No Small Churches

It is all too easy to despise the day of small things (Zechariah 4:10) when it comes to one’s view of small churches – to think little of a church based on its size (or lack thereof). As a pastor of a rather small church myself, I must confess that at times it is easy to be discouraged when I see empty seats on the Lord’s day.

And so it was no small encouragement to come across the following remarks by John Murray (1898-1975) in a sermon that he preached on Matthew 18:20 over half a century ago. That text of Scripture is as follows:

“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (ESV)

Professor Murray offers the following hypothetical scenario for our consideration:

“Let us suppose that on a particular occasion, where a much larger number of people are accustomed to gather, only two happen to come to the service. When the minister came to the pulpit and found that there were only two there, he said to them, “Well, since there are so few of us here today, we better suspend the service.” Of course, the minister then would be doing the gravest dishonor to the promise of Christ. He would be offering the gravest insult to the Lord of Glory himself.”

O Death, Where Is Thy Sting?, p.223

He goes on to suggest that the same would be true if even only one person came to the service, so that the pastor only had an audience (so to speak) of one! But why would this be such a grave insult to Christ and his promise? Murray goes on to say:

“For Christ’s institution is, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them.” We must always remember that where there are only three, there are also four – and the fourth is the Lord of Glory. And where there are only two, there are always three -and the third is the head of the church, Christ himself.”

Ibid, p.223-224

Are we unduly impressed by large numbers of people in attendance, when the Lord Jesus Himself, the Lord of glory and the head of His church, is present among us? Likewise, do we despise the day of small things and offer insult to the honor of Christ by looking down our noses at His church when we see only a handful or so in attendance?

You could say that for the true church, even the smallest outpost of the visible church on this earth, if viewed rightly according to Scripture, is a really mega-church, for Christ is in her midst! In other words, in some rather important ways there is no such thing as a “small” church!

There are certainly a number of challenges and difficulties faced by smaller churches. But let us not compound the problem by having a low view of the church where Christ is present. And no matter how big or small our church might be, may we always be mindful of the presence of Christ among us in public worship on the Lord’s day, so that we seek to do all things in a manner that is well-pleasing in His sight, regardless of who else is or is not in attendance.

John Murray on the Importance of Proclaiming the Law of God

There might not be a topic on which professing Christians are more confused about, and more neglectful of, than the law of God. You could certainly say that the gospel itself ranks higher on that list, and you would not necessarily be wrong in saying so. But in some ways ignorance and confusion regarding those two things are inextricably bound up together, aren’t they?

For if you get the law of God wrong, it is seemingly impossible to get the gospel right. In some ways it may very well be the virtual absence of the law of God in the preaching and teaching of the church that has led to much of the perceived impotence of the proclamation of the gospel in our day! John Murray (1898-1975) writes:

“When the proclamation of God’s law is neglected, the significance of the gospel is correspondingly reduced in our presentation and in the apprehension of men. The gospel is the gospel of salvation, and salvation is, first of all, salvation from sin in its guilt, defilement, and power. If our emphasis on the judgment of God upon sin is minimal, correspondingly minimal will be our esteem of salvation and of the Savior. One sometimes wonders whether the faith in Christ which is demanded of men in the presentation of the claims of Christ can have any real content in view of the beggarly conception of the gravity of sin which is presented as its presupposition and concomitant. Faith in Christ does not arise in a vacuum. It arises in the context of conviction of sin and it is to the creation of that conviction that the ministry of judgment ministers.”

Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol.1, p.144

At the preaching of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, the hearers were so convicted of their sin and guilt before God (“cut to the heart”), that they said, “Brothers, what shall we do?” (v.37). They were really asking the same question that the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30, when he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” In our day, with the lack of preaching of God’s law and corresponding lack of conviction of sin, one may be far more likely to hear someone say, “Why do I need to be saved?” or “Saved from what?”

Murray goes on to say that “Our age needs the ministry that will make men tremble before the awful majesty and holiness of God and in the conviction of the reality of his holy wrath.” (p.145)

Such was the preaching that God used to stir up a revival of sorts in the great city of Nineveh in Jonah’s day. The word of the Lord came to Jonah, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me.” (Jonah 1:2, ESV) Now, it took some doing to get Jonah there, but when he finally arrived at the city, what was his message? In Jonah 3:4–5 we read:

“Jonah began to go into the city, going a day’s journey. And he called out, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” And the people of Nineveh believed God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them.” (ESV)

And God showed mercy on them, didn’t He? But He used the proclamation of His just judgment and wrath to bring them under the conviction of sin, and to grant unto them the grace of repentance and belief.

Likewise it was this kind of preaching that the Lord used to stir up revival during what has come to be known as the Great Awakening in the 18th century. The best-known sermon from that awakening was no doubt “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God“, by Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). It is as fire & brimstone as the name suggests, but God used it mightily in bringing revival to New England.

Ministers of the gospel must preach Christ and Him crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23), and to do that we must also preach the law. Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) writes:

“Old Robbie Flockhart used to say, “It is of no use trying to sew with the silken thread of the gospel unless we pierce a way for it with the sharp needle of the law.” The law goes first, like the needle, and draws the gospel thread after it . . . .”

Lectures to My Students, p.338

He goes on to say that “No man will ever put on the robe of Christ’s righteousness till he is stripped of his fig leaves, nor will he wash in the fount of mercy till he perceives his filthiness.” (Ibid)

These things are clearly taught in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Not only does he tell us there that “through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20, ESV), but even the very flow of thought or argument in the epistle displays this for all to see. For right after speaking of the gospel being the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16), Paul spends the better part of the first three (3) chapters of the epistle expounding at length the bad news of the doctrine of the sin and depravity of man before giving us the good news of salvation in Christ, justification by faith alone, sanctification, and glorification in the chapters that follow (4-8).

May the Lord in His mercy grant that the ministers of the gospel in our day might not neglect the preaching of the law in connection with our preaching of Christ. And may He use that to awaken many unto their desperate need for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, in drawing them unto Him by faith for salvation.

Prayer & the Sovereignty of God in Salvation

There are certainly many in the visible church today, and always have been, who reject the clear teaching of Scripture regarding the sovereignty of God in salvation and find it offensive. This is especially so when it comes to the doctrine of election. In his book Old Paths, J.C. Ryle writes,

“No part of the Christian religion has been so much disputed, rejected, and reviled as this. None has called forth so much of that enmity against God which is the grand mark of the carnal mind. Thousands of so-called Christians profess to believe the atonement, salvation by grace, and justification by faith, and yet refuse to look at the doctrine of election. The very mention of the word to some persons is enough to call forth expressions of anger, ill-temper, and passions.”

p.432

And in at least some cases this rejection can be traced back to a misunderstanding of what it does or does not mean. Ryle also states:

“No doctrine of Scripture perhaps has suffered so much damage from the erroneous conceptions of foes, and the incorrect descriptions of friends, as that which is now before us [i.e. election].”

Ibid

In other words, many of those who reject it (whom Ryle calls “foes” of this doctrine) conceive of it wrongly, often caricaturing it in such a way as to distort it; and even many of those who accept it do such a poor job of explaining it, that they bring it into disrepute.

In his very helpful little book, Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God, J.I. Packer makes the case that many of those who reject the sovereignty of God in salvation and the doctrine of election, etc., show in some ways that, at least in practice, they really do believe in it in their heart of hearts.

He offers two or three arguments (depending on how you number them), all of which are related to how we pray. See if you identify with these things in the way you pray. (You may be a closet Calvinist after all!)

The first thing that he mentions is simply that we pray. He says, “The very fact that a Christian prays is thus proof positive that he believes in the Lordship of his God.” (p.12) If you believe in God, you believe that He is sovereign over all things. If not, you are believing in a god of your own imagination.

The first argument or proof that Packer offers in relation to this is that when we pray, we thank God for our conversion and salvation! He says,

“In the first place, you give God thanks for your conversion. Now why do you do that? Because you know in your heart that God was entirely responsible for it. You did not save yourself; He saved you.”

Ibid

Paul himself certainly thanked God for the conversion of believers, as we saw back in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Paul was always thanking God for the faith and salvation of believers. One of my very favorites passages is Philippians 1:3–6, where Paul writes:

“I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (Italics added)

Whom did Paul thank? And why? Did Paul thank the Philippians for believing? No! He thanked God that they believed! He thanked God for their “partnership in the gospel from the first day” (v.5). And just in case that were not clear enough, he goes on in v.6 to say that he was sure or confident ‘that He who began [!] a good work in them would bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.’

The second argument related to prayer that Packer mentions seems inescapable to me. Not only do we pray. Not only do we thank God for our own conversion and salvation. But we also pray for the conversion of others! He writes:

“When you pray for unconverted people, you do so on the assumption that it is in God’s power to bring them to faith. You entreat Him to do that very thing, and your confidence in asking rests on the certainty that He is able to do what you ask. And so indeed He is: this conviction, which animates your intercessions, is God’s own truth, written on your heart by the Holy Spirit. In prayer, then (and the Christian is at his sanest and wisest when he prays), you know that it is God who saves men; you know what makes men turn to God is God’s own gracious work of drawing them to Himself; and the content of your prayers is determined by this knowledge.”

p.15

This is simply the plain, unvarnished teaching of Scripture. God is sovereign in the salvation of sinners. He has chosen from all eternity those who are the objects of His mercy. And we pray accordingly!

Do you find yourself struggling to accept this great doctrine of grace? Perhaps it is because you do not perceive that that is exactly what it is – a doctrine of God’s grace! That is what this doctrine that is found and taught all throughout God’s Word – in both the Old and New Testaments – is about: God’s grace in saving sinners.

If God did not choose and choose to save, none would ever choose to believe and be saved; none would be saved, and we would all justly perish in our sin and unbelief. But thanks be to God that He has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, “even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” (Ephesians 1:4)

Charnock on Providence and Prayer

The great English Puritan writer, Stephen Charnock (1628-1680), wrote “A Discourse of Divine Providence,” which is included in volume 1 of Banner of Truth’s 5 volume set of his collected works. A simple definition of the doctrine of providence is found in Westminster Shorter Catechism Q/A 11, which says:

Q. 11. What are God’s works of providence?
A. God’s works of providence are his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.

And so providence essentially includes two (2) things: That God sustains or preserves all things, and that He also likewise governs or rules over all things, including the actions of his creatures! The Lord Jesus spoke of this very truth in Matthew 10:29, where He said,

“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.” (ESV)

This is what is sometimes called an argument from the lesser to the greater. If God is sovereign over the minute details and goings-on in His creation, such as a sparrow falling to the ground, then certainly He is also sovereignly in control of the bigger things as well.

In his discourse on God’s providence, Charnock includes a section dealing with a number of the ways that men often tend to “practically deny providence, or abuse it, or contemn [i.e. show contempt for] it.” (p.42). Just as a person may claim to believe in God, but live in a way that is contrary to that profession so that he or she is guilty of a kind of “practical atheism,” even so we sometimes deny the providence of God in our actions, even if not necessarily in our words.

One of the many ways that Charnock speaks of in which we deny the providence of God in our daily lives is in “omissions of prayer,” a failure to pray. He writes,

“If we did really believe there was a watchful providence, and an infinite powerful goodness to help us, he would hear from us oftener than he doth. Certainly those who never call upon him disown his government of the world, and do not care whether he regards the earth or no. They think they can do what they please, without any care of God over them. The restraining prayer is a casting off the fear of God: Job xv. 4, ‘Thou casteth off fear,’ why? ‘and restrainest prayer before God.’ The neglect of prayer ariseth from a conceit of the unprofitableness of it.”

The Works of Stephen Charnock, Vol.1, p.43

In other words, if we really believed that God were sovereignly governing all the affairs of this world, and that He is a God who then hears and answers prayer, we would pray much more often than we do. In many ways, when push comes to shove, the reason we often fail to pray is simply because deep down we doubt or disbelieve that it will really do any good or make any difference to pray.

Do you struggle with prayer at times? (Who doesn’t?) Perhaps it is because in some ways you doubt that God is actually willing to hear and answer from heaven? How often we need to be reminded of the promises of God regarding prayer, such as the words of our Lord in Matthew 7:7–11, where He says,

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (ESV)

“Ask, and it will be given to you” (v.7). As James 4:2 puts it, “You do not have, because you do not ask.” (ESV) If even we who are evil (!) “give good gifts” to our children, “how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:11, ESV) Or do we think that we are somehow more generous and loving than God?

If you at times struggle with prayer, perhaps you might find it helpful to consider the doctrine of the providence of God, especially in how it relates to prayer. Charnock is surely correct when he says that if we really believed in the providence and goodness of God, “he would hear from us oftener than he doth.“

Book Review: Things Unseen, By J. Gresham Machen

Things Unseen, by J. Gresham Machen, is (as the subtitle puts it), “a systematic introduction to the Christian faith and reformed theology.” And what an introduction it is!

For those who may not be familiar with Dr. Machen (1881-1937), he might be the greatest theologian of the 20th century whom no one has ever heard of before. He was a long-time professor at Princeton Seminary, before leaving that institution to found Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1929. He was instrumental in forming the Orthodox Presbyterian Church denomination in 1936 as well. (If you would like to learn more about Machen, Stephen J. Nichols has written a very good biography which I would enthusiastically commend to you – J. Gresham Machen: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought.)

The chapters in this book were originally written for a series of radio broadcasts via the WIP radio station in Philadelphia. Those broadcasts were intended for a general audience, in many ways even with unbelievers in view. There is a decidedly evangelistic tone throughout.

He lays out the basic essentials of the Christian faith in a systematic fashion, in much the same logical order found in much more complex systematic theology texts, and yet he somehow does so in such a way as to remain remarkably accessible and readable.

He cites the Westminster Shorter Catechism liberally (pun!) throughout. At least half of the 50 chapters of the book contain direct references and quotes from the catechism. He also refers the reader to such eminent Reformed theologians as Charles Hodge, Benjamin B. Warfield, John Murray, and Geerhardus Vos throughout the book.

He addresses such topics as the inspiration and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, God’s sovereignty and the freedom of man, predestination (3 full chapters), Providence, the doctrine of original sin, the threefold office of Christ (as Prophet, Priest, and King), the atonement of Christ, and the active obedience of Christ. And somehow he manages to make all of these things clear and accessible to regular, everyday Christians.

I just wish the book were longer, and that he could have lived to complete the work. Nevertheless, the ground that he covers is more than enough to get anyone well on their way in seeking to understand the Christian faith and reformed theology. If you are looking for an accessible & readable introduction to the Reformed faith, I would highly recommend this volume to you.

“The Infallible Fruits of Election” (The Canons of Dort and Assurance)

The overarching concern of the Canons of Dort is not just a doctrinal or theological one, but a decidedly pastoral and experiential one as well. And that is demonstrated in the fact that a common theme throughout the First Head of Doctrine (i.e. unconditional election) is that of assurance.

In many ways the doctrines of Arminianism undermine assurance, and so the Canons here show how a right understanding of the biblical doctrine of election actually serves to establish and strengthen the assurance of believers.

Article 11

“And as God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient and omnipotent, so the election made by Him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished.”

Arminianism teaches a conditional election from start to finish. Not only does it wrongly teach that God’s election of sinners to salvation is based on foreseen faith at the beginning, but it also holds that one can abandon the faith and lose his or her salvation in the end, rendering God’s decree of election in a sense temporary. Article 11 here clearly refutes that error.

Contrary to the errors of Arminianism, the Canons remind us that God is “most wise, unchangeable, omniscient and omnipotent,” so that the idea that His decree could change or be in need of revision is blasphemous. Nothing can change God’s gracious decree of election from all eternity, and so “neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished.”

In his book, Saving the Reformation: The Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort, Robert Godfrey writes:

“Election reflects the very character of God. As God is immutable, so His purpose in election is immutable. Nothing can interfere with God’s implementing his decree of election. In particular, the specific number of the elect cannot be reduced. This conviction is foundational to the doctrine of God and to predestination as well as to the teaching on assurance found throughout the canons.” (p.93)

So the biblical doctrine of election, properly understood, is a matter of utmost importance, as it has to do not just with assurance of salvation, but even with our doctrine of God. Because God is immutable, so is His decree and purpose in election. And that should be a rather encouraging truth for believers.

Article 12

“The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves, with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God — such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.”

Here in Article 12 we are taught the right way to understand the relationship between election and assurance. Believers are not to try to attain the assurance of their election by “inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God,” which is impossible for us to do. (See Deuteronomy 29:29.) Rather, we are to seek to observe in ourselves “the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God — such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.”

In other words, how do you know if you are one of God’s elect? You look to your true faith in Christ, repentance, desire to grow in holiness, etc. as the “infallible fruits” or evidence of God’s election. In this way we are to ‘make our calling and election sure’ (2 Peter 1:10). How often do sincere believers lack a sense of assurance because we look to the wrong things as evidence of our salvation?

Election is known by its fruits. And the “infallible” or unmistakable fruits of election consist not in some secret, hidden knowledge of God’s decree, nor in some kind of ecstatic spiritual experience, but rather in simple and sincere faith in Christ, repentance, etc. And so if you want to know whether or not you are one of God’s elect, the thing to ask is simply, “Am I a believer in Christ? Have I sincerely turned from sin and turned to Christ by faith?”

And notice that Article 12 points out that the elect attain the assurance of their eternal and unchangeable election “in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures.” Assurance is not just automatic and may take some time, and it may come “in varying degrees” rather than in completeness or perfection.

Article 13

“The sense and certainty of this election afford to the children of God additional matter for daily humiliation before Him, for adoring the depth of His mercies, for cleansing themselves, and rendering grateful returns of ardent love to Him, who first manifested so great love towards them. The consideration of this doctrine of election is so far from encouraging remissness in the observance of the divine commands or from sinking men in carnal security, that these, in the just judgment of God, are the usual effects of rash presumption or of idle and wanton trifling with the grace of election in those who refuse to walk in the ways of the elect.”

Some who oppose the doctrine of election seem to confuse assurance with presumption, fearing that assurance would lead to loose living. But here we see the difference between assurance and presumption.

True faith and assurance lead to humility, adoration of God’s mercy and grace, and to seeking to grow in holiness and love for God because of His great love for us in Christ. It is sinful presumption (and not assurance) that rather leads to “remissness in the observance of the divine commands” and a neglect of holiness in the fear of God. And such as are remiss in these things will necessarily be lacking in any genuine assurance of salvation, as long as those “infallible fruits” of election are lacking or absent in their lives.

Election as “The Fountain of Every Saving Good” (Canons of Dort 1.9.)

In Articles 1-7 of the First Head of Doctrine (Unconditional Election), we saw in some detail where Arminians and Calvinists both agree (Articles 1-4) and where their respective views begin to diverge (i.e. the source of saving faith in Christ, God’s eternal decree, and the definition of election – Articles 5-7), we now proceed to a brief examination of Articles 8-10.

In Articles 8-10 we get to the heart of the matter regarding the doctrine of unconditional election. For here we are plainly taught that God’s decree of election unto salvation in Christ is the same in both the Old and New Testaments (Article 8); that it was not based upon “foreseen faith” or anything else in us (Article 9); and that the sole cause of God’s gracious purposes in election is merely “the good pleasure of God” (Article 10).

Article 8

“There are not various decrees of election, but one and the same decree respecting all those who shall be saved, both under the Old and New Testament; since the Scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose and counsel of the divine will to be one, according to which He hath chosen us from eternity, both to grace and glory, to salvation and the way of salvation, which He hath ordained that we should walk therein.”

Here the argument is from the immutability of God as well as the unity of God’s decree. God does not change, and His purpose in election and salvation has not changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Later in the section of this Head of doctrine detailing the rejection of errors, the Synod notes that they “reject the error of those who teach” that “there are various kinds of election of God unto eternal life . . . .” (Rejection 2)

As to the unity of God’s decree, Ephesians 1:11 tells us, “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.” (ESV) The counsel of God’s will is singular or simple (i.e. one, unified), even as God Himself is One. Paul there does not speak of God’s purposes (i.e. plural), but rather of His “purpose” (i.e. singular).

That God’s decree of election is one and the same in both the Old and New Testament is clearly evident because in teaching and establishing the doctrine of divine election in the New Testament, Paul explicitly points us back to the Old Testament. In fact, he does so throughout Romans chapter 9, using Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as examples of God’s saving purpose in election. For example:

“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Romans 9:10–13, ESV, Italics added)

God chose to save Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And Paul explicitly teaches us the Jacob was chosen by God before he was even born or “had done anything good or bad – in order that God’s purpose in election might continue” (or stand – KJV). And so God’s decree of election has not changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

Article 9

“This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause or condition on which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc.; therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceeds faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to that of the apostle: “He hath chosen us [not because we were but] that we should be holy, and without blame, before Him in love” (Eph. 1:4).”

Here we see the Canons beginning to explicitly address the heart of the Arminians’ error regarding election. Arminianism views God’s election as being in some ways conditional. That is, it holds that God’s election unto salvation was based on something that He foresaw in those whom He would choose, such as faith, obedience, holiness, etc. This makes something inherent in us the very basis for our election.

Contrary to this unbiblical idea, the Canons here affirm that God’s election of sinners unto salvation was in no way based or conditioned upon something foreseen in them, but rather that we are chosen unto those things. God’s gracious decree of election is rather the cause of such things as faith, holiness, etc. That is why the Canons speak of God’s decree of election as “the fountain of every saving good” in us. In his book, Saving the Reformation, W. Robert Godfrey puts it this way:

“Election does not flow from faith or holiness, but rather, faith and holiness flow from election.” (p.92)

And so we are not chosen by God because we will one day believe, but rather because we are chosen by God unto salvation before the foundation of the world, we will therefore believe, repent, and walk in holiness, etc. All of those gifts and graces flow from God’s gracious decree of election, not vice-versa. And this is clearly taught in Ephesians 1:4, where Paul tells us that God chose us in Christ, not because we already were or would be holy and without blame before Him, but rather so “that we should be holy, and without blame, before Him in love” (italics added).

Article 10

“The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election, which doth not consist herein, that out of all possible qualities and actions of men God has chosen some as a condition of salvation; but that He was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to Himself, as it is written, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,” etc., it was said (namely to Rebecca): “The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (Rom. 9:11-13). “And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48).”

Article 10 teaches us that the mere “good pleasure of God” is the “sole cause” of God’s decree of election. The sole cause of election is in God Himself, and so all of the glory for our salvation, from beginning to end, belongs to Him alone.

The Arminian view basically teaches that God chose the conditions of salvation (faith, repentance, holiness, etc.) ahead of time, rather than choosing the individual sinners themselves unto salvation. Contrary to that, the Canons here teach and affirm that God “was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to Himself.”

Once again the Canons point us to Romans 9:11-13 (i.e. God’s choice of Jacob over Esau). Here we are also pointed to Acts 13:48, which tells us, “And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” This verse does not teach us that they were ordained to eternal life because they believed (i.e. the Arminian view), but rather that the very reason that they believed and were saved is precisely because they had been previously “ordained to eternal life.”

Unconditional Election (Canons of Dort – First Head of Doctrine)

This first head of doctrine expounded and defended in the Canons of Dort is Divine predestination (or unconditional election). The Canons break down the biblical teaching on this heading or subject into 18 articles (basically sub-points), followed by 9 points of explicit rejection of errors which were (and in some cases still are) taught by those who hold to Arminianism. Rather than trying to deal with all 27 points in one study, we will simply highlight some of the more significant aspects of the Canons’ teaching over the span of a number of posts.

The first four (4) articles state truths of Scripture that are basic to any right understanding of the gospel, things which both Calvinists and Arminians would more or less equally affirm. These are summarized as follows:

1. All men have sinned in Adam and are deserving of eternal condemnation and wrath for our sins. (See Romans 3:23; 6:23.) 2. God’s love for lost sinners was manifested in Him sending His only-begotten Son so that whosoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life. (See John 3:16; 1 John 4:9.) 3. In order that sinners may come to a saving faith in Christ, God has willed that messengers of the gospel be sent out to preach. (See Mark 16:15; Romans 10:14-15.) 4. The wrath of God abides upon those who do not believe in Christ, but to all who believe are assuredly delivered by Him from the wrath to come, and have the gift of eternal life. (See John 3:16-18; 36.)

Article 5

“The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). “For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him,” etc. (Phil. 1:29).”

Article 5 is where the real differences between Calvinism and Arminianism begin to be made clear. For Calvinism (unlike Arminianism) affirms the Scriptural teaching that the ultimate cause of unbelief, sin, and guilt is not to be found in God (as if He were the Author of Sin), but rather “in man himself.” But in contrast to that, “faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the gift of God.” In establishing this from Scripture, the Canons point us to Ephesians 2:8 and Philippians 1:29.

• “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8, ESV)

• “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,” (Philippians 1:29, ESV)

In the former text, Paul teaches us that our being saved by grace and through faith is not our own doing, but is the gift of God. That is, not only our salvation itself, but even our faith in Christ unto salvation is not our own doing, but is the gift of God. Likewise in Philippians 1:29 Paul (in passing, no less – he makes no attempt to try to argue the point) tells us that it has been “granted” to us to believe in Christ.

Here we see the most basic difference between those who remain lost in their sins and those who are saved by the grace of God. If you are a believer in Christ, the only thing that distinguishes you from someone else who rejects Christ is the sovereign grace and mercy of God alone. In this way, all of the glory for our salvation is ascribed to God alone.

In the Arminian (i.e. free-will) view, at some point the real difference is to be found in the sinner himself. For Arminianism teaches that God elects the sinner unto salvation on the basis of “foreseen faith” (rather than electing the sinner unto saving faith – see Article 9 and Rejection of Error 5).

Article 6

“That some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not receive it proceeds from God’s eternal decree, for “known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). “Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11). According to which decree, He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe, while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men, equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation revealed in the Word of God, which though men of perverse, impure and unstable minds wrest to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.”

In his book, Grace Defined & Defended, Kevin DeYoung writes,

“After explaining the what of judgment, gospel, and grace, Dort now brings us to the why. We can all see that some people believe in Christ and others do not. But why? What is the ultimate reason that some exercise faith, while others remain in unbelief? There are really only two possible answers: God or man.” (p.34) 

Here the writers of the Canons affirm the biblical teaching regarding the sovereignty of God over all things, which then necessarily includes such things as election and reprobation (sometimes referred to as double-predestination). All of these things are part of the sovereign decree of God from all eternity.

Notice that the doctrine of unconditional election, rightly understood by “pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.” There is a great source of comfort and assurance for sincere believers in the doctrine of God’s sovereign grace in election. (And it could be said that Arminianism is actually contrary and even destructive to that comfort.) And so this is not just some cold academic issue, but a deeply theological and even pastoral one!

Article 7

“Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation.

“This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son, finally, to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy and for the praise of His glorious grace, as it is written: “According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph. 1:4–6). And elsewhere: “Whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified them He also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).”

Here in the first paragraph of Article 7 we finally come to what amounts to a simple definition of the doctrine of election. It is “the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation.” In other words, before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), and by His sheer grace and good pleasure of His will alone, God chose to save “a certain number of persons” in Christ. And that decree of election unto salvation is unchangeable. All of those and only those whom He has chosen to save will, in fact, be saved.

And not only has God chosen us in Christ for salvation (Ephesians 1:4), but He has also chosen both the means and the manner by which He saves us – drawing us irresistibly to faith in Christ by His Word and Spirit. And moreover, He has not just chosen to draw us to faith in Christ by His effectual calling, but has also then predestined us to justification, sanctification, and glorification as well (i.e. Romans 8:30). As Paul says in Philippians 1:6, “And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.” (ESV) God finishes what He starts in us because He chose to do all of this for our salvation from all eternity by the mere good pleasure of His will, “to the praise of his glorious grace” (Ephesians 1:6).

A Brief Introduction to the Canons of Dort

The Background of the Canons of Dort

The Canons of Dort is a theological consensus document (or form of unity). The word “canon” here means a rule or a standard. And so the Canons of Dort are basically standards of doctrine.

The Canons were formulated by the members of the Synod of Dort, which was essentially the General Assembly of the Reformed church in the Netherlands. (There were also a good number of international delegates at the Synod as well.) It convened in the city of Dordrecht (often shortened simply to Dort), from which both the Synod and the Canons derive their respective names. This synod lasted from November 1618 to May 1619.

The circumstance which necessitated the calling of this Synod was a theological controversy involving the teachings and influence of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). His teachings on a number of things represented a clear departure from the Reformed faith, especially with regard to the sovereignty of God in salvation. For example, his peculiar teaching on the doctrine of election was such that God was said to have chosen to save sinners on the basis of foreseen faith, rather than simply on the basis of the free grace and good pleasure of God.

Sometime after his death, his followers (sometimes referred to as Arminians or Remonstrants) sought to avoid ecclesiastical discipline for their views from the Reformed Church in the Netherlands, and so they appealed to the civil government (the States General) for help. It is probably hard for many people in the church today to imagine such involvement between the church and state, but this has been much more common throughout the history of the church than it is in many places today.

They presented their views in summary form in a document called the “Five Articles of Remonstrance.” (A “remonstrance” is simply a protest or denunciation of some kind.) These five articles were in many ways the polar opposite of what we often refer to as the 5 points of Calvinism. The Five Heads (or chief points) of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort are the Synod’s response to and refutation of the teachings of the Arminians as articulated in the 5 Articles of Remonstrance. And so in an odd way you could say that we would not have the 5 points of Calvinism (at least not articulated as such) if it were not for the Arminians’ Articles of Remonstrance. As J.I. Packer notes in his Introductory Essay to John Owen’s book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ:

” . . .it should be observed that the “five points of Calvinism,” so-called, are simply the Calvinistic answer to a five-point manifesto (the Remonstrance) put out by certain “Belgic semi-Pelagians” [Owen’s words] in the early seventeenth century.” (p.3)

It should be noted that while we may speak of the so-called “5 Points of Calvinism,” those points are not a summary of the teachings of John Calvin, nor did Calvin himself ever articulate them in this way (i.e. as a system of 5 points). They do, of course, accurately represent his teachings concerning divine sovereignty in our salvation.

The Canons of Dort is not a Confession of Faith in the sense that it does not give us a full summary of all of the main points of doctrine inherent in the Christian Faith. For that, you would instead need to look to Reformed consensus documents like the Belgic Confession or the Westminster Confession of Faith. Instead, what the Canons are is a robust statement and defense of the main points of biblical teaching regarding the sovereign grace of God in the salvation of sinners.

Dr. Cornelis P. Venema writes,

“On the basis of its deliberations, the Synod of Dort judged the five articles of the Remonstrants to be contrary to the Word of God and the confession of the Reformed churches. Against the Arminian teachings of election based on foreseen faith, human depravity, resistible grace, and the possibility of a lapse from grace, the Canons set forth the Reformed teachings of unconditional election, limited atonement, total depravity, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints.” (But for the Grace of God: An Exposition of the Canons of Dort, p.13)

We may find it a bit strange that the Reformed church as a whole would respond in such a robust manner to the rising influence of Arminianism within her ranks, especially given that in many ways Arminianism seems to be the predominant view among American evangelicals today. (Calvinism would certainly seem to be in the minority in evangelicalism these days.) But when you consider what was (and is) at stake, both pastorally (re. the comfort and assurance of believers regarding the security of their salvation from beginning to end) as well as doxologically (i.e. that all of the glory for our salvation goes to God alone), it becomes quickly apparent why the work of this Synod was so vitally important, and remains just as relevant to the peace and purity of the church today, some 400 years after they were first written.

Outline of the Canons of Dort

The Five Heads of Doctrine are as follows:

1. Of Divine Predestination

2. Of the Death of Christ and the Redemption of Men Thereby

3. Of the Corruption of Man

4. Of the Conversion of Man to God, and the Manner Thereof

5. Of the Perseverance of the Saints

Incidentally, the third and fourth Heads of Doctrine are actually combined or treated together as a unit. You may also notice that these points of doctrine are not in the order commonly associated with the 5 points of Calvinism as expressed in the acronym,TULIP. (TULIP = Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints) That is simply because the Five Heads of Doctrine contained in the Canons correspond point by point, in the same order as the 5 Articles of Remonstrance for which they were written as a response and refutation.

In the Canons each of the 5 Heads of Doctrine is divided further into numerous points or articles which expound the true doctrine at length, followed by various points in which the errors of Arminianism are explicitly rejected and condemned as being outside of the pale of Reformed orthodoxy. In this way there is abundant clarity about what the biblical and reformed teaching on these thing is as well as what it is not.

Lord willing, we hope to go through each Head of Doctrine at length in future posts, examining them in the light of Scriptures.

Giving Thanks to God for God

Thanksgiving is a time for us to give thanks to God for all that we have. But 2020 has been a rather tough year in a number of ways, and so it is understandable if some people do not really feel much like giving thanks after all. In fact, in some ways I’m sure that many of us will be more than a bit thankful when this particular year is finally in the rear-view mirror.

But there is still much to be thankful for, even in 2020. The Bible is practically filled with exhortations calling the people of God to give thanks to Him, and nowhere is that more evident than in the book of Psalms. Psalm 136 is a great example. In fact, giving thanks to God is its main theme.

In v.1-3 the Psalmist writes,

“Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good,
for his steadfast love endures forever.
Give thanks to the God of gods,
for his steadfast love endures forever.
Give thanks to the Lord of lords,
for his steadfast love endures forever;” (ESV)

Three times there (and once more at the end of the Psalm in v.26) we are exhorted to give thanks to God. The rest of the Psalm goes into some detail about all of the great things that God has done both in creation itself as well as in delivering His people from their enemies. And these are all set before us as reasons to give God thanks.

But look again at v.1-3 (above). What is the very first reason the Psalmist gives us for giving thanks? It is not just what God has done for us (as important as that certainly is), but rather who God is. Why are we to give thanks to the LORD? First and foremost because “he is good,” and because “his steadfast love endures forever.” That last phrase is repeated in each and every verse (a total of 26 times!).

The great Puritan Bible commentator, Matthew Henry, puts it this way: “Give thanks to the LORD, not only because he does good, but because he is good . . . .”

That is why the Psalmist tells us to “Give thanks to the LORD, for He is good” (v.1). God is good. Do you ever just thank God because He is good? Not just because He has been so good to you (which is also a good reason to thank Him), but just because He Himself is good!

Are you not feeling all that thankful right now? Are you having a tough time giving thanks this year? It is certainly understandable, as I have said before. But may I then encourage you all the more to make it your aim to seek to know God better?

There can truly be no more important thing that you could do than that. The Bible goes so far as to say that knowing God (not just knowing about God, although it certainly includes that) is eternal life! John 17:3 says,

“And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (ESV)

Certainly if you know the Lord and have eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, you of all people have every reason to give thanks to God. For it is in Christ that we have been given every spiritual blessing (Ephesians 1:3).

Not only that, but the better that you come to know the God of creation, providence, and salvation, the more reasons you will find to give thanks in all things, even in 2020 and beyond. May we all learn to give thanks to the Lord, for He is good, and His steadfast love endures forever!