Hypo-Calvinism's Resistible Grace

Hypo-Calvinists often make the very same arguments against Calvinism that Arminians make. For example, they lift out of Scripture isolated verses which seem to suggest that God's grace can be resisted to support their false teaching of a universal resistible grace of God which does not actually save. When they do this they behave as heretics not interpreting according to the rule of Scripture which clearly teaches:

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Rom. 9:18-20)

I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let [prevent] it? (Isa. 43:12-13)

Sometimes the hypo-Calvinists claim that they only want to teach that there is a different grace of God which concerns common gifts like rain and sunshine (good providence, but not grace, and which is turned into a trap and a snare to the unthankful and ungodly; Ps. 69:22), that has nothing really to do with salvation, except that it supposedly restrains sin by making people less than totally depraved (in fact, God has appointed many other ways in which the expression of sin is restrained). At the same time, their concern is to prove that God somehow has a will or desire to save the reprobate which is unfulfilled (or effectually resisted). In their clamour to find passages to support this idea (and because the only grace that Scripture knows is saving grace), they fall upon passages that are clearly speaking about salvation.

One of these passages is Acts 7:51, in which Stephen accuses his Jewish hearers (and accusers) that they are uncircumcised in heart and always resist the Spirit just as their fathers did (after giving many examples of the resistance of their fathers to the Spirit). The saving work of the Spirit throughout the entire Old Testament is in view here (not common good gifts like rain and sunshine or any kind of inner restraint of sin). The Arminian and the hypo-Calvinist latch on to the term "irresistible" in the doctrine of "irresistible grace" as if that meant that this grace cannot be resisted in any sense. In fact, the doctrine of irresistible grace is that the grace of God cannot be resisted effectually (because it is God's grace, and God cannot be resisted effectually). Can God be resisted? Yes, of course, Scripture is literally full of examples (as Stephen's speech proves). For example, one might resist God by resisting the powers He has appointed (Rom. 13:2) or by resisting His truth (II Tim. 3:8). But all of this resistance fails miserably:

And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? (Dan. 4:35)

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. (Ps. 2:1-4)

But the passage itself tells us they were unable to resist the wisdom and Spirit by which Stephen spoke (Acts 6:10; cf. Luke 21:15). Does that mean they didn't resist in any sense? Of course not, the whole passage is a description of their energy and zeal to resist, culminating in their stoning Stephen to death. But they could not effectually resist, so that by their efforts the witness of the church spread further and all the more powerfully (Acts 8:4). Even then they were not satisfied and continued and increased their persecution. One of these persecutors was Paul. Paul also resisted the Spirit in Stephen's witness, even consenting unto his death (Acts 8:1). Yet Paul failed to effectually resist God's will to save him when the time came on the Damascus road.

Did God really only will to save men in general using resistible grace (as the Arminian claims), or did God will to save Paul in particular and make him an apostle to the Gentiles?

Whereof [the gospel] I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (Eph. 3:7-9)

And the salvation of Paul is a pattern for all of us who likewise by nature resist the Spirit:

And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first [pre-eminently] Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." (I Tim. 1:12-16)

In the history related by Stephen, God actually accomplished His will (and promise) to save His people despite all the resistance. That's the apostolic explanation in Romans 9:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom. 9:6-8)

Positively, God's word and promise was effectual! It cannot be otherwise, because it is God's word and promise. God's grace must always be effectual because it is God's grace. Besides, the passage (Acts 7:51) speaks about resisting the Spirit. The Spirit is the omnipotent God Himself who cannot be effectually resisted. God is almighty, therefore His grace is almighty. God is one, therefore His grace is one.

The Harmony of Doxology and Praxeology in Duty-Faith

I recently asked someone "who is the subject of our believing?" and "do we believe unto salvation?" because I was not sure they were comfortable with the biblical answers to those questions ("we believe" and "saved by grace through faith"). This person seemed reluctant to respond, as if the biblical answers to those questions would inherently conflict with the truths that all glory belongs to God, and that our believing (both the will and the act) is the necessary fruit of the effectual work of God's Spirit in us. My concern is that rather than pitting truths that Scripture teaches against each other, we reconcile and systematize the truth and confess it as a whole, not favouring one at the expense of another.

Noah and the ark is a good example. Scripture clearly teaches that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and that God saved Noah by His grace. Scripture also teaches that by faith Noah built an ark to the saving of his house (Heb. 11:7). How do we reconcile these so that we confess both in harmony and clarity?

The building of the ark by the hand of Noah was part of the necessary manner in which God had determined saved them, and the ark was an instrument (necessary according to God's plan). Therefore God worked effectually in Noah both to will and to do, so that Noah built the ark. Since God worked in Noah, the glory for Noah's willing and Noah's doing must be attributed to God's work in Noah's heart. If that is the case, then all glory for Noah's work, and the fruit of it (the ark), is God's, and all glory for salvation through the ark is God's. Then we need not fear saying with Scripture that Noah built the ark.

In reluctance to give the hearty biblical answer to these questions, apparently concerned that the answers would somehow not attribute all glory to God, this person instead elevated my initial concern by asking me "who is responsible for our believing?" God is responsible for the work He does in our hearts which necessarily and effectually causes us to believe (both our will and our act). We are responsible for our believing. That we are responsible for the duty of believing is evident in that we are commanded to believe, and we are judged for the sin of unbelief. And we all ought to be aware that denying that faith is a duty is the most basic and clear form of hyper-Calvinism.

We ought to be more fearful of falling into that error (clearly condemned by Scripture and the Reformed confessions) than simply making statements that Scripture itself is unashamed to make, such as "Noah built the ark" and "we believe" and "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness". Where appropriate, where we think such statements may be misunderstood (e.g. if talking to an Arminian), we may add clarification to those statements (just as we would clarify that "we believe" if we said "all glory belongs to God" when talking to a hyper-Calvinist).

But we may not accuse or attack people if they do not clarify something exactly to the extent that we would in every situation. In pedagogy it is simply not possible to explain everything all at once. This is why we take a full year or more to go through the Heidelberg Catechism. It's not possible to fit everything into one sermon. There is a lot of content to our (objective) faith, which we must learn and grow in over time - holding the truth together, not raising one statement in conflict with others, but understood as a consistent systematic whole.

A teacher must build, and they must build in a certain order, and step by step, building upon what was laid down previously, sometimes belabouring points that a congregation is weak on, sometimes taking small steps, and being careful not to take too many steps all at once. We cannot condemn them if they don't fully repeat a step they taught in the previous lesson, nor may we cling to one particular lesson and refuse to hear the next. And each lesson will have a different emphasis, so that as a whole, all of the truth is emphasized in its place. We must not ignore and discard last week's sermon when we hear this week's sermon, but we must reconcile these together. And if we cannot reconcile them, we ought to ask others for help, up to and including asking the teacher, because if the teacher cannot reconcile these, then it is quite possible there is some error present which must be uncovered. If the teacher is building carefully, it should be easy to see how all these things are reconciled, but not all teachers are as skilful or use the same method, and as listeners we have to be patient and charitable.

Paul's letter to the Romans is a good example. He emphasizes the glory of God at the end of chapter 11. It is not that he has ignored it up to this point, but he has been building, so that when all these points come together, he can emphasize the glory of God in relation to what has gone before in its place. But he also doesn't stop there, he immediately moves on to practical application (chapters 12-16). There is no true doxology without proper praxeology, but each in its place, and each related to each other in harmony. This is why Calvin's big issue in "The Necessity of Reforming the Church" was that Rome had corrupted the right worship of God. His concern for doxology meant that he was necessarily concerned about praxeology. It would be the height of hypocrisy for the church to preach beautifully and wondrously about the glory of God, and never to preach about how we must therefore glorify Him in everything. Sadly, hyper-Calvinists dive headlong into this hypocrisy when they deny duty-faith.

The Time, Necessity, and Activity of our Believing

Suggesting that because the Reformed faith rebukes the errors of hyper-Calvinists who deny that we believe unto salvation, we are somehow claiming credit for faith and teaching it as a condition rather than attributing all glory to God is absurd. Consider this passage in which Paul describes his teaching:

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (I Cor. 2:1-9)

1. Paul's preaching was Christ-centred, and specifically centred upon His crucifixion for us.
2. Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate (one of the princes of this world) historically, and was crucified at a specific time according to the determinate counsel of God (Acts 2:23), therefore the centre of Paul's preaching was primarily this historical event rather than the eternal counsel in which it was determined and planned.
3. The manner of Paul's speech was not that of a great orator trying to impress with his words, but of a man deeply humbled, broken before God, and in awe at the wondrous grace of God to him personally who was before a blasphemer and persecutor (I Tim. 1:12-16). I allow you to examine and apply this pattern to hyper-Calvinist preachers who typically attract followers by their demeanour and words and actions (with comparisons and incessant accusations against others) presenting themselves as somehow more orthodox and more profound and more powerful in their preaching than those who preach the simple gospel of Christ crucified. Paul simply presents Jesus Christ in power, and himself only in weakness.
4. The central subject and manner of his preaching were necessary for the source of their faith, because true faith does not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of the Spirit. The Spirit is the only source and power of true faith.
5. Our faith stands and our faith knows and our faith sees. These are inner spiritual activities (though not the works of our hands or deeds of the body). By faith, we stand, we know, and we see. Faith is living and active in us exactly because the source and power of faith is the living and active Spirit who bears witness in us by the word (Heb. 4:12). It cannot be otherwise.
6. Because the centre of Paul's preaching was Christ crucified, he also spoke about God ordaining this mystery before the world and God preparing these things for them that love Him. Not in or by itself, or as the centre of His preaching, but in connection with and for the sake of the preaching of Christ crucified in time.
7. By using the words "ordained before", "unto our glory" and "prepared", Paul instructs us that Christ crucified, as well as our faith purchased for us on the cross and by which alone we know what God has prepared for us, are after, in time, and historical, as well as absolutely and sovereignly determined, certain, fixed and caused by God alone, thereby excluding any and all external dependencies, conditions, or prerequisites.

Much more could be said from this passage alone, but faith is knowing what God has prepared for us, and to castigate the Reformed faith as if we say that faith is a condition when we only insist that it is the necessary means by which we know what God has prepared for us, is nothing but baseless slander and a shameless twisting of our confession. Believing the promises is how we receive the promises, and this activity of faith itself is part of what God has prepared for us. By accusing us of teaching faith to be a condition, when we insist that it is a necessary means, the hyper-Calvinists themselves disconnect it from the promises of God and from eternal unconditional election, and by accusing us of teaching faith to be a work of man because we say it is living and active, the hyper-Calvinists themselves disconnect it from the power of the living and active Spirit and make our activity stand in the wisdom of men. Paul spoke concerning such as those who deny the power of God at work in us (chiefly our faith by which power we overcome the world; I John 5:4): "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (II Tim. 3:5)

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." (Gal. 6:14)

Consider the official teaching of the Reformed faith in Canons Head I:

Art 3. 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 pleaseth; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. ...

Art 4. The wrath of God abideth upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it, and embrace Jesus the Saviour by a true and living faith, are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them.

Notice it is men who believe (not Christ or the Spirit or God for us, or in us, or on our behalf instead of us) which is described as the activities of receiving and embracing, and we do not have the gift of eternal life and are not delivered from the wrath of God until we believe. These are the ABCs of the Gospel 101 which are being denied by those who are obsessed with pushing everything, including the application of salvation, into eternity past, and who pretend that man's believing activity by which he receives and embraces Christ is a work and a condition rather than the gift of God by the power of the Holy Spirit working in him. And they have the gall to boast of this wretched impious confusion as if it makes them holier or more orthodox or more humble or more God-glorifying while throwing at us the most vehement and despicable accusations that we deny the Gospel.

There is a sound reason why the Canons took this doctrine of our activity of faith unto salvation as their starting point (Art. 1 teaching the justice of God in condemning all mankind, and Art. 2 teaching the manifestation of the love of God in sending Jesus Christ to give life to all who believe). Having explained this first, then the Canons are able to take up the subject of eternal election in its proper place, to explain why some believe and others do not, in contrast to the conditional theology of the Arminians.

Calvin very harshly admonishes his readers when he begins to treat the subject of predestination, since it has to do with God's eternal counsel, so much of which is unimaginably far beyond our comprehension and has not been revealed to us:

First, then, let them remember that when they inquire into predestination they are penetrating the sacred precincts of divine wisdom. If anyone with carefree assurance breaks into this place, he will not succeed in satisfying his curiosity and he will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit. For it is not right for man unrestrainedly to search out things that the Lord has willed to be hid in himself, and to unfold from eternity itself the sublimest wisdom, which he would have us revere but not understand that through this also he should fill us with wonder. He has set forth by his Word the secrets of his will that he has decided to reveal to us. (Institutes 3.21.1)

Calvin's approach to this subject, as all others, is to approach only by the "pathway of faith" in Christ crucified as revealed in God's Word alone. He quotes Augustine:

"We have entered the pathway of faith," says Augustine, "let us hold steadfastly to it. It leads us to the King's chamber, in which are hid all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom. For the Lord Christ himself did not bear a grudge against his great and most select disciples when he said: 'I have ... many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now' (John 16:12). We must walk, we must advance, we must grow, that our hearts may be capable of those things which we cannot yet grasp. But if the Last Day finds us advancing, there we shall learn what we could not learn here." If this thought prevails with us, that the Word of the Lord is the sole way that can lead us in our search for all that is lawful to hold concerning him, and is the sole light to illumine our vision of all that we should see of him [i.e. by faith], it will readily keep and restrain us from all rashness. (Institutes 3.21.2)

Like brute beasts, the hyper-Calvinists charge into the throne room of God's eternal wisdom, not holding to the pathway of faith, not bridled by the revealed Word, and so rush headlong into a labyrinth of their own making, and present us with the rottenness they find there in their own imaginations as if it were God's own secret wisdom (Jude 1:10). From the wisdom of men, may the Lord deliver us, that our faith should stand in the power of the Spirit.

The Canons of Dordt concludes with practical application to keep us from this error, as applicable to the calumnies of modern hyper-Calvinists as it was to those of the Arminians:

... some whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public [of various slanders, accusations, false doctrines, and calumnies] and many other things of the same kind, which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul. Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, conjures as many as piously call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ, to judge of the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the calumnies, which, on every side, are heaped upon it; nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted, and wrested to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from the declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod. Moreover, the Synod warns calumniators themselves, to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them, for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak; and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful. Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ, to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse, as in writing, to the glory of the Divine Name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language; and, to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the holy Scriptures; and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

Evidence of the Holy Spirit in Us

What is the evidence of the inner work of the Holy Spirit in us? How do we know that we have truly been born again? That our profession is not simply a hypocritical facade but a true confession? There are well-trodden old paths since the Reformation in this crucial area from which we ought to learn very carefully.

Canons of Dordt, Head I, Art. 12:

"The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God - such as [1] a true faith in Christ, [2] filial fear, [3] a godly sorrow for sin, [4] a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc."

Note that these fundamental things are internal and are not directly observable by others (which ought to commend to us the judgement of charity), though they ought to and will produce the fruit of a changed walk of life. But no-one ought to doubt his election who has these fruits in his soul, and yet does not see such progress in his life as he hopes for (in fact, he ought to be encouraged by such hope and dissatisfaction with his current progress).

More wisdom from the original "five points of Calvinism", this time from article 16 in the same head of doctrine:

"Those who do not yet experience a lively faith in Christ, an assured confidence of soul, peace of conscience, an earnest endeavour after filial obedience, and glorying in God through Christ, efficaciously wrought in them, and do nevertheless persist in the use of the means which God hath appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use of means, and with ardent desires, devoutly and humbly to wait for a season of richer grace. Much less cause have they to be terrified by the doctrine of reprobation, who, though they seriously desire to be turned to God, to please him only, and to be delivered from the body of death, cannot yet reach that measure of holiness and faith to which they aspire; since a merciful God has promised that he will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed. But this doctrine is justly terrible to those, who, regardless of God and of the Savior Jesus Christ, have wholly given themselves up to the cares of the world, and the pleasures of the flesh, so long as they are not seriously converted to God."

Again from head V on the certainty of the perseverance of the saints (Art. 10):

"This assurance, however, is not produced by any peculiar revelation contrary to, or independent of the Word of God; but springs from [1] faith in God's promises, which he has most abundantly revealed in his Word for our comfort; from [2] the testimony of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit, that we are children and heirs of God, Romans 8:16; and lastly, from [3] a serious and holy desire to preserve a good conscience, and to perform good works."

Having this foundational persuasion and assurance of election, the forgiveness of our sins, and of our perseverance to the end, we are encouraged and emboldened to fight our sins in confidence of the mercy of God toward us and of His help and grace to strengthen and preserve us. Then as we bring forth the good fruit of a godly life, we keep ourselves from doubts and falls which would interrupt the exercise of our faith, and in this way we build ourselves up and are strengthened in our precious faith attending diligently upon the means of faith (including the official means of preaching and sacraments, but not neglecting either the other means such as personal Bible-reading and corporate Bible study, private and corporate prayer, fellowship with the saints, etc. along with avoiding things harmful to our faith, such all manner of grievous sins, impenitence, worldliness, idleness, fellowship with the ungodly, etc.). This is the manner of God-worked preservation in us. Articles 12 and 13 of the same head teach us:

"This certainty of perseverance, however, is so far from exciting in believers a spirit of pride, or of rendering them carnally secure, that on the contrary, it is the real source of humility, filial reverence, true piety, patience in every tribulation, fervent prayers, constancy in suffering, and in confessing the truth, and of solid rejoicing in God: so that the consideration of this benefit should serve as an incentive to the serious and constant practice of gratitude and good works, as appears from the testimonies of Scripture, and the examples of the saints."

"Neither does renewed confidence or persevering produce licentiousness, or a disregard to piety in those who are recovering from backsliding; but it renders them much more careful and solicitous to continue in the ways of the Lord, which he hath ordained, that they who walk therein may maintain an assurance of persevering, lest by abusing his fatherly kindness, God should turn away his gracious countenance from them, to behold which is to the godly dearer than life: the withdrawing thereof is more bitter than death, and they in consequence hereof should fall into more grievous torments of conscience."

The full Canons of Dordt, written as an explanation of points of doctrine from the Reformed (Belgic) Confession and Reformed (Heidelberg) Catechism to resolve the Arminian controversy (who denied the possibility of assurance of perseverance), and accepted ecumenically by all the Reformed churches of that day (e.g. British, Dutch, French, German, etc.): https://www.prca.org/cd_index.html

A Plea for Creeds: https://cprc.co.uk/pamphlets2/pleaforcreeds/

Quotation of the Four Major Points

What follows is my quotation of the four major points asserted by the Declaration of Principles adopted by the 1952 Synod of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America (explicit confessional proof is attached to each point, along with some further important statements in the original document):

On the basis of this Word of God and these confessions [the Three Forms of Unity as well as the ten minor forms]:

1. They [the Protestant Reformed Churches] repudiate the errors of the Three Points adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, 1924, which maintain:

   1. That there is a grace of God to all men, including the reprobate, manifest in the common gifts to all men.

   2. That the preaching of the gospel is gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all that externally hear the gospel.

   3. That the natural man through the influence of common grace can do good in this world.

   4. Over against this they maintain:

      1. That the grace of God is always particular, i.e., only for the elect, never for the reprobate.

      2. That the preaching of the gospel is not a gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all men, nor a conditional offer to all that are born in the historical dispensation of the covenant, that is, to all that are baptized, but an oath of God that He will infallibly lead all the elect unto salvation and eternal glory through faith.

      3. That the unregenerate man is totally incapable of doing any good, wholly depraved, and therefore can only sin.

2. They teach on the basis of the same confessions:

   1. That election, which is the unconditional and unchangeable decree of God to redeem in Christ a certain number of persons, is the sole cause and fountain of all our salvation, whence flow all the gifts of grace, including faith.

   2. That Christ died only for the elect and that the saving efficacy of the death of Christ extends to them only.

   3. That faith is not a prerequisite or condition unto salvation, but a gift of God, and a God-given instrument whereby we appropriate the salvation in Christ.

3. Seeing then that this is the clear teaching of our confession,

   1. We repudiate

      1. The teaching that the promise of the covenant is conditional and for all that are baptized.

      2. The teaching that we may presuppose that all the children that are baptized are regenerated, for we know on the basis of Scripture, as well as in the light of all history and experience, that the contrary is true.

      3. [We also repudiate] the teaching that the promise of the covenant is an objective bequest on the part of God, giving to every baptized child the right to Christ and all the blessings of salvation.

   2. And we maintain:

      1. That God surely and infallibly fulfills His promise to the elect.

      2. The sure promise of God which He realizes in us as rational and moral creatures not only makes it impossible that we should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness but also confronts us with the obligation of love, to walk in a new and holy life, and constantly to watch unto prayer.

         All those who are not thus disposed, who do not repent but walk in sin, are the objects of His just wrath and excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

         That the preaching comes to all; and that God seriously commands to faith and repentance; and that to all those who come and believe He promises life and peace.

      3. [We also maintain] that the ground of infant baptism is the command of God and the fact that according to Scripture He established His covenant in the line of continued generations.

4. Besides, the Protestant Reformed Churches believe and maintain the autonomy of the local church.

What God has joined together...

Because the covenant of God is a gracious covenant, so that it depends only upon God Himself in all its establishment and maintenance with all the elect in Christ, the Reformed faith has rejected conditions in the covenant. The concept of conditions is especially attributed in the Canons of Dordt to the errors of the Arminians. However some have misunderstood the rejection of conditions (whether deliberately in malice or mistakenly in confusion). Some have even gone so far as to accuse those who faithfully teach the Reformed faith according to Scripture of re-introducing or promoting conditions when we speak of things which God has joined together both in His eternal counsel and in His revealed will.

Their argument is very simple, if God will not do a certain work (e.g. bestow a particular blessing) except in the case that some other thing is present, occurs, or is done, either strictly first or at the same time (whether logically or temporally), then this is plainly a condition. But the argument falls over at the outset because it uses the broadest possible definition of condition rather than asking what exactly the Reformed confessions mean when they reject conditions. It is a simple example of equivocation: one man uses a word in a particular sense, and chooses not to use this word because it can be used in this particular sense, and then an accuser uses the word in a different sense, and accuses the man for not rejecting this sense also.

The root idea of the term "condition" is not limited to the sense rejected at Dordt. The broadest possible meaning is simply two or more things which must agree together from the Latin "con-" (with) and "dicere" (to say). Because this term has been abused historically (especially by the Arminians), the best of the Reformed faith tradition has avoided the use of the term without qualification in favour of more precise, careful and distinctive language. Scripture does not use the term condition, but the broad concept is present in at least three legitimate senses which it commends, and also in at least three illegitimate senses which it condemns. The simplest way to survey these different senses, and to have the right judgement of them, is to consider God's eternal counsel from the viewpoint of His absolute sovereignty and in harmony with all His attributes such as His wisdom, holiness, justice, and righteousness.

The three illegitimate senses, all used by Arminians, and more or less used by other conditional covenant theologians are as follows:

1. Something which distinguishes a man from others, by which he receives what was supposedly offered or promised by God to more than those to whom He determined to give what was offered or promised
2. Something that man is able to do to cause himself to differ from others in order to receive something supposedly offered or promised by God
3. Something outside of God upon which some aspect of God's eternal counsel depends

There is some overlap between these. The third sense is the most obviously contrary to Scripture and plain reason. If God's counsel is eternal there was nothing with God when He determined all things, and Scripture plainly teaches that there is nothing outside God's counsel, and that all things happen according to the good pleasure of His will:

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." (Job 38:4) 

"But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased." (Psalms 115:3) 

"Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?" (Isaiah 40:13-14) 

"And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Daniel 4:35) 

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Romans 8:28) 

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:" (Ephesians 1:11)

Since the third sense is explicitly rejected in Scripture, by implication, the second sense is also rejected. There can be nothing that man can do to cause himself to differ from others for anything. That God alone causes men to differ from one another is also explicitly taught in Scripture:

"Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?" (Isaiah 45:9) 

"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:16-21) 

"For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Corinthians 4:7) 

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (1 Corinthians 15:10)

Then remains the first sense which so often undergirds or leads directly to the second sense. It is often used alone by conditional covenant theologians, who are often too happy to leave the ignorant to conclude by implication the second sense without instructing them otherwise. This is typically presented as either that God promises salvation to all baptized children, or that God promises salvation to all hearers of the gospel, but they will only receive the promise if they fulfil the condition. When questioned, some of these will protest that men fulfil the condition only by the effectual work of grace, and they may either honestly or dishonestly deny that they intend the second, overtly Arminian sense, but either way the logic is difficult to escape for two reasons.

First, they do not always explicitly deny that man can cause himself to differ from others in order to fulfil this type of condition proposed by a universal or broad offer. This leaves the possibility open to the interpretation of the hearer. Second, the whole premise is not only difficult to describe, but plainly absurd. If it is God who makes a man to differ so that he fulfils this type of proposed condition, it is thoroughly absurd to speak of God offering or promising anything to those in whom God has determined not to fulfil the condition, and then also absurd to speak of God fulfilling His own condition as if something was in doubt or as if God's counsel were not immutable and eternal. Further, if the promise is only to those who will actually receive what is promised, it is absurd to speak of an offer, as if it could be rejected effectually. Therefore, the most natural implication of this sense, to resolve the absurdities, would be that man can do something to make himself to differ from others. This is why for example, Amyraldianism naturally leads to the more logically consistent Arminian position, and why conditional covenant theology has led to the Federal Vision. Besides this, Scripture also explicitly rejects this first sense, because God's promises are always sure for all to whom they are given:

"Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all," (Romans 4:16) 

"That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (Romans 9:8) 

"For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." (2 Corinthians 1:20) 

"Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;" (Hebrews 6:17-19)

What then are the legitimate senses in Scripture, if we can speak of these senses as a kind of condition at all without being extremely unhelpful and confusing? These are at least as follows:

1. Two or more things joined together by a necessary order in God's eternal counsel
2. Two or more things joined together by a necessary means in God's eternal counsel
3. Two or more things joined together by a necessary manner in God's eternal counsel

Now we can move from absurdly complicated and unbiblical philosophy into very simple and elegant biblical categories. These three are so obvious, that the very blind can recognize them from the mere surface of Scripture. The reason that two or more things can be necessarily joined together in God's eternal counsel is related to the proper understanding of who God is. In a sense, all things are joined inseparably in God's counsel, as Christ is the goal and purpose for all of history and creation and everything in heaven and earth. God's wisdom fits everything into its proper place, with all the right interconnections and establishing all the appropriate proximate causes and effects with the sum all working perfectly towards the goal of God's incomparable glory. At the risk of sounding condescending (since we can all already think of multiple biblical examples for each of these), I'll give one clear example of each.

First, in God's eternal counsel, there is a necessary order established concerning the resurrection:

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." (1 Corinthians 15:23)

One could say that Christ's resurrection is a condition for ours, since His must come first. One could even say more in this case, since the relationship between Christ's resurrection and ours is not merely that His comes first, but this suffices to show God establishes a necessary order.

Second, in God's eternal counsel, there is a necessary means established concerning the new testament:

"And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." (Hebrews 9:15-16)

Christ's death was therefore a necessary means by which we receive the promise of eternal inheritance. One could say that His death was a condition for our reception of the promised inheritance, but this is unclear and potentially confusing. More accurate is to explain the precise relationship, that His death was a necessary means, and better yet, then explain how Christ's death functions as a means.

Third, in God's eternal counsel, there is a necessary manner established concerning our high priest's life:

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Hebrews 2:17-18)

It was necessary in God's eternal counsel that the manner of Christ's life should be one in which He suffered being tempted, and that therefore He must be made like unto His brethren. One could say that His being tempted in our human nature was a condition for Him to be a merciful and faithful high priest, but less confusing and more appropriate would be to explain how and why these two things must be joined together in agreement in God's eternal counsel.

I have deliberately given examples central to our Christian faith, which few gainsayers should have the audacity to deny. I could have also multiplied examples concerning the necessary order of our salvation, the necessary means of our salvation, and the necessary manner of our salvation, all three of which include to an extent God-worked human activities in their proper places. The following are some very brief but clear examples which I won't elucidate now, good works preceding the reward of grace in a necessary order, faith as a necessary means in pleasing God, and holiness as a necessary manner in seeing God:

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." (Revelation 22:12)

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:" (Hebrews 12:14)

If God has joined these things together, rather than object, as if these are some kind of Arminian conditions, we ought to understand properly what the relationship is and why God has established this relationship, and in so doing, we will grow in our knowledge of God, and grow in our understanding of how we ought to glorify Him.

"Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound"

Some time ago I criticised a faulty reading of Romans 7 which concluded that even regenerated Christians are still totally depraved. I argued that this was not a defence of the "T" in TULIP, but a denial of the "I", irresistible grace, by which we have new life. For example, when Paul says that he cannot do the good that he wills to do, he does not mean that he cannot do good absolutely, but rather that he wills to do more good than he actually achieves. If he were totally depraved, of course, he would neither do any good, or even will to do good at all.

Now, I would like to give similar treatment to a faulty reading of Romans 5 regarding another letter in TULIP, "P", the perseverance or preservation of the saints. This pseudo-Reformed interpretation latches onto the phrase, "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" ignoring the surrounding context, especially the more full explanation expounded in the following chapter. It concludes that the more you sin, the more the grace of preservation abounds, and even that grace does not abound where there is no sin. In other words, although the conclusion of Romans 6:1, "shall we sin that grace may abound?", ought to be and will be hated as impious by those who are redeemed by Christ, it is nevertheless supposed to be a legitimate conclusion. This is in fact not a defence of the preservation of the saints, but a denial of the perseverance of the saints.

The rest of Romans 6 and following proves that the conclusion is both impious and illegitimate, but even a careful reading of Romans 5 itself does not support the conclusion. The conclusion is in fact a wicked slander against the Christian faith, not to be entertained or admitted, but to be refuted with extreme prejudice so that the name of God should not be blasphemed. Consider the following:

1. The passage (Romans 5:12-21) is not primarily speaking about how God preserves His people, but about the history of sin and grace, comparing and contrasting Adam with Christ.
2. Grace did not abound strictly everywhere that sin abounded, since many of those in Adam are not in Christ (Rom. 5:14-15).
3. The passage nowhere says or even implies that grace abounds only where sin abounds, in fact the passage consistently teaches that grace abounded much more than sin (Rom. 5:15, 20).
4. The abounding of sin is described as a reign of sin/death, and the abounding of grace is described as a reign of grace/life (Rom. 5:17, 21). These two reigns cannot co-exist in the same place at the same time, since they are wholly antithetical to each other and one is unto death, while the other is unto life.
5. We are told that those who "receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life" are in contrast to those in whom death reigned, meaning that they are no longer under the reign of sin and death. The comparison is that they will much more reign in life by one (Christ), than the reign of death was by one (Adam). And this is because of the contrast between the condemnation by one offence from the judgement of Adam, versus the justification from many offences by the free gift of Christ (Rom. 5:16). The free gift surpasses that judgment by far, and therefore the reign of life by far overturns the reign of sin and death.
6. Roman 6 begins the exposition of the reign of grace, concluding that since we are now dead to sin, we cannot live any longer in it. By re-using the term "the gift", Romans 6:23 illustrates that this is the same "free gift" as in Romans 5, and therefore the whole chapter is a more detailed treatment of what the abounding of grace (or reign of grace) actually looks like. According to this passage, consistent with Romans 5, sin/death has been dethroned, no longer having dominion (Rom. 6:6-7, 9, 12, 14), and is no longer abounding because grace has been much more enthroned in its place (Rom. 6:2-5, 8, 10-11). We must reckon ourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God (Rom. 6:11), not because we like to entertain comforting fantasies, but because this is the spiritual reality for all who have been united to Christ in the power of His death and resurrection (Rom. 6:5; cf. Eph. 1:19-20; 2:4-6).
7. Under the reign of grace, we are servants of righteousness and no longer servants of sin (Rom. 6:16-18). Now that grace is abounding much more, sin is no longer abounding (Rom. 6:19-22). Not to say that sin is not still present and does not still retain a great measure of power so that we must battle it and we cannot do what we will, but that groaning wretchedness we still experience despite all the victory and progress of the reign of grace in this life is a subject treated in the next chapter (Rom. 7).

So then, the correct view of the "P" in TULIP is not that preserving grace is abounding more when we are sinning more, or that for example, preserving grace is not abounding when we are not falling into some grievous sin like David's adultery or Peter's denial of Christ. The main thrust of the answer of the Canons of Dordt concerning the preservation of the saints is that the grace of God causes us to persevere:

Article 1. Whom God calls, according to his purpose, to the communion of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and regenerates by the Holy Spirit, he delivers also from the dominion and slavery of sin in this life; though not altogether from the body of sin, and from the infirmities of the flesh, so long as they continue in this world.

Article 2. Hence spring daily sins of infirmity, and hence spots adhere to the best works of the saints; which furnish them with constant matter for humiliation before God, and flying for refuge to Christ crucified; for mortifying the flesh more and more by the spirit of prayer, and by holy exercises of piety; and for pressing forward to the goal of perfection, till being at length delivered from this body of death, they are brought to reign with the Lamb of God in heaven.

Article 3. By reason of these remains of indwelling sin, and the temptations of sin and of the world, those who are converted could not persevere in a state of grace, if left to their own strength. But God is faithful, who having conferred grace, mercifully confirms, and powerfully preserves them herein, even to the end.

Lamentable falls, such as in the biblical examples given, are the awful extraordinary exception (Canons 4.4), when this preserving grace is not abounding in us so richly for a time (cf. Canons 1.16), so that we fall into some terrible sin, but then the divine solution is not the abounding of preserving grace while we remain impenitent. The answer is that when preserving grace begins to abound again we are restored again to repentance. Until restored in this way, preserving grace can for a time be a mere trickle, just enough that we do not fall away completely, so that the incorruptible seed of regeneration is always preserved in us (Canons 5.7). Even so, when restored from such a fall, preserving grace then abounds all the more, because it then makes us more diligent and much more careful and solicitous in persevering in the ways of the Lord and using the means of grace which He has provided (Canons 5.7, 13).

There is another, much simpler, theological reason from Scripture why the wicked slander (which says that the more you sin, the more grace abounds) against the Christian faith is necessarily and hopelessly wrong. Grace itself is not merely or primarily unmerited favour. It was preserving grace which kept the angels which did not fall in Satan's rebellion. Grace abounded, and still abounds, in these angels, yet they are without sin and have always been without sin. In the angels that sinned, preserving grace did not abound, and now will never abound (II Peter 2:4-9). Our Lord Jesus Christ is full of grace and truth (John 1:14), and abounded in favour with God (Luke 2:52) yet was and will always be without sin (Heb. 4:15). Our definition of grace must be consistent with these truths too.

Grace is divine beauty, the glorious and resplendent moral and spiritual pleasantness and delightfulness of God (Ps. 84:11; Ps. 90:17). As an attitude of God towards the creature, it is a beautiful attitude of unmerited favour, but as God has done all that pleased Him (Ps. 115:3), it is also necessarily the omnipotent power of God by which those who are spiritually ugly in their sins are made spiritually beautiful (Ps. 149:4; Eph. 5:25-27). In short, towards us, grace is the power and spiritual virtue by which we are transformed into the image of Christ (II Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:9-10) who is personally the beautiful image of the invisible God (Heb. 1:3). It is utterly impossible therefore, for grace to abound where and when sin is abounding. Sin is spiritual ugliness, grace is spiritual beauty. The two are completely antithetical to one another.

The meaning of Romans 5 is very simple then: first sin abounded by Adam, but afterwards where sin had previously abounded, grace abounded more by Christ. This true both in the history of redemption, and also in our own lives personally, though we have ups and downs according to God's inscrutable wisdom. And this the significance of the distinction between the reign of sin through offences unto death versus the reign of grace through righteousness unto life: where the reign of sin is, there is not the reign of grace. When grace comes along by Jesus Christ, sin is necessarily dethroned, and the throne of grace is much more abundant than sin ever was. We await the day of perfection with earnest expectation, but until then, with grace-worked diligence and care, we press forward and persevere and progress according as the grace of Christ abounds in us.

P.S. Thanks to my friend and brother in the faith, Marco Barone, for his helpful input on this subject especially regarding the importance of the more complete biblical definition of grace here.

Three Witnesses in Earth

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee;
let the water and the blood,
from thy wounded side which flowed,
be of sin the double cure;
save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labours of my hands
can fulfill thy law's demands;
could my zeal no respite know,
could my tears forever flow,
all for sin could not atone;
thou must save, and thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
simply to the cross I cling;
naked, come to thee for dress;
helpless, look to thee for grace;
foul, I to the fountain fly;
wash me, Saviour, or I die.

While I draw this fleeting breath,
when mine eyes shall close in death,
when I soar to worlds unknown,
see thee on thy judgment throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
let me hide myself in thee.

- Augustus Toplady, who understood pretty well what he was writing about!

I think I should add that Toplady's allusion to the water and the blood as a pledge of the effects of salvation is the signification given to these in Scripture (cf. I John 5:8, and Calvin's helpful commentary on it and verse 6, for example). In Scripture the water and the blood from Christ's side are highlighted specifically as witnesses (or signs), and this alludes to their use as agents of atonement and cleansing in the Old Testament rites. That these agents should flow from the crucified Christ is identified by John as a testimony that all our salvation is to be sought from Christ, the fountain of these saving agents, blood which purges guilt, and water which cleanses pollution.

John adds a third witness, which is particular to born-again Christians, the Spirit, which he speaks at length about in his whole epistle, as distinguishing true Christians from false professors (even lawless antichrists) not only by the inner testimony of the Spirit which cultivates and informs our faith as we hear the word, but also from the loving character of the Spirit as holy, so that fellowship with God is a holy fellowship of love, enjoyed in the way of walking in holiness and love (which John calls "light" as opposed to the blindness of impenitence or even apostasy, a darkness in which we do not see God in Christ through faith but which interrupts or prevents faith), such that those who live in hatred, and are careless regarding the law really do not have this Spirit. They can see the witness of the water and blood, but they can only see the witness of the Spirit in the lives of others who are genuine Christians walking in continuing, persevering repentance.

John also refers to three witnesses in heaven, a verse cited by our Belgic Confession in support of the Trinity, a verse also cited by various church fathers throughout history, even if evidential support is lacking in the more mainstream Greek manuscript traditions. There are a lot of very poor arguments made on both sides of this controversy, but if you are interested, here is a helpful treatment of evidence for and against (I also highly recommend the simple treatment of internal evidence which Matthew Henry's commentary provides). He does argue some points for the Comma Johanneum, far more strenuously than I would be prepared to, since I think I do not attach so much importance to it compared to other much clearer passages which prove the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. As far as explanation for its omission goes, if I have to speculate, I'd agree with an accidental omission due to the similar beginning and ending of verses 7 and 8 (relatively common haplography), and that omission perhaps being subsequently reinforced rather than corrected due to prevailing Arian bias in the eastern (Greek-speaking) church. As a standalone proof-text for the Trinity, it is only supporting evidence at best, weak compared to the much clearer and stronger arguments, such as showing how Scripture distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit as distinct Persons, and showing how the divine names, attributes, works, and worship are attributed to all three.

Perhaps this explains why it was not quoted as often as some would like to imagine in the Arian controversy, especially since the Arians would have no problem saying that these are three witnesses in heaven which agree in one (though admittedly, and significantly perhaps, the little preposition "in" is omitted from verse 7 regarding the witnesses in heaven), in the same sense that the blood, water, and Spirit are three witnesses which agree in one. As a standalone proof-text it does not so strongly emphasize the deity of the three Persons, or the essential unity of the Three. Of course, this verse not being present in many Greek manuscripts would also explain why it was not quoted so often.

But the idea of three witnesses, or "two or three witnesses" is another allusion to the Mosaic law, in which every word in judgement was to be established by two or three witnesses. John is very concerned with this concept of witness and the trustworthiness of a witness, in his Gospel account as in this epistle. Three witnesses is doubly more sure than the agreement of two witnesses, so John adds the third witness in earth. And if we ought to receive such witnesses in earth, how much more the witnesses in heaven? John makes exactly this argument in verse 9 (which incidentally does not make as much sense with the Comma Johanneum omitted). John records the witness of John the Baptist to God's witness at Christ's baptism, though he does not record the baptism itself, as the three other (synoptic) Gospel accounts do. He also records this when Christ recognizes that the time of his crucifixion and the salvation of the Gentiles is at hand:

Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die. (John 12:27-33)

Further he records Christ's own answer to the Pharisees who objected to His witness and refused it on unreasonable grounds. Christ's answer makes the same argument that John makes in his epistle (his entire epistle is a little echo and underscoring of his Gospel account), that He has witnesses in earth, he has the testimony of John the Baptist, but the Author of Truth cannot be attested to by mere sinful men, though they are holy prophets, though unbelievers readily and regularly receive the witness of sinful men who bear witness of themselves. Instead, and incomparably greater, He has the witness of God, both in the works for which His Father sent Him, and the voice of His Father, which they had not heard or received though God spoke clearly at His baptism, as well as from Mount Sinai and at other times. The unbelieving heart cannot receive this witness, instead they absurdly claim, "It thundered." The unbeliever may search the Scriptures, but in blindness not seeing that the Father has borne witness of the incarnate Son throughout.

So, although John attaches great importance to the signs of the water and blood, and the testimony of the one who saw it and bear record of it, ultimately we have a greater witness, that we may believe:

Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. (John 19:32-35)

By the witness of the Spirit in our own hearts, we have that three-fold testimony from heaven, not only the witnesses on earth that agree in one. We have the witness of God in our own selves. So we can consider the book-ends of John's epistle which describes the life with God that we now have and know and enjoy in Christ through the Spirit.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. (1 John 5:9-11)

The one who has this witness in himself, is one who has fellowship with God, and the only kind of fellowship with God is one in which we are doing God's will:

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:17)

In contrast to this, the one who claims to know God and have fellowship with God, to be super spiritual, even far above others, perhaps claiming to know the abounding of God's grace because of the depths of his sinful walk even far more than others, while walking in hatred, does in fact not know God, but is necessarily blinded in his impenitence, just as much as the one who outright rejects the testimony of Christ:

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. (1 John 2:9)

The record of the Spirit, is in agreement with the water and the blood. The one who has the witness of the Spirit, is the one who truly knows and enjoys the life of love and fellowship with God, the one who is both cleansed by the water, and reconciled by the blood. All supposed spiritual knowledge which is separated from a life of love and holiness is not the true light in which we enjoy fellowship with God. That's the significance of the sign of the water and the blood in their agreement with the witness of the Spirit.