John Robbins's Bad Exegesis of Matthew 7:21-23

The trees that are cut down and thrown into the fire in verse 19 are the men Jesus commands to depart from him in verse 23. They are the men who have done spectacular works in the name of Jesus on Earth. This implies, please note, that the fruit by which we are to know them is not primarily their works, perhaps not their works at all, but their doctrine, their teaching. We have become so accustomed to thinking of fruit as behavior that we have missed Jesus’ point in his warning against false prophets: They are recognized by their doctrine. What they teach is their fruit. That is why John gives us a doctrinal test in 2 John 1:7, 9-11.  John Robbins  [Quoted from:  God's Hammer:  John Robbins Quick Quote]

"Orthodox Protestants have always said that faith must produce good works. Faith, or what passes for faith, or what some people call faith, is dead without works."   Dr. Gordon H. Clark

Since my time is limited I will only make a few brief comments about John Robbins's hermeneutic that reads justification by faith alone into practically every passage of Scripture which emphasizes true conversion and the accompanying fruits of conversion.  Sean Gerety is a good example of someone who cares little about progressive sanctification and the other accompanying fruits which follow after a monergistic regeneration or the effectual call of the God.  In fact, I would argue that Gerety and others at the Trinity Foundation are more concerned with following the teachings of John Robbins than with following the system of logical and propositional truth that is deduced from the Bible.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark did not waver from the system of propositional truth which is summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Clark denied that saving faith is bare assent to the Gospel:

Protestants usually assert that Romanists make faith and salvation a matter of assent; the most frequent expression is that the Romanists make faith a matter of “bare” assent. It is common to declaim against “mere” intellectual faith. Bare and mere are of course pejorative adjectives, i.e., weasel words. It is unfortunate that many or most Protestant discussions on this subject, either in textbooks or encyclopedias, do not define their terms and explain what is meant. Assent, as has been seen, can be taken in several ways. Orthodox Protestants have always said that faith must produce good works. Faith, or what passes for faith, or what some people call faith, is dead without works. If this is what is meant by speaking of “mere” or “bare” assent, of course it is quite true. But I suspect that this is not what is meant.

Gordon H. Clark. What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 3042-3049). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition. 

While it is true that the Westminster Confessional Standards are a fallible confession of faith and an extended creed of what Presbyterians believe, it is not true that departing from the confessional standards is optional.  The WCS are a secondary and authoritative summary of what we believe the Bible teaches.  This can be easily demonstrated from the Confession itself.  The first chapter of the Confession makes it clear that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the most important doctrine of Presbyterianism and Calvinism.  In section one we are told that the primary reason God gave us the Scriptures is that general or natural revelation is insufficient information for saving faith.  But we are also told that the Scriptures were put into writing for "the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world . . ."  (Westminster Confession of Faith.  WCF 1:1).  It would be odd that the Westminster divines would put so much emphasis on the "sure establishment and comfort of the Church" if confessional creeds are merely optional resources of the church.  Dr. Clark made it clear that he adhered to the whole scope of Scripture and to the system of propositional truth that is laid out in summary form in the Westminster Standards:

Today many church leaders consider creeds as obstacles to ecumenical union.  It would please such men to hand over the discussions of creedal differences to those impractical fuddy-duddies, the theologians, while they themselves made the important organizational arrangements by which the right people would get the prominent positions.

There are other more humble people who sincerely believe that the adoption of a creed is an act of ecclesiastical presumption.  Therefore several denominations have no creed.  They insist on believing nothing.  There are others who regard creeds, not exactly as presumptions, but as unnecessary.  This would be the attitude of those who, though their zeal is unquestioned, find creeds, and Paul's epistles, intellectually heavy.

. . . The Westminster Confession was never intended to be either an empty form or an obstacle to church union.  With the other Reformed creeds, the Thirty-nine Articles, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of the Synod of Dort, it was a statement of what all the ministers earnestly believed and faithfully preached.  These creeds were bonds of union, not causes of discord.  Discord comes when men of opposing views subscribe to the same verbal formula.  But these creeds were never intended to hide differences behind a veil of meaningless words.  On the contrary, the year before St. Bartholomew's massacre Bishop Jewel of the Anglican church wrote to Peter Martyr on the continent, "As to matters of doctrine we do not differ from you by a nail's breadth."

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today.  1965.  Second Edition.  (Unicoi:  The Trinity Foundation, 2001).  Pp. 4-5.  

John Robbins's sermon on Matthew 7:21-23 is only half correct.  He correctly assesses that the Pharisees do not have a proper doctrinal understanding of the Bible when they place all the emphasis on outward works of righteousness rather than a genuine understanding of the Gospel of sovereign and free grace.  The Pharisees were outwardly clean but the inside of their souls was dirty just as the outside of the cup was clean and the inside filthy.  Jesus said that the Pharisees were whitewashed sepulchres but inwardly they were filled with the bones of dead men:

Matthew 23:23–31 (NKJV)
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.
24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence.
26 Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.

28 Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’

31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

The problem with Robbins is that his view completely dismisses true piety as a necessary result of saving faith, a true and living faith.  He conflates the papist view with what Orthodox Protestants have always taught, namely that a true and lively faith produces good works which can only please God because of the imputed righteousness of the cross by means of faith.  Dr. Clark makes no such error.  As can be seen below, Robbins thinks the hypocrisy is believing false teaching, not living a life of hypocrisy:

Now, consider the irony of the exegetical situation. Proponents of Lordship Salvation such as Shepherd and MacArthur appeal to this passage in Matthew 7 to support their view that belief alone in the Lord Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation, that we must also practice the Lordship of Christ by faithfully performing works in order to be saved. Yet this passage clearly teaches that some of those who confess Jesus as Lord and perform amazing works will be excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, one may acknowledge the Lordship of Christ, perform many wonderful works, and still go to Hell. Jesus himself here warns us that many who confess his Lordship and perform many works will go to Hell. Obviously the passage does not mean what the Pope, MacArthur, and Shepherd think it means. It is not a contrast between mere believers (who are lost) and workers (who are saved), for Jesus himself says that the workers are lost.

John Robbins,  "Justification and Judgment,"  Trinity Review, November/December 2001.  P.  4. 

I have not read either edition of John MacArthur's book, The Gospel According to Jesus.  The first edition did have some confusing language about justification by faith alone and that edition was then revised after R. C. Sproul and others critiqued the book.  However, I think it is unjust of Robbins to lump MacArthur with Norman Shepherd and the Federal Vision/New Perspective on Paul crowd.  There are obviously huge differences between what MacArthur teaches and what the Shepherd/Federal Vision proponents teach.

Robbins correctly says that unless a person believes in the justification accomplished by Jesus Christ as the only basis or foundation for right standing in the final judgment that person has no assurance of salvation.  Final justification is not a matter of your good works outweighing your bad works and then God accepts you on the basis of your meritorious works being the deciding factor in your final salvation.  Final justification is and always will be the fact that Jesus lived a perfect life in our place and thus is our substitutionary righteousness in both his active obedience and his passive obedience.  His final sacrifice accomplished the actual justification of every believing and elect sinner.  (Romans 4:1-8; Hebrews 10:12-14).

What Robbins never mentions that the Bible, the Reformed confessions, and Dr. Gordon H. Clark all say that faith without works is dead.  We do justify ourselves by good works in order to be saved.  Instead saving faith that knows we are justified by Christ alone will produce good works.  Good works apart from faith cannot justify.  But if we are not to examine ourselves to see if we have genuine faith and obedience, why did the apostle Paul say that to partake of the Lord's supper without proper self examination would result in judgment?  (1 Corinthians 11:27-29;  2 Corinthians 13:5).  Worse for Robbins, John Calvin's exposition of Matthew 7:21-23 focuses on hypocrisy and true piety, not the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

Matthew 7:21. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord. Christ extends his discourse farther: for he speaks not only of false prophets, who rush upon the flock to tear and devour, but of hirelings, who insinuate themselves, under fair appearances, as pastors, though they have no feeling of piety. This doctrine embraces all hypocrites, whatever may be their rank or station, but at present he refers particularly to pretended teachers, who seem to excel others. He not only directs his discourse to them, to rouse them from the indifference, in which they lie asleep like drunk people, but also warns believers, not to estimate such masks beyond their proper value. In a word, he declares that, so soon as the doctrine of the Gospel shall have begun to bear fruit by obtaining many disciples, there will not only be very many of the common people who falsely and hypocritically submit to it, but even in the rank of pastors there will be the same treachery, so that they will deny by their actions and life what they profess with the mouth. “Whoever then desires to be reckoned among the disciples, must labour to devote himself, sincerely and honestly, to the exercises of a new life.

Calvin, John, and William Pringle. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vol. 1. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010. Print.

The short of it all is that Robbins is so completely obsessed by his objection to the denial of justification by faith alone that he ignores the system of doctrine laid out in the Bible and summarized by the Reformed confessions.  His exegesis of Scripture is blinded by his objection to works righteousness to the point that he ignores the balanced system of logical  and propositional theology in the Bible.  Robbins never once mentions Matthew chapter 23 and how that relates to the verses he refers to in Matthew 7:21-23.

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion put the matter succinctly:

XI. Of the Justification of Man.

WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. 

XII. Of Good Works. 

ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. 

XIII. Of Works before Justification. 

WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

And please note that Dr. Gordon H. Clark fully approved of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion as a Reformed confession of faith.  The term "grace of congruity" refers to the scholastic doctrine that good works makes men deserving to receive another grace that makes their good works meritorious in regards to their salvation.  The Thirty-nine Articles, following the  theology of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, rejects any idea that good works makes anyone deserving to receive grace or meritorious grace which would be congruent with justification whatsoever.  The papists teach justification by faith plus good works because sins committed after baptism must be remitted by doing good works of penance or substituted by appeals to supererogatory works of the papist saints in the treasury in heaven.  In contradistinction, the Bible teaches justification by faith alone apart from good works.  Good works apart from saving faith cannot please God whatsoever.  This in no way denies that good works are a necessary evidence of a true and lively faith, however.

To further put the nail the point home I can quote from the Heidelberg Catechism to affirm that sanctification is a necessary evidence of a true and lively faith:

THE THIRD PART—OF THANKFULNESS
LORD’S DAY 32
Question 86
  Since then we are delivered from our misery, merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?
  Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by his blood, also renews us by his Holy Spirit, after his own image; that so we may testify, by the whole of our conduct, our gratitude to God for his blessings,a and that he may be praised by us;b also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith,c by the fruits thereof; and that, by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.d

Question 87
  Cannot they then be saved, who, continuing in their wicked and ungrateful lives, are not converted to God?
  By no means; for the holy scripture declares that no unchaste person, idolater, adulterer, thief, covetous man, drunkard, slanderer, robber, or any such like, shall inherit the kingdom of God.a

Historic Creeds and Confessions. electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997. Print.

I can also cite and quote many places in the Westminster Confessional Standards to show that sanctification is a necessary evidence of saving faith and a true profession of faith.  I hope that this establishes the point that so-called Lordship Salvation has to be defined properly and if it is defined by the Scriptures and the Reformed creeds and confessions it simply means that those who live a life of lawlessness and wickedness have no assurance of salvation even if they have made a profession of faith.  That seems to be John Calvin's exegesis of Matthew 7:21-23.

WCF 16:2  Of Good Works
2.      These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: (James 2:18, 22) and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, (Ps. 116:12–13, 1 Pet. 2:9) strengthen their assurance, (1 John 2:3, 5, 2 Pet. 1:5–10) edify their brethren, (2 Cor. 9:2, Matt. 5:16) adorn the profession of the gospel, (Tit. 2:5, 9–12, 1 Tim. 6:1) stop the mouths of the adversaries, (1 Pet. 2:15) and glorify God, (1 Pet. 2:12, Phil. 1:11, John 15:8) whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, (Eph. 2:10) that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life. (Rom. 6:22)

The Westminster Confession of Faith. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996. Print.

A Response to Phil Johnson's Article on Hyper-Calvinism

A Response to Phil Johnson’s Article on Hyper-Calvinism

Although the article by Phil Johnson is an old and dated one, I have decided to respond to it again because it is continually used to attack classical Calvinists who are not hyper-Calvinists at all.  Worse, the opening definition of hyper-Calvinism in the article is a quote from a high church Anglo-Catholic named Peter Toon, who is now deceased but was a priest in the Church of England and then transferred to the Anglican Church in North America.  Right from the get go Phil Johnson gives a wrong definition of hyper-Calvinism based on an equivocal definition.  I should also mention that Johnson himself is supposed to be a Baptist and a Calvinist but he is now working for John MacArthur.  Toon defines hyper-Calvinism this way:

1. [Hyper-Calvinism] is a system of theology framed to exalt the honour and glory of God and does so by acutely minimizing the moral and spiritual responsibility of sinners . . . It emphasizes irresistible grace to such an extent that there appears to be no real need to evangelize; furthermore, Christ may be offered only to the elect. . . .

    2. It is that school of supralapsarian 'five-point' Calvinism [n.b.—a school of supralapsarianism, not supralapsarianism in general] which so stresses the sovereignty of God by over-emphasizing the secret over the revealed will of God and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of sinners, notably with respect to the denial of the use of the word "offer" in relation to the preaching of the gospel; thus it undermines the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly in the Lord Jesus with the assurance that Christ actually died for them; and it encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect. [Peter Toon, "Hyper-Calvinism," New Dictionary of Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1988), 324.]

[From:  A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism, by Phil Johnson].

My first objection to this definition is that it sets up a straw man fallacy in the first sentence.  The Bible nowhere minimizes human responsibility and neither does the Westminster Confession or the Belgic Confession.  Both of these confessions teach that sanctification is a necessary response to justification by faith alone and even faith is a gift of God, not something that someone can conjure up by their own moral strength.  Secondly, it is false to assert that Evangelism is unnecessary.  The fact of the matter is that Calvinism makes evangelism essential for two reasons.  The first is that God commands it in Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Colossians 1:23.  Secondly, the Bible teaches that natural theology and natural revelation provides insufficient information for saving faith.  (Romans 1:18-21; Romans 2:12-16).  And the last sentence in paragraph 1 is an outright deception when Toon asserts that “Christ may be offered only to the elect . . .”  It is impossible to tell an unbeliever that Christ died for them because it might not be true.  If Christ has died for them then the sin of unbelief will be overcome by the irresistible grace of God.  It is not that Calvinists do not preach repentance and the wrath of God to unbelievers.  They certainly do.  But it is also not true that only those who repent are offered Christ.  Even though the general call of the Gospel is preached to all indiscriminately, the fact is that only the elect can respond to the command to repent and believe the Gospel because they alone will be enabled by the monergistic work of God to repent and believe the Gospel.  (Matthew 22:14; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; John 1:13; Romans 9:15-16; 1 John 5:1).

In paragraph 2 Toon repeats his accusation that the sovereignty of God makes man not responsible for his sins.  But worse Toon says that in order to “offer” the Gospel or preach the general call of the Gospel the minister must also tell his hearers that they have “the assurance that Christ actually died for them.”  [Ibid.].  This absolutely not what the Bible says at all.  Scripture teaches that Christ died only for the elect and that the atonement is particularly for the elect and the elect only.  To be sure the Westminster Confession of Faith does teach a distinction between the general call of the Gospel and the effectual call of God through the same message.  However, this is not the same thing as defining the free offer as God’s sincere desire to save those for whom Christ did not die and whom God did not unconditionally elect in eternity before creation.

Westminster Confession of Faith:  Chapter VIII.  Of Christ the Mediator.

6.      Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world; being yesterday and today the same, and for ever. (Gal. 4:4–5, Gen. 3:15, Rev. 13:8, Heb. 13:8)

The Westminster Confession of Faith. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996. Print.

Another implication of Toon’s remarks in the dictionary definition of hyper-Calvinism is that men are not responsible to God if double predestination is true.  This could not be further from the truth.  Even the Muslim who is born in Saudi Arabia is without excuse and will be held responsible and accountable for his or her unbelief.  That’s because even if natural revelation is insufficient information for saving faith, it is enough information to leave the unbelieving pagan of foreign lands without excuse.  (Romans 1:18-21).  There are no rights that God owes to fallen humanity because Adam brought the curse on all mankind.  The whole lump is leavened with sin and guilt and we are all guilty of Adam’s first sin as well as our own inherent sinful hearts and our own actual sins.  On all these accounts we are responsible to God and He will judge us on the basis of the covenant of works unless we are born again of the Holy Spirit and effectually called to saving faith.  There are many other examples I could give from Scripture, including Phineas and Hophni but they were warned by their father Eli and still refused to believe because it was God’s purpose to kill them.  (1 Samuel 2:12-25).  The fact of the matter is that Calvinists are much more motivated to evangelize because we know that unless the unbeliever hears the general call of the Gospel he or she cannot receive the effectual call.  We know this because the apostle Paul says so in Romans 10:9-17.

Now as to Toon’s accusation that emphasizing God’s sovereignty encourages introspection to determine whether or not one is elect of God, I think Toon is again creating a straw man to demolish what the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith does not teach.  It is surely true that there are many hypocrites in the visible churches.  It is also true that many have a false assurance of salvation because they are living a life that is essentially slavery to sin and licentiousness.  But does this mean that no Christian can attain assurance of salvation?  Certainly not!  Even the apostle Peter says that assurance is attainable: 

Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; (2 Peter 1:10 NKJV). 

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, And to present you faultless Before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, 25 To God our Savior, Who alone is wise, Be glory and majesty, Dominion and power, Both now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:24-25 NKJV).

Moreover, the entire epistle of 1 John is about sanctification and how loving God means obeying His commandments.  And toward the end of the epistle in 1 John 5:13 we are told that assurance of salvation is the reason that John is writing to the readers:

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (1 Jn. 5:13 NKJV).

When I first read Johnson’s article years ago I did not realize all the implications of what he was saying.  But now that I am better informed it is shocking to go back and read his remarks.  He starts off by quoting a known Tractarian, namely Peter Toon.  In his opening paragraph he refers to John Piper and Thomas Schreiner.  Both of these men have been associated with the Federal Vision error and Piper went so far as to invite Doug Wilson to one of his theological conferences.  Typical of semi-Calvinists, Johnson appeals to the doctrine that there are two wills in God’s eternal mind.  These two wills appear to be in direct contradiction to the other because God’s eternal will is immutable and unchangeable while God’s permissive will is a well meant desire to save everyone without exception, including the reprobate.  But does the Bible or the Westminster Confession teach that there are two wills in God?  The answer has to be no.  (Ephesians 1:11; Isaiah 14:24-27; 46:9-11).  In fact, John Calvin did not teach this doctrine and neither did Martin Luther.  Luther makes it very plain that God’s foreknowledge is immutable and that the human will is in bondage to God’s sovereign will:

Sect. IX.—THIS, therefore, is also essentially necessary and wholesome for Christians to know: That God foreknows nothing by contingency, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His immutable, eternal, and infallible will. By this thunderbolt, “Free-will” is thrown prostrate, and utterly dashed to pieces. Those, therefore, who would assert “Free-will,” must either deny this thunderbolt, or pretend not to see it, or push it from them. But, however, before I establish this point by any arguments of my own, and by the authority of Scripture, I will first set it forth in your words.

Are you not then the person, friend Erasmus, who just now asserted, that God is by nature just, and by nature most merciful? If this be true, does it not follow that He is immutably just and merciful? That, as His nature is not changed to all eternity, so neither His justice nor His mercy? And what is said concerning His justice and His mercy, must be said also concerning His knowledge, His wisdom, His goodness, His will, and His other Attributes. If therefore these things are asserted religiously, piously, and wholesomely concerning God, as you say yourself, what has come to you, that, contrary to your own self, you now assert, that it is irreligious, curious, and vain, to say, that God foreknows of necessity? You openly declare that the immutable will of God is to be known, but you forbid the knowledge of His immutable prescience. Do you believe that He foreknows against His will, or that He wills in ignorance? If then, He foreknows, willing, His will is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so: and, if He wills, foreknowing, His knowledge is eternal and immovable, because His nature is so.

From which it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done thus contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and His wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He foresees and wills.

Martin Luther.  The Bondage of the Will:  The Sovereignty of God.  Sections 9-27

And John Calvin is crystal clear as well that God has only one immutable and eternal will:

2. God’s will is the rule of righteousness*

To the pious and moderate and those who are mindful that they are men, these statements should be quite sufficient. Yet because these venomous dogs spew out more than one kind of venom against God, we shall answer each individually, as the matter requires.

Foolish men contend with God in many ways, as though they held him liable to their accusations. They first ask, therefore, by what right the Lord becomes angry at his creatures who have not provoked him by any previous offense; for to devote to destruction whomever he pleases is more like the caprice of a tyrant than the lawful sentence of a judge. It therefore seems to them that men have reason to expostulate with God if they are predestined to eternal death solely by his decision, apart from their own merit. If thoughts of this sort ever occur to pious men, they will be sufficiently armed to break their force even by the one consideration that it is very wicked merely to investigate the causes of God’s will. For his will is, and rightly ought to be, the cause of all things that are. For if it has any cause, something must precede it, to which it is, as it were, bound; this is unlawful to imagine. For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it.5 But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found. Let men’s rashness, then, restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist, lest perhaps it fail to find what does exist. This bridle, I say, will effectively restrain anyone who wants to ponder in reverence the secrets of his God. Against the boldness of the wicked who are not afraid to curse God openly, the Lord himself will sufficiently defend himself by his righteousness, without our help, when, by depriving their consciences of all evasion, he will convict them and condemn them.

And we do not advocate the fiction of “absolute might”; because this is profane, it ought rightly to be hateful to us. We fancy no lawless god who is a law unto himself. For, as Plato says, men who are troubled with lusts are in need of law; but the will of God is not only free of all fault but is the highest rule of perfection, and even the law of all laws.6 But we deny that he is liable to render an account; we also deny that we are competent judges to pronounce judgment in this cause according to our own understanding. Accordingly, if we attempt more than is permitted, let that threat of the psalm strike us with fear: God will be the victor whenever he is judged by mortal man [Ps. 51:4; cf. 50:6, Vg.].

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Vol. 1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Print. The Library of Christian Classics.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark agreed with Luther and Calvin that all things happen of necessity and that God has only one will.  Clark shocked his detractors by saying that if a man shoots his wife it was God’s will.  This is another reason that Clark was falsely accused of hyper-Calvinism.  But the fact of the matter is that Dr. Clark also recognized that a man is fully accountable to God for what that man does.  As Calvin says above, we must give an account to God and God does not give an account to any creature.  What God does is right because He is God and there is no one to hold God accountable.  Since the law of God is written in man’s heart by way of the image of God it logically follows that man is without excuse.  (Romans 1:18-21; Romans 2:11-16; Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1, 9:6; John 1:9; 1 Corinthians 11:7).  If a man shoots his wife not only will the civil and criminal courts convict him of murder and sentence him to prison or death, but he will also suffer the penalty of hell should he not repent.  Determinism means that the criminal penalties are also God’s will and criminal laws are meant to deter crime, not to excuse the perpetrator as a victim of an unjust social system.  (Genesis 9:6;  Romans 13:1-5).

Continuing with Johnson’s article he defines the word “offer” in a way that is not in agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith or any other Reformed creed or confession:

Second, take note of the stress the above definition places on hyper-Calvinists' "denial of the use of the word 'offer' in relation to the preaching of the gospel." This is virtually the epitome of the hyper-Calvinist spirit: it is a denial that the gospel message includes any sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.  (Ibid.).

The first problem with Johnson’s definition is that he gives no scriptural support for his contention that the preaching of the Gospel includes the term “offer” or any reference to any Reformed confession that the term offer is used.  The second problem is that he makes the proposition that the Gospel “is a sincere proposal of divine mercy to sinners in general.”  Framing the issue this way ignores the fact that the Gospel message nowhere promises divine mercy to all sinners without exception.  Jesus certainly did not promise divine mercy to the Pharisees.  He said that they could not believe because they were not His sheep.  (John 10:26-27).  We are not Jesus, obviously.  But even Calvinists today do not tell unbelievers that Jesus died for them or that God sincerely desires to save everyone.  We preach that all who will repent will receive mercy.  But even here we are also not afraid to preach the distinction between the general call of the Gospel and the effectual call of the Gospel which only the elect receive.  (  Matthew 22:14; John 3:3-8; John 6:37-44, 65). 

When the Canons of Dort say that as many as are called are unfeignedly called, the paragraph is in reference to the effectual call, not the general call of the Gospel.  There is no contradiction between the general call and the effectual call because when God calls only the elect are enabled to actually answer the call.   (Canons of Dort, 3^rd and 4^th Heads of Doctrine, Articles 8-14).   Article 9 specifically denies that it is God’s fault if there are those who refuse to believe the general call of the Gospel.  And Article 12 specifically points out that the effectual call is monergistic and not synergistic so that the will does not cooperate in regeneration whatsoever.  Worse, Article 13 says that moral persuasion and the external call of the Gospel is not what causes the message to be effectual.  This makes one wonder why modern proponents of the free offer put so much emphasis on persuasion, emotional appeals, and equivocation in regards to the doctrines of unconditional election, particular atonement, and irresistible grace?  The bottom line here is that Article 14 makes it impossible to consistently profess to be a Calvinist while preaching a general grace:

ARTICLE 14

Faith is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not on account of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred upon him, breathed and infused into him; nor even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of salvation and actually believe in Christ, but because He who works in man both to will and to work, and indeed all things in all, produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also.  (Canons of Dort:  3^rd and 4^th Heads of Doctrine).

Historic Creeds and Confessions. electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997. Print.

These articles alone ought to be enough to silence the critics of classical Calvinists who have been falsely accused of hyper-Calvinism.  The fact that the main definition was written by a semi-pelagian, namely Peter Toon, who falsely claimed to be a Calvinist should raise red flags.  I should also point out to the reader that Peter Toon was a member of the Anglican Church in North America, a decidedly Anglo-Catholic denomination which has little to no tolerance for actual Protestant Evangelicals who believe the five solas of the Protestant Reformation and hold to the 39 Articles of Religion as Protestant and Calvinist confession of faith.  (See also:  The Anglican Way, by Gerald Bray).  Toon is easily proved to be a Tractarian because of his support for the 1928 Book of Common Prayer here in the USA rather than the 1662 Book of Common Prayer which is used by the Church of England.  The 1928 BCP has prayers for the dead among other problems.  (See:  What’s Wrong with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, by Robin Jordan).  To be sure Johnson should be faithful at least to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith instead of quoting a known Anglo-Catholic.

Johnson only digs himself a deeper hole when he says:

Third, mark the fact that hyper-Calvinism "encourages introspection in the search to know whether or not one is elect." Assurance tends to be elusive for people under the influence of hyper-Calvinist teaching. Therefore, hyper-Calvinism soon degenerates into a cold, lifeless dogma. Hyper-Calvinist churches and denominations tend to become either barren and inert, or militant and elitist (or all of the above).  (Ibid.).

The first problem here is that the Westminster Confession of Faith does not teach that everyone who has saving faith also has assurance of salvation.  This is easy enough to see in chapter XVIII, Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation.  The first section says that there are many who have false assurance and are hypocrites.  I am taking this to mean that the doctrine of once saved always saved produces many hypocrites who are actually libertines or lawless antinomians rather than believers with a true and living faith who are sincerely endeavoring to walk in obedience to Christ as evidence of their love for Him.  Section 3 specifically says that new believers often do not immediately attain assurance of salvation:

3.      This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: (1 John 5:13, Isa. 50:10, Mark 9:24, Ps. 88, Ps. 77:1–12) yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. (1 Cor. 2:12, 1 John 4:13, Heb. 6:11–12, Eph. 3:17) And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, (2 Pet. 1:10) that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, (Rom. 5:1–2, 5, Rom. 14:17, Rom. 15:13, Eph. 1:3–4, Ps. 4:6–7, Ps. 119:32) the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness. (1 John 2:1–2, Rom. 6:1–2, Tit. 2:11–12, 14, 2 Cor. 7:1, Rom. 8:1, 12, 1 John 3:2–3, Ps. 130:4, 1 John 1:6–7).

The Westminster Confession of Faith. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996. Print.

Section 4 says specifically that when a true believer falls into a grievous sin he or she may for a time lose the assurance of salvation.  But notice that this is not based on subjective or mystical introspection but rather on the objective revelation of God’s moral law and the Christian’s duty to keep the moral law as evidence before the visible church that he or she has a valid profession of faith.  (James 2:1-26; 1 John 2:3; 1 John 3:14,18–19,21,24; 1 John 5:13).   Presbyterians do not determine who is actually elect or regenerate as a basis for church membership.  Rather the new convert is interviewed by the pastor and the elders to determine if the person has an adequate understanding of the Gospel and whether or not the person has repented of their sins and believes the Gospel.  Baptists often presume to know that a new convert who has been baptized is actually a regenerate and elect believer.  Only God is omniscient and has absolute knowledge of who belongs to him.  (2 Timothy 2:19).  Church discipline is also a matter of deterrence since those who are in open disobedience and grievous sins are to be excommunicated.  (1 Corinthians 5:1-5).

I do not know what Johnson means by the derogatory remarks about Calvinism being a dead orthodoxy.  This is actually an old accusation that has been continually leveled at the Puritans by Arminians, Anabaptists, and Papists.  But since when is an emotional response necessary for saving faith?  Emotions are sensations of the body and completely unnecessary as confirmation of repentance or even faith.  Emotions are not necessarily a sign of holiness either.  I’m sure that fornicators and adulterers and homosexuals all have emotional attachments but does that make their sin holy?  Worse for Johnson the doctrine of total depravity means that every part of the human nature is corrupted by sin, including the human emotions and the physical body.  And what about militant?  Thinking logically and biblically hardly means a person necessarily becomes militant or polemical.  But were not Jesus and the apostles “militant”?  Jesus even said that we should take the kingdom of heaven by force.  (Matthew 11:12).  I find it even more strange that a professing Calvinist would accuse Calvinists of being “elitists”.  Anyone familiar with the Bible or the Reformed confessional standards knows that the doctrine of original sin means that the whole human race is fallen and no one deserves to be saved.  Salvation is by grace and grace alone.  (Ephesians 2:8-10).  Unbelievers often accuse Christians of all stripes of being holier-than-thou.  But does the accusation make the message a message of self-righteousness rather than a message of sovereign grace?  I do not believe it to be so.  Likewise, just because Arminians accuse Calvinists of elitism does not make the accusation true.  It is in fact just the opposite since Arminians can boast that they believed the Gospel while the next guy did not and both have libertarian free will.  The difference between the two according to Arminianism is that the believer did the right thing and the unbeliever did not do the right thing.   Therefore, the Arminian is an elitist who has something to boast about.  (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Johnson outlines his own definition of hyper-Calvinism in five points toward the end of the article.  A minister from the Protestant Reformed Church in America, Martyn McGeown, has already written an article addressing Johnson’s contentious five points.  Rather than addressing them again myself I refer the reader to McGeown’s remarks in this article:  An Answer to Phil Johnson’s “A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism”.

The reader is also referred to an article I did on my blog last summer:  Hyper-Calvinism, Common Grace, Libertarianism and the Simplicity of God (Part 1) and Part 2.

Total Depravity, Common Grace, and the Image of God

Although sinful men, especially very sinful men, do not seem to be God’s image, these men could not sin unless they were. Sin presupposes rationality and voluntary decision. Sinning always starts in thought. 

. . . Let strong emphasis therefore be placed on the sinfulness of man. Man is dead in sins and is totally unable to do any spiritual good. 

 --Dr. Gordon H. Clark

I have great respect for the Protestant Reformed Churches in America and their stand against the semi-Calvinist doctrine of the three points of common grace, the free offer of the Gospel, and God's well meant desire to save the reprobate.  And I greatly admire the minister, Angus Stewart, who got his master of divinity training at the Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary in Wyoming, MI.  At least that is where he was trained if my memory serves me correctly.  I once heard Rev. Stewart preach a sermon on the dispute between John Calvin and Albert Pighius which I thought was excellent and honestly I had never heard of Pighius or the book Calvin's Calvinism, by John Calvin until I started reading the Protestant Reformed articles online and in the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal.  (You can hear Rev. Stewart's sermon on Calvin versus Pighius here).  That's because the semi-Calvinists do not promote the historical positions that cut against their own compromises with the Arminian doctrine of common or prevenient grace.

I will discuss the issue of common grace again in future posts.  But for now I want to disagree strongly with Rev. Angus Stewart for his misrepresentation of Dr. Gordon H. Clark's view of the divine image of God.  In the following quote you can see that Rev. Stewart asserts that Dr. Clark is merely another rationalist and that he had no doctrine of total depravity whatsoever:

Others see the image of God as speaking specifically about man’s constitution. Augustine’s "primary use of the imago symbol," writes Hall, is in his De Trinitate "where he shows that a ‘vestige of the Trinity’ is found in [the] human being, namely, in the faculties of memory, intellect and will."²⁸ In his zealous crusade against anti-intellectualism, Gordon Clark emphasizes the mind in his presentation of the image of God.²⁹ Clark would have greatly approved of the following remark of Johann Kepler, a seventeenth century German mathematician and astronomer:

For what is implanted in the mind of man other than numbers and magnitudes? These alone we comprehend correctly and, if piety permits us to say so, this recognition is of the same kind as the divine. Geometry is one and eternal, a reflection out of the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is one of the reasons to call man an image of God.  (From:  The Image of God:  A Reformed Reassessment).

While it is true that Dr. Clark attributed the source of all knowledge to the image of God and that man is the image of God, it is not true that Dr. Clark limited knowledge to reason or mathematics.   For Dr. Clark the very ability of babies to learn languages that even adults cannot learn is an indication of the divine enlightenment of every human being by the divine Logos.  (John 1:1, 9).  According to Dr. Clark, man is the image of God.  (1 Corinthians 11:7).  It is also true that Christ is the uncorrupted perfect image of God.  (2 Corinthians 4:4).  The reason for Christ being God's image is that He is the second Adam who came to die for the sins of His people.  (Matthew 1:21).  The reason that man can think in formal languages, do mathematics and invent many wonderful machines that make life easier is due the to the fact that man is an intelligent and rational being who is God's image.  But it does not follow from this that this is all that Dr. Clark said about the image of God.  It is fairly easy to demonstrate that Dr. Clark also had a doctrine of total depravity and he discusses his view of the doctrine of man's image and the doctrine of total depravity in many places.  In fact, I would dare to say that Rev. Stewart would be surprised to learn that Dr. Clark did not agree with the semi-Calvinist doctrine of common grace or their doctrine of partial depravity.  I will quote him here to show why Rev. Stewart misrepresented Clark's view:

Although sinful men, especially very sinful men, do not seem to be God’s image, these men could not sin unless they were. Sin presupposes rationality and voluntary decision. Sinning always starts in thought. Adam thought, incorrectly, but nevertheless thought that it would be better to join Eve in disobedience than to obey God and be separated from her. Sin has interfered with but does not prevent thought. It does not eradicate the image but causes it to malfunction. Responsibility (q.v.) depends on knowledge. Animals cannot sin and are not morally responsible because they are not rational or intellectual creatures. Therefore man remains the image of God even after the fall.  (From:  The Gordon H. Clark Foundation:  The Image of God).

Because my time is limited I cannot post at length here.  But suffice it to say that Dr. Clark did not disagree with total depravity.  His view, like that of the Protestant Reformed Church, is that the original righteousness of Adam was lost in the fall.  Man's mind has been darkened by sin so that his original righteousness and holiness has been totally corrupted such that you could say it was completely lost.  This does not mean, however, that man never thought any good thoughts at all.  It means that man's thinking was so corrupted that he could no longer think only good thoughts but also sometimes thought wicked thoughts.  (Genesis 6:5).  This in no way endorses the three points of common grace or partial depravity.  In fact, Dr. Clark once quoted Proverbs 21:4 to prove that even the good deeds of a wicked man were in fact sinful.  A man must provide for his family by working.  But since the man does not glorify God, his good deeds are in fact sinful deeds.  His motivations are wrong and are not intended to bring God glory.  (Matthew 5:16;  1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Peter 2:12; 4:16).  

In rejecting John Stott's appeal to emotionalism as some sinless part of the human nature Dr. Clark says the following:

The Scripture pictures an unregenerate farmer doing his spring plowing, and it says that even the plowing of the wicked is sin. No matter what an unregenerate man does, it is a sin. This Biblical theme is well summarized by the Westminster Confession in chapter 16, paragraph 7: “Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands…yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith…they are therefore sinful…. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God.” 

Let strong emphasis therefore be placed on the sinfulness of man. Man is dead in sins and is totally unable to do any spiritual good. For this reason an evangelist may well be cautious in relying too greatly on the mind. He should be cautious in relying too greatly on the man. The evangelist should rely wholly on the Holy Ghost to regenerate his auditors. 

But though we should not rely “too greatly” on the mind for something it cannot at all do, still the mind, sinful though it is, can exercise its natural functions. Mr. Stott says, “the human mind is both finite and fallen, and will neither understand nor believe without the gracious work of the Holy Spirit” (23). Most emphatically, the unregenerate man cannot believe or have faith without the irresistible work of the Holy Spirit. But he can understand the Gospel with the mind as it is. If he could not understand the message, why preach it? Why in particular should a missionary spend years in hard labor learning a foreign language, if his hearers cannot understand the message? Why should he not preach to them in English? In the providence of God, faith, though it be the gift of God, is given through hearing. And it is not through hearing an unknown tongue, but through understanding an intelligible message.

Gordon H. Clark. What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 2605-2619). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition. 

This should put to rest the straw man fallacy that Dr. Clark did not accept the doctrine of total depravity.  I could quote more from his book, What Do Presbyterians Believe?, but my time is limited and I will comment more on these issues in the near future. 

You can also read a full theological article by the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark on the topic.  His article was published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and the title is "The Image of God in Man."

May the peace of God be with you,

Charlie