There was one item that I did not touch on in my previous articles concerning the Form of Subscription (cf. the April and May ’75 issues). That is the matter of reprobation as taught in the Canons of Dort. Both Boer and Vriend referred to it in their plea for a revision of the Form of Subscription. I did not deal with it then because I wanted to devote a separate article to it. Since then the question has become even more urgent because of Dr. Boer’s communication to the Synod of 1975.

The question of reprobation is a very delicate and difficult one, and it behooves us to tread here with care. For in the area of predestination (election as well as reprobation) we enter the realm of mystery. Here the Bible teaches things which are above and beyond human comprehension, and so it is important especially here to try to say as much as the Bible says, but no more. We err easily in both directions. All I want to do in this article is to point out a few things which to my mind have not always been clearly kept in mind in discussing this issue.

It might be well to remind ourselves first of what the Conclusion to the Canons of Dort say. The fathers of Dort there state that they “not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul” the doctrine which 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; that in the same manner in which election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety” etc. That is the first thing we better keep clearly in mind. And that has not always been done in the Reformed churches. Now and then one hears people talk of election and reprobation in a way that makes one shiver; it is pure determinism or fatalism. We are simply pawns on the chessboard of history. We must always warn against such a gross perversion of the Bible’s teaching.

Furthermore, we must read and understand the Canons of Dort in the light of this Conclusion. I fear that both Boer and Vriend have neglected to do this sufficiently. As a result, they have read a view of “causality” or determinism into the Canons which is really not there. The Canons clearly teach that God “does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and its properties” (III/IV, 16). It also teaches that the decree of reprobation “by no means makes God the Author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy)” (I, 15), and that for those who perish, this fact is “wholly to be imputed to themselves” (II, 6 and III/IV, 9). That is plain, biblical language to which no one can object.

More specifically now, as regards reprobation, the Canons teach that “the cause of guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is nowise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God . . .” (I, 5). This does away with any concept of “equal ultimacy” which would make God’s decree equally responsible for reprobation as it is for election. Even C. Van Til has never taught such a view, though J. Daane has at times accused him of it.

Spelling this out more specifically, the Canons teach that God, out of His sovereign good pleasure has decreed to leave some in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, “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 other sins” (I, 15). The Canons make a distinction here to which, it seems to me, men like Boer, Daane, and Vriend ought to have paid more attention. Because it qualifies what the Canons call “the decree of reprobation.” Section VII of the Westminster Confession makes a similar qualification: “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.”

What now, is the important distinction or qualification that both of these creeds make? Let me say it in the words of Prof. F. H. Klooster:

The precision of the formulation is evident in the distinction drawn between the two expressions “to pass by” and “to ordain them.” The former is not modified, the latter is. No reason is given for the passing by except the sovereign will of God. If sin had been mentioned as the reason, then all would have been passed by. The differentiation finds its explanation wholly in God’s sovereign will and in respect of this ingredient the only reason is that “God was pleased . . . to pass by.” But when ordination to dishonour and wrath is contemplated, then the proper ground of dishonor and wrath demands mention. And this is sin. Hence the addition in this case, “to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin.”1

Professor John Murray puts it this way: “It is not because men are sinners that they are passed by . . . . It is, however, because the non-elect are sinners that they are ordained to dishonor and wrath. To state the matter otherwise, sin is not the ground upon which some are passed by and are therefore non-elect; but sin is the ground of the dishonor and wrath to which they are ordained.”2 Calvin, according to Murray, makes the same point.3

Now it seems to me that this clarifies the matter considerably, and that we ought to keep it in mind when we discuss reprobation. It is very clear from the Canons that man, and man alone, is to blame for his unbelief and damnation. God desires his salvation, but he doesn‘t want to believe. And so he himself will have to take all the blame. All the credit goes to God for salvation, but all the blame goes to man for damnation. That‘s the way the Bible presents things. And we better hold to that.

It does not, however, solve all our difficulties or questions. For example, if God desires the salvation of all men (Rom. 2:4, 5; 1 Tim. 2:4; II Peter 3:9, etc.), why are not all men saved? Answer: We leave that to God. The Bible happens to teach both things, and so we accept them. We may not, in order to solve the difficulty, teach with the Arminians that it’s ultimately man who casts the deciding vote, and this accounts for the fact that not all are saved. Nor may we, with Hoeksema, say: God does not seriously invite all men to repentance. Both are attempts to subject the teachings of the Bible to our own human understanding and logic. For that reason both are contraband, for we must “believe without any doubt” all things contained in the sacred Scriptures.

With respect to reprobation we must do the same. We all confess and believe, I hope, that nothing in this world comes to pass by chance, but that all things take place through the will of God (L.D. 10 of H. C.). Not a sparrow falls to the ground without Cod’s will, and the very hairs of our head arc counted (Matt. 10:29, 30). With respect to sin, surely no one would say that the fall of Adam and Eve caught God by surprise. Yet we teach that man “willfully subjected himself to sin” (Belgic Confessions, Art. 14) and that he revolted from God “by his own free will” (Canons III/IV, 1). In other words, the Bible teaches the full and absolute sovereignty of God, and at the same time the full and complete responsibility of man. We must accept both, and not try to limit either of them. If we want to make a distinction between the “secret” and “revealed” will of God, fine. It can be helpful. But it does not eliminate the mystery nor the problem. We must simply accept what the Bible teaches, by faith.

It seems to me to be incontrovertible that the Bible teaches that the sovereign good pleasure of God lies behind reprobation too, in one way or another, without in the least suggesting that man is therefore less than solely responsible for his own unbelief. Such passages as Proverbs 16:4; Romans 9:15, 16, 18, 21, 22; Ephesians 1:11; I Peter 2:8, and Jude 4 must be taken for what they teach, no matter how unpalatable they may seem to us. The Canons mentions some of these passages (I, 6; I,Rej. of Errors, par. 8), and so it is a bit unfair and dishonest of Dr. Boer to ask Synod to supply the Scriptural evidence for “the decree of reprobation.” Boer may not be satisfied with the passages mentioned, or may not be convinced by them, but that is another matter. Then he must prevent a gravamen in which this is pointed out.

As far as the silence. of the pulpits in regard to reprobation is concerned, I don‘t think we have to “preach reprobation.” We have to preach the saving love of God in Jesus Christ, even as Christ came not into the world to condemn it, but to save it. At the same time we must solemnly warn people that if they do not repent and believe, the wrath of God abides on them, and if they persist in their unbelief, they will be damned. It seems to me that is the only biblical way we may present reprobation from the pulpit. It undergirds the utmost urgency of the gospel: reprobation is a real possibility if you do not believe. And if that kind of preaching is absent from our pulpits, if the warning about the dire consequences of rejecting the gospel is not presented, then God have mercy on us. But that is not the fault then of the Canons of Dort, and the way it talks about reprobation.

Indeed, like other confessions, the Canons statement is not perfect. For one thing, it treats the matter of election too individualistically, not stressing enough the corporate nature of the church, or God’s covenantal dealings with his people, families, nation, etc. And perhaps it should have avoided the word “decree” when speaking of reprobation, for that word has some unfortunate connotations in our minds. But nevertheless, the fathers of Dort were struggling with the same problem that we still struggle with today: the problem of God‘s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

In this connection the Canons even speaks of God’s “permission” (I, 15). Perhaps they should have been content with speaking of God’s “passing by” some people. No matter, in the final analysis we are faced with a problem that can only be answered with the words of Paul: Who are you, oh man, that repliest against God? The clay may not question the wisdom of the Potter (Rom. 9:19–21). Paul knew that he had reached the limit of human argumentation. So too, the authors of the Canons of Dort were trying to uphold the sovereignty of God without reservation, while at the same time putting the blame for sin and unbelief entirely upon man. I don‘t think I am wrong in saying that today we would rather hedge on the first part than on the second. But to do one is as bad as doing the other. Both are an expression of rationalism.

1. Crisis in the Reformed Churches, 1968, Reformed Fellowship, p. 155. 2. The Theology of James Daane, 1959, Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., pp. 71, 72. 3. Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignly, 1960, Baker Book House, p 61. Jelle Tuininga is pastor of the Christian Reformed Church of Smithers, British Columbia.