CH 3 Of God's Decree

Introduction

Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609), originally named Jakob Hermanszoon, was the key figure who sparked the Arminian controversy. Born in Oudewater in the Dutch Republic, Arminius faced tragedy early in life when his father died in his infancy, and later, Spanish troops massacred his mother, sister, and two brothers during the Dutch war for independence from Spain. Despite this, Arminius was supported by a generous patron, Rudolph Snellius, and pursued his education at Leyden University. He later studied theology in Geneva under Theodore Beza and in Basel, where he achieved academic success. In 1587, Arminius returned to the Dutch Republic and was ordained as a pastor in the Dutch Reformed Church, serving a congregation in Amsterdam.

The Age of Religious Conflict (2000 Years of Christ’s Power, vol. 4) (1. Jacobus Arminius)

Coornhert expressed his Erasmian views in a critique of Theodore Beza’s Calvinism. The ensuing controversy brought Arminius into the arena; he was asked in 1589 to write something in defence of Beza. In studying the issues, however, Arminius found himself repelled by Beza’s high supralapsarian views of predestination, and more inclined to sympathize with Coornhert’s criticisms. So Arminius wrote nothing, but brooded on the questions Coornhert had raised.

By the time Jacobus Arminius was appointed professor of theology at Leyden University in 1603, he had shifted away from the Reformed view on predestination, leading to widespread suspicion about his theological stance. Arminius was influenced by the Roman Catholic theologian Luis de Molina, particularly on human freedom and divine foreknowledge. Arminius rejected the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election, arguing instead that predestination was conditional on human faith. He believed that God elected to save those He foreknew would believe, and that this belief resulted from a synergistic cooperation between divine and human wills, rather than God’s monergistic, efficacious grace.

The Age of Religious Conflict (2000 Years of Christ’s Power, vol. 4) (5. The Synod of Dort)

The Synod of Dort proved to be a landmark event in the history of the Reformed faith. Its membership was overwhelmingly opposed to Remonstrant theology. When a large Remonstrant delegation arrived at Dort, only 13 named by the synod were allowed to appear—and not as delegates, but as plaintiffs on trial for doctrinal error.

The Age of Religious Conflict (2000 Years of Christ’s Power, vol. 4) (5. The Synod of Dort)

Since the Remonstrance had expressed Arminian theology in five points, the synod responded by working through these points in a series of “canons” and presenting a Reformed perspective on each point. Here is the origin of the so-called “Five Points of Calvinism”: not a summary of Reformed theology, but simply Reformed theology’s response to the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance on disputed matters concerning salvation. (Reformed theology in the 16th and 17th centuries was far wider and richer than the “Five Points”, and had other distinctive beliefs in relation to other controversies, e.g. its doctrine of the Lord’s Supper in relation to Lutheranism.) We can summarize the synod’s teaching thus

The Age of Religious Conflict (2000 Years of Christ’s Power, vol. 4) (5. The Synod of Dort)

1. Predestination is God’s eternal purpose to give saving faith to some sinners out of the mass of fallen humanity. It is unconditional—not based on God’s foreknowledge of anything in those chosen. (This first article takes the infralapsarian view: quite striking, considering that some leading Dutch theologians were supralapsarian, e.g. Francis Gomarus.)

2. The death of Christ is sufficient to save the whole of humanity, but by God’s sovereign will it is effective in actually saving the elect, by enlivening them to a true, justifying, sanctifying, persevering faith.

3. The synod agreed with the third point of the Remonstrance—the spiritual inability of the fallen human will apart from divine grace. However …

4. The synod rejected the Remonstrant view that grace is always resistible. On the contrary, the grace that regenerates is sovereignly efficacious.

5. This grace also ensures that the elect will persevere to the end and enter glory at last. True saving faith can never be entirely lost; and a person can attain an assurance that he or she has this faith, and will therefore persevere.

The Age of Religious Conflict (2000 Years of Christ’s Power, vol. 4) (5. The Synod of Dort)

The synod concluded its business on May 9th 1619. Its canons now became authoritative in the Dutch Reformed Church, alongside the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism (known collectively as the Three Forms of Unity). Some 190 pastors were deposed for refusing to subscribe to the canons—Arminianism was purged out of the ranks of the clergy

several prominent Reformed theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries, including John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Augustus Toplady, and early Reformed Baptists, spoke forcefully against Arminianism, often treating it as a dangerous or even damnable heresy because it was seen as undermining the sovereignty of God and the doctrine of grace. Here are some quotes from them that reflect this view:

John Owen (1616–1683): "The Arminians... corrupt the doctrine of the Gospel, and indeed the whole truth of Christ, in ascribing to themselves the beginning, progress, and accomplishment of their salvation. It is that which leaves nothing to the free grace of God in the whole work of man’s salvation."

Owen, one of the most influential Puritan theologians, regarded Arminianism as a serious departure from the gospel of grace. In his works, he frequently treats it as a dangerous distortion of Reformed orthodoxy.

Owen viewed Arminianism as a direct assault on the doctrine of God's sovereign grace, which, in his view, made it incompatible with the true gospel.

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758):

Quote: "The Arminian notion of free will... naturally tends to prevent men’s seeing any need of Christ’s help, either to obtain justification or sanctification. For it supposes man’s self-determining power to be sufficient."

Although from the 18th century, Edwards is often cited by Reformed theologians for his forceful defense of Calvinism against Arminianism. Edwards argued that Arminianism diminishes the need for Christ and grace by elevating human free will, a position he regarded as spiritually dangerous and subversive of the gospel.

Augustus Toplady (1740–1778):

Quote: "Arminianism is the religion of the natural man, and as such, is diametrically opposed to the gospel of Christ. It would rob God of His honour, and exalt man to His throne."

Toplady, the author of the famous hymn "Rock of Ages," was a fierce opponent of Arminianism. He saw it as a theology that undermined salvation by grace alone.Toplady did not shy away from calling Arminianism a “dangerous” heresy, and he viewed it as a direct affront to God's sovereignty and glory.

Nehemiah Coxe (circa 1650–1689):

Quote: “If grace be by works, it is no more grace; and if man’s will be the final arbiter of salvation, we are saved by human strength and not the power of God. Such doctrines we can never embrace, for they are no gospel at all.”

Coxe was a leading Reformed Baptist theologian and a key figure in the framing of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. While not as confrontational as Owen or Toplady, Coxe firmly rejected Arminianism as incompatible with Reformed orthodoxy. Coxe’s rejection of Arminianism focused on how it undermines the doctrine of salvation by grace alone.

Quote: "Arminianism is the soul's poison, and to teach that man can save himself is the doctrine of Antichrist."Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661):

Rutherford, a Scottish Presbyterian and a key theologian at the Westminster Assembly, also viewed Arminianism as a dangerous heresy.

Rutherford considered Arminianism to be spiritually deadly because it placed human will in the place of divine grace.

Thomas Goodwin (1600–1680):

Quote: “Arminianism destroys the very foundations of grace, and seeks to make man the author of his own salvation, which is a damnable heresy.”

A prominent Puritan theologian, Goodwin also saw Arminianism as a dangerous departure from the truth of the gospel. Goodwin’s critique centers on Arminianism’s perceived threat to the gospel of grace.

The general consensus among Reformed theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries—including Owen, Edwards, Toplady, and others—was that Arminianism was a serious theological error, often seen as undermining the gospel of grace and God's sovereignty. While they may not have universally labeled it as a "damnable heresy" in a formal sense, they considered it a dangerous distortion of biblical truth that threatened the very heart of the Reformed faith.

3.1

Have you ever wondered if anything happens outside of God’s sovereign control? Can the God who created all things be subject to uncertainty or surprise? Could He, who knows the end from the beginning, leave the course of history to chance? Of course not. As 3.1 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession affirms, God has from all eternity, by His wise and holy counsel, freely and unchangeably ordained everything that comes to pass, ensuring that all things unfold according to His perfect will while preserving human responsibility and holiness.

3.1 Differences

3.1 Important quotes

To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2 (To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2)

In an important sense, the counsel of God and the will of God are the same. That which God eternally purposes is that which He wills. The two cannot be distinguished except in terms of our human understanding. From these quotations one may see that the confessional doctrine asserts that the will of the Trinitarian God is singular—there is no place for three centers of consciousness or three wills belonging to each subsistence individually. To assert such is outside the bounds of historic Trinitarianism and opens a pathway to tri-theism and must be rejected by a plain interpretation of the Confession’s language.

3.1 Historical significance

The eternal decree of God is realized in the created world, with everything that happens being a specific fulfillment of His will, from the fall of each leaf to its decay. God's decree is all-encompassing and unchangeable, with no contingencies or variables. However, it is crucial to assert that God is not the author of sin. The Westminster Assembly in 1645 strongly rejected the notion that God is responsible for sin, calling it "blasphemous." They emphasized that both ancient and modern Christian teachers, including both Catholics and Protestants, held Satan and humanity responsible for sin. Anti-Calvinists like Thomas Grantham attempted to argue that the doctrine of divine sovereignty inevitably implicated God in the authorship of sin. However, Grantham ignored the Westminster Assembly’s rejection of such views. Similarly, Thomas Collier made similar claims, which Nehemiah Coxe refuted by making important distinctions regarding God's sovereignty and sin.

3.1 Summary

This paragraph teaches that God, from all eternity, has freely and unchangeably decreed everything that happens, including all events in history. This decree is made according to His perfect wisdom and will, without being dependent on foreseen actions or conditions in His creatures. While God's sovereignty extends over all things, He is not the author of sin, nor does He force His creatures' wills, preserving human responsibility.

God's Eternal Decree: God's decrees are established from eternity, and nothing happens outside of His sovereign plan.

Unchangeable and Free: God's decrees are made freely and unchangeably, based solely on His will and wisdom.

Absolute Sovereignty: God is in control of all things that come to pass, orchestrating events without dependence on human actions.

Not the Author of Sin: Although God has decreed all events, He is not the author of sin, nor does His decree violate human will.

Human Responsibility: God's decree upholds human responsibility, allowing people to act according to their wills while His sovereignty remains absolute.

3.2-5

3.2-5 Differences

3.2-5 Important quotes

“God hath his purposes of grace and mercy toward some, and his just purposes of wrath and judgment toward others... He freely elects some to everlasting life and leaves others in their sins, according to the counsel of his own will.” - Nehemiah Coxe

“Election is free and unconditional, being the act of God's sovereign grace, without respect to any foreseen merit or action in the creature, whereby he predestines some to eternal life and others he passes by, leaving them to perish in their sin.”

"The decree of election, like the decree of reprobation, is according to the good pleasure of God’s will; He chooses some to life and passes by others, but in all this, God is neither unjust nor unloving, for His purposes are rooted in His wisdom and grace."

3.2-5 Historical significance

Sections 3.2-3.5 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession address the doctrine of God’s eternal decree concerning election and reprobation, asserting that God's sovereign choice is based entirely on His will and grace, not on any foreseen actions or faith in individuals. This doctrine stands in direct opposition to Arminianism, which argued for conditional election based on foreseen faith, a position that sparked significant theological debate during the late 16th and early 17th centuries.

The Arminian controversy was initiated by Jacobus Arminius, who proposed that God elects individuals based on His foreknowledge of their future faith. This view was rejected by the Reformed tradition, which upheld unconditional election—a key tenet reaffirmed in 1689 LBC 3.2-3.5. These sections underscore that God’s decision to elect or pass over individuals is rooted solely in His sovereign grace and justice, reflecting the Reformed and Particular Baptist commitment to God's absolute sovereignty in salvation.

The historical significance of these paragraphs lies in their defense of unconditional election and reprobation, positioning the 1689 Confession firmly against Arminianism. The framers of the Confession aimed to ensure that Particular Baptist churches remained aligned with the Reformed tradition, particularly following the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which condemned Arminianism. These sections emphasized that salvation is purely an act of God's grace and sovereignty, countering the Arminian teaching that human actions or faith contribute to election.

3.2-5 Summary

Summary of 1689 LBC 3.2-3.5 (God’s Decree of Election and Reprobation):

These sections of the 1689 Confession deal with God's sovereign decree of election and reprobation. 3.2 teaches that God’s decision to elect certain individuals to eternal life is based solely on His grace and sovereign will, not on any foreseen merit or actions. 3.3 affirms that, by the same sovereign will, God passed over others, leaving them in their sin, to display His justice. 3.4 asserts that God’s decree of election and reprobation is unchangeable and eternal, made before the foundation of the world, and everything that happens is a fulfillment of this decree. 3.5 emphasizes that God's decree does not violate human free will or responsibility; though He sovereignly ordains all things, He does so in a way that neither eliminates human freedom nor makes Him the author of sin.

Unconditional Election: God elects certain individuals to salvation based solely on His grace, without regard to any foreseen merit or actions

(3.2).Reprobation: By His sovereign will, God passes over others, allowing them to remain in their sin, thus demonstrating His justice

(3.3).Eternal and Unchangeable Decree: God’s decree was made before the foundation of the world and governs all events in history

(3.4).Human Responsibility: Though God’s decree is absolute, it does not remove human responsibility or free will; humans act freely and are accountable for their actions

(3.5).God’s Justice and Mercy: These decrees display God’s mercy toward the elect and His justice toward the reprobate, with no injustice on His part.

3.6-7

3.6-7 Differences

The 1689 London Baptist Confession (LBC) omits WCF 3.7 for reasons related to its overall structure and pastoral emphasis. The LBC maintains the core doctrines of God’s sovereignty and election but approaches these topics with a slightly different focus compared to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and Savoy Declaration.

Streamlined Presentation

Pastoral Clarity

Congregational Emphasis:

Focus on Comfort and Assurance:

1. The framers of the LBC sought to present a more concise and straightforward summary of Reformed theology, particularly concerning the doctrine of God’s decree. While WCF 3.7 includes additional cautions and elaborations about how the doctrine of election should be handled, the LBC consolidates this material into fewer sections. The result is a more streamlined presentation that focuses on the essential aspects of God’s eternal decree without repeating the same points across multiple sections.

2. The LBC places a strong emphasis on pastoral clarity, aiming to provide assurance and comfort to believers. The Baptists highlighted the practical implications of election, particularly how it should inspire humility, reverence, and gratitude in the hearts of God’s people. By focusing on these pastoral concerns, LBC 3.6-3.7 addresses the same core issues without the need for an additional section. The confession emphasizes the mercy of God in election and His justice in reprobation, seeking to encourage believers to trust in God’s sovereign will.

3. The LBC was written in the context of a Baptist church tradition that emphasized congregational governance and personal responsibility before God. The confession reflects this by carefully balancing the doctrines of God’s sovereignty with human responsibility, ensuring that the doctrine of election is not misinterpreted. This is evident in the way the LBC speaks about God’s effectual calling of the elect and the just condemnation of the reprobate, while also encouraging a careful and humble approach to understanding these doctrines.

4. LBC 3.6-3.7 is designed to comfort and assure believers by presenting election and reprobation in a way that focuses on God’s grace and mercy. The WCF takes a more expansive approach, but the LBC focuses on ensuring that believers understand God’s decree in a way that strengthens their faith and promotes reliance on God's sovereign will. By omitting WCF 3.7, the LBC places a slightly greater emphasis on the comfort and practical application of this doctrine, ensuring that it builds up the faith of believers.

3.6-7 Important quotes

3.6-7 Historical significance

Sections 3.6-3.7 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession continue the discussion of God’s eternal decree by emphasizing how this decree is carried out through God’s sovereign plan. 3.6 clarifies that God's sovereign election and reprobation unfold in real time through His effectual calling of the elect and His just passing over of the reprobate, leaving them in their sin. 3.7 explains that the mystery of God's will regarding election and reprobation is intended to showcase His mercy and justice, not to encourage speculation. These sections stand in clear opposition to Arminianism, which argued that God’s decrees are contingent upon human free will and faith.

During the Arminian controversy, Jacobus Arminius and his followers proposed that God’s election is based on foreseen faith and human cooperation with grace, thus denying the Reformed view of God's sovereign and unconditional decree. The 1689 LBC 3.6-3.7 sections reaffirm that God’s decrees are entirely independent of human action, emphasizing that salvation is solely a work of God’s grace, while reprobation is an act of His justice. The Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which condemned Arminian theology, provides the historical backdrop for these confessional statements, as both Reformed theologians and Particular Baptists sought to preserve the doctrines of grace.

The historical significance of these sections lies in their defense of the mystery and sovereignty of God’s decree. The framers of the 1689 Confession wanted to ensure that the church did not fall into speculative theology or reduce God’s election to human-centered decision-making, as Arminianism had suggested. 3.6-3.7 affirm that God's eternal decrees reflect His sovereign justice and mercy, countering Arminian claims that undermined God's absolute control in salvation.

3.6 Summary

Conclusion