Comment to Professor Herman Hanko

See Election and Reprobation Denied


Professor Hanko,

Steve Burlew at Banner of Truth was so kind as to e-mail me the PDF of Murray's book, The Life of A.W. Pink, chapter 16. The following is a quote from that chapter:

Iain Murray says,

"He [Pink] had ceased to believe that Christ’s compassion for the lost over whom he wept in Jerusalem was only human rather than divine compassion. He even went as far as saying, as we noted above, ‘God is willing to be on terms of amity [friendship] with the sinner.’"

"Yet Pink never withdrew from his belief, stated in the 1929 text, that the only love in God is love for the elect. At this one point the Banner of Truth revisers of 1961 went beyond what Pink himself would have allowed; their revision and abridgement removed his case that the love of God is always to be understood in exclusive terms."

"Arthur Pink’s great concern, writing in an era when man-centred preaching was so prevailing, was to show that God is not helplessly waiting for the consent of the sinner before he can save him. He was indignant that such an impoverished view of God could ever be received. He had seen how the liberal presentation of the ‘love of God’ had near obliterated in the churches that ‘great love’ that redeems, keeps and saves to glory. For Pink sovereign grace was not an idea. It was the only explanation of all that he was, and of all that he hoped to be." From Iain Murray's The Life of A.W. Pink, Chapter 16.

It seems to me that the proponents of common grace and the free offer cannot stop contradicting themselves. They removed the most offensive part of the book to their view and did not remain faithful to Pink's own views as they stated was the purpose of the last edition. Either God's predestination is absolute or it is not. If it is, then how can God be benevolent to those He already knows are reprobate before the foundation of the world by His own eternal decree?

I believe there are problems with Pink's distinction between natural inability and moral inability since the natural inability he speaks of implies a spiritual and moral inability. (In the 1929 edition of The Sovereignty of God). I also have problems with Pink's view that the rich young ruler was elect even though he walked away from Christ. It is my belief that the rich young ruler loved his wealth more than God and demonstrated a violation of the command not to covet. (See Mark 10:21). The fact that Jesus "loved" the rich young ruler means nothing since this does not mean that Jesus knows the man is not elect. Jesus was limited in His human nature and did not always fully exercise the divine attribute of omniscience. Thus, this verse has nothing to do with the fact that God hates the reprobate.

What is particularly revealing about Murray's essay is where he remarks,

"To critique Pink’s Sovereignty of God as we have done is not to question the fundamental principle of his treatment of his subject. God is sovereign, and it is to the grace that is sovereign that every believer owes his salvation. God loves the elect with a special and invincible love. To uphold that truth Pink argued in his book for the denial of any broader love in which God shows compassion to all and is not willing that any should perish. But many Calvinists, from Calvin to Spurgeon, have believed both that God is sovereign and that he has a love for all people. Christians of Arminian persuasion believe God commands that a sincere offer of salvation be made in his name to all men, which offer may be resisted. A biblical Calvinist believes the same, only he believes more. Not all resist because God has chosen them to salvation, while with others he ‘permits their self-destruction despite the entreaties of his benevolence." (p. 6, pdf file).

"Many Calvinists, from Calvin to Spurgeon, have believed that God has a love for all people" is redundant since Calvin is the father of the Reformed tradition. But Murray has misrepresented Calvin since Calvin over and over again in the Institutes says that God hates the reprobate. Not only does Murray want to redefine Calvinism by revising what Pink said but he even wants to revise what Calvin himself said! The so-called "biblical Calvinist" which believes the same offer of the Arminian is apparently a construct of his own imagination rather than a faithful adherence to Scripture and to Calvin's theology drawn from Scripture.

Surely Gordon Clark's book on predestination is correct here. Why would God "entreat" those He already has decreed to reprobation? This is inconsistent with Scripture, Calvin, and with God's decrees to election and reprobation.

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie

For those interested see Election and Reprobation Denied, by Professor Herman Hanko. Note in particular the comment posted at the bottom of the page by Steve Burlew of The Banner of Truth Trust. You may e-mail Steve Burlew to request the appropriate chapter of Iain Murray's book in PDF format.

Steven Burlew said...

Point of clarification/correction regarding your paragraph above where you wrote, "This was evident in a recent reprint of Arthur Pink’s influential book, The Sovereignty of God. In this book, Arthur Pink defended the Biblical doctrines of both election and reprobation. Yet, the Banner of Truth, in republishing the book, deleted all references to reprobation, without any notice in the book of having omitted these sections, without a credible apology for doing so, and without permission from the author, dead at the time the reprint was made." Iain Murray has fully explained this in the book, "The Life of A.W. Pink," chapter 16. Lest we be accused of merely trying to sell another book, we have reprinted this entire chapter and continue to send it, free of charge, in PDF format to anyone interested in truly understanding what has occurred, and why. Simply email me and I will gladly send it to whomever. My email address is: steve@banneroftruth.org. Thank you.

Steven L. Burlew, Manager
Banner of Truth, North America
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
September 1, 2009 11:57 AM

For a solid critique of Banner of Truth's position on this issue see the Trinity Review article: The Banner of Truth versus Calvinism.

The Pied Piper and The Wrighteousness of God

In an earlier post I said:

VirtueOnline has an excellent editorial by Gerald Bray posted on the New Perspectives of Paul and the book written in response to it by John Piper. This article is a worthwhile read if you have been following this debate. You can read Gerald Bray's editorial at, "The Wrighteousness of God."

I have since learned that Gerald Bray's editorial was originally published in the most recent edition of The Churchman and can be read at Editorial. Also, I have come to find that John Piper himself (Desiring God Ministries) has connections to the New Perspectives on Paul via Daniel Fuller of Fuller Theological Seminary. See the article posted at Trinity Review, Pied Piper. Fuller Seminary has for years been on a downward spiral into theological pluralism and liberalism. It should also be noted that Richard Mouw, current president of Fuller, is an ordained minister with the Christian Reformed Church which made the three points of common grace official doctrine in 1924. (See also Three Points of Common Grace). Gerald Bray (along with James Packer, Richard Mouw and others) signed the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, revealing that he is likewise one who would compromise truth for the sake of ecumenical unity. Packer has been traveling the country promoting the "Anglican quadrilateral", which is code for the Anglo-Catholic document, the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888. How someone who is "Reformed" can agree with doctrines directly opposed to the Scriptural teachings on grace, justification, and salvation is beyond me.

If this proves anything at all it proves that deceit can appear in the disguise of truth. Not everything Piper has to say is wrong. However, as someone else wisely said, if you serve orange juice alone it is good for you. But if you serve orange juice laced with even a little poison, it is not good for you.

This example shows why we should be wary of emphasizing Evangelical ecumenicalism over and above Scriptural truth. What is the point of union with Evangelicals who have compromised the doctrine of justification by faith alone, even if that compromise is hidden in slogans like "future grace." Do we have grace at the point of our conversion or not? This article should be carefully studied by anyone concerned about the New Perspectives on Paul and Federal Vision heresies. What is particularly ironic here is that Piper has recently written a book refuting N. T. Wright's position on the New Perspectives on Paul or NPP. Having read this article again at Trinity Review I have to ask if Piper is genuinely concerned about N.T. Wright's errors or if in fact Piper is simply using the backlash against Wright to lure others into Piper's own less obvious version of the NPP. Make no mistake about it. Piper's view is that justification must be "confirmed" at the final judgment. If so, then we must ask if we can have an "infallible assurance" of our salvation as the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches in chapter xviii?

It is becoming more obvious to me that the Protestant Reformed Churches in America or PRCA has made legitimate points of critique against the modern version of Reformed theology being put forward at Evangelical and Reformed seminaries and in Evangelical Reformed denominations. The Trinity Foundation is committed to a more Clarkian view of apologetics and theology and seems to be in agreement with the Protestant Reformed Church in America on many issues like this. I'm still investigating the connection but will post my findings as I become more aware of them.

It should be noted that even Princeton Seminary in the 19th century was infected with this theological pluralism via Charles Hodge who held that the Roman Catholic Church was a true church despite its departure from the doctrines of grace. Simply because a church has the universal creeds does not make it a "true" Christian church. Hodge also compromised the doctrine of particular atonement by saying that Christ died for the non-elect and purchased common grace for them on the cross. But there is no biblical text to prove this! While Hodge may be solid in many other areas, his compromise on the point of the Roman Catholic Church and with common grace has led to other errors.

Rather than jumping on any bandwagon for ecumenical unity, we ought to be suspicious and wary. What is more important than any unity is the Gospel itself and to compromise the Gospel to any degree for the sake of numbers, unity, or self-promotion is dangerous. I would include The White Horse Inn and Mike Horton in that warning. Though there are some good resources in many Reformed ministries, the poison hidden away there is alarming.

The Devil Is a Methodist: Free Sex for All

The Reformed Pastor has an interesting article, Sex for Methodist Teenagers. It is asserted that fornication and adultery are too easy and it is actually more ethically rigorous to use protection while "ethically and morally" engaging in sex outside marriage. The Reformed Pastor quotes from a Unitarian lady minister, "Rev." Deborah Haffner, who advocates for United Methodists several ways of having an ethical consensual and sexual relationship with someone. And it seems to me that it is literally true: The devil is a methodist, pun intended.

Ephesians 6:11

Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.

¹¹ενδυσασθε την πανοπλιαν του θεου προς το δυνασθαι υμας στηναι προς τας μεθοδειας του διαβολου


[Note: The word "schemes" in this verse comes from the Koine Greek word, "methodeia." Hence, the pun, the devil is a "methodist." He's got scheming methods or strategies.]

Common Grace Considered

I highly recommend the following blog by Professor Emeritus Herman Hanko of the Protestant Reformed Theological School. Common Grace Considered is an examination of the history of the doctrinal problem of common grace and how it has adversely influenced Reformed theology since the 19th century. This blog is worthy of your time and your theological reflection.

In Christ,

Charlie