Taking Heed to the Doctrine — Rev. James Laning

        The angels came from heaven with its brilliant glory to speak to shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night.  They spoke of this child, Mary’s firstborn son.  His very star appeared in the east, guiding the wise men from afar to behold this child.  Of this one Moses and the prophets gave witness.  The prophets of the old dispensation searched out the time of His appearing with great wonder and awe.  For this child many godly hoped and prayed and longed.  He is the Messiah.  Not merely the firstborn of Mary, but the firstborn of all creation.  Not merely the firstborn of Mary, but the only-begotten Son of God!

            This one was laid in a manger.

            How can that be?  We are stunned when we hear it!  What ill treatment was accorded this one, to whom belongs heaven and earth and all things in them!  To be laid in a manger, this abode not of newborn infants, but of grain and hay for the beasts of the field.

            Ought we not shudder at such a sight recorded in this verse?  This one so great and glorious: Should He not receive far different accommodations for His grand entrance into the world?

            We might think of far better!

            Let Him be received into the temple!  Here is a fit entrance for the all-glorious God come into human flesh.  Let the glory of that place crown Him with its splendor.  Let the gold and silver adorning the temple point to His value.  Let the holiness of that place show the consecration of that holy Child.  As He Himself is God, so let the Son of God, clothed with human flesh, be born and laid in that holiest of places on the face of the earth.

            No temple.  He is laid in a manger.

            Let Him be received into a palace.  Not the shabby surroundings of the palace of the governor of Judea.  Nor even the gilded halls of Herod’s palace.  Let Him be received into the palace of Caesar himself.  Let His birth be after the manner of the next and final emperor.  After all, He is King of kings and Lord of lords.  These great nations and their mighty armies are under His dominion.

            Let all these attend to His birth.  Let Him be surrounded by the best of care, the great physicians of healing.  Let them consult together for the best treatment of the least ailment that might beset Him.  Let Him be surrounded by the great and mighty soldiers of the Roman empire, lest He be attacked and destroyed.  Let Him be surrounded by the wisest counselors and teachers.  Hear their advice on raising this special Child.  Let the glory of the earth be given to Him.

            No imperial palace.  He is laid in a manger.

            Let us bring our protest where it belongs.  Let us bring our arguments against this shameful treatment before the Most High God.  Let us speak of the glory of this Child.  Let us take note what we might bring, to give Him a proper welcome into this world.  Let us even admit that what we have is very little to give to the Son of God.  Nevertheless, we do have something, however small.  Should that not be meet?

            Hear the answer.  Hear even the wisdom of God: In a manger!

            This is the glad tidings of the gospel.  Not by might, nor by power.  Not by human wisdom.  Not by signs and wonders.  But by a manger!

            Yes, a manger.  A feedbox for animals, even the common beast of the field.  A feedbox in a dark, dirty, dank, smelly stable.  Surrounded by creatures of the earth also seeking shelter there.

            Yes, there in the manger is the gospel.

            How can that be?

            Should God hear and answer our protest, the gospel would surely be lost to us.

            Who would dare to enter into the temple of God, into that most holy place?  There the high priest might enter once a year, and that not without blood.  Perhaps other priests, especially upon this glad occasion.  But not the common man.  Not you and I.  We would not dare, lest we be consumed by the glory of the Lord.

            Who would dare enter into Caesar’s palace?  Who would dare attempt breaching the ranks of these heavily armed, well-trained soldiers?  Who would not be so intimidated by the gathering of these learned doctors, counselors, and teachers, as to cower in some hidden corner?  Who would dare to approach this great Child, so clothed in the finest of garments, and wrapped in such finery?

            Not you and I.  We could not enter into a temple, or into such an imperial palace.

            Some would dare approach.  These would be the great ones.  They would be the powerful among men, great kings, nobles, emperors, even from far away regions.  They would be the wealthy among men, at home and comfortable with gold, silver, and fine tapestries.  They would be the learned doctors of wisdom and law.

            Would we dare approach?  Not at all.  Of such a sort we are not.  We are far too common.  Were we to enter into such dwellings, we would be filled with unease.  Too much power, too much riches and splendor surrounding us.

            But He was laid in a manger.  Blessed glad tidings of the gospel!

            For He was born for the humble, the meek and the lowly.  He was born for us, who have nothing to offer: no silver or gold, no might and power, no great wisdom and learning.  He was born for us who have nothing but sin and misery to give, that He might take it away.

            You see, He was not born to receive the glory, the power, the riches of men.  He was not born to be served.  He has no need of such things.  A temple or palace must needs compromise His glory!

            Instead, He was born to serve.  He was born to give.  He was born even to give His life as a ransom for many.  He came to exalt the humble, the meek, and the lowly.  He came to make the poor rich.  He came to make the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the blind to see, the dead to live.

            Therefore, say:  Let His entrance into this world be not marked by a palace or temple.  Let Him be laid in a manger.  And let us come before Him, casting everything away of worth or value.  By faith let us bow humbly before this Lord of glory, now laid in a manger.  That is the way of our salvation: not to give, but only to receive.

            Let this be a sign to us:  “Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.”  This is our Savior and our Lord.

            Laid in a manger!  

Editorial:

Prof. David Engelsma

Wesley and Murray, Who Follows

            A recent book by Iain H. Murray on John Wesley, famed father of the Methodist Church and grandfather of the charismatic movement, is of extraordinary significance for Calvinistic Christians and churches today, especially in Great Britain.  The book is Wesley and Men Who Followed (Edinburgh:  The Banner of Truth, 2003).      

            Although two of the four sections of Wesley and Men Who Followed are devoted to Wesley’s successors and to the further fortunes of Methodism, the book is a new study of the life, theology, and labors of John Wesley, on the 300^th anniversary of Wesley’s birth.

Foe of Grace

            In spite of its intentions, the work makes plain that Wesley, eighteenth century English preacher, revivalist, and founder of the Methodist Church, was a gross heretic.  Within a year of his supposed conversion in 1738, Wesley publicly blasphemed the biblical doctrine of predestination both in a sermon and in a pamphlet, “Free Grace.”  Iain H. Murray must, of course, refer to this notorious assault on the biblical gospel of grace.  But, shrewdly, in keeping with his purpose of rendering Wesley and his theology acceptable to professing Calvinists, Murray neither quotes from the sermon and pamphlet, nor describes Wesley’s diatribe as an attack on God’s predestination.  Rather, Murray informs us that Wesley merely preached “against the Calvinistic understanding of predestination” (p. 38).  Note the description of the object of Wesley’s hatred:  not predestination, but merely “the Calvinistic understanding of predestination.” 

            Another recent work on Wesley, Stephen Tomkins’ John Wesley:  A Biography (Eerdmans, 2003), is honest in its evaluation of the sermon and pamphlet of Wesley assailing predestination.  Tomkins includes quotations from the pamphlet that show the ferocity of Wesley’s attack on predestination.

It [Wesley’s pamphlet] was an extremely powerful piece of writing, a violent excoriation of “the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination.”  It destroys our comfort, holiness and zeal for preaching, he insisted, or if it does not, it logically should do.  “It represents the most holy God as worse than the Devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust.”  …It is a monstrous doctrine (Tompkins, Wesley, p. 78).

            For exactly such blasphemous slander of God’s predestination, the Synod of Dordt warned such “calumniators” as John Wesley “to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak, and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful”  (Canons of Dordt, Conclusion).

            Throughout his long life and ministry, Wesley remained an inveterate foe of sovereign grace and an ardent lover of the free will of the natural man and its decisiveness in salvation.

            Wesley denied justification by faith alone, and opposed it vigorously.  His doctrine of justification was Rome’s:  the infusing of grace so that the sinner performs good works, which are then part of his righteousness with God.  “The righteousness which is of God by faith is both imputed and inherent,” Wesley taught, so that the justification of the sinner is a continual process.  Wesley rejected justification as God’s imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the sinner:  “We do not find it affirmed expressly in Scripture that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to any” (Murray, Wesley, pp. 222, 219).

            Wesley’s attack on the doctrine of justification by faith alone was the same as Rome’s:  The doctrine hinders the Christian life of sanctification and good works, that is, the grace of justification by faith alone makes men careless and profane.  Wrote Wesley against justification by faith alone, “For if the very personal obedience of Christ … be mine the moment I believe, can anything be added thereto?  Does my obeying add any value to the perfect obedience of Christ?” (Murray, Wesley, p. 220)  The answer of the gospel, and of every Christian man, to these ungodly questions is an emphatic “no.”  Our obedience adds absolutely nothing to the perfect obedience of Christ for our righteousness with God.  But for Wesley, this negative answer doomed the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  The sinner’s works must add something for righteousness to the obedience of Christ. 

            Necessarily implied in Wesley’s denial of the biblical and Reformation truth of justification was a heretical doctrine of Christ’s death.  John Fletcher, Wesley’s colleague and best disciple, “could see that the question of general over against particular redemption was closely tied to the nature of justification….  [R]ather than believe in particular redemption, Fletcher held a ‘general justification’ of all men, which was not, of itself, a saving justification at all” (Murray, Wesley, p. 224).

A Second Blessing

            As if all this corruption of the gospel of grace were not enough, Wesley taught perfectionism.  Christians—all Christians—can and should be sinless in this life.  This “entire sanctification” happens in a momentary experience.  According to Wesley, all Christians should desire and expect this second blessing after conversion (Murray, Wesley, pp. 232-246).  The doctrine of perfectionism, of course, either drives men to despair, or makes hypocrites of them.

            Basic to Wesley’s perfectionist teaching was his radical weakening of the biblical doctrine of sin.  Sin for Wesley, as for Rome, was merely “voluntary transgression of a known law.”  It was not corruption of nature.  It was not the thought, desire, and passion.  Such a doctrine of sin as that of Wesley and Rome makes men Pelagians and Pharisees, who assert their own goodness and have no need of the grace of God.  Lacking the knowledge of the greatness of his sin and misery, which the Heidelberg Catechism says is necessary for the enjoyment of the comfort of the gospel, it is no wonder that Wesley despised justification by faith alone.  The man who is ignorant of the publican’s “God be merciful to me the sinner” must be a stranger to justification as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

            Adding to the enormity of this grievous heresy was Wesley’s toleration, if not encouragement, of bizarre physical acts accompanying the supposed second blessing of perfection and, indeed, Wesley’s revivalistic preaching generally.  Under the ministry of Wesley and his cohorts, Wesley’s converts laughed insanely, roared, jerked, and fell down as slain.  Murray only hints at these charismatic phenomena.  Tomkins is frank:  “The image of Wesley wading through the fallen as in a battlefield, praying over the shaking, hyper-ventilating bodies, will sound oddly familiar to any who witnessed the ‘Toronto blessing’ in 1994” (Tomkins, Wesley, pp. 71-74). 

            In his revivalism, his teaching of the experience of an instantaneous perfection as a second blessing, his acceptance, if not encouragement, of bizarre bodily expressions of salvation, and especially his free-will gospel, Wesley was the grandfather of the charismatic movement of today.

            With good reason, Augustus M. Toplady, Wesley’s great, orthodox, and honorable antagonist, said of Wesley, “I believe him to be the most rancorous hater of the gospel system that ever appeared in England” (cited in Tomkins, Wesley, p, 173).

“Dead to the Feelings of Shame”

            Wesley was as wicked in his behavior as he was in his doctrine.  He behaved abominably toward his nearest neighbor, his wife, virtually abandoning her.  Murray very briefly notes the fact of Wesley’s disobedience, all his married life, to the command of the apostle, that the husband love his wife and dwell with her as a man of understanding, although Murray is careful not to describe Wesley’s behavior as sin.  “With some justification Molly Wesley came to think that her husband did not need a wife.  They were too often apart and were finally to be so alienated and separated that it was to be days after her funeral that he even heard of her death” (Murray, Wesley, p. 46).

            What Murray neglects to mention is that in the meantime Wesley formed and enjoyed close relationships with other women, which, even if they were not adulterous, were illegitimate for a married man and devastating to Mrs. Wesley.  On the basis of her husband’s letters to these women, and his warm, close fellowship with them, Molly Wesley charged John Wesley with adultery.  Tomkins concludes that, although he was “surely not—with all due respect to Molly Wesley—an adulterer,” Wesley’s “personal relationships with women were, even according to admirers, an ‘inexcusable weakness’”  (Tomkins, Wesley, p. 197).  A married man need not commit adultery to sin grievously against his wife, marriage, and marriage’s God, by his relations with other women, or another woman.

            It was Wesley’s habitual practice in carrying on his war against Calvinism to change and elide passages in the writings of others that supported Calvinism and opposed his own gospel of free will.  “[Wesley] usually ‘corrected’ and edited out of the Puritan reprints that he supervised those passages which conflicted with his position” (Murray, Wesley, p. 68).  This was habitual transgression of the ninth commandment in the course of breaking the first, second, and third commandments.

            In controversy, Wesley studied ambiguity, and lied , in order to defend himself and in order to promote his false teachings.  “At times,” Murray allows, “it is hard to avoid the impression that he was being devious” (Murray, Wesley, p. 224).  His contemporaries recognized his deceit.  One said, “I know him of old.  He is an eel; take him where you will, he will slip through your fingers” (cited in Murray, Wesley, pp. 224, 225).

            The godly Toplady was not too strong when he warned the deceitful heretic that he stood in mortal danger of damnation:

            Whom do I condemn?  Whom do I impiously consign to future punishment?  I condemn no man.  I dare not pronounce concerning any man’s eternal state.  Herein I judge not even Mr. Wesley himself:  though I must tell him that if it be (as I most sincerely wish it may) the divine will to save him, he has an exceeding strait gate to pass through before he gets to heaven (Augustus M. Toplady, “More Work for Mr. John Wesley,” in The Works of Augustus Toplady, London:  J. Cornish, 1853, p. 732).

            The reason for the warning was that Wesley “is still as dead to the feelings of shame as he is blind to the doctrines of God” (Toplady, Works, p. 732).

Murray and the Murraymen

            What makes Wesley’s sins appear brightest crimson in Wesley and Men Who Followed is that they are acknowledged by an author who tries desperately to whitewash them all.  Iain Murray wrote the book as glowing praise of the Methodist preacher and his revival.  Every one of Wesley’s iniquities, doctrinal as well as practical, is minimized, excused, or explained away.  If we are to believe Murray, Wesley opposed Calvinism because he feared the danger of “Hyper-Calvinism,” a far worse evil than the free-will heresy of Arminianism-, if free-will Arminianism is a heresy for Murray at all.  “There is however something to be said in defence of Wesley’s misconception [of Calvinism].  The Reformers and Puritans had never had to deal with Hyper-Calvinism” (Murray, Wesley! dtw15 , p. 61).

            In addition, according to Murray, Wesley misunderstood Calvinism.  He supposed that Calvinism’s doctrine of predestination teaches that God, in love, has elected only some persons, whereas He has reprobated the others in hatred.  In fact, according to Murray, Calvinism teaches no such thing.  Calvinism teaches the love of God for all men without exception.  Calvinism teaches the love of God in Jesus Christ for all men without exception.  “The issue between Calvinism and Arminianism is not whether God loves all men, it is whether God loves all men equally” (Murray, Wesley, pp. 60-63).  Had Wesley understood that Calvinism teaches universal (ineffectual) grace, rather than particular, sovereign grace, he would not have opposed Calvinism as he did.! 3

            Similarly, Wesley denied justification by faith alone because of his aversion to the antinomianism rampant in the church at that time:  “Part of Wesley’s problem was his obsessive concern with Antinomianism” (Murray, Wesley, p. 227). 

            As for Wesley’s moral iniquities, Murray assures us that Wesley gutted the old Puritan writings of their Calvinistic statements (presumably, since the Puritans had not learned their Calvinism from Iain Murray, statements of particular, sovereign grace), misquoted his opponents, revised the confessions, and lied when he felt the heat in controversy, because he was a busy man, who wrote much and had no time for accuracy.  “A part of the explanation is that he [Wesley] worked too fast and with too much indifference to strict consistency” (Murray, Wesley, pp. 225, 226).

            Wesley and His Followers is as important for its exposure of a modern follower of Wesley as it is for its unintended exposure of John Wesley.  The modern follower of Wesley is the author of the book.

            Iain Murray claims to be a Calvinist.  He is a Presbyterian minister in Scotland.  Heading the influential Banner of Truth Trust, he has the name of a leading champion of Calvinism, not only in Great Britain, but also throughout the world.

            Of Wesley’s gospel, or theology, which consisted of universal grace conditioned by the sinner’s supposed free-will, justification by faith and works, universal atonement, the falling away of saints, a second blessing of instantaneous sinlessness, and a blasphemous attack on predestination, Murray judges that “the foundation of Wesley’s theology was sound” (Murray, Wesley, p. 77).  Wesley’s theology was merely “confused” (Murray, Wesley, p. 79).  Murray praises Wesley for his “commitment to the Bible” (Murray, Wesley, p. 80).  It is the thrust of Murray’s book that Wesley preached the gospel and that his revival was a glorious work of the Spirit of Christ by the gospel.

            It is now evident what Iain Murray and the Banner of Truth under his command are doing to the Reformed faith in Great Britain and, as they have opportunity, across the world.  They are destroying Calvinism from within.

            The foes without openly assail Calvinism for teaching sovereign, particular grace grounded in eternal election, which election is one decree with the eternal reprobation of the others. 

            Murray and the Murraymen insidiously corrupt Calvinism from within.  They portray Calvinism as a doctrine of God’s universal love for sinners.  They are perfectly silent as regards reprobation, except that the doctrine of a universal love for sinners necessarily implies the rejection of reprobation.  They carry on a noisy, relentless warfare against the doctrine that God’s grace in the gospel is particular—for the elect only—condemning it as the worst enemy Calvinism ever had—“Hyper-Calvinism.”  And they praise to the skies the “gospel” of a John Wesley, which the world knows was the message of universal grace suspended on the free will of the sinner—the “gospel” that the Synod of Dordt judged to be a form of Pelagianism.

            Lo, according to Murray and the Murraymen, universal (ineffectual) grace, rooted in a loving will of God devoid of reprobation, is … Calvinism!

            And the message of sovereign grace for the elect alone, accomplishing the salvation of every one to whom God gives it in the preaching of the gospel, is … Hyper-Calvinism.

            It comes as no surprise then that at the end of the book, Murray, having defended Wesley’s teaching as the gospel and having recast Calvinism as universal (ineffectual) grace, proposes that we henceforth regard Arminianism and Calvinism as two, friendly, cooperating forms of the gospel.  Something “good” came out of the controversy between Wesley and the Calvinists.  “Men on both sides of the divide re-assessed how much they had in common….  This led to a determination that henceforth Calvinist and Arminian evangelicals, without minimizing their differences, should respect and aid one another wherever possible” (Murray, Wesley, p. 230).

            “Calvinist and Arminian evangelicals”! 

            Two forms of one and the same gospel! 

            So that the Reformed faith should respect, and do all in its power to aid the spreading of, the message that salvation depends on the free will of the sinner, that Christ died for multitudes who nevertheless perish in hell, that the grace of God is resistible, that one can lose his salvation, and that the glory of salvation is the sinner’s own.  For this message, according to Murray, is a form of God’s own gospel.

            Murray quotes an old preacher approvingly:  “Arminius, Calvin, Baxter, all excellent men in their own way, yet how divided in their notions!  But Jesus, that eternal source of love, will, I would charitably hope, bless all who sincerely desire to magnify his holy name, notwithstanding their different apprehensions on these points” (Murray, Wesley, p. 231).

Two Witnesses

            Much of nominal Calvinist Christianity, especially in Great Britain, nods its approval.  Read the favorable reviews of Murray’s book on Wesley in the Reformed press.  Note the popularity of Murray and the Banner with professing Calvinists.

            But there remain at least two witnesses, that Murray and the Murraymen are corrupting the Reformed faith at its very heart and that the grace of God is sovereign (irresistible).

            The Protestant Reformed Churches.

            And Dordt.

            The Rev. Wybren Oord then tellingly points out the gross inconsistencies of this argumentation.

            It does make one sick to his stomach.  If it were an “enemy” who made these claims, one could understand.  But this is one who comes in the name of “Christ” and asks for prayers and encouragements in this change!!  Then, too, the store will not be open on Sunday mornings so that God’s people can worship in church!  (We’ve heard that argument too before—by grocery chains who subsequently opened Sunday mornings as well.)  With Scripture one must remark, “How is the gold become dim!”

And then—There’s the Seventh Commandment

            As far as society in general is concerned, the seventh commandment is essentially no longer applicable.  Divorce and remarriage have become acceptable even within the churches.  Living together without the benefit of marriage is commonplace.  The sin of homosexuality is rather labeled an “alternate life style.” 

            The seriousness of the situation was called to my attention when I received an article from the Loveland Reporter-Herald of November 7, 2003.  The article, taken from the Associated Press, was titled: “Homophobia banned from child’s education.”

            DENVER — A woman who has joint custody of her adopted 8-year-old daughter has been ordered by a judge to shield the child from any religious teachings that could be interpreted as homophobic.

            Cheryl Clark, a Denver physician, has appealed the order from state District Judge John Couglin.  The order governs a joint custody agreement between Clark and Elsey McLeod, who was once her lesbian partner, court documents show.

            Clark ended the relationship after converting to Christianity, the documents said.

            Coughlin’s April 28 order gave Clark responsibility for the child’s religious education but said she must ensure “there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic.”

            Clark filed an appeal last week.

            She believes Christianity condemns homosexuality and fears the order will limit her ability to teach her child the faith, said Matthew Staver, president of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which takes up conservative Christian legal causes.

            “We think this is the first case of its kind in the country that has gone that far,” Staver said.

            “We believe it sets a dangerous trend to undermine the rights of parents and religious freedom,” he said.

            The ruling does give one pause for thought and concern.  Granted, the situation mentioned in the article is strange.  Two lesbians have an 8-year-old daughter.  After one repents of her sin, she is now forbidden to teach her daughter that homosexuality is sin—and even forbidden to place her in a situation where anyone else may teach her that.  Presumably, it might be dangerous to take her to church where the court’s order might be violated.

            Will such an order eventually encompass all homes and churches someday soon?  To condemn homosexuality whether at home, in school, or in the church could easily be interpreted as “homophobic.”  Will parents be forbidden to warn their children against such sins?  Or, perhaps, will one be forbidden to speak of anything as “sin”?  One, then, can decide for himself what is right or wrong.  Each can be “as God” to know for himself the good and the evil. 

What About the Sixth Commandment?

        Most have read of or heard about the case in Florida of Terri Schiavo, who suffered from a stroke some 13 years ago.  There has been a legal struggle between her husband (who insists that his wife would never want to remain in this “vegetative” state) and her parents who insist that she remains aware and conscious of things about her.  Should a feeding tube continue to sustain her—or should it be withdrawn and she be allowed to starve to death?

            Editorials have been written, people have weighed in on both sides, and courts have decided in favor of the husband’s position.  The legislature and the governor of Florida, however, have taken action to sustain this lady’s life.  Questions are raised about one’s “right to die.”

            Andree Seu, World magazine, November 15, 2003, has contributed her interesting comments on the case:

         The Apostle Peter gave two reasons why a moral issue may be a bugbear: first, the issue is intrinsically “hard to understand”; second, men are “ignorant and unstable,” and wont to “twist” things to their own designs (2 Peter 3:16).   We have both in the Terri Schindler Schiavo case.

         What makes the story of the 13-year bedridden woman intractable?  The answer is that it is not one story at all but a Gordian knot whose strands include motives (the husband’s, the ACLU’s, etc.), medical definitions (“irreversibility”), slippery semantics (“vegetative state”), modern technology (artificial versus nonartificial life-extending measures), rights of guardianship, living wills, law on the books, law of God, “separation of powers,” and how to think and judge as a Christian in a non-Christian country.

         There have evolved in our institutions of higher learning a breed of experts who call themselves “end-of-life specialists.”  These are people who do nothing all day but consider a constellation of concerns revolving around the “terminal” patient: palliative care, pain management, quality of life, end-of-life options, alleviation of financial concerns, use of narcotics, organ donation, “extraordinary medical intervention,” “artificial nutrition,” “regulated assisted dying,” and “rights of the dying.”  And at the center of the constellation—a void.

         For all depends on what you see when you’re looking at Terri Schiavo on her bed.  And what you see keeps shifting on us, as old verities are less certain in these last days, and the room fogs around us, and human rights blur with animal rights, and…well, they shoot horses, don’t they?

            The writer continues to analyze the situation and considers the various alternatives proposed by man.  Her final paragraph sums up:

         There is variety among men—black, white, and yellow, man and woman—because there is variety within God.  (Indeed, there is variety within man—body, soul, and spirit—for the same reason.)  There is interdependency among men because the Father loves the Son and the Spirit.  And reality is so configured that we may not experience the fullness of being human, nor may we understand anything at all, including ourselves, apart from relationship with others.  What irony to want to snuff the life that was meant to draw one deeper into the mystery.  What miscalculation to treat as disposable a creature who, if she were weighed in the scales against the seven wonders of the world, we would have to prefer to all their glory.

 

            It is a sad, yea, a tragic story.  This does indicate further the direction in which our society is going.  It is supposed to be a “woman’s right” to destroy the fruit of her womb before there occurs a birth.  Increasingly, the position is taken that it is one’s “right” to determine the time and method of his death.  In the particular case above, no extraordinary means are being used to keep the individual alive—except to feed her with a tube into her stomach.  Who is to decide if, when, why, and how that tube is be removed?

            The unchangeable truths of the Ten Commandments are being eroded—one after another.  Someone has said, only two of the ten commands are currently incorporated into the laws of our land: thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal.  And even those two are now defined by man to suit his own liking while ignoring the teaching of Scripture.  

Feature Article:

Herman Hoeksema

The Covenant Concept (2)

            We must still answer the question:  With whom is the covenant established?  Is it established with Christ, or only with us?  In close connection with this question, we ought to ask:  Is the Christ the Head or only the Mediator and Surety of the covenant?  The answers to this latter question vary as the conceptions of the covenant differ.  Usually, if the covenant is considered as a way or a means to an end, i.e., to our salvation, the answer is:  “God establishes His covenant with us,” and even then the answers are more or less specific, some being satisfied with the statement that God establishes His covenant with men, or with sinners; others insisting that it is established with elect sinners.  But it is not established with Christ.  He has no need of salvation, and therefore He is the Mediator of the covenant in behalf of the covenant and the Surety that God’s demands shall be fulfilled.  

            Others, however, even in this class, though somewhat inconsistently, insist that Christ is also the Head of the covenant, in the sense that He represents His people.  In this group it is customary to speak of a separate covenant of redemption, or counsel of peace.  By this is understood a pact or agreement within the Trinity, either between the three persons of the Trinity or between the Father and the Son, and briefly consisting in this, that the Father appoints the Son Mediator in behalf of the elect, requiring of Him to become servant in the flesh and the complete satisfaction for sin.  And the Son agrees to this on condition that the Father will give to Him His Mediator’s glory and the promised seed.  This conception, although the name of this covenant is derived erroneously from Zechariah 6:13, is based on such passages as Psalm 2, Psalm 89, etc.  And this covenant of redemption is supposed to be the eternal basis for the covenant of grace.

            As to our view of this matter we may note the following:

            First of all, we must proceed from the fundamental truth that God is a covenant God in Himself, and that the deepest ground of His covenant with us is His own covenant life as the triune God.  This must be so because all the works of God ad extra are self-revelation.  God is one in being and three in persons.  In the Trinity we have, therefore, the most absolute sameness and essential identity, together with personal distinction.  And the three persons of the holy Trinity, being one in essence, possessing the same essential attributes, living the same infinitely perfect life in the inaccessible light, dwell together in the fellowship of perfect friendship.  The Father knows and loves and lives through the Son and in the Spirit of Himself.  The Son knows and loves and lives of the Father, through Himself, in the Spirit.  The Spirit knows and loves and lives of the Father, through the Son in Himself.

            In the second place, what is known as the counsel of peace or the covenant of redemption, if we must speak of it at all, is the eternal decree, counsel, or living will of the triune God to reveal this covenant life, and realize a creaturely reflection of the covenant in the highest possible degree with man in the way of sin and grace.

            Thirdly, the realization of this decree, counsel, living will of God is the covenant of grace with Christ, and with His people in Him.  Christ, therefore, is the friend-servant of God in the highest sense of the word.  He is this as the Incarnate Word, the most intimate possible union between God and man.  As the chief friend-servant of God, in whom the covenant life of God’s friendship is centrally revealed and realized, He receives a people who through Him will be received into that same living relationship of friendship, and in whom His own glory will be reflected in a manifold way.  As this covenant relation is to be raised to its highest possible level, this Christ and His church must pass through the way of sin and death into the glory of God’s heavenly tabernacle.  It stands to reason therefore that this chief covenant friend!  of God in relation to His people is their Surety; that the basis of righteousness shall be established and that they shall be justified and glorified through Him; that He is the Mediator in their behalf, through whom God establishes the covenant relation; and that in the covenant relation He stands as their Head representing them.  In relation to God, Christ in His covenant relation always stands as the Servant-Friend, whose delight it is to do the will of God, even to the very depth of His suffering and death.  All the work of Christ must be considered in this light and from this viewpoint.  He acts as servant of Jehovah in the threefold capacity as the prophetic, sacerdotal, and royal Official.  As such He accomplishes everything necessary for the perfection of the covenant of God with us.  He reveals the Father, He obeys, suffers, dies, atones, satisfies.  He enters into the depth of the suffering of hell.  In that capacity He is exalted,!  raised from the dead, taken into the highest heaven, seated at the right hand of God, and becomes the quickening Spirit.  He also becomes the Mediator of the realization of the covenant of friendship in the hearts and lives of all whom the Father gave Him.  In answer, then, to the question with whom the covenant is established, we say:  first and centrally with Christ, and through Him with His people.

            That this is indeed the teaching of Scripture is not difficult to show.  All the scriptural passages that are usually quoted in support of the so-called counsel of peace or covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son must undoubtedly be interpreted as having reference to the relation between the triune God and Christ in His human nature.  In the counsel of peace, as we have defined it, the Son appears and acts in the divine nature, and as such He is coordinate with the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit.  He decrees together with the Father and the Holy Spirit in this counsel of peace.  But in all the scriptural passages referred to above, He appears in a subordinate position, and not on the basis of equality with the Father and the Holy Ghost, but as the Servant of Jehovah, and, therefore, as in His human nature.  This is true of all the passages in Isaiah that concern the Servant of Jehovah ! (Isaiah 42:1-4, for instance).  Centrally, the Servant here is Christ, though we must always remember that the term “Servant of Jehovah” has a broader connotation.  As servant-friend He stands in the covenant relation to the triune God who here speaks. 

            The same is true of Psalm 89:1-4.   (This text is almost always quoted in support of the notion of the counsel of peace.)  Again here we have a relationship between the triune God and Christ in His human nature (Ps. 89:1-4, 28, 29; 2:7-9).  The utterance “I will declare the decree:  the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son:  this day have I begotten thee” in this passage is not spoken by the Father to the Son, but again by the triune God to the Man Jesus.  This passage also refers to Christ as Mediator in the covenant relation to the triune God, as God will exalt Him through the resurrection to His right hand and make Him King forever. 

            This is also true from the passages in which Christ appears as the one sent by the Father (John 6:38, 39; 10:18; etc.). 

            In this connection we may also refer to Philippians 2:9-11, speaking of the exaltation of the Servant of God in human nature, an exaltation that is based upon His having humbled Himself in perfect obedience.  Here, too, belong those texts that speak of God as Christ’s God (Ps. 22:1; 40:7, 8); and the well-known phrase in the New Testament “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which can only be applied to Christ in His human nature.  And, finally, we may mention here the well-known passage of Romans 5:12-21, where a clear parallel is drawn between Christ and Adam, both in their capacity as covenant Head, representing their people in the covenant.

            In close connection with the above discussion stands the close relation of the doctrine of the covenant and election, and the question as to who are in the covenant?  It will be evident that those who speak of a covenant of redemption or counsel of peace as an agreement between the Father and the Son unto the salvation of the elect conceive of election as being prior to this covenant of redemption or counsel of peace.  For the latter has its purpose in the salvation of the elect.  Even from this it is evident that the covenant must of necessity be conceived of as “a way to an end” from this viewpoint.  According to the conception we have presented of the counsel of peace, it is evident that the relation between it and election is such that the latter serves the former! , and therefore follows it.  The covenant is not a “way” or “means,” but the end itself, and it is conceived as such in the eternal good pleasure of God.  It follows, then, that the decree of the covenant is first, and that the decree of election is subservient to the decree of the counsel of peace.  God first decrees in the counsel of peace to reveal the glory of His own covenant life in a covenant established with the creature, and then He ordains and chooses the elect in Christ for the realization of that covenant.

            This also answers, in part at least, the question:  with whom is the covenant established?  Or, who are in the covenant of God?  Also in regard to this question there is much confusion among Reformed theologians.  Some simply answer that the covenant is established with the elect, others prefer to say that the elect sinner in Christ is in the covenant, while still others look at the historical realization of the covenant in the world and then insist that believers and their seed are those with whom God establishes His covenant, and by the “seed of believers” they then mean all that are born of believing parents.  It should be clear, however, that if the covenant is established in and with Christ, those that are in the covenant of God according to God’s elective decree are none other than the elect.  In God’s counsel, the coven! ant is strictly limited to those who are chosen in Christ (Eph. 1:4), so that in actual fact the covenant people are those who receive the gifts of grace according to election, such as regeneration, being grafted into Christ by faith, and receiving all the benefits of grace and salvation in Christ so that they may live the life of God’s eternal friendship even in this world.

            This does not change the fact that the covenant is established with believers and their seed, and that in the line of their continued generations.  This does indeed follow from the covenant as it was established with Abraham and his seed, according to Genesis 17:7.   But one does not have to appeal to this particular text, and thus probably expose himself to the necessity of answering those who always insist that the Jews are Israel.  We may turn to the establishment of the covenant with Noah and his seed (Gen. 9:8-17) to show that it is established in the line of generations.  Surely no one dare argue that we are not of Noah’s seed.  Or we may even go back farther and appeal for scriptural basis for this same truth in Genesis 3:15, and show that from the beginning God established His covenant in the line of the seed of the woman that culminates in the Christ.  Surely no one dare argue that we belong ! to the seed of another than the woman.  Nor can it be argued that these scriptural passages do not refer to the same thing, for the covenant is surely one, as it is established in the seed of the woman in the line of Seth, with the seed of Noah in the line of Shem, with the seed of Abraham in the line of Israel, “and with you and your children and all that are afar off” in the New Testament (Acts 2:39).   So that there can be no question about the fact that the covenant is established between believers and their seed in the line of their generations.

            From this it may not be deduced, however, either that the covenant includes all the seed according to the flesh, or that the covenant promise objectively is meant for all of them.  Thus it is frequently presented.  Also with respect to the covenant the theory is applied that we have nothing to do with God’s election, that the secret things are for the Lord our God, that according to the revealed will of God He has established His covenant with believers and their seed, and that therefore all the seed of believers must be considered covenant-seed.  Others, acknowledging the impossibility of taking the stand that all children of believers belong to the seed of the covenant, have tried to make a distinction in order to meet what they conceived to be a difficulty.  Some spoke of an external and internal covenant — the former referring to the historical establishment of the covenant with the seed of believers indiscriminately, the latter to the real covenant established with the elect in Christ.  Others prefer to speak of a conditional and absolute covenant.  Evidently they are thus trying to make room for a conditional form of preaching and a “well-meaning offer of salvation” to all that are born in the church, while still others spoke of the covenant and its administration.  However, it is quite certain:

            1.   That the stream of God’s election follows the riverbed of continued generations, and that in such a way that the riverbed is dug out for the stream.  The organic development of the generations is adapted to the realization of the seed of the covenant.

            2.   That it is the will of God that all who fall within the covenant generations shall be treated according to the standard that must be applied to God’s real covenant people.  They are called by God’s name, they receive the signs of the covenant by which they are separated from the world, and they wear the uniform of Christ’s army.  They hear the Word of God and the promise and the calling of God unto their part of the covenant.

            3.   That the disobedient are fornicators, and expressed as such by the Scriptures as violators of the covenant of God, and that they shall in consequence be beaten with double stripes.

4.      That nevertheless only the “children of the promise” are counted for the true seed of the covenant (cf. Rom. 9:6-9), so that with them and only them, even in the line of the generations of believers, God established His covenant.  They alone believe the promises of God and walk in a “new and holy life,” as of the party of the living Jehovah.   

Marking the Bulwarks of Zion:

Prof. Herman Hanko

Prof. Hanko is professor emeritus of Church History and New Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.
      The first installment of this article can be found in the November 15^th issue of the Standard Bearer.

Moïse Amyraut and Amyraldianism (2)

Introduction

Moïse Amyraut held to a position in France that was a serious and significant modification of Calvin’s teachings and a rejection of the strong pronouncements of the Synod of Dordt.  His views were never consistently condemned by the French Reformed Churches, and Amyraut himself was never censured.  The result was the demise of the Reformed Church in France as a truly Calvinistic church.

            Amyraut’s teachings had wide influence.  We briefly turn to this matter in this article.

John Cameron and Developments in Scotland

            John Cameron was Amyraut’s teacher and mentor.  Although born in Glasgow, Scotland in 1579, Cameron spent the years 1600-1621 in France.  Because of his vast knowledge, he was appointed professor of theology at Saumur, the school where Amyraut obtained his degree.  It was at the feet of Cameron that Amyraut became acquainted with the universalism that he later popularized.

            In 1621 the school of Saumur ceased to exist because of the civil wars in France, and Cameron returned to Glasgow.  He remained in his hometown for only three years before returning to France, where he was killed in 1625 during political rioting.

            John Cameron is important because he carried Amyraldianism to Scotland, although similar teachings may very well have come earlier and from a different source.  Some claim that Bishop Ussher, from Armagh in Ireland, the author of a widely accepted chronology of the Bible, may have held similar views.  John Davenant was already infected with errors similar to Amyraldianism prior to the Synod of Dordt.  Four delegates to Dordt were sent by the English king: Davenant, Balcanqual, Carleton, and Goad.  The latter three were sound men; Davenant was not.  His ideas were so inimical to his colleagues at Dordt that there was constant debate within the English delegation.  Davenant frequently agreed with the Dordt delegates from Bremen, who openly sided with the Arminians during the deliberations of that synod.  Amyraldianism, or an earlier form of it, was represented at Dordt — although it could hardly be cal! led by that name and could better be known as Cameronianism, after its founder.

            However that may be, the views of Cameron came to England, and the influence of his views was widespread.  At the Westminster Assembly, Amyraldianism was represented by a party consisting of nine men, among whom was especially Seamen, Arrowsmith, and Sprigge.  The particularism of Calvinism was also defended on the floor of the Assembly, especially by the Scottish theologians Rutherford and Gillespie.  The debates were long, but never anything else but amiable.  (See Universalism and the Reformed Churches, Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia, 5).

            Although Amyraldianism was defended on the floor of the Assembly, the Confession itself does not include Amyraldian statements.  Nevertheless, there is some reason to believe that the Confession is not as strong as it could have been on this point.

            In Universalism and the Reformed Churches the statement is made that the “attitude of the Assembly to the Davenant School (an amiable attitude is referred to here, HH) was confirmed later in the same year on 4th December, when the Assembly defended the reputation of Moses Amyraut against the complaints of one Andrew Rivett.”  However, an examination of the minutes does not seem to support this contention.  The pertinent part of the minute of December 4, 1645 reads:  “Upon a motion made by Mr. Dury, according to the desire of Mr. Rivett, that the Assembly would purge him from a charge of complaining against Amyrauldus to this Assembly.  Ordered—The Prolocutor and scribes do sign a certificate that neither in his name nor in any other man’s name any such complaint hath been brought into this Assembly.”

            This minute is not entirely clear.  Apparently the Assembly had received a charge against Amyraut in the name of Andrew Rivett, whether he brought the charge himself or whether it was brought by someone else in his name.  This charge was, at the request of Rivett himself, withdrawn from the Assembly and the record of it was expunged.  How all that happened is not clear from the minutes.  It is true, however, that the Assembly had an opportunity to condemn the views of Moïse Amyraut and did not do it.  The Assembly did not approve of Amyraldianism by incorporating Amyraldian phrases in its final adopted confession.  But it did not condemn or exclude the Amyraldian heresy either.  This is evident from the article concerning the atonement.  Chapter 8, 5 reads:  “The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father, and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.”

            That is, of course, a good article.  But it did not exclude or condemn the universalism of the Amyraldian conception of the atonement of Christ.  Compare this, for example, with the statement of the Synod of Dordt:  “...it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language all those, and those only (emphasis mine, HH), who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given Him by the Father …” (2, 8).  Westminster does have an exclusionary expression in it in 3, 6, an article dealing with election:  “As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto.  Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed!  by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation.  Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect only” (italics ours).  But this article speaks primarily of election.  The exclusionary statement of Dordt was omitted by Westminster even though the divines at Westminster were well aware of Dordt’s statement. 

            Room was thus left for the Amyraldian position, which taught a universal atonement in some sense.  Indeed, the Amyraldians interpreted the article as leaving room for their position.  Richard Baxter, author of The Reformed Pastor, was an Amyraldian who refused to sign the Westminster Confession unless room was left for his view of universal atonement.  He did eventually sign the creed.  (Information on this point can be gained from Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith [Philadelphia, 1847] 71, 143ff.; Benjamin Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work [Cherry Hill, Mack Publishing Co., 1971] 141; Philip Schaff also discusses this problem in his Creeds of!  Christendom, vol. 1.)

            In connection with this latter point, Philip Schaff takes the position that the Westminster Assembly was equivocal on the point.  He writes:  “Nevertheless, behind the logical question is the far more important theological and practical question concerning the extent of the divine intention or purpose, viz., whether this is to be measured by God’s love and the intrinsic value of Christ’s merits, or by the actual result.  On this question there was a difference of opinion among the divines, as the ‘Minutes’ will show, and the difference seems to have been left open by the framers of the Confession.”

            After pointing out the statements in the Confession that point to the fact that the divines at Westminster incorporated strong statements defending particular redemption, Schaff goes on to say, “On the other hand, Ch. VII.3 teaches that under the covenant of grace the Lord ‘freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.’  This looks like a compromise between conditional universalism taught in the first clause, and particular election taught in the second.  This is in substance the theory of the school of Saumur, which was first broached by a Scotch divine, Cameron (d. 16! 25), and more fully developed by his pupil Amyrault, between A.D. 1630 and 1650, and which was afterwards condemned in the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675).”

            Schaff’s argument here is not strong.  He in effect claims that the Assembly left the door open to Amyraldianism by the use of the word “offer” — “the Lord ‘freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation.’”  But what was in the mind of the Assembly when it approved this article is another question.  The Assembly might very well have meant (and it is clear from the minutes that many did mean) “offer” in the sense of “present” or “set forth.”  It may also have meant “offer” in the sense of graciously offer as an expression of God’s intent and desire to save all who hear.  Subsequent events revealed that it was eventually taken both ways.

            Amyraldianism took deeper root in England than Calvinism.

The Marrow Controversy

            One more interesting aspect of the influence of Amyraldianism is to be found in the Marrow Controversy, which troubled the churches in Scotland in the early part of the eighteenth century.

            In 1645 a rather obscure writer by the name of Edward Fisher wrote a book called The Marrow of Modern Divinity.  It attracted very little noti