The
Reformed Faith and Arminianism*
John Murray
Contents:
Introduction
Unconditional Predestination
Limited Atonement
Total Depravity
Irresistible Grace
The Perseverance of the Saints
Introduction
Arminianism derives its name from James Arminius, a minister of the
Reformed Church in Holland who lived from 1560 to 1609. He became
Professor of Divinity in the University of Leyden, in 1603. It was
particularly during the period of his professorial activity at Leyden
that he gave expression to the departures from the Reformed Faith that
have ever since been associated with his name. Arminius died in 1609,
but he left behind him disciples who continued to teach and develop his
tenets.
In 1610 a document known as the "Remonstrance" and frequently spoken of
as "The Five Arminian Articles" was signed by forty-six ministers and
presented to the civil authorities of the United Provinces. These
articles set forth the doctrine of the "Remonstrants" or Arminians, as
they came to be called, on the subjects of predestination, the extent
of the atonement, the cause of saving grace, and perseverance. These
articles were both negative and positive - they denied one doctrine and
affirmed another.
In the early stages of the controversy the precise hearings and
implications of some of the points had not become explicit, but, as the
conflict precipitated by the Remonstrants developed, it became evident
that the five points of the Reformed Faith which the Arminians were
particularly insistent upon denying were unconditional predestination,
limited atonement, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the
perseverance of the saints. These Calvinists affirmed, Arminians denied.
These five points do not define for us what the Reformed Faith or
Calvinism is. The Reformed Faith is a system of truth and is much more
comprehensive than any five points that might be enumerated, however
important in it or essential to it these five points might be. In these
five points attacked by the Arminians, however, the system of truth
known as Calvinism may said to be crystallized. They express what this
system is in opposition to the Arminian system or any other system
that, in similar fashion, is opposed to it. They ever continue to be
the decisive points at which conflict is joined with any system of
thought that is moved by an Arminian bias and directed by the same
underlying principles.
Neither are we to think that the error of Arminianism is confined to
these five points. Arminianism is a theology and the difference between
this theology and the theology of the Reformed Church comes to
expression at many other points. The error of the Arminian theology is,
however, summed up in these five points and so the greater part of the
controversy in the past is quite justifiably found to concern the
doctrines enunciated in them. What is true in reality has been
demonstrated by history.
Unconditional Predestination
The first article of the Remonstrance of 1610 concerned predestination.
All of the early Reformers were substantially at one on the doctrine of
predestination. It is in the Reformed Church alone, however, that the
doctrine of absolute predestination held by Luther as well as by Calvin
continued to hold sway and came to its rights. What does it mean?
In answering we cannot do better than quote the Westminster Confession
of Faith, chapter III:
"i. God from all eternity did, by the
most wise and holy counsel of His
own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet
so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence
offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency
of second causes taken away, but rather established.
"iii. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others
foreordained to everlasting death.
"iv. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain
and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
"v. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the
foundation of the word was laid, according to his eternal and immutable
purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath
chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and
love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in
either of them, or anything in the creature, as conditions, or causes
moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace."
This statement of the doctrine was framed by the Westminster divines in
1645, but it is just the well-articulated creedal expression of the
doctrine held by the early Reformers, conserved in the Reformed Church,
and attacked by the Arminians. The import of the first section quoted
is just this: that the whole sweep of universal history from the
beginning to the end, in all its extent and minutest detail, is
embraced in the plan and decree of God, that all that comes to pass,
great or small, good or bad, God from eternity immutably determined
would come to pass.
It is not, however, in connection with the all-comprehensive decree of
God that the conflict with the Arminian in the first instance is
joined. It is as this decree comes to bear upon the destinies of
rational beings and more particularly upon the destinies of men, in
other words, as the decree becomes operative in the predestination to
life of some of mankind and the foreordination to death of others. But
the doctrine of the general decree bears directly upon the question of
the destinies of men. If God freely and unchangeably ordains whatsoever
comes to pass, and if it comes to pass that some men are saved and some
perish, then surely He has freely and unchangeably ordained these facts
as well as others. If the Arminian denies the latter he must also deny
the former.
Predestination to life and foreordination to death mean substantially
that from all eternity God sovereignly, according to the counsel of His
will, chose or elected a definite number of the human race to
everlasting life, that He elected them as individuals, and that in
making this election He was not conditioned by His foresight of faith
or good works or perseverance in both, but that the election was
determined by that sovereign good pleasure which finds its whole ground
and explanation in Himself and in nothing else. In other words, God by
an absolute, unconditional, and unchangeable decree determined the
salvation of certain persons out of free grace and love, and that in
accordance with that decree He executes the purpose of His grace and
love. The others not elected, by the exercise of the same sovereign
good pleasure He decreed to pass by and ordain to everlasting
destruction as the reward of their sins.
It is this doctrine Arminianism denies. In the words of James Arminius,
"God has not absolutely predestinated any men to salvation; but that he
has in his decree considered them as believers." It is peculiarly
important that this fact should be appreciated. The fundamental
principle of Arminianism on this article of faith is denial of the
doctrine set forth in Reformed Standards. Too often the significance
and seriousness of this is obscured by appeal on the part of Arminians
to the positive side of their teaching. We must not allow this
obscuration. Arminianism starts with negation, the denial of the
doctrine of sovereign unconditional election. However much truth the
more positive elaboration of the Arminian position may embody, it in no
way ceases to be Arminian as long as the denial of unconditional
election remains, for this is the crux of the question. Everyone who
denies unconditional election denies an aspect of truth that is of the
essence of Reformed doctrine.
The Arminian position involves, as we have already hinted, more than
negation. The Remonstrance reads thus: "Article I. That God, by an
eternal unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, before the
foundation of the world, hath determined out of the fallen, sinful race
of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, those who, through the
grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall
persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through his grace, even
to the end."
On superficial examination it might appear that there is no essential
difference between this and the position set forth in the Reformed
Standards. Does it not speak of an eternal and unchangeable purpose of
God by which He determines to save all who believe on His Son and
persevere to the end? It certainly does this, and no one in this
controversy will deny that what is said is as such true. God does
eternally and unchangeably determine to save all who believe and
persevere in holiness to the end. But there is a chasm of difference
between what the Arminian here affirms and what the Calvinist affirms.
The difference is just this. The Calvinist affirms that God eternally
and unchangeably decrees the salvation of certain persons whom He
sovereignly distinguishes by this decree from those who are not
appointed to salvation. In pursuance of this decree of salvation He
decrees the ends towards its accomplishment, and so decrees to give
faith and perseverance to all those predestinated to salvation. The
Arminian denies any such decree bearing upon the salvation of
individuals, and what he affirms in its place is that God decrees or
purposes to save all who believe and persevere in faith and obedience
to the end. In the former case there is the eternal destination to
salvation of persons who are the objects of God's sovereign election;
in the latter case there is the divine purpose to save the class
characterized by faith and perseverance. In the ultimate analysis the
former is the election of persons, the latter is the election of
qualities with the provision that all who exhibit these qualities will
be saved.
Some Arminians under the stress of the argument, and also on exegetical
grounds, perceive the inadequacy of the foregoing position, and so they
say that God not only decrees to save all who believe, but that He also
elects all who believe. There is therefore, they say, an eternal
unchangeable election of individuals whose number is certain, an
election indeed of all who are to be ultimately saved. Some may be
disposed to say that this is exactly the teaching of the Reformed
Standards. A little investigation will expose the fallacy of this.
The hallmark of Calvinism is unconditional election and that is exactly
what this highest type of Arminianism vigorously denies. It professes
indeed fixed and unchangeable election of individuals. But what is
meant is, that, since God decrees to save all who believe and since He
knows perfectly beforehand and from eternity who will believe, He on
the basis of that foresight as ground and cause elects these
individuals to eternal life. God elects all whom He foresees will
believe and persevere to the end. His election then is determined by
His foresight of some difference that comes to exist among men, a
difference which He Himself does not cause but which in the final
analysis is due to sovereign choice on the part of the human will. The
determining factor in this type of election then is not the sovereign
unconditioned good pleasure of God but the decision of the human will
which God from eternity foresees. Election is not the source of faith,
but faith foreseen is made the source or condition of election.
On close examination it should be evident that this is not divine
election at all. The sovereign determination of God is ruled out at the
vital point, for the ultimate determinant of the discrimination that
exists among men is made to be something in men and not the sovereign
good pleasure of God. Indeed this type of Arminianism that at first
appears to approach so closely to the Reformed position only serves to
show more clearly the total difference between the two systems. The
election taught in the Reformed Church is election to salvation and
eternal life and therefore also to faith and all other graces as the
means ordained of God to the accomplishment of His sovereign decree.
Election is not then conditioned upon faith, but faith is the fruit of
election. God sovereignly works faith in men because He has in His
eternal counsel appointed them to salvation. Faith is not the logical
prius of election, but election is the eternal prius and source of
faith. Arminianism at its best denies all of these propositions.
The denial of unconditional election strikes at the heart of the
doctrine of the grace of God. The grace of God is absolutely sovereign
and every failure to recognize and appreciate the absolute sovereignty
of God in His saving grace is an expression of the pride of the human
heart. It rests upon the demand that God can deal differently with men
in the matter of salvation only because they have made themselves to
differ. In its ultimate elements it means that the determining factor
in salvation is what man himself does, and that is just tantamount to
saying that it is not God who determines the salvation of men, but men
determine their own salvation; it is not God who saves but man saves
himself. This is precisely the issue.
Limited Atonement
The second article of the Arminian Remonstrance of 1610 concerned the
question of the extent of the atonement. It reads as follows: "Article
II. That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world,
died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them
all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins;
yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the
believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16. . . . . And
in the First Epistle of John 2:2 . . ." This is an emphatic statement
of what is known as the doctrine of universal atonement, and is in its
essence that Christ died for all men alike and procured for them
equally and without distinction redemption and forgiveness of sins. The
atonement as such, it says in effect, has as its intention the
provision of salvation for all, the making of the salvation of all men
possible, the placing of all men and every man in a salvable state or
condition.
In opposition to this the Reformed Faith affirms the doctrine of what
is known as limited atonement. What does it mean? Perhaps the best
answer that can be given to this question is to set forth the teaching
of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter VIII, section V.
Redemption Purchased for the Elect
"The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself,
which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath
fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only
reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of
heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him." This
definitely states that reconciliation and an everlasting inheritance in
the kingdom of heaven is purchased for all those given to the Son by
the Father. Who are they? In section 1 of this same chapter we are told
that they are the people given to Christ from all eternity to be His
seed and "to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified,
and glorified." The people given to Christ are surely the same as the
people chosen in Christ ? the form of expression used in chapter III,
section v ? and they are simply those of mankind predestinated unto
life, namely, the elect. With respect to them the Confession continues:
"As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal
and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means
thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are
redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his
Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and
kept by his power through faith unto salvation." (III.vi.) It is for
the elect, therefore, for the predestinated to life, for those given to
Christ by the Father, for those chosen in Christ unto everlasting
glory, that reconciliation and an eternal inheritance in the kingdom of
heaven is purchased. It is they who are redeemed by Christ. Thus
teaches the Confession, and so the difference has already become
apparent.
Purchase and Application Co-extensive
"To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth
certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same." (VIII.viii.)
The import of this cannot be controverted. It is that the extent of the
purchase of redemption is exactly the same as the extent of actual
salvation. If Christ purchased redemption for all, then all will have
that applied and communicated to them. If only a certain number of the
human race are ultimately saved, then only for that number did Christ
purchase redemption.
So explicit is the above statement that it needs no confirmation. But
in order to show that this is not a random statement but a determining
principle of the Confessional teaching it can be shown by an entirely
distinct line of argument. "Christ by his obedience and death did fully
discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a
proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their
behalf." (XI.iii.) Those for whom Christ discharged the debt and made
satisfaction to justice are then the justified. But all who are
justified are also effectually called. "Those whom God effectually
calleth, he also freely justifieth." (XI.i.) And effectual calling
expounded in chapter X refers us back to predestination. "All those
whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased,
in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word
and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by
nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ." (X.i.) And again: "God
did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did,
in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their
justification." (XI.iv.) The upshot is plain ? predestination to life,
redemption, effectually calling, and justification have identical
extent; they have in their embrace exactly the same persons.
The Exclusiveness of Redemption
That the non-elect, those who do not become the actual partakers of
salvation and are therefore finally lost, are not included within the
scope of the redemption purchased by Christ, we may and must even from
that which we have already quoted infer to be the teaching of the
Confession. But it is interesting to observe that not only does the
Confession imply this; it also expressly states it. "Neither are any
other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted,
sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." (III.vi.) The Confession is
using the phrases "redeemed by Christ" and "purchased redemption"
synonymously. Here it is said that redemption by Christ or the purchase
of redemption is for those who as a matter of fact are saved and for
those only. It is exclusive of those who are not called, justified,
adopted, sanctified, and saved. Redemption is defined not only
extensively but exclusively.
If we may recapitulate then, the teaching of the Confession can be
summed up in these three propositions. (1) Redemption is purchased for
the elect. (2) Redemption is applied to all for whom it is purchased.
(3) Redemption is not purchased for those who finally perish, for the
non-elect.
Atonement is defined therefore in the Confession in terms of sacrifice,
reconciliation, redemption, satisfaction to divine justice, discharge
of debt, and states clearly that atonement thus defined is for those
whom God hath predestinated to life, namely the elect. They are saved
because Christ by his redemptive work secured their salvation. The
finally lost are not within the embrace of that salvation secured, and
therefore they are not within the embrace of that salvation secured,
and therefore they are not within the embrace of that which secures it,
namely the redemption wrought by Christ. It is just here that the
difference between Arminianism and Calvinism may be most plainly
stated. Did Christ die and offer Himself a sacrifice to God to make the
salvation of all men possible, or did He offer Himself a sacrifice to
God to secure infallibly the salvation of His people? Arminians profess
the former and deny the latter; our Standards in accordance, as we
believe, with Holy Scripture teach the latter.
Objections Answered
The term "limited" atonement has given much offense. It may not indeed
be the most fortunate terminology. It is capable of misunderstanding
and misrepresentation. Some for this reason may prefer the terms
"definite" or "particular" atonement. But what we are particularly
insistent upon defending is that which the term historically used
connotes, and so if the disuse of the term "limited" is calculated to
create the impression that we have renounced the doctrine of which the
term is the symbol, if in other words the disuse is calculated to
placate the enemies of our Reformed Faith, then we must resolutely
refuse to refrain from its use. The atonement is limited, because in
its precise intention and meaning and effect it is for those and for
those only who are destined in the determinate purpose of God to
eternal salvation. We may well bless God that this is not a meager
company, but a multitude whom no man can number out of every nation and
kindred and people and tongue.
Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited
atonement. The truth is that he professes a despicable doctrine of
limited atonement. He professes an atonement that is tragically limited
in its efficacy and power, an atonement that does not secure the
salvation of any. He indeed eliminates from the atonement that which
makes it supremely precious to the Christian heart. In B. B. Warfield's
words, "the substance of the atonement is evaporated, that it may be
given a universal reference." (The Plan of Salvation, p. 122.) What we
mean is, that unless we resort to the position of universal restoration
for all mankind ? a position against which the witness of Scripture is
decisive ? an interpretation of the atonement in universal terms must
nullify its properly substitutive and redemptive character. We must
take our choice between a limited extent and a limited efficacy, or
rather between a limited atonement and an atonement without efficacy.
It either infallibly saves the elect or it actually saves none.
It is sometimes objected that the doctrine of limited atonement makes
the preaching of a full and free salvation impossible. This is wholly
untrue. The salvation accomplished by the death of Christ is infinitely
sufficient and universally suitable, and it may be said that its
infinite sufficiency and perfect suitability grounds a bona fide offer
of salvation to all without distinction. The doctrine of limited
atonement any more than the doctrine of sovereign election does not
raise a fence around the offer of the gospel. The overture of the
gospel offering peace and salvation through Jesus Christ is to all
without distinction, though it is truly from the heart of sovereign
election and limited atonement that this stream of grace universally
proffered flows. If we may change the figure, it is upon the crest of
the wave of divine sovereignty and of limited atonement that the full
and free offer of the gospel breaks upon our shores. The offer of
salvation to all is bona fide. All that is proclaimed is absolutely
true. Every sinner believing will infallibly be saved, for the veracity
and purpose of God cannot be violated.
The criticism that the doctrine of limited atonement prevents the free
offer of the gospel rests upon a profound misapprehension as to what
the warrant for preaching the gospel and even of the primary act of
faith itself really is. This warrant is not that Christ died for all
men but the universal invitation, demand and promise of the gospel
united with the perfect sufficiency and suitability of Christ as Savior
and Redeemer. What the ambassador of the gospel demands in Christ's
name is that the lost and helpless sinner commit himself to that
all-sufficient Savior with the plea that in thus receiving and resting
upon Christ alone for salvation he will certainly be saved. And what
the lost sinner does on the basis of the warrant of faith is to commit
himself to that Savior with the assurance that as he thus trusts he
will be saved. What he believes, then, in the first instance is not
that he has been saved, but that believing in Christ salvation becomes
his. The conviction that Christ died for him, or in other words, that
he is an object of God's redeeming love in Christ, is not the primary
act of faith. It is often in the consciousness of the believer so
closely bound up with the primary act of faith that he may not be able
to be conscious of the logical and psychological distinction. But
nevertheless the primary act of faith is self-committal to the
all-sufficient and suitable Savior, and the only warrant for that trust
is the indiscriminate, full and free offer of grace and salvation in
Christ Jesus.
Total Depravity
The third of the five points of Arminianism concerns the question of
original sin or human depravity. In several of the formal statements of
the Arminian position as it bears upon human depravity, the real import
of that position is not readily detected. As William Cunningham points
out, the controversy when it arose, especially as it was conducted on
the Arminian side, did not give the prominence to this aspect of the
debate. Yet, as he proceeds to show, "it really lies at the root of the
whole difference, as was made more palpably manifest in the progress of
the discussion, when the followers of Arminius developed their views
upon this subject more fully, and deviated further and further from the
doctrine of the Bible and the Reformation on the subject of the natural
state and character of men." (Historical Theology, 2:392.)
Arminians do in general terms assert the depravity of fallen human
nature. But a merely general statement of the fact does not touch the
heart of the question. The real question is the seriousness with which
the general statement of the fact is taken and the willingness there is
to appreciate all the implications of it. In a word, it is the question
of the totality or entirety of this corruption.
Our Confession of Faith says with respect to our first parents and
their sin in eating the forbidden fruit: "By this sin they fell from
their original righteousness, and communion with God, and so became
dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul
and body.
"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed,
and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their
posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation.
"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed,
disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all
evil, do proceed all actual transgressions." (VI.2-4.)
"Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of
will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man,
being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able,
by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself
thereunto." (IX.3.)
These are highly compressed and succinct statements of total depravity,
and their meaning and consequences ought to be carefully weighed. They
are peculiarly offensive to every view that hangs on to any vestige of
optimism with respect to the qualities or potencies inherent in human
nature as fallen. Indeed they must arouse the opposition and emphatic
protest of every view that suspends any hope on the autonomy of the
human will. It is just because the Arminian does in the last analysis
place the determining factor in the individual's salvation in the free
choice of the human will, that he has taken such unrelenting issue with
the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.
The Confession does not, of course, deny to men what we may call
natural virtue or civil righteousness. It affirms that works done by
unregenerate men may, as regards the matter of them, be things which
God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others. Neither
does it say that all men are equally depraved, or to put it more
accurately it does not say that this corruption "whereby we are utterly
indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly
inclined to all evil" receives the same degree of development and
expression in all. What the Confession does is to set forth the
teaching of Scripture with respect to the moral and spiritual condition
of men as they stand in the pure light of the divine standard and
judgment. Judged by that norm they are dead in sin and wholly defiled.
Irresistible Grace
As is apparent from the foregoing discussion it is in connection with
the operations of God in His saving grace that the implications of the
affirmation or denial of the doctrine of total depravity come to light.
The question here is: What is the mode of the divine operation of the
Spirit of God in bringing men to faith and repentance? All are agreed
that men are saved through faith. But the difference arises when we
come to explain the fact that, of those who indiscriminately receive
the overtures of grace in the gospel, some believe and some do not. The
question is not in general terms that of grace. Arminians concede that
men cannot be saved apart from the gracious operations of the Spirit of
God in the heart. The question is: What is the nature of that grace?
What is the cause of faith? Why is it that some believe to the saving
of their souls and some do not? Is that grace of God given to all
indiscriminately, or is it a grace given only to those who believe? Is
it a grace that may be resisted, or is it always efficacious to the end
in view, and therefore incapable of being frustrated?
Arminians though exhibiting certain differences among themselves are
agreed that sufficient grace, whether it be regarded as a natural
possession or a gracious bestowal, resides in all, and therefore that
all men have the ability to believe. The explanation of the fact that
some believe and some do not rests wholly in a difference of response
on the part of men. This difference of response may be stated in terms
of co-operation with, or improvement of, the grace of God. But in any
case the explanation of the difference lies exclusively in the free
will of man. For the difference of response on the part of the believer
as over against the unbeliever he is not only wholly responsible but
he, in the exercise of the autonomy that belongs to his will, is the
sole determining factor. God does not make men to differ. He operates
no more savingly and efficaciously in the man who believes than He does
in the man who does not believe. For this indiscriminateness in the
saving operations of God, the Arminian is exceedingly jealous; he
demands that what God does for and in one He does for and in all
equally. In the ultimate, then, the issue of salvation rests with the
sovereign determination of the human will. Men make themselves to
differ.
Now it is easy to see that , if man is thus able to co-operate with or
improve the grace that is common to all, there must remain in man some
vestige of good. Indeed, so decisive an element of ability to good
survives that it determines the exercise of the most important event or
series of events in the history of the individual. And this is exactly
where the Arminian position impinges not only upon the sovereignty and
efficacy of God's saving grace but upon the total depravity of sinful
man.
In magnificent contrast with this denial of the sovereignty and
efficacy of the saving grace of God is the teaching of our Confession.
It reads: "All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those
only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to
call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in
which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;
enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the
things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them
an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power
determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to
Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by
his grace.
"This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from
anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein,
until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby
enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and
conveyed in it." (X.1-2.)
In these sections the faith that embraces Jesus Christ to the saving of
the soul is referred to the sovereign predestination of God as its
source, and to the regenerative operation of God in the heart as its
cause. God is sovereignly pleased to impart His efficacious grace, and
it is the enablement that comes from this sovereign bestowal of the
grace of the Holy Spirit that leads to faith. The person effectually
called is altogether passive therein until renewed by the Holy Spirit.
A new heart has been given him and a right spirit created within him by
the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit; and because he has a new heart
and a right spirit his response to the call of the gospel cannot but be
one of loving reception and trust. Just as the reaction of the carnal
mind cannot but be one of enmity against God, so the reaction of the
mind of the Spirit cannot but be one of faith and trust. It is the very
nature of the new heart to trust God as He is revealed in the face of
Jesus Christ.
We have here in our Confession a rather neat statement of the relation
of faith to regeneration. In this realm of theological debate our
position can very readily be tested by our answer to the questions:
Does God regenerate us because we believe, or do we believe because God
has regenerated us? In other words what has the causal priority,
regeneration or faith? There are many evangelicals who will say that
faith is the means of regeneration, that God regenerates those who
believe and because they believe. They thereby, whether wittingly or
unwittingly, place themselves in the Arminian camp and in the most
decided opposition to Reformed doctrine. Logically they place
themselves - perhaps with good intentions - in a position that leads to
the wreck and ruin of true evangelicalism.
We are, of course, using the term "regeneration" in the restricted
sense of the new birth, and in this sense the very hallmark of
Calvinism as of Augustinianism is that faith is the gift of God,
because it proceeds from the regenerative operation of the Holy Spirit
as its only cause and explanation. God has elected His people to
salvation. He has ordained that this salvation become theirs through
faith. But because of the total depravity of their hearts and minds
they cannot exercise faith; they are dead in trespasses and sins. In
order to bring them to faith God implants by the agency of the Holy
Spirit a new heart and a right spirit within them, and thus effectually
and irresistibly draws them to Christ. They are made willing in the day
of God's power. By grace they have been saved through faith, and that
not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
The Perseverance of the Saints
In the closest relation to the foregoing doctrine of efficacious or
irresistible grace is the doctrine of the eternal security of the
believer. This doctrine the Arminian bluntly rejects. A true believer,
he says, may be in grace and then fall from grace and finally perish.
Such a position is in logical coherence with his doctrine of the nature
of saving grace. If the determining factor in the matter of an
individual's salvation is the autonomy of his own free will, then
consistency would seem to be all in favor of regarding salvation as a
very insecure and mutable possession. Salvation in this case cannot be
any more stable than that which in the final analysis determines it.
But it is just here that the harmony of efficacious grace with the
perseverance of the saints comes to light. The Reformed Faith
recognizes that God it is who determines a sinner's salvation, and that
what He begins He brings to perfection. Salvation rests upon the
unchangeable grace of God. He will not forsake the work of His hands,
nor make void His covenant. Thus reads the Confession: "They whom God
hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His
Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of
grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be
eternally saved.
"This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will,
but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the
free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the
merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit, and
of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of
grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility
thereof." (XVII.1-2.)
* From a 3 part series which
appeared in The Presbyterian Guardian
in 1935-1936.