Arminianism in the Covenant

Even more dramatically than Hoeksema’s prophecy of the consequences of common grace, if this is possible, has his warning about the doctrine of a conditional covenant been realized. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Protestant Reformed Churches endured a grievous schism. The doctrinal issue was the nature of the covenant of grace with believers and their children. Ministers introduced into the Protestant Reformed Churches the covenant doctrine of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (“liberated”).

This doctrine teaches that God graciously promises his covenant and its salvation to all the physical children of believers alike and that he actually establishes the covenant of grace with all the children alike at their baptism, so that all the children alike are in the covenant and begin to enjoy its benefits. However, the covenant promise and the covenant itself are conditional. Whether the promise is fulfilled in the everlasting salvation of a child and whether a child remains in the covenant depend upon conditions the child himself must perform. The covenant is conditional, that is, dependent upon works of the child, namely, faith and faithfulness. The covenant is conditional, because the covenant and covenant salvation are not governed by God’s eternal, unconditional election.

With other Protestant Reformed ministers, notably Professor G. M. Ophoff, Hoeksema opposed this doctrine of a conditional covenant. Over the course of several years, from the pulpit and lectern, in the church papers, and then in the church assemblies, Hoeksema contended that this doctrine of a conditional covenant is “Arminianism in the covenant.” Just as Arminianism teaches that the preaching of the gospel, which Arminianism conceives as a “well-meant offer,” is grace to all hearers, so the doctrine of a conditional covenant teaches that the promise is grace to all the children.

Just as Arminianism teaches that the salvation of the sinner depends upon a condition he must fulfill, namely, faith, so the doctrine of a conditional covenant teaches that the salvation of baptized children depends upon conditions he must fulfill, namely, faith and a life of faithfulness.

Just as Arminianism teaches that one can fall away from Christ and lose his salvation, so the doctrine of a conditional covenant teaches that children who are in the covenant and united to Christ can fall out of the covenant and fall away from Christ.

Just as Arminianism teaches that God’s grace in Jesus Christ is wider, much wider, than only those who finally are saved, so the doctrine of a conditional covenant teaches that God’s covenant grace in Jesus Christ is wider, much wider, than only those children in the sphere of the covenant who are finally saved.

Just as Arminianism denies that God’s saving grace is governed by an eternal decree of unconditional, double predestination, so that grace is for the elect only, so the doctrine of a conditional covenant denies that God’s saving, covenant grace in Jesus Christ is governed by God’s eternal predestination, so that this grace is for the elect children only.

Just as Arminianism violently denies that God’s eternal decree of reprobation determines that some sinners are excluded from grace and are hardened by the preaching of the gospel, so the doctrine of a conditional covenant violently denies that reprobation determines that some children of believing parents are excluded from covenant grace and are hardened by their baptism and by the word.

Just as Arminianism teaches that a universal grace of God depends for its saving efficacy and result upon a condition performed by the sinner, so the doctrine of a conditional covenant teaches that the covenant grace of God is universal in the sphere of the covenant (towards, for, and in every baptized child), but depends for its saving efficacy and outcome upon conditions that the child must perform.

Just as Arminianism teaches that God’s grace in Christ is resistible, so the doctrine of a conditional covenant teaches that the covenant grace of God in Christ is resistible.

The Protestant Reformed ministers who were enamored of the doctrine of the conditional covenant vehemently denied Hoeksema’s charge of Arminianism. They insisted, as did the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (“liberated”), whose covenant doctrine they were promoting, that this doctrine of a conditional covenant only emphasizes the “responsibility of man,” and is in harmony with the confessions (although the “Three Forms of Unity” nowhere teach conditional salvation and explicitly condemn as heresy the notion that salvation is conditional and the teaching that faith is a “condition”). These ministers convinced two thirds of the membership of the Protestant Reformed Churches that Hoeksema’s warning was wrong.

Many of the Reformed and Presbyterian denominations in North America took note of the controversy in the Protestant Reformed Churches. They rejected Hoeksema’s warning that the doctrine of a conditional covenant as taught by K. Schilder, B. Holwerda, C. Veenhof, and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (“liberated”) is “Arminianism in the covenant.” Their rejection of the Protestant Reformed theologian’s warning is not surprising. These churches themselves were open to, if they did not embrace, the doctrine of a conditional covenant.

To their mortal peril!

The Coming of the Federal [Covenant] Vision

At the present time, stunning events are taking place in many of the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches. In these churches, including the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the United Reformed Churches, has appeared a doctrine of the covenant that calls itself the “Federal Vision.” “Federal” means “Covenant.” This doctrine is, and claims to be, the development of the doctrine of a conditional covenant taught by Schilder and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (“liberated”).

Openly, the Federal [Covenant] Vision denies justification by faith alone. Openly, it denies every one of the doctrines of grace confessed by the Canons of Dordt. Openly, it denies these great truths of the gospel in the sphere of the covenant with particular reference to the baptized children of believers. The Federal [Covenant] Vision is an open, all-out attack on justification by faith alone—the heart of the gospel—and on the inseparably related “five points of Calvinism” with regard to the covenant.

The Federal [Covenant] Vision is open, blatant Arminianism regarding the doctrine of the covenant.

It is not my purpose here to demonstrate the heresy of the Federal [Covenant] Vision, to give the history of the movement, or to document the actions and refusals to act of the denominational assemblies with regard to the heresy. I have done this in a recent book, The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers: Sovereign Grace in the Covenant (RFPA, 2005), to which I refer the interested reader.

Suffice it to say concerning the actions, or refusals to act, of the churches mentioned above that all of them have been forced to deal with the doctrines of the Federal [Covenant] Vision at their ecclesiastical assemblies. Although some have condemned certain aspects of the Federal [Covenant] Vision, particularly the teaching of justification by faith and works, none has taken hold of the heresy at its root, namely, the doctrine of a conditional covenant. None of the churches is willing to take hold of it at its root. None can.

The Federal [Covenant] Vision is genuine, logical, necessary, inevitable development of the doctrine of a conditional covenant as taught by Schilder, Holwerda, Veenhof, and the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (“liberated”). If universal covenant grace is conditioned by the faith and faithfulness of the child, justification in the covenant is by works, and the doctrines of grace as confessed by the Canons do not apply to the covenant. If the doctrines of grace do not apply to the covenant, the errors condemned by Dordt do apply to the covenant. And the reputedly conservative Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America approve, if they are not committed to, the doctrine of a conditional covenant.

At the same time as these astounding events are unfolding in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America—churches bound by solemn vow to the Canons of Dordt or the Westminster Confession of Faith—theologians of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (“liberated”) are openly criticizing the doctrine of predestination as confessed by the Canons of Dordt. They are criticizing predestination because it does not harmonize with the doctrine of a conditional covenant as held by the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (“liberated”). Spokesmen of these churches are now publicly admitting that leading theologians of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (“liberated”) have been criticizing the doctrine of predestination as confessed by the Canons from the very beginning of the “liberation” in the 1940s, and that Klaas Schilder was well aware of the criticism.

As Herman Hoeksema warned.

The doctrine of a conditional covenant is “Arminianism in the covenant.”

And Arminianism detests the doctrine of eternal, unconditional election as the source and standard of all salvation (whether in the covenant or on the mission field) by particular, sovereign grace.

Hoeksema was no prophet, of course, by special revelation. But he was a prophet as Scripture enables every sound minister to be one. Seeing clearly into the grand truths of the Bible, and believing these truths with all his heart, he could foresee the certain consequences—the judgments of God—for churches that forsake these truths.

And, then, he was not afraid, whether on account of calculating self-interest, or on account of mistaken “ecumenicity,” or on account of sheer cowardice, boldly to warn others of the evil of their doctrinal way.

Is it not always the test of the true prophet that his prophecies come true?

A Small Stage

The smallness of the place God gave him might seem to gainsay Hoeksema’s greatness. His place in the church was small, very small. Expelled from the Christian Reformed Church, at that time a powerful, influential denomination among the Reformed and Presbyterian churches worldwide, Hoeksema was ostracized his lifelong by the entire Reformed community of churches. His place became still smaller after the schism in the Protestant Reformed Churches in 1953. Only a few thousand members of his own denomination remained.

How small his place was, I myself experienced. For the first two years of my seminary training, I was his only student. There we sat, in one narrow, cramped, and unattractive basement room of First Protestant Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan—the two of us. Other theologians of lesser abilities, to say nothing of their orthodoxy, were teaching scores of students in fine facilities.

The smallness of his place was not the measure of the man.

Hoeksema wrote somewhere that the church has men who are every bit as great as the greatest men of the world. The difference is only that the great men of the world have a bigger stage on which to play their role. (The church’s great men will have a big stage in the world to come.)

In the life and ministry of Herman Hoeksema, it pleased God to give one of his great men a small stage. With his place, Hoeksema was content.

Of this man, I have some remembrances.

Members of the Protestant Reformed Churches, who honor this man for the truth’s sake, may appreciate these recollections.

In the events may even appear something of the true greatness of the man.

(to be continued)