“The Error of Teaching That Forgiveness Depends Upon Our Free Will” — The Rejection of Errors, Second Head of Doctrine, Canons of Dort (6)

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

VI Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ’s death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves.

For, while pretending to set forth this distinction in an acceptable sense, they attempt to give the people the deadly poison of Pelagianism.

_________________________________

In order to use biblical terminology used of the cross, while at the same time denying that the death of Christ is a true satisfaction for sins, as well as a literal payment of our debt to God, Arminians have contended that the death of Christ is “for all,” but “not all” are forgiven until the merits of Christ are appropriated by the sinner through an exercise of the will.

To explain how this can be, the Arminian sets up a system in which the death of Christ is said to be for all, but is not effectual for any until it is actually “appropriated.” This means that the death of Christ does not accomplish redemption for anyone, but does have the potential to save everyone who believes. This means that only those who exercise their free-will and believe the gospel are saved, since the atonement is only provisory and ineffectual until actually appropriated by the sinner who supposedly retains the power of free-will to do so.

This enables the Arminian to argue for a doctrine of grace alone, speak of salvation in connection to the death of Christ, and still champion justification by faith alone. But in reality this is theological smoke and mirrors. In the words of one sage, this is mere “word magic.”

As the Canons point out, the very idea that the death of Christ is “for all” in a mere provisional sense and, therefore, truly effective for no one until it is appropriated, is nothing but sophistry and simply confuses those who have never thought about the issue from a biblical perspective.

As the Canons have repeatedly made plain, the Bible never speaks of a provisional atonement, generic universal grace, or a prevenient grace which remits the guilt of original sin and restores freedom of the will to all. The Scriptures speak only of an effectual satisfaction of God’s wrath made by Christ on behalf of those specific individuals given him by the Father (e.g. Romans 3:21-25; Romans 5:8-11; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21, etc.).

In Reformed theology Christ’s atonement is not made effectual by the sinner’s “appropriation” of it through an act of will. Rather, the merits of Christ are applied by the Holy Spirit to the sinner, who then receives the Savior’s merits through faith alone--that faith being the gift from God (Ephesians 2:8) arising through the preaching of the word (Romans 10:17) and through the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3-8; Ephesians 1:3-14).

If the Arminian is correct, sinners are not saved through the cross and the merits of Christ, but are saved by an exercise of the sinful human will, since the cross is ineffectual until it is appropriated. Again, no matter how loudly the Arminian champions "grace alone" and "faith alone", in the Arminian scheme it is an act of the will and not the death of Christ which actually saves! The Canons lament that this is nothing but the pure poison of Pelagianism.