The “Philadelphia Conferences”

A phenomenon that deserves the attention of everyone who is interested in the promotion of the Reformed faith is the remarkable development of the “Philadelphia Conferences on Reformed Theology.” Beginning in Philadelphia ten years ago in the Tenth Presbyterian Church of Dr. James M. Boice, they have spread to four other places with a growing attendance especially of young people year by year. This spring conferences were held at Seattle, Wheaton, Memphis and Toronto as well is Philadelphia. We attended the second such conference held (April15 to 17, 1983) at the large Knox Presbyterian Church in downtown Toronto. Speakers at the meetings in addition to Dr. Boice were Dr. James I. Packer, Dr. Roger R. Nicole, and Dr. W. Robert Godfrey. The subject of this year’s well-attended conference was one on which some preachers in our churches allege it is impossible to preach and which would presumably drive people away, “Predestination.” The speakers’ lectures, as any reader of their writings would expect, were all impressive. Of particular interest, especially to Christian Reformed people, might well be the Saturday lecture and the Sunday morning sermon of Dr. Godfrey, Professor of Church History at San Diego‘s Westminster Seminary, and the only Christian Reformed minister in the team, who had to deal with what is likely the most controversial aspect of the subject, “Predestination and Reprobation.” Dr. Godfrey, himself a convert from a non–Christian background, wrote his doctoral thesis on the Synod of Dordt’s formulation of this doctrine and was the chairman of the 1980 C.R. Synod’s Committee that had to deal with the attack of Dr. Harry R. Boer on it.

Godfrey Lecture on Reprobation

Dr. Godfrey noted the remarkably large crowd that would come out on a Saturday morning to hear a talk on Reprobation, which many regard as strange and some regard with antagonism. (Reprobation means God’s decree to pass by some while saving others.) Hostility often arises out of the misunderstanding that it means believing in a God who is indifferent or doesn’t care. John Calvin in dealing with these matters warned that we, on one hand, should not try to investigate what the Lord has left hidden and, on the other hand, should not obscure or neglect what He revealed. The subject of Reprobation is likely the most attacked of Calvinistic doctrines. Already in the 16th Century Lutherans and Arminians, nearer home, opposed it. Arminians said at the Dordt Synod, not altogether correctly, that all of the objection was against reprobation, not election. They said that they wanted only a “single,” not a “double predestination,” and their strategy was to focus all attention on reprobation, and to treat that as a Reformed minister (Dr. H . Boer) did recently, as a “sinister and doomful teaching.”

Godfrey observed that his wife, less steeped than he in 17th century material, suggested using the more poetic and precise title, “Double or nothing.” Although that might sound frivolous, it expresses nicely the fact that if predestination is not “double” it is not predestination at all, for in the event we have no stable doctrine of election or one centered in God, but return to a man-centered religion.

We need to ask (1) what, (2) where and (3) why is reprobation taught in Scripture?

What is Predestination?

The speaker, while not wishing to slight the Westminster Confession’s treatment of the subject, suggested the pastoral approach in the Reformed Synod of Dordt’s treatment of the “five points” that arose in dealing with the Arminians. Calvinism has many more points than that, but these were its five answers to Arminian errors. The Dordt treatment begins with “unconditional election.” Attention is first focussed on man lost in sin (avoiding abstruse arguments about “infra-” and “supra-”). He, not God, is responsible for his lostness. And men “dead” in sin, cannot bring themselves to life. God in mercy sends His Son to redeem men and sends preachers to declare redemption in the Son and to call sinners and declare to them that everyone who believes in Him will be saved. This is the simple, practical, evangelistic introduction to the subject.

The Canons confront us with the question why some believe and others do not. Only two answers are offered to that question. (1) Some reply that some exercise their free will and believe, while others do not. That answer is man-centered, not the answer of Dordt or Calvin (or the Bible). The other answer is that (2) salvation does not rest on the will of man. God overcomes man’s resistance and gives faith. Why does God give that faith to some and not to others? That question brings us to the doctrine of reprobation. To show God’s mercy He gives faith to some; to show His justice He leaves others to their own sin. God shows that He is not unjust, for He could have left all to sin. Reprobation is the eternal decree of God to pass some by, leaving them in sin. These passed over are then condemned because of their sins not because of God’s good pleasure—Calvinism is often misrepresented at this point.

Where Is It Taught?

Is this decision to pass over some and to punish them because of their sin taught in the Bible? Indeed, it is. If it were only man’s logical deduction it ought to be rejected; but it is plainly taught in Romans 9. This center of the Apostle Paul’s discussion of the subject is approached by some with trepidation. Paul wrote not for theologians but to instruct and edify the church. His message in Romans is clear. The only problem that arises is in accepting it. Paul in Romans chapter 8 rises to great heights in his praise of God’s mercy (vv. 31 ff.), concluding with wonderful promises. The next chapter then faces a problem. Didn’t Israel have the same wonderful promises and didn’t they fail with respect to Israel? If they did, may they not fail also for us? The answer of Romans 9 is that the promises did not fail toward Israel. Despite the unbelief of many Jews (9:6), the promises did not fail, for, according to the doctrine of election, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” One must distinguish the true , the “elect” Israel from the rest, must distinguish between the “children of the flesh” and the “children of promise.” In Abraham’s children we see that disfunction between Isaac and Ishmael, and in Isaac’s children we see it bet ween Jacob and Esau. Esau was “hated” in order that the purpose of election might be displayed. Some have tried to evade Paul’s point by alleging that this distinction was not between individuals but nations. That argument may at first glance seem to have some substance, but on examination it falls apart. The futures of the nations were shown as settled in their individual forbearers. History is based on election, not election on history! In a third example, Moses and Pharaoh were compared to show that God had mercy on some and hardened others. The hardening came because of sin, to be sure, but was Moses sinless? Moses, just as Pharaoh, was reared in Egypt. God’s elective purpose distinguished one sinner from the other. “Why does God then find fault?” “That is the tough question!” Paul could have said, “I only teach ‘single predestination’” or “an election of nations,” etc., but he did not. He answered that we are creatures who have no right to find fault. We must learn the lesson of Job, that God rules and it is not for us to understand all He is doing. Our life is full of mysteries which we may not like, but our alternative is like Job’s, to “curse God and die, or to bless Him and live.” Although this theme of reprobation is not a major theme in Scripture, it is clearly taught in such places as Jude 4, 1 Peter 2:7, 8 and John 13:18, 19, in which the Lord acknowledges the distinction between elect and reprobate even among His apostles.

Why Is It Taught?

The Bible teaches this truth and that it is crucial for us. Why? God revealed it to undergird the fact that His promises are reliable because they rest in His elective. purpose. It is echoed in Philippians 1:6. Only Calvinism can really maintain that “Jesus saves.” The rest really have to add an asterisk and footnote that Jesus only makes it possible to be saved. Calvinism doesn’t footnote that promise – “Underneath are the everlasting arms.” The teaching of reprobation has a more particular purpose and function. It is almost always taught in relation to the church’s facing apostacy (cf. 1 Peter, Jude), when, as for example, the apostles have to reckon with Judas. Apostacy is a shattering experience to the church. Think of the other apostles’ questions, “Will I also betray?”, or, more basically, “Has God failed?” “Is He unable to hold?” “Can someone drag the saints out of the hands o f Christ?” The biblical answer is that even apostacy has not defeated God. He is Sovereign and even t he apostacy is in His plan. Do we then make Him reliable at the expense of His justice? No, He is not unjust (cf. Isaiah 55), for Hi s ways are above ours. The Bible teaching about reprobation does not lead us to terror or passivity. Romans 10 repeats the gospel of Romans 8. Whoever calls on Him will be saved (10:13). It is a caricature of Calvinism to allege that many wanting salvation will be rejected. The truth is that many running away from God are called back. The Bible teaches God’s predestination, including election and reprobation. The critics need to be reminded, in the words of Phillips, “Your God is too small!” They must not be permitted to get away with their attempts to pare away His mystery, authority and sovereignty. Whoever calls on the name of the Lord, may be sure of His mercy.