This address was given by Rev. Rein Leestma of the Christian Reformed Church of Lynwood, Ill. at the 1977 annual meeting of the Reformed Fellowship in the Twelfth Ave. Church in Jenison on September 29. Because the matter promises to be a major item on the agenda of the C.R. synod in June, we are printing it in this and a following issue.

The 1977 Synod of the Christian Reformed Church accepted as legally before it a gravamen against the Reformed doctrine of reprobation as taught notably in the Canons of Dort in I, articles 6 and 15. The Synod additionally decided that this gravamen against the creed be published in the Acts of Synod, 1977, and declared that it is before the churches for consideration. A committee was named to receive reactions to this gravamen from individuals, consistories, and classes, to study the gravamen in the light of the Scripture, and to advise Synod of 1980 as to the cogency of the gravamen and how it should further be dealt with by Synod.

An Illegal Synod Division

This action on the part of Synod, 1977 raises many formal questions. It is patently in violation of the procedure required by Article 28 of the Church Order which stipulates that gravamina calling for revision of the confessions shall be submitted to the consistory and classis for examination and judgment first. Only when a gravamen has been rejected by the consistory and classis and by appeal comes before Synod, only then are the signers of the Form of Subscription free to discuss it together with the whole church until finally adjudicated by Synod.

The circumventing of this required procedure now throws into the life of the church a debate about the validity of the creed on these points of doctrine which have never been presented to the church for preliminary consideration and judgment. If this kind of procedure is to be followed it will be possible for anyone to raise a gravamen on any point of doctrine in the creed and thereby open the matter for debate by the whole church. This would undoubtedly make of the creed one huge debating ground in which the creedal statements of the church are up for grabs and the confessional commitment of the church is seriously reduced if not indeed destroyed. It is devoutly to be wished that something good could come from this procedure, but I am rather inclined to think that once again we have given ourselves over to the “distressing of the consciences of the weak” and the “laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful.” We ought not to be surprised if more and more in the church be moved to throw up their hands in despair because “nobody even among the churches’ leaders seems to know anymore what we are to believe.”

An Improper Gravamen

A formal consideration of the gravamen itself also raises the question as to its validity in the courts of the church. If a gravamen is to be worthy of consideration it must at least be specific. It must precisely specify what article and phrase of the creed is to be changed or removed. This gravamen does not so specify. Likewise the burden of proof is to be borne by the gravamen for its own contention. The burden of proof does not lie with the church to establish its creed but with the gravamen to disprove the creed. This gravamen does not offer the required proof.

Nevertheless the gravamen is now before us and we must try to give responsible reaction to it for the sake of the truth and the life of the church of Jesus Christ. I would attempt therefore some consideration of the gravamen itself.

The Issue Is Not Minor But Basic

There was some discussion given to the recommendation of Synod’s committee which would remind the churches “that the matter hereby put before the churches is limited specifically to the issue raised . . . against the Reformed doctrine of reprobation as taught notably in the Canons of Dort I/6 and l/15.” For whatever reason this recommendation was not adopted by Synod. If the reason for its rejection is to be found in the awareness that there is much more involved here than just some “little” point of doctrine call reprobation, then the rejection of this recommendation was quite justified. There is much more involved here than just the doctrine of reprobation. This ought to be underscored because otherwise there may be some who, on the mistaken assumption that it covers only one or two minor points dismiss the whole discussion as being of little concern to them and of no real consequence in the life of the church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What is involved in this gravamen is the whole matter of the decree of God, providence, election, indeed our understanding of the nature of God and His relationship to us and our world, the marvel of His dealings with the sons of men, the program of His redemption and the forming of a new humanity out of this fallen human race unto salvation in Jesus Christ.

The Criticized Statements

The gravamen specifies that the relevant parts of the articles of the creed are “That some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not receive it, proceeds from God’s eternal decree.” I/6 and, “What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture that not all, but some only are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, has decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion.” 1/15 A moment of reflection upon these statements of the creed makes plain at once that much more is involved than just the “little” point of doctrine called reprobation.

Their Place in the Canons

That this is so becomes even plainer when consideration is given to the Canons as a whole and the particular context in which the “problem statements” are found. The Canon in the First Head of Doctrine begins with the declaration that “all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death.” Article One goes on to say: “God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin . . . For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) For the wages of sin is death (Romans 6: 23).”

Articles 2 and 3 immediately set forth the love of God which is manifested in this that “He sent his only begotten Son into the world, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life” (I John 4:9; John 3: 16) “And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tidings to whom He will and at what time He pleases; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified.”

Articles 4 and 5 of the Canon set forth the fact that those who receive the gospel and embrace Jesus the Savior by a true and living faith are by Him delivered and that this faith in Jesus Christ and salvation thru Him is the free gift of God. Conversely these Articles declare that the wrath of God abides upon those who believe not the gospel and that the cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is in no wise in God, but in man himself.

The question of Article 6 is now in focus. Why do some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not? Here are the positive and the negative of the matter, to use the words of the gravamen. The answer to this question is clearly given in the creed because it is clearly given in Scripture. This proceeds from the eternal decree of God “Who worketh all things after the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1:11).” This is not some presupposition formulated by theologians, but rather the precise declaration of God.

Is God Sovereign Or Is He Not?

The gravamen doesn’t like the idea that this proceeds from the eternal decree of God, but this is precisely the point of the issue. Is God sovereign in all things or is He not? Does God direct and control all things or does He not? Does God determine history or does history determine God? Is there something or anything that happens which is outside the control and direction or appointment of God? The hardening of Pharoah’s heart, did that “just happen”? The coming of the Chaldeans to chastise, did that “just happen”? The evil that comes upon us in this world, does this “just happen”? Does anything finally—“just happen”? At root the issue before us is precisely this: Does God fore-ordain everything and what ever comes to pass, or does He not? Is there a decree of God in which He plans everything and what ever comes to pass or is there not. Or are there some things which He determines and some things that “just happen”?

An Inescapable Problem

Now the creed is perfectly aware of the fact that there is a mystery here. This is exactly the reason why the fathers made it very plain that this God “Who worketh all things after the counsel of His will” is yet in no way the cause of sin or the Author of sin, (the very thought of which is blasphemy). There is here a problem which we are not able to resolve, and we ought to be ready to acknowledge this. If we are only concerned with what may be called our academic conscience and about whether we will be accepted by the academic theological community around us, then we are in trouble at this point, but then I am sure that we are in trouble already long before we get to this point. The attempt to escape from this problem always results in some kind of reduction in the scope of God‘s decree or a redefinition of God and His place in our world. It is amazing what we will sometimes try to do in order to satisfy the demands of our own rationalism.

The creeds recognize the problem and Reformed theology has always been aware of it: God decrees everything and whatsoever comes to pass. With respect to sin and unbelief we have made use of the term “permissive decree.” It may not be the best term possible but it is nevertheless used to clearly indicate that God who controls and directs all things is not the responsible Author or Cause of sin, evil, unbelief and wickedness.

The Gravamen’s Target Is The Gospel

The gravamen seeks to establish the idea that there is something in this world which does not proceed from the decree of God. If the initial and continuing unbelief and sin of ungodly men does not proceed from the decree of God, then, pray tell, what does it proceed from. If we believe that there is something over which God has no control and in respect to which He is a powerless or disinterested observer, then we have reduced our God so that He is far too small to be of any real comfort and consolation to us. If there is something over which God has no control, then we can never be sure that He has control over anything. If God does not work all things after the counsel of His will then we can no longer be sure that He in fact has any control over those sparrows on the housetops and those hairs on our head. If indeed such be the case then our God is too small and we live in a world in which there is finally no assurance and no comfort for us. We will then also have to change Article 13 of the Belgic Confession which declares that “nothing happens in this world without His appointment.” We will have to change Lord’s Day 10 of the Heidelberg which speaks of “The almighty and everywhere present power of God, whereby, as it were by His hand, He still upholds heaven, earth and all creatures, and so governs them that herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, food and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, yea, all things, come not by chance but by His fatherly hand.” This same Lord’s Day declares that “all creatures are so in His hand that without His will they cannot so much as move.”

Now we can’t have it both ways. Either God controls all things or else He doesn’t.

To prevent possible misunderstanding let it be emphasized again that after Article 13 of the Belgic Confession states that “nothing happens in this world without His appointment,” it goes on at once to say that “nevertheless God neither is the Author of nor can be charged with the sins which are committed. For His power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that He orders and executes His work in the most excellent and just manner, even then when devils and wicked men act unjustly.” The Belgic concludes this article with an admonition which is appropriate to us as a denomination today when it says, “And as to what He does surpassing human understanding, we will not curiously inquire into farther than our capacity will admit of; but with the greatest humility and reverence adore the righteous judgments of God, which are hid from us, contenting ourselves that we are pupils of Christ, to learn only those things which He has revealed to us in His Word, without transgressing these limits.”

If we fall prey to rationalism because in our modern theological world we refuse to bear the reproach which comes with humble obedience to the Word of God, then we will have no one to blame but ourselves when sooner or later we have nothing to say any more for the comforting and strengthening of God’s people who must travel with us thru this vale of tears. We had better not be too surprised when the good people of God don’t listen to us any more because we have nothing relevant to say.

The “Freedom of God”

Parenthetically here it may be said that there is a concern on the part of some to preserve the “freedom of God,” as if this freedom is indeed in any need of being preserved by us. It ought to be declared that only with a proper understanding of the decree of God can the whole of the freedom of God be acknowledged. God is free exactly to fore-ordain everything and whatsoever comes to pass and only in that action is God free. If we deny the all—encompassing scope of the decree of God and reduce its unconditional character by even a little bit, then we rob God of his freedom. If God can only react to the actions of men, then God is not free. God is only free when He rules and governs them according to His holy will, so that nothing happens in this world without His appointment. Many of these ill-conceived concerns about the freedom of God are I fear, conceived in Germany, transported to Amsterdam, brought to the United States for a fuller development and finally brought to the light of day among us. I am rather sure that the God of light laughs when he sees the product.

(To be continued)