“The Error of Rejecting the Establishment of the New Covenant” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (2)

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

II Who teach that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with men, whether of grace or of works.

For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ “has become the guarantee and mediator” of a better—that is, “a new”—“covenant” (Heb. 7:22 9:15), and that “a will is in force only when someone has died” (Heb. 9:17).

_______________________________

In the “refutation of errors” section of each head of doctrine, the Canons take up some of the more technical and specific teachings of the Dutch Arminians which prompted the Synod of Dort to be called in 1618. The second error identified under the second head of doctrine is the Remonstrant (Arminian) notion that the death of Christ did not actually establish a covenant of grace between God and his elect, but that the atonement merely makes provision for God to into enter into such a covenant with his creatures on the ground of God’s choosing—whether that be faith or works.

This reluctance to understand the covenant of grace as necessarily tied to Christ’s mediatorial work is fallout from the Arminian view of the atonement, which is a species of what is known as the “governmental theory.” The so-called governmental theory of the atonement teaches that the death of Christ supposedly demonstrates God’s love, along with his right to order his universe as he sees fit. In this scheme, the cross of Christ is not seen as a satisfaction of God’s justice, and therefore, a necessary act if sinners are to be saved. Instead, the cross is understood in terms of God’s arbitrary decree that a sacrificial death would be accepted as a payment for sin instead of some other equally valid way.

This means that it was not necessary for Christ to die if God’s elect are to be saved, but that God determined to do things in this way since his rule over the universe and his love for sinners would be most clearly manifest. As the moral governor of his universe, God saw fit to save in this manner. But he was under absolutely no necessity of doing so.

Let us be careful to not lose sight of the forest through the trees. The essence of the Arminian view of the cross is that the death of Christ is not a satisfaction of God’s justice in punishing sin—the Arminians believe this would make God a cruel and angry deity who must exact his pound of flesh. They say the cross is a demonstration of God’s love for a lost and fallen world, as well as a display of his wisdom and justice—but not a satisfaction for sin. God did not have to save sinners in this way, but he did determine that if he were to save, this would be the best way to do it.

This view stands in sharp contrast to the Reformed understanding, in which it is argued that God did not have to save any, but in his grace he determined to save a vast multitude. Once he so determined, the cross is the only possible way for any to be saved because God’s holy justice must be satisfied. While the Reformed contend that the death of Christ was nothing less than a picture of God’s love for a lost and fallen world, the cross is certainly that and more. The cross of Christ is also a glorious demonstration of God’s justice in that Jesus dies for the sins of the elect, the guilt of which is imputed to him. In the cross, both the love and justice of God are openly displayed for all to see (cf. Romans 3:21-31). We need not, as the Arminian does, sacrifice God’s justice to supposedly magnify God’s love. Paul doesn’t.

For the Arminian, the cross of Christ is not in any sense necessary. The death of our Lord is merely the best way among a number of possible choices for God to display his love and moral governorship over the world that he has made. Rather, the cross was an arbitrary choice on God’s part, and this means was chosen since it accomplished what God wanted to accomplish without violating human freedom.

Despite the Arminian contention that the death of Christ magnifies the love of God, the fact is that if there were any other way to save sinners, and then God sent Christ to die in unspeakable anguish, God is not loving, but utterly cruel. In demonstrating the weakness of this position, one theologian uses the following analogy. It would make no sense at all for a child’s parents to kill their other children in one child’s presence as a means of demonstrating how much the parents loved the surviving sibling. An arbitrary death does not convey love, but evil motives.

According to the Arminian view of the cross, Jesus dies a horrific death to show the world God’s love and moral governorship, yet the cross does not actually accomplish anything or satisfy God’s wrath and anger toward sin. So, while the Arminian contends that Reformed Christians believe in a cruel God who elects some and not others, as well as a God who must exact a precise payment for sin to satisfy his holy justice, in reality it is the Arminian who offers us a cruel God. In the Arminian scheme, God punishes his own son, needlessly, when there were other possible ways to do the same thing.

As B. B. Warfield points out, if the cross were not necessary to satisfy God’s justice, why did God not accept some other way, such as our repentance or our good works? God could have done so, and accomplished the same thing without Christ having to die. That these possible ways of salvation were not chosen, reveals just how arbitrary the whole Arminian conception truly is.

To be more specific, this section of the refutation of errors is dealing with the fact that the Dutch Arminians were arguing that the covenant of grace was just such an arbitrary way for God to save his people. God determined that the death of Christ would establish the covenant of grace as the best way for God to save. But the Canons are quick to note that the Scriptures speak of Christ’s mediatorial work, not as an arbitrary decision by God, but as an absolute necessity if any are to be saved. “For this conflicts with Scripture, which teaches that Christ has become the guarantee and mediator of a better--that is, a new-covenant (Heb. 7:22; 9:15), and that a will is in force only when someone has died (Hebrews 9:17).”

Here again, the critical factor is the question “why does Christ die?” According to the Reformed tradition, Christ's death is a necessity, and it is absolutely effectual in that it accomplished exactly what God intends–the salvation of his elect. But for the Arminian, the death of Christ is arbitrary, provisory, and exemplary of God’s love and justice, when it is anything but.

Clearly, we are dealing with two different approaches to the gospel. The Reformed confess that God’s grace and love are magnified in the fact that he goes to such remarkable lengths to satisfy his justice toward sinners who do not at all deserve it. This preserves grace alone. The other way is that of the Arminians, who argue that Christ did not need to die, but that God thought it the best means of enticing sinners to exercise their free-will and believe in Christ. Since the latter is “synergistic,” grace alone is sacrificed, and the cross does not actually save anyone.