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.

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.

John Owen's doctrine of the atonement

Owen's work, the Death of Death in the Death of Christ is without question the greatest treatise on the atonement that has ever been written and for anyone who has read the book and studied the arguments from Scripture, no criticism has ever or could ever be effective laid against it. It is especially important in our day, with the popularization of faulty unbiblical speculative theories on the atonement by certain neo-Calvinists. It goes back to the fundamentals and smashes these false theories completely.

Of course there are many areas regarding the atonement which Owen treats which the 3FU does not talk about (since even the Canons are more summaries of doctrine and refutations of specific errors), but the basic doctrine of limited atonement as expounded by Owen is the doctrine taught in the Canons of Dordt. Ursinus made some comments in his commentary on the Heidelberger which seem to be closer to an Amyraldian view of the atonement (although it would be anachronistic to call it that), but his commentary is not the catechism itself, and it is not the official interpretation of it by the Reformed church. 

The Form for Ordination calls the Canons of Dordt an interpretation/explanation/clarification of certain points of doctrine in the Heidelberger and the Belgic Confession - and this is exactly what the Canons are. The Canons explain the doctrine of atonement in the catechism and confession as particular efficacious atonement, excluding the Amyraldian views (although it obviously does not deal with Amyraldianism as directly and fully as the Second Helvetic Confession does - history accounts for that). Nevertheless when the various statements in the Canons of Dordt are put together, especially along with the Rejection of Errors (which are part of the Canons, despite the fact that so many "Reformed" churches today have removed them), they do not allow for the idea of a hypothetical universal redemption or any kind of conditional redemption in the atonement. 

On this point, the doctrine of the atonement in the Canons is precisely that which is so much more fully expounded and proved by Owen's work (and remember Owen wrote much later than the Synod of Dordt, when Amyraldianism was being further developed and promoted as a half-way house between Calvinism and Arminianism). If the Rejection of Errors are ignored/removed, this greatly weakens the position of the Canons (understandably - otherwise they would not have seen it necessary to include them!) - although even so, still Amyraldian ideas do not sit well with them (and a case could still be made). The Westminster actually is not a strong as the Canons with regard to particular efficacious atonement - since the Canons include the phrase "the elect and them only". Sadly, the prevailing view among the neo-Calvinists is a form of the Amyraldian view of the atonement - even though they often claim to hold to the five points of Calvinism (the Canons ARE the original five points)!

But aside from the confessional issue, the Scriptural arguments of Owen are compelling and solid. For a man who has studied these arguments, and confesses that the Bible is the very word of God, he cannot consistently then deny limited atonement with Amyraldian ideas - and any Reformed church ought to discipline a man who is promoting Amyraldianism - on the basis of the Canons, and on the basis of the clear teaching of Scripture (which on this point, has been so fully explained to us by Owen's work). This is the reason that Owen's work is becoming unpopular today, because it stands in history as the greatest refutation of Amyraldian and Arminian views of the atonement ever to have been written - and these false views of the atonement promoted today by the neo-Calvinists simply cannot stand in light of it.

Owen goes back to the basics of the nature of Christ's work, as it is pictured in the Old Testament and especially as explained in Hebrews. Hebrews stands on the foreground of his book. He shows what it means that Christ is our High Priest, the nature and meaning of redemption, propitiation, atonement, etc. These are the topics which are shied away from today. People love to talk about the extent of the atonement, but they do not want to talk about its very nature. And Owen shows that its nature determines its extent. I could not praise this book highly enough. Its greatest strength is that is builds with the basics and is so thoroughly comprehensive (of course, this does means that Owen can be very long-winded at times - but long sentences were in fashion then, it was assumed that people had a longer attention span than five seconds, to be able to remember and tie in the beginning of the sentence with the end of it). Its weakness today is only that people today have such difficulty with long sentences and long trains of thought - they forget the beginning of the argument by the time they reach the end, and respond more to immediately felt emotional appeals. When someone says "Christ died to save everyone" that has a half-truth, and a strong emotional appeal, but it does not stand up to scrutiny, no matter about the sophistication of the Amyraldian position. But such snap-responses are not the Christian way: "Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." - I Cor. 9:24-27.

Sometimes that means have the spiritual self-control and discipline to study and remember long step-by-step arguments written by people who didn't realise that long sentences would be so difficult for people in our modern times. But it is rewarding.

In fact, a more accurate and emotionally appealing description of the extent of the atonement would be the word "catholic" (Rev. 5:9). "Limited" although true just does not give the main idea or the emphasis of Scripture - and this is one reason why people have such reactionary problems to it.