“. . . 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. . . .”
Dr. Martin Luther, 16th century father of the Protestant
Reformation.
Hyper-Calvinism,
Common Grace, Libertarianism and the Simplicity of God (Part 1).
I know this seems to be a shotgun post
meant to cover many topics. But honestly
the attacks on Calvinism as a system of propositional truths deduced from the
Bible are coming from many points in the Evangelical world, and surprisingly
that would even include some who consider themselves Clarkian
Scripturalists. Amazingly many of those
who identify as Clarkian Scripturalists and associate themselves with the Trinity Foundation site are
actually pushing the views of the late Dr. John Robbins, who by the way was not
a trained theologian or Christian philosopher.
Robbins’s doctorate was earned in economics, not philosophy or Christian
theology. I am and will be forever
grateful for the work that the Trinity Foundation has done in publishing Dr.
Clark’s books and papers but that does not remove the fact that the ministry of
the Trinity Foundation has had some significant departures from Dr. Gordon H.
Clark’s theological and philosophical positions, including the idea that Clark
was somehow in agreement with the foundationalism of Dr. Alvin Plantinga of the
University of Notre Dame. But I will
come back to this later. For now let me
cover a few of my issues with the semi-Arminians.
Hyper-Calvinism
Since in the title I initially
mentioned hyper-Calvinism, let me address that one first. The popular misrepresentation of classical
Calvinism as somehow part of a conspiracy called hyper-Calvinism and which
started somehow with theologians like John Gill is so pervasive that it is
almost impossible to have a rational discussion of the classical position with
the vast majority of semi-Arminian Calvinists and neo-Calvinists today. The most popular website eschewing
hyper-Calvinism is one that has been run by Phil Johnson of the Grace to You
ministry titled, “A Primer
on Hyper-Calvinism,” originally posted in 1998. Unfortunately, to prove his point, Johnson
uses several straw man fallacies and sophistry to achieve his intended
rebuttal. Let’s take a look at that page
and give a point by point rebuttal to Johnson’s rebuttal.
In his introduction Johnson misses the
point completely by quoting Ezekiel 33:11.
The verse says that God does not desire the death of the wicked in any
universal sense. But what Johnson, the
Arminians, and the semi-Arminian Calvinists fail to point out is that the verse
is directed to the Old Testament nation of Israel, not to the other pagan
nations. The phrase “house of Israel” is
mentioned 146 times in the entire Bible and of those occurrences over 82 of
them are in the book of Ezekiel and not once does the term refer to all nations
in general but only to the nation of Israel.
Most tellingly the term occurs in the very verse that Johnson contends
is a universal “offer” to all the world rather than a specific address to the
Old Testament church. The Old Testament
nation of Israel is a type of the visible church and so the promises and the
threats addressed to the members of the visible church of the Old Testament do
not apply to the pagan nations. Of all
the nations in the Old Testament, Israel alone received the covenant of grace
and the promises warranted by that covenant as an outward sign. (Deuteronomy 7:6-8). The Bible over and over again demonstrates
clearly that God does desire the death of the wicked in particular cases. This would seem to refute the hypothetical
universalism of common grace and the well meant offer advocates. (1 Samuel 1:3; 2:25; 1 Kings 14:11; 2 Kings 9:10;
1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:11-13). Therefore,
Ezekiel 33:11 is not a universal declaration that covers both the elect and the
reprobate individuals in every nation.
Of course the promises given to Abram in Genesis 15 and 17 do extend the
promises to the Gentile nations but with few exceptions that is not fulfilled
until the Apostle Paul comes on the scene.
(Romans 11:13; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11). This does not mean that today we do not give
a general call of the Gospel to anyone who will listen even though in the Old
Testament dispensation of the eternal covenant of grace there was no general
call of the Gospel given to the pagan nations.
(Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16).
There are of course individual exceptions like Rahab the harlot and
perhaps Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, Ruth the Moabitess and others. (See:
Joshua 6:17, 23, 25; Exodus
18:1-12; Ruth 4:13-22).
Johnson defines hyper-Calvinism as “ . . . a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human
responsibility.” (Primer). As his starting premise this probably does
apply to certain of the Primitive Baptist groups and New Covenant theology
groups which advocate an antinomian view that the Christian is under grace but
not the moral law. But it certainly does
not apply to either Dr. Gordon H. Clark or those who consistently follow his
Scripturalist views on dogmatic theology, though I think maybe John Robbins and
certain of the Trinity Foundation advocates tend toward antinomianism. Clark himself stood for the entire Westminster
Confession of Faith as a system of propositional truth that could be harmonized
as a whole system, not isolating any of the chapters from the rest of the
system. This is where even seminary
educated Clarkians sometimes misunderstand Clark’s position or unintentionally
misrepresent Clark. The best example of
this is Doug Douma’s article asking whether or not Clark thought Arminians were
outright heretics. (Clark and
the Salvation of Arminians). Of course, in the interest of holding
Evangelicals together as Protestants Clark would not condemn Arminians as
guilty of adhering to a false religion or being part of a synagogue of
Satan. Although I disagree with Clark on
this point, it is understandable that he would want to preserve at least some
common ground with other Protestants.
But at the same time Clark did not say that there was a list of
essential doctrines--like confessing that Jesus is Lord--which are necessarily salvific. But Clark was also an outspoken critic of
both Arminianism and semi-Arminianism.
In fact, he was so hated by the Arminians and dispensationalists at
Wheaton College that he was fired or forced to resign because of it. Ironically, the main opponent Clark faced at
Wheaton was Dr. Henry Thiessen, a dispensationalist who later taught at Dallas
Theological Seminary. Another
dispensationalist who was also a Reformed Episcopalian, W. H.
Griffith Thomas, helped found Dallas Theological Seminary. (See: The
Presbyterian Philosopher: The Authorized Biography of Gordon H. Clark, by Doug
Douma).
Even more ironically, a Baptist,
namely Phil Johnson, quotes an article by a high church Anglo-Catholic cleric, Peter Toon, to
define hyper-Calvinism. It is amazing
how quickly baptistic Calvinists fall prey to those who want to draw
Protestants back into communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Peter Toon was part of the Continuing
Anglican Movement, which is a modern spinoff of the Oxford Movement or high
church Tractarian movement of the 19th century. The best evidence that Peter Toon was an Anglo-Catholic was his membership in the Prayer Book Society and his support of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which is favored by conservative Anglo-Catholics. The 1928 BCP has prayers for the dead among other things.
Another so-called Calvinist, Dr. J. I.
Packer, has an agenda to compromise with Rome as well and has signed the
Evangelicals and Catholics Together document, emphasizing sophistry and double
talk in order to bring about a false compromise with the Roman Catholic
Church. Packer is also advocating
compromise with high church Anglo-Catholics in the Anglican Church in NorthAmerica and their redefinition of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, which
are clearly Protestant and Calvinist.
But following the Tractarians and the Anglo-Catholicism of John Henry
Newman, Edward Pusey and others, Packer thinks that the Thirty-nine Articles of
Religion can be interpreted as Roman Catholic and Protestant as a via
media. But that was never Archbishop
Thomas Cranmer’s intention whatsoever.
Cranmer advocated the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation, absolute
predestination, and a Zwinglian view of the two Gospel sacraments. (See: Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article 17. Also see my blog post on Packer’s visit to
Orlando, Florida on his last crusade: Packer’s
Last Crusade.)
This connection between
self-identifying Calvinistic Baptists and dispensationalists with the Federal
Vision movement is apparent especially between John Piper and James White, both
of whom do not denounce Douglas Wilson as a heretic for promoting the objective
covenant of grace, baptismal regeneration, conditional regeneration, and other
doctrines of the Federal Vision heresy.
Piper even invited Wilson to promote his views at Piper’s Desiring God
conference a few years ago. The connection between the Federal Vision and
the Oxford Movement may not be immediately obvious but the emphasis on the
visible church, visible signs as actually conveying grace, and the conditional
and objective covenant are all in collusion with the papist view, the
Tractarian and Ango-Catholic view, and other departures from the Bible and the
Reformed confessional standards. While
Johnson may not be officially connected to Piper or White, his writings and
public appearances affirm that he is more comfortable with the Arminians, the
Federal Visionists, and even the Anglo-Catholics than with fellow Calvinists
who uphold the Protestant Reformation and the system of propositional truth in
the Bible. This is a telling indictment
of the compromises that many in the Reformed Baptist circles are willing to
make.
Rather than go point by point refuting
Johnson’s infamous attack on classical Calvinism, I will only briefly consider
his objections and point the reader to a more substantial rebuttal written by a
minister in the Covenant Reformed Churches in Ireland, Rev. Martyn McGeowen. McGeown rejects Johnson’s first two points as
irrelevant since the classical Calvinists do not reject duty faith or the
obligation to believe the command to repent and believe the Gospel. The first point of Johnson’s five points of
hyper-Calvinism is vague and unclear.
Before
Johnson gives his own definition of hyper-Calvinism—a five-point definition,
which, if true, would make the PRC and BRF three-point hyper-Calvinists—he
quotes a dictionary. Apparently, whoever writes the theological dictionaries
rules the theological landscape! However, theological dictionaries do not
determine theology. The creeds do! They—not theological dictionaries—were
officially adopted by the church. (An
Answer to Phil Johnson's "Primer on Hyper-Calvinism", by Rev.
Martyn McGeown.)
McGeown is here absolutely right. The Reformed standards are not determined by
a single person who also happened to be a high church Anglo-Catholic, namely
the late Peter Toon. In fact there is
not one shred of evidence that any of the Reformed creeds, confessions, or
symbols made the well meant offer a binding doctrine and the same can be said
for the free offer of the Gospel and the three points of common grace. Through a clever bit of sophistry the
semi-Arminians claim that the classical Calvinists in the PRCA, the British
Reformed Fellowship, and the Covenant Reformed Churches in Ireland all reject the general call of the
Gospel. That is an absolute falsehood
and the opponents on the other side should be ashamed of themselves for
violating the ninth commandment and bearing false witness. What is at issue is how the general call is
issued and what is the theological language used in such a presentation? It is wrong to tell an unconverted person
that Jesus loves them and died for them on the cross for this can only be said
if you are an Arminian or a semi-Pelagian.
Christ died only for the sheep. Now after conversion it can be said that God
loves that person and that Christ died on the cross for them and even then it
could be wrong since there is always from a
human point of view the possibility of apostasy. (1 John 2:19;
Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29). Since
God’s perspective is eternal and timeless it is and was never possible that
Judas Iscariot would be saved. This
offends those who reject the doctrine of double predestination and the
necessity that God’s foreknowledge and predestination are one and the same
thing. In other words, equal ultimacy
and double predestination are one and the same thing. Further, the doctrine of libertarian free
will does not get God off the hook since God would still be the cause of the
fall by giving Adam the option to rebel and bring God’s curse on mankind. Martin Luther’s book, The Bondage of the
Will, does not affirm that sin is the cause of man’s loss of free will. In fact, Luther argues just the opposite. He said that God’s foreknowledge proves that
the fall of Adam was of necessity and that this dashes the doctrine of
libertarian free will on the rocks:
Sect.
9.—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. If the will of God were such, that,
when the work was done, the work remained but the will ceased, (as is the case
with the will of men, which, when the house is built which they wished to
build, ceases to will, as though it ended by death) then, indeed, it might be
said, that things are done by contingency and mutability. But here, the case is
the contrary; the work ceases, and the will remains. So far is it from
possibility, that the doing of the work or its remaining, can be said to be
from contingency or mutability. But, (that we may not be deceived in terms)
being done by contingency, does not, in the Latin language, signify that the
work itself which is done is contingent, but that it is done according to a
contingent and mutable will—such a will as is not to be found in God! Moreover,
a work cannot be called contingent, unless it be done by us unawares, by
contingency, and, as it were, by chance; that is, by our will or hand catching
at it, as presented by chance, we thinking nothing of it, nor willing any thing
about it before.
(The Bondage of the
Will. Section 9, The
Sovereignty of God. By Martin
Luther).
This is at first a confusing piece to
read. But to put it simply let me say that
our knowledge from a human perspective is limited to what we can know from one
second to the next in the passing of one thought to the next in the mind. Time is perceived because we have the passing
of thoughts discursively in our minds.
But with God who is timeless there is no passing of thoughts from one
thought to the next because God is eternally omniscient. He foreknows the future not as an endless
consideration of multiple contingencies and counterfactuals of which He must
continually adjust in time. On the
contrary, God is eternally timeless and eternally omniscient because He knows
all things at once in a direct and intuitive perspective. He knows your entire life from beginning to
end and whatever happens in your life is foreknown by God because He initiated
it all when He created the universe on day one of creation. As Dr. Gordon H. Clark once said, the first
verse in the Bible that alludes to predestination is Genesis 1:1. In fact, the crowd laughed when he said this
in one of his lectures. God is not
subject to contingencies. So even though
God knows all possible outcomes, counterfactuals, and whatever else could
influence an outcome of the actions of moral agents or even acts of nature, the
one outcome that actualizes in providential time is the only possible outcome
from God’s point of view because He eternally foreordained it. Not only so but even the Westminster
Confession of Faith says that in providence God governs all things so that the
events that come to pass in time are in accordance with God’s one will and one
eternal decree.
1.
God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, (Heb. 1:3) direct,
dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, (Dan. 4:34–35, Ps.
135:6, Acts 17:25–26,28) from the greatest even to the least, (Matt. 10:29–31)
by His most wise and holy providence, (Prov. 15:3, Ps. 104:24, Ps. 145:17)
according to His infallible foreknowledge, (Acts 15:18, Ps. 94:8–11) and the
free and immutable counsel of His own will, (Eph. 1:11) to the praise of the
glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. (Isa. 63:14, Eph.
3:10, Rom. 9:17, Gen. 45:7, Ps. 145:7)
2.
Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first
Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; (Acts 2:23) yet, by
the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of
second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. (Gen. 8:22, Jer.
31:35, Exod. 21:13, Deut. 19:5, I Kings 22:28, 34, Isa. 10:6–7)
3.
God, in His ordinary providence, maketh use of means, (Acts 27:31, 44,
Isa. 55:10–11) yet is free to work without, (Hos. 1:7, Matt. 4:4, Job 34:10)
above, (Rom. 9:19–21) and against them, (2 Kings 6:6, Dan. 3:27) at His
pleasure.
4.
The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom,
and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that
it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and
men; (Rom. 11:32–34, 2 Sam. 24:1, 1 Chron. 21:1, 1 Kings 22:22–23, 1 Chron.
10:4, 13–14, 2 Sam. 16:10, Acts 2:23) and that not by a bare permission, (Acts
14:16) but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, (Ps.
76:10, 2 Kings 19:28) and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a
manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; (Gen. 50:20, Isa. 10:6–7, 12) yet
so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from
God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or
approver of sin. (James 1:13–14, 17, 1 John 2:16, Ps. 50:21) . . . . (Chapter 4, Of Providence. The Westminster Confession of Faith. Oak
Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996. Print.
Notice that in section 4 that God’s
power ensures that whatever He has foreordained happens not by bare permission
but that it happens exactly as God planned.
His plan is “joined with” almighty power so that “a most wise and
powerful bounding, . . . and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a
manifold dispensation to His own holy ends; . . .” so that whatever God wills comes to pass just as He intended. In other words God’s teleological purposes
cannot be thwarted because He knows all that will happen from beginning to end
and He has predetermined all the secondary causes and contingencies and means
to accomplish His eternal plan, purpose and will. (See Isaiah 14:24; 46:9-11; Deuteronomy
29:29; Job 23:13; Acts 4:28; Proverbs 19:21; Proverbs 21:30; Daniel 4:35). Those who reject equal ultimacy in the name
of preserving human freedom, i.e. libertarian free will as opposed to human
volition as a free moral agent, are in fact in opposition to Scripture and the
Westminster Confession. No man’s will is
free from sin after the fall and even more to the point, no man’s will is free
from God’s eternal will and providence.
God alone has a will free from any determinative contingencies outside
Himself. God is not the author of man’s
sins because it is man who sins, not God.
But that does not mean that God is not the remote and ultimate cause of
everything. The Arminian and the Open
Theist try to escape the implication that evil is ultimately part of God’s
eternal plan and that moral evil by moral agents and natural disasters are both
brought to pass by God’s providential governance of every single detail that
happens in time. If God foreordains the
movement of the atoms and the most minute workings of nature to even the
grandest scale of solar systems and galaxies, it surely is not beyond God’s
power to cause Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate to bring about the crucifixion
of Jesus Christ. (Acts 4:27-28).
Here ends the first installment. Look for part 2 in a couple of days. In the next installment I will delve into the
issue of common grace and how that conflicts with special revelation and the
doctrine of propositional revelation, plenary verbal inspiration and the
doctrine of the absolute infallibility and inerrancy of Holy Scripture. Also, in reference to these doctrines I will
compare and contrast the doctrine of libertarian free will with the political
philosophy of libertarian governmental policies and how that cannot be in
agreement with Reformed theology as deduced from Scripture and outlined by the
Reformed confessions.
Also in future posts to this topic I will consider how the Trinity Foundation and the late Dr. John Robbins significantly differ from Dr. Gordon H. Clark on libertarian politics and on Plantinga's foundationalism. Clark would have never agreed with foundationalism and in future posts I will compare and contrast Plantinga's views with Clark's view of Scripture as the beginning axiom of Christianity.
Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.
Posts
