The first point I wish to make is that there is an element of unreality present in Dr. Boer’s Confessional-Revision Gravamen on Reprobation, which is now under study in the Christian Reformed Church. A committee appointed by the Synod of 1977 has been receiving communications on the matter from the churches and is expected “to advise the Synod of 1980 as to the cogency of the gravamen and how it should further be dealt with by synod” (1977 Acts ofSynod, p. 133).
This element of unreality appears in what Dr. Boer says about the increasing neglect of the doctrine of election in the Christian Reformed Church. On this point Dr. Boer says: “To save it (i.e., the doctrine of election, EH) from the disregard in which it is increasingly being held in the Christian Reformed Church is no small part of my motivation in submitting this gravamen.” What proof does Dr. Boer have for the claim that the doctrine of election suffers “increasingly” from “disregard” in the denomination? He offers none, other than his own assertion to that effect. Has he heard most of the ministers in the church preach over a period of time? I doubt it. There is something unreal in Dr. Boer‘s presentation of this important concern to the church with a motivation which “in no small part” is an alleged development in the church for which he offers no proof.
This air of unreality (or lack of real substance or cogency) is present also in Dr. Boer’s presentation of his case. It is hard to believe, for instance, that the brother is serious when he caricatures the teaching of the Canons of Dort on reprobation as “a sovereign wrath that damns men to an existence of everlasting death without regard to any demerit on their part.” This caricature flatly contradicts the plain language of the Canons in I. 15, where we read of the reprobate “whom God . . . has decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves” (italics EH); and where we further read of God’s decree as “permitting them in His just judgment to follow their own ways, at last, for the declaration of His justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their sins.”
Dr. Boer on Election
Dr. Boer states the following: “Excluded from the gravamen are any objections to the doctrine of election. I stand wholly committed to the scriptural teaching concerning the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men.” One reads such an assertion with gladness. But, some clarification is called for at this point. Dr. Boer declares that he is wholly committed to the “scriptural teaching.” Does this mean that he regards himself as “wholly committed” to the “doctrine of election” as that is articulated in the Canons? Or is his understanding of the “scriptural teaching” something other than that of the Canons? Since Dr. Boer’s gravamen does not contain any objections to the doctrine of election, then he must hold to that doctrine as it is set forth in the Canons, in view of his signature solemnly affixed to the Form of Subscription.
This question of Dr. Boer’s view of election and its agreement with the teaching of the Canons on the subject comes into sharper focus when we take note of the fact that the “express testimony of sacred Scripture” about which Dr. Boer is exercised with respect to reprobation is as follows: “that not all, but some only are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree.” Does Dr. Boer believe that it is the “express testimony of sacred scripture” that “not all, but some only are elected?”
There is more at this point. The Canons further teach that in God’s decree all men are involved in the death-dealing results of sin and thus compose a lost mankind in alienation from God and in rebellion against him. This is plainly taught in I. 7 of the Canons in the following clauses:
“. . . the whole human race which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction . . .”
“This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery . . .”
The reference to “common misery” also occurs in I. 15, quoted by Dr. Boer.
Dr. Boer does not object to this teaching of the Canons regarding the eternal decree of God in its stipulation that “the whole human race” has fallen “into sin and destruction.” Yet it is this very teaching that gives meaning and substance to the tenet that “not all, but some only are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree.” Article XVI of the Confession of Faith makes the same point, as it speaks of “all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents” and from all of mankind seen thus in ruin and perdition God “in His eternal and unchangeable counsel has elected” some to life in Christ, “leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.”
In other words, once Dr. Boer accepts the teaching of the Canons that in God’s decree all of the human race are fallen and lost due to the sin of our father and representative Adam (Romans 5), the basis of both election and reprobation has been established. For once you say that from this host of lost, rebellious mankind God has sovereignly and graciously chosen a people for himself in Christ, you are in the same breath simply saying that those who are not chosen are left in their tragic misery. This is the case because God in his decree is represented as having all of mankind in his purview and not just the elect, that is, all of humankind lost in sin and perdition. Therefore it is peculiarly irrelevant to say that the doctrine of reprobation is an instance of rationalistic deductionism, a charge which has become a kind of party line with the detractors of this doctrine. Of the host of fallen and lost mankind in God’s purview He “leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their wickedness and obduracy” (Canons I. 6.). God’s decree includes his determination to act savingly on the elect, whereby he “graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe” (Canons I. 6). No determination of a contrary character is involved in God’s decree relative to the non–elect; they are simply left to live out their own sinful character to its inevitable tragic destiny; they are “passed by.”
God’s Judgment Upon the Reprobate
Now we come to what is commonly spoken of as the second aspect of the doctrine of reprobation, namely, that of condemnation. We find this in the last part of Article 15 of chapter I of the Canons, where we read as follows: “. . . permitting them in His just judgment to follow their own ways, at last, for the declaration of His justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their sins. And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the Author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger thereof.”
It is apparent from this citation that God’s judgment upon the non-elect is not a finished product in advance in the decree of God. God’s decree includes, provides for, the historical process by which the matter of the decree is actualized, an historical process that includes man’s responsible actions, decisions and determinations. God’s decree has to do with real people (among other realities) acting meaningfully in the moral context that God has ordained. And God, being holy and just, must respond to the sinfulness and rebellion of men. With regard to the sinfulness and rebellion of those chosen in Christ, God decreed (Acts 2:23) the sending of his own Son to bear the condemnation they in themselves deserved. With regard to those not chosen in Christ, the non-elect, God’s decree includes his determination to condemn them for their unrelieved sinfulness and rebellion, a condemnation which will be realized when the record of their sinfulness and rebellion has run its course–a record that displays and vindicates the just judgment of God’s decree!
Let me now describe in summation what I see as the theological issue, the moral issue, and the issue of personal piety in this discussion.
The Theological Issue
Every issue is finally theological. And that is abundantly true here as well. Is God truly God, the Lord of his creation and its history, or is he no more than his image–bearing creatures, who know of that which occurs in history only as it happens? Has God from all eternity known of the sinful rejection of his grace in Christ by hosts of mankind, or does he learn of this rejection from history? The faith which our church has gleaned from the Scriptures is that God knows these things from all eternity. And his knowledge, it has always been stoutly maintained, is not mere foresight, but it is a knowledge that includes in his plan all that will come to pass. Our God is a God who can declare ages in advance that a Savior will one day come from woman (Gen. 3:15), a Savior who will suffer greatly for his people (Isaiah 53), a Savior who will be born in the tiny village of Bethlehem of Judaea (Micah 5:2). Our God has his chosen ones who were “predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). Our God knows his own from all eternity (Rom. 8:29, Eph.1:4), and those who are not his own have been appointed unto their tragic destiny (Prov. 16:4, I Peter 2:8, II Peter 2:12). There are those whose names are written in God’s book of life (Phil. 4:3, Luke 10:20), and there are those whose names are not written in the book of life (Rev. 13:8). There are those whom it is God’s purpose to reject and there are those whom it is his purpose to receive as his own (Rom. 9:11–13, 20–23). Indeed, our God is the truly glorious and sovereign God who in his eternal counsel has planned the universe, has created it and now directs and governs it and its history according to his perfectly holy and wise purposes. It is this grand teaching of Scripture that God has planned, made and now directs all things in his sovereign power, wisdom and redeeming grace that gives meaning to existence and lights the lamps of hope in history.
The Moral Issue
The moral issue is simply this: does God at some point in his eternal existence contemplate sinful, rebellious men without judgment upon their sin? If God in his eternal counsel or decree has chosen some of fallen, sinful men from among the whole wicked human race, and has passed by the others, does he in that eternal counsel contemplate those wicked ones as being in a moral vacuum, God himself being the absolutely holy One? It must be most carefully observed that God in his decree did determine that there be condemnation for sinful, fallen men. For those who are chosen in Christ the condemnation is to be borne by the Mediator (Canons I. 7 and II. 8, Isaiah 53:5, Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:33–34). Shall there then be no condemnation for those who have been passed by in their “wickedness and obduracy?” Of sin he is the “awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger” (Canons I. 15). Of the Lord who is “from everlasting” the prophet Habakkuk declares, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong” (Hab. 1:13, NIV). A good part of the moral power and grandeur of the bible is that it represents God as always dealing justly with sin and the sinner, even to the point of having his only begotten Son bear the terrible curse of our sins. It is t his very sure fact of God’s moral being and performance that assures the believer of his complete justification in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:33–34), and of his eventual receiving of “the crown of righteousness” (II Tim. 4:8).
The Issue of Personal Piety
Then there is in this discussion an issue of personal religion. The biblical teaching of God’s decree of election and reprobation is not an abstract intellectual plaything for professors and preachers which has little practical significance for the individual believer. By no means. The very core of the believer‘s experience of penitence, faith and assurance is one that fits right into this divinely appointed schema for the religious life. At the deepest and most meaningful levels of that religious experience I know myself to be, apart from God’s enabling grace, like a reprobate with a sinful nature whose native inclination is to sin against God. At that deep level of life I am only amazed that I may count myself a mong those whom God has chosen as his son in Christ Jesus. As a hell–deserving sinner I can only cry out:
O gift of gifts, O grace of faith, My God, how can it be, That thou who hast discerning love, Should’st give that gift to me.
Is this religious experience valid? Or is it no more than so much gush and froth of a troubled, guilty inner life, a frailty of aspiring but stumbling creaturely existence? Ah, this experience is fully valid because it is rooted in t he holy purposes of God, the purposes of his decree, and in that decree are his gracious election and reprobation.
It seems to me that if our church should sustain Dr. Boer in his gravamen, we shall bring only confusion and spiritual turmoil into these important areas of the life and witness of the church of Jesus Christ.
An Amazing Judgment
One more feature of Dr. Boer‘s gravamen demands comment. Dr. Boer renders a judgment on our fathers of the Synod of Dort that is nothing short of amazing. This remarkable statement occurs in Boer‘s reflection on a declaration in the Conclusion to the Canons in which the following perversion of Reformed teaching is condemned: “that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestined the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety.” Of the second half of this declaration Dr. Boer asserts that it is “not a credible withdrawing of the clearly contrary teaching of the Canons in Chapter I, Arts, 6 and 15. Rather it must be seen as a drawing back at the brink from the enormity of the consequences of a theological rationalism made by men who, on the one hand, did not have the courage to stand by what they had written and, on the other hand, refused to break with the logical premise that led them to it” (italics by EH). In this astounding judgment Dr. Boer pictures the able men gathered a t the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618–19 as given to a naive rationalism, as men lacking in the courage to accept the consequences of their convictions, and as men with something less than acceptable intellectual credentials. It is this body of men gathered at Dordrecht whom Philip Schaff described as “an imposing assembly; and, for learning and piety, as respectable as any ever held since the days of the Apostles.” It is difficult to restrain one‘s reaction to an amazing judgment like that rendered by Dr. Boer here. Let it suffice to say that a document infected with a spirit like that displayed in this judgment betrays itself.
May God guide our church in a fruitful, edifying discussion of the matter raised by Dr. Boer to the end that, with deepened understanding of His matchless grace in Christ, we may the more glorify our great sovereign God, who blends in the perfection of his eternal being and counsel an ineffable love with impeccable justice.