In 1977 Dr. Harry Boer presented the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church with an official objection or gravamen to the teaching of the Canons of Dort on reprobation. Boer claimed that the Canons taught (1) that God condemned some people without regard to sin, (2) that some had no opportunity to believe, and (3) that by implication God was the cause of unbelief. He called on the church to reject such a doctrine of reprobation because it was without Scriptural warrant.
The Synod of 1977 appointed a committee to study the gravamen, receive reactions from the churches and report its conclusions to the Synod of 1980. The study committee reported to the Synod of 1980 that the gravamen misrepresented the teachings of the Canons. Following recommendations of the study committee the Synod rejected the gravamen.
Boer through his consistory appealed to the Synod of 1981 to overturn the action of 1980 and to submit the study committee’s report to the churches for study before Synod would take final action. The ground for this appeal was that the explanations of Dort’s teachings in the report changed the meaning of the Canons. These explanations therefore constituted a revision of the Confession and could be legally adopted only after the churches had studied and reacted to the report. The Synod of 1981 rejected this appeal insisting that the report’s explanations did not revise the Canons but only showed reasons for rejecting the gravamen.
In 1983 Boer produced a little book entitled The Doctrine of Reprobation in the Christian Reformed Church. In it he summarizes the theology of his gravamen and elaborates the concern of the 1981 appeal. This book was written with obvious anger and frustration and does not say much that is new on the subject of reprobation. Still the book offers an opportunity to reflect on some important issues before the church. This article will focus in particular (1) on aspects of Boer’s theological arguments, (2) on the propriety of the church’s actions on reprobation and (3) on how the controversy illumines the ethical character of the church.
Boer’s Theological Arguments
Boer’s book is disappointing because it does not advance the theological discussion on reprobation. First, he does not respond to his critics, second, he does not develop a theological alternative to Dort’s teaching, and third, ‘he does not present a thorough analysis of Scripture.
Boer’s book makes no response to any criticism except that of the study committee. Although, for example, several critical articles have appeared in The Outlook, Boer ignores them completely. But Boer has not truly understood even the criticism of the study committee. The committee’s report has convincingly shown that Dort does not teach that anyone is condemned without regard to sin. But Boer continues to make that charge against Dort. He wrote that “reprobation takes place without regard to any demerit in the reprobate” (p. vii), that “man’s sin played no role in man’s reprobation” (p. 13). His concern is that this means that the reprobate have no opportunity to be saved (p. 27), that they are barred from “the possibility of faith” (p. 28).
Boer cannot hear his critics because he is inconsistent in his definition of reprobation. Sometimes he uses “reprobation” in the full sense which involves two elements: pretention (God’s sovereign decision to pass by some sinners and to leave them in their sin) and condemnation (e.g. pp. 11–12). Other times he uses “reprobation” as referring only to pretention (e.g. p. 23). Dort uses reprobation in the full sense and therefore sin is an essential element in reprobation. Sinners are condemned to hell precisely and only because of their sin. Even in relation to preterition, however, sin is a more important element than Boer recognizes. Election and reprobation occur among men “equally involved in ruin” (Dort I, 6). God passes over and reprobates sinners. God’s sovereign decision is not determined by sin (since all are sinners), but God’s decision to pass over some sinners is just because they are sinners. Boer’s failure to give this point full weight means that he does not distinguish between God’s leaving men in their unbelief and God’s causing unbelief (e.g. p. 20). Fallen man loves his sin and is in rebellion against God. As a willful unbeliever he has no “opportunity” to believe. Only God by a sovereign act of grace can rescue the unbeliever and give him faith. When God passes by some and does not give them the gift of faith, He is not causing their unbelief but only leaving them in their unbelief.
Boer also provides no theological alternative to Dort’s doctrine of election and reprobation. He treats reprobation as a Reformed peculiarity: “The doctrine of reprobation exists only in the Reformed tradition” (p. 85). His implication is that this is a weird, novel doctrine invented by the Reformed. But he is clearly wrong. Reprobation is at least implied in Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Jansenism. (Bishop Jansenius read the Canons of Dort and approved them.) It is explicitly taught in several medieval theologians including Isidore of Seville, Gottschalk and Bradwardine.
While the Reformed doctrine of reprobation has strong historical and theological support, Boer’s theological position is weak and ambiguous. His aim so far has only been negative: to eliminate the doctrine of reprobation. He has not examined the theological consequences of rejecting reprobation.
Boer seems to want a purely positive theology of God’s good electing purpose. He criticizes Dort for having only an individualistic view of election which includes the negative element of reprobation. He argues that Dort ignores the election of Israel, of Christ, and of the church because they “have no corresponding reprobation associated with them” (p. 85). But is this positive picture of God’s electing activity accurate? When God elected Israel, did He not pass the nations by? When God elected Christ (whatever exactly that means), did He not also reprobate Christ (in the sense that He was condemned for our sins)? When God elected the church as the community of faith, did He not reprobate the world of unbelief? Boer’s accent on positive election exclusively has a decidedly neo-orthodox character.
Boer never asks if one can have a stable positive doctrine of sovereign election without a doctrine of reprobation. Both confessional Lutheranism and early Arminianism tried to have just that and both failed . Boer has an unstable theological position halting between Calvinism and Arminianism. Boer states that “there is no decree that withholds repentance and . faith from anyone” (p. 20). How then does he avoid the conclusion that man’s salvation ultimately rests in man’s will? How does he avoid the conclusion that God’s grace is resistible? The best conclusion is that the Reformed have been correct and that one cannot have a stable doctrine of election except in relation to the doctrine of reprobation.
Finally, Boer’s use of the Scripture in this discussion must be examined. He maintains that his gravamen contained “argumentation based on purely scriptural data” (p. 7). In calling for a revision of the church’s confession Boer should have assumed the burden of proof for his position by analyzing all relevant Scriptural data. Instead he only examined nine texts cited in the First Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort. Such a procedure was not adequate since most of those nine texts were not used by Dort to substantiate the doctrine of reprobation. Indeed Dort did not try to provide scriptural proof of its points in the Canons. That is beyond the purpose of a confessional statement. (I have developed this point in more detail in “Reprobation: Boer vs. the Bible,” The Outlook, May 1980, pp. 13–17).
In his new book Boer does not present any new Biblical analysis. Rather Boer concentrates only on the study committee’s exegesis of the nine texts. He correctly notes that the committee agreed substantially with his exegesis.
My personal view is that the exegesis of the committee’s report was the weakest part of its work. Its exegesis of Romans 9, was simply wrong. Despite this weakness of the committee’s report, the committee itself believed that its exegesis was incidental to the main thrust of the report, a point which Boer fails to understand.
Boer writes that the committee agreed with him that “there is not a shred of biblical evidence” for the doctrine of reprobation (p. 70). That is not true. The committee did not attempt a full study of the Scripture’s teaching on reprobation. Such a study was not a part of its mandate. The committee’s mandate was to study the gravamen and the committee concluded that a thorough study of Scripture was not necessary since the gravamen misrepresented Dort’s teaching. The committee concluded that there was no scriptural evidence for the doctrine that God reprobates men without regard to sin. But then the committee pointed out that Dort does not teach such a doctrine. The committee did not deny that there was scriptural evidence for Dort’s doctrine of reprobation. It simply concluded that the gravamen so misunderstood Dort that a full biblical investigation of reprobation was unnecessary.
The Church’s Actions on Reprobation
In his book Boer seems more concerned to comment on the actions of the Christian Reformed Church in relation to his gravamen than to argue theology. His discussion focuses particularly on the report of the study committee and the action of Synod.
Boer argues that the report of the study committee has revised the Canons of Dort. The report, according to Boer, has removed the scriptural foundations of the doctrine of reprobation (p. 18) and has made God the deficient cause of unbelief (pp. 61-62). He declares that the report introduces “the new Christian Reformed teaching on reprobation” (p. ix), “a wholly new version of Dort’s teaching” (p. 57). Boer acknowledges but does not accept the statement of the Synod of 1981 that the report “was not a revision of the confession.”
Boer’s confusion on this point results in large part from his misunderstanding of Synod’s recommendation of the report as an “elucidation” of the teaching of the Canons on election. Boer writes as if recommending the report to the churches establishes the report as an authoritative and binding interpretation of the Canons. That was not the intention of Synod nor the character of the report. The report was designed to answer the gravamen. In answering the gravamen it exonerated the Canons of Dort from the charges brought against them. Only in this context and in this sense is the report recommended to the churches as an “elucidation” of the Canons.
I may write as chairman of the synodical advisory committee on the gravamen in 1980 with some certainty on this point. If my memory is accurate, I suggested the word “elucidation” in the advisory committee’s recommendation to Synod. I did not use that word because I thought the report was without flaws. Indeed I stated to the advisory committee my disagreement with the exegesis of the Scriptural texts in the report. Nevertheless, I believed the report adequately answered the gravamen and at several points helped clarify the meaning of the Canons for the churches. The Synod did not “endorse” (p. 61) the report in the sense of agreeing with all of its arguments. Rather Synod accepted the recommendations of the study committee and recognized the report as useful for the churches in understanding the Canons and the gravamen.
Boer says some very harsh things about the Synod of 1980. He wrote “but how could the Synod of 1980 conceivably adjudicate the gravamen without abdicating both its responsibility and its self–respect?” (p. 56). He claims to show “not only the impropriety but crass illegality of this action” of Synod (p. ix). He wrote, “The doctrine of reprobation, openly incriminated from 1977 to 1980, was quickly and furtively vindicated by an uncomprehending synod . . .” (p. x). He wrote, “In 1980 the synod acted upon the indictment of the gravamen in a context of dark ignorance and parliamentary maneuver . . .” (p. 63). He compares Synod”s actions to those of the Pharisees and impugns the honesty and integrity of the Synod (p. 63).
These serious charges against the Synod arise from two sources. First Boer mistakenly thinks Synod revised the Canons of Dort. It would have been “crassly illegal” for Synod to revise the confessions without consulting the churches. But no revision took place in 1980. The same Canons with their same clear teaching are still the confession of our church (as Boer himself acknowledges p. 81). Second, Boer seems to argue throughout the whole book that whoever disagrees with him has not thought seriously about the issue. Yet he offers no evidence that members of Synod did not understand the issues. The gravamen was the principal issue before Synod. It had been before the churches for three years. Synodical delegates had had the study committee report for seven weeks. Members of the advisory committee on which I served seemed well-informed on the issues (contrary to Boer’s concern, p. 56). Actually the issues were not that complex. Basically they boiled down to this: Would the church reaffirm its commitment to the theology that had guided it for hundreds of years or accept a gravamen that in three years of consideration had attracted only a handful of supporters, a gravamen that the Synod’s study committee had concluded simply misunderstood the Canons.
Boer complained that the Synod acted in haste and that the report should have been sent to the churches for study and reaction. At first glance this proposal seems reasonable, but in fact it is not. The study committee’s report shows that Boer prepared a poor gravamen. The report shows easily that the Canons do not teach what Boer attributes to them. Why should the church spend more time studying such a document?
More importantly, however, the Synod needed to restore the authority of our doctrinal standard. For three years Dort’s teaching had been criticized and when the criticism was judged to be groundless, it was important for the doctrinal integrity of the church that Synod act promptly.
The Ethical Character of the Church
Boer does not limit himself to criticizing the procedures of the church. He goes on to discuss the character of the church and its ethics. He argues that the church is largely motivated by fear: “The silence in the church on the issue of reprobation arose neither out of indifference to it, nor out of lack of knowledge about its character. It arose out of fear to express in public writing what constantly disturbs the conscience and the minds of the informed” (p. 59). He argues that Synod’s action is part of “an established pattern of equivocation by synods confronted with controversial theological matters” (p. 60). He says theological conformity in the Christian Reformed Church results from “fear, on the part of ministers and professors, of creating an unfavorable image of themselves” (p. 74). He says in particular that the left wing of the church has no “guts” (p. 78).
Boer is concerned about this lack of guts because he clearly has an agenda for changing more than the doctrine of reprobation. He implies that if the church had guts it would see that “the facts of higher criticism” would lead us away from the inerrancy of the Bible (p. 78). He implies the need for change in the areas of women in office and evolution (p. 74) as well as reprobation.
Boer sees the Form of Subscription as the source of restriction in the church. Subscription stands behind the silence, fear, and lack of guts in the church. Those who defend the Form of Subscription are accused of “amorality” (p. 78). The amoral character of such defense seems to be recognizing that many who subscribe do not really believe what they have promised to defend and teach. In other words the defenders of subscription are forcing those who do not believe the church’s doctrines to lie! That is a curious ethical argument.
Boer further attacks the Form of Subscription. for declaring that the creeds of the church “do fully agree with the Word of God” (p. 73). He believes that it is presumptuous to say our creeds are fully biblical. Boer ignores the fact that thousands of Reformed people over hundreds of years of study have concluded that our creeds are biblical. If he says that we should not subscribe to the creeds since they have errors, perhaps he believes that we should not subscribe to the Bible since he believes that it too has errors.
It is more difficult to evaluate Boer’s contention that many in the church secretly agree with him, a contention that is hard to prove. My hope is that most people were silent on the gravamen because they were committed to Dort. An ambiguous editorial in The Banner (June 27, 1983) did make me wonder, however. Rev. Kuyvenhoven wrote: “In other words, the whole problem of the Synod ofDort has lost our interest.” The “casual, decretal line of thinking that is reflected in the Canons . . . is a ‘dead horse’ for most officeholders in the CRC?” This was the position of Calvin, Beza and Berkhof, Kuyvenhoven writes, but apparently is not the position of most in the church today. (Interestingly Kuyvenhoven adds Herman Hoeksema’s name to the list of Calvin, Beza and Berkhof. I sometimes think in our church that if you can show Hoeksema believed something, that’s enough to prove it wrong! Is that a denial of common grace? (Surely even Hoeksema cannot have been wrong about everything.) Office-bearers must understand and promote the Canons of Dort. That is what they have promised to do.
Boer certainly raises important ethical questions about our church. The question he poses is “Have many of our officeholders lied in promising to defend a creed they do not believe?” A church built on a lie cannot spiritually prosper.
We need to remember what kind of church we are. The Christian Reformed Church is a confessional church. It is a community united by common beliefs which are expressed in the Three Forms of Unity. Our confessions stand against the individualism and theological shallowness of much modem American religion.
An effort to maintain the confessional integrity of the Christian Reformed Church requires some very specific promises of its office–bearers. Those promises are contained in the Form of Subscription. Some of those promises of the Form of Subscription are doctrinal, namely that officebearers “heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine” in the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort “do fully agree with theWord of God.” One of those promises declares that an office-bearer will “exert” himself “in keeping the Church free from such errors” as are contrary to the doctrines of the Church. That promise focuses not only on the positive confession of true doctrine but also on the rejection of certain specific errors, “particularly those. which are condemned by the above mentioned Synod” of Dort.
Reformed people have treasured Dort’s doctrine of election and reprobation because it glorifies God in recognizing that salvation is entirely of the Lord. That great confession is as necessary today as it ever was. It needs to be faithfully upheld by all our office-bearers.
These considerations lead to another important ethical question which Boer evades. Has Harry Boer kept the promises he made when he signed the Form of Subscription? He promised to defend the Canons of Dort. But what does he write of Dort? He writes that Dort’ s doctrine of reprobation is a “gospel-denying declaration” (p. 61). He laments “reprobation’s most monstrous distortion of the gospel” (p. 67). He refers to the “reprehensible character” of being required to agree with Dort (p. 74).
Synod received, studied, and rejected Boer’s complaint against reprobation. Has he “cheerfully” submitted to the judgment of the church, as he promised to do? On the face of it, Boer is in obvious violation of the Form of Subscription. That is one ethical problem that he can single-handedly correct.
*Note: The Doctrine of Reprobation in the Christian Reformed Church, by Harry R. Boer, published in 1983 by Eerdmans (86 pp., paper, $4.95) and the issue which it raises is reviewed by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary at Escondido, California. Dr. Godfrey’s doctoral thesis was on the Canons of Don, he is a Christian Reformed minister, and was chairman of the 1980 Christian Reformed Synod’s advisory committee which had to deal with Dr. Boer’s charges against the doctrine of the Canons.