Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
and
T-U-L-I -P
October–November 2000
Contents
Page
1 2
This article was written on 15 October, 2000. That is, 1999.
Canons of Dort • 3
acronym, T-U-L-I-P, that has developed since then. by the churches of Dutch origin, as part of the three
Since the attitude of disdain for historical theology Forms of Unity (which include the Belgic Confes-
is already quite entrenched in many of our hearts, sion and the Heidelberg Catechism), the findings
it would be needful that the doctrinal articles be of the Synod were and are held in great esteem in
derived directly from the Scriptures rather than Calvinistic churches throughout the world, and the
from the Canons (which we believe to be consist- essence of it, as summarised in the Five Points of
ent with Scriptures). But we shall quote the canon Calvinism or TULIP (the national flower of Hol-
where appropriate to show the wisdom, foresight land!), is regarded as the yardstick of Calvinistic
and biblical fidelity of the framers of the Canons. orthodoxy in most English-speaking churches in
the world.
In Brief
The Canons of Dort was the product of a synod of Jacobus Arminius
Reformed churches, which met between the 13 No- Jacobus Arminius (c. 1559–1609), also known as
vember, 1618 and 6 May, 1619 in Dort, Holland, to Jacob Haemensz, was born in Oudewater, Holland.
examine the teachings of the disciples of Jacobus Although Arminius was, in fact, not the originator
Arminius, known as the Remonstrants. These had of the doctrine of the Remonstrantia, and had, fur-
wanted their articles of faith to be adopted by the thermore, already died for about 10 years by the
churches in Holland, and so had petitioned the time the Synod of Dort was convened, it is not with-
Dutch Parliament with a Remonstrantia contain- out historical reasons why the doctrine refuted by
ing five points. The parliament called for the Synod, the Synod is popularly known as Arminianism.
and the result was that the five articles of the Arminius was, after all, the man who made the
Remonstrantia were condemned. The Canons of doctrine espoused by his students popular.
Dort documented the findings of the Synod. The
full and revealing title of the document reads: In 1576, at 17 years old, Arminius was enrolled as
Judgement of the National Synod of the Re- a theological student in the University of Leiden (or
formed Churches of the United Netherlands: held Leyden). Five years later, in 1581, he went to Ge-
in Dordrecht in the year 1618 and 1619; which neva, and there studied under Theodore Beza, who
was assisted by many excellent theologians of had succeeded John Calvin as lecturer in theology.
the Reformed Churches of Great Britain, the Elec- It appears, however, that Arminius was never really
toral Palatinate, Hessia, Switzerland, Wetteraw, comfortable with Beza’s doctrine of election and rep-
Geneva, Bremen, and Emden: Concerning the robation, though he did not show it.
well-known five heads of doctrine, about which Not long after his call to a pastorate in Amsterdam
a difference arose in the Reformed Churches of in 1587, Arminius was asked to refute a pamphlet,
the said United Netherlands.
written by a man by the name of Coornhert, criti-
In all, 81 theologians (56 Dutch and 25 foreign) cising Calvin and Beza’s doctrine of predestination.
met for 154 sessions, and at the end of it condemned With personal discomfort and unresolved questions
the five points of the Remonstrantia as being con- in his heart, it was not surprising that instead of
trary to Scripture and heretical. The articles of the being able to refute Coornhert’s objections,
Canons were essentially a systematic apology of the Arminius was won to his side. And soon, his theo-
doctrine of salvation as taught by John Calvin. logical biases began to surface in his sermons, such
Though the Canons themselves were only adopted as when he preached that Paul was referring to
Canons of Dort • 5
Are you able to detect the heresy? If not, you will their opinions. Not only that, they also tried to win
find the other three articles even more subtle. In the sympathy of the foreign delegates by depicting
the first article, the doctrine being proposed is that the national delegates as schismatics and persecu-
God’s election and reprobation is based upon God’s tors of the innocent and simple.
foreknowledge, i.e., those whom God foresaw will
It should be noted that though the national del-
believe were elected, those He foresaw would reject
egates were almost consistently Calvinistic, some
the Gospel were reprobated. The Remonstrants very
of the foreign delegates were not so. The delegates
carefully avoided saying,—that election is there-
from Bremen appeared to be totally in agreement
fore conditional, and that salvation is therefore not
with the Arminians. Also among the delegation of
sovereignly brought about by God though it be by
five from Great Britain, there were clearly those who
grace,—which is what they were teaching. In the
leaned either to Arminian or Amyraldian (mid-way
second article, it is essentially teaching that Christ
between Calvinism and Arminianism) position.
did not die to save. Rather, He died for all without
exception to make salvation possible; and whether By 14 January, 1619, when the Arminians again re-
a person is saved depends on his response to the fused to submit to the authority of the Synod in the
Gospel. matter of their examination, Bogerman’s patience
ran out. He burst out:
In a nutshell, the other three articles teach that man
has the ability to do good when assisted by the Holy The foreign delegates are now of the opinion that
Spirit, but the Holy Spirit’s help may be resisted and you are unworthy to appear before the Synod.
You have refused to acknowledge her as your
a Christian may lose his salvation.
lawful judge and have maintained that she is
your counter-party; you have done everything
The Great Synod according to your own whim; you have despised
The Synod was convened in November, 1618; the decisions of the Synod and of the Political
though it did not begin to deal with the Arminians Commissioners; you have refused to answer; you
until 6 December. In line with proper ecclesiastical have unjustly interpreted the indictments. The
procedures and the principle that accepted verities Synod has treated you mildly; but you have—
are to be regarded as truth unless proven otherwise, as one of the foreign delegates expressed it—
the Synod was appointed to examine and try the “begun and ended with lies.” With that eulogy
Arminians. Johannes Bogerman, the pastor of we shall let you go. God shall preserve His Word
Leuwarden, a fiery and capable Contra-Remon- and shall bless the Synod. In order that she be
strant, was elected the president of the Synod. no longer obstructed, you are sent away! You are
dismissed, get out!
The Arminians were naturally unhappy with this
arrangement, and vehemently protested against the With the departure of the Arminians, the Synod
fact that their polemical opponents had been set could finally get down to work. Though the former
over them as judges. From the onset, therefore, they could no longer present their arguments person-
tried to stall the proceedings. First, they attempted ally, they were allowed to submit written defences
unsuccessfully to get Bogerman replaced. Then, of their position. This they did, and wrote rather
rather than submitting themselves to the exami- voluminously. A committee was appointed by the
nation of the Synod and defending themselves doc- Synod to consider these writings and to write a doc-
trinally, they kept asking for more time to prepare trinal consensus of the Synod together with rejec-
Conclusion
With the probable exception of the Westminster As-
sembly, the Synod of Dort was possibly the greatest
assembly of notable Reformed scholars to have
gathered to deliberate on any doctrinal issue. Some
may question the nature of the proceedings in the
Synod, that it did not give occasion for irenic de-
bate such as in the case of the Westminster Assem-
bly, but when we examine the Canons of Dort (see
Schaff, Creeds, 550–597; Thomas Scott, The Arti-
cles of the Synod of Dort [Sprinkle Pub., 1993];
Homer Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers [RFPA,
1980]) and the doctrine it propounds, we see that
there is really little to debate about. At stake was the
doctrine of the sovereignty of God, as well as, an
unbiased and logical interpretation of the Word of
God.
We may say that it was by the providence of God
that the controversy arose in the first place; for
through it the Church was not only enriched with
a Creed to serve as a standard for future churches,
but also caused to see the logical beauty and self-
consistency of the biblical doctrine of salvation as
revealed in the Word of God. As we examine the five
petals of the TULIP in the next five articles, I be-
lieve this assertion would become clearer to the
praise and glory of our Almighty God who has re-
vealed all things for our instruction and enjoyment
of Him.
Canons of Dort • 7
Total Depravity
The Five Points of Calvinism,—viz., Total Deprav- Now, if you have never had any instruction on the
ity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Ir- Five Points of Calvinism, you may want to skip the
resistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints,— rest of the introduction and begin reading at the first
provide perhaps the most succinct, logical and bibli- section in the main text1. The rest of the introduc-
cal way of understanding God’s work of salvation of tion does require a little background knowledge of
sinners. These five points were never presented by the doctrine to make sense. But if you have had any
John Calvin in this way. They are derived, with some instruction on Calvinism and know something about
re-ordering, from the Canons of Dort (e.g., Total what Total Depravity means, then read on.
Depravity corresponds to the third Head of the Can-
Let us begin with a couple of important quotations
ons of Dort). But all five propositions may be found
on the doctrine we are considering:
to be more or less clearly taught in Calvin’s writings.
1.That man has not saving grace of himself, not
As we examine the five points, two things will be- of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in
come clear. Firstly, these points can be individually the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by him-
derived from the Scripture and not from human ex- self neither think, will, nor do any thing that is
perience. And so when we study these points of doc- truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is);
trine, we are simply studying a biblical doctrine with but that it is needful that he be born again of God
the help of a systematic framework. Secondly, these in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in
points are logically tied to one another so that it is understanding, inclination, or will, and all his
really impossible to take any one point out or change power, in order that he may rightly understand,
any point without falling into irrationality. Biblical think, will, and effect what is truly good, accord-
Christianity, we must remember, is not irrational ing to the Word of Christ, John 15:5: “Without me
because the Bible is inerrantly and infallibly inspired ye can do nothing.”
by God. Though we may not fully comprehend God, 2.In [the state of man after the Fall], the Free Will
we know that God cannot possibly be contradictory, of man towards the True Good is not only
or there is no way for man to know Him at all. So no wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened;
contradictory propositions can possibly be derived but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And
from the Scripture when it is properly exegeted. Thus, its powers are not only debilitated and useless
because of the logical consistency of the Five Points, unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no pow-
anyone who denies any of the five points will, by logi- ers whatever except such as are excited by Divine
cal necessity, deny all the other four points too. We
will demonstrate this when we look at Limited Atone-
ment. 1
“Total Depravity Defined” on page 10.
Total Depravity • 9
The two carefully crafted Arminian statements quoted Essentially, this would also rule out the Arminian
earlier sound very orthodox because they neglect to notion that the natural man can exercise faith and
mention all these additional facts. But you can see so co-operate with the Holy Spirit to respond to the
how the same statements provide for what we are call of the Gospel. The only way man can be saved is
making explicit here (see Canons, Heads 3 & 4, Rej. if God sovereignly, monergistically (God working
5). alone) frees him from his natural bondage to sin,
and translates him into the state of grace so that he
Total Depravity Defined is enabled freely to will and to do that which is spir-
itually good, including evangelical repentance and
Total Depravity refers to the fact that man’s moral faith (see WCF 9.4).
nature since the fall is corrupt, perverse and sinful
throughout, so that nothing he does, think, or speak, Yet another way of looking at Total Depravity is to
can be in any way good or pleasing in God’s sight at think of it as Radical Corruption. This refers to the
all. Note that Total Depravity does not mean that since fact that the natural man is corrupt in his heart or
the fall, man has become as utterly depraved as he the core of his being. The heart is the well-spring
can be, else the world would be filled with psycho- from which all that a person does, thinks or says,
paths or Hitlers. Neither is the doctrine concerned flows. Thus Solomon tells us: “Out of [thy heart]
at all on whether a deed may appear to be benevo- are the issues of life” (Prov 4:23). Thus the Lord Him-
lent and good in the eyes of man. But Total Deprav- self says: “A good man out of the good treasure of
ity does mean that all that the natural man does, the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man
including what appears to be good in the sight of out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things”
man, is sinful in God’s sight (see Canons, Heads 3 (Mt 12:35; cf. 7:18; 15:19). Now, if the heart is cor-
& 4, Art. 4). Even his righteousnesses are as filthy rupt, than nothing that the will does can be good.
rags in the eyes of God (Isa 64:6). The natural man We must remember that the liberty of man’s will was
is enslaved to sin and Satan, blind to truth and re- not affected by the Fall. But the will is not free to act
bellious towards God. He is dead in sin, not just mor- independently. It is always bounded to the heart of
ally sick. man, and always does what the heart regards as most
Another way of thinking about Total Depravity is to desirable. Since the heart of the natural man is cor-
think of it as Total Inability, i.e., that the natural man rupt and hates God, it can never desire God, and so
is unable to do any that may be regarded by God as the will can never choose God. And since the love
good, and therefore contributory to his own salva- and glory of God is never in the heart of the natural
tion. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF man, his motive can never be pure, and he does not
9.3) views Total Depravity from this angle: fail to sin in every exercise of his will. When we think
of Total Depravity as Radical Corruption, we see im-
Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly
mediately that the door of salvation is not shut to
lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accom-
anyone. But the natural man hates the owner of the
panying salvation [Rom 5:6; 8:7; Jn 15:5]; so as,
house and will flee from the door, unless his heart is
a natural man, being altogether averse from that
changed.
good [Rom 3:10, 12], and dead in sin [Eph 2:1,
5; Col 2:13], is not able, by his own strength, to This fact alone would destroy the Arminian argu-
convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto ment that the ability to obey the Gospel must be uni-
[Jn 6:44–65; Eph 2:2–5; 1 Cor 2:14; Tit 3:3–5]. versal, viz.: (1) God cannot command us to do any-
Total Depravity • 11
Its Universality the blindness of their heart” (Eph 4:18). His “heart
The fact that Adam’s depravity passes down to all men is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked”
ought to be sufficient to convince us of its universal- (Jer 17:9). And he cannot savingly understand any-
ity—that it affects all except the Lord Jesus Christ thing spiritual: “But the natural man receiveth not
who was not born of ordinary generation. But the the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolish-
Scripture leaves us without doubt by clear statements ness unto him: neither can he know them, because
which specifically focuses on the universality of de- they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14).
pravity. The Psalmist reflects this thought in various
Thirdly, the natural man is described as being an
verses, such as: “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniq-
enemy of God (Rom 5:10) whose “carnal mind is
uities, O Lord, who shall stand?” (Ps 130:3) and “And
enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of
enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy
God, neither indeed can be” (Rom 8:7). He is a slave
sight shall no man living be justified” (Ps 143:2).
to sin (Rom 6:20) and a captive of Satan to do his
The point is, if God were to judge men without mercy,
will (2 Tim 2:26; cf. 1 Jn 3:10). By this imagery, we
none will be innocent because all have sinned. Paul
see than the natural man cannot possibly do any-
confirms this doctrine in his epistle to the Romans:
thing to please God at all. He is radically corrupt and
… we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, totally unable.
that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is
none righteous, no, not one… They are all gone
out of the way, they are together become unprofit- The Consequence of
able; there is none that doeth good, no, not one Total Depravity
(Rom 3:9–10, 12). What is the consequence of Total Depravity? Simply
stated: man has “wholly lost all ability of will to any
Its Depth
spiritual good accompanying salvation [and] is not
We have seen that Total Depravity extends to the able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to
whole world without exception. We must prove now prepare himself thereunto” (WCF 9.3). This fact is
that Total Depravity extends to the whole being of again very clearly taught in the Scripture: “Can the
man. This is most emphatically taught in the Scrip- Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
tures using several imageries. then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do
Firstly, the Apostle Paul declares that while we were evil” (Jer 13:23). In fact, since the natural man does
natural men, we “were dead in trespasses and sins” not understand spiritual things, he does not seek af-
(Eph 2:1; cf. Col 2:13). This is a most important ter God: “There is none that understandeth, there is
imagery, which we should constantly bear in mind. none that seeketh after God” (Rom 3:11).
An unregenerate man is spiritually dead. He can be
The corollary to this fact is that a sovereign inter-
compared to Lazarus in the grave, but not to sick
vention by God is necessary for a man to enter into
man who can stretch out his hand to take a life-sav-
the kingdom of God. The Lord Jesus Himself tells us:
ing pill.
“No man can come to me, except the Father which
Secondly, the heart of the natural man is blind and hath sent me draw him” (Jn 6:44a) and “Except a
his understanding is dark: “Having the understand- man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
ing darkened, being alienated from the life of God God” (Jn 3:3). It is only in the new birth that the gift
through the ignorance that is in them, because of of saving faith (Eph 2:8) is granted.
Conclusion
The Arminians are wrong that man can co-operate
with the Holy Spirit to effect his regeneration. How
could he when his will is captive to his radically de-
praved heart and the Scripture testifies that nothing
he does in his natural state can please God? The
Arminians may require only one stitch to the gar-
ment of salvation, but according to them our des-
tiny is in that stitch; while according to the Bible,
that stitch if added would pollute the righteousness
needed for our salvation, and would make the death
of Christ insufficient to save anyone.
Thank God for the doctrine of Total Depravity, for by
it I realise what a worm I am, that falling on my
knees before my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, I may
say with the psalmist: “What is man, that thou art
mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou vis-
itest him?” (Ps 8:4).
Total Depravity • 13
Unconditional Election
Let us begin our examination of the second petal of A third term must also be mentioned, namely, “rep-
our Calvinistic Tulip (First Article in the Canons of robation.” This is the antithesis of “election.” If God
Dort), with a few of definitions, because we can chose some individuals from all mankind to be saved,
hardly escape using these terms in this study. it follows that He must have ordained all the rest to
wrath for their sin, and therefore pass them by when
The first term we must define is “election.” Election He extends grace to the elect for their salvation. The
very simply refers to the act of God in choosing a Apostle Paul calls the reprobate: “vessels of wrath fit-
people unto Himself. Or, to put it in individualistic ted to destruction” (Rom 9:22). The Westminster
terms, it refers to God’s choosing of certain individu- Confession of Faith describes reprobation and the
als to be saved. The Canons of Dort puts it this way: reprobate thus:
Election is the immutable purpose of God, by The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according
which, before the foundations of the world were to the unsearchable counsel of His own will,
laid, He chose, out of the whole human race, fallen whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as
by their own fault from their primeval integrity He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power
into sin and destruction, according to the most over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them
free good pleasure of His own will, and of mere to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise
grace, a certain number of men, neither better nor of His glorious justice (WCF 3.7).
worthier than others, but lying in the same mis-
ery with the rest, to salvation in Christ; whom He Arminian
had, even from eternity, constituted Mediator and
Conditional Election
Head of all the elect, and the foundation of Salva-
tion… (Head 1, Art. 7). With these definitions in mind, let us begin by con-
sidering a definition of the doctrine of election, viz.:
The second term is “predestination.” The most ob- That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose
vious meaning of this term speaks of God predeter- in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of
mining our final destination, i.e., the final destina- the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sin-
tion of our souls. But remember that biblical pre- ful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake,
destination comprehends not just our final destina- and through Christ, those who, through the grace
tion, but all that happens in time and space as we of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son
head towards the final destination. To put it in an- Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedi-
other way, election marks out the elect, while pre- ence of faith, through this grace, even to the end;
destination marks out their steps (Ps 37:23; Prov 4:18; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible
Heb 12:1). and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to
Unconditional Election • 15
Biblical like me, Declaring the end from the beginning,
Absolute Predestination and from ancient times the things that are not yet
done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will
The doctrine of unconditional election has its foun-
do all my pleasure (Isa 46:9–10).
dation not only in the eternal love of God in Christ,
but also in the fact that God has ordained all things That the counsel of God comprehends and deter-
that come to pass according to the counsel of His mines all things and events of every kind,—whether
own will. This doctrine is in fact suggested by the great and small, good or evil,—is also clear from
Apostle Paul just one verse before the text used by Scripture. In the first place, even events that appear
the Arminians to prove their doctrine of election by insignificant, such as the dropping of our hair from
foreknowledge, for he says: “And we know that ALL our head, are brought about by God according to
things work together for good to them that love God, the counsel of His will (Mt 10:30). In the second
to them who are the called according to his purpose” place, even things that appear to happen by chance
(Rom 8:28, cap. emph. mine). It would be impossi- have been decreed and are brought about by the
ble for “ALL things [to] work together for good to counsel of the Lord: “The lot is cast into the lap; but
them that love God” if God is not in sovereign con- the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD” (Prov
trol over everything. If God be not in control over 16:33). In the third place, disasters are ordained and
just one thing, then the proposition that “all things brought to pass by God: “I form the light, and create
work together for good to them that love God” is no darkness: I make peace, and create evil [i.e., disas-
longer true. ter]: I the LORD do all these things” (Isa 45:7; cf.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (§3.1–2) Amos 3:6b). In the fourth place, even the acts of the
states the doctrine most succinctly: wicked are ordained by God: “The LORD hath made
I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the
holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchange- day of evil” (Prov 16:4). This, God does without
ably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as violating the freedom and responsibility of His crea-
thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is tures. So Judas was condemned though it was de-
violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is creed that Christ would be delivered by him (see Mat-
the liberty or contingency of second causes taken thew 26:24). So Peter, in his sermon at Pentecost,
away, but rather established. condemned the Jews for their wickedness of slaying
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can the Lord though He was “delivered by the determi-
come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet nate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23;
hath He not decreed any thing because He fore- see also Acts 4:28).
saw it as future, or as that which would come to It is clear that whatever happens in this world, it is
pass upon such conditions. brought about by God according to the counsel of
This doctrine of absolute predestination is questioned His will. The counsel of God is His living will. It is
by many because it seems to be counter-intuitive, and sovereignly efficacious. No contingencies can frus-
appears to make men robots. But the fact that it is trate God’s will because all power belongs to Him (Ps
biblical can hardly be doubted. For example, God said 62:11b). It would hardly be possible to conceive of
through Isaiah: God’s choice of the elect as being contingent upon
Remember the former things of old: for I am God, God’s foreknowledge of what man would do. Surely,
and there is none else; I am God, and there is none God knows all things because He sovereignly decreed
Unconditional Election • 17
of the same lump to make one vessel unto hon- What shall we say then? Is there unrighteous-
our, and another unto dishonour? (Rom 9:13, 16, ness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses,
21). I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and
I will have compassion on whom I will have com-
The biblical evidence from these four angles is clear,
passion.
and the conclusion inescapable: Our election is en-
tirely gratuitous, and based on God’s sovereign good The point is, we are saved by God’s unmerited
pleasure. In other words, our election is uncondi- mercy and grace. If we really want fairness, then we
tional. are really asking for strict justice, in which case
all deserve to perish. Does a prisoner in the death
Conclusion row for treason have the right to charge the king
for unfairness if he chooses, according to his mercy,
The doctrine of unconditional election and sovereign
to release another prisoner guilty of the same
predestination is controversial only because man
crime? Such a person would surely deserve the
refuses to summit to the God’s declaration of His
greater condemnation.
majestic sovereignty and man’s dismay nothingness.
Because of this, many objections are harnessed O glorious grace! I was dead in trespasses and sin,
against the doctrine. without hope in this world, deserving nothing but
God’s wrath. I hated my Maker, and the only one
Some say: “The doctrine is ridiculous because it
who could save me. Yet God, in His boundless love,
makes God drag ungrateful sinners kicking and sent His only begotten Son to suffer and die for me,
screaming into the kingdom, while denying entrance and then, in the fullness of time, sent His Spirit to
to those who truly want to enter into it.” It does not
open my eyes so that I could see my bleeding Sav-
take much to answer this objection, for no one is
iour nailed to the Cross for my crime. What can my
ever dragged into the kingdom kicking and scream-
response be, but a humble, “Why me, Lord?”
ing. Anyone who enters the kingdom enters as one
who is born again and finds Christ to be lovely be-
yond all measures (Jn 3:3). On the other hand, no
one is denied entrance into the kingdom who wants
to enter into it, because no fallen man will ever want
to enter, but the elect whom the Lord grants effica-
cious grace.
Some others object that unconditional election
makes it immoral for God to hold those who re-
ject the Gospel responsible for their unbelief. This
again is easily answered, for none who reject the
Gospel can honestly say: “God prevented me from
believing.”
Yet others say: “God is unfair to save only a few.”
The Apostle Paul anticipates this question and an-
swers it in Romans 9:14–15.
Limited Atonement • 19
suffering and death (Isa 53:4, 6, 11; 1 Pet 2:24; Col deserving of eternal death. The great Puritan John
2:14; Heb 9:28); and there the righteousness of Christ Owen puts the argument across beautifully:
merited throughout His perfectly righteous life was God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ un-
imputed on the elect (cf. Rom 3:22; 5:17). derwent the pains of hell for, either [1] all the sins
The intent of His death was the salvation of His elect of all men, or [2] all the sins of some men, or [3]
some sins of all men. If the last [3], some sins of
alone, and therefore the extent (i.e., for whom) of
all men, then have all men some sins to answer
His atonement is the elect alone. There is no real
for, and so shall no man be saved…. If the sec-
difference between the intent and extent of the atone-
ond [2], that is it which we affirm, that Christ in
ment as some have of late promoted. Calvinists may
their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all
differ on the doctrine of the Well-Meant offer of the
the elect in the world. If the first [1], why, then,
Gospel, but that should be treated as a different,
are not all freed from the punishment of all their
though related subject.
sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief, they
We shall proceed to demonstrate that the doctrine of will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or
Limited Atonement is scriptural in a few steps. First, not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If
we must show that logically only Limited Atonement it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due
makes sense. Secondly, we must show that the Scrip- to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them
ture clearly teaches that Christ did not die for every- more than their other sins for which he died from
one without exception, and thirdly, we must answer partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not,
some objections to the doctrine. then did he not die for all their sins (The Death of
Death in the Death of Christ [BOT, reprinted
1959], 61–2).
Logical Derivation
In the first place, arguing from the integrity of the The Arminian conception of the death of Christ, that
Five Points of Calvinism, we note that (1) all men it simply makes salvation possible, really means that
are totally depraved and will die in sin unless God Christ’s death is not sufficient for the salvation of
intervenes; and (2) God has unconditionally elected anyone. This is “Limited Atonement” where the limit
some to salvation. Putting these two points together, is not on whom Christ died for, but on the power and
we must infer that God wills and desires the salva- value of the death of Christ!
tion only of the elect, and therefore, it stands to rea- In Arminianism, the atonement of Christ is like a
son that Christ, who is God, died only to save the great wide bridge that reaches half-way across, but
elect. for the Calvinist, the atonement is like a narrow
In the second place, we note that God is perfectly just bridge that reaches all the way across.
and will punish all sins. Either they are punished in
Christ (for those He represents) or they will be pun- Biblical Evidence
ished in the sinners themselves (for the reprobate). The biblical evidence for Limited Atonement can be
This being the case, if Christ died for all the sins of classed under two categories:
all men, all men will be saved. On the other hand, if
He did not die for any one sin of any individual, that Christ Did Not Die for Everyone
individual will have to pay for the sin himself with We have an indication in the Old Testament that the
eternal death: for every sin against an infinite God is Lord would die only for a limited number of people.
Limited Atonement • 21
Thus, the writer of Hebrews emphatically asserts that this section, we must briefly deal with some of these
Christ had already obtained salvation for us with the passages. In the interest of space, we shall not quote
completion of His sacrifice of Himself: “Neither by the verses, but do request our readers to look them
the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood up in the Bible.
he entered in once into the holy place, having ob-
John 1:29, 3:16, 4:42;
tained eternal redemption for us” (Heb 9:12).
1 John 2:2, 4:14
Notice how the Apostles use the past tense in these Arminians and those with Arminian tendencies will
verses to indicate that the work of redemption is com- often cite these verses and simply declare that “God
plete and our salvation depends on nothing else. loves the world and Christ died for the world”—by
which they mean every person who ever lived. But
Someone may object: “But if Christ came to make
these verses are easily explained by the fact that the
salvation possible, it would also be right to say that
word “world” (kovsmo~, cosmos) has at least eight
He came to ‘save sinners,’ just as a man who throws
different meanings in the New Testament. For ex-
a life-buoy to a drowning person is said to be saving
ample, in Luke 2:1, “the world” obviously refers to
his life.”
the Roman world under the rulership of Caesar
But one thing must be borne in mind: There is a Augustus; in Acts 17:24, it refers to the entire created
colossal difference between a drowning man and a order; and in John 15:18, it obviously refer to the
man dead in sin. A man dead in sin cannot help unbelieving world. In fact, one needs only to exam-
himself. If Christ merely makes salvation possible, ine the 187 times the word kovsmo~ occurs in the
he would never be saved. New Testament to realise that it very seldom refers to
“every single human being who ever live” (such as
If Christ came to save, and the salvation of the sin- in Romans 3:19). Anyone who tries to use the word
ner depends on nothing else but what Christ has done “world” or kovsmo~ to speak about Christ dying
in suffering and dying for them, then it follows that for everyone without exception is simply grasping
Christ must have died only for a limited number of straw.
sinners, for, obviously, not every sinner is saved. In-
deed, if Christ died for everyone without exception, What is the meaning of the word “world” as used by
than God would be unjust to punish any sinner for the Apostle John in all these passages? Well, what-
their sin, for it would mean that He would be pun- ever the meaning be, it cannot be “world without
ishing them twice: once in Christ, and another time exception.” If this is the meaning in John 1:29 or 1
in themselves. Moreover, the idea would make God John 2:2, then God would be guilty of injustice if He
punishes anyone in hell, for Christ would have made
self-contradictory, for in Christ “dwelleth all the full-
them in the sight of God not-guilty by taking away
ness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9).
their sin. If John 3:16 refers to the world without ex-
ception, then we must conclude that God loves all
‘Problem’ Passages who are in hell, being punished for their sin, and
We have seen how the Scripture clearly, consistently that passages such as Romans 9:13 and Psalm 11:5
and logically shows that the atonement of Christ is are wrong. Again, if John 4:42 and 1 John 4:14 refer
limited by design. However, there are admittedly, sev- to the world without exception, then we must con-
eral texts in the Scripture which appear to be speak- clude that Christ failed in His mission because it is
ing of the death of Christ in universalistic terms. In evident that not the whole world is saved.
Limited Atonement • 23
ter is clearly referring to believers (and, by exten- kind, but left the greater part of all nations in Old
sion, all the elect) when he says, “The Lord is not Testament times in darkness, and a large number of
slack concerning his promise… but is longsuffer- people in the world today without any opportunity to
ing to us-ward” (cf. 2 Pet 1:1–4; Acts 2:39). hear the Gospel. It is no wonder that Arminianism
leads so easily to liberalism. After all, the god pic-
Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:22; tured in Arminianism is an impotent god who is
2 Corinthians 5:14–15 helpless to save. How could anyone of us, knowing
The surface reading of 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Ro- this fact, be apathetic as to whether Calvinism or
mans 5:18 does suggest that Christ died for all. But Arminianism is right?
we need not take much effort to discover that the
“all” in the context of both verses mean “all the elect”
as contrasted with all who are represented by Adam.
Likewise, in 2 Corinthians 5:14–15, Paul was writ-
ing to encouraged the believers with the fact that
Christ died for them and therefore, they “should not
henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which
died for them.” The verse would not make sense if
“all” refers to everyone in the world.
2 Peter 2:1
On surface reading, this verse does suggest that Christ
died to purchase redemption even for the false teach-
ers and prophets. But again, it cannot be that any-
one purchased by Christ could perish (Rom 8:34–
35). It must be that here Peter is using a form of ad
hominem argument by which he points out that
these false teachers actually claim that Christ bought
them too.
Conclusion
We have shown that Limited Atonement is a biblical
doctrine. The Arminian, rather than having an
atonement that is unlimited, is really propounding
an atonement of Christ that is weak and powerless
to save. Worst than that, it makes God to be a failure
because He desires to save all mankind, but His plan
has largely been frustrated because the greater part
of all mankind is currently in hell because of unbe-
lief. In fact, He would not only be a failure, but would
also be contradictory, for He desires to save all man-
Irresistible Grace • 25
changing the heart or nature of the sinner so that “is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concern-
his will, which is bounded to his inclination which ing many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts
is hitherto dead to sin, is now made alive and freed 7, and elsewhere in many places.”
from the bondage of sin to embrace Christ (see Can-
We will have to examine the Scripture cited as well
ons Heads 3 & 4, art. 11). Arminius, on the other
as others cited by Arminius, but before we do so, it is
hand, writes: “grace is so attempered [sic] and com-
useful, I believe, to think for a moment what the
mingled with the nature of man, as not to destroy
Arminians are essentially saying. They are saying that
within him the liberty of his will, but to give it a right
when the Gospel is preached, the Holy Spirit tries His
direction, to correct its depravity, and to allow man
best to woo the hearer to believe, but that ultimately,
to possess his own proper motions” (Works 1.628–
it is the hearer who finally decides if he wants to be-
9). Note also that for the Arminians, regeneration
lieve. If the hearer refuses to believe, there is noth-
does not involve a permanent change. This is why
ing the Holy Spirit can do about it. In this way,
the Fourth Article of the Remonstrantia (shrewdly)
whether we profess to hold to Unconditional Elec-
refers to the operation of grace in the lives of the re-
tion or not, we will have to conclude that God’s grace
generate rather than unregenerate. For them, no
can be rejected and His will can be frustrated.
substantive change is wrought by regeneration,
whereas for a Calvinist the change is drastic, and is
the very subject of the doctrine of Irresistible Grace. Verses that Suggest
‘Resistible Grace’
From a different angle, one way of looking at the
Although the Remonstratia asserts that “it is writ-
difference is that Calvinists believe that grace is par-
ten concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy
ticular and monergistic: that it proceeds from the
Ghost… in many places,” it does not give any spe-
fountain of God’s electing love and sovereignly brings
cific examples. Arminius, however, lists three classes
about regeneration and conversion; whereas Armin-
of verses, viz: (1) such as teaches that grace is capa-
ians hold that grace is universal and synergistic: that
ble of “being resisted”—Acts 7:51; (2) such as
it proceeds from Christ’s death for the world and co-
teaches that grace can be “received in vain”—2 Cor-
operates with the freewill of man to effect faith and
inthians 6:1; and (3) those that suggest that “it is
regeneration.
possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it;
Another way of looking at the difference is as pro- and to refuse all co-operation with it”—Hebrews
posed by Arminius himself when he quite rightly 12:15; Matthew 23:37; Luke 7:30 (Op. Cit., 1.629).
asserts: “The whole controversy reduces itself to the These verses must be examined. But once again, in
solution of this question, ‘Is the grace of God a cer- the interest of space, we will not quote the text but
tain irresistible force?’” (Works 1.664). We would of request the readers to check them up in the Bible.
course not say that God’s converting grace is an “ir-
resistible force,” which is an Arminian caricature to Acts 7:51
suggest that Calvinism teaches that the elect are This verse does indeed teach that the Holy Ghost can
forced into the kingdom kicking and screaming. But in some sense be resisted. Firstly, He is resisted when
it is fair to say that the difference is whether grace is the hearers resist the Holy Spirit speaking to them by
resistible or irresistible, or whether grace properly the prophets, Apostles and ministers of the Gospel.
denoted is necessarily efficacious or not. Thus the Secondly, He is resisted when the hearers resist the
fourth article of the Remonstrantia insists that grace convictions and dictate of their own conscience when
Irresistible Grace • 27
Spirit without any co-operation from the sinner; and world, according to the prince of the power of the air,
(3) all who are elect will come to Christ. the spirit that now worketh in the children of diso-
bedience…, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of
The Natural Man the mind; and were by nature the children of
Will Not Choose Christ wrath…” (Eph 2:2–3).
If the natural man is able, by prevenient grace (grace
prior to regeneration) or otherwise, to choose Christ, Regeneration is Wholly
and all who come to Christ come through co-opera- aW ork of the Spirit
Work
tion with prevenient grace, then it must follow that The grace of regeneration can only be resistible if it
the grace that leads to salvation is resistible. On the is received synergistically: through the co-operation
other hand, if no one,—whether elect or repro- of the wills of man and of God. But we find in the
bate,—has any ability to choose Christ, and yet the Scripture, that this is not the case. Regeneration is
elect are saved, then it must follow that the grace of always portrayed as wholly and sovereignly the work
conversion is particular and irresistible. of the Spirit. This fact is taught very powerfully and
clearly in the Scriptures by the use of several meta-
When we examine the Scriptures we find that it is
phors to describe regeneration.
indeed true that the natural man cannot choose
Christ. We have seen this fact more or less when we The Lord Himself uses the metaphor of child-birth
examined the doctrine of Total Depravity, so we will and blindness when He told Nicodemus: “Verily, ver-
simply highlight some verses from Scripture here. ily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he
First, the Lord says: “No man can come to me, ex- cannot see the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:3). One who
cept the Father which hath sent me draw him” (Jn is not born again is blind in his heart (Eph 4:18),
6:44a). The word translated “draw” (eJ l kuv w , cannot see the kingdom of God (with spiritual eyes),
helkuô) is never used to mean “persuade” or “woo” and so there is no way for him to enter into it. But
or “co-operate with.” This can be seen in the six other just as a baby is totally passive in childbirth so is a
times in the New Testament, that it is used in a dif- man being born again by the will of God through
ferent context with John 6:44. In these instances, the Spirit of Christ (see John 1:12–13). The new birth
the word is used to describe the drawing of a sword or regeneration, in other words, is monergistic. It is
(Jn 18:10); the dragging up of a net (Jn 21:6, 11); totally the work of the Spirit with no contribution
dragging a person by force (Acts 16:19; 21:30; Jas 2:6). from man. Similarly just as a blind man cannot help
In none of these cases do we find the objects being his own blindness, a spiritually blind man cannot
drawn co-operating. So, it is quite clear that when help himself, but needs the healing of the Lord
the Lord say “except the Father… draw him,” He is (through regeneration).
referring to a sovereign work rather than simply
Another metaphor, which is used both by the Lord
moral persuasion.
and the Apostle Paul, is that of resurrection from the
Although man is a free agent, his will is bounded to dead. The Lord says: “For as the Father raiseth up
his inclination which, prior to regeneration, “loved the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son
darkness rather than light” (Jn 3:19). His will is taken quickeneth whom he will” (Jn 5:21; see also John
captive by Satan, and he cannot but sin. Paul ex- 5:24–25). Writing to the Ephesians, Paul says, “But
presses this fact when he suggests that in our unre- God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love where-
generacy, we walked “according to the course of this with he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins,
Irresistible Grace • 29
The Apostle Paul puts it in another way when he new birth, we find the door compellingly attractive,
paints the order of salvation as an unbroken chain and we enter into it willingly. No, we are not dragged
of God’s work beginning from election (foreknow) through the door kicking and screaming; we enter
to calling to glorification: in willingly, our hearts having been changed. We
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predesti- enter, thinking that we have found the door. But once
nate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that we enter the door, we discover that written at the back
he might be the firstborn among many brethren. of the door are the words: “You have not found me, I
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also have found you.” It was the Father who marked us
called: and whom he called, them he also justi- out from eternity in the first place; Christ had in the
fied: and whom he justified, them he also glori- second place paid for our sin; and the Holy Spirit
fied (Rom 8:29–30). had made us alive, and implanted spiritual ears and
eyes to see the door and to behold the majesty and
Notice how Paul speaks about the certainty of glori-
greatness of the King.
fication for all the elect. If all the elect will definitely
attain unto glorification, and the grace of God is only Calvinism alone is true to the Scripture and highly
for the elect, then it follows, once again, that the grace exalts the sovereignty and glory of God. Arminian-
of conversion is irresistible. ism exalts human free will and leads to humanism
and liberalism. Arminians have also no real argu-
Conclusion ment against the soteriology of Roman Catholicism
I believe we have proven beyond doubt that the grace (which is semi-Pelagian or Arminian) or even those
of God in conversion is irresistible. Many Calvinists who hold to Baptismal Regeneration (which is
today talk about common grace. I have no great dif- founded on the premise that faith precedes regen-
eration and therefore it is not wrong to add baptism
ficulty with the thought, if by it is meant that God
before regeneration).
sends the rain and the sunshine on all without dis-
tinction (Mt 5:45). However, we must be careful not
to extrapolate from there that God therefore desires
all to be saved; or that common grace is prevenient
grace which so assists, awakes, follows and co-oper-
ates with the unregenerate without distinction so that
all who comes under the preaching of the Gospel is
able to exercise faith unto salvation without being
irresistibly drawn by Christ. Such a doctrine is in-
herently Arminian.
One of the most powerful illustrations of salvation is
entering a door: “I am the door: by me if any man
enter in, he shall be saved” (Jn 10:9).
Hearing the outward call is like seeing the door to
salvation, but left to ourselves, we would refuse to
enter it. The world and sin seem to have so much
more to offer. But when the Holy Spirit grants us a
Index • 43
Mark Acts
10:45 21 11:18 29
Luke 13:48 29
13:24 39 13:48b 17
19:10 21 16:14 29
2:1 22 16:19 28
22:31–32 35 17:24 22
5:8 39 2:23 16
7:30 26, 27 2:39 24
21:30 28
John 4:28 16
1:12–13 28 7 26
1:29 22 7:51 26, 27
10:14–15 17, 21
10:15 33 Romans
10:26 17, 21 1:18 19
10:28 32, 33 11:5–6 17
10:9 30 12:1–2 37
11:51–52 23 3:10, 12 10
14:15 39 3:11 12
14:16 35 3:19 22
15:18 22 3:22 20
15:5 8, 10 3:9–10, 12 12
17:11, 24 35 5:10 12, 21
17:2, 9, 20 21 5:12 11
17:3 34 5:17 20
18:10 28 5:18 24
21:6, 11 28 5:6 10
3:16 5, 19, 22, 23 6:20 12
3:17 27 7:14–25 5
3:19 28 8:28 16
3:3 12, 18, 28, 38 8:29–30 15, 30, 34
3:36 5, 15 8:30 25
4:22 23 8:31b–32 21
4:42 22, 23 8:33 21
5:21 28 8:33–39 35
5:24–25 28 8:34–35 24
6:37 17, 29 8:35–39 34
6:44 28 8:7 10, 12
6:44–65 10 9 5
6:44a 12, 28 9:11–12 17
8:43–44a 25 9:13 22
Index • 45
James ICR
2:19 37 2.2.11 38
2:6 28 3.24.8 27
1 Peter WCF
1:16 40 10.1 25
1:23 33 10.3 11
2:24 20, 21 17.1 32
3:18 21 17.2 33
3.1–2 16
2 Peter
3.7 14
1:1–4 24
9.3 10, 12
1:10 39
9.4 10
1:10–11 36
2:1 24 WSC
3:9 23 18 11
91 31
1 John
2:19 34
Remonstrantia
2:2 5, 19, 22, 23
Article II 19
2:27 35
Article III 25
3:10 12
Article IV 25
3:9 33, 35
Fourth Article 26
4:14 22
5:14 40
5:3 39
Canons of Dort
Head 1
Article 7 14
Head 5
Article 7 33
Article 8 33
Articles 1, 2 32
Articles 1, 6 32
Articles 3, 4 32
Articles 3, 7 32
Rejection 1 32
Head III & IV 25
Heads 3 & 4
Article 11 26