The following quotation is taken from a speech given by Rev. Herman Hoeksema on April 1, 1954.¹

I have a few quotations here of the Canons, which I will take time to read. In Canons 1.B.2 we read of the subterfuge of the Arminians, according to which they like to distinguish election into two kinds of election—the one incomplete, revocable, non-decisive, and conditional and the other complete, irrevocable, decisive, and absolute. By this distinction they mean, of course, that God’s election is of such a nature that we can ourselves determine whether or not we will be elect. Don’t you see? God’s election is conditional, is non-decisive, until we come and make it decisive by fulfilling the condition of faith, by fulfilling the condition of obedience, and by fulfilling the condition of perseverance? That’s Arminianism.

All right. Oh, those that so love conditions, are so in love with conditions, because that’s what they are. They are in love with conditions. They are not in love with the Protestant Reformed truth; they are in love with conditions. Those that are so in love with conditions, they say, “Oh, we do not believe in conditional election. Oh, no! Election is absolute; election is decisive; election is unconditional. We do not believe in that, but we believe that the application of election in our salvation is conditional.” That’s what they say. The application of it. “The application of election in time,” they say, “is conditional.” That’s what they say.

But don’t you see, beloved, that that is absolutely impossible? Don’t you see that if the application of salvation to us is conditional in time, that the order of election in eternity must also be conditional? All things flow, as far as salvation is concerned, all things flow from the election of God. All things flow from the counsel of God, as to salvation. As it is in time, so it is in the counsel of God. As it is in the counsel of God, so it is in time. When you say that the counsel of God is unconditional, you say that the application of salvation is unconditional. That can never fail.

Why? Because scripture teaches in Ephesians 1:3 and 4: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who [according to his abundant mercy] hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.” According as he has chosen us, so he blesses us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places. If he has chosen us conditionally, he blesses us conditionally. If he doesn’t bless us conditionally, then he hasn’t chosen us conditionally. And that is Reformed, beloved. That is Reformed, nothing else.

Unconditional election requires unconditional application of salvation—no conditions at all.

I could quote more, but I will take no time. There is much more in the same Canons. You have this in B.3 of the same chapter. You read of the error of the Remonstrants that God does not choose certain persons; but rather, note, out of all possible conditions, he chose the act of faith as a condition of salvation.

Now, the opponents, those that departed from us, those that are no longer Protestant Reformed, those that do not want to be Protestant Reformed anymore—they don’t want to. Don’t ever say that they do. They don’t! They don’t. Those that say that they believe in unconditional election, they will condemn this error of the Arminians, and they will say, “No, we don’t believe that! We don’t believe that God chose out of all possible conditions the act of faith as a condition unto salvation.”

Yet, beloved, again I will say that if faith is the condition in time, it is a condition in election. It can never fail. If faith is presented as a condition, which we must fulfill, of course, in time, then, of course, faith is a condition in election. If faith does not exist as a condition in election, it cannot exist as a condition in time. That’s impossible. According as he has chosen us, so he blesses us with all the blessings of salvation in heavenly places in Christ. That’s the truth.

When this speech was given in April 1954, the Protestant Reformed Churches recently had gone through a massive split, in which over two-thirds of the denomination left to join with those who wanted to maintain conditions in the preaching of the gospel. A former minister in First Protestant Reformed Church, Rev. Hubert De Wolf, by his own words, was not so concerned with the word condition, but he was concerned about the idea of this term as it applied to man’s responsibility. Herman Hoeksema in this speech was showing that the preaching of conditions and prerequisites for salvation in any form is a denial of election.

During his Formula of Subscription examination in 1953, Reverend De Wolf voiced his displeasure when the consistory of First Protestant Reformed Church asked him questions regarding election as it is taught in the first head of the Canons of Dordt. Reverend De Wolf asked,

Mr. Chairman, would you give me your judgment of number 3 [referring to section 3 of his examination, “As to unconditional election”]—the whole number 3? Is it correct that the consistory also suspects me of believing in conditional election? Is that correct? The consistory accepted these questions, but is that true that I am suspected of believing in conditional election? I wasn’t aware of that fact, and yet I am being questioned. I can answer these questions if you want me to, but it seems to me that it certainly isn’t apropos. I wasn’t aware of the fact that I was being suspected of that. Of course, the consistory hasn’t anything in the minutes whereof I am suspected.²

Reverend De Wolf’s questions about and comments regarding section 3 of his examination, which examination questions had been sent in advance to all of the consistory members, including Reverend De Wolf, are curious to say the least.

As the fathers at the Synod of Dordt did when they started with the article in the Canons proclaiming sovereign predestination in their refutation of Arminian doctrine, so the consistory of First church worked through the theology of conditions to its logical conclusion. Conditional blessings—by grace, of course—is conditional election.

Hoeksema in the above speech explained Ephesians 1:3–4 by showing irrefutably that what happens in time or in the application of salvation is worked in the same manner as election in the counsel of God—without regard to a man’s work! Further explaining, Hoeksema quoted Canons 1, rejection of error 3 to further show that a condition in time is a condition in eternity or in election. Dordt had declared,

For these adjudge too contemptuously of the death of Christ, do in no wise acknowledge the most important fruit or benefit thereby gained, and bring again out of hell the Pelagian error.” (Canons of Dordt 2, rejection 3, in Confessions and Church Order, 165, emphasis added)

Ephesians 1:4 is quoted in Canons 1.7 and again in Canons 1.9, which I quote:

Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to that of the apostle: He hath chosen us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy and without blame before him in love (Eph. 1:4). (Confessions and Church Order, 157, emphasis added)

Notice that the quoted parenthetical statement, “not because we were,” means also in respect to salvation and the blessings of salvation that God saves and blesses us not because we are holy, not because we will be holy, and not because we work holiness; but God chooses and blesses his people “without any respect to their works” (Belgic Confession 16, in Confessions and Church Order, 41).

Ephesians 1:4 is also quoted in Canons 1, rejection of errors 1 and 5, exclaiming the unconditional grace of God in election irrespective of a man’s works and rejecting conditional blessings and foreseen conditions for salvation.

I could add to this, with respect to our recent controversy with the Protestant Reformed doctrine of conditional experience in the covenant of grace, then, that we reject the error of those

who teach that there is in this life no fruit and no consciousness of the unchangeable election to glory, nor any certainty, except that which depends on a changeable and uncertain condition.

Rejection: For not only is it absurd to speak of an uncertain certainty, but also contrary to the experience of the saints, who by virtue of the consciousness of their election rejoice with the apostle and praise this favor of God (Eph. 1). (Canons 1, rejection of error 7, in Confessions and Church Order, 161–62, emphasis added)

Also Canons 1.7:

God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy and for the praise of His glorious grace; as it is written: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. (Confessions and Church Order, 156)

Just to be clear, this refutation of conditional covenant experience, which is conditional covenant theology, is exactly what the pages of Sword and Shield have been demonstrating regarding the doctrine of the Protestant Reformed Churches and her sister churches, which proclaim, to give a few examples, that a man must repent in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, that there is grace that is available by prayer, that in a certain sense man is first, that there are two rails side by side—God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility—and even that faith is a condition because it is necessary.

Let us take heed that we rejoice in our lives of thankfulness as fruits of election and not mistake them to be lives to receive miserable, conditional blessings, for which our flesh is so easily tempted.

The whole speech is well worth listening to and can be found by visiting here.