|
Loveland
Protestant Reformed Church
709 East 57th Street; Loveland, CO 80538
Services: 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (7:00 p.m.
June through August)
Vol. 5, No. 11 Pastor: Rev. G. Van Baren Phone: (970) 667-9481
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Index:
Justification and
Election
While we do not believe that God's
people are actually justified in eternity, we do believe that there is a very close
relationship between election and justification. They are justified by faith, not
by election. Nevertheless, their justification cannot be separated from their
election.
First, having chosen them to be His own, God
also decreed to justify them and them only. He not only decreed that they should be
holy, but that they should be without blame (Eph. 1:4), which is nothing more nor
less than the decree of their justification.
Second, insofar as they are chosen in Christ
according to God's eternal love, He also saw in eternity them as justified and
without guilt. Only having foreseen them without sin, could God set His love upon them.
And in giving them to Christ in eternity, God gave them to Him as those whom He eternally
saw without sin.
Numbers 23:21 is especially important here. The
same past-tense language is used, "He hath not seen iniquity in Jacob," that is
used in Romans 9:13, "Jacob have I loved." This language has always been
understood by those who believe in sovereign grace to refer to God's eternal decrees.
Numbers 23:21 is the answer to Balak and
Balaam's attempts to curse God's people. Though Christ had not yet come, nor the blood of
atonement been shed, God's people could not be cursed because of what God had foreseen
in eternity.
It is in this sense that we are willing to
speak of eternal justification, or better, of justification from eternity. Indeed,
we believe it is of the utmost importance to emphasize this eternal background to
justification.
To separate justification from God's eternal
decree of election, is to end up with a justification that is available to all, if only they
will believe, i.e., a conditional justification that in some way depends on the
sinner's response to the gospel. That is not the free, gracious justification of which
Scripture speaks.
Third, it is according to the decree of
election, therefore, that justification is made available in the death of Jesus for the
elect, and for them only. And, according to that same decree of election, they and they
only are given the gift of faith by which that justification becomes their own.
There is no justification or righteousness
possible for the non-elect. No forgiveness is available for them. What does not exist,
either according to God's decree or the cross be Christ, cannot be offered to them without
doing violence to Scripture's teaching concerning the truthfulness and unchangeableness of
God.
Such a close connection there is between
election and justification, that we know our election by way of our justification.
Experiencing through faith the forgiveness of sins, we also know that we have this
forgiveness from Him who "hath not seen iniquity in Jacob" nor
"perverseness in Israel."
Praise be to His Name who sovereignly justifies
His people. Rev. Ronald Hanko
The Address of the Gospel
(1)
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself,
and take up his cross, and follow me. Matthew 16:24.
We are really finished discussing the question
which one of our readers submitted in connection with this passage of Holy Writ, but the
question brought up a point which needs, I think, further discussion.
You will recall that the question itself
was; "Our discipleship: is it 'conditional' or 'unconditional'? 'offered' or
'demanded'? a matter of 'decision' or 'election'?"
The point of the question, as I understand it,
is: Jesus implies in this description of the requirements of discipleship a calling to
deny one's self, take up one's cross, and follow Christ. Is that calling a demand or an
offer? Is the fulfillment of that calling a matter of our decision or a matter of eternal
election? Is obedience to that calling a condition to discipleship? Or is discipleship an
unconditional matter? * * * * Now, I think we
have answered the question itself satisfactorily; and I do not want to repeat everything
that I have said in the last two articles. (Our readers may look them up to refresh their
memories.)
But the question does not only apply to this
verse in Matthew 16; it is a relevant question to any passage in Scripture in which are
found exhortations or admonitions. In every case, the question can be asked: Do these
admonitions imply that salvation is in any sense conditional? Do exhortations in Scripture
mean that the promises of salvation are offered to all -- as some kind of well-meant
offer? Or are these exhortations demands? Again, is the fulfillment of these exhortations
a matter of decision on the part of the one who hears them? Or is the fulfillment of these
exhortations a matter of God's eternal election?
To put the matter a bit differently: What is
the address of the gospel? To whom is the gospel addressed? To whom is it addressed by
God? To whom is it addressed by the preacher?
And, in connection with these questions: What
happens when the gospel is preached? What happens in the individuals who hear the gospel?
And why does one response to the gospel come from one person, while an entirely different
response comes from another? Why does one person receive the gospel with joy? while
another rejects it out of hand? Why do the reactions to the preaching differ? (See the
parable of the four kinds of soil in Matthew 13.)
And, still in connection with these questions,
the question arises: Why does the gospel come in different forms? Why does it come in
conditional sentences -- as it often does? Why does it come in demands? Demands not only,
but in demands which require absolute perfection? An example of this latter would be the
admonition in I Peter 1:15, 16: "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye
holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am
holy." How is it ever possible for anyone to be as holy as God is holy? And, if it is
not possible, why does Scripture call us to such a holiness?
These are some of the questions that seem to
come up again and again in discussing various passages of Scripture.
Partly the reason why they repeatedly come up
is the unreasonable and unBiblical insistence that the gospel is a well-meaning offer on
God's part in which God expresses His earnest desire to save every one who hears the
gospel. This damnable heresy has done more damage in the church and more damage to sound
Biblical preaching than anyone can imagine.
But it is not my purpose to get into a
discussion of the well-meant offer once again. Plenty material is available on that
subject.
I do want to write some articles, however, on
the address of the gospel. This is important and instructive. And to this, the Lord
willing, we will turn, beseeching God's grace in prayer and supplication that we may be
true disciples.
We are made willing in the day of His power, as
Psalm 110 puts it (vs. 3). And so, in willingness and joyful obedience, we choose what no
man can possibly choose apart from grace. As Moses did when he "by faith . . . chose
rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for
a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt
(Heb. 11:25, 26).
A foolish choice from a human point of view,
but a choice that leads to glory -- as it did for Christ -- and we follow Him.
It is all God's work in us and through us and
to His glory. Prof. H. Hanko
Supra- or Infra-lapsarianism?
(2)
We continue in this issue to deal with the
question of supra- versus infra-lapsarianism (cf. vol. V, no. 20). The questioner, has
asked concerning Westminster and Dort, "Were these synods correct in adopting the
milder infra theory?" i.e., is one or the other view correct?
It is clear from the Reformed confessions that
they take the infra-lapsarian viewpoint. Thus you will find in them statements to the
effect that God chose (elected) His people out a fallen race, that is, out of the human
race which He had first foreseen as fallen.
Nevertheless, we would emphasize that neither
the Canons of Dort (copy available on request) or the Westminster Confession of Faith
condemn supra-lapsarianism. Indeed at both assemblies there were men present who held
supra-lapsarian views - Gomarus and Maccovius at Dort and Rutherford, Goodwin and Twisse
at Westminster.
Both views teach the Biblical fundamentals: (1)
that predestination is double and includes both election and reprobation; (2) that it is
eternal and unconditional (i.e., that God chooses and rejects without regard to personal
merit, but solely according to His good pleasure - Eph. 1, Rom. 9); (3) that God eternally
decreed the fall of man and the coming of sin into the world; and (4) that God decreed all
things for His own glory.
Both teach, then, that predestination is
eternal and is in that sense before the actual historical event of the fall. Both
also teach that in history redemption follows the fall and the coming of sin into
the world. Christ's cross is the remedy for sin. The question only concerns the
order of God's decrees, about which Scripture says nothing.
That is not to say that there is no truth in
either view. But insofar as there is Biblical truth in either view, there is truth in
both.
For example, Scripture teaches that Christ is
first and central in God's decrees (cf. Col. 1:16-17). Supralapsarianism emphasizes this
with its order: Christ, election in Christ, creation and the fall.
On the other hand infralapsarianism
emphasises the Biblical truth that election is gracious by seeing Christ even in God's
decrees as the answer to and remedy for sin with its order: creation, fall, election,
Christ (cf. Rev. 13:8). Note though that infralapsarianism does NOT say that election
follows the fall in time (that would be Arminianism), but only in God's decree.
Nevertheless, the question is too speculative
and abstract. Scripture says nothing about the logical order of God's decrees and it is,
therefore, a matter of little importance and ought not be a matter of strife or division
or a test of orthodoxy among Christians.
The fact is that God's decree is ONE, just as
God Himself is One. It is, therefore, we believe, unnecessary to talk about order in the
decrees and to try to separate and arrange them in some order.
We should emphasize that Christ is "before
all things" as supralapsarianism does. This is very important. But we should also
emphasize that election is gracious and reprobation just, as does infra-lapsarianism. That
is equally important.
Emphasizing these two things we will not be,
strictly speaking either supra- or infra-lapsarians, but will merely be keeping to those
things that are revealed and leaving the secret things, the things God has not revealed,
to God Himself. Rev. Ronald Hanko
"Men are to be taught, indeed,
that the Divine benignity is free to all who seek it, without any exception; but since
none begin to seek it, but those who have been inspired by heavenly grace, not even this
diminutive portion ought to be taken from his praise. This is the privilege of the
elect, that being regenerated by the Spirit of God, they are led and governed by his
direction. Wherefore Augustine as justly ridicules those who arrogate to themselves
any part of a good volition, as he reprehends others, who suppose that to be given
promiscuously to all, which is the special evidence of gratuitous election.
"Nature," says he, "is common to all men, but not grace." He
calls it "a transparent subtlety, which shines merely with vanity, when that is
extended generally to all, which God confers on whom he chooses."
Calvin's Institutes, Book II, Section 10
|