Unconditional Election Herman Hanko
The following is a statement of the doctrine of divine pre destination: That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, b efore the foundation of the world, hath d etermined, out of a fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall per severe in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the gospel in John 3:36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also. It might be of considerable interest to ask our readers whether they consider this particular description of predestina tion an acceptable definition of the doctrine. Indeed, if even some of them find this definition acceptable and precise according to the Scriptures, it would only be an eloquent testimony of the fact that the doctrine of election is all but foreign to the Reformed Church world of today. The fact of the matter is that this quota tion is the first point composed by the Arminians in the first part of the 17th Century, which along with four other points of doctrine, the Arminians submitted to the Reformed Churches of the Low Countries for their consideration and approval. And when our fathers considered this statement concerning the doctrine of election, they rejected it as being emphatically heretical; and composed as an answer to it the first chapter of our Canons of Dordrecht. Some might ask the question: What is so bad about this state ment? Is it not conceivable perhaps that our fathers and the Reformed Churches who rejected this statement were being picayune, concerning themselves with minor and insignificant details? Is it not after all, an acceptable definition of the doctrine 27
