2).

Note first from this statement how the Westminsterdivines nail the error of the Arminians on the head:they have made the perseverance of the saints ulti-mately dependent upon man’s free will. Secondly,notice the fourfold arguments: (1) God’s immuta-ble love and decree of election: since God’s love anddecree are unchanging, how could the elect perish?(2) The merit and intercession of Christ: Since Christpaid an infinite price for our salvation, and He isconstantly interceding for us, how could we perish?(3) The abiding of the Spirit: since we are by the sov-ereign will of God united with Christ through theindwelling of the Spirit, how could anything cut usoff from Christ; and (4) The nature of the Covenantof Grace: since the Covenant of Grace is unilateraland unconditional, how could we by our sin or oth-erwise perish?

To prove the doctrine of the Perseverance of theSaints, we need only to prove these four propositionsas given in the WCF. But let’s begin with some clearstatements from the Scripture, which assert that nonewho are in Christ will perish.

Clear Scriptural AffirmationsClear Scriptural AffirmationsClear Scriptural AffirmationsClear Scriptural AffirmationsClear Scriptural AffirmationsPerhaps the most precious statement with regards toour perseverance as saints comes from the lips ofour Lord Himself, the “author and finisher of ourfaith” (Heb 12:2), for concerning the sheep for whomHe laid down His life (Jn 10:15), He says: “And I giveunto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand”(Jn 10:28). Three times in this one statement, doesthe Lord assure us that those who are in Him willnever perish. First, he gives us eternal life, which is

34 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

not only a life of communion with God (Jn 17:3),but it is, as the word “eternal” (aijwvnio~, aiônios)suggests, an everlasting life. Secondly, He assures usthat we shall never perish (ajpovllumi, apollumi)or be destroyed or to fall irrecoverably. But in casesomeone thinks that if we cannot fall by ourselves, itdoes not mean that the enemies of God cannot de-stroy us, the Lord assures us, thirdly, that no one willbe able to pluck (aJrpavzw, harpazô) or snatch usout of His hand. What an encouraging thought! Hewho is the sovereign God is holding us in His stronghands, how can we ever perish?

The Apostle Paul is essentially echoing this thoughtin his famous and sublime statement:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shalltribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine,or nakedness, or peril, or sword?… Nay, in allthese things we are more than conquerors throughhim that loved us. For I am persuaded, that nei-ther death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shallbe able to separate us from the love of God, whichis in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom 8:35–39).

Notice how Paul’s statement speaks about our per-severance and not just our preservation, for he tellsus that “we are more than conquerors through himthat loved us.” In other words, Christ preserves us bymaking us victors over all that may tempt us to fallaway.

What about professing Christians who apostatise? Dothey not prove that the doctrine is wrong or that wehave misinterpreted both the Lord and the ApostlePaul? Well, we must always interpret experience withthe Scripture and not the other way round. This isparticularly so in the case of the doctrine of the Per-severance of the Saints, for here we have the ApostleJohn, writing under inspiration, asserting that anywho apostatise have never been a Christian in thefirst place: “They went out from us, but they were

not of us; for if they had been of us, they would nodoubt have continued with us: but they went out,that they might be made manifest that they were notall of us” (1 Jn 2:19).

God’God’God’God’God’s Immutable Loves Immutable Loves Immutable Loves Immutable Loves Immutable Loveand Decreeand Decreeand Decreeand Decreeand Decree

We have already previously seen how the Apostle Paulasserts in Romans 8:29–30 that those foreknown orelected by God (cf. 2 Tim 2:19) will with certaintyattain unto glorification. This is because God’s de-cree to save the elect is unchangeable. If it were inany sense changeable, the Apostle Paul could nothave spoken so definitively.

The election of the saints by God is according to the“good pleasure of his will,” and His predestinationof the saints is founded upon His eternal love of thechosen in Christ (Eph 1:4–5). This is the same lovethat Jehovah expressed to His saints of old throughJeremiah: “Yea, I have loved thee with an everlast-ing love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawnthee” (Jer 31:3). Notice how the Lord speaks of Hislove as being “everlasting.” This means that He willnever cease to love His elect. His love for them is un-changing. When the elect of God sin against Him,they incur His Fatherly displeasure; this wrath is forthem but for a moment (Ps 30:5). It never impingeson the love of God for them. And since the final des-tiny of man is entirely determined by the will of God,we know for certain that those whom God loves willnever perish.

Merit and IntercessionMerit and IntercessionMerit and IntercessionMerit and IntercessionMerit and Intercessionof Christof Christof Christof Christof Christ

We have already seen that Christ’s atonement for theelect was not to make salvation possible for them butto save them. The writer of Hebrews makes this pointwhen he says: “… we are sanctified through the of-fering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.… Forby one offering he hath perfected for ever them thatare sanctified” (Heb 10:10, 14; cf. Heb 13:20–21;

Perseverance of the Saints ••••• 35

9:12–15; Rom 8:33–39). Notice the language of com-pletion and permanence in the phrase: “he hathperfected for ever.” This does certainly not leave roomfor the possibility of a fall from grace, which if it oc-curs would not only mean that the atonement ofChrist is neither perfect nor sufficient, but would alsoimply that the Word of God is unreliable.

Christ, furthermore, did not just suffer and die forthe saints. He rose from the dead, is ascended to theright hand of the throne of God, is interceding, as Hedid before His death, for His saints whom the Fatherhad given Him (Jn 17:11, 24). The writer of Hebrewstells us that it is through this intercessory work ofChrist, that He preserves us to the very end: “Where-fore he is able also to save them to the uttermost thatcome unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to makeintercession for them” (Heb 7:25). We have an ideaof how the Lord intercedes for us in His words to Pe-ter: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired tohave you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I haveprayed for thee, that thy faith fail not…” (Lk 22:31–32). The Lord is praying for us, that our faith failnot, and His prayers are always efficacious.

Abiding of the SpiritAbiding of the SpiritAbiding of the SpiritAbiding of the SpiritAbiding of the SpiritWe have seen the perseverance of the saints on thebasis of the work of the Father and of the Son; it isnot surprising therefore to read that the Spirit is in-volved in our perseverance too. The Lord indicatesthis when He tells us that the Holy Spirit, the otherComforter, will abide with us for ever (Jn 14:16). Simi-larly the Apostle John tells us that as the Spirit abidesin us, we shall abide in Him (1 Jn 2:27; cf. 1 Jn 3:9).Indeed, the Christian perseveres because the Spiritor the Seed of God remains in him to work effica-ciously in his heart (1 Jn 3:9), so that he cannot fallhabitually, finally and totally into sin.

Nature of the CovenantNature of the CovenantNature of the CovenantNature of the CovenantNature of the Covenantof Graceof Graceof Graceof Graceof Grace

The Covenant of Grace is most beautifully displayedin Genesis 15 where God, in a theophany, passed

through the severed pieces of animals to indicate thatHis covenant with the seed of Abraham is unilateral,unconditional and everlasting (cf. Heb 6:13–20; Gal3:16, 29; see PCC Bulletin, vol. 1, issue 9).

Elsewhere the same thought concerning the ever-lasting nature of the covenant is repeated, e.g.: “AndI will make an everlasting covenant with them, thatI will not turn away from them, to do them good;but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shallnot depart from me” (Jer 32:40); “For the moun-tains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but mykindness shall not depart from thee, neither shallthe covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD

that hath mercy on thee” (Isa 54:10).

This covenant, we must remember, is not made withthe Jews as a nation, but with the Jews as the cov-enant people of God; and the covenant respects oureternal inheritance in Christ rather than the land ofPalestine, which is but a shadow and type. And sinceit is everlasting and unconditional, it follows thatnone of those who are the elect or the children of thepromise (Rom 9:8) can either fail to be saved, or fallaway ultimately.

ConclusionWe have, I believe, proven beyond doubt that thedoctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is sound theo-logically and biblically. The Arminian vacillation onthe doctrine is largely due to their errors respectingthe election of God, the atonement of Christ and theefficacious call of the Spirit. Logically, from theirtheological propositions in these areas, they oughtto be very ready to reject perseverance altogether.However, it seems rather impossible to deny or re-interpret the scriptural assertions of preservation andperseverance. Perhaps this is why the Arminians andthe Remonstrants were not prepared to put their footdown to say that it is definitely possible to fall fromgrace. Nevertheless, later Arminians, such as theWesleyans, insisted on the possibility.

36 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

Does the doctrine of Perseverance mean that theChristian can live any way he chooses and yet perse-vere all the way to glorification? Not at all, those whounderstand this doctrine will know that anyone wholives in disregard to the Word of God is simply not aChristian in the first place. This is why the ApostlePaul teaches us to work out our salvation with fearand trembling (Phil 2:12), and the Apostle Peter re-minds us to “give diligence to make our calling andelection sure” (2 Pet 1:10–11). But what a tremen-dous assurance it is for all who, by God’s grace, walkin the Way of Life, that we will be upheld and led byour beloved Saviour all the way till we join the spiritsof just man made perfect in the Celestial City.

Practical Implications of Calvinism ••••• 37

We have been looking at the Five Points of Calvin-ism, or the biblical doctrine of salvation as taught byJohn Calvin. This was crystallised in the Canons ofDort in 1618, and then beautifully arranged by Eng-lish theologians according to the acronym TULIP,the Dutch national flower. Today, these five pointsare so identified with Calvin, that the term Calvin-ism is often taken to be synonymous with the fivepoints and a person will generally identify himselfas a Calvinist if he holds to the Five Points. This isdespite the fact that Calvin taught much more thancan be summarised in five points (see, for example,Leonard J. Coppes, Are Five Points Enough? TenPoints of Calvinism [n.p., 1980]), and that manywho hold to the Five Points of Calvinism would dif-fer from Calvin in numerous areas, such as in wor-ship, church government, sacraments, eschatology,etc.

Naturally, as we are studying the Five Points, we shallhave to restrict ourselves to the implications pertain-ing to them. These implications are far-reaching, andit is important for all who embrace the Five Points toconsider them carefully. This is especially so sincetheology is never intended to simply enlarge ourminds or make us great debaters. The Apostle Paul,after writing 11 chapters of theology in the epistle tothe Romans, most succinctly summarises the pur-pose of knowing theology:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the merciesof God, that ye present your bodies a living sacri-fice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your rea-sonable service. And be not conformed to thisworld: but be ye transformed by the renewing

Practical Implications of Calvinismof your mind, that ye may prove what is thatgood, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God(Rom 12:1–2; emphasis mine).

In other words, the knowledge of theology ought torenew our minds for the purpose of transformingour lives. If our lives are not transformed, then ourknowledge would essentially be what may be knownas “devil’s faith,” after the admonition of James:“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well:the devils also believe, and tremble” (Jas 2:19).

Many of us, I believe, have on occasions come acrossindividuals who are able to defend Calvinism so logi-cally and eloquently that we cannot help but detect atinge of pride in their tone as they cut down theiropponents. If indeed pride is involved, such individu-als would be living a contradiction, for a proud Cal-vinist is a contradiction of terms. But more than that,often these same individuals are observed to mani-fest gross inconsistencies and compromises in theirlives. I am not sure if anyone who reads this articlethinks that I am referring to him or her, but there isreally no need to speculate. If you consider yourselfa Calvinist, and you feel indignation rising in yourheart because you suspect that I may be pointing atyou, than you may know that I am speaking to you.But in any case, all of us need to be warned againstthe increase of knowledge without any concurrentincrease in piety.

With this in mind, let us consider how the knowl-edge of the Five Points of Calvinism ought to trans-form our lives.

38 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

Humility, Humility, HumilityThe doctrine of Calvinism,—which exalts the holi-ness, glory and sovereignty of God, while debasingthe ability, freedom and righteousness of man,—ought, first of all, to humble us to the dust. It is notsurprising that the Christian virtue that Calvin him-self and his theological progenitor Augustine foundto be most valuable and to be most fervently culti-vated is that of humility:

I have always been exceedingly delighted with thewords of Chrysostom, “The foundation of our phi-losophy is humility;” and still more with those ofAugustine, “As the orator, when asked, What is thefirst precept in eloquence? answered, Delivery:What is the second? Delivery: What the third? De-livery: so, if you ask me in regard to the preceptsof the Christian Religion, I will answer, first, sec-ond, and third, Humility.” By humility he meansnot when a man, with a consciousness of somevirtue, refrains from pride, but when he truly feelsthat he has no refuge but in humility (ICR 2.2.11).

The true Calvinist ought to be the humblest of men;and as anyone who has been converted from Armini-anism to Calvinism would testify, a proper under-standing of Calvinism is one of the most effectiveantidotes to pride. Calvinism kills pride because itshows us how deserving we are of eternal damna-tion and how powerless we are to save ourselves. Theman who truly understands Calvinism does notcharge God for unfairness that He has chosen to saveonly a few (cf. Rom 9:14ff). He is amazed that Godwould even show mercy to any of us sinful creatures,at the expense of the infinite suffering of Christ; andHe is humbly overwhelmed by why God should sparehim and love him. In his astonishment, he does notask: “Why dost Thou not save all?” Instead he asks:“What is man, that thou art mindful of him? andthe son of man, that thou visitest him?” (Ps 8:4).

The Calvinist, furthermore, knows that although heis regenerate and united with Christ, the only rea-

son he does not break out into gross immorality andrebellion against God is because the hand of Christis upholding him. He is, as such, distrustful of him-self. He constantly looks to Christ, the author andfinisher of his faith, for guidance and help (Heb12:2); he has no difficulty esteeming others betterthan himself (Phil 2:3); he is constantly aware ofhis own depravity, and therefore poignantly and hon-estly acknowledges the beam in his own eyes (Mt 7:3);and he is forgiving because he knows how undeserv-ing he is of God’s forgiveness (Eph 4:32).

Honest ScripturalSelf-examination and

Assurance of FaithSecondly, a proper understanding of Calvinism, farfrom making us fatalists, ought to drive out the com-placency and presumption in our hearts with regardsto our own spiritual state. It ought to encourage usto take heed to the Apostle Paul’s admonition: “Ex-amine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; proveyour own selves. Know ye not your own selves, howthat Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?”(2 Cor 13:5).

For example, when we consider the doctrines of To-tal Depravity and Irresistible Grace (EfficaciousGrace) together, we see that one who is not sover-eignly regenerated by Christ cannot possibly be aChristian, for he is dead in sin and cannot see thekingdom of God (Eph 2:1; Jn 3:3). The Calvinist,contemplating this fact, knows the possibility thathe may be blinded to the fact that he is dead in sinand so deluded about his faith. And so he seeks ear-nestly and honestly to examine himself according toPaul’s instruction.

Similarly, when we consider the doctrines of Uncon-ditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints to-gether, we see that those who persevere in the faithmay have the assurance that they are elect. Now, itmay be asked: “How do I know that I am not fooling

Practical Implications of Calvinism ••••• 39

myself that I am elect by striving to enter the straitgate (Lk 13:24) and to walk in the narrow way (Mt7:14), and so, as it were, persevering by my own ef-fort?” Well, perseverance is not only about doingthings. It is about loving Christ, obeying Him out oflove and reverence, not out of fear or mere duty. TheApostle John tells how we may know if we truly love:“For this is the love of God, that we keep his com-mandments: and his commandments are not griev-ous” (1 Jn 5:3). If you can honestly say that it is notburdensome for you to keep the commandments ofthe Lord and that you are keeping them out of lovefor Christ (Jn 14:15), then you can have the assur-ance that God has “begun a good work in you andwill perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil1:6). In which case, you need not fear that you arefooling yourself, nor need you worry that you willfall, for the Apostle Peter says: “Wherefore the rather,brethren, give diligence to make your calling andelection sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall neverfall” (2 Pet 1:10).

Bear in mind that morbid doubt is often a manifes-tation of distrust. We must indeed have a certain dis-trust of our own honesty in self-examination, butwe must not doubt God’s Word that we will not fallfinally and ultimately if we give diligence to makeour calling and election sure. Indeed, unlike theArminians, the Calvinist has the confidence thatwhenever he falls, Christ will lift him up: “For a justman falleth seven times, and riseth up again: butthe wicked shall fall into mischief” (Prov 24:16).

Hatred for Sin andGratitude to Christ

The Calvinist, thirdly, must be one who understandsthe sinfulness of sin and hates sin, especially his ownsin; and is filled with gratitude to Christ for His vic-tory over sin.

This is particularly so as he contemplates the doc-trine of the Limited Atonement of Christ, for Christ

suffered and died to save His elect. He had to sufferand die to save us because we have incurred the wrathof God on account of our sin. Sin is so hateful to Godthat God the Son had to be incarnate, and suffer anddie for it so that sinners may be reconciled to God.There was a double imputation on the Cross of Cal-vary. It was an unfair exchange of infinite magni-tude, for there on the Cross was the guilt of all thesin of the elect of God, throughout the ages, heapedupon Christ; while, on the other hand, the righteous-ness of Christ was imputed on all of them.

The Calvinist understands this fact. His heart is there-fore filled with gratitude to the Lord. He knows thatfrom beginning to end, his salvation is of the Lord.At the same time, He knows that Christ died on ac-count of his sin, and that He had to die because sinis hateful to the thrice holy, triune God—the Father,the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Calvinist thereforemourns for his own sin, knowing that the Spirit whoindwells him hates sin. This leads us to our fourthpoint.

Holiness: The Inexorable Goalof True Calvinism

The doctrine of Calvinism spurs us unto holiness.Amazingly, we can see in Scripture a connection be-tween every of the five points of Calvinism and a goalof holiness in the saints.

First, we must recall the account when the Lord com-manded Peter to launch out and to lower the net fora draught. Peter was amazed at how many fishesthe net brought and he saw for the first time the gloryand majesty of Christ. He knew that he was standingbefore the thrice holy God and, feeling naked on ac-count of his sin, he fell at the Lord’s knees, saying:“Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord”(Lk 5:8). To be sure, in this statement, Peter speaksabout his own utter depravity and says nothing abouthis being motivated to holiness. But consider the factthat there cannot be progress in sanctification ex-

40 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

cept that the saint knows how far short he is of theholiness of God, and we can be quite sure that thisdiscovery of his own depravity would have spurredPeter in a quest for holiness. I am persuaded that itis for this reason that Peter, among all the other Apos-tles, was chosen to remind the New Testament churchof the call of God: “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet1:16).

Secondly, the doctrine of Election also finds its frui-tion in holiness. This is made clear by the ApostlePaul when he says: “According as he hath chosenus in him before the foundation of the world, thatwe should be holy and without blame before himin love” (Eph 1:4). The saints are elected to be holyand without blame. A Calvinist who is not pursuingholiness by the grace of God either does not under-stand the doctrine of Election or is living a contra-diction.

Thirdly, the particular atonement of Christ on be-half of the elect is also for the purpose of gathering aholy people unto Himself: “Who gave himself for us,that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and pu-rify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of goodworks” (Tit 2:14). How then can one who defendsLimited Atonement live in sin and without regardsto the holiness of God?

Fourthly, it is clear also that one of the effects of theefficacious call of the Gospel is holiness. Again Paulsays: “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness,but unto holiness” (1 Thes 4:7). A person who is trulya Calvinist, not just in thought but in heart, will knowthat if his life remains unchanged or is character-ised by uncleanness, then he is in all probability yetin the state of nature.

Finally, the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saintsmust go hand-in-hand with sanctification. The Cal-vinist knows that God does not preserve sinners inthe way of life. He knows that a professing believerwhose life is not transformed will be in for a rudeshock at the day of judgement, for the writer of He-

brews has admonished: “Follow peace with all men,and holiness, without which no man shall see theLord” (Heb 12:14).

Hope in Prayerand Witnessing

The final implication of Calvinism directly answersthe charges of the Arminians that Calvinism destroyshope in prayer and discourages evangelism.

In the first place, the Calvinist understands that sal-vation is the work of the Lord from beginning to end.He knows that without the Lord’s help he cannot growin sanctification. He knows that all his attendanceto, and use of the means of grace, are of no valueunless the Holy Spirit makes them effectual unto himfor salvation. Therefore, he is constantly crying outto the Lord for His help, and he knows that the Lordwill hear his prayer because he knows that his sanc-tification is the will of God (1 Thes 4:3), and he knowsthat God will answer any plea of His children that isin consonant with His will (1 Jn 5:14) and are of-fered in the name of Christ. Similarly, the Calvinistis also encouraged to pray for the unconverted. Heknows that he must only pray according to the willof God, and he knows that the Apostle John is refer-ring to the revealed will of God and not the eternalcounsel of God (Deut 29:29). He knows that althoughGod does not reveal who is elect and who is not, it isHis revealed will that sinners repent of their sin andbelieve in the Lord Jesus Christ. And so he is encour-aged to pray that God would do so for his uncon-verted loved ones. He knows that God alone has theprerogative to answer his prayer according to Hisgood pleasure, but he is encouraged to pray becausehe knows that if his loved ones were to be converted,it cannot be by their own efforts, but by the graceand power of God.

In the second place, the Calvinist is encouraged towitness for the Lord, and the Calvinistic church isencouraged to continue in the work of evangelism

Practical Implications of Calvinism ••••• 41

through the preaching of the Gospel, because theseare the means that God has appointed to gather Hiselect. The Arminians may get discouraged when theysee little result to their efforts at ‘sharing the Gospel.’The Calvinist knows that God alone can make effec-tual our feeble efforts and that, because He has Hiselect for whom Christ died, these will definitely besoundly converted. So the Calvinist prays that Godmay bless his and his church’s efforts and that theymay be instruments in the Lord’s hands. In the sameway, the Calvinistic church continues to preach theGospel each week even though she sees little resultbecause she knows that though preaching is herbusiness (2 Tim 4:2), conversion is not her business.She is not tempted to introduce worldly innovationsto attract the crowds because she knows that falseconversions can easily result from these methods.She, moreover, knows that the regenerate needs tohear the Gospel too, for we are so prone to wanderand prone to forget our need of Christ.

ConclusionCalvinism is not cold and intellectual as manysuppose. It is about knowing the God of the Bibleand living Coram Deo (before the face of God). Cal-vinism is simply a synonym for Biblicalism sys-tematised. Calvinism alone leads to true biblicalChristianity.

Dr. John Gerstner has succinctly summarised thesituation in Christendom today when he says:

There have been essentially only three theologiesin the history of the church. One is usually calledAugustinian, Calvinistic, or Reformed. The secondis called Semi-Pelagian, Arminian, or (often)evangelical. The third is called Pelagian, Socinian,or liberal (modernist).

Only the first two (Calvinistic and Arminian) canqualify for the terms Christian or Biblical. Cal-vinism is consistent Christianity and Arminianismis inconsistent Christianity, while Pelagianism or

liberalism (anti-supernaturalism) is not Christi-anity at all but a counterfeit that has fooled a sig-nificant portion of the church in the modern pe-riod (Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, 2nded. [SDG, 2000], 113).

While we may charitably regard Arminianism asbeing inconsistent Christianity, we must warn that itis a short step from Arminianism to Pelagianism.Already, the humanistic techniques of Charles G.Finney, the arch-Pelagian, which are designed tocreate conversion and revival, are widely employedin evangelical churches. Already, the prince of Armin-ian preachers, Billy Graham, has capitulated to Pe-lagianism by suggesting that Christ may be foundin other systems of religions too. Already, a very greatpart of Lutheranism and Methodism, which werelargely Arminian, is today Unitarian. Arminianismis inconsistent because it is a compromise betweenhumanism and theism. Who would want such acompromise but one who refuses to accept the the-ism of the Bible, which reveals a sovereign and holyGod who will punish sin in His infinite wrath. It isno wonder that, as what is unstable often settles,Arminianism often settles on the side of unbelief.

Have there not been defections in the Calvinisticcamp too? No doubt there have been, but history hasshown that such defections often begin with the in-roads of Arminianism and Pelagianism. May the Lordprotect us from such a downward slide.

Confident that Christ will continue to build HisChurch; and the gates of hell shall not prevail againstit (Mt 16:18), we will continue to preach and liveaccording to the old paths as revealed in His wordand delivered unto the saints, which path is alsoknown as Calvinism.

—J. J. Lim

42 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

Arminius, Jacobus. The Works of James Arminius.Translated by James Nichols. Grand Rapids:Baker Books, reprinted 1996.

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Pre-destination. New Jersey: P & R Publishing,1932.

Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the ChristianReligion. 2 Volumes. Edited by John T. McNeill.Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia:The Westminster Press, 1960.

Cammenga, Ronald, & Ronald Hanko. Saved byGrace: A Study of the Five Points of Calvin-ism. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free PublishingAssociation, 1995.

Coppes, Leonard J. Are Five Points Enough? TenPoints of Calvinism. n.p., 1980.

Dabney, Robert L. & Jonathan Dickson. The FivePoints of Calvinsim. Virginia: Sprinkle Publi-cations, 1992.

Engelsema, David J. Hyper-Calvinism & The Callof the Gospel. Grand Rapids: Reformed FreePublishing Association, 1994.

Gerstner, John H. Wrongly Dividing the Word ofTruth. 2nd edition. Morgan: Soli Deo GloriaPublications, reprinted 2000.

BibliographyHoeksema, Homer. The Voice of Our Fathers: An

Exposition of the Canons of Dordrecht. GrandRapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association,1980.

Lim, Jyh Jang. Church Bulletin of Pilgrim CovenantChurch, Singapore. Volume 1, Numbers 7, 9,51.

Long, Gary. Definite Atonement. New York: BackusBook Publishers, 1997.

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death ofChrist. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, re-printed 1959.

Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom With aHistory and Critical Notes. Volume 3. GrandRapids: Baker Books, reprinted 1995.

Scott, Thomas. The Articles of the Synod of Dort.Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1993.

Sproul, R.C. Willing to Believe: The ControversyOver Free Will. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1997.

Index ••••• 43

Index of Scripture,Canons, ICR, WCF, WSC, Remonstrantia

Genesis15 35

Deuteronomy2:30 329:29 403:3 3

Job14:4 1115:14 11

Psalms105:5–6 311:5 22130:3 12143:2 1230:5 3437:23 1451:5 1158:3 1162:11b 168:4 13, 38

Proverbs16:33 1616:4 1624:16 394:18 144:23 10

Isaiah45:7 1646:9–10 16

53:11 2153:4, 6, 11 2054:10 35

Jeremiah13:23 1217:9 1231:3 3431:33 2932:40 35

Ezekiel11:19–20 2936:26–27 29

Amos3:6b 16

Matthew10:30 1612:35 1015:19 1016:18 4118:11 2122:14 2523:37 26, 2724:13 2726:24 1626:28 215:45 307:14 397:18 107:3 38

44 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

Mark10:45 21

Luke13:24 3919:10 212:1 2222:31–32 355:8 397:30 26, 27

John1:12–13 281:29 2210:14–15 17, 2110:15 3310:26 17, 2110:28 32, 3310:9 3011:51–52 2314:15 3914:16 3515:18 2215:5 8, 1017:11, 24 3517:2, 9, 20 2117:3 3418:10 2821:6, 11 283:16 5, 19, 22, 233:17 273:19 283:3 12, 18, 28, 383:36 5, 154:22 234:42 22, 235:21 285:24–25 286:37 17, 296:44 286:44–65 106:44a 12, 288:43–44a 25

Acts11:18 2913:48 2913:48b 1716:14 2916:19 2817:24 222:23 162:39 2421:30 284:28 167 267:51 26, 27

Romans1:18 1911:5–6 1712:1–2 373:10, 12 103:11 123:19 223:22 203:9–10, 12 125:10 12, 215:12 115:17 205:18 245:6 106:20 127:14–25 58:28 168:29–30 15, 30, 348:30 258:31b–32 218:33 218:33–39 358:34–35 248:35–39 348:7 10, 129 59:11–12 179:13 22

Index ••••• 45

9:13, 16, 21 189:14–15 189:14ff 389:22 149:8 35

1 Corinthians15:22 11, 242:14 10, 12

2 Corinthians13:5 382:16 275:14–15 245:17 296:1 26, 276:2 27

Galatians3:16, 29 356:15 29

Ephesians1:3–6, 11 171:4 15, 17, 401:4–5 342:1 12, 382:1, 5 102:10 172:2–3 282:2–5 102:4–5 292:8 122:8–9 294:18 12, 284:32 385:25 21

Philippians1:29 291:6 392:12 31, 362:3 38

Colossians2:13 10, 12, 292:14 202:9 22

1 Thessalonians4:3 404:7 405:8 31

1 Timothy1:15 212:1–2 232:4 234:10 23

2 Timothy1:9 172:19 342:25–26 292:26 124:2 41

Titus2:14 403:3–5 10

Hebrews10:10, 14 3412:1 1412:14 4012:15 26, 2712:2 33, 3813:20–21 346:13–20 356:4 277:14–15 217:25 359:12 229:12–15 359:28 19, 20

46 ••••• PCC, Oct–Nov, 2000

James2:19 372:6 28

1 Peter1:16 401:23 332:24 20, 213:18 21

2 Peter1:1–4 241:10 391:10–11 362:1 243:9 23

1 John2:19 342:2 5, 19, 22, 232:27 353:10 123:9 33, 354:14 225:14 405:3 39

Canons of DortHead 1

Article 7 14

Head 5Article 7 33Article 8 33Articles 1, 2 32Articles 1, 6 32Articles 3, 4 32Articles 3, 7 32Rejection 1 32

Head III & IV 25

Heads 3 & 4Article 11 26

ICR2.2.11 383.24.8 27

WCF10.1 2510.3 1117.1 3217.2 333.1–2 163.7 149.3 10, 129.4 10

WSC18 1191 31

RemonstrantiaArticle II 19Article III 25Article IV 25Fourth Article 26

Pilgrim Covenant Church141 Market Street, #05-00, International Factors Building, Singapore 048944. Tel/Fax: 2258815

Pastor: J.J. Lim. Mobile: 97910845. Email: limjj@pacific.net.sgElder: Michael Sing. Pager: 95396554. Email: msing@singnet.com.sg

Website: http://www.PilgrimCovenant.com