Let us just turn for a moment
to Matthew 22 verse 14. We read in Matthew 22 verse 14,
the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, for many are called but few are
chosen, for many are called, but few are chosen. I would speak this evening, the
Lord helping me, on the subject of the Helvetic Consensus and
the call of the Gospel. Now this is largely an address,
slightly adapted, slightly shortened, which I gave for the Sovereign
Grace Union at the beginning of this month, and I thought
it would be good to bring it to you this evening. Our subject
then is the Helvetic Consensus and the Call of the Gospel. This
year, AD 2025, marks the 350th anniversary of the Formula Consensus
Helvetica. The Helvetic Consensus Formula,
as it is more usually called, was drawn up in 1675, 111 years after the death of John
Calvin. The full title of the consensus,
as translated from the Latin into English, is Form of Agreement
of the Helvetic Reformed Churches Respecting the Doctrine of Universal
Grace, the doctrines related to it, and some other points. Now, by the word respecting,
we are to understand against, as we shall see. This formula
or consensus is against the doctrine of universal grace and the doctrines
related to it. It was a defense of the doctrines
of John Calvin and of the Reformers and of the Protestant Reformation.
and it was a testimony against certain errors which undermined
those doctrines of God's free and sovereign grace. This little-known
document of the Swiss Reformed Churches must surely then be
of interest to any and to all who hold to the doctrines of
free and sovereign grace. A. A. Hodge, in his Outlines
of Theology, says, and I quote, "...this is the most scientific
and thorough of all the Reformed confessions. Its eminent authorship,
and the fact that it distinctively represents the most thoroughly
consistent school of Old Calvinists, gives it high classical interest."
It was subscribed by nearly all the Swiss churches, and so on.
Now mark what Hodge says. It distinctively represents the
most thoroughly consistent school of old Calvinists. In other words,
this consensus represents the true beliefs and thoughts and
the original position of the Reformed churches. This is authentic
Calvinism. But this begs the question, why
then is this consensus so little known? Well I hope to suggest
a possible explanation for that later on by way of conclusion. First we need to consider a little
of the historical background. And to do that we have to travel
from Switzerland to France, specifically to the Loire Valley and a town
called Saumur. At Saumur a Huguenot by the name
of Philippe du Plessis-Monnet, founded in 1599 the Academy of
Saumur. The Academy of Saumur was an
important Huguenot theological seminary until the revocation
of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. The Edict of Nantes, published
in 1598, gave a measure of freedom to the French Protestants. With
the Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685, the Edict of Nantes was
revoked and the persecution of the Huguenots began in earnest. And it was then that the Academy
was closed down. Now, what has all this got to
do with the Helvetica Consensus? Well, it was at the Academy of
Saumur that the doctrines referred to in the title of the Consensus
began to be promulgated. The doctrine of universal grace,
the doctrines related to it, and some other points. There
were three professors at the Academy who began to teach contrary
to the doctrines of the Synod of Dort, which was concluded
in 1619. though they would deny, of course, that their teachings
were contrary to the canons of Dort. The three professors were
Louis Carpel, Josué or Joshua de la Place, and Moïse or Moses
Amoreux. Carpel questioned the preservation
and, partly, the divine inspiration of the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures.
De Laplace, while he did not deny the impartation of Adam's
sin to his posterity, that is, the impartation of a fallen nature
to all of Adam's descendants, yet he did deny the imputation
of Adam's sin and guilt, thus denying the legal federal headship
of Adam. and Moreau advocated a system
or a form of universalism in the matter of salvation. The
Academy, of Sobourg, being a highly respected institution, these
doctrines began to spread far and wide. Pastors trained at
the Academy were sent out into the ministry amongst the Reformed
churches, and the heterodoxy of Saumur even reached the great
reformed citadel of Geneva. Francis Turetsyn, born in 1623
and appointed as Professor of Theology at the University of
Geneva in 1653, was alarmed at the spread of this deviation
from the reforms doctrine. and he, together with Johann
Henry Heidegger of Zurich and Lucas Gernler of Basel, drew
up the formula Consensus Helvetica in 1675. This consensus was then
a direct response to the teachings which were being promulgated
at and which were emanating from the Academy of Saumur. Now concerning
the consensus itself, It consists of a preface, 26
canons or points of doctrine, and it concludes with a short
benediction. Now the last of the canons, the
26th canon, is really a conclusion, so there are really 25 articles
or points of doctrine. Canons 1 to 3 were against Carpel
and his undermining of the doctrine of the divine inspiration of
the Hebrew Old Testament. Canons 10 to 12 were against
de Laplace's denial of the imputation and guilt of Adam's transgression
to all his posterity. These canons then, canons 1 to
3 and 10 to 12, are concerning the some other points referred
to in the title of the consensus. All the other canons, canons
4 to 9, and canons 13 to 25, are dealing with Moses Amaral's
views respecting the doctrine of universal grace, the doctrines
related to it. The bulk of the Helvetic consensus
formula, then, is dealing with what has since come to be known
as Amaraldism, or Amaraldianism. It should be pointed out that
this was not the only response to the heterodoxy of Amaru and
the Academy at Saumur. Previously, in the year 1649,
the Geneva Theses were drawn up to counteract the spread of
Amaraldism. Again, another little-known statement
of the faith of the Reformed Churches. So what was it that
Amaru was teaching? that caused such great consternation,
and this reaction from the Continental Reformed churches of the 17th
century? Well, in 1634, in his A Short
Treatise on Predestination and the Principal Arguments in its
Defence, Amaral advocated a system of universalismus hypotheticus,
or hypothetical universalism. Now, his great desire And in
many ways it's quite commendable. His great desire was to bring
together two sides, the Lutherans and the Armenians, with their
belief in a universal atonement, that Jesus died for everyone,
and that atonement was made for the sins of all men, and the
Calvinists. who held to a limited or particular
redemption, a definite atonement, that Christ laid down his life
specifically for his elect sheep and made atonement for their
sins and for their sins only. Amoro's desire was to bring these
two sides together. and this desire for reconciliation
is to be seen, for example, in his giving approval to the decision
to allow Lutherans to partake of the Lord's Supper together
with the Calvinists in the Reformed churches of France. Essentially
what Amaral advocated was a compromise. He taught that there are two
wills in the Godhead One revealed will of God, the original or
antecedent will of God, which is that all men should be saved. And one secret will of God, a
secondary or subsequent will of God, which is that God will
only save his elect. Because of his universal love
for all mankind, God would provide an atonement for all mankind,
a hypothetical universal atonement. It was hypothetical because it
was conditional upon men believing and availing themselves of the
salvation which is in Christ. But of course, man is fallen,
and therefore unable to do anything spiritually being dead in trespasses
and sins. And so, in his subsequent and
secret will, God determined to give faith to his elect, which
he had before chosen to salvation, that they might be forgiven and
attain eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ. And on the basis of God's universal
love for all mankind, and on the basis of the hypothetical
universal atonement, all men are offered universally salvation
through Christ. There is the universal call of
the gospel. Moses Amaral tried then to bring
these two sides together with his doctrine of a hypothetical
universalism. But did he succeed? Did he succeed? Well, Louis Burkhoff says in
his The History of Christian Doctrines, the outcome proved
this to be an untenable position. Of the followers of this school,
some emphasized the first decree and the universal offer of salvation
based on it, with the result that they landed in the Armenian
camp. And others stressed the second decree and the necessity
of effectual grace, and thus returned to the Calvinistic position. The Helvetic Reformed Churches
considered it necessary then to counteract the false teachings
which were issuing out of the Academy of Saumur and which were
spreading beyond France even to England and Scotland and Geneva. The preface states the divine
apostle to the Gentiles, earnestly impressed on his true child,
Timothy, that he continue in those things which he had learned
and which had been entrusted to him." 2 Timothy 3.14. In these
lamentable and exasperating times, it is entirely appropriate that
the very same thing frequently enter our recollection and call
itself to mind. All the more so, since sad experience
shows that the faith once delivered to the saints by the Word of
God is being perverted from the form of sound words and is contracting
no slight blemish for the errors that are cropping up, not in
one principal division of the truth, but on every side. It
was felt that the toleration of these errors would lead to
more error, perhaps even worse errors, more serious errors. As again it states in the preface,
the toleration of these opinions by reason of an excessive leniency
could cause other worse opinions to spring up. Well these canons
were drawn up then, again in the words of the preface, to
give consideration to some effective and sacred barrier. And that's
what we have here. Here, in these canons of the
formula consensus Helvetica, the Helvetic consensus formula
of 1675, what we have here is an effective and sacred barrier
against Amoraltism, a defense of true Calvinism against a false
Calvinism, a defense against the undermining and the watering
down of the doctrines of God's free and sovereign grace. Canons 4 to 6 deal with the doctrine
of unconditional election against the conditional election of Amaru
and Canon 4 also mentions the doctrine of effectual calling
which is of course what we are concerned with tonight. I quote
Before the foundation of the world, God purposed in Christ
Jesus, our Lord, an eternal purpose, Ephesians 3.11, in which from
the mere good pleasure of his own will, without any pre-vision
of the merit of works or of faith, unto the praise of his glorious
grace, out of the human race living in the same mass of corruption
and of common blood, and therefore corrupted by sin, he elected
a certain and definite number to be led in time unto salvation
by Christ, their surety and sole mediator, and on account of his
merit, by the mighty power of the regenerating Holy Spirit,
to be effectually called, regenerated, and gifted with faith and repentance. Canon 6, in upholding the doctrine of
unconditional election, refutes the notion of the universal love
of God for all mankind, and an inefficacious desire to save
all conditionally, if they would believe. The covenant of works and the
fall of Adam and the imputation and impartation of Adam's sin
to all his posterity are then dealt with in Canons 7 to 12.
Then, Canons 13 to 16 assert the doctrine of particular redemption
or definite atonement against Amoreau's hypothetical universal
and conditional atonement. Then the consensus deals in Canons
17 to 20, especially Canons 17, with the call of the Gospel. There is no universal atonement,
but is there a universal call of the Gospel? That's the question.
But the answer of the Helvetic Reformed churches in this consensus
is a resounding and emphatic no. Canon 17 states, and I quote
the canon in its entirety, "...the call to salvation was suited
to its due time," 1 Timothy 2.6, "...since by God's will it was
at one time more restricted, at another more extended and
general, but never absolutely universal." For indeed, in the
Old Testament, God showed his word unto Jacob, and his statutes
and his judgments unto Israel. He dealt not so with any nation. Psalm 147 verses 19 and 20. In the New Testament, peace being
made in the blood of Christ, and the inner wall of partition
broken down, God so extended the limits of gospel preaching
and the external call that there is no longer any difference between
the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord over all is richer
to all that call upon him. Romans 10-12. But not even thus
is the call universal. For Christ testifies that many
are called. Matthew 20 verse 16, not all. And when Paul and Timothy asked
they to go into Bithynia to preach the gospel, the Spirit suffered
them not. Acts 16 verse 7. And there have
been and there are today, as experience testifies, innumerable
myriads of men to whom Christ is not known even by rumour. Now, this canon is clearly dealing
with the external call to salvation, and it is proving from the Holy
Scriptures that that call to salvation was never universal,
and that it was never the intention or the will of God to call all
men universally to salvation. For centuries before Christ came,
the Gentiles, the heathen nations, were left in ignorance and darkness. And even in this gospel day,
not everyone gets to hear the word of God and the external
call of the gospel. Yes, many are called. Not all. Paul and those that were with
him were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia.
And after they had come to Mysia, they ascended going to Bithynia,
but the Spirit suffered them not. And that which is stated in this
canon regarding the call to salvation is in complete agreement with
that which had been previously stated in the Geneva Theses of
1649. The fourth head of doctrine in
those theses, concerning the disposition of man to grace,
states, Since the requisite conditions
for salvation are impossible to the reprobate, God does not
intend the salvation of them conditionally if they believe
and repent, unless it is supposed that there is an empty, deceptive
and useless intention and will of God. And there is also this. rejection of the error of those
who teach a universal and common call to all men to salvation
and to the author of salvation and who teach that each and every
man, if he wishes, is able to believe and be saved. But how does this square with
Christ's command to go into all the world and preach the gospel? You know the words of the Great
Commission? Mark 16 verse 15, we read it just now. And he said
unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to
every creature. To every creature cannot be understood
in an absolute or universal sense for that would be an utter impossibility. To every creature means to all
men without distinction As Dr. Gill says, even to all without
any distinction of people, Jews and Gentiles, barbarians, Scythians,
bond and free, male and female, rich and poor, greater or lesser
sinners, even to all mankind. The parallel scripture is Luke
24 verse 47, where we read that repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name among all nations. or Matthew
28 verse 19, Go ye therefore and teach all nations. And this preaching of the gospel
to every creature or among all nations is always with a dependence
upon the God of all grace to open the door of opportunity
to preach the gospel to sinners. And so Mark continues in his
gospel, and they went forth and preached everywhere Again, not
in an absolute universal sense, they preached everywhere, the
Lord working with them, the Lord working with them. Paul writes
to the Corinthians of his coming to Troas to preach Christ's gospel,
and a door was opened unto me of the Lord. He asks the Colossians to pray
that God would open unto us a door of utterance to speak the mystery
of Christ. Yes, the preaching of the gospel
to every creature is dependent on the Lord opening the door
of opportunity according to his sovereign will. There is no absolute
universal call to salvation, not even a universal external
call, let alone a universal inward call. But what of those who have never
heard? who never hear the gospel. We
can think of the native North American Indians, for example,
who never heard the gospel until men such as John Eliot and David
Brainerd preached to them in the 17th and 18th centuries,
respectively. And we can think of many other
heathen cultures and civilizations who, for millennia, never heard
the law of God. and for centuries never heard
the gospel of Christ. Well, according to Moses Amaro
and his followers, there is hope for the un-evangelized heathen.
In his short treatise on predestination and the principal arguments in
his defense, which was published in 1634, just 15 years after
the conclusion of the Synod of Dort, Amaro says this, It is
not at all to be doubted that if in whatever nation of the
world that there might be, even where the name of Christ is not
known, someone might be encountered who, touched by the testimonies
of the mercy that God presents everywhere in his administration
of the universe, is truly converted to him to obtain the salvation
of his grace, he would grant him the enjoyment of it. That
is to say, although he has not known distinctly the name of
Christ, and although he has learned nothing of the manner by which
Christ has obtained redemption for us, he would not, however,
be deprived of the remission of his sins, the sanctification
of the Spirit, and glorious immortality. In other words, Such is the universal
love of God, and because of the hypothetical universal atonement,
and such is the universal call to salvation, that there may
be those of the heathen who have never heard the name of Christ,
but they may yet be saved by Christ through the light of nature,
the creation itself, and providence having a voice. This notion is answered and refuted
in Canon 18 as follows. Meanwhile God left not himself
without witness, Acts 14.17, unto those whom he refused to
call by his word unto salvation. For he divided unto them the
spectacle of the heavens and the stars, Deuteronomy 4.19,
and that which may be known of God even from the works of nature
and providence he hath showed unto them, Romans 119, for the
purpose of attesting his long-suffering. Yet it is not to be affirmed
that the works of nature and divine providence were means
sufficient of themselves and fulfilling the function of the
external call whereby he would reveal unto them the mystery
of the good pleasure or mercy of God in Christ. For the apostle
immediately adds, Romans 1.20, the invisible things of him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead,
not his hidden good pleasure in Christ, and not even to the
end that thence they might learn the mystery of salvation through
Christ, but that they might be without excuse. because they
did not use aright the knowledge that was left them, but when
they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful. Wherefore Christ also glorifies
God his Father, because he had hidden these things from the
wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. The Apostle
teaches moreover that God has made known unto us the mystery
of his will according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed
in himself, in Christo. Ephesians 1 verse 9. The refutation of Amoro's doctrine
continues in Canon 20. Accordingly, We have no doubt
that they are who hold that the call to salvation is disclosed
not by the preaching of the gospel solely, but even by the works
of nature and providence, and so on. John Owen, who wrote against
Amaraldism as well as Arminianism, said, we absolutely deny that
there is any saving mercy of God towards them, that is towards
the heathen who have never heard the gospel, revealed in the scripture,
which should give us the least intimation of their attaining
everlasting happiness. And he goes on to give this solemn
warning, and to those that are otherwise minded, I give only
this necessary caution, let them take heed, lest whilst they endeavor
to invent new ways to heaven for others, by so doing they
lose the true way themselves." Over 100 years previously, the
Scotch Confession of Faith, drawn up in 1560 by John Knox and others,
condemned this view as blasphemy. Article 16 of that Confession
states, And therefore we utterly abhor the blasphemy of them that
affirm that men which live according to equity and justice shall be
saved, what religion that ever they have professed. For as without
Christ Jesus there is neither life nor salvation, so shall
there none be participant thereof, but such as the Father has given
unto his Son, Christ Jesus, and they that in time come unto him,
avow his doctrine and believe into him. I remember a conversation I had
with an Arminian not so long ago on this very subject. I put
it to him and he couldn't answer. If the heathen can be saved by
the light of nature or by the law of God being written on their
hearts without ever hearing the gospel, then why go to preach
the gospel to them? If they can be saved without
hearing the gospel. And there are those that tell
me that Calvinism and the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in
salvation is a discouragement to preaching the gospel. Well,
if ever there was a discouragement to preach the gospel, it is in
this notion, that the un-evangelized heathen may yet be saved without
hearing the gospel of Christ. Accordingly, we have no doubt
that they are who hold that the call to salvation is disclosed
not by the preaching of the gospel solely, but even by the works
of nature and providence. Now the next two canons of the
consensus, canons 21 and 22, deal with man's response to the
call of the gospel. Canon 21 states, They who are
called to salvation through the preaching of the gospel can neither
believe nor obey the call, unless they are raised up out of spiritual
death by that very power whereby God commanded the light to shine
out of darkness, and God shines into their hearts with the soul-swaying
grace of His Spirit to give the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4 verse
6. For the natural man receiveth
not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness
unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned." 1 Corinthians 2.14. And this utter inability, the
Scripture demonstrates, by so many direct testimonies and under
so many emblems, that scarcely in any other point is it surer. The canon goes on to say that
man by nature And so by the law of his formation in the womb,
and hence from his birth, is the child of disobedience. Ephesians
2 verse 2. And has that inability so innate
that it can be shaken off in no way except by the omnipotent,
heart-turning grace of the Holy Spirit. The Helvetica consensus, contrary
to Amoreux's teaching, does not make faith a condition of election. It does not make redemption conditional
upon believing. It does not make faith a condition
of salvation. Rather, faith is a gift bestowed
sovereignly on elected, unconditionally elected, eternally elected sinners
for whom Christ stood as surety, and who are actually and not
hypothetically redeemed by the blood of Christ. The conclusion of Canon 22 states,
or rather it denies, that faith is in any way self-originated,
and states categorically that the apostle most distinctly calls
it the gift of God, Ephesians 2.8. Yes, there is the soul-swinging
grace of his spirit, and there is the omnipotent, heart-turning
grace of the Holy Spirit. In other words, there is the
new birth, and then faith is wrought in the heart by the Spirit
of God, as the preaching of the Word of God is made effectual
to the heart of the elect, ransomed sinner. And surely here is real encouragement
for the true Calvinist, and for the faithful minister of the
Gospel, an encouragement to preach the gospel. We have an assurance
that whenever and wherever the gospel is faithfully preached,
God will work one way or another. God will call all those whom
he has chosen to salvation and whom Christ has redeemed, and
he will call them by the preaching of his gospel. Now it's true
that not everyone who hears the gospel will believe. Some will
be hardened. but even this is according to
the sovereign will and pleasure of Almighty God. As it is stated
in the 19th Canon, but that by God's will the elect alone believe
in the external call thus universally proffered while the reprobate
are hardened proceeds solely from the discriminating grace
of God. We could ask, couldn't we? Did the Lord God of Israel have
a sincere desire to save Pharaoh and the Egyptians? Well, why
then did he harden his and their hearts? If the Lord God has a sincere
and universal love for all, then why is it written in the Scriptures,
yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau? If the Lord Jesus Christ
wanted to call all men by his gospel, why did he call Zacchaeus,
who wanted to see Jesus, but not Herod, who also wanted to
see Jesus? Oh, what solemn words they are
in Luke 23 verse 9, but he answered him nothing. That is, Jesus answered
Herod nothing. He didn't call him to salvation. And what of those of whom Peter
writes in his first epistle? Then which stumble at the word,
being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed. If
God loved them, and had a sincere desire for their salvation, and
there was a well-meant offer of salvation to them in the preaching
of God's word, why then were they appointed to stumble at
the word? And so we could go on. Amaraldism is a denial of
the discriminating grace of God, and it is that that is asserted
and affirmed in these canons of the Helvetic consensus formula,
the discriminating grace of our God. Now, I remarked earlier
that A. A. Hodge says that this consensus
distinctively represents the most thoroughly consistent school
of Old Calvinists. But does it represent the views
of John Calvin himself? You see the Amer audience claim
that they represent the true views of John Calvin. And they
claim that even to this very day. Well let us hear what John
Calvin says in his commentary on 1 Timothy 2 verses 3 to 4.
God our Saviour who will have all men to be saved and to come
unto the knowledge of the truth Now the Amoraldians and the Arminians
would say, well here is the sincere desire of God to save every individual. What does John Calvin say? He
says this, hence we see the childish folly of those who represent
this passage to be opposed to predestination. If God, say they,
wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that
some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others
to perdition. They might have had some ground
for saying this if Paul were speaking here about individual
men. Calvin goes on to explain, The
apostle simply means that there is no people and no rank in the
world that is excluded from salvation, because God wishes that the gospel
should be proclaimed to all without exception. The present discourse
relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons, for
his sole object is to include in this number princes and foreign
nations. that God wishes the doctrine
of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident
from the passages already quoted and from other passages of a
similar nature, which is exactly the same as Dr. Gill says regarding
the preaching of the gospel to every creature. in his commentary
on Mark 16 verse 15, even to all, without any distinction
of people, Jews and Gentiles, barbarians, Scythians, bond and
free, male and female, rich and poor, greater or lesser sinners,
even to all mankind. Furthermore, in his commentary
on 2 on Philippians 2 verse 13 for it for it is God which worketh
in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure Calvin says
we see that the entire praise is ascribed to God and that what
sophists teach us is frivolous that grace is offered to us and
placed as it were in the midst of us that we may embrace it
if we choose you can't get plainer than that can you really In his
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin says, in Book 3, Chapter
22, Section 10, you can look it up, For he who threatens that
when it shall rain on one city there will be drought in another,
Amos 4, verse 7, and declares in another passage that there
will be a famine of the word, Amos 8, 11, does not lay himself
under a fixed obligation to call all equally. And he who forbidding Paul to
preach in Asia, and leading him away from Bithynia, carries him
over to Macedonia, Acts 16 verse 6, shows that it belongs to him
to distribute the treasure in what way he pleases. But it is
by Isaiah he more clearly demonstrates how he destines the promises
of salvation specially to the elect. Isaiah 8, 16. For he declares
that his disciples would consist of them only, and not indiscriminately
of the whole human race, whence it is evident that the doctrine
of salvation, which is said to be set apart for the sons of
the church only, is abused when it is represented as effectually
available to all. You see what Calvin is saying
there? To represent that salvation is effectually available to all,
that there is a universal call to salvation, is an abuse of
the doctrine of salvation. Now I read another translation
of that part of the Institutes, and it puts it much more strongly.
whence it appears that when the doctrine of salvation is offered
to all for their effectual benefit, it is a corrupt prostitution
of that which is declared to be reserved particularly for
the children of the church." So according to this translation
then, Calvin is saying that the notion and the preaching of a
sincere, well-meant offer of salvation to all universally,
It's a corrupt prostitution of the truth. And yet that's how many so-called
Calvinists are preaching the gospel today. So yes, this consensus
not only distinctively represents the most thoroughly consistent
school of old Calvinists, but it also distinctively, and I
would add faithfully, represents the views of John Calvin himself.
But more importantly, of course, More importantly than that, these
canons are consistent with the Holy Scriptures. As it says in
the concluding canon, which also refers interestingly to the keeping
of the Lord's Day, According to the word of God, let it also
be a law that we not only hand down sincerely in accordance
with the divine word, the especial necessity of the sanctification
of the Lord's Day, but also impressively inculcated and importunately
urged its observation, and in fine that in our churches and
schools, as often as occasion demands, we unanimously and faithfully
hold, teach and assert the truth of the Canon's hearing recorded,
truth deduced from the indubitable Word of God." Well, what can we say as we draw
towards a conclusion? Well, I did say at the outset
that I would offer a possible explanation as to why the formula
consensus Helvetica is so little known these days. I actually
believe that this consensus and the Geneva Theses of 1649 as
well is an embarrassment to what we might call the reformed establishment
at the present time. I think that the Helvetic Consensus
and the Geneva Theses have been deliberately ignored, because
they distinctively represent the most thoroughly consistent
school of Old Calvinists, and they are contrary to the views
of so many of our modern so-called Calvinists. We find ourselves continually
having to push back against a slide, as our Helvetic forefathers in
the faith did. a slide from High Calvinism to
a so-called Moderate Calvinism, or Amoralism, and thence a slide
into Hominianism. Consider this book published
by the Banner of Truth in 1980, Revival Sermons by W.C. Burns. It really is an awful example
of the departure of modern Calvinism from the school of the old Calvinists. In one of the sermons in this
book, the preacher addresses his hearers
like this. Brothers, sisters, are you going to choose destruction? Are you going to stand out against
the entreaties of Emmanuel, the strivings of the Spirit? Ah,
resistible grace. Again, from the same Sermon,
sinner, open your heart to Jesus. You would not keep the Queen
waiting for admission or even your landlord. There never was
such a thing heard of as to keep a landlord waiting. You never
even kept a friend, a relation, a neighbor. Perhaps some of you
never kept a poor beggar waiting at your door. And yet you, who
have not yet freely embraced Christ, you have been keeping
the glorious Immanuel waiting and waiting and waiting. at the
door of your poor, dark, blinded hearts? Yes, the King of Kings,
by whom princes reign, has knocked and knocked and knocked repeatedly,
again and again, and the door is still shut. Tonight, he still
is standing at the door, and so on. This is rank-on-minionism. This
is not John Calvin. This is Billy Graham. It's not
even Hameroldism. But this is where the doctrine
of two wills in the Godhead, the notion of a sincere desire
in God to save everybody, and a hypothetical universal atonement,
and the so-called well-meant offer of salvation, ends up. In the same book there is a letter
addressed to unbelievers in which Burns says, The Father is ready
to receive you into his family. The Spirit is striving with you.
Did you not resist him and grieve him away? Resistible grace! It's pure Arminianism, as published
by the Banner of Truth Trust, 1980. The Banner, of course,
went on to publish in 2007 the works of Andrew Fuller, who in
his The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, denied the first
of the five points of Calvinism, total depravity. and he caused
a great division amongst the particular Baptists of the 18th
and 19th centuries because of his Amoralsian views. Well, here at Salem Baptist Chapel,
we seek by God's grace to stand against this woeful misrepresentation
of Calvinism. We stand with the most thoroughly
consistent school of old Calvinists. Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye
in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the
good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. Amen.