This editorial was written by Homer C. Hoeksema in the December 1, 1983 issue of the Standard Bearer.
We must not imagine that the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and of the assurance of that perseverance was a new doctrine established by the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618–‘19. It was not. The doctrine of perseverance was not new for the church in general, nor was it new to our Reformed creeds and for our Reformed churches. I need only remind you of the fact that this doctrine finds expression in a most beautiful context in that jewel of our Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 54, concerning the holy, catholic church. The 54th answer concludes with the well-known words, "...and that I am and forever shall remain, a living member thereof." There, in just a few words, you have both the doctrine of perseverance and the doctrine of the assurance of perseverance. And the fathers of Dordt were well aware of this, and thus aware of the fact that the Arminians militated against the adopted confession, as is plain from their reference to Q&A 54 in article 9 of the fifth head of doctrine:
Of this preservation of the elect to salvation, and of their perseverance in the faith, true believers for themselves may and do obtain assurance according to the measure of their faith, whereby they arrive at the certain persuasion, that they ever will continue true and living members of the church; and that they experience forgiveness of sins, and will at last inherit eternal life.
What happened at Dordrecht was that under the impetus of the Arminian denial of the perseverance of the saints the church came under the necessity of defending that truth and of spelling it out thoroughly and carefully in the light of scripture. The result, as I have already suggested, is an unexcelled exposition of this doctrine. Never has it been improved upon. Even that later confessional document, the Westminster Confession of Faith, does not improve upon the statement of the Canons, but rather plainly borrows from it.
The Arminians flatly deny the truth of perseverance. We must remember this. Arminianism has no doctrine of perseverance whatsoever. It is, of course, correct to say that the Arminians make perseverance dependent upon free will—correct as far as it goes. But we must remember that by this limitation they destroy the doctrine of perseverance. A perseverance which depends on free will is no perseverance. And that this is correct can be easily documented. It is true that at the conclusion of the fifth article of the Remonstrance the Arminians try to leave the impression only that they are in doubt about the doctrine of perseverance. For they say: "But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our minds." This leaves the impression of honest doubt and questionings, but no more than that. However, in the rest of their fifth article they already destroy the doctrine of perseverance, though in a very sneaky way. But eight years later, at the time of the Synod of Dordt, the Arminians very bluntly denied the doctrine of perseverance when they were required by the Synod to submit in writing their opinion concerning this doctrine. Let me quote just three of the Arminians' propositions to make this clear:
4. True believers can through their own fault fall into horrible sins and blasphemies, persevere and die in the same: and accordingly they can finally fall away and go lost.
But in the providence of God it was this Arminian heresy which became the occasion for the church to draw up a most beautiful and clear and comforting confession of this precious truth. What a beautifully clear and concise statement of the truth, for example, is found in article 8 of Canons 5! Notice:
Thus, it is not in consequence of their own merits, or strength, but of God's free mercy, that they do not totally fall from faith and grace, nor continue and perish finally in their backslidings; which, with respect to themselves, is not only possible, but would undoubtedly happen; but with respect to God, it is utterly impossible, since His counsel cannot be changed, nor His promise fail, neither can the call according to His purpose be revoked, nor the merit, intercession and preservation of Christ be rendered ineffectual, nor the sealing of the Holy Spirit be frustrated or obliterated.
When you read this article carefully, you will discover that in this brief statement is embodied at the same time a correct statement of the relationship between this fifth point of Calvinism and the other four. The perseverance of the saints is rooted in eternal and sovereign election. It has its ground in definite atonement. It has its necessity in our depravity. It has its principle in effectual calling, the calling that cannot be revoked.
This means that there is no such thing as a four point Calvinist—one who holds to all the doctrines of grace with the exception of perseverance. If you deny the perseverance of the saints, you necessarily deny the previous four points. From this point of view the doctrine of perseverance might be termed the keystone: all the doctrines of grace stand or fall with this doctrine.