Reprobation – off hand one would hardly call this a pleasant or a delightful subject. There is something so awesome about this that we may shrink from any contemplation of it! Election – yes, we glory in that. But reprobation? By nature we may say, perish the thought! But here too, as so often, we err in our human and superficial likes and dislikes. We may not and dare not close our eyes to any truth clearly taught by God in His Word. Now the divine decree of reprobation may not be comprehensible or palatable to our finite and sin-darkened minds but taking God at His Word, we must say: I Believe it because the Bible tells me so.

It would be presumptuous for even the wisest among us to pretend to be able to answer every question about the divine decree of reprobation. Throughout eternity the redeemed will continue to be amazed at God’s unfathomable decree of election and reprobation. I hope that it may be of some help at this time, in attempting to say what may be said, if we use the simple question–and–answer method.

Q. What is Boer’s gravamen?

A. The word gravamen comes from the Latin gravo meaning “to weigh down” or from the Latin gravis meaning “heavy”. A gravamen is therefore a grievance or a burden. In ecclesiastical parlance the word usually refers to a grievance or burden someone has when he differs from an officially adopted position of his church, usually in the matter of doctrine. For good measure, attention may be called to the fact that, in every dictionary I have consulted, the pronunciation is gravamen rather than the commonly used gravamen, obviously a carry-over from the Dutch.

Dr. Harry Boer’s grievance or burden, called a “Confessional–Revision Gravamen,” may be found in the Acts of Synod 1977, pages 665–679. His contention is clearly stated at the outset of his gravamen as follows:

“I submit herewith for synodical examination and adjudication a gravamen against the Reformed doctrine of reprobation as taught notably in the Canons of Dort, Chapter I, Article 6 and Chapter I, Article 15 . . .”

And in the closing sentence of his gravamen Boer adds: “I submit herewith for synodical examination and adjudication this gravamen, this confessional revision gravamen, against what I judge to be a grievously unbiblical, therefore unReformed, indeed, unChristian doctrine.” There can be no doubt then as to how grievous Boer judges his burden to be.

Q. Is Boer alone in this effort to get rid of reprobation among those supposed to be Reformed?

A. No, he is not.

Dr. James Daane, for example, a CRC minister who serves as professor of theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, is outspoken in his support of Boer. Writing in The Banner of April 7, 1978, p. 7, Daane states: “If Boer is correct, and I think he is, that none of the Biblical texts to which the Canons appeal to support its view of reprobation do in fact support it, then, unless other Biblical texts can be found supportive of the Canons, the doctrine of reprobation should go the way of other errors. For the Bible does not support but rather undercuts a doctrine of reprobation based on the logic of numbers.”

In addition, it is not at all reassuring as to the CRC’s commitment to the position of the Canons on reprobation when we consider that the nine–member committee appointed by the 1977 Synod on this matter need not come with its advice until 1980. Meanwhile, Boer and those who are like-minded with him may continue to publicly attack one of our doctrinal standards that has been held in honor for the past 360 years and staunchly upheld during that time by outstanding Reformed scholars by whom, we believe, the Holy Spirit has graciously guided the church in her commitment to the great truths of the Word. As in the case of so many false teachings, there is nothing new about this denial of reprobation and it is indeed difficult to believe that it must take three years to make up our minds as to whether or not there still is among us a firm commitment to it.

Q. Have the Dutch churches, once again, taken the lead in this matter?

A. Yes, they have and we do well to take note of the following.

Dr. G.C. Berkouwer is a professor emeritus of theology, Free University of Amsterdam. In 1974 he wrote a significant book, A Half Century of Theology which in 1977 appeared in English (translation by Dr. Lewis B. Smedes, also a CRC minister and serving at Fuller Theological Seminary). It is interesting to learn from this volume that Boer’s gravamen assailing the Canons on reprobation is closely akin to that which has been brought up in the Dutch churches. Of course, by this time we are no longer surprised to find that heretical innovations among us are Dutch imports. Although not always readily outspoken as to where he himself stands, in t his instance there is little doubt as to Berkouwer’s position. After telling about the Hervormde synod‘s dealing with Dort and reprobation he gives the following information of special interest to us:

“The same problems came to expression in the gravamen that B.J. Brouwer, a physician, addressed to the Gereformeerde synod. Brouwer was concerned about the morality of signing a subscription to the creeds (which he was obliged, as an elder of the church, to do) while he objected to certain expressions in the Canons of Dort, particularly their teaching of reprobation in I/6, 15 and I/8 (Rejection of errors). The gravity of his objections is clear in the question he asked about the Canon’s statement on the decree of reprobation; he asked whether the authors – unwittingly – were guilty of blasphemy, a question, he said, that he himself could not answer negatively.”

Berkouwer informs us further: “A synodical study commission concluded that the disputed sections of the Canons did not rest on t he scriptural passages they cited, but were products of another source – namely the philosophical-theological concept of the all-causative God . . . it added that the disputed passages do ‘not speak in a correct way of the Lord God.’ The synod then concluded that it was justifiable to ‘entertain and publicize such objections as Dr. Brouwer brought against the passages in the Canons of Dort.’”

To this Berkouwer adds: “With this a far-reaching decision was made. It did not spell the end of the discussion of the deep questions that revolve about this confession. It also occasioned several accusations that the synod had sacrificed the confession of the ‘absolute sovereignty of God.’ ‘But I am convinced,’ Berkouwer writes, ‘that this accusation does not really touch the motives and the arguments that had led to this profound shift within the confessional life of the Reformed (Gereformeerde) churches’” (pp. 104, 105).

I do not know if Dr. Boer has picked up the cue for his gravamen from the Netherlands or not. However, I do believe it to be reason for a double take or second look on our part when we find that the very thing with which Boer now confronts the CRC has already been raised in the Hervormde and Gereformeerde churches. Dutch chocolates, Dutch cookies, and other Dutch delicacies are welcome enough; but, after our encounters with Lever’s attack on creation, Kuitert’s attack on Scripture, and Wiersinga’s attack on the atonement, we do well to be doubly careful with respect to any more theological innovations, whatever their source may be and especially if they bear the label Made in Holland.

Q. Precisely what is this doctrine of reprobation that Boer repudiates?

A. Following is Dr. Boer’s answer as given in his gravamen:

“I submit herewith for synodical examination and adjudication a gravamen against the Reformed doctrine of reprobation as taught notably in the Canons of Dort, Chapter I, Article 6 and Chapter I, Article 15. The relevant parts of these articles are:

‘“That some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not receive it, proceeds from God‘s eternal decree’”(Chap. I, Art. 6).

‘“What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture that not all, but some only are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God out of his sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, has decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion . . .’” (Chap. I, Art. 15).

To this Boer adds: “By the doctrine of reprobation, therefore, I understand that credal confession of the Christian Reformed Church which teaches an unchangeable decree made in eternity by God which has t he same irrevocable binding power as God’s decree of election and which effects the declaration set forth in Chapter I, Article 15 above.”

Q. But now – does Dr. Boer correctly portray what the Canons really say on reprobation?

A. No, he does not. However unintentional we may assume this to be on Boer’s part, he actually misrepresents the Canons’ teaching, as the following should make clear.

To see this it is necessary to place Boer’s gravamen side by side with the Conclusion to the Canons. It should be observed that prior to 1958 the Psalter Hymnal did not include this Conclusion although it was in The Psalter used in the CRC in a bygone day. In 1958 the CRC Synod acceded to the request of the Calvin Seminary Faculty and of Classis Alberta North to include the Conclusion in the next edition of the Psalter Hymnal.

On page 679 of the 1977 Acts of Synod Dr. Boer states: “I do not read in Scripture that the sovereign grace that elected me to be a child of God without regard to any merit on my part has as its logical and necessary opposite a sovereign wrath that damns men to an existence of everlasting death without regard to any demerit on their part” (italics mine. JVP).

But is that what the Canons actually say? The fact is that the Canons do teach the very opposite when in the Conclusion Dort repudiates the charge of those who say that this doctrine of reprobation “teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose . . .”

When recently I had the opportunity to call to Dr. Boer’s attention that the Canons actually repudiate what he would have us believe they teach, he replied, “That is in the Conclusion.” But that answer is not valid, because that Conclusion also is authentic. When in 1958 Synod acceded to the request of the Calvin Seminary Faculty and Classis Alberta North to include the Conclusion it did so on these grounds: “1. According to the Acts of the Synod of Dordrecht, 1618–19, the Epilogue is an integral part of the Canons; 2. This Epilogue provides a clear commentary of the ‘intentions’ of the framers of this document with respect to the truths expounded; 3. This Epilogue is always included in the Dutch editions of the Doctrinal Standards.” Obviously then, in view of his misunderstanding and misrepresentation, Dr. Boer would be well advised at least to reconsider his severe judgment on reprobation as taught in the Canons as being “a grievously, unbiblical, therefore unReformed, indeed, unChristian doctrine.”

   

Q. Is Boer not correct that we must be willing to reject the teaching of former theological leaders if these are not Scriptural?

A. Yes, he is. Permit me, however, to observe that there is an all too evident air about Dr. Boer in his gravamen that is by no means encouraging for those who may try to convince him that the doctrine of reprobation is really warranted. Allow me, by quoting and italicizing the following excerpts from Boer’s gravamen, to illustrate what I have in mind:

“We have learned . . . ”, Boer states “that reprobation exegesis in the Reformed tradition is an unprincipled, ruthless exercise that bends any desired Scripture to its foreordained meaning” (1977 Acts, p. 678). “Unprincipled, ruthless” – think of it! – Harry, how dare you say it! To be sure, the men of Dort, Calvin, Bavinck, and others could have been wrong, but to condemn them as “unprincipled” and “ruthless” in their exegesis, – again, how dare you say it!

The late Professor Louis Berkhof does not fare too well either in Boer’s estimation of him. For 38 years Berkhof taught at Calvin Seminary. Throughout the years my appreciation of the dogmatics we learned from him has continued to increase and to this day I regularly consult his monumental work, Systematic Theology. In The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Dr. Fred Klooster states: “The work is scholarly in character, well-outlined for classroom use, and has been widely used in theological seminaries and Bible institutes throughout the United States and Canada.” In his book, The Minister’s Library, Cyril J . Barber, gives this work by Berkhof a star rating in the field of systematic theology and says of it: “This particularly capable treatment is perhaps the best one–volume work available.”

The New Schaff–Herzog Religious Encyclopedia has an entry on Berkhof listing the various books he has written. In 1920-21 he delivered the Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary on The Kingdom of God in Modern Thought and Life. One of my classmates of Calvin Seminary days, a half century ago now, once said it well: “You know it was Berkhof who really gave us the backbone of the whole business.” Suppose, as some of his detractors feel called upon to point out, that Berkhof was not “original”, would not be far better off without the heretical innovations by which some of today’s “originators” in theology are now corrupting the pulpit and the religious press?

At any rate, it is obvious that Louis Berkhof has been honored with some high and well-deserved ratings and that the CRC was indeed fortunate to have him for almost four decades as a professor of theology.

However, Dr. Boer in his gravamen is scathing in his denunciation of Berkhof’s reprobation theology, as is evident from the following excerpt to which I add italics: “It is therefore for us of the Christian Reformed Church not a matter of self-gratulation that one of our best known theologians has contrived at once the baldest and the most nonchalant formulation of the essence of Reformed reprobation theology . . .” Imagine that! – contrived . . . the baldest and the most nonchalant.”

What a put-down for our esteemed and distinguished professor of a bygone and better day for the CRC! Frankly, I am by no means confident of convincing Boer of his error after such bold and uninhibited censure of these theologians of stature who have gone before.

Now notice, if you will, that however disparaging and censorious Dr. Boer is of those who affirm reprobation, he obviously abounds in confidence as to his own denial of it as the following excerpts from his gravamen suggest (my italics added):

“I do not believe, and I refuse to entertain, that my election ‘ipso facto’ requires a corresponding reprobation of others. I do not read in Scripture . . . It is my belief that in taking this position I stand on firm Reformed ground . . . this confessional revision gravamen, against what I judge to be a grievously unbiblical, therefore unReformed, indeed, unChristian doctrine (1977 Acts, p. 679). Such a frame of mind does not encourage the expectation that adducing the evidence–once again will do much if anything to relieve the gravamen or grievance with which Boer is burdened.

Q. Should Boer‘s own view of Scripture have any bearing on this matter of his gravamen?

A. Indeed, it should. Why? Because Boer is not only so bold as to sit in judgment on Reformed theological leaders of the past. He does not hesitate to sit in judgment on Scripture itself How can we then be sure that he will accept the Scriptural evidence for reprobation even if he is confronted with it? Notice what Boer says about the Bible?

In The Reformed Journal (March 1976, p. 20) Dr. Boer writes: “The word ‘inerrant’ is also a misleading adjective. It connotes the unqualified absence of inconsistency or disparity of any kind whatever with respect to any data found in the Bible. Unlike reliability or trustworthiness it is an absolute word. But its absoluteness is applied to an aspect of Scripture that is in fact not inerrant. The Bible is infallible: it is not inerrant in the accepted sense of the word.”

And, in The Reformed Journal of March 1978, page 17, Dr. Boer writes: “I do not believe that we have a Bible that is ‘without error in all its parts.’ Such a statement may be piously meant, but it is scripturally untrue. It is contradicted by a stream of data that flows from Genesis to Revelation . . .”

In view of the above, I suggest that it would be far better if Dr. Boer were on trial in the CRC rather than the Canons of Dort.

Q. Finally, is reprobation a contrivance or an invention of Reformed theologians or is it found in the Bible?

A. Together with other passages, the Canons (Chap. I, Art. 6) quote Ephesians 1:11 according to which the Lord “worketh all things after the counsel of his will.” Boer’s contention is t hat because reprobation is not included in the context here it is not to be included among the “all things”. But if by “all things” Paul refers only to redemption, why would he not say just that? “All things” must mean precisely that and no one has the right to say that the condemnation of the godless is excluded. The distinguished and scholarly German commentator H.A.W. Meyer (not to mention our own Dr. Wm. Hendriksen and his commentary) tells us that “Ta panta (all things) is not to be limited to what pertains to the economy of salvation . . . but God is designated as the all–working (of whom, consistently, the circumstances of the Messianic salvation can least of all be independent . . . )”

In addition to the bedrock, classic, and familiar evidence for reprobation in Romans 9 (see the scholarly treatment of this passage in John Murray’s The Epistle to the Romans, Volume II), attention is called to Herman Bavinck’s writing in his The Doctrine of God, pages 395, 396 where he states:

“It is true that the Bible does not make frequent mention of reprobation as an eternal decree. All the more, however, is reprobation represented as an act of God which becomes manifest in the history of the world.” Thereupon to show t his to be true, Bavinck gives a host of Scripture passages beginning in Genesis and ending in Revelation.

It is an error to suppose that we must have a single text that clearly states the doctrine of reprobation in just so many words to accept it as being in the Bible. We know that this is true also, for example in regard to infant baptism, the Holy Trinity, or the first day of the week to be observed as the New Testament sabbath. In these cases also we know that there are a number of texts or passages which taken together provide the ground for these teachings. In each of such passages we may find only one facet or angle of the conclusion to which we come when all are carefully studied and put together. Careful exegesis and sound exposition of Scripture have led Reformed scholars and the church led by the Holy Spirit to the doctrine of reprobation. Immature and unqualified persons are so easily led astray by the specious demand for just one single text to prove a doctrine from the Bible.

How can there be a divine election without an accompanying divine reprobation? To deny reprobation is to deny that God’s sovereignty is absolute, that His providence is all-comprehensive, and that His control over the universe is all–inclusive. By all means, let us count the cost before we give up this doctrine according to which God is really God in all that comes to pass.