The confessional writing that we know as the Canons of Dort asks more from the average church member than, for example, the Heidelberg Catechism which explains the doctrines of the Word of God in a simple and very personal manner. Thanks to radical linguistic modernization, undergone by the Canons of Dort in the 1970s, our third Form of Unity has become more reader friendly than was the case with the older version.

This is a cause for rejoicing, for that which the Canons say about election, our redemption through Christ’s death, our conversion to God, and the perseverance of the saints may not fall into oblivion. In all of this, the heart of what the Three Forms of Unity calls “Reformed faith” beats. That which the Canons confess is pre-eminently that which our churches typify as reformed.

The Problem⤒🔗

Regardless of how much clearer the modernization of language has rendered this document, it is still difficult to understand with the first reading and it does bring forth questions. It particularly concerns the expression that we find in the fifth head of doctrine, Article 6, where we read that “Neither does he permit them to sink so deep that they fall away from the grace of adoption and the state of justification.” The first part is clear, but what do the Canons of Dort mean by “the state of justification”? How are we supposed to understand this? This question becomes more urgent when we consider what the Canons say shortly before this (Chapter 5, Article 5) about believers straying from the way and committing gross sins. It states that believers, with these gross sins “greatly offend God, incur the guilt of death, grieve the Holy Spirit...and sometimes for a while lose the sense of God’s favour.” From Chapter 5, Article 7, we can conclude that the Canons even state that God is not reconciled with them.

The question is: How can we reconcile what is said about the state of God’s children with what we confess in Chapter 5, Article 6: “Neither does he permit them to sink so deep that they fall away from the grace of adoption and the state of justification”? How can it be that God’s wrath is focused on you and you still remain righteous? Can we still speak about “the state of justification” in such a situation of deep guilt? And if this is so, what did the fathers of Dort mean?

Note the problem that arises at this remarkable expression in our confession, an expression which we often fail to note when reading it, but that nevertheless is there. I will endeavour to explain this expression more clearly.

Background←⤒🔗

In what they express about the perseverance of saints, the Canons of Dort focus on a refutation of the false doctrines of the Remonstrants. They did not deny that there is perseverance. But they did not see this perseverance as a fruit of God’s election or as a gift from God. Perseverance was only for those who persevered in the faith. Being saved was conditional. The believers retain their position if they do not remain in any shortcoming. Their doctrine boiled down to this: whoever keeps himself in the love of God will be saved by God. This struggle was about the nature of the faith. For the Remonstrants, it gained the character of a prerequisite or a condition. Therefore, for them, faith became the “initiating factor” of perseverance.

From this point of view, the Remonstrants came to the doctrine of the apostasy of saints. With this they sought to do full justice to the horrible character of falling into sin, fearing the idea of “mortal safety” with any other understanding. Whoever denies that true believers can, through their heavy sins, be lost, promotes a rash life, and removes the believers’ great responsibility, and hinders man from coming to an upright repentance.

In the well-known articles of the Remonstrants, it is said in a questioning manner. However, in the Sententia presented by the Remonstrants at the Synod of Dort, the cat is let out of the bag. They reject the “dogma” that true believers cannot “completely and definitely” (totaliter et finaliter) fall from the grace of God and lose their faith.

They deny that believers, when they fall into deep sin, still always are and remain God’s beloved children.

The fathers of Dort finally summarized their (Remonstrant) doctrine in this manner: “True regenerate believers not only can fall completely and definitely from justifying faith and also from grace and salvation, but indeed they often do fall from them and are lost forever” (Chapter 5, Rejection of errors 3).

The background of that which the Canons of Dort confess in Chapter 5, Article 6 is the Remonstrant belief in the apostasy of saints and particularly the possibility of the loss of God’s grace. Over against this possibility of losing God’s grace, the fathers of Dort posed that God confirms those who have repented in the grace which he “once conferred upon them and powerfully preserves them in that grace to the end” (Chapter 5, Article 3).

Within this framework, they confess that God does not let his own fall so deeply that they lose “the state of justification.”

The State of Justification←⤒🔗

In order to discover what the fathers of Dort meant with this expression, it is useful to first look into the debate between remonstrant and contra-remonstrant theologians, which took place in the so-called “Schriftelicke Conferentie” held in The Hague in 1611 at the instigation of Johan van Oldenbarnevelt. This conference was of great importance. Here already, the lines were drawn along which the Synod of Dort moved in the demarcation of the Canons.

The contra-remonstrant brothers — it appears — powerfully fought against the opinion of their opponents that a true believer, when he falls into severe sin, also immediately with finality falls out of the true faith, out of the covenant of God, out of the right to be a child of God, out of the grace of rebirth, and out of the state of grace and redemption, and becomes a child of the Devil.

Although God’s children can fall deeply, that does not imply that they thereby also, simultaneously and immediately fall out of the redemption through the blood of Christ and lose the love of God. For the sake of Christ, God remains their Father and they remain his beloved children. Although God is angry with them because of their great sins, they do not become “children of wrath.” That the Reformed brothers do mean this with the expression “fall away from the grace of adoption and the state of justification” (Chapter 5, Article 6) is clarified by their referral to Colossians 3:6: Here it does not teach that a believing person, as soon as he, in weakness, commits a disobedience, that he, thereby, should fall out of the state of grace and once again be placed under the wrath of God.”

They reference 2 Samuel 7:14 where the Lord speaks to David about the discipline of his descendants, but at the same time promises: “but my steadfast love will not depart from him.” That which is said by the Reformed participants of the Conference puts us on track to be able to understand the specific expressions in the Canons.

The expression itself is not included in the report of the debate in The Hague. We do see it in what the theologians from Great Britain, present at the Synod of Dort, remark about the perseverance of saints. We can most easily understand the meaning of the expression in our confession by hearing what they say.

They oppose that the ones who are not elected would ever be able to come to “the condition of acceptance and justification.” They will never attain the sincere faith that justifies the sinner, for this faith belongs to those who are elected. Romans 8:30 teaches us that the elect alone are justified. At the right time, those who are elected are given justifying faith and recurring grace and all that “through which they are transferred from the state of wrath of that of acceptance and salvation.”

Although the elect, placed in this state, can commit sin, “the state of justification” is not broken off, and the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom is not terminated. They are justified in Christ and have been adopted by God. That does not take away sin. Believers who display such weakness do not, through their weaknesses, fall out of the state of being made righteous. Those who have been made righteous can sometimes fall into horrible sins. That is made clear with the examples of David and Peter. Then God’s “fatherly anger” ignites his “fatherly wrath.” But God’s particular love turns away his “anger of enmity,” which has been sealed with the purpose of eternal damnation. God displays anger against his deeply fallen children until they come to repentance. Then the way to forgiveness lies open and they are indeed declared free of guilt.

What the theologians of Great Britain mean with not falling out of “the state of justification” becomes even clearer to us when they speak about the situation wherein deeply fallen believers exist before they have come to repentance. In this “in between situation,” the “general justification” is not made powerless. They remain God’s children and keep the right to the kingdom. A believer can stray outside the way of the kingdom, but does not fall out of the rights of the kingdom.

The English brothers rejected the statement that so often as a weighty sin of the flesh is committed, so often also, the state of justification and adoption is lost. Over against this, they stated with emphasis that justification is “not severed.”

And they clarify this further in the following manner: we might consequently say that the fruit of being justified, when such particular sins interfere, is suspended for a time; because the person, out of this new guilt, has need of a particular forgiveness or freeing from guilt.

But we cannot say that the state of being made righteous would therefore be broken; because that same person has not fallen out of the general forgiveness of sins; thus, this same person is not robbed of the particular intercession, which Christ has promised to all believers, nor of the gracious love of God his Father.

Small Balance←⤒🔗

Our journey through the debate in The Hague and past the intuition of the British theologians has made clear what was meant by the men in the time of the Synod of Dort with the expression “the state of justification.” It is an expression with which the Reformed believers turned away sharply from the opinions of the Remonstrants. God’s children can fall deeply and commit grave sins, but they do not fall, because of that, out of the relationship of child of God. They do not become “children of wrath.” Through the sacrifice of Christ they have been atoned for with God, and that “state,” that “status,” is not lost when they are driven to grave sins. For them, a great transformation has happened. It is the favourable turn spoken about by Paul in Romans 5:10: “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” The apostle says that we are reconciled. This status still remains even when those who have converted fall into severe sins. They do not again become enemies of God. On the contrary, they remain God’s beloved children with whom he is angry as a Father.

Calvin distinguishes between the judgments of God. There is “the judgment of vengeance” and “the “judgment of discipline.” The first applies to the godless; the second applies to the children of God. The reformer says that we must understand it in this way “that God through the judgment of vengeance punishes his enemies in such a way that he exercises his wrath against them, pulverizes them, scatters them, and destroys them. This is for us, in actual sense, God’s wrath when the punishment is coupled with indignation. In the judgment of discipline, he does not tread so heavily, that he is moved by wrath, and he does not punish in such a way that he destroys or blazes one to condemnation. Therefore, it is not a punishment or exercise of wrath in a real sense, but a reprimand and admonition. The one judgment is from the judge, the other is from the Father. That which the Lord administers to his sinful children is a chastisement which bears witness to his love.

We recognize this Calvinistic differentiation in the statement made by the British theologians against the Remonstrant belief. They do not deny the seriousness of sin, but they hold fast to the belief that nothing can separate God’s children from his fatherly love in Christ. Therefore, whenever believers bring down God’s anger upon themselves, we speak about “fatherly anger” and “fatherly wrath” against a disobedient son; for, they do not fall out of the “state of justification” through their weaknesses and failings.

The Canons←⤒🔗

I think that it has become clear how we are to understand the words of Chapter 5, Article 6 about the loss of “the state of justification.” The Canons do not deny that there can be an interruption in the lives of converts. When they fall into gross sins, they break (interrupt) “the exercise of faith” for a time, and lose the feeling of God’s grace for a time. But at the same time, the Canons confess that, from God’s side, there is no interruption in God’s grace toward them. God’s power whereby he confirms and keeps true believers in his grace, is so great that he cannot be defeated by the flesh (Chapter 5, Article 4).

There remains, for them, a “fatherly face” even if it does not shine over them for a time. God’s gracious mercifulness is not lifted from them through their sin. On the contrary, they must give thanks for that persisting mercy, that they, with their great sins, were not totally estranged from the faith and grace (Chapter 5, Article 8).

The Canons also recognize interruption where it concerns forgiveness of heavy sins. We hear the echo of the words of the British theologians. With such like sins, believers incur God’s severe wrath. (V.5) Only in the way of contrition and repentance do they receive forgiveness through the blood of the Mediator and experience anew the grace of God, who now is reconciled with them. (V.7) But the Canons do not recognize any interruption when we speak about “the grace of adoption and the state of justification”! Also for believers who have fallen deeply, it remains valid that they are reconciled to God through the death of his Son (Romans 5:10) and that they are God’s beloved children (Galatians 4:5).

The Canons further clarify the “not being able to lose the state of justification” when they state, over against the Remonstrants that their understanding “makes the grace of justification” powerless (Chapter 5, Rejection of errors 3) and specifically point to Romans 5:8, 9. There is a being reconciled with God that cannot be broken. Meanwhile, it is also true that great sins spoil the relationship with the Lord.

Thus, the Canons can speak about an (after repentance and reclamation) “again” being reconciled with God. We may state that the Canons — after the manner of the British theologians — speak about justification/reconciliation in two ways, without repeating all their arguments. There is a justification/reconciliation that true believers never lose. That is that they have been redeemed by God through the death of his Son and so have been adopted as his children. I call to mind what the Reformed theologians at the conference of The Hague said about not falling out of the state of grace and of reconciliation. From enemies, the believers have become beloved children. That “state” will never be taken away from them due to God’s mercy. On that basis, we may speak about a repeating justification/reconciliation, when they, with a contrite heart, through the renewing grace of God receive forgiveness through the blood of the Mediator and again experience the grace of God, who again is reconciled with them.

The “grace of justification” does not become “powerless” when God’s children commit heavy sins. It does not become powerless, because the merit and the mediation of Christ cannot be made powerless as is said in the Canons Chapter 5, Article 8. There is a blood which always speaks before God’s throne, there is an offering through which God’s elect are sanctified, once for all (Hebrews 10:10). There is also a merciful high priest who, with his intercession continuously brings his offering to the Father’s attention. It is also not by chance that the apostle with his jubilation: “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?” In the same breath he continues, “Christ Jesus is the one who died — more than that, who was raised — who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us” (Romans 8:33, 34).

Comfort←⤒🔗

Now we have begun to better understand what the Canons wish to confess with the expression in Chapter 5, Article 6, and it can also be clear how comforting this confession is. For what happened with David and Peter, can still happen with God’s children today. But in the middle of our weaknesses and of the attacks of our three deadly adversaries (the devil, the world, and our own flesh), we may know that God is eternally our Father and has adopted us to be his children and heirs. Three is a “state” which we, as believers, never lose; we are “blessed [with grace] in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:6) and have been “adopted” in God’s mercy (1 Peter 2:10).

Depending on ourselves, there is not a single guarantee that we would remain in this grace. But, when we speak of God, there is this comforting reassurance that he will never let us fall so deeply that we lose “the state of justification.” The Lord preserves us by his grace, once given to us and, with his power, keeps us in that grace until the end.

Paul rejoices at the conclusion of Romans 8 in the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. Nothing can separate God’s children from this love — not even the direst sins!