Dr. Boer’s attack on traditional Reformed exegesis finds its special application in t he area of predestination, particularly as far as reprobation is concerned. He claims to agree wholeheartedly with the doctrine of election. As he writes: “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” (Acts 1977, p. 665). But he repeats the accusations which have been brought forward ever so often against the doctrine of reprobation, defined by him in the following words: “a sinister and doomful teaching that a massive segment of mankind, generally considered to be the great majority of the human race, past, present and future, is consigned to everlasting damnation before they ever came into being” (Acts. p. 677).
A Perverse Definition
This kind of definition reminds one of the manner in which the Dutch Arminians used to describe the conviction of their Calvinistic opponents; the great Dutch poet Vondel who took the side of the Arminians, blew his horn when he wrote about infants who were snatched from the breasts of their mothers by the Lord in order to throw them into the fire of hell. This reminds one also of the manner in which Augustine’s doctrine of predestination was attacked, with the charge of being fatalism. As His opponents formulated his view: “By God’s predestination men are compelled to sin and drive n to death by a sort of fatal necessity,” and “God does not wish all catholics to persevere in the faith but wants a great number of them to apostize.”1
Of course, all these kinds of constructed definitions are not very helpful; Calvinists in the Dort-period complained that they were accused of consequences they had never made; and the great Synod of Dort felt compelled in its final concluding words to warn against “some who wished to persuade the public, that the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination . . . leads off the minds from all piety and religion; . . . 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; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mot hers breasts, and tyranically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them; and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.”
Nobody should make any mistake here. Dr. Boer speaks of the “sinister and doomful teaching” concerning predestination of our Reformed fathers; but they themselves declared long before explicitly that “they detest such teaching with their whole soul!”
What Did the Reformers Teach?
They taught that God decreed to leave the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy (Canons of Dort. I,6). That was what they taught; but now Dr. Boer draws from their words a logical conclusion which our fathers did not draw; he asserts that a certain position must be logically, rationally, and reasonably be followed up by another position; again I ask the question: “Rationalism, on which side?”
What is really at stake here? Essentially the doctrine of election is at stake here; that doctrine which Dr. Boer claims to uphold with all his heart (and I need not say that I don‘t doubt his sincerity).
Alternatives:
1) An Unorthodox View
But that doctrine of election can only mean one of two things. Either that God has elected all men and each one of them; or t hat God did not elect all men and each one of them.
The first position has been taken by several theo· logians throughout the ages. It may have been in a humanistic (Pelagian) way, or in a neo-orthodox (Barthian) way; in that case election has nothing to do with choosing any more; it means something like the fact that God in Christ has been benevolent toward all men and that every man can share or shares already in the grace of God, whether he knows it or not. The emphasis falls on the fact that man should make up his mind, not on the fact that God has made up His mind.
2) The Biblical, Reformed View
The second position has been taken by all Reformed theologians throughout the ages; it may have been in an infra-lapsarian or in a supralapsarian way; but it meant that God really chose according to His good pleasure; that He chose in the Lord Jesus Christ; that He chose all them whose names were written before the foundation of the world in the book of the Lamb that was slain. This is the Reformed tradition in which we find the echo of the words of Paul: “So then He has mercy upon whomever He wills, and He hardens the heart of whomever He wills”; and of those of Peter: “To you, therefore who believe, He is precious; but for those who do not believe … they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race . . .”; and those of Luke: “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed”; and of John: “Only those shall enter it who are written in the Lamb’s book of life”; and of Jesus: “No one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him.”
This doctrine, as revealed to us in Scripture, definitely loses its character as soon as the doctrine of reprobation is denied or denigrated. Itis impossible to reject reprobation and to uphold election as it really is. Anyone who speaks here of the systematics of Calvin and the balanced Reformed position does not know what he is talking about. Calvin reiterated time and again that he would not dare touch this subject if the Lord did not speak about it so very clearly in his holy Word. He spoke of a mysterium tremendum, a tremendous mystery. When accused of speculation he declared that more than 20 clear passages of Scripture had forced him to teach this way.
I know very well that in our time the clarity of these passages is being disputed, as is alleged in the gravamen of Boer; but I must honestly say that I still find it an intellectual tour-de-force to read those passages in another sense than Augustine, Calvin and a long line of Reformed theologians, I might also say a long line of Reformed Christians, have done throughout the ages.
God’s Election Is Personal
As a case in point I would mention Dr. Boer‘s exegetical treatment of Romans 9, especially the verses 11, 12, 13, concerning which he concludes: “We note therefore that the divine hatred in question has as its primary reference a nation, not a man; that it arose not as an expression of a reprobatory decree in eternity; and that its expression demonstrates God’s love for Israel” (Acts p. 674).
It is a well-known fact that many modern exegetes take this line: Paul did not speak, in their opinion, on personal election, but on the election of all Israelites collectively. The widest and most puzzling view was expressed by Barth when he wrote: “God makes Himself known in the parable and riddle of the beloved Jacob and hated Esau, that is to say, in the secret of eternal twofold predestination. Now, this secret concerns not this or that man, but all men. By it men are not divided, but united. In its presence t hey all stand on one line—for Jacob is always Esau also, and in the eternal ‘Moment’ of revelation Esau is also Jacob.”2
This is all speculation of a very frustrating character. We don’t want to deny that Paul’s reference to Esau and Jacob ultimately points to the nat ions of Edom and Israel; but we wholly agree with the sober observation of the late Professor John Murray who wrote: “The thesis that Paul is dealing merely with the election of Israel collectively and applying the clause in question only to this feature of redemptive history would not meet the precise situation.” In his usual precise way Murray shows then that a collective election of Israel is out of the question because Paul has said: “They are not all Israel who are of Israel,” in other words t hat we must distinguish between the elect of Israel and elect Israel. Paul writes about a personal saving election.3 He writes also that the purpose of this election had to continue, not because of works, but because of God’s call, and that God expressed this already before Jacob and Esau were born. It seems hardly conceivable that these words express what Dr. Boer takes them to say: “God’s hatred was historically occasioned. It arose and grew in response to Esau’s attitude to Jacob and to Edom’s attitude to Israel” (Acts, 1977, p. 674). Boer stressed the response of man; but this part of the Bible undeniably stresses the acts of God, who is even called the Potter who moulds the clay.
Rationalism – on which side?
Reformed theology has never tried to square the circle; it has never attempted to construct a humanly–speaking perfect system; it has always respected the inscrutable ways of God. God, the Sovereign; He is the Potter, we are the clay. Man, the responsible one; nobody will ever be able to say: “I could not”; the Lord will only say: “You would not.” These are the pillars which support the house; none of them should be broken away; they are not only “sola Scriptura” (only by Scripture), but also “tota Scriptura” (by all of Scripture).
1. J. Pelikan. The Emergence of the Christian Tradition. 1971. p.320, 321. 2. K. Barth. The Epistle to the Romans. 1933. p. 347. 3. J. Murray. The Epistle to the Romans II. 1965. p. 12 sqq.