Caledonian Highlander

Hyper-Calvinism?

2010-06-15T17:32:00.000-07:00

So often today you read about the dangers and horrors of Hyper-Calvinism but what is it exactly? To Arminians that believe a Christian cannot lose salvation (or so-called 1 point Calvinists ie John Rice) anyone holding to the other 4 points is a Hyper-Calvinist, to an Amyraldian (or so-called 4 point Calvinists denying Limited Atonement ie Norwich Reformed Church) those who hold to Limited Atonement are hyper, and Infralapsarians often refer to Supralapsarians as hyper( ie R.C. Sproul ). Hyper-Calvinism is blamed on people picketing homosexual funerals (ie Westboro Baptist Church) and those who hold to "Doctrinal Perfectionism" ( groups that believe a Christian's doctrine will be perfect ie Outside the Camp ). I have even recently read someone referred to as a Hyper-Calvinist for denying the charismatic gifts. Usually you see hypers defined by a set of doctrines as in Iain Murray's book Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism, where he says hypers are those who deny gospel invitations are universal, the warrant of faith, human responsibility and the love of God for everyone. Someone once wrote that Hyper-Calvinism is anyone more calvinistic than me, and while I find that funny, I do believe there is an error that can be rightfully called "Hyper-Calvinism".

The word "hyper" means "above or beyond" and so added to calvinism would mean anyone who takes the teachings of Calvin to an unprecedented extreme. Therefore to determine what "hyper-calvinism" is one must first know what Calvin held to. This automatically discounts anyone who claims as hyper people who hold to predestination as Calvin himself held to this doctrine. There are some doctrines in which there is some controversy on what exactly Calvin held, for instance both Amyraldians and Infralapsarians claim Calvin for there own and even quote him in there defence, muddying the waters. The key to discussing this properly however is to focus on doctrine and not on Calvin personally due to the confusion.

Hyper-Calvinism is in a nutshell a denial of a natural means of grace. These "calvinists" take the doctrines of grace to the unprecedented extreme of denying, contrary to the Bible, that preaching or any form of teaching is necessary in bringing someone to the faith. An example of this can be seen in the teaching of the Primitive Baptist Church. Elder Kirby of this group says in a statement of their beliefs " 1. What is the basic difference between Primitive Baptists and other religious societies?

Answer: The basic difference is that Primitive Baptists believe in salvation by grace. There are really only two positions that a person can occupy on this matter. One is that salvation is by grace, and the other is that

salvation is by works. It cannot be a combination of the two. A person may say that he believes in salvation by grace, but if he sets forth any act of man's will, such as repentance, faith, baptism, or hearing the gospel, as a condition for obtaining it, then this position must be put on the works side. Primitive Baptists believe that salvation is of the Lord, that it is by His grace, and that nothing needs to be added to it." he goes on to say again later " 10. Don't you believe that the preaching of the gospel is God's ordained means of bringing eternal salvation to the sinner? Answer: No, only by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit can eternal life be brought to the dead sinner (John 3 : 6-8) .The gospel brings life and immortality to light, but doesn't produce life (llTim.1: 10)." This is in clear contrast to the scriptures which say that "it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." (1 Cor. 1:21) and in Romans 10:17 we learn that "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Now this denial does lead to other doctrines such as anti-missionism and can lead to "eternal justification" but it is the denial of a natural means of grace that is the root of this teaching. Incidentally, it is often assumed that all supralapsarians are hypers and definately that all hypers are supralapsarian but this again is an error. Curt Daniel in his book The History and Theology of Calvinism states that "while all Hyper-Calvinists have been Supralapsarians, not all Supralapsarians have been Hyper-Calvinists" p.89. I would question the necessity of all hypers being supra. Elder Kirby states on predestination " 4. What is their position on predestination? Answer: They believe that God has predestinated a great number to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom.8: 28-30) .While some object to this doctrine because they say it is unfajr, Primitive Baptists rejoice in it, for they see that had it not been for predestination, the whole human family would have been lost forever. Predestination is not the thing that condemns a man, or puts him in a ruined condition, but the very thing that gets him out of such a state. Predestination concerns not "what" but "whom." It is the great purpose of God to lift a people up from sin and corruption and make them like Jesus Christ. That's glorious ! " Notice here we see he denies the doctrine of reprobation which is essential to true double predestinationism and thereby supralapsarianism.

PRACTICALLY SPEAKING

The ramifications to this way of thinking are widespread. As we have already discussed it denies the need for witnessing and missions. Parents in this group often will not even teach their children to pray or worship or anything scriptural as they expect the Lord to do it without them and thus raise up a generation of degenerates. This thinking also leads to a lack of emphasis on education or studying, as God will give as he sees fit and therefore a quietist anti-intellectualism is characteristic of this group. They will pick on or forbid college and reading of books. The pastors in these groups often do not study a sermon as they expect God to give them "direct revelation" in the pulpit and thus they are very similar to charismatic/pentecostal groups. I heard one Primitive Baptist preacher say that he does not work his sermons up but gets them worked down. Finally, this group will be presuppositional in its thinking. This group will not hear of anyone giving proof for God or the Bible as everyone is supposed to just know the truth of these things. Thus there sermons will be more moralistic and less Christocentric as they will preach to the "heart" and not the "head". After all to them salvation is about the will and not the intellect. People are damned not for what they do not know but what they willfully reject.

CONCLUSION

Anyone familiar with God's word will clearly see the faults to this mindset. Proverbs 22:6 commands us to train our children. Timothy we learn was trained by his mother and grandmother and thus came to faith ( 2 Tim. 1:5, 3:14-15. We are commanded to study to show ourselves approved in 2 Tim. 2:15. God gives the church teachers (Eph. 4:11, 1 Cor. 12:28). Lastly, we are told in John 14:6 that people that do not know the good news of Jesus Christ will go to Hell. A.W. Pink has put it succinctly in saying concerning the "causes of salvation:

" The Original Cause is the sovereign will of God, for nothing can come into being save that which He decreed before the foundation of the world.

The Meritorious Cause is the mediatorial work of Christ, who "obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:22) for His people, purchasing for them all the blessings of it by His perfect obedience to the Law and His sacrificial death.

The Efficient Cause is the varied operations of the Holy Spirit, who applies to the elect the benefits purchased by Christ, capacitating them to enjoy the same and making them meet for the inheritance of the saints in light.

The Ministerial Cause and means is the preaching of the Word (James 1:21), because it discovers to us where salvation is to be obtained.

The Instrumental Cause is faith, by which the soul receives or comes into possession of and obtains an interest in Christ and His redemption.

Such distinctions as these are not merely technicalities for theologians, but are part of the faith once delivered unto the saints, and unless they apprehend the same they are liable to be deceived by any Scripture-quoting false prophet who accosts them."

Quoted in Curt Daniel's booklet Biblical Calvinism from A.W. Pinks book Sermon on the Mount.

FURTHER STUDY

Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill by Curt Daniel - This and his above named resources are only available at Good Books 2456 Devonshire Rd. Springfield, IL 62703 USA

Primitive Baptists of the Wiregrass South by John Crowley

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism by Phil Johnson at http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm

Hyper-Calvinism is the Truth: Darth Gill responds to Phil Johnson at http://www.predestinarian.net/content/21-Hyper-Calvinism-is-the-Truth

Double Honor

2010-02-10T09:47:00.001-08:00

Once in a while the question of whether Elders should receive a salary is raised. Some denominations such as the Primitive Baptists deny paying salaries. One Elder in this church writes:

"18. Do Primitive Baptist ministers receive a salary?Answer: No, they devote their time and substance to the service of God out of love, and as the Lord blesses their labors among His people, those among whom the minister has labored contribute willingly to his needs (ICor. 9:9-14)."

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "salary" as fixed compensation paid regularly for services. Let us look to see if Scripture has anything to say on this subject or whether it is a human invention. At the outset let me say I only intend, in this discussion, to look at the question of paying Elders a salary in general and do not intend on taking up the discussion of whether or not there is a distinction in Elders commonly demarcated "Teaching" Elders and "Ruling" Elders, and whether both classes of Elders are to receive a salary. For a discussion of this debate, see chapter 10 of A Scottish Christian Heritage entitled "The Problem of the Elders" by Scottish Theologian Iain Murray.

In 1 Timothy 5:17,18 we read "Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer is worthy of his wages.' " indicating that a man is to be paid for his services. While the term "double honor" is debated as to its precise meaning, the clear understanding of this passage that those occupying the office of Elder, who labor in word and doctrine are entitled to a wage.

Next let us take a look at the passage affixed to the quotation by Elder Kirby of the Primitive Baptists above, only let us start at 1 Cor. 9:6 where Paul questions whether or not Barnabas and him have a right to refrain from working. In verse 7 he goes on to ask who goes to war at his own expense, who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit and who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock. Paul uses this rhetoric for the purpose of showing the need for churches to support their Elders with a fixed income or salary. Later in verse 11 we are asked if it is a great thing for Elders to reap material things in return for spiritual things they give, to which the clear answer for anyone who serves God and not mammon (Matt. 6:24) is a resounding "NO"! Verse 13 instructs us that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar. In verse 14 what has been implicit becomes explicit as Paul declares "Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel."

In 2 Corinthians 11:7,8 we learn that Paul preached to the Corinthians free of charge, but that he was paid a wage from other churches to minister to them. Finally, in 2 Thessalonians 3:9 Paul indicates that he had authority to compel a wage or salary but he chose not to, to be an example and as verse 8 says, to not be a burden. While it is true that Elders, as every Christian, live by faith and not by sight and congregations incomes do vary according to a number of factors such as size and income capacity, it is the responsibility of the church to provide support in the form of a salary, however large or small, to its Elders. An Elder may have to, like Paul did as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3), work another job but he should be paid for his services. This does not mean that churches have to pay for airplanes, boats, new vehicles or even homes but they are obligated to pay them a wage. While the gospel is not for sale (Acts 8:18-21) we are to take care of our own.

Preaching the Word; Out of Season

2010-01-18T07:28:00.000-08:00

"Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." 2 Timothy 4:2-4

Preaching God's holy word is at an all time low today. Entertainment in the form of (christian?) rock/country/folk concerts, dramatic presentations, magic acts, powerlifting, shouting, dancing, running the aisles, screaming, barking, howling and even the so-claimed miraculous acts of healing and speaking in tongues fill many of churches on the typical Sunday morning. In some congregations politics is the raison d'etre and not the gospel of Christ. In this discussion, I want to look at the scriptures to see what preachers should be doing instead of using worldly substitutes. I am going to be using the text of 2 Timothy 4:2-4 as my base.

In the second verse of chapter 4 in Second Timothy we see Paul, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, command Timothy to preach the word whether it is popular to do so or not. Timothy was to be ready or prepared regardless of how he was received, whether congratulatory or critique. He was to convince and exhort as well as rebuke. Many "conservative" preachers have the rebuking part down as they jump headlong into some diatribe about sin, but neglect the important truth of convincing and with that exhorting. Integral to "convincing" is the presenting of evidence and proof for why either not to do something or why to do something. Notice this is to be done with longsuffering or patiently, and with teaching. Preachers should be patient with a congregation realizing that just as you have to potty train a child so to there are babes in Christ needing time to mature.Paul had to do this with the Corinthian church as we read in 1Corinthians 3:1-3 "And I, brethren could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?" . This does not mean that a preacher should cater to babes, however, but he should inspire growth. This is only possible by "leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ" and moving on to "perfection"(Heb. 6:1).

Teaching is the communication of the sound doctrine taught in scripture. Paul exhorted Timothy to "Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me" in 2 Tim. 1:13 and commanded him to "commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" in 2Tim. 2:2. The ability to teach is an imperative to being a preacher. In 1 Tim. 3:2 we learn that a bishop (pastor, preacher, elder) is to be able to teach and Titus 1:9 expounds on this saying that he is to be "holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict." As a matter of fact there is no distinction between a pastor and teacher as we learn in Ephesians 4:11.

In verse 3 of Second Timothy chapter 4 we are told the outcome of hearts being unreceptive to the truth. They not enduring sound doctrine, get in exchange teachers they do like, who entertain their itching ears according to their own desires and not that which God would have for them. Realize that a pastor can be faithful to the truth and a church still go bad as we learn in Hebrews 4:2 that faith is necessary for truth to profit. By looking at what these unbelievers reject we can also see the pattern of a good preacher. They reject sound doctrine, so he is teaching this and they get different teachers, again alluding to the fact that this pastor was a teacher.

Verse 4 carries on this line of thinking as they "turn their ears away from the truth" and are "turned aside to fables". There is no in-between; you either believe the truth or a lie. A preacher is either preaching the truth of God or he is cheating and lying to people, diverting their attention to unimportant distractions.

EXPOSITORY PREACHING

One popular method of preaching today is called expository preaching. If understood properly and done right I do not have a problem with this method and even consider what has been done in the above discussion as expository. This is a conservative method and its goal is to teach the word of God verse by verse in its proper context. Unfortunately it has become linked with the Biblical Theology movement which dichotomizes biblical theology with systematic theology. Systematic theology is seen as human philosophy and untenable with scriptural truth. This, however, is ears, deaf to truth, turning to fables. As we see in 2 Tim. 1:13 the sound words of scripture form a pattern or system. Systematic theology takes all the scriptures dealing with a particular topic or doctrine and exposits them to teach and convince people of the truth of this teaching. Topical or, as I prefer, doctrinal preaching when done right utilizes expository preaching. Churches should be grounded in the doctrines of the faith and not left in ignorance. Another problem with the expository method is the tendency to get bogged down with peripheral issues involving textual criticism and historical analysis instead of teaching the truth. 1 Tim. 6:4 warns of people "obsessed with disputes and arguments over words". Finally, expository preaching at least implicitly denies the perspicuity(clarity) of scripture. One leading proponent of the expository method and critic of the topical method has reputedly took a decade to teach through the book of Luke. I doubt it took Luke a decade to write it. I have heard some of them brag about how long they have been on a particular verse as if it is a badge of honor. If scripture is clear it should not take us ten years to teach through the whole bible much less a book of it. How grounded in the faith is a church that does not get the whole counsel of God in the other books of the Bible if they are on one book for 10 years?

REVIVALISM

Another conservative movement that needs to be considered in this discussion is revivalism. This movement seeks the salvation of souls fervently and desires to inspire other christians in this endeavor. This is a noble aspiration and one I affirm, again when understood and done properly. I do not intend an in depth discussion of this movement here and may take this up at a later date more thoroughly but I do want to touch on how it affects preaching. Sometimes proponents of revivalism make the preaching of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ the only truth in scripture to be taught. They misunderstand 1 Cor. 2:2 and errantly take it to mean this very thing. Acts 20:27-30 informs us that we are to declare the whole counsel of God taking heed to ourselves and the flock. More often in revivalism you see the gnostic dichotomy of a head and heart and a word and power distinction. Revivalists often use 1 Cor. 2:4 and 1 Thess. 1:5 to distinguish between these things. I heard one speaker of this tradition say that in the classroom he teaches to the head but in the pulpit he preaches to the heart. Iain Murray, who is probably the most vocal advocate of this tradition, complains that he "once had the misfortune to hear addresses on 'the five points of calvinism' delivered as though we were attending a chemistry lecture" (John Calvin: A Heart For Devotion, Doctrine & Doxology edited by Burk Parsons p. xv). I am not completely sure I understand his criticism. If he is saying the presentation was boring, is it okay to give a boring delivery of chemistry? I personally try to put my "heart" into whatever I am teaching and would therefore hate to give a boring lecture on chemistry as much as I would on calvinism. Whatever truth you are teaching deserves the same exhortation, if for nothing else so you will not have a bunch of people fail the test. I also find this funny because I have personally sat under Iain at a conference and did not find it edifying and would even go as far as to say it was a boring presentation. Thankfully his books are of a better sort. As to whether there is a distinction between word and power, Paul in both the above listed scriptures is simply meaning that the Holy Spirit gave them an understanding of the truth and not the words only. 1 Cor. 1:18 tells us the message of the cross is foolish to the perishing but to the saved it is the power of God, Rom. 1:16 tells us the gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes and Heb. 4:12 tells us the word of God is living and powerful. Reject anyone who believes the bible to be a "dead word".

CONCLUSION

Preaching is to pass on the pattern of sound doctrine left to us in the scriptures from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and written by the apostles through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the power of salvation to all who believe. It is clear and we should teach the whole counsel in orderly and timely fashion. It is alive and powerful not needing methods, emotion or a particular style to deliver it. Every member of the church ought to be able to give a defense of the hope that is in them 1 Peter 3:15. Every member needs to know what they believe about the trinity, inerrancy and sole authority of scripture, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and everything else. If they do not, you may lose them and even lose your job as they will look for a teacher to scratch their itching ears.

"And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find acceptable words; and what was written was upright- words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd." Ecclesiastes 12:9-11

Soli Deo Gloria

The Atonement in Amyraut and Calvin

2009-08-31T20:01:00.000-07:00

JOHN CALVIN

As discussed in the previous blog, there are those who claim to hold to the doctrines of grace and yet deny Christ's particular atonement. Some of these even claim John Calvin, pictured above, as there forebear in this system as they expound it. My primary goal in this blog is historical and will look at various works treating this discussion. This view is primarily known by its most vocal proponent Moise Amyraut and is called "Amyraldism". I do not intend in this discussion to give an in-depth treatment of Moise Amyraut's system and realize there are many so-called 4-point calvinists that would not agree with Amyraut's complete system but merely classify all 4-pointers as amyraldians for the purposes of this discussion.

MOISE AMYRAUT

Moise Amyraut was a professor of theology at the University of Saumer in France where he had been a student and learned under the Scottish theologian John Cameron whose system Amyraut advanced and extended at Saumer which was the largest Reformed Divinity School of the day(Armstrong p.xviii Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy). It is important to recognize that Cameron had himself developed the system as Brian Armstrong says that it was "Upon the foundation laid by Cameron, Moise Amyraut was to construct his theology"(Armstrong p70) and so it could just as well be called "Cameronism" but Cameron's influence was cut short (only 3 years)by an angry rioting mob that killed him. Amyraut's system is distinctive from Calvinism at the most basic level in that it holds to a "Hypothetical Universalism"(HU). This HU says that Christ's death, while definately saving the elect, also makes all men savable if they, hypothetically, were to believe. Christ died for the whole world, but the gift of faith, the effectual call and the irresistable grace are limited to the elect only. As Jonathan Rainbow notes in his book The Will of God and the Cross this makes it possible for Amyraut "to say both,

'God desires only the elect to be saved,' and, 'God desires every human being to be saved'" (p70) which is blatantly a contradiction.

CRITIQUE

Unfortunately this is often an accepted teaching in calvinist circles. This is why, I believe, you do not hear more of amyraldism and people prefer to be called 4-point calvinists instead. A 4-point calvinist is seen as a subsection or alternate but equally calvinist perspective whereas Amyraldism would be seen as a competing system to calvinism. This is, in no uncertain terms a competing system whatever it is called and should be rejected vigorously. Amyraldism takes away the saving efficacy of the death of Christ. If Christ death is efficacious and He died for the reprobate then they would be saved. Amyraldism sees salvation as centered on faith and not Christ the true center. Faith only saves as it links us to Christ. For anyone to believe, their eyes must be opened first by baptism of the Holy Spirit into the death of Christ in regeneration giving new life to believe (Mark 4:11,12). Amyraldism denies Christ's active obedience in the fulfilling of the covenant of works. Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant of works for the elect allowing for the covenant of grace (Rom. 5:5-21). Amyraldism denies the clear teaching of scripture as exegeted in my previous blog that shows Christ died for His Elect.

HOW DID AMYRALDISM GET ACCEPTANCE?

Amyraut as Cameron before him claimed John Calvin as there forebear and thus tried to get respectability. They claimed that they are the ones that have kept the tradition of Calvin. Modern Amyraldists such as R.T. Kendall in the 1997 edition of his monograph Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 includes an appendix with multiple quotes from the Bible Commentaries of Calvin. From these multiple quotes Kendall concludes that "Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men" (p1). While it is true that some of the statements made by Calvin are unclear and equivocal such as "Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him" (Calvin on Rom. 5:18 quoted in Kendall p.222-223) and "For God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world" (Calvin on Gal. 5:12 quoted in Kendall p.223) we must take into account Calvin's basis for this all, which he places in election, as he says in his commentary on John 13:18, "every part of our salvation depends on this". We must also take into account clearer statements from Calvin such as "Christ brings none to the Father but those given to Him by the Father; and this donation, we know, depends on eternal election; for those whom the Father has destined to life, He delivers to the keeping of His Son, that He might defend them" (Calvin on Heb. 2:13 quoted in Rainbow p.72-73).

Amyraldism gets some respect also in the fact that it has had representatives in both the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Assembly. John Davenant was a representative of the Church of England at the Synod of Dort in 1618 and was an avowed Amyraldian. The Westminster Assembly had Edmund Calamy in its midst, who followed in the footsteps of Davenant. These instances, however, should be seen as scandalous rather than an opening of the doors.

CONCLUSION

Christ's atonement is the basis for our faith and not the other way around. It is because of the healing we receive in the blood of Christ that we are regenerated, brought to life and are able to have faith. If faith earns our regeneration then we have something whereby to boast contra Eph. 2:9. Why and how does anyone come to believe who are dead in their trespasses and sins, whose foolish heart is darkened without the wonderful healing grace of God in the atonement of Christ. Make no mistake about it, the atonement of Christ is a doctrine worth dying for.

AMYRALDIAN WORKS:

Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France by Brian G. Armstrong

Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 by R. T. Kendall

The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus by G. Michael Thomas

English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology by Jonathan D. Moore

CALVINIST WORKS:

The Will of God and the Cross: An Historical and Theological Study of John Calvin's Doctrine of Limited Redemption by Jonathan H. Rainbow

By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life by Thomas J. Nettles

Definite Redemption

2009-06-30T19:08:00.001-07:00

The most common objection to the doctrinal system often referred to as "Calvinism" is to its adherence to Christ's death being only for the elect. Christ died for the "world" the objection goes and not for a particular group. God is not a respecter of persons they say and the gospel is for everyone. Even some who affirm the other doctrines that make up Calvinism such as predestination, faith as a gift and that christians do not lose their salvation, draw back on this vital doctrine, and in some cases even claim John Calvin himself in defence of their view. Let us look at the scriptures and see how they discuss this important issue in the proper context.

In the angelic announcement to Joseph we read that "she (Mary) will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). Right off the bat we learn the purpose of the God-man to save His people from their sins. Again in John 10:11,15 we read "The good shepherd",who is identified as Christ, "gives His life for the sheep" who are clearly in the context of scripture the elect/church/believer's. Acts 20:28 goes on to exhort elders to shepherd "the church of God which He purchased with His own blood". In Romans we learn that God "demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" and "did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all" and that "It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who also makes intercession for us." (Rom. 5:8,8:32,34). Lastly in Ephesians we see that Christ is the "Savior of the body" and that He "loved the church and gave Himself for her" (Eph. 5:23,25). Christ loved, came for and died for His people.

The use of the word "world" in passages like John 3:16 is to contrast the old covenant in which the Jews were the focus, to the new covenant in which all peoples will be blessed. The church is not just made up of Jews, although it does include some of them, but is made up of Gentiles as well. It is clear in the proper context of these verses that world does not mean every human being or else the Bible teaches Universalism, the doctrine that all will be saved and go to heaven. Notice John 1:29 which says that "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". If this were to mean every human being then no one would go to Hell as there would be no sin to judge. The same thing applies to 2 Corinthians 5:19 which say that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them". 1 John 2:2 is probably the most controversial verse in that it seems to be contrasting the church with everyone else. The proper understanding of this verse however is that it is contrasting Paul and the elect he is writing to, and the elect throughout the world.

1 Timothy 4:10 is another belabored verse. Again if this means literally "the Savior of all men" then we have universalism. Notice the context as Paul starts the chapter off talking about false teachers that deny certain foods and marriage. A few verses later he discusses bodily exercise and contrasts it with godliness. In verse 10 he is stating that God is the provider for all men in that he gives food, marriage and health even to unsaved people but especially to believers. In Hebrews 2:9 we again see "for everyone". In verse 16 of Hebrews 2 this is clarified to be the "seed of Abraham" and again I want to emphasize this means the spiritual seed not the physical lineage as Gentiles can be saved as well (Rom. 9:6-10). The last common objection is 2 peter 2:1 in which the heretics are said to "deny the Lord that bought them". Here again we must look to the following verses to get a proper understanding. Notice in verse 12 these heretics "speak evil of things they do not understand", verse 18 says "they speak great swelling words of emptiness" and verse 22 are compared to "A dog " that "returns to his own vomit". These heretics spoke only hypocritically of the Lord purchasing them and did not understand what that really means. Peter is only acknowledging their claim of The Lord buying them for the purposes of showing that this will "bring on themselves swift destruction". Also if the Lord bought everyone, why would these heretics claim to be bought in particular. This verse does not teach universal redemption.

Christ is the Advocate not for the world but for the "little children" (1 John 2:1). He prayed not for the world but for those the Father gave Him (John 17:9). Christ gave "His life a ransom for many" and not all (Matt. 20:28). The importance of this truth cannot be emphasized enough. I have just scratched the surface with this presentation. I hope to scratch a little more in my next blog as well as I will look at Calvin's view and compare with Amyraut and finally scripture.

FOR FURTHER READING

The Glory of the Atonement; Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Roger Nicole by Charles Hill and Frank James III Editors

The Death of Death In the Death of Christ by John Owen

All Nations Under God; The Doctrine of Christ's Victorious Atonement: Defined, Defended and Applied by Mike Beasley

The Cause of God and Truth by John Gill

Supralapsarianism

2009-04-30T18:02:00.000-07:00

It may come as a surprise to some that those who hold to the doctrines of grace often called "calvinism" are not monolithic in their thinking. The subject of this blog deals with one of those differences. Supralapsarian is one of the classifications of the distinctions and is opposed to Infra or Sublapsarian. Infra and sub mean the same thing and are interchangeable but most non-supras prefer the term infra and so I will use this for the purposes of this blog. I do want to make note that sublapsarian is sometimes distinguished from infralapsarian by amyraldians or 4-point calvinists who utilize the sub for themselves. I do not intend to focus much on the amyraldians however and will deal with them in a future blog, Lord willing, and so am talking primarily to those who hold to the scriptural teaching of Definite Redemption.

Historically the focus of the debate between the two parties is over the logical order of God's decrees. While I will mention these different orders, I again do not intend on focusing on them as they are all speculations and not specifically laid out in scripture. The focus of this discussion is going to be on the question of equal ultimacy, the origin of the fall and sin and whether predestination is single or double. These issues are the crux of the debate.

THE LOGICAL DECREES?

Before charting out the views some definitions are in order. Both infra and sub mean below or after with supra meaning above and before. Lapsarian means fall. Supralapsarian therefore means above or before the fall and infra/sublapsarian means below or after the fall. Supras hold that God chose what would become of mankind before considering the fall whereas infras say God took into consideration the fall before deciding to either save or damn man.

I. The logical order often held by amyraldians such as Augustus Strong, Millard Erickson and Charles Ryrie amongst others is

1. the decree to create the world and (all) men

2. the decree that (all) men would fall

3. the decree to redeem (all) men by the cross work of Christ

4. the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)

5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect.

II. The logical order often held by infras such as Charles Hodge, William G. T. Shedd, R. L. Dabney, J. Oliver Buswell Jr., Louis Berkhof, Benjamin Warfield, John Gerstner, R. C. Sproul and Bruce Ware amongst others is

1. the decree to create the world and (all) men

2. the decree that (all) men would fall

3. the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)

4. the decree to redeem the elect by the cross work of Christ

5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect.

III. A. The logical order held historically by supras such as Theodore Beza, William Whitaker, William Perkins, William Ames,William Twisse, Francis Gomarus, Gisbert Voetius, Thomas Goodwin, Samuel Rutherford and John Gill amongst others is

1. the election of some men to salvation in Christ and the reprobation of the others

2. the decree to create the world and both kinds of men

3. the decree that all men would fall

4. the decree to redeem the elect, who are now sinners, by the cross work of Christ

5. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to these elect sinners

B. A different proposal by supras such as Robert Reymond, Gordon Clark, Herman Hoeksema and possibly Jerome Zanchius and Johannes Piscator, according to Robert Reymond, is

1. the election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect)

2. the decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners

3. the decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ

4. the decree that men should fall

5. the decree to create the world and men

Of the positions listed above the supra positions are closer to the truth of scripture and so therefore are preferred but again the discussion is a little arcane as we are never given any particular order. I also want to say the proposal of Robert Reymond does leave itself open to the criticism that God in considering men as sinful must be after(infra) the fall and not truly before(supra) and so I lean to the historic supra view.

THE ORIGIN OF SIN/EVIL

Typically when reading a theological work ,even by a calvinist, discussing sin, evil and the fall of man and angels the first thing you are told in bold letters is that God is not the author of sin and that He has a permissive will through which He (passively) just allows sin. They usually go on to say that evil is the absence of good as darkness is an absence of light and space an absence of material. The use of the word "author" is a little confusing. If one means by it a performer of sin then every Bible believer would agree God is not the author of sin(James 1:13). The ordinary use of the word however is a writer as of a book. In this case all Bible believers agree that God is the author of the Bible and yet it contains prophesies of all sorts of evils such as the betrayel and crucifixion of Christ(Acts 1:16-21), false Christs and prophets(Matt. 24:24) and the actions of the Beast in Revelation(Rev. 11:7). Isaiah 45:7 also explicitly informs us that God not only forms the light but he also creates darkness and then goes on to say that God not only makes peace but creates evil. Nothing happens by chance but by the predestined plan of God. Not even the wicked can look to God and boast of defying His predestined plan as "The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom."(Prov. 16:4) God has even appointed our death(Heb. 9:27) and so whether by cancer, murder, suicide or any other way we can be certain that this is one appointment we will not miss. God is the ultimate author of everything and as Gordon Clark aptly put in his excellent book God and Evil "In Ephesians 1:11 Paul tells us that God works all things, not some things only, after the counsel of His own will"(p27).

DOUBLE HIS PLEASURE, DOUBLE HIS FUN WITH DOUBLE PREDESTINATION

In his book Chosen By God R.C. Sproul includes a chapter called Double, Double, Toil and Trouble: Is Predestination Double. In it Sproul makes the intriguing claim that he holds to double predestination all the while denying "equal ultimacy". He makes the claim using his wit and illogic that election is a positive(active) decree and reprobation is a negative(passive) decree. He bombasts equal ultimists as "hyper-calvinists" and other pejoratives. Let us look at scripture and see if he is correct. We have already seen from Proverbs 16:4 that God makes even the wicked for Himself. It would have been better for Judas and every other reprobate person if they had never been born as we learn in Matthew 26:24 but God creates them for Himself and has reserved them for the day of wrath(Job 21:30, Jude 4). God, we learn in Romans 9:22,23, wants to show His wrath and make His power known and does so by raising up leaders like the Pharaoh and hardening their hearts, blinding their eyes and deafening their ears to the truth(Rom. 9:17,18, Isaiah 6:9,10, 29:9,10, Mark 4:11,12). Hardening, blinding and deafening are actions and not passively just allowed. Sproul puts himself in the position of judging God as evil in doing this by not accepting the clear teaching of God's Word. Psalm 135 tells us "Whatever the Lord pleases He does" and goes on to say "He destroyed the firstborn of Egypt" and "slew mighty kings" and in Deuteronomy 28:63 we learn that "the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and bring you to nothing". God has equally, ultimately, actively and doubly predestined everything that has ever happened and that will happen.

RESOURCES

A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith by Robert L. Reymond-A systematic theology by a Presbyterian Supracalvinist who holds to Equal Ultimacy.

The History And Theology Of Calvinism by Curt Daniel-Essentially a systematic theology by an Baptistic Infracalvinist. It is very informative from the other side and has an excellent chapter, albeit inconsistent with his infra position, on the hardening of the reprobate.

God And Evil: The Problem Solved by Gordon Clark-A wonderful treatise on evil from a Presbyterian Supracalvinist Equal Ultimist perspective.

Chosen By God by R. C. Sproul- From a Presbyterian Infracalvinist perspective.

The Pleasures Of God by John Piper- From a Calvinistic Baptist perspective.

Perspectives On Election: 5 Views by Chad Owen Brand- See the chapters by Robert Reymond and Bruce Ware(InfraCalvinist Baptist).

A Southern Baptist Dialogue: Calvinism by Clendenen & Waggoner- See especially the chapter "A Molinist View of Election, or How to Be a Consistent Infralapsarian" by Molinist Ken Keathley which shows the fine line (if any) between Molinism and Infracalvinism.

Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition: Supra-and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster by J.V. Fesko- A historical study advocating a Supracalvinist view while denying Equal Ultimacy by an Orthodox Presbyterian.

The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century Volume Two by Ligon Duncan- J. V. Fesko makes another attempt at formulating a Supracalvinism while denying Equal Ultimacy in his chapter "The Westminster Confession and Lapsarianism: Calvin and the Divines".

Soli Deo Gloria

Molinism

2009-02-28T15:47:00.000-08:00

Throughout the history of depraved man’s assault on God’s sovereignty, several names and movements have come to the forefront. Lost in the shuffle of the more popular Pelagianism and Arminianism is Molinism. Molinism is named after the Jesuit Priest and Theologian, Luis De Molina(1535-1600). Luis was a professor for many years at Evora, Portugal until taking the chair of moral theology in Madrid. In this capacity and in his work Concordia liberi arbitrii cum gratiæ donis, divina præscientia, providentia, prædestinatione et reprobatione (Lisbon, 1588) he set out to find and promote a moderate view on predestination and free will. His goal was to balance the extremes as he saw it of Augustine and Pelagius.

In his quest Molina divided the knowledge of God into three categories. Sometimes the first two categories are called necessary truths and contingent truths and other times natural knowledge and free knowledge but the third category is always called “middle knowledge”. The necessary truth or natural knowledge of God is said to be God’s knowledge of the truths like the law of non-contradiction or cause and effect. God’s existence is a necessary truth and not a matter of His will. Contingent truths or free knowledge are truths that God creates as in “God said ‘let there be light’, and there was light”. Middle knowledge is according to Molina that knowledge“… by which, in virtue of the most profound and inscrutable comprehension of each free will, He(God) saw in his own essence what each such will would do with its innate freedom were it to be placed in this or that or, indeed, in infinitely many orders of things- even though it would really be able, if it so willed, to do the opposite…”. (Quoted by William Craig in The Grace Of God, The Will Of Man p 147). William Craig goes on to say, “Thus, whereas by His natural knowledge God knows that, say, Peter when placed under a certain set of circumstances could either deny Christ or not deny Christ, being free to do either under identical circumstances, by His middle knowledge God knows what Peter would do if placed under those circumstances.”(Citation above p147)

The chief motivation for this line of thinking is sin. If God predestines everything that happens then He must therefore be the author of sin. Traditional orthodoxy understands God to have a Preceptive Will which is God’s revealed commands of us such as “thou shalt not kill”(Matt. 19:18) and a Decretive Will which is God determining before creation how everything will happen such as in His decree of Christ’s death(Acts 1:16, 2:23). Molinism adds to this a Permissive Will in which God simply foresaw the sins of man and passively decreed to allow them. Molinist Ken Keathley in the book A Southern Baptist Dialogue: Calvinism claims “God controls all things He does not cause all things”(p196) and later states “God did not cause the fall; He allowed it”(p197). For Molinism man’s will is free to either accept Christ or reject Him. It would distinguish itself from Arminianism in that God sovereignly controls circumstances which lead up to either rejection or salvation, for instance God chooses where to send missionaries and who hears the Gospel.

EVALUATION

Molinism fails as a scriptural system for the same reason as all man-centered systems do. It places salvation and history in the will of man instead of in the grace and purpose of God. John 1:12 and 13 say “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Just as our physical birth was not our choosing but our parents, so to our spiritual birth is from God and not our “free will”. Romans 9:16 again states that “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” It is the purpose of God that determines history and not the works of man (Rom. 9:11). In Proverbs 21:1 we read that “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.” Surely any “free will” decision made would come from the heart but God controls the heart and so determines our will. We do not even know how to pray properly according to Rom. 8:26 and need the intercession of the Holy Spirit for that (Rom. 8:27).

As for the question of sin, God is not the immediate cause (author) of evil in that he does not perform any evil. God is however the ultimate cause of everything including evil as Isaiah 45:7 teaches us. Whereas God cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Heb. 6:18), God used a fallen angel in 2 Chronicles 18:19-22 to deceive Ahab, and will send a “strong delusion” in the end times so “that they (reprobates) shall believe a lie” (2 Thess. 2:11). Notice that God assured the fallen angel in 2 Chronicles 18:21 that “You shall persuade him and also prevail”. God did not just passively know this but he hardened Ahab’s heart to ensure this would happen as he did to the Pharoah in Exodus 4:21. We should honestly and earnestly pray as our Lord Jesus prayed for our Father to lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil so as not to sin against our God (Matt. 6:13). For further on this see my Theodicy.

Molinism also fails logically to be a self consistent system. It is rediculous to say God controls all things but does not cause all things as God must therefore control the cause of all things. Also to claim that God knows possible futures that never will exist is rediculous as there is no future without God. God has designed and determined every second of eternal destiny and this destiny can only happen one way otherwise it is not destined. God does not permit anything but ordains everything. As to God's relation to evil, Molinism also falls short. How would a man be perceived that sat idly by all the while able to stop a massacre from occuring but "permitting" it to happen? Does a permissive will alleviate the problem? Just as human authors like Stephen King and George Lucas create in their novels evil situations and people but are not themselves guilty of the evil, much more so is God not to be judged by us His creation (Rom. 9:14,19-21).

Resources

William Craig's chapter "Middle Knowledge, A Calvinist-Arminian Rapprochement?" in

A Case For Arminianism: The Grace of God, The Will of Man by Clark Pinnock

Ken Keathley's chapter "A Molinist View of Election, or How to be a Consistent Infralapsarian" in A Southern Baptist Dialogue: Calvinism by Ray Clendenen & Brad Waggoner

A Molinist-Anabaptist Systematic Theology by Kirk R. MacGregor

Are Hats Necessary for Women in Church?

2008-12-28T17:25:00.001-08:00

This may seem like an odd subject and out of the ordinary of my usual conversation but I believe it is a necessary discussion nonetheless. There are still "Christian" denominations and sects that practice and in some cases demand a woman wear a hat or bonnet in their religious observations. Anyone familiar with the Amish know this to be true. Some might be surprised to know, however, that this is even true in some reformed fellowships. The Free Presbyterian Church and the so-called reformed fellowships in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals and other "Federal Vision"(see my blog "Federal Vision's Blindness"from April 2007 for more on this) churches are but a few examples of this understanding. These groups base this form of behavior on 1 C orinthians 11:2-15 which does demand a "covering". Why then do so many other reformed denominations not make such a demand? Are men like myself sinning in not demanding our wives to do so? These are honest questions that must be answered and answer I will.

Among the reformed churches that do not mandate hat wearing there are a few different reasons as to why we do not. The first view is what may be called "the cultural view". This view is exemplified by pastor/theologian John MacArthur in his commentary on First Corinthians where he states "It seems, therefore, that Paul is not stating a divine universal requirement but simply acknowledging a local custom". While I can respect John's having a reason for not demanding headwear, I do not agree with his reason. As Charles Ryrie states in the note in his study Bible, advocating women should wear hats,"Paul's reasons were based on theology(headship, v. 3), the order in creation (vv. 7-9), and the presence of angels in the meeting (v. 10)" and not in defence of a social custom. Paul elsewhere (eg. Rom. 14)clearly allows for differences in the church over social customs and yet here he commands head covering for women and none for men. So the answer must be sought in a more appropriate understanding.

This appropriate understanding is the second view which may be called simply "the hair view". In this view the covering Paul was speaking of is "hair" and not a hat, veil, doily or any other man-made material. This view sees it unlikely that Paul would be making a new law for women never before established in scripture. We are not told God created a hat for Eve in the garden so as to worship him appropriately. The Old Testament laws were very thorough in their mandates for worship and again they are silent on this issue. The best evidence comes from the text itself when Paul states in verses 14 and 15 "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering." Notice Paul appeals to common sense here. Although it is now codified in his writing it, Paul was asking what was evident in nature and not written in scripture until then. I make this point in passing to point out that while I hold tenaciously to the reformation principle of sola scriptura(see my blog "Holy Bible" January 2007), we should not neglect what God has taught us in nature through common sense. So Paul has defined his meaning with these verses. Nature does not teach us anything about hats, veils or doilies or which is more appropriate. Paul's point to the church at Corinth is that it is wrong for men to have long hair and women to have short hair. God hates confusion and it is against the natural order for men to have long hair and women short. Even the angels get confused (v. 10)as they look on unlike the angels that fell in Genesis 6:1,2 who clearly knew who the daughters of men were. Reformed churches that teach "head coverings" that I am aware of typically use the doily which does not fully cover the head. If they want to meet this honestly they should be like the muslim women pictured above.

In conclusion, it is important to say that I do not believe it is a sin for a woman to wear a hat to church but it is not mandated by scripture. It is also important to say at this juncture that nowhere in scripture does it define long hair or short hair and so I as Paul appeal to common sense in this matter. Some may not think my wife has long hair, and compared to say Crystal Gayle she does not, but if my hair were her length it would generally be considered long. There must be some christian liberty in our judgment of this.

Resources

First Corinthians: A Contemporary Commentary by Gordon H. Clark
Exposition of the Old and New Testaments Vol. 8 John To Galatians by John Gill
The MacArthur New Testament Commentary 1 Corinthians by John MacArthur
Ryrie Study Bible Expanded Edition (NAS) study notes by Charles Ryrie

Afterword on Neo-Calvinism

2008-10-25T11:42:00.001-07:00

After reviewing my entries on Neo-calvinism, I felt it would be good, for clarity, to deal with a few issues not discussed in them. I wish to make clear at the outset, however, that these issues are not necessary for either the Dutch (Kuyperian, Neo-calvinist) School or for the Scottish(Warfieldian, Princeton) School of which I am and so are not necessary dividers between the two schools.

THEISTIC EVOLUTION OR 6 DAY CREATION?

While I appreciate the logic underpinning Benjamin Warfield's philosophy and consider him to be a better candidate for America's Greatest Philosopher over the much beloved Jonathan Edwards, (I would also give Gordon Clark the America's Greatest Theologian title over Jonathan) I do disdain his Theistic Evolution views and firmly adhere to a 6 Day Creationism. Both a normal (logical) reading of scripture and the clear evidence from creation itself prove the earth to be consistent with the Genesis account.

While I am not a "Scientist" by profession the arguments made by ministries such as The Institute For Creation Research, Creation Ministries International and Answers In Genesis ,which are headed up by professional scientists, are very convincing. Questions like how our sun still burns?, how the earth's magnetic field still functions?, Why the moon is still a satellite when it is slowly moving away from the earth? and many more seem to be best answered from a young earth schemata than a 6 billion year old earth. The best evidence is that God was there to view the creation, as He created it, and to believe Him when he tells us how he did it. There is also no archaelogical or anthropological finds such as a "Missing Link" to contradict the Bible.

While it is disheartening that a lot of the scientists at the ministries listed above, if calvinist at all are neo-calvinist and Hugh Ross's ministry at Reasons To Believe, which supports a Day-age Theory, gives homage to Ben Warfield, this does not mandate a necessary relationship. R. C. Sproul, like myself agrees with Warfield's logical (as opposed to Kuyper's mystical ) approach and is convinced by the evidence of a young earth.

SUPRALAPSARIANISM

Another issue is the question of Supra- versus Infralapsarianism. This discussion pertains to the order and extent of God's predestinating purpose in creation. This is a complicated discussion and I intend to do an in depth look at it in a future blog but I do want to say here that I believe that supralapsarianism is the most consistent and scriptural understanding of God's sovereignty. The supposed problem is Charles Hodge, Ben Warfield, A.A. Hodge, John Gerstner, R.C. Sproul and the others of the Princeton school are infralapsarian whereas Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Cornelius VanTil and others of the Neo-calvinist school are supralapsarian. I do not see a necessary connection, however, in the place of culture, philosophy and science in our lives and the lapsarian question. Many supralapsarians have not been Neo-calvinists. Theodore Beza, William Perkins, William Ames, Francis Gomarus, Samuel Rutherford, Thomas Goodwin, William Twisse, Gordon Clark, John Gill and I believe even John Calvin himself were all supralapsarians without the oddities of the Neo-calvinists. Supralapsarianism comes from an honest undertaking of passages like Isaiah 45:7, Proverbs 16:4, 2 Chronicles 18:19-22, Romans 9:6-33, 1 Peter 2:6-8 and Jude 4. While infras agree with election, faith as a gift and salvation by grace alone they neglect to realize that God's will is effective and seem to teach either man or the devil is the creator of evil and that God just leaves the non-elect in his sin to damn him instead of hardening his heart to sin for the purposes of damnation as the Bible teaches. These differences do not determine our views on art or cognitive attainment.

RESOURCES

For further reading of Neo-calvinism consult the works of Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Cornelius VanTil and Herman Dooyeweerd. Also Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism by Peter S. Heslam, Science and Grace: God's Reign in the Natural Sciences by Morris and Petcher, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythress. For good books on science see The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications by Whitcomb and Morris, Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils by Marvin Lubenow which deals convincingly with the anthropological question, Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys which deals convincingly with the physics questions and Astronomy and the Bible by Donald B. Deyoung. For studies on supralapsarianism see Predestination and God and Evil both by Gordon Clark. For other important studies consult Reformed Theology In America: A History of Its Modern Development by David Wells, The Clark-VanTil Controversy by Herman Hoeksema, Cornelius VanTil: The Man and Myth by John Robbins, The Basis For the Doctrine of the Incomprehensibility of God in Gordon Clark and Cornelius VanTil by Bradley Swygard, The History and Theology of Calvinism by Curt Daniel and Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defence of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics by Sproul, Gerstner and Lindsley. For another example of Neo-calvinism look at the Institute For Christian Studies.

Neo-Calvinism Part 3: Science

2008-08-25T17:22:00.000-07:00

The last major flaw of Neo-calvinism is it's view of science. Although etymologically, the word science means "knowledge", it's practical meaning is usually narrowed to be that knowledge attained or attainable through the five senses in observation and/or experimentation. For Kuyper and Neo-calvinism there are two sciences, one for the elect and one for the reprobate. Kuyper said as there are "Two kinds of people" this mandates "two kinds of science" (quoted in Creating A Christian Worldview by Peter Heslam p. 183). Kuyper believed nothing is neutral, not even facts and therefore the science of a christian is different than the science of an unbeliever. According to this view, a proper sense of total depravity demands the understanding that our reason was also affected by the fall and so humanity is unreasonable and in need of God's irresistable grace to bring one to faith. At the outset, to the undiscerning reader, this appears to be something all "Calvinists" would agree with and not just "Neo-calvinists, and so I have my work cut out for me.

While it is true that humans are totally depraved and in need of God's irresistable grace for salvation, this does not mean our senses are any less acute than before the fall or that humans are less able to articulate in speech or aesthetics. It does means that unaided by the Holy Spirit, mankind is blinded to the truth spiritually, exchanges the truth for a lie and worships the creature over the creator. Depravity is exhibited intra nos(inside ourselves) and does not affect the reality of truth itself, which is extra nos(outside ourselves). Due to this, there is only one true science and that is the science that leads to the knowledge of the truth. Christianity alone is a rationally demonstrable and coherent system. All other religions and philosophies are irrational. Kuyper in contrast, according to James Bratt, believed that "the world could contain any number of relatively coherent worldviews, none of which could finally convince another of its own superiority on strictly rational grounds."(Reformed Theology in America edited by David Wells, p.122). The result of Kuyper's thinking is an insipid anti-intellectualism that makes Christianity nonsense and surrenders the intellect to the world.

Concerning neutrality, it depends on the context in which you are using it as to whether it is valid. Ultimately, 2+2=4 proves logic and order in the universe pointing to the creator God, but 2+2=4 is shared by both saved and unsaved individuals of all stripes, and so, is in a sense "neutral". Alot of science shares this affinity. Does it matter to the person dying from a particular disease whether the person who finds a cure is a Christian or not? Have only Christian scientists found cures for diseases? How about the other discoveries making life more comfortable and convenient? Should Christians abstain from the use of inventions of unbelievers? While ultimately everything a reprobate believes is against God and useless, this does not mean it manifests itself in everything he does. Jesus asks in Matthew 7:9, "Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?" and in verse 11 He says that humans "being evil" still "know how to give good gifts".

The Bible knows of only one kind of science. All else is "science, falsely so-called"(1 Tim. 6:20). The Bible teaches that there is "one body and one Spirit... one hope... one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:4-6), one wisdom (Jam. 3:13-17) and one Gospel (Gal. 1:6-8). Gnostic dualism has no place in the church.

Warfield on Kuyper

Kuyper's odd new movement did not go unnoticed in his own day. Ben Warfield was a professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology at Princeton University in that day and was a stalwart calvinist. He wrote an introduction to F.R. Beattie's book on apologetics, in which he articulated why he found Kuyper's view "a standing matter of surprise". This intro is so telling and profound I feel it should be read in it's entirety and so include it here in Warfield's own words. For more excellent articles click on the link at the lighthouse at the title of this blog.

INTRODUCTION TO FRANCIS R. BEATTIE'S Apologetics *

By B. B. Warfield

It gives me great pleasure to respond to Dr. Beattie's request that I shall say a few words by way of introduction to his comprehensive work on Apologetics. I am purposely laying stress on the comprehensiveness of the work. It is always a satisfaction to have placed in our hands a treatise on one of the theological disciplines, which develops with serenity and sanity its entire content. In the case of Apologetics, however, such an achievement is particularly to be welcomed. We have had many apologies; perhaps no branch of scientific theology has been more fruitful during the past two centuries. But we have had comparatively few surveys of the whole field of Apologetics. Perhaps Dr. Beattie's is the first to be produced by an American Presbyterian.

The fact is, despite the richness of our apologetical literature, Apologetics has been treated very much like a stepchild in the theological household. The encyclopaedists have seemed scarcely to know what to do with it. They have with difficulty been persuaded to allow it a place among the theological disciplines at all. And, when forced to recognize it, they have been very prone to thrust it away into some odd corner, where it could hide its diminished head behind the skirts of some of its more esteemed sisters.

This widespread misprision of Apologetics has been greatly fostered by the influence of two opposite (if they be indeed opposite) tendencies of thought, which have very deeply affected the thinking even of theologians who are in principle antagonistic to them. I mean Rationalism and Mysticism. To Rationalism, of course, Apologetics is an inanity; to Mysticism, an impertinence. Wherever, therefore, rationalistic presuppositions have intruded, there proportionately the validity of Apologetics has been questioned. Wherever mystical sentiment has seeped in, there the utility of Apologetics has been more or less distrusted. At the present moment, the rationalistic tendency is perhaps most active in the churches in the form given it by Albrecht Ritschl. In this form it strikes at the very roots of Apologetics by the distinction it erects between religious and theoretical knowledge. Where religion is supposed to seek and find expression only in value-judgments -- the subjective product of the human soul in its struggle after personal freedom -- and thus to stand out of all relation with theoretical knowledge, there, obviously there is no place for a vindication of Christian faith to reason and no possibility of Apologetics. In a somewhat odd parallelism to this (though, perhaps, it is not so odd after all) the mystical tendency is showing itself in our day most markedly in a widespread inclination to decline Apologetics in favor of the so-called testimonium Spiritus Sancti. The convictions of the Christian man, we are told, are not the product of reasons addressed to his intellect, but are the immediate creation of the Holy Spirit in his heart. Therefore, it is intimated, we can not only do very well without these reasons, but it is something very like sacrilege to attend to them. Apologetics, accordingly, is not merely useless, but may even become noxious, because tending to substitute a barren intellectualism for a vital faith.

We need not much disturb ourselves over such utterances when they are the expression, as they often are in our modern Church, of the intellectual distress of those whose own apologetic has proved too weak to withstand the rationalistic assault, and who are fain, therefore, to take refuge from the oppressive rationalism of their understandings in an empty irrationalism of the heart. In these cases the extremes have met, and the would-be mystic preserves nothing but his dialect to distinguish him from the Ritschlite rationalist. What he needs for his cure is clearly not less Apologetics, but more Apologetics -- lacking which he must ever remain of a "double mind," clinging with the desperation of a drowning man to a faith on which his own intellect has passed the' sentence of irrationality. The case is very different, however, when we encounter very much the same forms of speech on the lips of heroes of the faith, who deprecate Apologetics because they feel no need of "reasons" to ground a faith which they are sure they have received immediately from God. Apologetics, they say, will never make a Christian. Christians are made by the creative Spirit alone. And when God Almighty has implanted faith in the heart, we shall not require to seek for "reasons" to ground our conviction of the truth of the Christian religion. We have tasted and seen, and we know of ourselves that it is from God. Thus, the sturdiest belief joins hands with unbelief to disparage the defenses of the Christian religion.

Dr. Abraham Kuyper, one of the really great theologians of our time, is a very striking instance of thinkers of this tendency. It is not to be supposed that Dr. Kuyper would abolish Apologetics altogether. He has written an Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology, and in it he gives a place to Apologetics among the other disciplines. But how subordinate a place! And in what a curtailed form! Hidden away as a subdivision of a subdivision of what Dr. Kuyper calls the "Dogmatological Group" of disciplines (which corresponds roughly to what most encyclopaedists call "Systematic Theology"), one has to search for it before he finds it, and when he finds it, he discovers that its function is confined closely, we might almost say jealously, to the narrow task of defending developed Christianity against philosophy, falsely so called. After the contents of Christianity have been set forth thetically in Dogmatics and Ethics, it finds itself, it seems, in a threefold conflict. This is waged with a pseudo-Christianity, a pseudo-religion, and a pseudo-philosophy. Three antithetic dogmatological disciplines are therefore requisite -- Polemics, Elenchtics, and Apologetics, corresponding, respectively, to heterodoxy, paganism, philosophy. The least of these is Apologetics, which concerns itself only with the distinctively philosophical assault on Christianity. Meanwhile, as for Christianity itself, it has remained up to this point -- let us say it frankly -- the great assumption. The work of the exegete, the historian, the systematist, has all hung, so to speak, in the air; not until all their labor is accomplished do they pause to wipe their streaming brows and ask whether they have been dealing with realities, or perchance with fancies only.

Naturally it is not thus that Dr. Kuyper represents it to himself. He supposes that all these workers have throughout wrought in faith. But he seems not quite able to conceal from himself that they have not justified that faith, and that some may think their procedure itself, therefore, unjustified, if not unjustifiable. He distributes the departments of theological science into four groups, corresponding roughly with the Exegetical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical disciplines which the majority of encyclopaedists erect, although for reasons of his own, very interestingly set forth, he prefers to call them, respectively, the Bibliological, Ecclesiological, Dogmatological, and Diaconological groups of disciplines. Now, when he comes to discuss the contents of these groups in detail, he betrays a feeling that something is lacking at the beginning. "Before dealing separately with the four groups of departments of study into which theology is divided," he says, "we must give a brief resume from the second part of this Encyclopaedia, of how the subject arrives at the first group. Logical order demands that the first group bring you to the point where the second begins, that the second open the way for the third, and that the third introduce you to the fourth. But no other pre- cedes the first group, and it is accordingly in place here to indicate how we arrive at the first group." [1] Just so, surely!

Dr. Kuyper proceeds to point out that the subject of theology is the human consciousness; that in this consciousness there is implanted a sensus divinitatis, a semen religionis, which impels it to seek after the knowledge of God; that in the sinner this action is renewed and quickened by the palingenesis, through which the subject is opened for the reception of the special revelation of God made first by deed, culminating in the Incarnation, and then by word, centering in the Scriptures. Thus, by the testimonium Spiritus Sancti, the subject is put in possession of the revelation of God embodied in the Scriptures, and is able to proceed to explicate its contents through the several disciplines of theological science. Now, what is it that Dr. Kuyper has done here except outline a very considerable -- though certainly not a complete -- Apologetics, which must precede and prepare the way for the "Bibliological Group" of theological departments? We must, it seems, vindicate the existence of a sensus divinitatis in man capable of producing a natural theology independently of special revelation; and then the reality of a special revelation in deed and word; and as well, the reality of a supernatural preparation of the heart of man to receive it; before we can proceed to the study of theology at all, as Dr. Kuyper has outlined it. With these things at least we must, then, confessedly, reckon at the outset; and to reckon with these things is to enter deeply into Apologetics.

As the case really stands, we must say even more. Despite the attractiveness of Dr. Kuyper's distribution of the departments of theological science, we cannot think it an improvement upon the ordinary schema. It appears to us a mistake to derive, as he does, the principium divisionis from the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures, after all, are not the object of theology, but only its source; and the principium divisionis in this science, too, must be taken, as Dr. Kuyper himself argues, [2] from the object. Now, the object of theology, as Dr. Kuyper has often justly insisted, is the ectypal knowledge of God. This knowledge of God is deposited for us in the Scriptures, and must needs be drawn out of them -- hence "Exegetical Theology." It has been derived from the Scriptures by divers portions and in divers manners, for the life of the Church through the ages, and its gradual assimilation must needs be traced in its effects on the life of the Christian world -- hence "Historical Theology." It is capable of statement in a systematized thetical form -- hence "Systematic Theology." And, so drawn out from Scripture, so assimilated in the Church's growth, so organized into a system, it is to be made available for life -- hence "Practical Theology." But certainly, before we draw it from the Scriptures, we must assure ourselves that there is a knowledge of God in the Scriptures. And, before we do that, we must assure ourselves that there is a knowledge of God in the world. And, before we do that, we must assure ourselves that a knowledge of God is possible for man. And, before we do that, we must assure ourselves that there is a God to know. Thus, we inevitably work back to first principles. And in working thus back to first principles, we exhibit the indispensability of an "Apologetical Theology," which of necessity holds the place of the first among the five essential theological disciplines.

It is easy, of course, to say that a Christian man must take his standpoint not above the Scriptures, but in the Scriptures. He very certainly must. But surely he must first have Scriptures, authenticated to him as such, before he can take his standpoint in them. It is equally easy to say that Christianity is attained, not by demonstrations, but by a new birth. Nothing could be more true. But neither could anything be more unjustified than the inferences that are drawn from this truth for the discrediting of Apologetics. It certainly is not in the power of all the demonstrations in the world to make a Christian. Paul may plant and Apollos water; it is God alone who gives the increase. But it does not seem to follow that Paul would as well, therefore, not plant, and Apollos as well not water. Faith is the gift of God; but it does not in the least follow that the faith that God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith without grounds in right reason. It is beyond all question only the prepared heart that can fitly respond to the "reasons"; but how can even a prepared heart respond, when there are no "reasons" to draw out its action? One might as well say that photography is independent of light, because no light can make an impression unless the plate is prepared to receive it. The Holy Spirit does not work a blind, an ungrounded faith in the heart. What is supplied by his creative energy in working faith is not a ready-made faith, rooted in nothing and clinging without reason to its object; nor yet new grounds of belief in the object presented; but just a new ability of the heart to respond to the grounds of faith, sufficient in themselves, al- ready present to the understanding. We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in him, not though it be irrational. Accordingly, our Reformed fathers always posited in the production of faith the presence of the "argumentum propter quod credo," as well as the "principium seu causa effficiens a quo ad credendum adducor." That is to say, for the birth of faith in the soul, it is just as essential that grounds of faith should be present to the mind as that the Giver of faith should act creatively upon the heart.

We are not absurdly arguing that Apologetics has in itself the power to make a man a Christian or to conquer the world to Christ. Only the Spirit of Life can communicate life to a dead soul, or can convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. But we are arguing that faith is, in all its exercises alike, a form of conviction, and is, therefore, necessarily grounded in evidence. And we are arguing that evidence accordingly has its part to play in the conversion of the soul; and that the systematically organized evidence which we call Apologetics similarly has its part to play in the Christianizing of the world. And we are arguing that this part is not a small part; nor is it a merely subsidiary part; nor yet a merely defensive part -- as if the one end of Apologetics were to protect an isolated body of Christians from annoyance from the surrounding world, or to aid the distracted Christian to bring his head into harmony with his heart. The part that Apologetics has to play in the Christianizing of the world is rather a primary part, and it is a conquering part. It is the distinction of Christianity that it has come into the world clothed with the mission to reason its way to its dominion. Other religions may appeal to the sword, or seek some other way to propagate themselves. Christianity makes its appeal to right reason, and stands out among all religions, therefore, as distinctively "the Apologetic religion." It is solely by reasoning that it has come thus far on its way to its kingship. And it is solely by reasoning that it will put all its enemies under its feet. Face to face with the tremendous energy of thought and the incredible fertility in assault which characterizes the world in its anti-Christian manifestation, Christianity finds its task in thinking itself thoroughly through, and in organizing, not its defense only, but also its attack. It stands calmly over against the world with its credentials in its hands, and fears no contention of men.

It is a standing matter of surprise to us that the brilliant school of Christian thinkers, on whose attitude toward Apologetics we have been animadverting, should be tempted to make little of Apologetics. When we read, for instance, the beautiful exposition of sin and regeneration to science which Dr. Kuyper has given us in his Encyclopaedie, we cannot understand why he does not magnify, instead of minifying, the value of Apologetics. Perhaps the explanation is to be found in a tendency to make too absolute the contrast between the "two kinds of science" -- that which is the product of the thought of sinful man in his state of nature, and that which is the product of man under the influence of the regenerating grace of God. There certainly do exist these "two kinds of men" in the world -- men under the unbroken sway of sin, and men who have been brought under the power of the palingenesis. And the product of the intellection of these "two kinds of men" will certainly give us "two kinds of science." But the difference between the two is, after all, not accurately described as a difference in kind -- gradus non mutant speciem. Sin has not destroyed or altered in its essential nature anyone of man's faculties, although-since it corrupts homo totus -- it has affected the operation of them all. The depraved man neither thinks, nor feels, nor wills as he ought; and the products of his action as a scientific thinker cannot possibly escape the influence of this everywhere operative destructive power; although, as Dr. Kuyper lucidly points out, they are affected in different degrees in the several "sciences," in accordance with the nature of their objects and the rank of the human faculties engaged in their structure. Nevertheless, there is question here of perfection of performance, rather than of kind. It is "science" that is produced by the subject held under sin, even though imperfect science-falling away from the ideal here, there, and elsewhere, on account of all sorts of deflecting influences entering in at all points of the process. The science of sinful man is thus a substantive part of the abstract science produced by the ideal subject, the general human consciousness, though a less valuable part than it would be without sin.

It is well that it is so; for otherwise there would be no "science" attainable by man at all. For regeneration is not, in the first instance, the removal of sin: the regenerated man remains a sinner. Only after his sanctification has become complete can the contrast between him and the unregenerate sinner become absolute; not until then, in any case, could there be thought to exist an absolute contrast between his intellection and that of the sinner. In the meantime, the regenerated man remains a sinner; no new faculties have been inserted into him by regeneration; and the old faculties, common to man in all his states, have been only in some measure restored to their proper functioning. He is in no condition, therefore, to produce a "science" differing in kind from that produced by sinful man; the science of palingenesis is only a part of the science of sinful humanity, though no doubt its best part; and only along with it can it enter as a constituent part into that ideal science which the composite human subject is producing in its endless effort to embrace in mental grasp the ideal object, that is to say, all that is. Even if the palingenesis had completed its work, indeed, and those under its sway had become "perfect," it may be doubted whether the contrast between the science produced by the two classes of men could be treated as absolute. Sinful and sinless men are, after all, both men; and being both men, are fundamentally alike and know fundamentally alike. Ideally there is but one "science," the subject of which is the human spirit, and the object all that is. Meanwhile, as things are, the human spirit attains to this science only in part and by slow accretions, won through many partial and erroneous constructions. Men of all sorts and of all grades work side by side at the common task, and the common edifice grows under their hands into ever fuller and truer outlines. As Dr. Kuyper finely says himself, [3] in the conflict of perceptions and opinions, those of the strongest energy and clearest thought finally prevail. Why is not the palingenesis to be conceived simply as preparing the stronger and clearer spirits whose thought always finally prevails? It is not a different kind of science that they are producing. It is not even the same kind of science, but as part of a different edifice of truth. Through them merely the better scientific outlook, the better scientific product, are striving in conflict with the outlook and product of fellow workers, to get built into the one great edifice of truth ascertained, which is rising slowly because of sin, but surely because of palingenesis.

Only in the divine mind, of course, does science lie perfect -- the perfect comprehension of all that is in its organic completeness. In the mind of perfected humanity, the perfected ectypal science shall at length lie. In the mind of sinful humanity, struggling here below, there can lie only a partial and broken reflection of the object, a reflection which is rather a deflection. The task of science is, therefore, not merely quantitative, but qualitative; the edifice must be built up to its completion, and the deflection induced by sin must be corrected. This cannot be accomplished by sinful man. But he makes the effort continuously, and is continuously attaining his measure of success -- a success that varies inversely with the rank of the sciences. The entrance of regeneration prepares men to build better and ever more truly as the effects of' regeneration increase intensively and extensively. The end will come only when the regenerated universe becomes the well-comprehended object of the science of the regenerated race. It would seem, then, a grave mistake to separate the men of the palingenesis from the race, a part of which they are, and which is itself the object of the palingenesis. And no mistake could be greater than to lead them to decline to bring their principles into conflict with those of the unregenerate in the prosecution of the common task of man. It is the better science that ever in the end wins the victory; and palingenetic science is the better science, and to it belongs the victory. How shall it win its victory, however, if it declines the conflict? In the ordinance of God, it is only in and through this conflict that the edifice of truth is to rise steadily onwards to its perfecting.

In the fact thus brought out, the ultimate vindication of the supreme importance of Apologetics lies, and as well the vindication of its supreme utility. In the prosecution of the tasks of Apologetics, we see the palingenesis at work on the science of man at its highest point. And here, too, the "man of stronger and purer thought" -- even though that he has it is of God alone -- "will prevail in the end." The task of the Christian is surely to urge "his stronger and purer thought" continuously, and in all its details, upon the attention of men. It is not true that he cannot soundly prove his position. It is not true that the Christian view of the world is subjective merely, and is incapable of validation in the forum of pure reason. It is not true that the arguments adduced for the support of the foundations of the Christian religion lack objective validity. It is not even true that the minds of sinful men are inaccessible to the "evidences," though, in the sense of the proverb, "convinced against their will," they may "remain of the same opinion still." All minds are of the same essential structure; and the less illuminated will not be able permanently to resist or gain- say the determinations of the more illuminated. The Christian, by virtue of the palingenesis working in him, stands undoubtedly on an indefinitely higher plane of thought than that occupied by sinful man as such. And he must not decline, but use and press the advantage which God has thus given him. He must insist, and insist again, that his determinations, and not those of the unilluminated, must be built into the slowly rising fabric of human science. Thus will he serve, if not obviously his own generation, yet truly all the generations of men. We may assure ourselves from the outset that the palingenesis shall ultimately conquer to itself the whole race and all its products; and we may equally assure ourselves that its gradually increasing power will show itself only as the result of conflict in the free intercourse of men.

Thinking thus of Apologetics and of its task, it is natural that we should feel little sympathy with the representation sometimes heard, to the effect that Apologetics concerns itself only with "the minimum of Christianity." What is "the minimum of Christianity"? And what business has Apologetics with "the minimum of Christianity"? What Apologetics has to do with is certainly not any "minimum," but just Christianity itself, whatever that may prove to be. Its function is not to vindicate for us the least that we can get along with, and yet manage to call ourselves Christians; but to validate the Christian "view of the world," with all that is contained in the Christian "view of the world," for the science of men. It must not be permitted to sink into an "apology" for the Christian religion, in the vulgar sense of that word, which makes it much the synonym of an "excuse"; and much less into an "apology" for what is at best an "apology for the Christian religion" -- possibly nothing more than "a couple of starved and hunger-bitten dogmas," which for the purposes of the moment we may choose to identify with "the essence of Christianity." The function of Apologetics is not performed until it has placed in our hands God, religion, Christianity, and the Bible, and said to us, Now go on and explicate these fundamental facts in all their contents. When men speak of "the Apologetical minimum," we cannot help suspecting that they have for the moment lost sight of Apologetics itself altogether, and are thinking rather of some specific "Apology" which they judge might usefully be launched in behalf of Christianity, in the conditions of thought for the moment obtaining. If such an "Apology" were identifiable with "Apologetics," we might well sympathize with those who consider Apologetics a department of "Practical Theology," and it is doubtless because they do not rise above such a conception of it that many encyclopaedists have so classified it. But the Apologetics with which we are concerned is a much more fundamental, a much more comprehensive, and a much more objective thing. It does not concern itself with how this man or that may best be approached to induce him to make a beginning of Christian living, or how this age or that may most easily be brought to give a hearing to the Christian conception of the world. It concerns itself with the solid objective establishment, after a fashion valid for all normally working minds and for all ages of the world in its developing thought, of those great basal facts which constitute the Christian religion; or, better, which embody in the concrete the entire knowledge of God accessible to men, and which, therefore, need only explication by means of the further theological disciplines in order to lay openly before the eyes of men the entirety of the knowledge of 'God within their reach.

It is because Dr. Beattie's treatise conceives Apologetics after this fundamental, comprehensive, and objective fashion, and develops its contents from that point of view, that we accord it our heartiest welcome.

Endnotes

*Introduction to Francis R. Beattie's Apologetics: or the Rational Vindication of Christianity, Richmond, Va., 1903, pp. 19-32.

1 Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, Deel III, pp. 4 ff.

2 Encyclopaedia, E. T., p. 629.

3 Encyclopaedia, E. T., p. 151.

Resources

For further reading on these topics consult Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach by Vern Poythress, Science & Grace: God's Reign in the Natural Sciences by Tim Morris and Don Petcher, Creating A Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism by Peter Heslam which are written from neo-calvinist persuasion. Also Reformed Theology in America: A History of its Modern Development edited by David Wells which is an excellent overview of Reformed theologies.

Neo-Calvinism Part 2: Philosophy

2008-06-24T07:26:00.000-07:00

Another aspect to Neo-calvinism that is detrimental to truth is it's view of philosophy. Kuyper is a leader in the line of thought referred to as presuppositionalism. Through his influence, men like Herman Dooyeweerd, Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen have built a system of confusion that has leavened so much of the lump that today it seems to be the majority report amongst sovereign grace advocates. Even in circles where his other views are questioned or denied, his philosophy is accepted carte blanche. This is evident in that the major Reformed Seminaries staunchly proclaim it and it is not unusual to see Reformed churches holding study groups on the issue. Presuppositionalism says that all truth must be presupposed and cannot be proven, as all evidence used to prove a truth must be interpreted by one's "worldview" and due to the fall we cannot interpret properly. They claim those who hold to the traditional Reformed position are using human "vain philosophy". This view, however, is the one holding to vain philosophy as it seeks to accomplish what no man can do and denies the divinely ordained order or means of grace.

TRANSCENDENTALISM OR GNOSTICISM?

Cornelius VanTil preferred the label of Transcendentalism to Presuppositionalism. This according to him encapsulated the view better. You may also see it referred to as TAG or the Transcendental Argument for God. At the root one must transcend the material world in order to understand it. The more proof you have for God, the more you disprove the God of the Bible. This is a system of confusion and as 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us God is not a God of confusion. It is ultimately a resurrection of gnosticism. Gnosticism is a heresy that has two main emphases. First, it says that the physical realm is evil and to be holy one must deny it for the spiritual realm. Second, because of the first, one cannot learn by physical means but must transcend to the spiritual realm for truth. Knowledge in gnosticism is intuitive and not learned! Thus, although gnosticism by definition means knowledge, it's knowledge is a secret knowledge known only to the initiated few, a mysticism that claims to be on a higher plane of existence than the rest of us. Examples of this include the meditationist whose "ohms" take him to the higher plane, the monk living in the monastery to keep himself from the the stain of the world and the charismatic churches that seek truth in visions and dreams despite the Bible's command to "Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God"(Col. 2:18,19). God, in contrast, declares in his Word that "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge"(Psalms19:1,2) and in Romans 1:20 we read "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse". God demands two witnesses(Deut. 19:15) and has provided us with two witnesses to His glory in the general revelation of creation and the special revelation of Scripture(Deut. 4:26).

AXIOMS

Neo-calvinism also subjectifies truth. Instead of being an objective goal, truth becomes dependent on your "worldview" which will be different for everyone. You even choose your own axioms according to this view. In contrast to this, however, nature teaches us the test for truth is the law of non-contradiction, the law of causality and the general reliability of the senses. Non-contradiction is a self-evident truth in that we know that God(or anything) cannot exist and not exist at the same time. The law of causality teaches us that every effect must have a cause. The general reliability of senses teaches us that although there are occasionally illusions and mirages, we can generally trust our 5 senses. We should start with these axioms and build the foundation for a proper worldview. We must in fact start with these because we cannot transcend to a higher plane barring divine intervention (2 Cor. 12:1-3, Rev. 1:10).

THE FAITH

The most damaging effect of this line of thinking is that it dichotomizes faith and understanding and infers an implicit faith. Implicit faith is the teaching that you can simply state an agreement with something or someone although you do not understand it. An example would be taking your car to the mechanic and telling him to fix whatever is wrong with it. While this may be okay for your car, the Bible teaches an explicit faith or a knowledgable faith as is seen in it's equating faith with the knowledge of the truth (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Tim. 3:7, and Heb. 10:26). Neo-calvinism is quick to quote Augustine's famous dictum "I believe in order to understand". Faith becomes void of understanding as one must believe in order to understand. What then do you believe? Is this necessary? Do I have to believe in the Muslim Faith in order to understand what it says or can I reject it because I understand it? The gospel is the good news unto salvation and is not presupposed. God uses the foolishness of preaching (1 Cor. 1:21)to open blind eyes as faith comes by hearing and is not a intuitive leap in the dark.

CONCLUSION

We do not worship an "unknown God" like the pagan religions (Acts 17:23). God is clear to us through both His creation and revelation. We must start where we are at and grow from there. Even our Lord God and Creator, Jesus as a man had to grow in wisdom(Luke 2:52). Neo-calvinism is fideistic and circular in its reasoning. It's anti-intellectualism left unchecked will cause the downfall of many Sovereign Grace Seminaries and Churches. For further reading on this subject, I heartily recommend Classical Apologetics by R.C. Sproul, John Gerstner and Arthur Lindsley, Reason For Faith by John Gerstner, Defending Your Faith by R.C. Sproul and from a different perspective, Where In The World Is The Church by Michael Horton.

Neo-Calvinism Part 1: Culture

2008-04-18T05:44:00.000-07:00

ABRAHAM KUYPER

Neo-Calvinism is a movement founded by the Dutch Reformed minister Abraham Kuyper. Although he called it Neo-calvinism, it was to him simply Calvinism rejuvenated. As an editor-journalist, pastor, University professor, political party leader and Prime Minister Abraham had many channels in which to disseminate his views but the clearest expression of them is in the Stone Lectures he gave for Princeton University in 1898 titled Lectures On Calvinism. To Abraham, Calvinism represents Christianity in its purist and most consistent sense, and so as goes Calvinism so goes Christianity. His purpose in formulating Neo-Calvinism was to make Calvinism an all encompassing worldview that touches every area of a person's life because there is no area that Christ does not declare "Mine". Abraham believed Calvinism needed it's own culture, philosophy and science instead of borrowing from the worldly presuppositions of unbelievers. I will examine this movement in three parts and discuss why this movement is a departure from the Bible and therefore fraught with danger. This first part looks at culture. For another excellent discussion click on the link at the title with the lighthouse.

A CHRISTIAN CULTURE

While it is a truth that a Christian is to recognize Christ as Lord of every area of his life, and walk consistently therein as we are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" and "a people for God's own possession" (1 Peter 2:9) Christ prayed in John 17:15 "I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one". We are to be the "salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:13-16). If we withdraw into our own communities and isolate ourselves from the surrounding culture we become useless to God as "salt that has lost its savor". On a trip to Pennsylvania , my wife and I went to see the Amish communities there. We took a buggy ride and the Amish driver candidly admitted that they do not get any converts from outside their community, but only the children they raise. The Amish are just a tourist attraction with nothing to really offer the world but a nostalgic look at the past.

Another problem with this mentality is that it can kill creativity and individualism among Christians with its focus on uniformity and bring with it a judgmentalism. The Amish believe a Christian can only adorn ones walls with things which have a practical use such as a calender. Abraham similarly believed art was to be for religious or edifying purposes and denied "art for art's sake". We see in Scripture however that God loves beauty and much of the decorations on the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon's Temple, for instance, had no practical use but aesthetics only. We read in Genesis 1:31 that "God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good" and in 2:9 "God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight" as well as "good for food". Ezra 7:27 tells us that God put it in the king's heart to "beautify the house of the Lord". In Exodus 28:2,40 we see garments described for the priesthood which were for the purpose of "glory and beauty" and notice God says in verse 3 that they were to use "gifted artisans, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom" to make the garments. Scripture is replete with examples of artistic talent and beauty. Leland Ryken has well said "(God) did not create a purely functional world. From a utilitarian point of view, God did not have to create a world filled with colors and symmetrical forms. He could have made everything a drab gray color, or he could have created people color-blind. Surely God could have made trees whose leaves do not turn to beautiful colors in the fall of the year, or a world in which all flowers are brown in color or grass that is gray instead of green" and he goes on to say "artistic beauty needs no justification for its existence, any more than a happy marriage does, or a bird, or a flower, or a mountain, or a sunset."(p72-73, Culture in Christian Perspective) Although art is ultimately reflective of God and is therefore ultimately for the sake of God, as is everything we do from eating, to using the bathroom to brushing our teeth, in the regularly understood sense, art is for aesthetic purposes and needs no practical necessity.

Finally this view fails to take into account the different cultures among christians themselves that are all equally following the Lordship of Christ in all areas of their life. Romans 14 clearly articulates this very thing as the church at Rome was struggling over foods and holidays. Paul says it is okay to be a vegetarian or a meat eater, to recognize holidays or have none but "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind"(verse 5). Some may argue that it is the weak brother that is the vegetarian(14:2) and so he needs to grow but this does not prove he is not following the Lord in all areas of his life. Also it is not always easy to determine who the weak christian is in some cultural distinctions. Are only weak christians the ones who celebrate Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving? Are only strong christians allowed to go see movies and listen to rock and roll music? Many other issues come to mind such as alcoholic beverage consumption and education whether it be public, private or home schooling. There is no one christian culture and to try and make one is tyrannical. It was reported to me that at a recent Vision Forum conference for fathers and daughters, a speaker at the conference said that all daughters are to be groomed for marriage. This is blatantly unscriptural as 1 Corinthians 7:25-38 clearly teaches that marriage is an option and Paul says it is ultimately better for her not to marry in verse 38. Like-minded people argue that women, as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7), are not able to go to college or hold a job outside the home. This is an unchristian philosophy often called "chauvinism" and subjugates women to secondary status teaching them to be ignorant and lazy and deny their divine purpose of being a "helpmeet" or "helper comparable"(Gen. 2:18). 1 Peter 3:7 could be saying that a man is to deal with his wife's weaknesses as Paul tells the strong christians at Rome to deal with the weak christians in Romans 14 or could be a referrence to her physical weakness as it is a biological fact that men have more muscle mass than a woman. Either way, it in no way encourages a woman to sin or allows her to stay in sin. Proverbs 31:10-31 and Romans 16:1-16 (many of whom are women)show women leaving their homes to labor. While many of these issues are not issues in and of themselves, it is an issue to make them issues. Galatians 5:1 says to "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." We must take extra care not to force our "culture" on others in a mandate or forbid theirs as "the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."(1 Tim. 4:1-3)

For further reading on this subject, I recommend Culture In Christian Perspective: A Door to Understanding & Enjoying the Arts, and Worldly Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were by Leland Ryken, Where in the World is the Church: A Christian View of Culture and Your Role in It, and Beyond Culture Wars: Is America A Mission Field Or Battlefield? by Michael Horton also by Michael is a debate with Doug Wilson at http://www.credenda.org/issues/8-2disputatio.php?type=print on these issues.

Retraction

2008-04-10T08:08:00.000-07:00

ARCHIBALD McLEAN (1733-1812)

I joyfully retract what I wrote about Archibald McLean in my blog bio of him at The Scottish Legacy part 2 on 11-9-06. Due to the inaccessiblity of his out of print works, I had to rely on secondary resources for my information of him and his writings. These resources stated he held to a doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" and I repeated this in my blog. Fortunately, the Lord has recently allowed me access to some of the works of this Scottish Baptist theologian. I have recently read his The Nature and Import of Baptism and found he clearly delineated between the sign and the salvation. If he wrote something else in which he changed his mind and articulated baptism as necessary for salvation I am not aware and would appreciate the knowledge. I have no knowledge of where the resources I used got their information and have no judgment as to their motives. They too may not have had access to McLean's works and relied on false reports or they may have honestly misunderstood something he wrote. There is also the possibility of nefariousness as McLean was considered a maverick theologian even amongst his fellow baptists. I have changed my bio of him and encourage readers to read the new bio and am sorry for the bearing of false witness. I also encourage his works on faith and the doctrines of grace as well as his work on baptism previously cited.

The Lord's Supper

2008-02-27T10:16:00.000-08:00

Our Lord gave us two ordinances to remind us of Him. The first is baptism, and the second is the focus of our current discussion which goes by the various names of communion, the Eucharist and the Lord's Supper. The institution is recorded in all of the Gospels, Matthew 26:26-30, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-23 and John 13:18-30 and was followed by the church as we see in Acts 2:42,46, 20:7, 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 and 11:23-34. The focus of the ordinance is Christ and His sacrifice for our sins. When I say "our" I want to be explicit that I am referring to the elect. Jesus said in Mark 14:24 that His blood is shed for the "many" and not every human being to walk planet earth and again in Luke 22:20, Christ specifies "shed for you" speaking of His followers, which if you believe you too are a follower. The objects used to sybolize Christ are bread and "the fruit of the vine". The bread represents His body which was given for us. The fruit of the vine represents the blood of Christ which was shed for "many". Again I want to be clear The bread and fruit "represent" Christ and are not literally Christ. Catholics hold to a doctrine called "transubstantiation" which claims that the bread and fruit transform into Christ's body and blood when you eat them. Similarly, Lutherans hold to a doctrine called "consubstantiation" which claims that Christ's body and blood permeate the bread and fruit. Both of these doctrines are in error. First, Jesus instituted these while He was still alive and used bread and the fruit of the vine specifically for the purpose of representing His body and blood. Second, the book of Hebrews tells us repeatedly that Christ was offered once (Heb. 9:12,26,and 28, 10:10) and so this would preclude a repeated sacrifice everytime we observe the Lord's Supper. Third, Colossians 3:1 tells us where the body of Christ is presently, it is at the right hand of God. Lastly, common sense tells us that it is not flesh we are eating and blood we are drinking when we participate in the supper.

What Is The Fruit Of The Vine?

This question is often a divider amongst churches that would hold to other doctrines unanimously. Was Jesus referring to alcoholic wine or grape juice? Jesus specifically used the term "fruit of the vine" so that we could decide for ourselves what to use. Presbyterians, Methodists,Episcopalians, Lutherans and Primitive Baptists typically use alcoholic wine or offer both, whereas most Baptists and Pentecostal groups (Assembly of God and Church of God) use grape juice solely. Surely we are all in agreement that it is wrong to be drunk ( Eph. 5:18) but the small amount in the communion cups would not make anyone drunk. Some ardent Presbyterians argue that it must have been wine as they had no refrigeration in Jesus's day to keep grape juice and 1 Corinthians 11:21 says some were "drunk". This proves nothing ,however, as Jesus may have used fresh grape juice and the Corinthians were abusing the Lord's Supper. 1 Corinthians 11:21 clearly seems to be contrasting lack with indulgence. Paul using the word drunk in this context is not necessarily referring to inebriation but instead whereas some are hungry others are full. This seems to make more sense as Paul says not to fellowship with drunkards earlier in 1 Corinthians 5:11 and he does not say to cut the drunk ones off from fellowship. Primitive Baptists take a different twist and argue it must be wine because the bread used was unleavened and the fermentation process kills the leaven in grape juice and so to be consistent one should use wine. This is an interesting perspective but does not seem to coincide with the fermentation process as I understand it. In making wine from juice, cultured yeast is added to the juice similarly as it is in dough to make bread. While it is true there is an "ambient yeast" present in grape juice that will ferment on its on in time, processed wine usually uses a cultured yeast to both speed the process and control it. Also It does not seem that the process necessarily kills the ambient yeasts hence why wines get "better" with time. Therefore, unfermented juice seems to be more consistent with unleavened bread than fermented wine. Temperance goups argue that unleavened bread and unfermented wine (grape juice) should be used to be consistent and that we should not even have a taste for alcohol barring medicinal purposes (1 Tim. 5:23) and I am personally inclined to this argument but we must not be legalistic about this as it is a conscience matter. One last thing must be said before leaving this section. Some churches are using milk and cookies or even cola and pizza for the service. We must not treat this as any ordinary meal and cheapen it with silliness. Whether you use unleavened or leavened bread or crackers, fermented or unfermented wine(grape juice) or vinegar it is important that this be a proper representative of Christ.

How Often Are We to Partake?

1 Corinthians 11:25 simply states "as often as you drink it" again leaving it to the individual fellowship to make this decision. Some groups argue to follow scripture we must do it every week (Acts 20:7). This assumes Acts 20:7 is indicating the disciples did it only on the first day of every week and every first day of the week. These same groups ,however, probably do not continue there messages until midnight as Paul did. Some groups do it quarterly (3 or 4 times a year) or once a month so that it does not come to be treated as a common thing.

Who Can Partake?

As an ordinance of the Lord Jesus Christ only believers are to partake of the supper. To this I might add baptized believers as this ordinance should follow the first which is baptism. Some churches hold to a "closed communion" and only allow the particular members of that church to partake others allow for any visiting believer who has been baptized to participate or "open communion". Closed churches do so to prevent anyone from eating damnation on themselves ( 1 Cor. 11:27) but the key thing to remember is the man is to "examine himself" (1 Cor. 11:28). As long as the church is coming together in a "worthy manner" they are not to blame for any individuals eating unworthily. The "worthy manner" referred to is they meet for the purpose of unity in the body of Christ remembering His sacrifice for their sin. The Corinthians were treating it as a common meal and were not sharing appropriately so many of them were killed by the Lord or made sick (1 Cor. 11:30). Unfortunately, these passages have been so misconstrued that "for generations many in the Scottish Highlands have refused to receive the communion elements because of the want of personal assurance of their salvation. Although believing that Jesus Christ is the Saviour and the Son of God, self-examination fails to yield sufficient evidence of their election to salvation. Fearing that apart from such assurance they may eat and drink in an unworthy manner, and thereby incur the judgment of God, they abstain from receiving the Lord's Supper."( Charles Bell, Calvin and Scottish Theology p.7) Charles goes on to say that he had the same problem growing up in a Presbyterian church in southern California. Michael Horton has rightly said, "Some have carried this threat too far, however, using it as a source of terror for those who come to the Lord's Table as sinners. But eating and drinking 'worthily' does not mean that we are required to have pure hearts and lives in order to take communion. Not only is communion available to sinners; it is available only to sinners. Eating and drinking worthily means, at least in part, that we come dressed only in the righteousness of Christ."(Michael Horton, In The Face Of God p.20) Unfortunately, the other extreme is also happening as many churches are calling the Lord's Supper a "converting ordinance". They mean by this it is for unsaved people to either get saved or to lead them to the Lord to be saved. This is not scriptural! This argument is usually seen in paedobaptist communities that allow for paedocommunion. The scripture is clear that we partake of the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Him indicating a first belief and the partaker should be able to examine himself. Babies and very young children do not meet this qualification and therefore should not participate.

The Spiritual Presence View

In some circles you may here discussed the Spiritual Presence view. A big debate ensued between the Reformers Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli. Luther's view of consubstatiation was covered earlier, but Zwingli's view is usually held to have been the commemoration view. Luther accused Zwingli of holding to a bare memorial rationalism and Zwingli in turn denounced Luther's view as mystical nonsense. Along came Calvin who tried to moderate between the extremes and came up with a Spiritual Presence view, which says Christ is spiritually present in the bread and fruit. Presbyterian theologian R.L. Dabney called Calvin's view "not only incomprehensible, but impossible"(quoted in Ligon Duncan, The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century volume 2 p. 447) and Scottish Free Church theologian William Cunningham said that Calvin's view was "altogether unsuccessful, and resulted only in what was about as unintelligible as Luther's consubstantiation. This is, perhaps, the greatest blot in the history of Calvin's labours as a public instructor" (William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation p. 240). As can be seen Reformed theologians are not in agreement on this issue with some as R.L. Dabney, William Cunningham, B.B. Warfield, J. Oliver Buswell, Donald MacLeod and Robert Reymond tending toward the Zwingli side of the spectrum and R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Douglas Kelly, R. Scott Clark, Keith Mathison and Sinclair Ferguson tending more toward the Calvin side. There are, however, a whole new breed claiming Calvin's side but who in reality have gone far beyond Calvin in making the Lord's Supper efficacious for salvation. These theologians include Ronald Wallace, James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk, Mark Horne and others associated with the Federal Vision movement.

Conclusion

Regardless of where your favorite theologian stands, at the end of the day all that matters is what sayeth scripture. The Bible, as already shown, clearly says it is in remembrance of Jesus. The greek word translated remembrance is Anamnesis, and means simply that to remember. It is the opposite of a similar word we have in english, amnesia, which means to forget or more properly, not to remember. Theologians in their doubt of God's word often degradate it by adding words like "bare" or "mere". Faith, they say, is not mere belief it has to be something more, although they cannot say what, and still claim to hold to sola fide. This same thing is done to the Lord's Supper. It cannot be a bare memorial but must be something else to them. I believe the bare words of the Bible are the words of mere God and Christ is His bare Son and merely believing in Him is the bare good news to the dying sinner and the Lord's Supper is a mere memorial to Him and this truth.

5 Point Intersection?

2007-10-07T14:37:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, Calvinist theologians get a wild hair and decide that 5 points are not enough to be inclusive for fellowship with other denominations or groups and decide to add some point or another which is usually their pet doctrine. Such is the case with Richard Muller, the Historical Theology professor at Calvin Theological Seminary an institute of the Reformed Denomination, in an article How Many Points? from the Calvin Seminary Journal he wrote in 1993. Usually they are just an easy couple of extra points but in Richards case it appears he will have nothing else but full obeisance to the Three Forms of Unity which comprise the confession for the Reformed Denomination. He starts off by saying, "I once met a minister who introduced himself to me as a "five-point Calvinist." I later learned that, in addition to being a self-confessed five-point Calvinist, he was also an anti-paedobaptist who assumed that the church was a voluntary association of adult believers, that the sacraments were not means of grace but were merely "ordinances" of the church, that there was more than one covenant offering salvation in the time between the Fall and the eschaton, and that the church could expect a thousand-year reign on earth after Christ's Second Coming but before the ultimate end of the world. He recognized no creeds or confessions of the church as binding in any way. I also found out that he regularly preached the "five points" in such a way as to indicate the difficulty of finding assurance of salvation: He often taught his congregation that they had to examine their repentance continually in order to determine whether they had exerted themselves enough in renouncing the world and in "accepting" Christ. This view of Christian life was totally in accord with his conception of the church as a visible, voluntary association of "born again" adults who had "a personal relationship with Jesus." Richard never identifies this implied boogeyman but it seems to me he may be referring to John MacArthur, pastor of the Grace Community Church in California and president of the Master's Seminary. Regardless, let us examine what faults this man has.

First of all he believes in baptizing only professing believers. Mark 16:16 says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...", Acts 2:38 commands to repent and then be baptized and later in verse 41 it tells us that only those "who gladly received his word were baptized." No place in Scripture ever tells us a baby was baptized or commands to baptize any babies but only believers. Any true Reformed theology will stand firmly by the principle of Sola Scriptura or Bible alone and so the boogeyman represents the reformed position more than either Richard or his precious Three Forms of Unity does.

Next we see this man believes the church is an association of "adult believers" voluntarily. Again I bring our attention to Acts 2:41 where it says "those who gladly received his word... were added to them(that is the church) and again we see in 2 Peter 1:1 he in talking to the church refers to them as "those who have obtained a like precious faith. Maybe Richard's problem is that he feels it should not be "voluntary" but forced worship, which is what baptizing babies does. This would be in line with the Catholic Church but again falls far short of the Holy Scriptures and so round two to the boogeyman.

Now this man does not hold to sacraments as a means of grace but ordinances. This is a more convoluted issue as the terms "sacrament" and "ordinance" mean the same thing and so it is a preference of terms. Since Rome uses the term sacrament some Reformed prefer to use ordinance. The second part to this question is are they a means of grace. I again turn to Scripture, as in Romans 10:17 where it states "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God". In Eph. 2:8,9 we learn that it is by grace through faith and not of works that we are saved and so scripture clearly articulates the only means of grace as the Holy Bible. Baptism and Communion are for believers and reflect what has happened internally through Jesus Christ our Lord in the Holy Spirit. Again Richard's weak doctrine of Sola Scriptura is evident.

As to the covenants, I would agree with Richard that there is one covenant offering salvation, but think he is weaker on this than he knows as I will show on a later point he makes. We next read that Richard believes in amillenialism and our boogeyman is a premillenialist. Revelation 20 seems to indicate such a teaching and once again the weight of evidence lies with Richard to prove the man wrong. Even paedobaptists like Horatius Bonar, Gordon Clark and James Montgomery Boice have been premillenial and so Richard may want to convince people in their camps that the "Reformed Creeds" teach amillenialism. As for whether or not "the creeds or confessions of the church are binding" one must ask which creeds or confessions and which church. First some churches prefer to use the Bible alone as a statement of faith, but of the ones that use confessions, there are the First London Baptist, the Second London Baptist, the Philadelphia Baptist and the New Hampshire Baptist Confessions and the Lutherans use the Augsburg Confession. Richard I do not believe would be happy with any of these. There is also statements like the Tridentine Decree of the Roman Catholic's Council of Trent which I hope Richard would not want to associate with. Where does the Bible make any of the above listed confessions binding or any Richard claims to like as the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster. Lastly, Richard takes issue with our boogeyman on his abuse of the 5 points to instill doubt and fear in his congregation about their salvation. He goes on to say that our boogeyman's "doctrines would have been repudiated by Calvin. In fact, his doctrines would have gotten him tossed out of Geneva had he arrived there with his brand of "Calvinism" at any time during the late sixteenth or the seventeenth century. Perhaps more to the point, his beliefs stood outside of the theological limits presented by the great confessions426of the Reformed churches—whether the Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformed church or the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism of the Dutch Reformed churches or the Westminster standards of the Presbyterian churches." Richard continues"It is also the case that the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism are substantially in agreement with the confessional standards of other branches of the Reformed church, whether the Geneva Catechism or the First and Second Helvetic Confession of the Swiss Reformation or the Scot’s Confession and the Westminster standards of the British and American Presbyterian and Reformed churches."

While I agree with Richard that our boogeyman's beliefs would have gotten him kicked out of Geneva as Calvin was not a fan of either credobaptists nor chiliests, Richard errs in his belief that Calvin would have accepted the Westminster Confession with open arms. The Westminster Confession in fact like our boogeyman and contrary to The Three Forms of Unity divests faith from assurance. Our boogeyman is clearly in the spirit of the Puritan and therefore Westminster view of assurance. This would be seen by Calvin as a return to Rome. Calvin also held to a stronger view of predestination than the Westminster as he was supralapsarian. While I would agree with Richard over our boogeyman on this issue, I do not consider Westminster friendly to our view. Richard needs to read the Westminster as he says " They also — all of them — agree on the assumption that our assurance of the salvation, wrought by grace alone through the work of Christ and God's Spirit in us, rests not on our outward deeds or personal claims but on our apprehension of Christ in faith and on our recognition of the inward work of the Spirit in us. " This leads Richard to conclude that "There are, therefore, more than five points" and " there cannot be such a thing as a "five-point Calvinist" or "five-point Reformed Christian" who owns just those five articles taken from the Canons of Dort and who refuses to accept the other "points" made by genuinely Reformed theology." Richard furthers his point now by introducing a critique of the eminent Baptist theologian Dr. John Gill. He states " An example of this problem — I hesitate to say "a case in point" — is the theological system propounded by the English high (some would say "hyper") Calvinistic Baptist, John Gill, and the way that his system has been read out into the life of some of the so-called Particular Baptist denominations. Gill most certainly affirmed the five points. In fact, he held an intensified version of the third point by arguing that Christ's work was limited in its sufficiency as well as in its efficacy: Christ's satisfaction was not merely, according to Gill, efficient for the elect only, it was also sufficient for the sins of the elect only. With this radical sense of election, Gill could view the entire order of salvation as taking place in eternity — justification and adoption were now eternal acts of God. Since nothing took place in time except for the enactment of the decree, there was no need in Gill's system for a temporal order of grace. Sacraments could be considered simply as ordinances, and baptism could be viewed as a sign administered to adults only, after the eternal decree had been executed in an individual. Those who have followed Gill's theology allow no offers of grace but only a preaching about grace. They have tended to offer no instruction in Christianity for children and they have typically opposed Christian missions — because no human agency is needed in God's elective work. They have also followed Gill and numerous others after him into speculation about the coming millennium when, finally, the career of Satan will be ended and he will no longer be able to roam the world "seeking whom he may devour."The logic of such a theology is to view God's electing grace as an unmediated bolt from the blue. No one knows where it may strike and no one can find any assurance either through participation in the life of God's covenanting people or on grounds of belief or conduct that he or she will be or, indeed, is now numbered among the elect. Gill held forth an antinomian gospel that could declare in its preaching of grace that no obedience to divine commands was required for salvation 429and no offers of grace ought to be made in the church. On Gill's own terms, membership in his Particular Baptist community could be no sign of salvation and no assurance of its possibility. Grace and salvation could just as easily occur on a desert island."

While I hold Dr. Gill in high esteem and prefer his commentaries to many "reformed" commentaries I do admit some extremes in him and deviate from him in some areas. His view of the atonement is however not one of them. While I agree the doctrine of "eternal justification" denies a means of grace and is inconsistent with scripture at Eph.2:3 and 2 Peter 3:9, this does not deny Christ's death for His elect alone. If the covenant of grace was made to the elect alone then for what purpose would Christ die for everyone. Richard's view of the covenant is therefore flawed in its inclusiveness. Gill's point in limiting it's sufficiency as well as its efficacy is to show that Christ accomplished His purpose. In what way is Christ's death sufficient for all except hypothetically. Holding to this view, one must take care to distinguish his view from the "hypothetical universalism" of Amyraldism.

While I have been critical of Richard in this article and have used his article as an example of reformed extremism I do appreciate his cogent presentation of the clear line in the sand that still divides those of us that are reformed credobaptists and reformed paedobaptists and have put his whole article as a link from my own. Despite the disagreements, Richard does have some very insightful things to say such as " Salvation does not arise out of human merit but by grace 430alone through the acceptance, by graciously engendered faith, of the sufficient sacrifice of Christ for our sins." and he goes on with an excellent description of reformed of either stripe who use unbiblical jargon in there invitations to faith when he says " I have often commented to evangelical friends that, for me, having a personal relationship or knowing someone personally means that I can sit down at a table with him and have a cup of coffee, that I can speak to him and he can respond in an audible fashion. But I can't sit at a table and have a cup of coffee with Jesus. And if I speak to him, he does not answer audibly As an angel once rightly noted, "He is not here: for he is risen," and, indeed, ascended into heaven." showing how rediculous it is to call unsaved to a "personal relationship" with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ instead of faith in His gospel. It is my hope that Richard is being dogmatic for the purposes of teaching what he believes to be truth only and not trying to divide over every disagreement. I accept the term reformed as it denotes a belief in the doctrines of grace but if I must hold to an imperfect Confession of Faith in order to retain the denomination, I will defer and stand alone with the Bible. I do not think Richard or anybody else owns it, however, and so I will keep it.

For further study on some of the issues dicussed here I recommend Are Baptists Reformed? by Kenneth Good who is a calvinistic Baptist that would agree with Richard's distinctions, By His Grace and for His Glory by Tom Nettles who is a Baptist theologian holding to Gill's view of Definite Atonement, Diversity Within the Reformed Tradition by J.V. Fesko who is a Prebyterian pastor in the OPC and who proves Calvin held to a supralapsarian position, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul Jewett who is a Baptist theologian, and Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 by R.T. Kendall who has an interesting discussion of Westminster's deviation from Calvin, Luther and the other reformers on assurance being the essence of faith.

Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society

2007-09-27T05:43:00.000-07:00

With movements like the Federal Vision and the New Perspective on Paul(NPP) redefining justification to be by the christian's faithfulness as opposed to faith in Christ, it is important to consider the position of another group damaging the cause of Christ. Zane Clark Hodges is a Pastor of Victor Street Bible Church in Dallas, Texas and a graduate of and former professor at the dispensational Dallas Theological Seminary. In lieu of his former influence at Dallas, Zane is a founder and leader in a movement that has caused much confusion in its perversions of God's word. As a dispensationalist, Zane makes no bones about his disagreements with Reformed theology. In spite of this ,however, he and his comrades at the Grace Evangelical Society(GES), a ministry organized to propagate the theology of Zane, claim to hold to the reformation tenet of sola fide and claim the support of the reformers themselves. Because of this, their teaching must be examined to see if their claims are true. This study will focus on Zane's doctrine of salvation(soteriology) as this is his major error. At the outset I want to say that Zane holds to many scriptural truths such as the Trinity, deity of Christ and the inerrancy of scripture among many others and so to agree with him in some areas does not indicate either a necessary influence or association with him or his ilk. This is important to note as many groups attempt to dissuade people from the truth by using the "fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine" knowing that most people will not be discerning enough to search for the truth.

Zane on Faith as a Gift

Zane claims to hold to a salvation that is absolutely free, and yet he denies faith is a gift from God in his book Absolutely Free! (AF) on page 219 where he states "The Bible never affirms that saving faith per se is a gift". If salvation is absolutely free it must be a gift and if faith is essential to salvation as the scriptures indicate in Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:28 and John 3:16 then faith itself must be a gift or salvation is not absolutely free as I must do something to get it. His claim that the Bible never affirms saving faith as a gift shows his lack of knowledge of scripture as Philippians 1:29 clearly states it is given to us to believe in Christ. In his book The Gospel Under Siege on page167 Zane elaborates this thought by saying "It is often claimed by theologians that man has no capacity to believe and that faith, like salvation, must be given to him as a gift. But this view is contradicted by 2 Corinthians 4:3,4 where Paul writes: 'But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.'" and later states "God's role in bringing men to faith is therefore revelatory" revealing his blindness of scripture which states in Mark 4:11,12 "And He said to them. 'To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.'" What is given to us is the ability to know the truth of revelation, which is faith. We can now see that Zane holds to the Arminian view of "free will" and that believing earns justification and salvation. This is called neonomianism in theology circles. Neonomianism believes the ten commandments saved in the Old Testament but in the New Testament it is, in this case, the law of faith or in other cases the law of love. In contrast, scripture teaches the elect "were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13) and again it says "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16). Zane and other Arminians may say yeah but in John 1:12 it is to those that receive Christ that are saved to which I say a hearty amen. But what they fail to understand is that receiving Christ equals believing in him. As the Holy Spirit baptizes the person in Christ, regenerating him, that person has received Christ and believes. I receive phone calls and mail all the time without any action of my own. When I was born in the flesh, my parents did not ask my opinion on the matter, nor does God on the new birth.

Zane on the Atonement

For all his talk of the gospel of grace being under seige, eclipsed and absolutely free, it is surprising that Zane makes only passing reference to the doctrine of the atonement in his books. In his book Absolutely Free! on page 85 Zane says " Frequently (though not always) lordship salvation is combined with a harsh system of thought that denies the reality of God's love for every single human being. According to this kind of theology, God dooms most men to eternal damnation long before they are born and really gives His Son to die only for the elect." He later states "It does not lie within the scope of this book to deal with this tragic error." The atonement is essential to the gospel. Any book trying to prove an "absolutely free" gospel must deal with the death of Christ and who He died for. It is clear,however, from his quote and reference to the book Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 by R.T. Kendall, that Zane holds that Christ died for every human being. For this to be true,however, everyone must therefore go to heaven as Christ's death is the basis for our salvation to be absolutely free. On the cross Christ cried out "It is finished" (John 19:30) completing his task of earning our salvation. If Christ died for all humans and not just for "His people" as the Bible says in Matthew 1:21, and not all go to heaven, then salvation is not "absolutely free" and we must do something to earn it. The reformer, John Calvin , contra Kendall, believed Christ died for the elect and referred to universal redemptionists as "buffoons" in one place. Calvin states, "Besides, we note that St. Paul does not speak here of anyone but the faithful (fidelis). For there are certain buffoons who, to blind the eyes of the ignorant and others like themselves, want to cavil here that the grace of salvation is given to us because God ordained that his Son should be the Redeemer of the human race, but that this is common to all, and indiscriminate." (quoted from The Will of God and the Cross by Jonathan Rainbow p. 123) . The Bible is clear that Christ came only to serve and give His life "a ransom for many (the elect)" (Matt. 20:28).

Zane on Perseverance

Zane states in his book Absolutely Free! on page 80 " The simple fact is that the New Testament never takes for granted that believers will see discipleship through to the end. And it never makes this kind of perseverance either a condition or a proof of final salvation from hell". He later states on page 138 that Christians can reject a good conscience and suffer shipwreck of the faith as Hymenaeus and Alexander did in 1 Tim. 1:19-20. Zane has even been quoted as stating in a sermon that Christians can become atheists but should not be thought to be going to hell, as they once professed belief. Scripture is clear, however, in 1 John 2:19 that " They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us". True faith perseveres. As faith is a gift from God, we can be confident that "He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6) . Zane's reference to Hymenaeus as being a Christian reveals again his lack of insight in the Word of God. 2 Timothy 2:17-21 clearly indicates that Hymenaeus is not in the faith. Verse 19 states "the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: The Lord knows those who are His" and in verse 20 we learn that " in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor". Finally, Hebrews 10:39 tells us " But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul". Perseverence is clearly a gift included in our salvation.

Zane On Faith

One area I find some agreement between Zane and myself is on his definition of faith in chapter 2 of AF. Zane holds to a literal understanding of faith as opposed to the figurative or metaphorical view of the pietists and revivalists. Theologians of today often trichotomize faith into three psychological categories notitia, assensus and fiducia. This usually leads to an unscriptural distinction between "head faith" and "heart faith". This teaching says that there are real gospel believers going to hell because they believed only intellectually and lacked "holy affections". They often quote from James 2:19 that the demons believe but are going to hell. While it is a truth that the elect love Christ because he first loved us (1 John 4:19), we must first believe in Christ in order to love Him. Hebrews 11:6 says "without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him". Belief precedes any and all "holy affections" and is the basis for those affections. 1 John 3:6 teaches that "whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him" and in 4:8 says "he who does not love does not know God, for God is love". Clearly the reprobate do not believe God. As for the demons faith, it clearly makes them tremble and so is real but faith is not what saves, Christ as the object does and we know from Hebrews 2:16 that "He does not give aid to the angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham". It is only through the definite atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ that we are saved through faith. I say only some agreement, however, because for Zane, faith is the one thing our "free will" can do to earn salvation. For Zane, faith is a magic formula akin to an "abracadabra" or an "open sesame" earning our way to heaven. Scripture teaches that it is the definite atonement and imputed righteousness of Christ that saves man. They grant new life to a person, opening blind eyes to see, and deaf ears to hear the truth of the Gospel, which is faith. It is the object of faith that saves and not the faith itself.

Zane On Sanctification

Zane sees a difference between "salvation" and "discipleship". On page 68 of AF he states that "discipleship is obviously hard, while eternal life is free", on page 74 he states that discipleship "has to a willingness to work, and to work hard" and finally on page 88 "Salvation is absolutely free; discipleship most certainly is not". This again is not in line with scripture. While it is true that not every disciple was a believer, every believer is a disciple of Christ. Every Christian answers as Peter did in John 6:68 "Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life". The word disciple means follower. Why would a Christian believer follow Buddha? Why would a person who followed Mohammed be called a Christian? In John 10:27 Jesus tells us "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me". Also, discipleship like "salvation" is by faith and not hard. Paul asks us in Galations 3:3, " having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh" and verse 5 asks "He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law , or by the hearing of faith". Jesus contrary to Zane says in Matthew 11:28-30 "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light". Discipleship is the aspect of salvation called sanctification, where God sets His people apart from the world and sin. It is by faith(John 17:17) and it is not hard but sets us free(John 8:32).

Is Zane A Sandemanian?

Two men who are often slighted as being predecessors of Zane, and accused of holding to his errors are Robert Sandeman and Gordon Clark. J.I. Packer accuses Sandeman of this in the foreword to John MacArthur's book The Gospel According to Jesus. Also Michael Makidon of the GES wrote an article at http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2002i/makidon.pdf on Robert and his ministry. In a guilt by association way Gordon Clark is accused by Banner Of Truth as being a Sandemanian at http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?719 . This is not so for either men. Both Robert Sandeman and Gordon Clark held firmly to Christ's definite atonement and imputed righteousness. To these men salvation is a gift of God from start to finish. I encourage readers to read these men for themselves, as much that is written about them is false witness. Robert Sandeman's theology is clearly presented in his magnum opus Letters On Theron and Aspasio, which is no longer in print but available on Thomson-Gale. I owe a debt of gratitude to Sandeman for my ordering of thoughts in this critique of Zane and the GES. Gordon Clark's works include Predestination, God and Evil and What is Saving Faith? and are available at http://www.trinityfoundation.org/ . Lord willing, I intend to do thorough treatments of these much maligned men in the future as they are two of my heroes in the faith. I have done a short bio of Robert at The Scottish Legacy part 2 at this site.

Conclusion

Zane and the GES are not in the tradition of either the Reformers, Robert Sandeman, Gordon Clark or most importantly of Scripture. I put the link to the GES so the reader can read for himself what they are saying or order his books if you so wish. His main books are Absolutely Free! , The Gospel Under Seige and Grace In Eclipse. Two other major works disseminating his theology are The Reign of The Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow and The Other Side Of Calvinism by Laurence Vance. For another critique of Zane from an Arminian and dispensational group go to the Middletown Bible Church in Connecticutt site at http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesho.htm . This site includes many quotes from Zane's sermons I do not have access to and is important in noting the differences in arminianisms. For a critique advocating the "traditional" trichotomizing of faith see The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur and Faith Alone and other works by RC Sproul.

What Does Reformed Mean?

2007-07-04T06:48:00.000-07:00

As I use the term Reformed to descibe both my theology and the theology taught in the Bible, I feel it important for readers who may not be familiar with the term to understand what it means and in what context I use it. "Reformed" is dependent upon its context. In its first context it can describe and include the christian movement in the 16th century, headed by such lights as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, John Knox and Menno Simons, which broke away from the Catholic church in protest of its apostasy. These men by the grace of God and through the leading of the Holy Spirit came to see the Bible as teaching Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus and Soli Deo Gloria. Sola Scriptura is latin for the Bible (Scriptures) alone. This means that true christians go by the authority of the Bible alone to the exclusion of church tradition, Papal decrees, uninspired writings or even human laws when these thing contradict the Bible. The Bible claims for itself this authority in 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20,21 and many other places. The Bible has been completed and is not being written today as there are no apostles alive today( for more on this I direct the reader to my blog on The Holy Bible). Sola Gratia is latin for Grace alone. Reformed theology believes salvation is by grace alone (Eph. 2:8,9). Man can only make it to heaven by God's love, mercy, forgiveness and unmerited favor as "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"(Rom. 3:23). Sola Fide is latin for Faith alone. Faith is the only instrument involved in man's justification and salvation. It follows regeneration and is itself a gift of God (Rom. 3:20,28 and Eph. 2:8-10). Menno Simons differed from the others in his definition of faith but he too claimed faith alone. Menno defined faith as being active and a lifestyle, as opposed to the others, for whom faith is passive, intellectual and focused on Christ, who is the next Sola in Solus Christus. This is latin for Christ alone, whose deity, virgin birth, perfect life, death on the cross, burial and bodily resurrection is the object of our saving faith (1 Cor. 15, Heb. 12:20). Menno, again looked at Christ more as an example in contrast to the others who looked on him as a substitute, earning our righteousness to be imputed to us through faith, paying the debt of our sin. Both, however, looked on Christ as Lord. Soli Deo Gloria is latin for "to God alone the Glory". This means that our salvation and all creation are intended for the glory of God (Prov. 16:4). All creation exists to glorify God.

The second use of the term Reformed is as a denomination. Of the above listed Reformers, the congregations started by Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin combined to form the Reformed denomination. Martin Luther's congregation came to be known as Lutheran, Knox's became Presbyterian and Menno Simons followers are currently called Mennonites and Amish. The Reformed denomination is exclusive and is indicative of the churches of Switzerland, and the Netherlands and in America is sometimes referred to as "Dutch" Reformed for clarification purposes.

The third and final use is the system deduced from the Bible taught in the Reformed denomination. This use is an umbrella that can cover a number of different denominations that are in agreement with the fundamental principles of the Reformed denomination. Some denominations like the Presbyterians are closer in agreement than others such as Baptists or Episcopalians but nonetheless some Baptist and Episcopal churches are considered Reformed. The main parts of the system have come to be known by the acronym T.U.L.I.P. This stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints.

We hold these as Scripture tells us in Romans 3:23 "that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and in Isaiah 64:5,6 we learn we need to be saved because all our righteousness is like filthy rags. Mankind has not kept God's law and indeed cannot perfectly and therefore needs to be saved. 1 Peter 1:2 tells us we were elect for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ and not because of them. 2 Timothy 1:9 tells us we were saved and called "not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began" and Eph. 2:8,9 says we are saved "not of works, lest anyone should boast". Ephesians 5:25 says Christ loved the church and died for her and this was according to the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3:11). Also Christ's intercessory prayer in John 17 is not for the world verse 9 but for the present and future elect verse 20. The elect we learn are called by Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:6) and are called to be saints (Rom. 1:7) according to the divine purpose (Rom. 8:28) and that this calling is destined from and for an eternity (Rom. 8:30). Finally, we elect are confident that He who has begun a good work in us will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6) for we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:39) because God is able to keep us from stumbling and to present us faultless before the presence of His glory (Jude 24).

This third use is the use I refer to when describing myself and is the use I mean most in using the term. As indicated by the different denominations, there are differences amongst reformed scholars. Differences involving church practices(believer baptism or paedobaptism), understanding of future events(a, pre or post millenial) and Bible interpretation(grammatico-historical, redemptive-historical or other) amongst others still persist. The biblical and soteriological emphasis involving the 5 sola's and T.U.L.I.P. listed above however define and unite us.

For more information consult What is Reformed Theology by R.C. Sproul, After Darkness,Light by R.C. Sproul Jr. and By His Grace and For His Glory: A Historical, Theological, and Practical Study of the Doctrines of Grace in Baptist Life by Thomas J. Nettles.

Lamentations #4

2007-04-22T18:18:00.000-07:00

A.W. Pink was a Reformed author in the early to mid 1900's. His works are of invaluable worth. I was inspired and instructed in the days of my youth by the unabridged version of his book The Sovereignty of God and recommend it to this day. In his book The Attributes of God, which is itself otherwise very good, he states "The Holy Spirit has to shine in our hearts (not intellects) in order to give us 'the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' (2 Cor. 4:6)". And earlier in the same chapter he reiterates this thought by saying "Nor is God known by the intellect". Jesus in contrast to this states in Luke 10:27 that we are to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind " (italics mine). The Lord warns of those who darken counsel by words without knowledge in Job 38:1,2. In Jeremiah we learn that if Israel will repent God will send them shepherds "who will feed them with knowledge and understanding "(Jer. 3:15) but he later proclaims that they are foolish, as silly children, having no understanding (Jer. 4:22). Paul in Romans 10:2 tells us that Israel has a zeal for God but not according to knowledge and he warns us of end times in which people will be always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth in 2 Timothy 3:7. There are those who say "no creed but Christ " but scripture says no creed, no Christ. Salvation demands we both understand and assent to the Gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ. It is just as illegitimate to dichotomise a head faith and a heart faith as it is Christ's being Savior from Christ being Lord. Lack of knowledge leads to false worship.

The Federal Vision's Blindness

2007-04-16T09:31:00.000-07:00

There is a movement today in Reformed circles that is shaking it's very foundations and if left alone, will leaven the whole lump. The movement originated at the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana during a Pastors conference in 2002. The speakers at this conference were John Barach, Steve Schlissel, Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins, the pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church(PCA). The movement has since made inroads to other Reformed churches and denominations. Although it has been called by many different names, the most common names for it are The Auburn Avenue Theology and currently the Federal Vision. Along with the "Monroe Four" listed above, current advocates include Peter Leithart, Rich Lusk, Tom Trouwborst, Ralph Smith, Joel Garver, Mark Horne and James Jordan. The vehicles for the movement are the magazine Credenda/Agenda, the publication company Canon Press, multiple books authored by the above listed individuals and their internet websites. The movement even has it's own denomination in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) although the majority of those spearheading it are still in other denominations such as the Presbyterian Church of America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The goals of the movement are simple, to objectify the covenant of grace and save federal theology from the Baptists and dispensationalists.

What The Federal Vision Teaches

Although the adherents of the Federal Vision (FV) do differ amongst themselves on some doctrines, such as paedocommunion(most hold to this but a few like Steve Schlissel do not), each agree with the general thrust and cardinal doctrines issued forth from each other. The first goal of the FV is to objectify the covenant of grace. In order to prevent the "morbid introspection" rampant in so many Reformed circles, the FV propose christians look to the sacraments and their church membership for confirmation of their salvation. John Barach states that "Every baptized person is in covenant with God and is in union, then with Christ and with the triune God...Every baptized person is truly a member of God's covenant"(quoted in The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology by Guy Waters p15). Rich Lusk echoes this by openly affirming "baptismal regeneration" provided the terms be defined properly. For Lusk, defined properly means a "covenantal form of baptismal regeneration".Steve Wilkins also agrees by saying "To be baptized is to be covenantally joined to Christ. Not that baptism justifies, but it inaugurates covenant union with Christ just as circumcision did."and he later states "Baptized children do not have to' join the church' they are members of the church by their baptism.(quoted in The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology p232-234). So for the FV, the covenant of grace is conditioned upon church membership, church membership is conditioned upon baptism and babies are to be baptized. Therefore, when babies grow up, as they are already baptized and members of the church and can look to this as confirmation of their salvation, there must then be no need to acknowledge the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as stated in the book of Acts chapter 16 and verse 31.

While I am no fan either of the "morbid introspection" prevalent in some reformed circles, primarily the ones aligning themselves with Puritan thought, the answer to this is not to deny the gospel by trusting in works or our association in the church, but to get back to the purity and simplicity that is in Christ Jesus( John 11:25-26). Morbid introspection or "fruit policing" stems from the Puritan dichotomy of faith and assurance, as taught in the Westminster Larger Catachism Q. 81,which is a departure from the Reformers who taught assurance is of the essence of faith , and is catachized in The Three Forms of Unity. Taken to the extreme, this view equates faith with the works of faith and always leaves one doubting as to whether they ever truly believed. What is implicit in some Presbyterian churches, however, is explicit in the FV. The FV clearly deny that faith, in Justification, is merely receptive. Rich Lusk in his exposition of James 2 states unequivocally that "persons will not be justified by faith alone, but also by good works they have done" and later "James is speaking of a justification in which faith and works combine together to justify. Future justification is according to one's life pattern. No one dare claim these works to be meritorious, but they are necessary."(Waters p90). Also the FV does not explain how being baptized as a baby and made a member of the church without any prior proclamation of faith in Christ will bring assurance.

This leads to the next topic of discussion in the doctrine of perseverance.As shown above, the FV clearly hold that all babies baptized are members of the church and can be rightfully called Christians. So what happens if some of these babies grow up and reject Christ and leave the church as is clear some do? The inescapable conclusion is that these persons lose their salvation and thus we have a denial in the FV of perserverance. Scripture, however, tells us they were never saved to begin with (1 John 2:19).

Roots of the Federal Vision

Although a new movement the FV has roots that go way back, as is true with all heresies. First and most obviously, is the Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy which the FV is on a collision course with. Other protestant high church denominations, however, such as the Lutherans , The Episcopal/Anglicans and the French Huguenots have also been highly ritualistic and held to baptismal regeneration. Christopher Hutchinson, a critic of the FV, states in his chapter of the book The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision, that "First, culturally , I agree with Doug Wilson that this is an odd controversy. He says it is odd because having left the Baptist persuasion for the Reformed realm, he now finds himself among baptists. In my case, it is odd because I was reared a high church Episcopalian, left it for the simplicity of evangelical presbyterianism, and now find an increasing number of presbyterians who look an awful lot like high church Anglicans, crook and all.". Other movements which the FV is fed from are Van Tillian paradoxicalism, Theonomy, Norman Shepherdism and the New Perspective on Paul. This is apparent from Doug Wilson who describes himself as "postmillennial, Calvinistic, presbyterian, Van Tillian, theonomic and reformed" in his book Reformed is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant. Also Rich Lusk hails The New Perspective on Paul theologians (e.g. N.T. Wright , James D.G. Dunn and E.P. Sanders) as "blowing modern day Galatianism out of the water" in their call back to a "corporate view of salvation"(Auburn Theology p135).

Finally,although there is a big difference between the FV and most Reformed Presbyterians, I do want to say that the Westminster(or any) teaching of paedobaptism, baptism as a "seal" of the covenant of grace(contrary to Eph. 1:13,14) and the ordinances being a means of grace(contrary to Rom. 10:17) do at best add confusion if not teach error and give the FV and others a basis for their teaching. I call on all Reformed to repudiate these teachings.

Conclusion

The FV has many other problems such as the denial of Christ imputed righteousness to the believer, a rejection that the law demands perfection and Christ's death for everyone including the reprobate which cannot be addressed at this time. E. Calvin Beisner states in the foreword to Waters book that the FV is a "hybrid of three components" the first he says is a modified Amyraldianism, the second is a modified Arminianism and third a Roman infusionism. How truly confused this movement is. For further on this issue see my discussion of Jansenism listed below also most of my information comes from The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis by Guy Prentiss Waters and The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision edited by E. Calvin Beisner. Other great books include The Current Justification Controversy by O. Palmer Robertson, A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy by John Robbins and Not Reformed at All by John Robbins and Sean Gerety. Although I have yet to read them Covenant,Justification and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the faculty of Westminster Seminary California edited by R. Scott Clark and Justification by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church also cover this movement. Books by the movement include Reformed is Not Enough by Doug Wilson, Against Christianity (A most telling and true title)by Peter Leithart and The Call of Grace by Norman Shepherd.

Jansenism

2007-03-15T12:49:00.000-07:00

Jansenism is a movement within the Roman Catholic Church that was started by Cornelius Otto Jansen (1585-1638) a Dutch theologian who became the Bishop of Ypres which is located in the Flemish region of Belgium. A strict Augustinian in his doctrine, he was dismayed by his church's abandonment of the doctrines of grace as seen in the Molinism of the Jesuits. In hopes of bringing reform, Jansen had many debates with the Jesuits and was so vociferous in his disagreement with them, that he almost incurred the wrath of the Inquisition. What might have saved him is his equal disdain for the Protestants. He also debated the Dutch Presbyterian Gisbert Voetius. Whereas the Jesuits were leaving Augustine's doctrines of grace the Reformers had left Augustine's view of the Church. For Jansen there was one Baptism, one Church and the Pope was the head of that church. Jansen also disagreed with the Reformers views on Justification and Assurance. Jansen agreed with Augustine that Justification is a process beginning in God's gracious act of conversion, whereby the sinner is gradually made righteous contra the Reformers who taught that Justification is an act of God's grace whereby sinners are declared righteous on the ground of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and received by the gift of faith alone. Jansen believed the Reformers were presumptuous in believing in a doctrine of assurance. Jansen did hold in common with the Reformers that man's nature is totally depraved by original sin, that God's grace is irresistable and that Christ did not die for all but only those predestined to be saved. Because of this Jansen was grieved that many in his beloved Catholic Church were leaving Augustine. In order to rectify this, he spent the last twenty years of his life writing his magnum opus the three volume Augustinus which he completed a half hour before he died of a plague that had hit Ypres.

Augustinus was published posthumously in 1640. In the first volume Jansen covered the heresy of Pelagianism, the second volume was a study of the limitations of human reason and the third volume was a study of the Grace of Christ the Savior and concludes with a study of the semi-pelagians of his own day in the Molinists. The book gained a following especially in the french region of Port Royal, where Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694) and, the scientist, philosopher and most famous Jansenist, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) defended its doctrine. Due to the ensuing controversy, Pope Urban VIII condemned it in 1641 on the grounds that it is forbidden to publish on the doctrine of Grace without the permission of the Pope and that it revived the errors of Michael Baius. The Jansenists, however, were undeterred keeping the debate raging until 1651 when Pope Innocent X appointed a commission to study the issue. The study lasted two years in which the Jansenists set forth their Five Propositions abridged by the author 1. Some of God's commandments are impossible for even just men to keep. 2. In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace. 3. To merit or demerit, in the state of fallen nature we must be free of all external constraint but not interior necessity. 4. Semi-pelagians erred in believing interior grace can be resisted or accepted by man. 5. To say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men is Semi-pelagianism. In the end, Jansenism was declared heretical.This left Port Royal in the predicament of renouncing Jansenism or rejecting a decree of the pope. Some like Arnauld believed that since the 5 Propositions were not in Jansen's book that they could denounce the Propositions and still advocate the book Augustinus. Others like Pascal, who wrote his Provincial Letters in 1656, openly rejected the decree although still aligning themselves with Catholicism. Either way Jansenism would find it's home in Utrech, Netherlands as France and other Catholic countries were no longer a safe haven for them. In the Netherlands they would elect their own Archbishop and eventually unite with the group called "Old Catholics". Besides their Jansenism, the church has also over the years openly denied the decrees of the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility. The current church numbers in the low thousands and is only in the Netherlands.

Jansenism in Reformed Theology ?

Although John Calvin, John Knox and the other Reformers clearly departed from Augustine on his doctrine of the church and his progressive Justification as the debates between Jansen and Voetius prove, some professed Reformed theologians of today seem to be on the road back to Rome and are more akin to Jansen than they are to Calvin.In the late 70's a controversy raged at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania a Presbyterian and Calvinist institution. The source of the controversy was a professor named Norman Shepherd. Norman was teaching that good works as well as faith were instruments in our Justification. Norman was removed in 1981 after nearly twenty years of teaching this heresy. The fallout has been very costly as students of his have got into the ministry and are now leading churches in this same direction. A current movement called The Federal Vision is clearly linked to Norman as it is led by many of these former students and he is quoted enthusiastically by most of the others. In at least one case a disciple of Norman's has converted to Catholicism. Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian pastor and graduate of Gordon-Conwell Seminary, wrote his book Rome Sweet Home in 1993 which tells of his conversion to Catholicism. On page 31 of this book he identifies his inspiration as Norman Shepherd. Hahn also brags of a counselling session he had with the late Calvinist stalwart John Gerstner in which he soundly defeated Gerstner's best defense. This, however, is not surprising considering Gerstner's definition of faith in his book Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth in which he states on page 260 that "Nothing is added to the faith, but this (works) is a part of the definition of the faith" and later in case we did not understand him clearly enough on page 299 that " Lordship teaching does not 'add works' as if faith were not sufficient. The 'works' are part of the definition of faith." With such a radical redefinition of faith it appears that John Gerstner was not the Calvinist stalwart many think he was after all.

Another major event happened in 1994 exemplifying at least an implicit influence of Jansenism. The event was called Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millenium (ECT). This document was constructed by both Catholic and Calvinist theologians in which they declared each other brothers in Christ and declared an intent to witness together. How can they do this unless they share the same Gospel? "Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?" (Amos 3:3) The so-called Calvinists that authored this document are Charles Colson, Os Guinness, Richard Mouw, Mark Noll and J.I. Packer. A few years later after being confronted with their error these same so-called Calvinists along with Timothy George and John Woodbridge initiated ECT 2 in which noted Reformed Baptist scholar Roger Nicole indicated his agreement with and willingness to sign it.

Conclusion

One Catholic author I read stated it is a contradiction for Jansenists to claim Catholicism and reject the Pope. I agree wholeheartedly with the author, but in the Jansenists defense it is also a contradiction for the Pope and the Catholic church to canonize Augustine, and excommunicate Cornelius Jansen and his followers, who taught the same thing. I have no sympathies for either, however, as Calvinism and Jansenism represent two different movements and Gospels. My purpose in writing this is to reveal this movement, as it is not very well known, and distinguish it from the true Reformed faith for which it is being confused in some circles. I want to say at this point that I don't know if Norman Shepherd has ever read Jansen or any of his followers. I am not aware of him quoting any of them. Shepherd is in my opinion, however, closer in his theology to Jansen than the Calvinism he claims. With one of his disciples already in the Catholic church one can only wonder when his other ones in The Federal Vision will say with Jansen, " The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge of all religious controversies, when he defines a thing and imposes it on the whole church, under penalty of anathema, his decision is just, true and infallible." ( epilogue, Augustinus)

For further reading on these important issues see What is Saving Faith? by Gordon Clark, Faith Alone by R.C. Sproul, Grace Unknown by R.C. Sproul, Putting Amazing Back into Grace by Michael Horton, Christ the Lord by Michael Horton, The Current Justification Controversy by O. Palmer Robertson, A Companion to The Current Justification Controversy by John Robbins, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology by Guy Prentiss Waters and Counted Righteous in Christ by John Piper.

Soli Deo Gloria

Sola Fide

The Holy Bible

2007-01-26T08:07:00.000-08:00

In the beginning God created man in their image and according to the likeness of the Trinity( Gen. 1:26-28), giving him rational thought and the ability to communicate. At this time, Adam and Eve had direct communication with God even walking in the garden of Eden with Him ( Gen. 3:8,9). Due to the fall of man through disobedience this relationship was divorced. Man because of sin died spiritually that day and began the process of physical death. Man being separated from his creator began to experience turmoil, frustration and distress. God, however, in his grace and mercy promised a savior. God knew as the generations passed Man would forget what God had told him and so God set forth a way to communicate his instructions and reveal His Son the promised Saviour to him. Beginning with Moses, God would start what would become, what we call today, the Holy Bible.

Although the 66 books of the Bible were written by over 40 different people, every writer was inspired by God in their authorship (2 Tim. 3:16). This inspiration was not the inspiration of William Shakespeare to write his stories, however, but a moving of the exhaling of God as we learn in 2 Peter 1:20,21 "...that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." This inspiration is seen in the fact that these multiple authors writing over a span of over 1500 years coming from different stations in life as some were kings and some fishermen and others in-between all had a unanimity of purpose and design with historical and scientific accurateness. The Bible sets the standard for any work claiming to be from God, as it does, in the book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 in verse 22 where it says "when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." In the Bible we read in the book of Isaiah chapter 44 starting in verse 28 that a man named Cyrus would rebuild the temple of Jerusalem. At the time of the writing the temple was still standing and Cyrus had not been born. It wasn't until approximately 100 years later that King Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the temple and then another 60 years that a Persian king named Cyrus would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. Another example of scriptures accuracy in prophecy is 700 years before Jesus was born Isaiah wrote " therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel."(Isa. 7:14) and in Luke 1:35 we learn that an angel tells Mary that she will give birth to the Son of God even though she is a virgin. These are just a small sampling of the many fulfilled prophecies which set the Bible apart from other books, even books claimed to be God's word as the Koran and the Book of Mormon are.The accurateness, detail, purpose, consistency and origin also set the Bible apart from the false prophesies of men like Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce and the false books known as the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha.

The Inerrancy of Scripture

The writers of scripture, having been inspired by God, were inerrant in that writing. The scrolls penned by their hand in writing Scripture were infallible and authoritative to the church. This, however, does not mean the humans themselves were perfect or that everything they wrote was binding. In Galatians 2:11 we learn the apostle Peter had to be corrected by the apostle Paul for discrimination of the gentiles and 1 Corinthians 5:9 tells us of a letter written by Paul that was not Biblical. In writing the Bible, however, they were writing from God. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:37 "... that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." and in Colossians 4:16 he commands his letter be sent to the other churches to be read by them as well( the Epistle in Laodicea coming to the Colossians was originally sent to the Ephesian church and was later given the name Ephesians). Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:15,16 " and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures." in which he clearly compares Paul's writings and his own to the other Scriptures. In the writing of Scripture, God used the authors personalities and unctions in most cases as in Luke 1:3 we read "it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus" but obviously in some cases God directly dictated to the author as in the case of Moses in writing the creation account in Genesis. Although the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy only applies to the authors that actually penned the Scriptures in the original autographs, God has preserved his word through accurate and reliable copies throughout history . We read in Proverbs 25:1 that the proverbs of Solomon were copied by the men of Hezekiah, in Joshua 8:32 Joshua wrote a copy of the law of Moses, Jesus undoubtedly read from copies in Luke 4:16-21 and the parchments Paul called for in 2 Timothy 4:13 were most likely copies. Even today we have over 4700 copies of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. In some cases, as in 1 Samuel 13:1 the numbers have been lost over the years, but in none of the cases have any doctrines been lost.

The Authority of Scripture

The fact that the Bible is God's Word gives it authority. God as our creator and sustainer has a right to rule over us.The Bible is full of prescriptions of a religious, moral and ethical and professional nature. The Bible teaches us how to be proper husbands and wives (Eph.5:22-31), proper parents and children (Eph. 6:1-4), proper employees and employers (Eph. 6:5-9), proper neighbors (Matt. 22:39), proper citizens and rulers (Rom. 13:1-7) and most importantly, proper worshippers of the one true God (Matt. 22:37). The Bible forbids murder (Ex. 20:13),adultery (Ex. 20:14), stealing (Ex. 20:15), lying (Ex. 20:16), covetousness (Ex. 20:17), pride (Prov. 16:18), greed (1 Tim. 6:10), hate (Matt. 5:43), lust (Rom. 1:24), homosexuality (Rom. 1:26), false worship (Rom.1:25) and a host of other vices. Jesus, being God in the flesh the promised Saviour and Messiah, spoke with authority (Matt. 7:29). The Apostles also were given authority in the writing of scripture (2 Cor. 10:8).They were given the ability to perform miracles to authenticate their message and to reveal who they were (Matt. 10:1-4, Act 2). Apostles were ones who had seen the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:21,22) and were called by him to be an Apostle (Acts 9:1-16). To deny the Bible is to deny God's rule, His Son and to forfeit salvation and heaven.

Sola Scriptura

The Formal principal of the Reformation, this Latin term means Scripture Alone. Martin Luther came to see that the edicts of the Pope and the practices of the Catholic church, with its addition of the Apocrypha, were not in accord with the Scriptures and so he started the reformation. Martin held fast to Jesus rebuke of human tradition over God's word as taught in Mark 7:5-17. The true church of Christ believes that the man of God is "equipped for every good work" by the scriptures alone (2 Tim.3:16,17) and that in walking in them we "lack nothing" (1 Thess. 4:12). The Bible has been completed. We have no apostles alive today as Paul was the last called Apostle (1 Cor. 15:8) and the Apostle John wrote the last book of the Bible in Revelation. We believe in the Bible to the exclusion of any Pope, Guru, Swami or cult leader. Although churches have pastors and elders to keep order and preach the truth (1 Tim. 3), they are to be checked ,as the Apostles were, by the Bible (Acts 17:10,11). We use Statements of Faith, Creeds and Catechisms to explain and summarize what we believe but this again is only secondary to the Holy Bible.Churches with so-called apostles in them today and ones that use books not of divine origin like the apocrypha and the Book of Mormon are false churches and deceiving people. Revelation is the last book of the Bible and we are not to add or take away from that book (Rev. 22:18,19).

3 Extremes to be Refuted

As with almost everything certain extremes have crept into the precious doctrine of Scripture Alone. The first is the idea that Scripture is the only truth we can know. Gary Crampton in his otherwise excellent book By Scripture Alone: the Sufficiency of Scripture states that "The Bible is sufficient for all the truth we need and all the knowledge we can have" (p89, italics mine). Earlier on the same page he stated that neither science,history or philosophy were needed to give knowledge.I would hope that the Doctor preparing to give surgery had read other books as well as the Bible. I am sure that the Geometry professor is using a book other than the Bible as a textbook and this is not wrong. Tying our shoes and a host of other things we can know are not in the Bible. This extreme should be avoided.

The second extreme builds on the first and is advocated by Kenneth Good in his book Are Baptists Reformed ?.This book is, as the other, a good read and has a good section on Baptist ecclesiology with which I agree. Kenneth, however, takes the position that the doctrine of necessary consequence is a violation of Scripture Alone.Necessary consequence says that Scripture has implicit teachings as well as explicit ones. To Kenneth this is Rationalism. What Kenneth fails to see is his own view is actually Irrationalism. The Bible teaches just as surely by implication as by explicit teaching. For instance, nowhere is Genesis does it say God created in a 24 hour day but we know he did because he says throughout the creation process the "morning and evening" were one day (Gen. 1).This extreme should be avoided.

The third extreme changes the doctrine of Scripture Alone to The King James Version Alone. This extreme says in essence that the King James translators were inspired by God as the Apostles were. This is clearly error as we saw earlier from scripture that Paul was the last called Apostle and only the Apostles were inerrant in their writing of scripture. This view also says only those who can speak english can read the Bible.Two good books discussing this aberrant view are The King James Only Controversy by James White and The King James Version Debate by D.A. Carson. This extreme should be avoided.

Nature and Scripture

While it is true that both nature and Scripture reveal truth, we must take into account which truths in distinction from one another they reveal. The Bible is clear in Psalm 19 that "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork".The word declare in Hebrew is Saphar and means to make known. Romans 1:20 also teaches that God is seen by the existence of creation. God uses his control over nature as proof of his authority over man in Job 38-42. Jesus expected some knowledge of nature as he says in Matthew 6:26 to look at the birds and in verse 28 to consider the lilies. He also assumed his disciples knew what salt was and what it was for in Matthew 5:13. Scripture alone ,however, reveals the good news of Jesus Christ as the virgin born Son of God, died in the place of sinners and was buried and three days later rose from the grave (1 Cor. 15:1-11).No mathematical formulation will reveal this. No archaelogical find will tell this truth.No microscope or telescope reveals this.Faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17). So whereas nature is not a 67th book of the Bible as claimed in the book Creation and Time by Hugh Ross neither is nature to be refused its proper place.

Scripture is comprehensive and sufficient but not exhaustive. The glory and grandeur of God exceeds the binding of even the largest Bible.As we read in John 21:25 "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen". Amen

Soli Deo Gloria

Lamentations #3

2007-01-17T08:56:00.000-08:00

Benjamin Warfield is one of the greatest theologians born in America. His defense of the faith was renowned in a day when Neoorthodoxy and liberalism were running rampant. His defense of the inerrancy of scripture, protection of the church from false signs and wonders and rebuke of the perfectionists still need to be heeded this day. His defense of the practice of infant baptism, however, shows us even the most rational of men can fall prey to irrationalism and traditionalism. Benjamin, when defending infant baptism from an attack by the Baptist theologian Augustus Strong as to why paedobaptists have no consistency with one another on the practice, said in his Polemics p. 406 as quoted in the book Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul Jewett, " Let us confess that we do not all argue alike or aright, but is this not the proof rather of the firm establishment in our hearts of the practice? We all practice alike and it is the propriety of our practice, not the propriety of our defense of it, that is, after all, at stake."

Benjamin should have known that true Christianity bases its practice on scripture and not on tradition or "our hearts". Matthew 28:19 says to make disciples first and then baptise them, Mark 16:16 again qualifies baptism for believers, Acts 2:38 commands to repent and then be baptized and verse 41 goes on to show only "those who had received his word were baptized". 1 Peter 3:15 says to "always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you...". If paedobaptism is a Christian practice it should be scriptural and there should be a consensus on why it is performed.

The Scottish Legacy Part 3

2006-12-11T18:20:00.000-08:00

Edward Irving (1792-1834)- Theologian and Leader in the "Catholic Apostolic Church" movement a Precursor to the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements. Ordained in the Church of Scotland, he became the assistant to Thomas Chalmers at St. John's in Glasgow. Even at this time he had a rather flamboyant style which did not appeal to the Scots and so he accepted a call to the Caledonian Chapel, a Scottish congregation in London. It was here that his ministry took off as the congregation of fifty soon jumped to a thousand. Edward held to a premillennial understanding of the book of Revelation and preached it fervently. The postmillennialist author and Banner of Truth founder, Iian Murray credits Edward with making premillennialism the dominant eschatalogical view of that time in his book The Puritan Hope. Edward soon came into controversy with his Presbytery, however, with statements he published of Christ's humanity. It seems that Edward held that although Christ is God, he took on "sinful flesh" just like every other man and was only able to overcome through the power of the Holy Spirit. Edward soon came to teach that we to could overcome sin through the power of the Holy Spirit. Edward at this point also came to accept glossolalia(speaking in tongues), prophecies and miraculous healing, believing these to be signs of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Edward himself never exhibited any of these gifts but he welcomed their manifestation. When the General Assembly heard of this they locked up the building to Edward and the congregation worshipping there. After renting a location, his church formed as a congregation in the Catholic Apostolic Church. Edward would not lead the new group long as he came down with consumption and died even with the "healers" in his church. The movement is, however, still attributed to him as the followers of the movement are called "Irvingites". The movement eventually died down but similar movements in the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements still exist although there is no direct evidence of a link to the Irvingites. On a side note, it is often assumed that the pretribulational rapture doctrine was initiated by Margaret MacDonald , a prophetess in Edward's church, through a vision she had. There is however no evidence to connect a link from Margaret, whose vision is purported to have been in 1830, to John Nelson Darby who had written on this doctrine as early as 1827. This is usually perpetuated by vehemently anti-dispensationalists. Those who disagree with this view should earnestly endeavour to deal with it honestly and not bear false witness. For a good antidote to the charismatic teachings of Irving's church read Charismatic Chaos and Reckless Faith by John MacArthur and Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit by Thomas Edgar.

William Cunningham(1805-61)- Historian and Free Church Theologian, William succeeded Thomas Chalmers at the New College of Edinburgh as Principal. His magnum opus,the two volume Historical Theology , is essentially a systematic theology as in it he focuses on the debates throughout church history, presenting various sides and then presenting his view. It is because of this work that some consider William to be Scotland's greatest theologian. His theology is faithful to Westminster even to the point of criticising the Reformers themselves. Although he did not feel the difference between Westminster and the Reformers was as extreme as William Hamilton believed, William did think the Reformers statements on assurance were often "rash and exaggerated" and that their view was "erroneous". He was especially mystified by Calvin's definition of faith: "We shall have a complete definition of faith, if we say that it is a steady and certain knowledge of the divine benevolence towards us, which, being founded on the truth of the gratuitous promise in Christ, is both revealed to our minds and confirmed to our hearts by the Holy Spirit" and that it was generally though not universally received for the greater part of the century by protestant and reformed divines. Westminster on the other hand held a clear dichotomy between faith and assurance. William also disdained Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper saying that it was "altogether unsuccessful... as unintelligible as Luther's consubstantiation. This is, perhaps, the greatest blot in the history of Calvin's labours as a public instructor." William held to and defended Zwingli's view of the supper from those who said he held to a "naked and bare sign". William did, however, defend Calvin from the Amyraldists, stating that it is unfair to hold Calvin up on a position never put to him. William felt Calvin would have held to a definite atonement although some of his statements were ambiguous. Finally, William defended his predecessor Thomas Chalmers and Jonathan Edwards although disagreeing with both of them on their determinist views. Some were saying that their views were antithetical to the Westminster Confession with its chapter on "Free Will". William believed that the confession allowed for their view despite his belief that there is a difference between predestination and determinism. Another popular work by William is his The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation.

John Murray(1898-1975)- Theologian who taught Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia for 36 years. Although a systematic theology professor, John, following in the footsteps of his mentor Geerhardus Vos, preferred the discipline of Biblical Theology and incorporated this into the classes he taught. The discipline of systematic theology takes scripture as a whole recognizing that there are "hard sayings" (2Peter 3:16) in scripture that need to be interpreted in light of other less hard sayings. Biblical theology takes every verse, every word, at face value and pieces them together for a system. Systematic theology looks at the forest; biblical theology looks at the trees. Problems for systematic theology are systems built on presuppositions without Biblical precedence and inappropriate inferences from scripture which are unfounded. Biblical theologians however sometimes hold two contradicting doctrines in their system and live with the tension calling it a mystery because they believe both to be taught in scripture. Examples of this would be holding to predestination and freewill or salvation by grace alone but also baptismal regeneration. John's emphasis on biblical theology led him to deny a covenant of works which caused much debate and tension among his contemporaries. To John, a covenant of works was a contradiction in terms. John held that Adam, even in the Garden of Eden, would have needed God's grace not to fall. Despite this denial John did hold to the doctrines of original sin and the imputed righteousness of Christ but he did so at the cost of consistency according to his colleagues. So according to John there is just a covenant of grace contra Thomas Boston who held to a covenant of works and grace and John Cameron who held to a covenant of works, grace and redemption. John's most famous works include his 2 volume Commentary on Romans, Redemption-Accomplished and Applied and his book Divorce in which he defends the Westminster, Reformed and most importantly scriptural view that divorce is allowed only in the case of adultery or desertion and that re-marriage is allowed. For more on the "Covenant" debate see Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective by Mark Karlberg or the works of Meredith Kline.

This completes my look at Scotland's legacy. This small sampling is not exhaustive by any means but these men for the most part represent movements, denominations, or doctrines which for good or bad have impacted the world. I realize no man is an island and these men all had help, but the Lord raised these men up in a special way. I have tried to be fair and objective in my presentation of these men's views, despite in some instances, my disdain for their theology. I want this to be the ground work for more extensive studies, later, as I refer to these individuals. I hope this look at Scotland's legacy has been informative and enlightening.

Soli Deo Gloria

The Scottish Legacy Part 2

2006-11-09T06:16:00.000-08:00

Thomas Boston(1676-1732)- Theologian and leader of the Marrow Men who were involved in the Marrow controversy resulting in Secession from the Church of Scotland. Upon his reading the book, The Marrow of Modern Divinity written in 1645 by Edward Fisher, a presbyterian layman whose occupation was a barber-surgeon, Thomas had a personal awakening. He became enthusiastic about the book feeling that the current orthodoxy was focusing too much on the law to the exclusion of grace and so he gave copies of the book to his colleagues. James Hog, one of Thomas's friends and a fellow Marrow man had the book republished in Scotland. The book was written four years before the appearance of the Westminster Confession and tried to mediate Neonomian and Antinomian views in season during that time. After its republication, the General Assembly in 1720 initiated the Black Act condemning the book and prohibiting its reading. The Black Act leveled 5 charges against Thomas and the Marrow Men. The Assembly condemned the Marrow as teaching, 1. assurance of salvation is of the essence of faith, 2. universal atonement, 3. holiness is not necessary to salvation, 4. fear and punishment and hope of reward are not proper motives for Christian obedience, and 5. that believers are not under the law as a rule of life. Thomas held firmly to the doctrine of predestination and agreed with Calvinist orthodoxy on this. Thomas did however hold to a two fold purpose in the death of Christ, believing that it definitely saved the elect but that also Christ is the only "Savior of the world," so that there is a gospel warrant for offering Christ to the whole world. Thomas believed the Bible taught only two covenants, contra John Cameron and the Calvinist orthodoxy of his day, denying the covenant of redemption. He believed the three covenant system violated the scriptural and reformational principal of grace alone. Thomas believed faith precedes repentance but accepted that knowledge of the law was necessary to come to the gospel. Thomas believed saving faith was inexorably tied to the scriptures as God's word is the only foundation for salvation. Thomas like Calvin denied implicit faith and held to a knowledge of Christ and the gospel doctrines as saving. Thomas did believe that assurance was grounded in Christ and his work alone and believers' obedience was to be out of love and gratitude and not law. Thomas's most famous work is Human Nature in Its Fourfold State and his study notes in current publications of The Marrow of Modern Divinity. For more on Thomas Boston consult Calvin and Scottish Theology by M. Charles Bell.

John Glas (1695-1773)- Theologian and founder of the independent Kirk of Scotland known as "Glasites" in Britain and" Sandemanians", after his son-in-law, in America. Originally in the Church of Scotland, John came to disagree with the establishment on National covenants and asserted that the church is a called out people as Christ's kingdom is not of this world. He led his congregation in this direction and was ousted by the Church of Scotland. John believed in taking the scriptures in a more literal sense and desired a return to a more primitive christianity. He rejected the use of confessions, believing them to be inappropriate substitutes for the sufficient scriptures. He held that "saving faith" is the bare belief of the bare record of scripture. To deny this is to deny both "Faith Alone" and "Scripture Alone". Despite these views he continued to hold to infant baptism. His most influential work is The Testimony of the King of Martyrs written in 1725. The movement he started would be extended and defended by his controversial and able-minded son-in-law Robert Sandeman.

Robert Sandeman(1718-71)- Theologian, Author, Glasite Elder and Popularizer of "Sandemanism". As an elder in the Glasite Church and husband of John Glas' daughter, Katherine, Robert popularized the Glasite faith in his magnum opus, Letters on Theron and Aspasio. Robert wrote this as a reply to the popular Puritan work, Dialogues Between Theron and Aspasio by James Hervey. In this classic work, Robert covered such topics as Christ's atoning work on the cross, how the gospel is to be presented, the natures of mystery and reason in the scripture, and finally the Biblical meaning of saving faith. Robert's understanding of saving faith was in contrast to that of the "popular preaching" of his day. Although a Calvinist himself, the Puritans' idea of faith as a duty, and including the will and "holy affections", as taught in Dialogues, seemed to Robert a works-oriented salvation. For Robert, "Everyone then who is born of the spirit lives merely by what he hears without his performing any duty at all unless we shall say it was the duty of Lazarus to hear and live upon the uttering of the call come forth" (Letters, p88). Again he says on page 126, "It is a commandment not requiring anything of us but bestowing life by the knowledge which it conveys: for the belief or knowledge of Christ is happiness as Jesus says this is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent. The belief or knowledge of a comfortable truth is not work or labor but rest and peace...". For Robert, salvation was by Christ's work alone and known by the gift of faith alone. Robert led churches in Edinburgh and London for many years until 1764 when he brought his teaching to America. He formed churches in Pennsylvania and neighboring states and finally came to reside in Danbury,Connecticut where he is buried in the Old Wooster Cemetery in which his head stone reads, "Here lies until the resurrection the body of Robert Sandeman, a native of Perth, North Britain; who in the face of continual opposition from all sorts of men, long and boldly contended for the ancient faith that the bare work of Jesus Christ, without a deed or thought on the part of man, is sufficient to present THE CHIEF OF SINNERS spotless before God; To declare this blessed Truth as testifyed in the Holy Scriptures, he left his Country, he left his Friends; and after much patient suffering, finished his labors at Danbury, April 2 1771 AE. 53" and on the lower part is the poem "Deigned Christ to come so nigh to us As not to count it shame, To call us Brethren, should we blush At aught that bears his name? Nay, let us boast in his reproach, And glory in his cross; When he appears, one smile from him Will far o'erpay our loss". His teaching outside of Scotland became known as Sandemanianism, (more properly Sandemanism.) Although his church in America is no longer in existence and there are only a handful of Sandemanians (Glasites) left in Scotland, variations of his influence have been represented in reformed denominations at some point in time and still is in some to this day.

Archibald McLean (1733-1812) -Former member of the Glasite church and a cofounder of the Scotch Baptists along with his mentor Robert Carmichael. Archibald and Robert found John Glas's interference in a disciplinary matter in their Glasgow congregation too intrusive and withdrew from his association. Having sympathizers in Edinburgh the men went there and started a new congregation with the seven former Glasites there. Archibald had been having doubts about paedobaptism anyway not finding it in the Bible and felt to truly get back to "primitive Christianity" baptism should be of believers only. He confided his convictions with Robert who agreed and went to London to be baptized by the famous Baptist pastor John Gill. Robert then returned to Edinburgh and baptized the congregation there. Robert shortly thereafter, left the Bristo Place Scottish Baptist Church for a church in Dundee, leaving Archibald as the primary elder. Archibald wrote voluminously on the doctrines of scripture causing much controversy even with his former associate John Glas over believer's baptism. Archibald, nonetheless, agreed firmly with Glas and Sandeman that faith is simply belief of the truth and that any additions denied sola fide. This later brought him into conflict with Andrew Fuller, the pastor of the baptist church at Kettering, England who is popular for his moderating calvinism. Fuller upon reading McLean's views on faith responded, eventually leading to his Strictures on Sandemanianism. McLean is considered to be the founder of the Baptist church in Scotland as Scottish Baptist churches formed over Great Britain through his books and articles he wrote for John Rippon's(Gill's successor) Annual Register 2. The Scottish Baptist Churches differed from their English and American counterparts in church government as the Scottish Baptists believed in a plurality of elders to run the affairs of the church and of course his views of faith which were considered Glasite/Sandemanian and hence the animadversions of the English Baptist pastor John Brine and the American Baptist pastor Isaac Backus to the work of Robert Sandeman would apply to McLean as well. His works also inspired the Irish born, Scottish educated Alexander Campbell who along with Barton Stone started the Restoration Movement in America. This movement ,however, taught in the Christian/Disciples of Christ/Churches of Christ churches, does not faithfully represent McLean as it degenerated into Arminianism and Baptismal Regeneration.

Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847)- Mathematician and Theological leader in the Free Church movement in Scotland. Thomas became disgusted with the current social conditions of his time and set about a return to the scriptural way of relief for the poor. He taught the poor should work (2 these. 3:10), relatives should care for there own (1 Tim. 5:4), and only as a last resort charity from neighbors, the rich and the church. Thomas came to see the need for a disjunction in church and state and headed up a group which led to the formation of the Free Church in Scotland. Thomas was a Calvinist in his theology and held to a Scottish Common Sense Realism. Thomas is also the formulator of the "Gap Theory" of creation which says that their is a gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 lasting for millions or billions of years in which dinosaurs and other early lifeforms lived and Lucifer fell bringing down God's judgment and subsequent recreation starting with Genesis 1:2. This view was elaborated on by George Pember in his Earth's Earliest Ages and popularized by C.I. Scofield in his Scofield Reference Bible which has come to be called the "Divine Judgement theory".

The Scottish Legacy Part 1

2006-10-02T19:10:00.000-07:00

Throughout the years, Scotland has been the impetus of some of the most landmark movements in history. The thinkers behind these movements have made so great an impact that to this day, whether for good or bad their legacy still survives. In this article, I will list a number of these movers and shakers and give a brief bio of their importance in history.

John Duns Scotus-(1266-1308), a Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher of the Franciscan order famous for his views, which were often at odds with the highly revered thought of the Dominican Thomas Aquinas. John Duns is actually his name but "Scotus" was added indicating he was from Scotland. Some of the key ideas of "Scotism", the name given his philosophic thought, are first, John believed in a univocal concept of God contra Thomas Aquinas or "Thomism" which held to an analogical concept of God. This means that for Scotism truth has the same meaning for God as it does for his creatures. Thomism, however, believed truth, although related , is different for creatures due to their aquiring knowledge though the senses. Scotism held to what many believe to be a more "realistic" view of reality as opposed to Thomism which held a more conceptual view of reality. Scotism also held to a more voluntarist view, believing God makes something good by commanding it as such as opposed to the essentialist view of Thomism which held that something, the law for instance, is inherently good and therefore God is just announcing it as such. Finally, Scotism believed in "prime matter," contra his fellow Franciscan Bonaventure, which says that angels being spiritual beings, exist without form or matter. Bonaventure held that created spirit beings have some form or matter which distinguishes them from the being of God.

John Knox(1514-72), The father of the Reformation in Scotland, he came to protestant beliefs through a tutor named Thomas Guillaume and then was further influenced by George Wishart who inspired his call to preach. Wishart was learned in the views of both Luther and Zwingli and taught them to Knox but when Wishart was martyred, Knox came to what he called "a perfect school of Christ" in Geneva, Switzerland where he was trained by John Calvin. Knox led Scotland in the doctrines of the reformation which are salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone of the Bible alone to the glory of God alone. He also consistently applied these doctrines and faithfully taught the doctrines of grace which are the Total depravity of man, or that man cannot save himself from his sin, Unconditional election, or God chooses whom he saves on the basis of his grace and not human works, Limited atonement, or Christs death definitely accomplishes its purpose to save God's elect, Irresistable grace, or God's grace saves man without human aid, and the Perseverance of the saints, or God's children(elect) are given eternal life and cannot die by losing their salvation. These doctrines are called by the acronym of TULIP and are often referred to as Calvinism.

Andrew Melville(1545-1622), The founder of Presbyterianism in Scotland and around the world.Most people think John Knox founded the Presbyterian denomination but that honor is due to Andrew Melville. While it is true Melville built off of Knox and the two agreed essentially in theology, Knox was friendlier to episcopacy, or the Anglican church, than was Melville. Knox considered himself a preacher of the gospel and not an ecclesiastical organizer. Melville was opposed to all forms of "prelacy" and so laid the foundation of the presbyterian structure for the kirk(church) of Scotland. Melville also introduced the thoughts of Peter Ramus to the academia of Scotland in contrast to the Aristotelian logic commonly taught which caused no small controversy.

John Cameron(1579-1625), The founder of the school of thought known as Amyraldism often called 4 point calvinism and sometimes moderate calvinism. Cameron was a firm advocate of Ramist philosophy and therefore departmentalized knowledge instead of systematizing it and so was comfortable with apparent contradictions. Cameron agreed with the orthodoxy in his acceptance of the doctrine of predestination and his rejection of the Arminian scheme but disagreed in his belief that Christ died for the whole world, elect and reprobate, and not the elect alone. Cameron held to a "hypothetical universalism" in that hypothetically if a reprobate person were to believe he would be saved but because he does not believe this is the cause of his judgement and damnation as spoken in John 3:18. Although he was charged with novelty Cameron denied this vehemently and quoted John Calvin extensively. The english theologian and representative to the Synod of Dort in 1618, John Davenant, agreed with Cameron and, while holding firmly to predestination and despising the Arminianism of the Remonstrants, attempted to keep out the doctrine of limited atonement. This same spirit would rear its head in the Westminster meetings 30 years later in Edmund Calamy who declared "I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense; but that I hold is in the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, that Christ did pay a price for all... that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did intend, in giving Christ, and Christ in giving himself, did intend to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe...". Cameron also held to the unorthodox views of denying the active obedience of Christ is imputed to believers for justification, and he held to a three covenant system as opposed to the traditional covenant of nature and covenant of grace system. Cameron was successor to the illustrious Calvinist, Franciscus Gomarus at the University of Saumer in France as the professor of Divinity. Saumer was in that day one of the largest protestant schools in the world, in large part to the reputation of men like Gomarus, and so the influence of Cameron's teaching would be felt all over. Although Cameron's life was cut short by being beat to death by a crowd of people in a riot in France his cause would be taken up by one of his prized students by the name of Moise Amyraut. Later popular Amyraldists would include the presbyterian and sometime antagonist of the puritan John Owen, Richard Baxter and the baptist John Bunyan. For current Amyraldist works consult Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 by R.T. Kendall, Atonement and Justification by Alan Clifford, The Extent of the Atonement by G. Michael Thomas and Did John Calvin Teach Limited Atonement? which is Appendix A in Curt Daniel's Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill . For critiques see The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen and The Cause of God and Truth by John Gill and more recently The Will of God and the Cross by Jonathan Rainbow.

Thomas Reid(1710-96), Founder of the school of philosophy called Scottish Common Sense Realism or the Scottish School. This school taught that man has a common sense which is not learned inductively or by polls but by intuition. According to Reid the principles speak for themselves. People know things cannot contradict and both be true intuitively. No one can deny everything they see, feel, hear,touch or taste as being real consistently. To live as if you are the only person in the universe or to deny these principles is to live a lie. This philosophy was brought to America by John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence and President of the College of New Jersey now Princeton University, and was the prevailing philosophy in the glory days of old Princeton under Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge and Benjamin Warfield displacing the philosophy of Jonathan Edwards. It's influence was felt in conservative Christian and Calvinist schools all over the country until the early part of the twentieth century when the Dutch School and its offshoot presuppositionalism starting making inroads. The Dutch School being led by such thinkers as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck and presuppositionalism by Cornelius VanTil and Gordon Clark has now eclipsed the Scottish School among Calvinists. Other leading Scottish Realists include James McCosh and Thomas Chalmers. For current treatments read Classical Apologetics by John Gerstner, R.C. Sproul and Arthur Lindsley and Where in the World is the Church by Michael Horton.

Lamentations # 2

2006-09-24T19:28:00.000-07:00

Cornelius Van Til was a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary for many years before his death in the mid 1980's and trained many young men in the doctrines of Grace and for that God be praised. His apologetics, however, leave much to be desired. In his book, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, he states on page 11 "Christians should therefore never appeal to the law of contradiction as something that as such determines what can or cannot be true." The Bible, however, states in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that "God is not a God of confusion but of peace." The law of noncontradiction flows from the Logos. Jesus tells us in Mark 3:24 that "if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand". In Galatians 1:8 we are told " if we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" We better use the law of noncontradiction to determine what is being preached to us.

Lamentations # 1

2006-09-24T18:25:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while a person who should know better makes a statement that is utterly ridiculous. But as James 3:2 states "...If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man..." As I come across these, I will list them as Lamentations.

In his review of the book, Classical Apologetics, by John Gerstner, R.C. Sproul, and Arthur Lindsley, Gordon Clark writes "The authors state, 'Non-Christians cannot use reason and logic to keep down the truth. They have to violate them.' Again this is a false statement. Non-Christians do not have to violate logic. Many of their arguments are perfectly valid."

Jesus says in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth and the life..." In John 1:1, Jesus is called the Logos. Nothing can keep down the truth by logic. Any "logic" that is not true is a "science falsely so-called" 1 Timothy 6:20. Who has a "valid" reason not to believe in God? In Job chapters 38-42 God shows there are none.

The Gordons and the Reformation in Scotland

2006-09-19T13:37:00.000-07:00

The Gordons are a clan of nobility and distinction in the annals of Scottish history. Although also owning lands in the Dumfries area of southern Scotland, the heraldry of the Gordons comes from the lands in Strathbogie in Aberdeenshire granted them by King Robert the Bruce in the highlands. According to R.R. McIan in his book The Clans of the Scottish Highlands " the Gordons of the north were at one time all powerful, and single handed, were at times opposed to government." Being the lieutenants to the north ( the Campbells were the Kings lieutenants to the south) the Gordons were given the nickname "the cock of the north". The Gordons took their charge seriously and had a penchant for battle. This led them to many conflicts with neighboring clans, especially the Macintoshes, Camerons and the Murrays. They loved conflict so much that they fought with smiles on their faces and hence earned the nickname " the gay Gordons". These facts ,however, would lead to their inevitable downfall but also ensure victory for John Knox and the Reformation in Scotland.

George Gordon the 4th Earl of Huntly was the chief of the clan in that day and was a leading Catholic stalwart. George was an unpredictable man, however, and was according to Antonia Fraser in her book Mary Queen of Scots , "totally untrustworthy in the final analysis, in all except that which intimately concerned his own clan." George ,with the power of the Gordons making him a rival to the monarchy, was quite open about his disapproval of some of the policies of Queen Mary Stuart. Although Mary and George were first cousins and George had been raised by her father James the 5th, she would brook no dissension. Mary knew, however, that it would take something serious for an assault on such a powerful and prestigious clan as the Gordons. Her wait was short lived.

John Gordon, one of George's nine sons, severely injured Lord Ogilvie while fighting on a street in Edinburgh. John sought refuge from his father and fled to Huntly. Mary insisted on George turning over of John for prosecution but was refused. This lit the fuse which would finally explode when in September 11, 1562 Alexander Gordon, another son of George, refused Mary entrance into her castle at Inverness which he kept for her while she was away due to his position as Sheriff of Inverness. After hanging Alexander, Mary wasted no time in going about doing away with her rivals to the north. This victory for Mary was a political but pyrrhic one as without the Gordons, the north was opened to the reformers. This civil war of powerful Catholics caused division and thankfully by God's grace allowed the truth to be heard in Scotland. John Knox's prayer of "give me Scotland" was graciously answered in the affirmative.

Although a Gordon, my faith in the doctrines of Grace and scripture alone contrary to Papal lies, make me thankful that the truth was made available so that my forebears and the rest of Scotland were able to hear the truth. For more information on the Gordons go to www.gordonhighlanders.com and www.houseofgordon.com also check on a search engine for Gordon's Calvary as it was a Gordon who may have discovered Golgotha and the garden tomb of Christ in Jerusalem.

Theodicy

2006-09-04T18:45:00.000-07:00

The existence of evil in light of God's omnipotence and goodness appears to some a problem . Those who hold to Free Will think they have the answer by saying man's free will creates evil and that it is only a problem for Calvinists. Conservative theologians grant God's omnipotence and so the purpose of this discussion is to reveal from the scriptures that God determines everything that happens and that everything that happens is for his pleasure and therefore good. The answer to them is a simple reference to the scriptures in Romans 9:20 which says "who are you, O man, who answers back to God?" It is a presumption to think we can decide for God what is good.

Inconsistencies from some who hold to predestination add fuel to the free willer fire. John MacArthur, a popular Pastor, Author of the MacArthur Study Bible, and a Calvinist, says in reference to God's hardening act in Romans 9:18, that it does not refer to God's creating unbelief but that he merely withdrew his influence from Pharaoh. He later shows from his comments on verses 22 and 23 that he believes God only allows or permits sin. A short time ago, I read the minutes of an ordination service of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a conservative Calvinist denomination, where they ordained an elder who denied that God ordains sin. The ramifications of this thinking are devastating. The fall becomes just an accident, Christ's death a chance happening, and ultimately God is not in control.

The Bible in distinction says in Isaiah 45:7 that God causes peace and creates evil. In Proverbs 16:4 we learn that God creates the wicked for the day of evil, in Lamentations 3:38 we learn that from the mouth of the most high comes both good and evil, and Isaiah 63:17 asks "Oh Lord, why have you made us stray from your ways and harden our heart from your fear?" These verses clearly articulate that God is the ultimate cause of everything. God is glorified by demonstrating his wrath and judgment on the reprobate.

In his book, Chosen But Free, Norman Geisler argues that man's actions are caused by himself or "self-caused actions." Geisler does this under the rubric of moderate Calvinist. This line of thinking leads him to redefine all 5 points of Calvinism and therefore disqualifies him as even a moderate Calvinist. True moderate Calvinists, like W.G.T. Shedd, Curt Daniel, and John MacArthur, as listed above, although alot more careful theologians than Norman Geisler, come very close to this in their denial of God's ordaining evil.

Moderate Calvinists argue that James 1:13-18 is proof that God does not cause evil. The purpose of these verses is however to indicate that God is not the immediate cause of evil but not to contradict the verses listed above which clearly indicate he is the ultimate cause of evil. They also claim this from 1 Corinthians 14:33, but once again, this is merely God's preceptive will for speakers in the church and not indicative of God's decretive will. In 2 Chronicles 18:19-23, we learn that God used a spirit to lie in the mouth of the prophets so that Ahab would fall. In 2 Thessalonians 2:11, we learn that God will send a strong delusion that people will believe a lie. God [Rex] is ex lex. God cannot steal as everything belongs to him. God cannot murder although he kills all the time. God's jealousy is perfectly justified and righteous.

This precious doctrine should not lead to a "qué será será" way of thinking nor does it justify sin. The elect will hear God's voice, love him and follow him, keeping his commandments. However, I can rest that my sin will not frustrate God's plans as "we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God to those who are called according to his purpose" Romans 8:28.

For further enlightenment on this very important matter, I highly recommend God and Evil by Gordon Clark, The Justification of God by John Piper, No Place for Sovereignty by R.K. McGregor Wright, The Serpent of Paradise by Erwin Lutzer and A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L. Reymond.