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.