April 2002
Volume 35, Number 2
In This Issue:
For a free copy of
this Theological Journal, write: |
Whatever
Happened to the Reformation, ed. by Gary L. W. Johnson & R. Fowler White. Philipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing Co.,
Publishers, 2001. Pp. xxviii-337. $15.99
(paper). [Reviewed by Herman C. Hanko.]
Eschatology,
by Hans Schwarz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Pp. xv + 431. $26 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Our
School: Calvin College and the Christian Reformed Church, by Harry Boonstra. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, Publishers, 2001. Pp. xi-155. (Paper.) [Reviewed by Herman C.
Hanko.]
Revelation
Down to Earth: Making Sense of the Apocalypse
of John, by Edwin Walhout. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Pp. viii + 254.
$20 (paper). [Reviewed by David J.
Engelsma.]
Calvin: A Biography, by Bernard Cottret. Tr. M. Wallace McDonald. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000. Pp. xv + 376. $28 (cloth).
[Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Holy
Fairs: Scotland and the Making of American
Revivalism, by Leigh Eric Schmidt. Second
edition with a new preface. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.
Pp. xxix + 278. $27 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Looking
into the Future: Evangelical Studies in
Eschatology, ed. David W. Baker. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. 383 pp. $29.99
(paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Dictionary
of the Presbyterian & Reformed Tradition in America, ed. D. G. Hart and
Mark A. Noll. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Pp. vii
+ 286. $16.99 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
The Eschatology of the Old Testament, by
Geerhardus Vos. Ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2001.
Pp. ix + 176. $11.99 (paper). [Reviewed David J. Engelsma.]
Christ’s Spiritual
Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism by David J. Engelsma. Published
by The Reformed Witness, Redlands, CA, 2001. 158 pp. $9 (paper). [Reviewed by Russell Dykstra.]
Prof.
Russell J. Dykstra presents the first article of a series on “A Comparison of
Exegesis: John Calvin and Thomas
Aquinas.” Because of the stature of
these two theologians (Calvin in the Protestant, i.e., especially Reformed Protestant
tradition; Aquinas in the Roman Catholic tradition), Dykstra points out that for these two
men to be “compared and contrasted in many areas of their work and thought is only
natural.” And indeed there are many
works published contrasting these giants. Most
of these are based in Aquinas’ Summa and Calvin’s Institutes. Very little work has been done comparing the
exegesis of these theologians. This, in spite
of the fact that “both Aquinas and Calvin are not only theologians, they are
accomplished exegetes of the Scriptures.” Dykstra’s
purpose in writing this series is to demonstrate the significant similarities and striking
differences in the exegeses of these men.
In his contribution,
“Nothing but a Loathsome Stench: Calvin’s Doctrine of the Spiritual Condition of
Fallen Man,” Prof. David J. Engelsma presents a clear and important and
well-documented summary of Calvin’s teaching on original sin and total depravity. While candidly admitting Calvin’s erroneous
teaching called “General Grace,” Engelsma demonstrates the serious implications
for doctrine and life of the church of any compromise on Calvin’s correct teaching on
“the spiritual condition of fallen man.” Calvin’s
purpose in his “admittedly dark analysis of man’s spiritual condition ... is to
open up the way to belief of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the only source and
means of the salvation of the sinner.” In
this connection the reader must pay careful attention to what Engelsma has to say in
footnote 3 about the implications of the denial of God’s creation of man as good and
man’s depravity and sinfulness through his falling from that original goodness in
Adam! Read this important article. The Reformed reader will, after having done so,
breathe a fervent prayer of thanks to God for giving John Calvin to His church.
Pastor Lau Chin Kwee
presents the second article in his series on the “Serious Call of the Gospel.”
Undersigned continues his
exposition of the Epistle to Titus.
As
usual we also offer a number of book reviews to aid the busy pastors and members of the
churches.
An Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to Titus (5)
Again we remind the reader
that this exposition of the Epistle to Titus was first given in the form of “chapel
talks” by the author at the weekly Wednesday morning chapel services at the seminary. The author began the exposition in the 1997-1998
school year and completed the series the second semester of the 1999-2000 school year. The exposition is being published in the Journal
with the hope that it will prove helpful to a wider audience of the people of God in their
study of this brief letter in the sacred Scriptures.
So that both those able to work with the Greek language and those unable to do so
may benefit from this study, all references to the Greek will be placed in footnotes. The translation of the Greek text is the
author’s. We present this exposition
pretty much as it was spoken in the chapel services, application and all. Perhaps this will help the reader gain some
insight into what goes on in the seminary.
Chapter Two
Verse 1
After extending his
greetings to Titus the young preacher (chapter 1:1-4), the apostle explains why he left
Titus in Crete, viz., to “set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders
in every city…” (1:5). The apostle
then explains what gifts the elders must have if they are to serve in that office in the
church (1:6-9). In the last section of the
first chapter, the apostle describes the foolish and vain talkers whom Titus must sharply
rebuke (vv. 10-16).
Chapter two introduces a
contrast with that last section of chapter one. The
first verse reads,
But thou 1 speak that which becomes (or befits)2 sound teaching.3
In sharp contrast to the
speech of the foolish and vain talkers, Titus is emphatically commanded to speak that
which befits sound/healthful teaching/doctrine.
The antidote to the unruly
and vain talkers, that which will sharply rebuke them, is sound doctrine. The church needs to be taught wholesome or
healthful doctrine. Note well that this must
characterize all of Titus’ labors as a pastor.
He must in all his preaching and teaching speak those things which befit wholesome,
healthful, sound doctrine. By way of sharp
contrast with the unruly and vain talkers, whose false teaching/doctrine subverts whole
houses, Titus must speak the things which befit wholesome doctrine. In other words, the sound doctrine which Titus
must teach will edify, i.e., build up the saints and thus the church.
The speech which befits
sound doctrine is that which is consistent with, that which harmonizes with, sound
doctrine. More specifically, that speech
which is consistent with sound doctrine describes the godly life of sanctification which
must flow out of the sound doctrine/teaching of the sacred Scriptures. Or, we could say, that speech which is consistent
with sound doctrine describes the good works which are the fruit of a true and living
faith.
“The things which befit
sound doctrine” are carefully laid out in the rest of the chapter. Especially is this true of verses two through
ten, in which section five classes of church members are exhorted and addressed:
1. The aged men (v. 2).
2. The aged women (vv. 3 - 5).
3. The young, married women (vv. 4 - 5).
4. The young men (v. 6))
5. The slaves (vv. 9 - 10) 4
Not only must the above
mentioned be exhorted by Titus, but he, himself a young man, must set the example of good
works in his own daily living.
We need to pause at this
point lest we fail to be impressed with the tremendous importance of and indispensable
place of sound doctrine/teaching in the work of the ministry. Sound doctrinal teaching is the only source of the
godly life of good works, which are the fruit of faith, performed in obedience to
God’s law, and done to God’s glory.5 Because
sound doctrine is the source of the Christian’s life of faith, it is the only thing
that will expose the deceptive, false teachings of the unruly, vain talkers and thus
render their errors ineffectual in the church! Therefore
the teaching of Titus must be sound and he must in his living show himself as
“…a pattern of good works” (v. 7).
We must heed these
exhortations as well. As ministers of the
gospel of Jesus Christ and as those who are preparing to serve the church and her Savior
in that office, we must, in the face of opposition if necessary, “speak the things
which become sound doctrine.” Our
preaching, our catechism teaching, even our counseling and comforting the distressed, the
sick, the mourners will edify God’s people when in all these contexts we teach the
sound doctrine of the Word of God. And while
we are busy speaking the things which become sound doctrine we must show ourselves a
pattern of good works. Our lives too must be
in harmony with the sound doctrine of God’s Word!
In the rest of the chapter,
as we noted earlier, the apostle makes clear precisely what these “things which
become sound doctrine” are. In verse two he writes:
... the aged men that they be sober
(abstaining from wine), grave (to be venerated, respected, honorable), temperate, sound in
faith, in love, in patience.
The aged men of the church
must be exhorted to be sober, i.e., they must not be drunken. Neither this verse nor any other passage of
Scripture teaches that the people of God must totally abstain from alcoholic beverages. In fact this same apostle exhorts another young
preacher, “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities”
(I Tim. 5:23).
The
important word in this verse from I Timothy is, obviously, “little.” But the verse under our consideration and a host
of other passages in Scripture do teach emphatically that the saints must not be drunken.6 The aged men of the church must not be drunken. If they choose to use alcoholic beverages, they
must use them moderately so that they remain sober at all times. The aged men must have their faculties, so as to
be able to discern the truth and godliness and the signs which herald the Lord’s
return. These aged men in the church will, in
obedience to this Word of God, set a good example to the younger men in the church
especially, but to all the members of the church as well.
Furthermore, the aged men
must be grave. The term “grave”
means “to be honored, venerated, respected.”7 Thus the aged men are to be taught to live their
lives in such a manner as to be worthy of the respect of the younger members of God’s
church. The aged men will have that honor
when they are upright in both their doctrine and their walk of life. Should they fail in this they can very easily
become the occasion for the younger members of the church to stumble!
Titus must instruct the aged
men to be sound in faith. Faith in this
context must be understood both from the point of view of its object (that which the aged
men must know and believe, viz., the truth of Holy Scripture) and from the point of view
of its activity (the actual believing of the aged men).
This means that the aged men must possess that certain knowledge of all that God
has revealed in His Word. They must hold that
certain knowledge for truth!8 And these aged men
must possess “an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in
[their] hearts; that not only to others, but to [them] also, remission of sin, everlasting
righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake
of Christ’s merits.”9 In both of these senses the aged men must be sound
in faith, i.e., strong in faith.10 This means, therefore, that the aged men must be
convinced and assured in their hearts that that certain knowledge of all that God has
revealed in His Word, that which they hold for truth, is for them. That must be evident in all their thinking,
willing, speaking, and doing. There must be
no errors mixed in with their doctrine. That
which they hold for truth must indeed be the unadulterated, pure doctrine of the Word of
God. And that pure doctrine must be
determinative of the way they live in the communion of the saints in the church and the
way they conduct themselves in their daily life in the world.
The aged men are to be
instructed to be sound (strong) in love.11 John Calvin, in his Commentary on this verse,
limits this reference to “love” to the second table of the Law of God, i.e.,
commandments five through ten, summed by Jesus as, “love thy neighbor as
thyself.” It is with a great deal of
hesitancy that we differ with Calvin’s exegesis.
In a way we really do not differ with Calvin, if we understand that the Christian
expresses his love for God precisely in the way of loving his neighbor. The “second commandment,” Jesus said,
“is like unto the first.” And the
Savior added, “…on these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets.”12
However we understand the text, this love is the love of God, for God is love
(I John 4:8).
God’s love is the bond of perfectness which
unites the three persons of the Godhead in perfect fellowship and communion. Because love is God’s, it is the chief virtue of the child of God
(Col. 3:14).
God’s love is “the more excellent way”
(I Cor. 12:31 - 13:
1 - 13). That love God commended to us, in that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners
(Rom. 5:8).
We
receive that love and are able to love God and the neighbor only because God’s love is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us
(Rom. 5:5)
In God’s love the aged
men must be strong! Again, in the communion
of the saints in the church and in the world the aged men must give evidence of the fact
that they love God because He first loved them. And
they do precisely that when they love their neighbors.
If that neighbor be ungodly, the aged men manifest God’s love to him by
calling him to repentance from his sins and faith in the Lord Jesus. If that neighbor be a fellow saint, the aged men
love him by seeking his eternal welfare and by sweet fellowship with him around God’s
Word, especially in the worship of God by the church.
Terribly important it is
that the aged men in the church are strong in love. That
is true because love is chief among the spiritual gifts and virtues with which God blesses
His people. I Corinthians thirteen, a chapter
to which we referred earlier, in the context of chapters twelve and fourteen, makes this
abundantly plain! Without God’s love,
all the other gifts of the Holy Spirit mean nothing.
Let the aged men of God’s precious church leave a good example to the younger
members in this regard. Above all else let
them be strong in God’s love!
The aged men must also be
strong in patience.13
In my preaching and teaching, I often
refer to this virtue/gift, patience, as the Christian’s “staying power.” Patience is always related in Scripture to the end
of all things, i.e., the victorious return of the crucified, risen Lord Jesus at the end
of the ages. This gift of patience also
often occurs in the context of the trials, chastening, and persecutions of the Christian. The aged men must be strong in patience. They must endure the Lord’s chastening. They must remain constant in the faith even while
enduring the sufferings of the present time. Especially
important is it that they be patient when persecuted on account of their faith.
In these ways the aged men
will be good, exemplary leaders in the church. Let
them be sober, grave, temperate, sound (strong) in faith, in charity (God’s love), in
patience. In these ways let us preachers
exhort, “speak the things which befit sound doctrine” to the aged men. God has given to the aged men in the church a
large, indispensable, wonderful, and crucially important place. That place is succinctly described in this little
text. Let not one aged man in the church
think otherwise. Indeed, let not one member
of the church young or aged think otherwise.
Verse 3
The aged women in like manner (that they be)
in behavior (deportment, bearing)14 as becoming holiness (or, as becoming in things
sacred to God),15 not prone to slander (accusing falsely),16 not enslaved to much wine,17 teachers of good things.
The behavior of the aged
women must be in harmony with holiness. This
is what Titus, the bishop of Crete, must teach them.
“Likewise” or “in like manner,” the apostle writes. In other words, just as Titus must teach the aged
men to be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity (love), in patience, so he
must instruct the aged women of the church “that they be in behavior as becometh
(befits) holiness. The aged women must in
their deportment, in the conduct of their daily life, refrain from sinful behavior and be
consecrated in the service of God. This is
what holiness is: separation from sin and consecration to the Lord.
But the inspired apostle is
not writing about the fact that the behavior of the aged women must harmonize with
holiness in general. He means that their
behavior must befit holiness in certain, very specific ways.
The behavior of these aged
women will befit holiness when they are not prone to slander. Slander is one of the forms of a great evil in
God’s church, the sin of evil speaking. That
this is a grievous sin and one often occurring in the church is evident from the mere fact
that Jesus and the Scriptures quite in general have so much to say about this sin. The other form of evil speaking is that of
backbiting. When someone backbites, the
content of what he is saying may very well be true, but he speaks not to the brother or
sister involved, but to others.
Here, however, the apostle
speaks of slander. This is the sin of
speaking lies, bringing false accusations of sin against a brother or sister in the
church. The evil motive of the slanderer is
to destroy the reputation, blacken the good name, of the fellow saint. Slander is the very opposite of sound speech,
which would edify, instruct, encourage, comfort, and, if need be, admonish a fellow
believer. The aged women must not be prone to
slander, guilty of being false accusers.
Neither must the aged women
be “given to much wine.”18 The aged women must not be enslaved to much wine! When one becomes immoderate in his use of alcohol,
he becomes enslaved to it. We have no quarrel
with the world’s calling that enslavement “addiction,” but that addiction
is not an illness, it is the judgment of God upon that sinner and his sin of habitual
drunkenness.
If an aged drunken man is a
pitiful, shameful sight to behold, a drunken woman is even more so! Such a woman leaves a terrible example to the
younger women in God’s church! Not only
does the drunkard lose her ability to discern reality and think clearly and speak sensibly
and clearly, but she loses her inhibitions, especially as concerning morality and modesty. She is easily given to cursing, swearing,
profanity. Often she becomes crude in her
speech. She quickly expresses filthy sexual
innuendo and becomes overtly and bluntly suggestive.
This writer has on more than one occasion had to deal with this sort of thing
during the course of his nearly forty years in the ministry. I can assure the reader, it is not a pretty thing
to see or hear.
On several occasions we have
had the opportunity to speak of the Bible’s teaching on the proper use of alcohol. Now again the Scripture puts the matter before us. Once more let it be said, the mere fact that there
are so many warnings against this sin, the sin of drunkenness, ought to give us pause. When one becomes immoderate in its use and does so
repeatedly, he or she becomes enslaved to it. And
a horrible bondage that is. Indeed! If aged women in the church are warned against
this enslavement, then surely we preachers and aspiring preachers ought to be warned
against it as well! What is more, we must
warn the church sharply and in no uncertain terms against this grievous sin in our
preaching and teaching. And by our own proper
use of alcohol we must set a good example for the congregations we are called to serve.
The aged women must also be
“teachers of good things.”19 When
the aged women are teachers of good things, they are teaching those things which are in
harmony with God’s will revealed in Scripture and summed in His Law. These good things are the fruit of a true, living
faith and have the glory of God as their goal. The
apostle will define precisely what those “good things” are in verses four and
five.
When the aged women conduct
themselves in this way, their behavior will befit holiness.
Before getting into an
exposition of verses four and five, we feel compelled to make one more point in this
connection. In our (the Protestant Reformed
Churches’) polemic against women serving in the threefold special office of Christ
(pastor, elder, deacon), I fear we tend to lose sight of and, therefore, appreciation for
the large, wonderful, indispensable place God has given to the women of the church. Women have no authorization to preach the Word or
to lead the congregation in prayer, no right to rule in God’s church, and no right to
collect and dispense the alms; but they do have an important, highly significant calling
in the church. It is a calling for both the
aged women and the younger women, and it is a calling that only they can fulfill by the
grace of God. Where the godly women are
obedient to that calling, that congregation is richly blessed! And in that congregation God’s great glory
shines brightly!
Verse 4
In order that they may teach the young women
to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children.
Here the apostle states the
purpose for the aged women to be in behavior as becomes holiness, not false accusers, not
given to much wine, teachers of good things. The
point is simply this: by means of their godly behavior and by means of their teaching, the
aged women are called to instruct the younger, married women. These young, married women of the church must be
taught by the aged women to be sober. The
young women must be sound in mind. It goes
without saying that they may never be drunken in the literal sense of the word, but the
point here is that they must be spiritually sober or of sound mind. The reason for this is, no doubt, that they may be
obedient to their calling. Only when they are
of sound mind can they love their husbands, love their children, etc.
The aged women must teach
the younger, married women to love their husbands. The
implication is that the husband is the head of his wife.
The love which the younger woman must have for her husband is God’s love. Her love for her husband must be the love of God
according to which she is a good, faithful help to her husband. Her love for her husband must be a submissive
love.
At this point it ought not
escape our attention that whenever the Scripture speaks of the relationship between the
wife and her husband, it always does so in terms of God’s love. Husbands must love their wives
(Eph. 5:25).
They are to “nourish and cherish” their wives, “even as the Lord the church”
(Eph. 5:29).
That the husband is the head of his wife does not give him sanction to exercise
harsh tyranny over his wife. Such action
would be the very antithesis of the biblical concept of headship. Christ, as Head of the church, “loved the church, and gave himself for it”
(Eph. 5:25).
And
the wife must submit in love to her own husband, just as the church submits to Christ
(Eph. 5:22-24).
This is the proper
relationship between the husband as the head of his wife and the wife as the obedient help
fit for her husband. This is so because God
instituted our earthly marriages as a picture of “the great mystery … concerning Christ and the church”
(Eph. 5:31-33).
Oh, how this great truth
concerning Christian marriage needs to be preached and maintained in our day, in which,
not only in the sinful world, but also in much of the church, there is so much
unfaithfulness, unbiblical divorce, remarriage of divorced persons, and other forms of
marital immorality!
Further, the aged women must
teach the younger women to “love their children!”
A. T. Robertson aptly remarks concerning this point, “This exhortation is
still needed where some married women prefer poodle dogs to children.”20 The younger women
must love their children.
This exhortation contains
several important implications.
1. The younger, married woman must love to bear
children. She wants a family! This is so because the younger, married woman
desires to serve the Lord in the highest calling a woman can be given, viz., to be a
covenant mother.
2. Loving her children implies that the godly
mother denies herself and, in a self-sacrificing way, seeks the welfare of her children. She will, by God’s grace, cheerfully always
“be there” for her children.
3. Loving those children, God’s heritage and reward
(Ps. 127:3),
the godly mother will teach them God’s fear, the great truths of
His inspired, sacred Word, as that Word applies to the life of the Christian. She will begin this instruction when her children
are very young. She will begin with simple
Bible stories of the great saints and “heroes of faith,” with simple prayers, and with “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs”
(Eph. 5:19).
She will continue instructing her children as they
mature and arrive at years of discretion. And
until her dying day the godly mother will set a good example of godliness and genuine
piety for her children.
4. Loving her children implies, too, that the
godly mother will discipline them. She knows
and is convinced of the truth of Scripture that to spare the rod is to spoil the child. She knows that correction of the child in the form of applying the rod delivers the child’s soul from hell
(Prov. 23:13 - 14).
Knowing this truth the godly mother will admonish,
reprove, correct, and discipline her children from earliest infancy on.
5. Loving her children implies finally that the
godly mother wants nothing more than to witness her children fearing and loving the Lord. She wants them to know and love the truth of
God’s Word and to lead new, godly lives. She
wants her children to be obedient to all in authority over them, to be respectful of their
elders, and to be active, faithful members of the church.
This is what it means for a
mother to love her children. Again, how this
needs to be preached, and maintained by means of church discipline if necessary, by the
church through her pastors and elders. And
modeled by godly mothers!
Verse 5
To be discreet (moderate, exercise
self-control) 21 chaste,
workers at home, good (kind, upright, distinguished for goodness),22 obedient to their own husbands in order
that the Word of God be not blasphemed (to speak reproachfully, to rail at, often
accompanied by sarcastic mockery).
The younger woman must be
taught to be moderate, to exercise self-control. The
godly mother will not be given to noisy, emotional outbursts. Nor will she be prone to uncontrolled outbursts of
anger. She must be chaste as well, i.e., free
from immorality.
The godly mother must be a
worker at home. How this too needs all the
emphasis we can muster in our day! Bearing
and raising a family of children is full-time work! Being
a good, faithful wife and mother takes all the time a woman has, and then some! And, we hasten to add, a woman could have no
higher, no greater, no more honorable or noble a calling than this! Young mothers and wives in the church need not
only to be exhorted and instructed in all this, they need (and their husbands too!) as
well to be encouraged and commended in this wonderful calling. And they need our prayers.
The godly younger women must
be good, i.e., kind and upright, distinguished for goodness. Their speech, actions, all of their living must
be in harmony with God’s will, done out of faith, and performed for God’s glory. This is goodness!
The godly woman must be
obedient to her own husband. This aspect of
her calling we have already discussed, but do not fail to note how the passage emphasizes
the importance of this!
The
purpose in all this instruction given to the younger women by the aged women is that
God’s Word be not blasphemed. If the
younger women fail to heed this good instruction, God’s Word will be evil spoken of
by the ungodly. They will rail at God’s
Word, speak against it sarcastically and with mockery.
That must not happen! That will not
happen when the younger women live in obedience to these instructions from the Word of
God.
John Calvin
and Thomas Aquinas
That John Calvin and Thomas
Aquinas should be compared and contrasted in many areas of their work and thought is only
natural. These are two of the most
outstanding theologians in the history of the church.
They stand out in their genius, their scholarship, and their influence both on the
church and on subsequent theology. Both
produced theological works which still dominate their respective traditions –
Aquinas’ Summa Theologica in the Roman Catholic Church, and Calvin’s Institutes
of the Christian Religion in the Protestant churches, particularly the Reformed
branch. Thus these two men serve as obvious
points of comparison on many aspects of these two church traditions.
One might, therefore,
consider another comparison of Calvin and Aquinas to be of little value – a reworking
of old ground, and perhaps even presumptuous. However,
little has been written comparing the exegesis of these theological giants.1 In large measure this can be ascribed to the heavy
emphasis placed on the Summa and on the Institutes. Too many consider these to be the only significant
works these men produced.2 The fact of the matter is that exegeting Scripture
was a major part of the work of both men! Aquinas
lectured on the Scriptures from the age of 27 until near the end of his life. He wrote commentaries on Isaiah, Job, Jeremiah,
Lamentations, Romans, John chapters 1-5, and 1 Corinthians chapters 1-7. His lectures on Matthew, John, the Pauline
letters, and Psalms were transcribed, corrected by Aquinas, and published.3 Aquinas also preached, and although Hughes Oliphant
Old indicates that Aquinas is not generally “recognized as one of the princes of the
pulpits,”4 Old does have high regard for Aquinas’
sermons.
Calvin is well known as a
man steeped in the Scriptures. He preached
upwards of five days a week and lectured in the academy on various books of the Bible. He
wrote commentaries on eight books of the Old Testament and on all but two of the New
Testament. He published lectures on seventeen more Old Testament books, and preached on
these and still other books of the Bible, many of which sermons were printed as well.5
The point is, both Aquinas
and Calvin are not only theologians, they are accomplished exegetes of the Scriptures.
There are excellent reasons,
therefore, not only for comparing these men as theologians, but also for comparing and
contrasting their exegesis. It is the purpose
of this article to undertake that effort. We
are confident that this comparison will demonstrate that while many similarities can be
found in the exegesis of Calvin and of Aquinas, yet striking differences exist. These differences are traceable to the significant
advances in exegesis that marked the Protestant Reformation. First of all, we will set forth the exegetical
principles and methods of both men so far as these principles can be known. Secondly, we will examine specific specimens of
exegesis from Ephesians in order, first, to observe whether or to what extent these men
remained consistent with their principles in their exegesis, and, secondly, to compare and
contrast the exegeses of Calvin and Aquinas. Finally,
we will offer explanations for the differences found in their respective exegeses.
Because principles of
exegesis arise, either consciously or unconsciously, out of the exegete’s view of
Scripture, it is necessary to begin there. From
a formal point of view, Calvin and Aquinas have nearly identical views of Scripture. Both men receive the Bible as God’s Word.
Writes Aquinas, “The author of the Holy Writ is God.”6 Likewise Calvin asserts that the Scriptures
“have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to
them.”7 Calvin and Aquinas thus have the same starting
point–Scripture is the Word of God.
However, Calvin, coming some
400 years after Aquinas, and being a second generation reformer, knows well the means by
which this crucial truth can be corrupted and perverted, and consequently he develops it
considerably more. He emphasizes particularly
the authority of Scripture, insisting that receiving the Bible as the Word of God
demands also submission to that Word. He
writes,
Paul saith the Word of God deserveth such reverence that we ought to submit
ourselves to it without gainsaying. He
likewise informeth us what profit we receive from it; which is another reason why we
should embrace it with reverence and obedience. There
have been some fantastical men at all times who would wish to bring the Holy Scripture
into doubt; although they were ashamed to deny that the Word of God ought to be received
without contradiction. There have always been
wicked men who have frankly confessed that the Word of God hath such a majesty in it that
all the world ought to bow before it; and yet they continue to blaspheme and speak evil
against God.8
And again,
Moreover, we must not read the Holy Scripture in order to support our own notions,
and favorite sentiments; but submit ourselves unto the doctrine contained therein,
agreeably to the whole contents of it; for it is all profitable. 9
That is the attitude with
which Calvin approaches the Bible. In this
respect he differs considerably from Aquinas on the authority possessed by Scripture
relative to such things as the church, pagan philosophers, and even the church fathers, as
will become evident later.
Since both Calvin and
Aquinas hold the Scriptures to be the Word of God, they insist that the exegete must
approach the Bible in faith. Aquinas
maintains that “those who wrote the Scriptural canon, such as the Evangelists,
Apostles and others like them, so firmly asserted the truth that they left nothing to be
doubted. Thus it states: ‘And we know that his testimony is true,’
(Jn. 21:24).
”10 Calvin maintains the same.
Another striking point of
agreement between these two men is that the true and accurate meaning of the Scripture is
in the text, i.e., the words as received. Both
theologians place great emphasis on the text itself.
They speak of the need for the exegete to determine the mind or intent of the
writer. Writes Calvin, “Since almost his
only duty is to lay open the mind of the writer whom he has undertaken to explain, he
deviates from his mark, or at least strays out of his own sphere, to the extent that he
leads his readers away from it.”11
Laying “open the mind
of the writer” is not to be understood as something different from discerning the
“mind of the Spirit.” Calvin ever
links the human writer and the Spirit. In one striking passage in his commentary on
1 Corinthians 2:9
(where Isaiah is quoted), after presenting a possible interpretation,
Calvin rejects it because, he writes, “it is too remote from Paul’s mind, a
consideration on which we should rely more than on any other. For who is a more sure and faithful interpreter of
this oracle that he himself dictated to Isaiah than the Spirit of God as he expounds it by
the mouth of Paul?”12 Notice that in the same breath Calvin speaks of
the mind of Paul, dictation by the Spirit, and the Spirit expounding Scripture by the
mouth of Paul!
Parker insightfully draws
out two exegetical principles from this conviction of Calvin. First, the text itself “is the
‘speech’ of the Holy Spirit, the text that is written in Hebrew, Greek or
Aramaic by some man or other. The mind of the
Spirit is understood when the text of the document is understood.”13 Secondly, the
proper interpretation of the text is possible only by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The human mind may understand the written words of
Scripture intellectually, but the Spirit’s working is required before one understands
spiritually, and believes the truth.14
This means that the text
is of critical importance for Calvin in exegesis, as Parker correctly concludes. For,
what is believed and accepted is the plain meaning of the story or the argument,
and that means, the plain sense of the text of the document. Hence, when the commentator reveals, clearly and
succinctly, the mind of the writer expressed in the text, he is fulfilling almost his only
duty.15
This has further
implications for Calvin, as Parker points out.
When we understand that for Calvin the proper study of the expositor is the text,
other factors in his New Testament work fall into place:
his great care in establishing what he thinks is the most reliable Greek text; his
literal translation of it into Latin; his championing of the litteralis sensus of
Scripture; indeed, the very form of his commentaries, following the text, in distinction
to Melanchthon’s method…. The text
is the place where the expositor encounters his author.16
The
Literal Meaning
A great divide among
exegetes is exactly the issue of a literal or non-literal interpretation of Scripture. This determines much about the product of
exegesis. How do Aquinas and Calvin compare
in this vital aspect of exegesis?
There is no question but
that Calvin is a champion of the literal sense of the text. In his commentary on
Galatians 4:22,
Calvin castigates Origen, “and many
others along with him,” for their allegorizing, describing it as a “torturing of
Scripture, in every possible manner, away from the true sense.” He condemns it as a “contrivance of Satan to
undermine the authority of Scripture, and to take away from the reading of it the true
advantage.” Scripture may be rich with
meaning, but Calvin denies “that the fertility consists in the various meanings which
any man, at his pleasure, may assign.” And
he adds, “Let us know, then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and
obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely.”17
One ought not conclude from
this that Calvin is an absolute literalist in his exegesis. Calvin knows that Scripture contains figures of
speech, and he recognizes and interprets them accordingly.
Calvin develops this significant exegetical principle in the battle over the
doctrine of the Lord’s Supper and the presence of Christ.18
As noted above, Aquinas
seeks the meaning of Scripture in the text, and that in the literal sense. However, there is considerable difference of
opinion as to whether or not Aquinas is guilty of allegorical interpretation. Farrar criticizes him for allegorizing
“incessantly” in the “simplest narratives of the Gospels” and provides
some documentation.19
In fact, Aquinas is cited as
a promoter of the fourfold senses of the meaning of Scripture. Nicholas of Lyra, around the year 1300, wrote out
the well-known distich that expresses the four senses of Scripture.
The Letter teaches events,
Allegory what you should believe,
Morality teaches what you should do,
Anagogy what mark you should be aiming for.20
The poem can be traced back
to a work that expounds the teaching of Thomas Aquinas set forth in the first Question of
the Summa.21 In fact, Aquinas answers the question
“Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?” in the affirmative
and distinguishes four senses. He insists
that the “first sense [is] the historical or literal.” Next he distinguishes the “spiritual sense,
which is based on the literal, and presupposes it.”
That “spiritual sense has a threefold division,” namely, the allegorical,
the moral, and the anagogical senses. He
draws these senses from Scripture in the following way.
First, the Old Testament is a figure of the New, and therefore, “so far as the
things of the Old Law (or Testament, RJD) signify the things of the New Law (or Testament,
RJD), there is the allegorical sense.” The
moral sense arises out of the fact that what Christ our Head has done is an example for us
of how we ought to live. The anagogical sense
is based on the idea that the New Testament is a figure of future glory, and thus sets
forth what we should be aiming, or hoping for.22
In another place, Aquinas
explains how the words fiat lux (“let there be light”) can be understood
in four senses.
For when I say “fiat lux” with
reference to the literal meaning of corporeal light, this pertains to the literal sense. If “fiat lux” be understood to mean
‘Let Christ be born in the Church,’ this pertains to the allegorical sense. If “fiat lux” be said as meaning
‘Let us be led into glory through Christ,’ this pertains to the anagogic sense. And if “fiat lux” be taken to mean
‘Through Christ let us be illumined in understanding and enkindled in emotion,’
this pertains to the moral sense.23
In spite of the fact that
Aquinas allows for these four senses of meaning, he does react against the allegorizing of
the exegetes both prior to him and in his day.24 He contends that the first meaning of the
Scripture passage is the literal meaning, and that the spiritual meaning is based on the
literal.
While he expresses the same
desire as Calvin, namely, to obtain the literal meaning of the text, Aquinas approaches it
from a different point of view. Calvin’s insistence on finding the literal meaning of
a passage arises out of his view of Scripture as the very Word (even, words) of
God. Aquinas does not deny that, but he seeks
the literal meaning as a result of his philosophical viewpoint. Aquinas is an unabashed proponent of the
philosophy of Aristotle. One of the main
reasons that his appointment to the chair of theology at the university of Paris was
controversial was exactly that he promoted Aristotelianism.25 Beryl Smalley points out,
The contrast between St. Augustine and the newly recovered Aristotle, which aroused
[Aquinas’] strongest passions, upset or modified his most cherished notions about the
universe and its Creator, was bound to have a disturbing effect on his study of the
Creator’s special book. Aristotle caused
him to see Scripture as freshly as he saw all creation.26
The effect of the
Aristotelian view on exegesis in the Middle Ages was “sobering” according to
Thomas F. Torrance. He writes that “it
disparaged the development of a world of meaning … [without] … reference to the
historical sense of Scripture and careful examination of its words and concepts.”27
Accordingly, Aquinas sees
the true meaning to be in the letter, the words, first of all. “[T]hat first signification whereby words
signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal.”28 From this
literal meaning, a spiritual meaning may be discovered.
“That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a
signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and
presupposes it.”29 Thus, as Muller
explains,
Aquinas resolved the questions … concerning the relationship of the literal to
the other senses by emphasizing the connection between the ‘thing’ (res)
signified by the word of the text and the rest of the spiritual meanings and by insisting
that any word in a given text could mean only one thing.
It was not as if a multiplicity of spiritual meanings could be elicited by finding
a series of significations for a particular word: each
word of the text, given the grammatical context in which it stands, must speak univocally. The ‘historical or literal’ sense is
rooted directly in the ‘things’ that the words signify and is the sense intended
by the human author of the text.30
Only when that one meaning
intended by the author is established does Aquinas set forth the threefold spiritual
meaning – the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical, as noted above. And Aquinas concludes,
Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of
Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not
unfitting, as Augustine says, if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy
Writ should have several senses.31
Aquinas does not allow,
therefore, that the exegete may simply draw out whatever meanings he can according to his
own imagination. He disputes the contention
that having more than one sense will result in equivocation on the meaning of Scripture. “In Holy Writ no confusion results, for all
the senses are founded on one–the literal – from which alone can any argument be
drawn, and not from those intended allegorically, as Augustine says.”32
Thus it is that while
Aquinas maintains that Scripture does have more than one meaning, he does not hold that each
passage necessarily has four levels of meaning.
Additionally, the meaning may never be divorced from the very words of Scripture.
The conclusion of this
matter, so significant for exegesis, is that both Calvin and Aquinas seek the literal
meaning of the text. Yet, they arrive at this
point by radically different paths, and Aquinas also maintains that one word in Scripture
can have several senses of meaning. The
difference becomes evident in their exegesis, as Calvin shuns the use of allegory and
Aquinas is much more prone to its use – not infrequently (according to Farrar) seeing
“spiritual meaning in minor events.”33
Another significant issue
which must be addressed is the matter of exegetical freedom. This concerns, for example, the relationship
between tradition and Scriptures, and the authority of the church over exegesis. The exegete’s view on these questions
determines much about the final product of his exegesis.
On these crucial matters, Calvin and Aquinas will differ.
(…to be continued)
As we enter into this
chapter to consider the teaching of the “well-meant offer of salvation,” we must
immediately take note that many Reformed writers of the past did use the term
“offer” but in a different sense than the word is commonly used today. Prof. Engelsma noted:
In the past, the word “offer”
from the Latin word “offero” was used by Reformed men to describe
God’s activity in the preaching of the gospel because the word has originally the
meaning “bring to (someone),” “present (something or someone to
somebody).” All Reformed men hold that
Christ is presented in the preaching to everyone who hears the preaching. In this sense He is “offered” in the
gospel.1
For the purpose of our paper
we shall understand the well-meant offer to be as given by Rev. B. Gritters thus:
The “free offer of the gospel” is
the teaching that God offers salvation to all men when the gospel is preached
promiscuously to all. The free offer teaches
that God graciously and sincerely offers salvation to all who hear the preaching, and
honestly and sincerely desires to save all of them.2
That the dispute is over the
matter of God desiring the salvation of all men in the preaching of the gospel to all,
John Murray also acknowledged in his booklet The Free Offer of the Gospel.
It would appear that the real point in dispute
in connection with the free offer of the gospel is whether it can properly be said that
God desires the salvation of all men. The
Committee elected by the Twelfth General Assembly in its report to the Thirteenth General
Assembly said, “God not only delights in the penitent but is also moved by the riches
of his goodness and mercy to desire the repentance and salvation of the impenitent
reprobate”.... 3
A. The Arminian idea of the well-meant offer.
To begin with, we must note
that the Arminians do not believe that the will in the fallen state can will any saving
good before calling. In “The Opinions Of The Remonstrants” submitted to the
Synod of Dort, the Arminians state in C, 4:
4. The will in the fallen state, before
calling, does not have the power and the freedom to will any saving good. And therefore we deny that the freedom to will
saving good as well as evil is present to the will in every state.4
To surprise
us further how the Arminians could sound most orthodox like many today, let me quote the
Third Article of The Remonstrance of 1610:
3. that man does not have saving faith of
himself nor by the power of his own free will, since he in the state of apostasy and sin
cannot of and through himself think, will or do any good which is truly good (such as is
especially saving faith); but that it is necessary that he be regenerated by God, in
Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, affections or will, and all
powers, in order that he may rightly understand, meditate upon, will, and perform that which is truly good, according to the word of Christ,
John 13:5,
“Without me ye can
do nothing.”5
Reading the above articles
of the Arminians all by themselves, one may not realize their error in the third point
about “total depravity.” However,
when one combines this third article with their fourth on the conversion of man, one
begins to realize that their idea of the will of man is such that it is ultimately the
final arbiter of its own salvation. Without
the intervening of God’s sufficient grace, man is doomed, but with it in the hearing
of the gospel, man can still resist the grace of God to his own condemnation. We read in
their Opinion C, 6 thus:
6.
Although according to the most free will of God the disparity of divine grace is
very great, nevertheless the Holy Spirit confers, or is ready to confer, as much grace to
all men and to each man to whom the Word of God is preached as is sufficient for promoting
the conversion of men in its steps. Therefore
sufficient grace for faith and conversion falls to the lot not only of those whom God is
said to will to save according to the decree of absolute election, but also of those who
are not actually converted.6
In the mind of the
Arminians, whatever God may do in His grace, man’s will still stands sovereign and
able to reject that grace if he chooses (Opinion C, 8).
Even the so-called efficacious grace of God is not irresistible (Opinion C, 5). As this error can be clearly seen only when the
doctrine of the Fall of man is compared to that of the conversion of man, the Synod of
Dort dealt with the Third and Fourth Heads of doctrine together. It is good to read Rejection VI of these Heads to
have a better idea of this error:
That in the true conversion of man no new
qualities, powers, or gifts can be infused by God into the will, and that therefore faith
through which we are first converted and because of which we are called believers, is not
a quality or gift infused by God, but only an act of man, and that it cannot be said to be
a gift, except in respect of the power to attain to this faith.
Man’s
will needs God’s in order to be saved, but God’s will also needs man’s
before He can save a man. Thus we have Opinion C, 8, 9 of the Arminians:
8. Whomever God calls to salvation, he calls
seriously, that is, with a sincere and completely unhypocritical intention and will to
save; nor do we assent to the opinion of those who hold that God calls certain ones
externally whom He does not will to call internally, that is, as truly converted, even
before the grace of calling has been rejected.
9. There is not in God a secret will which so
contradicts the will of the same revealed in the Word that according to it (that is, the
secret will) He does not will the conversion and salvation of the greatest part of those
whom He seriously calls and invites by the Word of the Gospel and by His revealed will;
and we do not here, as some say, acknowledge in God a holy simulation, or a double person.7
The Arminians were very
clear about what they believed. God indeed
does offer salvation to all men. In fact, even by His sufficient grace in the offer, He
empowers the will of all who hear the gospel so that they are now able not only to accept,
but also to reject the offered salvation. God’s
decree of election is based on His foreknowledge of what man would do with this offer. If a man choose to believe then, God elects him to
be saved; if not, then he is reprobated. A. C. DeJong said as much:
He is a reprobate because he does not want
to believe, because he wills to live without God, and because he resists the redemptive
will of God revealed in the gospel call. His
unbelief, his rejection, his resistance bears an indirect relation to the will of
God’s decree similar to God’s “permissive will” in relation to sin.8
It must also be noted here
that, as far as the content of the gospel is concerned, the Arminians also believe that
Christ died for all men head for head to make the atonement available for all men. Christ by His atonement only made salvation
possible. The salvation benefits for all men
are there, and they are applied only to those who accept the offer by their own free will. The Canons reject the following error:
Synod rejects the errors of those who use the
difference between meriting and appropriating, to the end that they may instill into the
minds of the imprudent and inexperienced this teaching, that God, as far as He is
concerned, has been minded of applying to all equally the benefits gained by the death of
Christ; but that, while some obtain the pardon of sin and eternal life and others do not,
this difference depends on their own free will, which joins itself to the grace that is
offered without exception, and that it is not dependent on the special gift of mercy,
which powerfully works in them, that they rather than others should appropriate unto
themselves this grace.9
Notice the
Arminian tendency to make man the final arbiter of his own salvation and God someone
“…minded of applying to all equally the benefits gained by the death of
Christ.” Arminians are not fully
convinced that all men are truly hell-deserving and that salvation is fully of the Lord,
who saves effectually whom He wills.
But now we must turn to the
Reformed “offer,” which is essentially the same as the Arminian’s, except
that they still claim that they believe in the Five Points of Calvinism, and that any
apparent discrepancy is due to the mystery and paradox of God, which the truly humble and
pious should not dare to challenge.
B. The so-called Reformed offer.
1. Using the same term “offer” led to confusion in the Reformed camp.
As has been noted earlier,
there were Reformed writers who used the term “offer.” Even in the Reformed confessions we find this term
being used. For examples:
Article 9 of the III/IV
Heads of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort reads:
It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of
God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are
called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted.
Article 14 of the III/IV
Heads of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort reads:
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.
The French Confession,
Article XIII:
XIII. We
believe that all that is necessary for our salvation was offered and communicated
to us in Jesus Christ. He is given to us for
our salvation, and ‘is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification,
and redemption:’ so that if we refuse
him, we renounce the mercy of the Father, in which alone we can find a refuge.
Westminster Larger Catechism
Q67: What is effectual calling?
A67: Effectual calling is the work of God’s
almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from
nothing in them moving him thereunto ) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them
to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and
powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are
hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace
offered and conveyed therein.
Heppe quoting Olevian also
used this term:
For the elect on the other hand, who in view
of the law and the covenant of works see themselves in the first instance in the same
situation as the rejected, they are a preparation for faith, since by His prevenient grace
God leads the elect out of darkness into light by causing a serious longing for redemption
to proceed from these terrors of conscience, and then holding before them the promise of
grace in the Gospel and causing what is offered them from without to be brought
into their hearts by the H. Spirit (OLEVIAN, p. 252).10
From Article 14 of the
III/IV Heads of Doctrine, it is apparent that the divines at Dort were aware of the
Arminian usage of this term as it rejects the idea of offering to be accepted or rejected
at one’s pleasure. It is also clear from
Article 9 of the same Heads, that the phrase “Christ offered therein” refers to
the Christ set forth in the gospel.
In the French Confession,
the phrase “was offered and communicated” also conveys the idea of setting forth
to be communicated rather than to be accepted or rejected.
In the Westminster Larger
Catechism, grace is said to be offered and conveyed in the call of the gospel. The phrase “and conveyed” is to be taken
as an immediate explanation that the word “offered” must not be misconstrued as
offer in the Arminian sense, but rather has the idea of “conveyed.” That this should be the case should not surprise
us, as the Westminster divines were men who knew and spoke highly of the Canons of Dort.
Dort had said that faith was not offered, and how could Westminster say that grace was
offered without any qualification?
In the above quotation from
Heppe, he did not mean by “offered” the Arminian understanding, which involves
the choice of man, because in the same section he quoted from HEIDEGGER (XXI, 12) thus:
Quite otherwise than the reprobate the
elect are called to salvation in such a way that when called they are also affected, drawn
and led, and that according to the eternal purpose and testament; and absolutely, although
not without means, which however as regards the called are not conditions within their
sphere of choice, but God’s free benefits.11
Surely
Heppe did not have the idea of offer in the sense of people being given a choice, but
offer in the sense of setting forth “to be brought into their hearts by the H.
Spirit.”
In any case, it can be
observed down through the history of the Presbyterian Churches, that this term
“offer,” as found in their Confession, has provided a hiding place for those
with Arminian tendency within the camp. A. A. Hodge, in answering the objection that his
truly Reformed view of the design of the atonement was inconsistent with the doctrine of
the general offer of the gospel, failed to point out the proper understanding of the term
“offer,” but instead went on, by various means, to show that these two concepts
(one Reformed and the other Arminian) are not contradictory, but can be harmonized.12
The Dutch Reformed churches
are also not spared of this error. In 1924
the Christian Reformed Church adopted the “Three Points” of common grace. In the first point, which speaks of God having a
certain non-saving, favorable attitude towards all men, synod finds support for this in
articles from the Canons, which she claimed to set forth “the general offer of the
gospel.”13
Though many in Reformed and Presbyterian churches today do hold to this erroneous
idea, we must take note of what Prof. Hanko, a professor in Church History, has to say:
Quite consistently the doctrine of the free
offer has been held by heretics who were condemned by the church. Quite consistently the church has refused to
adopt any such doctrine. The weight of
history is surely behind those who deny that the free offer is the teaching of Scripture.14
2. Essentially
the Reformed “offer” is similar to the Arminian idea of the offer.
That the Reformed
“offer” is similar to that of the Arminians is proudly acknowledged by one of
their advocates. Hoekema put words into the
mouths of the divines of Dort as addressing the Arminians thus:
“We quite agree with you that God
seriously, earnestly, unhypocritically, and most genuinely calls to salvation all to whom
the gospel comes. In stating this, we even
use the very same words you used in your document: serio vocantur (‘are
seriously called’). But we insist that
we can hold to this well-meant gospel call while at the same time maintaining the
doctrines of election and limited or definite atonement.
We do not feel the need for rejecting the doctrine of election and repudiating the
teaching of definite atonement in order to affirm the well-meant gospel call.”15
This also means that the
Reformed “offer” constantly runs into conflict with the other Reformed
doctrines, especially those set down by the Canons of Dort.
This difficulty is expected, as the whole Canons was formulated against the
Arminians’ idea of the freedom and power of the human will. The doctrine of the well-meant offer is exactly
built upon this doctrine of man’s free will to save himself.
In the offer, God shows grace to all
to whom the gospel comes.
Here they believe that God
shows grace to anyone who hears the gospel to begin with.
They could have gathered this belief from
the Canons where we read, “to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the
gospel.”16 Their
idea is that God must have shown these people favor since He gives them a chance to be
saved, while to many others the gospel has never even come once in all their lifetime.
This is a mistaken notion,
as the good pleasure of God does not necessarily speak of His grace. For example, we may say that it is God’s good
pleasure to cast the wicked unbelievers to hell in His just judgment. There is no show of grace in such good pleasure of
God.
God has His own purpose in
sending the gospel to some and not to others. There
is no indication of grace in this activity of God, just as there is no indication of grace
when God sends rain or sunshine upon the wicked. The
grace of God is not in things.
This is much like the
Arminians, who spoke of the common sufficient grace which enables men to make a decision
for Christ. The Canons say:
But that others who are called by the gospel
obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will,
whereby one distinguishes himself above others equally furnished with grace sufficient for
faith and conversion, as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains; but it must be wholly
ascribed to God, who as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so he confers upon
them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them
into the kingdom of His own Son, that they may show forth the praises of Him who hath
called them out of darkness into His marvelous light; and may glory, not in themselves,
but in the Lord, according to the testimony of the apostles in various places.17
In the offer, God expresses His
desire to save all to whom the gospel comes.
The Reformed
“offer” also taught that in the offer of salvation and grace, God shows desire
to save all who receive the offer.
In his review of John
Murray’s booklet entitled “The Free Offer of the Gospel,” Matthew
Winzer states:
It appears that a dispute had arisen with
regard to a previous report on the subject which had predicated “that God desires the
salvation of all men.” Prof. Murray was
confident that such a desire could be predicated of God, and set about to establish a
Biblical case for the position.18
Mr. Winzer
did a very thorough work in this review and convincingly showed that John Murray had
failed to show that God desires the salvation of all men in the preaching of the gospel. Readers are highly recommended to read this
review.
3. An important difference between the
Arminian and Reformed “offer” is the latter’s belief in antinomy.
What is the belief in antinomy?
As the name implies,
antinomy is a belief that certain things are beyond the realm of logical law (nomos),
so that they cannot and need not be harmonized by existing laws of logic. To people who believe in such things, others are
rationalists when they try to harmonize things which the former classified as antinomous.
In this world of increasing superficiality, there
are more antinomists around than before. Winzer
exposed one in R. Scott Clark in his review and also charged him for unjustly making John
Murray an antinomist.19
The two tracks of antinomy in this
Reformed “offer.”
As has been hinted earlier,
the Reformed “offer” is so disharmonious with the doctrines of grace that there
can be quite a few sets of antinomies which can be established, if one wishes to do so. For example, the Amyraldian controversy could have
been settled simply by invoking the antinomian categories.
In fact, all disputes, great and small, may be similarly settled. Another disharmony was expressed by Mr. Tom Wells
thus:
The difficulty over the free offer may be put
like this: since God has chosen to save some and to pass others by, how can it be said
that he offers salvation to those he has decided not to save? Doesn’t this make God of two minds, wanting
all to be saved on one hand, and desiring only his elect to be saved on the other? Anyone who cannot see that there is some
difficulty here must have done very little thinking about theology.20
Antinomists tend to despise
the logic of others, while promoting their own. DeJong wrote of Hoeksema thus:
Hoeksema’s view may possess logical
symmetry but it is not Scripturally informed. It
unsettles the gospel truth that God wills that his call to salvation be accepted in the
way of faith. It renders God’s gospel call questionable.21
4. Arminianism
within the covenant.
One of the hallmarks of the
Reformed faith is its teaching on covenant theology. God establishes His friendship with
His people in the line of generations. So it
is true that God calls His children out of our children and also out of those in heathen
darkness of this world. This is exactly what
is meant that He is the Savior of the world. From
here, does it follow that gospel presentation to those within the church is different from
that to the heathen nations?
Yet, there is among some
Reformed people the idea that, as far as the gospel preached to people outside of the
covenant is concerned, the use of the concept “offer” is un-Reformed and
Arminian, but when the same thing is done within the covenant, it is permissible. In other words, to children born in the covenant,
we may and must say to them, God offers to save you from sin and hell on condition that
you repent of your sins and believe in Christ. This
way of presenting the gospel of salvation certainly makes one’s repentance and faith
outside of God’s grace of salvation. In
fact, it makes all of salvation dependent upon man’s repentance and faith. This is a typical Arminian way of presenting the
gospel as shown above.
This conditional theology is
another form of Reformed “offer” which we have to expose here. But there are other so-called Reformed men, like
A. C. DeJong, who openly advocate the well-meant offer of salvation whether within or
without the covenant.
The calling God seriously and unfeignedly
offers salvation in Jesus Christ upon the condition of repentance and faith to all the
elect and non-elect sinners to whom he mercifully sends his gospel preachers.22
Calvin’s Doctrine of the Spiritual Condition of Fallen Man
Introduction
With the reality of the
spiritual condition of fallen man, John Calvin begins Book II of the Institutes of
the Christian Religion. The heading of
Book II is “The Knowledge of God the Redeemer in Christ, First Disclosed to the
Fathers Under the Law, and Then to Us in the Gospel.”
Recalling the opening lines of the Institutes, concerning knowledge of God
and knowledge of ourselves, Calvin declares that we cannot know God as redeemer, if we do
not know ourselves as fallen and depraved. The
danger, however, is exactly that men know themselves as good, able, and excellent. Calvin refers to this deliberate self-deception as
“blind self-love.”1
Therefore, the subject of
the right knowledge of our spiritual condition as fallen is fundamental. Calvin expressly states this with specific
reference to the bondage of the will of the fallen sinner:
The truth of the bondage of the will is “fundamental in religion” (Inst.,
2.2.1). Such is the seriousness of the
error of knowing oneself as naturally good, able, and excellent, rather than depraved,
incapable, and vile, that “any mixture of the power of free will that men strive to
mingle with God’s grace is nothing but a corruption of grace” (Inst.,
2.5.15). In the Institutes, 2.2.10,
Calvin asserts that any notion of good in oneself by nature is from the devil. The notion is fatal. That man has the best knowledge of himself who
most thoroughly knows his depravity.
This approach to the
treatment of the condition of man by nature is that of the Heidelberg Catechism. “How many things are necessary for thee to
know, that thou in this comfort mayest live and die happily? Three things:
First, the greatness of my sin and misery.”2 The requisite manner of this right
self-knowledge, according to Calvin, is the light of “God’s truth.” God’s truth is, first, the revelation in
Scripture of our good creation in Adam. Only
in light of our creation in the beginning as good will we view ourselves as fallen from
our former high position.
God would not have us forget our original
nobility, which he had bestowed upon our father Adam….
That recognition [of our first condition in Adam], however, far from encouraging
pride in us, discourages us and casts us into humility.
For what is that origin? It is that
from which we have fallen. What is that end
of our creation? It is that from which we
have been completely estranged, so that sick of our miserable lot we groan, and in
groaning we sigh for that lost worthiness.3
In the second place,
“God’s truth,” which is necessary for our right knowledge of ourselves, is
the divine standard that requires perfection of us. We
must examine ourselves “according to the standard of divine judgment” (Inst.,
2.1.3).
The purpose of Calvin’s
admittedly dark analysis of man’s spiritual condition—the
“Calvinistic” doctrine of total depravity — is to open up the way to belief
of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the only source and means of the salvation of the
sinner. Immediately following the description
of man’s depravity and hopelessness, Calvin declares:
“We must, for this reason, come to Paul’s statement: ‘Since in the wisdom of God the world did not
know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of preaching to save those who believe’ [
I Cor. 1:21
]” (Inst., 2.6.1). Calvin makes the same observation in his commentary on
Romans 5:20:
Our condemnation is not set before us in the law, that we may abide in it; but that
having fully known our misery, we may be led to Christ, who is sent to be a physician to
the sick, a deliverer to the captives, a comforter to the afflicted, a defender to the
oppressed (Is. 61:1) 4
Then occurs a damning
indictment of the notion that there can be salvation outside of Christ in the gospel:
Thus, all the more vile is the stupidity of those persons who open heaven to all
the impious and unbelieving without the grace of him whom Scripture commonly teaches to be the only door whereby we enter into salvation [
John 10:9
] (Inst., 2.6.1).
The reference, no doubt, is
to Erasmus and Zwingli. Today, Calvin’s
condemnation falls upon multitudes of Protestant theologians.
Original Sin
Calvin teaches that all
men come into the world depraved of nature. At
conception and birth, every human is sinful, is corrupt.
Calvin teaches original sin, which he defines thus:
Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our
nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God’s
wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls “works of the flesh” [
Gal. 5:19
]. And that is properly
what Paul often calls sin (Inst., 2.1.8).
This depravity is not only
lack of original righteousness. It is also an
active source of all evil, positively: “a
burning furnace giv[ing] forth flames and sparks”; “so fertile and fruitful of
every evil that it cannot be idle” (Inst., 2.1.8).
For this corruption of
nature with which each is born without his will, man is guilty before God. The reason is that this is not how God made man. God made man upright and holy. Further, God’s standard, by which alone we
know our misery, as Calvin has insisted before, requires a sinless, righteous nature.
This depraved nature is
inherited from our parents. We are corrupt,
not only at conception and birth, but also by means of conception and birth. At this point, Calvin refutes the “profane
fiction” of Pelagius:
That Adam sinned only to his own loss without harming his posterity. Through this subtlety Satan attempted to cover up
the disease and thus to render it incurable. But
when it was shown by the clear testimony of Scripture that sin was transmitted from the first man to all his posterity [
Rom. 5:12
], Pelagius quibbled that it was transmitted
through imitation, not propagation (Inst., 2.1.5).
Against the Pelagian heresy, Calvin appeals to
Psalm 51:5:
“Surely
there is no doubt that David confesses himself to have been ‘begotten in iniquities,
and conceived by his mother in sin’” (Inst., 2.1.5).
The source and explanation
of original sin is the transgression of Adam. In
this connection, Calvin proposes a distinctive and intriguing analysis of the basic nature
of Adam’s sin. The traditional view has
been that Adam’s sin was primarily pride, attended by ambition. Calvin agrees that pride was the “beginning
of all evils,” but suggests a “fuller definition.” Calvin sees Adam’s sin as primarily
unfaithfulness, rooted in distrust of God’s Word.
Holding “God’s Word in contempt,” Adam “turned aside to
falsehood.” “Unfaithfulness,
then, was the root of the Fall” (Inst., 2.1.4).
This view of the sin of Adam
has distinctively covenantal overtones. Indeed,
in thus describing Adam’s sin as the unfaithfulness of disobedience, Calvin has his eye on
Romans 5:12ff.
Adam was in covenant
with his Creator, so that his sin was covenant transgression. Calvin’s understanding of Adam’s sin
also stresses the importance of the Word of God, which Adam disobeyed. Calvin’s description of the sin suggests that
it was idolatrous in that Adam trusted the word of another.
According to the Heidelberg Catechism, idolatry is “instead of the one true
God who has revealed himself in his Word, or along with the same, to conceive or have
something else on which to place our trust.”5
For Calvin, the
transgression of Adam is the cause and source of original sin in all men inasmuch as Adam
was the root of the race. Adam’s sin
ruined us all. “Adam, by sinning, not
only took upon himself misfortune and ruin but also plunged our nature into like
destruction” (Inst., 2.1.6). The
Reformer says the same in his little-known but important work, The Bondage and
Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the
Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius.
Contending with Pighius’ teaching that man has some freedom of nature to do
the good, Calvin remarks that this teaching “betrays the fact that he [Pighius] does
not hold to the first axiom of our faith, that we and all our power to act well perished
in Adam.”6
Adam’s sin ruined the
race in this way, that the effect of his deed was the corruption of his own nature. He then, as progenitor of the race, passed on this
corruption through physical generation. “He
infected all his posterity with that corruption into which he had fallen”; “Adam
so corrupted himself that infection spread from him to all his descendants” (Inst.,
2.1.6).
Calvin’s doctrine of
original sin, therefore, consists of the teaching of original depravity, which depravity
is due to Adam’s being the root of the race. Reformed
theology speaks of this relation of Adam to the race as his “organic headship.”
Manifesting his wisdom,
Calvin declines to enter into an “anxious discussion,” how Adam’s
sinfulness, especially sinfulness of the soul, can be transmitted to his posterity by
physical generation. That is, Calvin refuses
to enter into the vexed controversy between creationism and traducianism (Inst.,
2.1.7).
The question necessarily
comes up, whether there is in Calvin’s doctrine of original sin any teaching of
original guilt, that is, the liability of the entire race to punishment for
Adam’s disobedience because of Adam’s being the legal representative, or federal
head, of the race? This is certainly not
Calvin’s emphasis in his discussion of original sin.
Nor is this clearly affirmed. It
certainly is not developed in Calvin.
Yet, there are some
intimations, admittedly faint, of the doctrine of original guilt. Calvin explains the controversy over original sin
among the church fathers from this, that “nothing is farther from the usual view than
for all to be made guilty by the guilt of one, and thus for sin to be made common” (Inst.,
2.1.5). Contending that it is just that we
are condemned for our corrupt nature, Calvin says:
This is not liability for another’s transgression. For, since it is said that we became subject to
God’s judgment through Adam’s sin, we are to understand it not as if we,
guiltless and undeserving, bore the guilt of his offense but in the sense that, since we
through his transgression have become entangled in the curse, he is said to have made us
guilty (Inst., 2.1.8).
Calvin comes the closest to
a clear statement of original guilt in his refutation of an objection against his doctrine
of the bondage of the will. The objection is
that if the will of man is enslaved to sin by nature, man sins of necessity, but to sin of
necessity is not sin. Calvin responds that
the sinner’s inability to choose the good derives “from the fact that Adam
willingly bound himself over to the devil’s tyranny … the first man fell away
from his Maker.” Calvin adds: “If all men are deservedly held guilty of
this rebellion, let them not think themselves excused by the very necessity in which they
have the most evident cause of their condemnation” (Inst., 2.5.1).
Calvin says something
similar in his “Defence of the Secret Providence of God.” He responds to his adversary’s attack on
reprobation by pointing out that the adversary overlooks the fall of the human race in
Adam. “All men,” says Calvin,
“are hateful to God in fallen Adam.” Calvin
continues:
Whence arises this miserable condition of us all, that we are subject not only to
temporal evils, but to eternal death? Does it
not arise from the solemn fact that, by the Fall and fault of one man, God was pleased to
cast us all under the common guilt? 7
Against the interpretation
of Calvin that has him teaching original guilt, albeit in embryonic form, however, stands Calvin’s commentary on
Romans 5:12ff.
He
explains our relation to Adam in terms of Adam’s extending his corruption to us,
which corruption constitutes our only guilt in the matter of Adam’s sin. Calvin explicitly rejects the doctrine of original
guilt in the sense of our responsibility for Adam’s deed of disobedience.
There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin, as
though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to
all who suffer its punishment: and this he
afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the
posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this—because
we have all, he says, sinned. But to sin in
this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural depravity which we bring from
our mother’s womb, though it brings not forth immediately its own fruits, is yet sin
before God, and deserves his vengeance: and
this is that sin which they call original.
Commenting on verse 17,
which compares death’s reigning by Adam and our reigning in life by Jesus Christ,
Calvin calls attention to a “difference between Christ and Adam”:
By Adam’s sin we are not condemned through imputation alone, as though we were
punished only for the sin of another; but we suffer his punishment, because we also
ourselves are guilty; for as our nature is vitiated in him, it is regarded by God as
having committed sin. But through the
righteousness of Christ we are restored in a different way to salvation.
For Calvin, our sinning in Adam, as taught in
Romans 5:12,
is strictly that “we are all imbued with natural
corruption, and so are become sinful and wicked.”8 The
race becomes guilty for Adam’s transgression only by sharing in Adam’s depraved
nature. Adam sinned. The punishment for Adam was, in part, the
immediate corruption of his nature. But this
is the nature of all his posterity (Christ excepted). All of Adam’s posterity are
held responsible for the corrupted nature. Not
sheer legal representation by a covenant head, but involvement in a corporate nature
renders the race guilty before God. I am not
responsible for Adam’s disobedience of eating the forbidden fruit. But I am responsible for the sinful nature with
which God punished Adam for his act of disobedience.
This view of original sin
leaves Calvin with a huge problem. By what
right did God inflict the punishment of a corrupt nature on Adam’s posterity? That the corruption of human nature was divine
punishment on Adam, Calvin acknowledges. But
it was as well punishment of Adam’s posterity. This,
Calvin does not like to acknowledge. Rather,
he likes to regard the depraved nature only as the guilt of Adam’s posterity. The question that exposes the weakness — serious
weakness — of Calvin’s doctrine here is this:
If I am not guilty for Adam’s act of disobedience, with what right does God
punish me — not Adam, but me — with a totally depraved nature?
Calvin’s explanation of
the origin of the sin of the human race also has an important implication for the headship
of Adam. Adam was head of the race, to be
sure. But his headship consisted only of his
depraving the human nature of which all partake. His
was not the headship of legal representation. Adam
did not stand in such a covenantal relation to all men, that, altogether apart from the
consequent corrupting of the nature, all are responsible before God for Adam’s act of
disobedience.
In view of the apostle’s comparison between Adam and Christ in
Romans 5:12ff.
(“as by the
offence of one … even so by the righteousness of one,” v. 18), Calvin’s
explanation of the headship of Adam would mean that Christ’s headship also consists
only of His being the source of righteousness to His people by actually infusing it into
them. If Adam’s headship was not legal
representation, neither is Christ’s headship legal representation. But this destroys the fundamental gospel-truth of
justification as the imputation of Christ’s obedience.
Calvin recognizes the
danger. Therefore, in his commentary on
Romans 5:17
Calvin proposes a “difference between Christ and Adam.” “By Adam’s sin we are not condemned
through imputation alone,” but “through the righteousness of Christ we are
restored in a different way to salvation.” The
trouble is that Paul does not teach such a “difference between Christ and Adam.” Paul rather declares, “as by the offence of
one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life”
(Rom. 5:18).
If our guilt in Adam is not by imputation of a
deed of disobedience, neither is our righteousness in Christ by imputation of a deed of
obedience. This is the theology of Rome,
dishonoring the God of grace. It is also the
heresy that increasingly finds favor with Protestant theologians.
The “difference between Christ and Adam” that Calvin injects into
Romans 5:12ff.
does not exist. Verse 18 teaches that the transgression of one man
— Adam, according to verse 14 — was the condemnation of all men. In verse 19, the apostle states that the
disobedience of the one man rendered many people sinners.
The verb translated “made” by the King James Version does not mean
“made” in the sense of causing people actually to become sinful. Rather, it means “constituted” in the
sense of a legal standing of guilt before God the judge.
One could translate: “By one
man’s disobedience many were declared sinners.” 9 Even so, the righteousness of one — Jesus
Christ — was the justification of all whom He represented, and His obedience
constitutes many people righteous.10
The comparison between the
two covenant heads of the human race in history consists exactly of this, that both are
legal representatives of others, Adam, of the entire human race, Christ only excepted, and
Christ, of the new human race of the elect church. Because
Adam was covenant (federal) head of the race, his act of disobedience was imputed to the
race as their guilt. Because Christ is
covenant (federal) head of the elect church, His obedience is imputed to the church as our
righteousness.
The Canons of Dordt go
beyond Calvin in formulating the doctrine of original sin.
Like Calvin, the Canons teach that the posterity of Adam “have derived
corruption from their original parent … by the propagation of a vicious nature.” Unlike Calvin, the Canons add that all the
posterity of Adam have this corrupt nature “in consequence of a just judgment of
God.”11 The depravity of nature of the human race is not
simply our guilt. It is also divine
punishment upon us all for our guilt in the disobedience of Adam in the garden.
In his doctrine of original
sin, Calvin tells us, he is opposing three main errors.
The first is men’s natural approval of themselves. The second is Pelagianism. The third is the error of ascribing man’s
natural corruption to God Himself, as though He created man so. Of course, Calvin is not contending with the error
of theistic evolution. Nevertheless, the
third error that Calvin opposes has a modern expression in this theory of origins. If man has descended from the primates, even
though this has happened under God’s superintending providence, man is
“wicked” and subject to death from the very beginning of his existence. Since his origin as evil and subject to death is
God’s own “creation” of him in this way, God Himself is responsible for
man’s evil condition. Following Calvin,
the Heidelberg Catechism condemns the theory of theistic evolution, which would not appear
as a threat to the Reformed churches until hundreds of years after the writing of the
Catechism, in Lord’s Day 2:
Did God create man thus wicked and perverse? No;
but God created man good, and after his own image — that is, in righteousness and
true holiness; that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him, and live
with him in eternal blessedness, to praise and glorify him.12
Having established original
depravity, Calvin takes up the issue of the extent of this depravity.
Total Depravity
Calvin teaches that, apart
from the regenerating grace of Christ, the depravity of fallen man is total. The whole nature is completely corrupted by the
infection of sin, so that there is in fallen man no capability of doing any good and so
that he performs what is evil. It is
“indisputable that free will [which Calvin accepts here for the sake of argument,
meaning by ‘free will’ only a will that is not under ‘compulsion’] is
not sufficient to enable man to do good works, unless he be helped by grace, indeed by
special grace, which only the elect receive through regeneration.” Calvin goes on to deny the doctrine that man
“still has some power, though meager and weak,” which, “with the help of
grace,” can “also do its part.” This
is the context in which occurs the line that is well-known in the controversy over the
“well-meant offer of the gospel: “For I do not tarry over those fanatics who
babble that grace is equally and indiscriminately distributed” (Inst., 2.2.6). Henry Beveridge translates this line differently: “For I stay not to consider the extravagance
of those who say that grace is offered equally and promiscuously to all.”13
Summing up his doctrine at
the conclusion of the treatment of the depravity of man, Calvin says this:
Therefore let us hold this as an undoubted truth which no siege engines can shake: the mind of man has been so completely estranged
from God’s righteousness that it conceives, desires, and undertakes, only that which
is impious, perverted, foul, impure, and infamous. The
heart is so steeped in the poison of sin, that it can breathe out nothing but a loathsome
stench. But if some men occasionally make a
show of good, their minds nevertheless ever remain enveloped in hypocrisy and deceitful
craft, and their hearts bound by inner perversity (Inst., 2.5.19).
This statement of man’s
total depravity fills out the terse judgment that Calvin had passed upon man’s fallen
nature at the outset of his treatment: “The
whole man is of himself nothing but concupiscence” (Inst., 2.1.8).
Another way of expressing
man’s total depravity for Calvin is to assert that fallen man has lost the image of
God in which he was created. Calvin holds
that the image is “obliterated” (Inst., 2.1.5). Mere “traces” remain, which distinguish
man from the brutes (Inst., 2.2.17). It
is doubtful that any clearer, sharper statement of the loss of the image can be found in
the writings of Calvin than that in Chapter 1 of the original, 1536 edition of the Institutes. This statement also reveals Calvin’s view of
the image itself in which Adam was created, as well as Calvin’s assessment of the
apparent good that is done by unregenerated men and women.
In order for us to come to a sure knowledge of ourselves, we must first grasp the
fact that Adam, parent of us all, was created in the image and likeness of God [
Gen. 1:26-27
]. That is, he was endowed with
wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and was so clinging by these gifts of grace to God that
he could have lived forever in Him, if he had stood fast in the uprightness God had given
him. But when Adam slipped into sin, this
image and likeness of God was cancelled and effaced, that is, he lost all the benefits of divine grace, by which he could have been led back into the way of life [
Gen. 3
]. Moreover, he was far removed from God and became
a complete stranger. From this it follows
that man was stripped and deprived of all wisdom, righteousness, power, life, which —
as has already been said — could be held only in God.
As a consequence, nothing was left to him save ignorance, iniquity, impotence, death, and judgment [
Rom. 5:12-21
]. These are
indeed the “fruits of sin” [
Gal. 5:19-21
]. This calamity fell not only upon
Adam himself, but also flowed down into us, who are his seed and offspring. Consequently, all of us born of Adam are ignorant
and bereft of God, perverse, corrupt, and lacking every good. Here is a heart especially inclined to all sorts
of evil, stuffed with depraved desires, addicted to them, and obstinate toward God [
Jer. 17:9
]. But if we outwardly display anything
good, still the mind stays in its inner state of filth and crooked perversity. The prime matter or rather the matter of concern
for all rests in the judgment of God, who judges not according to appearance, nor highly esteems outward splendor, but gazes upon the secrets of the heart [
I Sam. 16:7;
Jer. 17:10
]. Therefore, however much of a dazzling
appearance of holiness man may have on his own, it is nothing but hypocrisy and even an
abomination in God’s sight, since the thoughts of the mind, ever depraved and
corrupted, lurk beneath.14
For Calvin, the image of God
in which Adam was created was the spiritual perfections that qualified and adorned his
whole nature. By his transgression, Adam lost
the image entirely. Indeed, the Creator
“stripped” Adam of the image. Nothing
of it remains, except “traces.” These
“traces” are not any part of the content of the image itself, some residue of
“goodness.” Rather, they are merely
the evidences that man once had the image — an aggravation of man’s misery. The “traces” amount to man’s
humanity, which he retained, and could not but retain, after the fall. The “traces” consist of man’s body
with its natural skills, his soul with its thinking and willing, and his enduring
conscious relation to God, now a relation on man’s part of hostility and dread.
Because of the loss of the
image, whatever appearance of goodness fallen man displays is appearance only. Even the occasional “dazzling”
appearance of goodness is never genuine. It
is “hypocrisy.” Especially the
“dazzling” appearance of holiness, which greatly impresses theologians and
church synods, so that they pronounce it truly good by virtue of “natural
theology,” or “common grace,” is abomination. For it pretends to be real goodness, when in fact
the heart of the pretender is far from God. And,
unlike the theologians and synods, “God gazes upon the secrets of the heart.”
Calvin maintains total
depravity by contending for the bondage of the will.
Much of the section on man’s original sin is devoted to the bondage of the
will. Then as now, denial of man’s
depravity takes the form of affirming free will. In
addition to the important treatment of the bondage of the will in the Institutes,
Calvin wrote a treatise on the subject, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. He wrote this treatise in 1543.15
In developing the truth of
the bondage of the will, Calvin shows himself a good teacher by distinguishing carefully. He notes, and insists on, the importance of
maintaining the distinction between “compulsion” and “necessity.” The will of the sinner does not choose evil under
compulsion, that is, against its own inclination. Rather,
the will of the sinner chooses evil willingly. But
it does choose evil necessarily, inasmuch as it is under the ruling power of sin in the
nature of man. The will of the unregenerated
sinner is like a horse that is ridden by Satan. It
is controlled by Satan. 16
According to Calvin, the
will is enslaved, is in bondage to sin. “Because
of the bondage of sin by which the will is held bound, it cannot move toward good, much
less apply itself thereto” (Inst., 2.3.5).
In his The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Calvin defines the bound
will:
A bound will … is one which because of its corruptness is held captive under
the authority of evil desires, so that it can choose nothing but evil, even if it does so
of its own accord and gladly, without being driven by any external impulse.17
With the bondage of the
will, Calvin teaches the corruption also of man’s reason, which logically precedes
the activity of the will, so that the mind cannot bring the good, as good, to the
will’s attention.
The specific inability of
man by virtue of his corrupted mind and enslaved will is the inability to come to Christ,
or choose salvation when it is presented in the gospel, or believe.
Calvin’s demonstration
and proof of the bondage of the will are overwhelming. He adduces many texts, including
John 3:6,
Romans 3,
Romans 8,
Ephesians 4:22ff.,
and
Jeremiah 7:9.
Of decisive importance for
the controversy over the bondage of the will is Calvin’s rejection of the appeal by the defenders of a free will to
Romans 7.
The testimony of
Romans 7
(“the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do,”
v. 19), says Calvin rightly, is that of a regenerated person. The importance of the right interpretation of
Romans 7
for the truth of the bondage of the will and, therefore, for the gospel of
salvation by grace alone cannot be stressed too strongly.
It was not accidental that James Arminius first disclosed his heresy in his exposition of
Romans 7.
Arminius taught that
verses 13-25 describe the spiritual condition of the unregenerated man. Unregenerated men, therefore, have a free will, a
will that can choose and does choose the good. The
doctrine of free will is fundamental to the Arminian heresy. If an unregenerated man is speaking in the
chapter, as a number of evangelical and Reformed theologians are contending today, fallen
man has a free will, the heresy of Pelagius and Arminius is vindicated, and the gospel of
grace is overthrown.18
Certain of Calvin’s
arguments on behalf of the bondage of the will are worthy of note. If God in conversion must give us a heart of flesh, the stony heart was incapable of willing the good (cf.
Ezek. 36).
God works in us to will (cf. Phil 2:13). Good willing arises from faith, and faith is the gift of God (cf.
Eph. 2:8).
According to
I Corinthians 12:6,
God works all in all in us.
Free will is the exclusive
privilege of the elect.
It is obviously the privilege of the elect that, regenerated through the Spirit of
God, they are moved and governed by his leading. For
this reason, Augustine justly derides those who claim for themselves any part of the act
of willing, just as he reprehends others who think that what is the special testimony of
free election is indiscriminately given to all. “Nature,”
he says, “is common to all, not grace.” The
view that what God bestows upon whomever he wills is generally extended to all, Augustine
calls a brittle glasslike subtlety of wit, which glitters with mere vanity. Elsewhere he says:
“how have you come?” By
believing. Fear lest while you are claiming
for yourself that you have found the just way, you perish from the just way. I have come, you say, of my own free choice; I
have come of my own will. Why are you puffed
up? Do you wish to know that this also has
been given you? Hear Him calling, ‘No one comes to me unless my Father draws him’ [
John 6:44
p.].” And one may incontrovertibly conclude from
John’s words that the hearts of the pious are so effectively governed by God that
they follow Him with unwavering intention. “No
one begotten of God can sin,” he says, “for God’s seed abides in him.” [
I John 3:9.
]
For the intermediate movement the Sophists dream up, which men are free either to
accept or refuse, we see obviously excluded when it is asserted that constancy is
efficacious for perseverance (Inst., 2.3.10).
The end of this lengthy
quotation has Calvin insisting that the grace of God that gives freedom of the will to the
elect is efficacious. It does not merely make
coming to Christ possible, but effectually draws to Christ.
With this insistence, Calvin had begun the section:
He does not move the will in such a manner as has been taught and believed for many
ages — that it is afterward in our choice either to obey or resist the motion —
but by disposing it efficaciously. Therefore,
one must deny that oft-repeated statement of Chrysostom:
“Whom he draws he draws willing.”
Remnants of Good in
Fallen Man
We are compelled to
recognize that, however inconsistently, unclearly, and relatively infrequently, Calvin
does teach some remnants of good in fallen man by virtue of a “general grace” of
God. There are in fallen men, writes Calvin,
certain gifts and abilities regarding earthly life, including “civic fair dealing and
order” (Inst., 2.2.13) and “the arts, both liberal and manual” that
are to be ascribed to the “peculiar grace of God” (Inst., 2.2.14), the
“general grace of God” (Inst., 2.2.17), God’s “kindness” (Inst.,
2.2.17), and God’s “special grace” (Inst., 2.2.17).
Also, there is a certain
“purity” and “virtue” in some unbelievers that is due to a
“grace” of God which, although it does not “cleanse” corrupt human
nature, does “restrain it inwardly” (Inst., 2.3.3).
These are the materials in
Calvin that Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck seized in order to construct their far more
elaborate and optimistic theory of a common grace of God that must produce a good culture
and even Christianize society.19 Calvin’s “general
grace” is not a grace that is saving, or that desires to save, or that enables one to
come to Christ for salvation. Calvin
definitely limits his general grace to earthly things and to earthly life.
Significantly, the biblical
Calvin offers no proof from Scripture for his notion of a
general grace of God to the reprobate ungodly.
Often, in the very same
passages that teach this general grace there are expressions indicating that the phenomena
that Calvin describes in terms of general grace should rather be described in terms of
God’s providence. Indeed, Calvin himself
suggests that though he speaks of grace he has providence in mind. This is true of that passage in the Institutes
on general grace that is the most troublesome. In
2.3.3, Calvin is impressed by “persons who, guided by nature, have striven toward
virtue throughout life.” These persons
show “some purity in their nature.” Seemingly,
they give the lie to the Bible’s, and Calvin’s, doctrine of total depravity. Calvin then accounts for what he judges to be the
honorable conduct of these unregenerated persons.
But here it ought to occur to us that amid this corruption of nature there is some
place for God’s grace; not such grace as to cleanse it, but to restrain it inwardly. For if the Lord gave loose rein to the mind of
each man to run riot in his lusts, there would doubtless be no one who would not show
that, in fact, every evil thing for which Paul condemns all nature is most truly to be met
in himself.
Having listed the sins that
Romans 3:10-18
finds in the unregenerated, Calvin continues:
If every soul is subject to such abominations as the apostle boldly declares, we
surely see what would happen if the Lord were to permit human lust to wander according to
its own inclination. No mad beast would rage
as unrestrainedly; no river, however swift and violent, burst so madly into flood. In his elect the Lord cures these diseases in a
way that we shall soon explain. Others he
merely restrains by throwing a bridle over them only that they may not break loose,
inasmuch as he foresees their control to be expedient to preserve all that is.
By mentioning a
“bridle,” Calvin already goes in the direction of explaining his restraining
“grace” as providence. That, in
reality, he has providence in mind as the power by which God restrains sinners and
controls the power of sin is made explicit in the concluding sentence of the paragraph: “Thus God by his providence bridles
perversity of nature, that it may not break forth into action; but he does not purge it
within” (emphasis added).
This having been said in
mitigation of Calvin’s doctrine of a general grace of God upon and in the
unregenerated, we must disagree with Calvin on this matter.
The natural gifts of the ungodly are to be explained from man’s remaining
human after the fall and from the providential operations and gifts of the Spirit that
uphold and govern natural life. The natural
gifts are not to be explained from any grace of God.
Calvin’s theorizing in
2.3.3 of the Institutes about a restraining grace that accounts for good deeds by
the noble heathen is unbiblical, and contrary to Calvin’s own theology. Calvin has just appealed to God’s searing judgment upon all mankind by nature in
Romans 3:10ff.
Then, with his eye on Camillus and other noble pagans, Calvin asserts a general, restraining grace and says, regarding the
Romans 3
passage, “We surely see what would
happen if the Lord were to permit human lust to wander according to its own
inclination” (emphasis added).
But
Romans 3:10ff.
does not
teach what would happen, apart from general, restraining grace.
Romans 3:10ff.
teaches what does happen,
what is true of all, apart from the gospel and its regenerating grace.
Calvin has forgotten what he
had written on good works against Pighius in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: “The worth of good works depends not on the
act itself but on perfect love for God so that a work will not be right and pure unless it
proceeds from a perfect love for God.”20
Enthusiastically picking up
on Calvin’s erroneous teaching of a general grace of God for the reprobate ungodly,
some in the later Reformed tradition have developed a theory of common grace that
effectively overthrows the biblical doctrine of total depravity that Calvin so powerfully
taught and so vehemently defended. By virtue
of common grace, fallen man retains much good. In
many Reformed churches today, total depravity, though acknowledged, is defined as
man’s being corrupt merely in every part
of his being. Common grace has forged a
doctrine of partial depravity. This is, in
fact, the rejection of total depravity by those who claim to confess it.21
The enemies of Calvinism see
through this posturing. Clark Pinnock has
recently written:
The depth of human sinfulness was another matter that soon demanded my attention. Calvinists, like Augustine himself, if the reader
will excuse the anachronism, wanting to leave no room at all to permit any recognition of
human freedom in the salvation event, so defined human depravity as total that it would be
impossible to imagine any sinner calling upon God to save him. Thus they prevented anyone from thinking about
salvation in the Arminian way. Leaving aside
the fact that Augustinians themselves often and suspiciously qualify their notion of
“total” depravity very considerably and invent the notion of common grace to
tone it down, I knew I had to consider how to understand the free will of the sinner in
relation to God.22
Pinnock points out what is
at stake in “toning down” the doctrine of total depravity.
The
Reformed churches must maintain, or recover, Calvin’s doctrine that fallen human
nature is nothing but concupiscence and that the heart of the natural man breathes forth
“nothing but a loathsome stench.” This
humbles the sinner. This magnifies the grace
of God in the salvation of the elect sinner. And
this, under the blessing of the Spirit of Christ, opens the way to faith’s seeking
the righteousness of God in the cross of Jesus Christ alone.
Whatever
Happened to the Reformation, ed. by Gary L. W. Johnson & R. Fowler White. Philipsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing Co.,
Publishers, 2001. Pp. xxviii-337. $15.99
(paper). [Reviewed by Herman C. Hanko.]
Evangelicalism has fallen on
bad times. It has departed from the faith,
become a severely divided house, and has, consequently, ceased to be a force in American
life. Various books have been written in the
past few years calling attention to evangelicalism’s death. None is as hard-hitting and to the point as this
recent volume. It is a book which is
primarily doctrinal and has as its stated task the demonstration of the fact that
evangelicalism has died an ignoble death because of its apostasy. More particularly, as the title indicates, the
problem with modern evangelicalism is its complete abandonment of all the Reformation
stood for. It has cut its ties with the
Reformation and is like a ship adrift on stormy seas.
In my opinion, anyone who wishes to understand modern evangelicalism must read this
book.
R. C. Sproul points the way
when, in the foreword to the book, he rightly identifies one’s view of God as
decisive for all theology. It is his
contention that evangelicalism has a corrupted conception of God. Faulting Christianity Today (the voice of
evangelicalism) for leading the way, Sproul contends that
This (an editorial in CT) … is simply one illustration among many that could
have been chosen of how confused the evangelical church has become. More than that, it shows that the growing
definitional fogginess within evangelicalism is now reaching into our understanding of God
himself. It is one thing to debate the wisdom
of using inerrancy (a term evangelicals refuse to apply to Scripture, HH); it is
something entirely different to imagine that God is as hobbled and as baffled by life as
we are.
The truth of the matter is that the fraying at the edges of the evangelical world
has now turned into an unraveling at its center… (xxviii).
The basic reason why
evangelicalism has abandoned doctrine is its preoccupation with the need to adapt itself
to modern-day culture, according to the book’s authors. The result is that all the essentials of the
Christian faith have been lost. Gary Johnson,
an editor of this book, quotes John H. Leith with approval.
There is a prevalent conviction that the faith the church has confessed in the past
is not adequate for post-Enlightenment culture, the idea that the faith must be
accommodated to culture has undermined the teaching of the church’s faith (1, 2).
A great deal of evidence is
produced to establish beyond doubt the truth of the book’s claim. It is a sad picture which is presented, so sad,
in fact, that the expressed hope of the authors that the book will bring evangelicalism
back to its heritage strikes one as a vain and empty hope.
A person in whom all the vital signs are gone is beyond restoring to life and
health.
There are three areas
especially which the authors see as key areas in diagnosing evangelicalism’s
troubles. The first area is its doctrine of
God; the second, its view of Scripture; and the third, its view of preaching. Each area is discussed in several chapters and by
different authors.
The first section deals with
the view of God in evangelical thought. In
this connection the authors are very specific. They
insist that evangelicalism has adopted an “openness-of-God” theism. This same view is sometimes called “process
theology.”
This openness-of-God theism
denies that God is omniscient, that He knows the future, and that He has control over all
events which take place in the world. This
position is maintained in the interests of preserving man’s free will. So total is man’s free will that God is
limited by human choices, can only react to what He sees man do, and is impotent in
influencing decisively man’s moral deeds. So
ignorant is God of the future that He is repeatedly caught by surprise when He observes
events, and, indeed, was not even sure that Christ would actually go to the cross to die
for sin.
It is the ultimate and
necessary development of an Arminian conception of God against which the fathers at Dordt
fought furiously and long. The real issue, as
it always has been in the church, is the issue of the absolute sovereignty and
particularity of grace. To the credit of the
authors, Armini–anism is taken to task in no uncertain fashion. One could wish, however, that the emphasis on
God’s absolute sovereignty would be stronger. The
only real defense is an unwavering defense of God’s sovereignty in all history. Even the king’s heart is, after all, in the
hand of the Lord to turn wherever God wills. And
Assyria is an axe in God’s hand to cut down the vine of Israel.
Whether someone really
believes in God’s sovereignty or only mouths the word is finally determined by
one’s unwavering defense of, not only sovereign election, but also sovereign
reprobation. Anything less will finally bring
one into the camp of the “openness-of-God” heresy.
The second part of the book
(especially chapters 6 & 7) deals with the doctrine of Scripture and the rough
treatment which Scripture receives at the hand of evangelicalism. The chief subject treated here is the influence
the charismatic movement has had on modern evangelicalism.
Especially the insistence of charismatics on the doctrine of on-going revelation
comes under attack. And, as a necessary
corollary of the doctrine of on-going revelation, the “special guidance” notion
of life comes under attack. This latter is a
reference to the claims of so many today to being led by the Spirit directly and
immediately, apart from the objective testimony of the Scriptures.
In defense of the truth, the
authors spell out the doctrines of the closed canon (the truth that direct revelation came
to a close with the writing of the book of Revelation), the sufficiency of the canon (that
Scripture is sufficient for all we need to know concerning the truth and will of God), and
the authority of the canon (that Scripture is absolutely regulative for all our faith and
life).
The defense of the book
against this grave weakness of evangelicalism is solid, though mild. One could wish, especially in a book that defends
Reformation truth, that the authors would have had some of the ferocity of Luther when he
told the promoters of on-going revelation by the Spirit:
“I hit your Holy Spirit in the snout.”
The third part of the book
comes to grips with a crucially important error in evangeli–calism: its denial of the
centrality and absolutely decisive character of preaching.
The authors scathingly condemn modern evangelical preaching. Evangelicalism is repeatedly savaged for failing
to carry out its one divine mandate: to
preach the Word.
The book is not only
negative, but firmly positive in its defense of sound preaching. Hart argues that the strength of the church is
most emphatically not in an educated membership, and that the trust which evangelicals
place on learning will never save the church. He
insists that preaching is absolutely decisive for the Christian life, but also for a
biblical perspective on learning in general and the purpose of education.
David Powlison defends and
promotes biblical, Christ-centered, sin-oriented preaching and pastoral work, especially
in what is today called “counseling.” He
denounces evangelicalism for adapting worldly philosophy to religious needs.
In discussing specifically
homosexuality, he writes of the problems of a hypothetical lesbian:
Only the active-worshiping-heart-responsible-before-God finally explains and causes
any particular way of life. Amelia has come
to believe that she “understands” and has a “proper perspective” on
her past history. But psychodynamic myth has
mingled a significant illusion with elements of Christian truth. To say that her lesbian struggles were caused by
unhappy childhood circumstances fails to bow before the riddle, unfathomableness, and
culpability of sin. Sin is its own final
reason. Any theory that claims to explain sin
actually falls prey to sin’s intellectual effects, and wriggles away from both
theological truth and psychological reality. Sin
is the deepest explanation, not just one more problem begging for different and
“deeper” reasons (p. 221).
Such an emphasis on
preaching as chapters 7 through 11 present is like a breath of fresh air in the stale
atmosphere of today’s boring, silly, shallow, man-centered little homilies delivered
in twenty minutes or so by moralistic professional pedants
who have not even a cursory knowledge of the Scriptures which they are supposed to
preach.
One
will find the book informative, interesting, helpful, and necessary in understanding what
has gone wrong with current evangelicalism.
The
Quest for Full Assurance, The Legacy of Calvin and His Successors,
Joel R. Beeke. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1999. Pp. vxi-395. No price available. (Paper). [Reviewed by Herman C. Hanko.]
Joel Beeke wrote his
doctoral thesis for Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) on this subject, and
this book is a revision of that thesis. It is
basically a historical study which, though concentrating on Reformation and
post-Reformation thought, nevertheless begins with early Christian teaching and Medieval
ideas concerning the road to full assurance. The
book devotes the largest section to a study of the Nadere Reformatie or
“Further Reformation,” in which Willem Teelinck played a prominent role and is,
in fact, often considered its father.
Yet, as the sub-title
indicates, the book is really primarily interested in showing that post-Reformation
thought, especially in the Nadere Reformatie, is not a betrayal of Calvin’s
thoughts on assurance. Thus, the book is
primarily historical. From that point of
view, it contains an abundance of material on the subject.
I have some problems,
however, with the approach which the book takes.
The first problem I have is
the idea that there is a doctrine of assurance.
I am not at all convinced that one can properly speak of a doctrine of assurance,
at least in the same way that one speaks of a doctrine of sanctification, or a doctrine of
the divinity of Christ.
My first problem with this
is that it leads to some confusion. Beeke is
not so much talking about assurance as such in this book, but about the way one comes
to assurance. That, it seems to me, is
quite a different matter. The distinction
between the two is blurred in the book.
The second problem with this
is certain dubious statements in the book when the views of others are being described. Augustine, for example, is said to have avoided an
assertion of personal assurance. Now, as a
matter of fact, that is flatly not true. It
is perhaps true that he never spoke of a “doctrine” of assurance; but anyone who
reads his Confessions, a book which breathes in every line Augustine’s joyful
assurance of the salvation which has been given to him by grace, will wonder what in all
the world Beeke means by that statement.
Luther is said to have
taught degrees of assurance. I have never
found anything like this in Luther. Once
again, the trouble seems to be in holding to a certain “doctrine” of assurance,
and confusing assurance with the way in which it is acquired. There is no question about it that Luther
struggled all his life with what he called his anfechtungen. There is no question about it either that Luther,
in the throws of these anfech–tungen, struggled with the severe temptations of
doubt. What child of God has not experienced
these temptations of the devil? But degrees
of assurance? How is that possible? When I am standing in a cloudburst, can I have
degrees of assurance concerning the question of whether or not I am getting wet in the
rain? Or, can one have degrees of assurance
that God is? I believe that He is, or I
believe that He is not. Where is the middle
ground implied in “degrees”?
Another problem is that the
book discusses the views of various men on assurance in such a way that the impression is
often left that this subject is really the only important subject in theology. I think this problem stands closely connected with
the first problem which I mentioned, especially if one insists on speaking of a
“doctrine” of assurance. But in
any case, while the Scriptures speak of assurance repeatedly, such is by no means the
central and pivotal doctrine of the Word of God. In
fact, one ought not to consider at all the matter of assurance as understandable or
important in its own right. It is the
fruit of all the work of God in the heart of His people.
To set it aside as important in its own right is to be self-defeating.
Let me use an illustration. I am born and brought up within the family of my
parents. They brought me into the world,
nurtured me from infancy on, cared for my needs, instructed me in the ways of God’s
covenant, and devoted themselves to my care. I
cannot recall that the question ever occurred to me to ask myself whether I was truly a
child of my parents. But supposing I had.
Supposing that every morning, upon rising, I would wash my hands and face, brush my teeth,
and, when older, shave, all the while asking myself the question: Am I truly a child of
these parents who claim me as their child? Am
I perhaps deceiving myself? Are these people
truly the ones that brought me into the world? So
important was this question to me that I made it the central and pivotal part of my life
in the family. I even constructed a doctrine
of assurance to prove my claim to be a member of the family.
I am absolutely sure that if
I lived my whole life in the family developing my doctrine of assurance, whatever that
doctrine may be, I would soon doubt seriously whether I really belonged to that family. I would begin to discover all kinds of
“evidence” which testified to the contrary.
And all my problems would be compounded if there were some who knew my family and
told me that I was not really one of that family at all.
There were, of course, in my
own childhood, times when I so grossly broke the rules of the family and displeased my
parents with my conduct that I did wonder about one thing: Do I have any right in myself
to claim membership in this family? Would
not my parents have every right to disown me? But
that kind of question is different. The very
fact that I considered myself worthy of being disowned was proof that I belonged.
It seems to me this is the
way it is in our relation to God. We do not
make the matter of our assurance a doctrine. We
do not even make the way we arrive at assurance a doctrine.
We are born again into our heavenly Father’s family. In that family God gives us countless blessings of
the preaching of the Word, the instruction of covenant parents, the teachings of Christian
school teachers, and the catechism classes of mother church. In that family God provides for all our needs,
tells us of the blessedness that is ours in Christ, averts all evil or turns it to our
profit. I grow up in that. Assurance is a necessary part of it. It lies in the very nature of being a member of
the family.
If in that family I am
forever asking myself the question: Am I a child of God?
Do I really belong to that family? What
proof do I have that I am in that family? How
can I construct a doctrine of assurance that will assist in convincing me that I am in
that family? I tell you that if I lived that
kind of a life, I would persuade myself in two days’ time that I was, after all, not
a part of that family at all. And I would be
plagued by doubts of every sort.
It is true that the child of
God is tempted by doubts sometimes. This is
always when he is overcome with his sin. He
sees his own unworthiness and recognizes that he has no right in himself to be a part of
that family. But that is exactly what drives
him to the cross of Christ. Christ is
God’s Son! And we are called to believe
in Christ. When we do, then we know, oh, we
know, beyond any doubt, that we are also children of God for Christ’s sake.
That is exactly how, looking
at it now from God’s point of view, God gives His children the assurance of their
place in the family of God. God works that
faith in the hearts of His people so that they flee always to Christ. In Christ is nothing but assurance. God gives us that, not as some kind of extra
blessing which we can possess only when there are marks and signs, a clear doctrine of
assurance, but because we are at the foot of the cross where you will always find the
whole family of God. It comes spontaneously,
naturally, almost unconsciously. It is a part
of family life; so natural a part that one never really thinks about it.
My parents would have become
exasperated with me if, when I was a child in the home, I kept asking them for proof that
I was truly their child. They would have
said, Don’t we take care of you? feed you? clothe you? instruct you? love you? What in the world is the matter with you?
So also our heavenly Father. Doubting the parentage of our heavenly Father is
sinful and gross ingratitude. This is not
easy believism, easy religion, easy and perhaps deceptive assurance. This is a part of being a member of God’s
family. To do anything less is wicked.
I
do not think my earthly father would be pleased if I would write a book setting forth my
own personal “doctrine” of assurance by which I explained how I finally, after
lengthy struggle, attained a higher degree (are there really degrees? — as Luther is
supposed to have taught?) of assurance that I really did, after all, belong to the C.
Hanko family
Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings
of Geerhardus Vos, ed. by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.
Philipsburg, New Jersey: P & R
Publishers, 2001. Pp. xiii-571. $29.99 (hard
cover). [Reviewed by Herman C. Hanko.]
P&R has republished a
work which this publisher first printed in 1980. The
book has long been out of print, and it is high time that it once again becomes available
to the reading public.
Geerhardus Vos was an
outstanding theologian of the last half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth
century. He was born in the Netherlands in
1862 and came to the United States in 1881, five years before the Doleantie under
Dr. A. Kuyper. He earned his degrees from
Calvin Theological Seminary, Princeton Theological Seminary, and the University of
Strasbourg, from which he acquired a Ph.D in Arabic Studies. Vos was ordained a minister in the Presbyterian
Church in the USA, but never served a congregation in that or any other denomination. He was asked by Kuyper to return to the
Netherlands and take the position of professor of Old Testament Studies on the faculty of
the Free University in Amster–dam. He
declined and chose rather to teach in the Seminary of the Christian Reformed Church. He remained there from 1888 to 1893, when he was
appointed as professor to the newly-created chair of Biblical Theology in Princeton
Seminary. He remained in Princeton for 39
years, after which he retired to a life first in California and later in Grand Rapids. He died in 1949.
His wife was Catherine Vos, the author of the well-known Child’s Story
Bible.
It is something of a mystery
why Vos chose to cast his lot with the Presbyterian tradition and to leave his teaching
responsibilities in Calvin Seminary, where the Reformed tradition was taught. And, having said that, it is also a mystery to me
why he did not depart Princeton with G. Gresham Machen when it became evident that
Princeton had chosen the road of apostasy.
Perhaps part of the answer
to the first question can be found in the fact that his move to Princeton was due to an
appointment to the chair of Biblical Theology, a chair newly created. One of the important writings in this volume is
his inaugural address, which he delivered at the outset of his work as professor of
Biblical Theology. For some reason he seems
to have been attracted to this study in distinction from Systematic Theology, although he
is also the author of a “Systematic Theology,” first published in beautiful
hand-written form, and later (1910) in printed form.
He may even have been somewhat influenced by a long (and sometimes bitter) conflict
over this very question in the Netherlands during the latter part of the seventeenth
century and the early part of the eighteenth between the so-called Voetians and Cocceians.
The writings of Vos are not
the easiest to read, chiefly because Vos was able to pack a great deal of information in a
relatively few words. Nevertheless, his
writings are sufficiently important that they ought to be read by anyone who has an
interest in the truth of God’s Word and the development of Reformed theology. Two chapters in this book are of great importance
and stand out as the best of the book. The
first is Vos’ inaugural address, when he took the chair in Biblical Theology in
Princeton. It is the first chapter in the
book and has the title “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a
Theological Discipline.” It has had
enormous influence on seminaries throughout the country and on biblical studies in both
the Presbyterian and Reformed traditions.
The second article, Chapter
VII in the book, is an important study on the history of the doctrine of the covenant. It has the title “The Doctrine of the
Covenant in Reformed Theology.” It goes
back to the Reformation and traces many different lines in both Reformed and Presbyterian
thought, including the influence which covenant theology has had in the maintenance of
infant baptism.
Vos’ study of
Historical Theology is particularly attractive to me.
While Vos’ defense of Biblical Theology is probably the best defense which can
be offered, it remains unpersuasive. While it
is impossible to enter into a discussion of this broad subject, the chief objection
against Systematic Theology made by biblical theologians is that such systematic
organization of Scripture’s teaching does not do justice to the historical
development of revelation from Paradise to its fulfillment in Christ. Systematic Theology is accused of
“proof-texting,” that is, proving doctrines from every part of Scripture without
regard to the historical setting of a particular passage and its meaning in the point of
time at which it was written.
In my opinion, Historical
Theology also has its dangers, greater and more serious than those with which Systematic
Theology has been charged. It tends to
separate the Old and New Testaments. Cocceius,
really the father of Biblical Theology, was accused of Dispen–sationalism. It tends to lose sight of the organic unity of
Scripture and easily falls into the danger of looking at a given part of Scripture in
separation from the whole canon. Even Vos has
chapters on “The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit,”
“The Pauline Conception of Reconciliation,” The Pauline Conception of
Redemption,” The Sacrificial Idea in Paul’s Doctrine of the Atonement.”
Paul’s doctrine of the
atonement? What about Peter’s, and
John’s, and David’s, and Isaiah’s? That
is, what about the Holy Spirit’s doctrine of the atonement? This “piecemeal” approach to Scripture
can easily lead to a “Pauline Eschatology,” which perhaps is to be distinguished
from and which at certain points does not agree with “Petrine Eschatology.”
I recall, in a classroom
setting, making an argument for a particular interpretation of a passage in the Gospel
According to John from Paul’s letter to the Colossians. I was summarily informed that the argument was
irrelevant because we were dealing with Johanine literature, and Paul’s views were
irrelevant to the understanding of John.
A fundamental rule of all
exegesis which is performed through the centuries-old method of Historical-Grammatical
Exegesis is to interpret a text in its historical context.
Reformed systematic theologians have always done that. Systematic Theology is still the way to go, and,
it seems, many seminaries are coming to similar conclusions. There is, I think, a return
to “Systematics” in the last ten or twenty years.
A
Textual Index has been added to this new edition.
Princeton
Versus the New Divinity.
Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust,
2001. Author:
Various. Pp. vii – 340. $22.99 (hardcover). [Reviewed by
Angus R. Stewart.]
Princeton Versus the New
Divinity is a valuable addition to the literature on “Old” Princeton
Theological Seminary in New Jersey. The
“Publisher’s Introduction” describes the New Divinity as “a movement
in theological thought which had pervasive influence in parts of the United States in the
1830s. While diverse elements went into its
composition, its leading ideas were a revision of teaching on the fallen condition of man,
the nature of the atonement and the extent to which man is dependent upon the Holy Spirit
for regeneration” (p. vi). Most readers
of the PRTJ are aware of Princeton’s opposition to the New Divinity, which arose in
New England, and the “New Measures” implemented particularly by Charles
Grandison Finney (1792-1875). But how
seriously did the Princeton men evaluate the threat of the New Divinity and Finney. What were the key issues over which swords were
crossed? What arguments – historical,
theological and Biblical — did they use? Probably
the answers that we would give to these questions are derived primarily from the secondary
sources. In Princeton Versus the New
Divinity, the Banner of Truth Trust has furnished us with the Princeton polemic
firsthand by republishing eight of the most significant articles from Princeton
Seminary’s Biblical Repertory and Theological Review (renamed Biblical
Repertory and Princeton Review in 1837).
Three of the essays are by Archibald Alexander, the seminary’s founding
professor (articles 2-4). These treat the
kindred subjects of total depravity, original sin, and the inability of the unregenerate
to believe on Christ (all of which the New Divinity denied). All these articles approach the topic from a
historical perspective considering the views of such men as Pelagius, Augustine, Aquinas,
Sohnnius (a sixteenth century Lutheran; pp. 98-114) and Jonathan Edwards.
Charles Hodge weighs in with two essays on regeneration (articles 1 and 5). Both articles criticize sermons by New Divinity
men (Samuel H. Cox and Finney, respectively) and include appeals to earlier authors to
expose the New Divinity’s specious claim to the authority of orthodox theologians.
The remaining three articles
are by lesser-known men. John
Woodbridge’s “Sanctification” (article 7) is a superb refutation of the
Perfectionism of Finney and Asa Mahan, his fellow professor at Oberlin College. Albert B. Dod’s essay is a lengthy critique
of Finney’s Lectures on Revivals of Religion and Sermons on Various
Subjects (article 6). The book closes
with Thomas Cleland’s “Bodily Effects of Religious Excitement,” in which he
describes and evaluates the phenomena of swooning and jerking etc. at the camp-meeting
revivals in Kentucky (article 8).
The New Divinity men took the classic Free Will position that the “obligation
to obey any command supposes the existence of an ability to do the action required”
(p. 128). Albert Dod writes, “Mr. Finney
asserts the perfect, unqualified ability of man to regenerate himself. It is easier, indeed, he says, for him to comply
with the commands of God than to reject them. He
tells his congregation that they ‘might with much more propriety ask, when the
meeting is dismissed, how they should go home, than to ask how they should change their
hearts’” (p. 207).
Charles Hodge quotes Finney’s description of regeneration: “I will show what is intended in the command
in the text (to make a new heart). It is that
a man should change the governing purpose of his life.
A man resolves to be a lawyer; then he directs all his plans and efforts to that
object, and that for the time is his governing purpose.
Afterwards, he may alter his determination and resolve to be a merchant. Now he directs all his efforts to that object, and
so has changed his heart, or governing purpose” (p. 159). According to Finney “the simple volition of
the sinner’s mind [to turn to God] through the influence of motives … is all
that is necessary to make a sinner a Christian” (p. 160).
Hodge’s evaluation is correct: “We believe that the characteristic
tendency of this mode of preaching is to keep the Holy Spirit and his influences out of
view; and we fear a still more serious objection is that Christ and his cross are
practically made of no effect.… We
maintain that this is another gospel” (pp. 166-167).
Dod concurs: Finney’s gospel
“is evidently another gospel” (p. 203). “Throughout
his whole system indeed,” Dod continues, “it is painful to see how small a space
is allotted the cross of Christ” (p. 205).
Not only did the Princeton men see that the denial of man’s depravity required
the denial of the new birth but they also understood the harmony between the theology of
the New Divinity and the practice of the New Measures.
Dod writes, “… Mr. Finney’s mistaken views of the nature of religion
lie at the bottom of his measures and have given to them their character and form …
these measures, therefore, wherever used, will tend to propagate a false form of
religion” (p. 253). After all, if
regeneration is merely resolving to be a Christian and directing one’s efforts to
that object, then the “anxious seat” is a useful tool to put pressure on sinners
to turn to God (pp. 232-242).
The Princeton men understood the origin of Oberlin College’s Perfectionism:
the New Divinity’s heretical position on man’s Free Will (p. 321). They could
also see that it would wreak devastation. Thus
Thomas Cleland writes, “Experience has proved that perfectionism peculiarly prepares
the ground, where it is cultivated and flourishes, for an abundant crop of infidelity and
the most odious forms of delusion and imposture” (p. 319).
Finney, on the other hand, placed great confidence in his message and methods: “If the Church will do all her duty, the
millennium may come in this country in three years” (p. 257). The church’s duty included not only
supporting Finney’s revivalism but also abstaining from tea, coffee, tobacco and
alcohol (p. 263). Finney writes, “I am
convinced that the temperance reformation has just begun, and that the total abstinence
principle, in regard to a great many other subjects beside alcohol, must prevail before
the church can prosper to any considerable extent” (p. 319).
Of these three — the
New Divinity, the New Measures, and what we may call the “New Asceticism” –
it is the New Measures that must keep in closest step with the times. Finney writes:
“The object of our new measures is to gain attention, and you must have
something new” (p. 224). When
Finney’s methods lose their appeal, something else must gain the public’s
interest. “And so we shall never want
for something new” (p. 224). Is there
not much of this spirit abroad today in the church world?
The New Divinity did not
bring in the “millennium.” It
brought in heresy and all kinds of unbiblical practices and extravagances. It did bring people into the churches, but most
soon left (pp. 257-258); and those who stayed, if they remained under the spell of Finney,
only corrupted the churches. Congregations
were divided and the Presbyterian Church split in 1838.
Yet today many evangelicals around the world laud Finney as a great man of God! Books like Princeton Versus the New Divinity
help to set the record straight.
One
question kept resurfacing as I read the book: why
did the Presbyterian Church not discipline Finney for heresy? Throughout his ministry, Finney ridiculed the
Westminster Standards (p. 218) as “the tradition of the elders” and attacked
ministers who preached the doctrines of grace (pp. 174, 319). Thus Dod speaks of Finney’s “sin of
broken vows” (p. 272) and points out his duty to leave the Presbyterian Church (pp.
219, 272). Finney must go “out from
us,” Dod concludes, “for he is not of us” (p. 272). Strong words, but why was Finney not disciplined? Instead of Prince–ton versus the New
Divinity, it should have been the Presbyterian Church versus the New Divinity.
Eschatology, by Hans Schwarz.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Pp. xv + 431.
$26 (paper). [Reviewed by David J.
Engelsma.]
The seminarian, seminary
professor, or minister who is interested in a wide-ranging survey of eschatological
thought will find this an informative, often fascinating, and sometimes profound book. The author is professor of systematic theology and
director of the Institute of Protestant Theology at the University of Regensburg, Germany. He examines the doctrine of the last things in
both the Old Testament and the New Testament, in the history of the church, and in
contemporary theology. He exposes secular
thinking about the future of the individual, of humanity, and of the cosmos. “Secular varieties of hope” include
science, philosophy, and religiosity. The
last is mainly New Age spirituality.
All secular eschatologies,
from Marxism to humanism, teach that man can and must perfect himself.
Schwarz’s judgment is
that apart from the hope that is grounded in the resurrection of Christ, there is only the
nihilism of Nietzsche. Schwarz puts the
alternative to the Christian hope this way: “We
come into life by accident, go through life in weakness, and vanish from life in
resignation” (p. 369).
The main value of the book
is its demonstration of the prominence of eschatology in contemporary theology and its
description and analysis of the theologians regarding the last things. The consensus is sheer universalism: all humans without exception shall be saved. Moltmann extends salvation to Satan and the
devils. Hardly anyone teaches hell. In his analysis of various teachings about the
last days, Schwarz is penetrating. To all
forms of millennialism with their dream of an earthly kingdom of Christ in history,
Schwarz puts the question: “But can we
really expect Christ, who during his life on earth rejected vehemently all nationalistic
and political messianic aspirations, to establish a transitory kingdom of God on earth, as
millennial thinking requires?” (p. 336).
The weakness of the book is
that it is not biblical. Neither does it set
forth the biblical doctrine of the last things by careful explanation of Scripture, nor
does it take Scripture seriously as the inspired Word of God when it proposes answers to
eschatological questions.
Hans Schwarz is probably as
conservative as it is possible for a German theologian to be. But this a woeful condition. Because belief of a “premortal state” of
man would conflict with (evolutionary) science, Schwarz denies that death is the result of
the fall of man. This leads him to deny the
historicity of Adam. One effect of
evolutionary science on Schwarz’s eschatology is his rejection of an “immortal
soul” and, therefore, his dismissal of an intermediate state as unnecessary and
illegitimate speculation.
Despite his recognition of
the powerful biblical testimony against it, Schwarz holds out for the possibility of
universal salvation in the end (“universal homecoming”). Of great significance is Schwarz’s sole
biblical basis for universalism: the teaching
of the New Testament, as he supposes, that “God wants all people to be saved.” He appeals to
I Timothy 2:4
(p. 395).
Reformed
theologians at the beginning of the twenty-first century who think that they can
contradict the biblical doctrine of predestination and particular grace without deadly
serious consequences for eschatology deceive themselves.
The doctrine that God has a sincere desire for the salvation of every human without
exception leads inexorably to universalism. For
this doctrine is universalism, in principle.
Our
School: Calvin College and the Christian Reformed Church,
by Harry Boonstra. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, Publishers, 2001. Pp. xi-155.
(Paper.) [Reviewed by Herman C. Hanko.]
Over the years, Eerdmans has
published a number of books in what is called “The Historical Series of the Reformed
Church in America.” Quite naturally, the
quality of these books has varied greatly, with some being particularly interesting and
useful. Two examples of the latter are The
Dutch Reformed Church in the American Colonies, by Gerald F. De Jong, and Sources
of Secession by Gerrit J. tenZythoff. This
book belongs to the series.
The author apparently senses
that readers might wonder why a book on a Christian Reformed College appears in a series
which deals with the Reformed Church of America. His
explanation is that “the gradually widening cooperation between the Reformed and
Christian Reformed churches” goes far to explain this contribution.
Although Boonstra gives a
brief history both of the CRC and Calvin College, this is not his main purpose in writing
the book. His main interest is in the
relationship between the college and the church itself: “My focus will be on the
interaction, the mutual influence between Calvin College and the Christian Reformed
Church. This interaction obviously comes into
play in the origin of the college but will be seen also in much of its subsequent history. Curriculum, student conduct, student publications,
faculty hiring (and occasional firing), faculty views, and a host of other issues were and
are affected by the relationship between the college and the church” (ix).
To describe his purpose in
writing the book more specifically, Boonstra observes that “the history of the
relationship between the church and the college involves various issues in theology
(Sabbath observance, interpretation of Genesis, common grace), philosophy, anthropology,
geology, astronomy, film, drama, music, and card playing” (ix). Taking this perspective, Boonstra deals especially
with the many criticisms which were brought against the board of trustees, the
administration, the faculty, and the student body by those who were concerned with what
was going on in the college from a theological point of view and from the point of view of
the moral life of the student body. He
discusses such subjects as the struggles between the ARCL and the AACS on the one hand and
Calvin on the other (the latter of which later became the ICS, a movement with its
headquarters in Toronto and which had its roots in Dooyeweerdian philosophy; the former of
which was the Association of Christian Reformed Laymen, a conservative group of CRC
members who were appalled at the liberalism sweeping the church); the whole debate (which
reached Synod) over worldly amusements, including dancing; the outrage at the Bannaner
(a student-produced spoof of the Banner); the debate over creation vs.
evolutionism, and such like issues.
Boonstra is quick to admit
that the doctrine of common grace played a major role in the struggles: “Whereas most
theologians in the CRC stressed the antithesis in doctrine and life, the college often
emphasized the doctrine of common grace, especially in the approach to culture and
learning” (104). The book becomes a sort
of “case-study” of how the doctrine of common grace worked its way through the
churches and its college, directing the thinking, the theological direction, and the moral
life of the entire denomination. The author
invariably comes out on the side of what he calls the “progressive” movement.
The
book is a case-study in the gradual apostasy of a denomination that once stood solidly in
the Reformed tradition.
Revelation Down to Earth: Making
Sense of the Apocalypse of John, by Edwin Walhout.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Pp. viii + 254. $20
(paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
Apart from the question
whether it does in fact make sense of the last book in the Bible, this work is not a
commentary on the book of Revelation. Neither
does it carefully explain the text, whether verse by verse or in larger sections, nor does
it give the message itself of the book of Revelation.
That is, Revelation Down to Earth does not give the message that the Spirit
obviously intended when He moved John to write Revelation.
Rather, Walhout’s book is the author’s broad summary of lines, verses, or
sections of Revelation in terms of present-day activities and experiences of the church. Although Walhout ties his analyses and
applications to the text of Revelation, one gets the distinct impression that for Walhout
the meaning of Revelation is not in the text itself, but in the interpretation of the
“commentator.”
The thrust of Revelation
Down to Earth is that the work of the church will eventually save the majority of the
human race, perhaps all without exception, and so influence civilization worldwide that
this world will become the kingdom of Christ. Even
the strange “crisis” of the nations in the future that results in the
destruction of Christianity ends in the salvation of the world. Explaining the loosing of Satan for a little season and his assault on the camp of the saints in
Revelation 20:7-10,
Walhout writes:
In terms of actual history this vision is
showing us that some great crisis, comparable to the crisis that Jesus instigated among
the Jews, must occur in the human race as a whole. It
must be a crisis in which the human race must make a decision, just as the Jewish people
had to make a decision. Which way will we go,
the way of godlessness or the way of Christ? The
Jews ratified the Adamic choice when they crucified Jesus.
The whole human race will make the same choice when it rejects Christianity. But Jesus secured the reversal of the crucifixion
when he rose from the dead, and we are promised that Jesus will secure the reversal again
when he sends fire from heaven to consume the opposition (pp. 212, 213).
With the exception of this
coming “crisis” and the forecast of an eventual saving of all mankind and
earthly civilization in history, nothing in the book of Revelation turns out to be future. There is nothing in the book of Revelation,
apparently, about the bodily coming of Jesus Christ, a literal final judgment, or an
eternal state of righteous and wicked. All is
explained as symbolic description of developments in time and history. This is the meaning of “down to earth”
in the book’s title. Walhout’s explanation of the vision of the great white throne judgment of
Revelation 20:11-15
is
characteristic.
God is always the judge. He is not postponing his judgment until some
undetermined date in the future, the end of the world, as people like to think of it. No indeed! He
is constantly functioning as judge of what goes on in the world…. With John we should see that all of human history
is constantly being paraded before the throne of God, and that God is helping us to
analyze and comprehend our own human history…. “The
lake of fire,” you will recall, symbolizes the elimination of evil as a force within
human life and culture. The only people
thrown into this lake of fire are those who represent the function of sin within human
life. Before God can fully establish his
kingdom on earth, that is, before the human race can become perfect, everything evil and
contaminating has to be eliminated…. The
only way for the world to achieve the kind of society we all want is the way of faith in
the Lord Jesus. Everything else will
ultimately be judged worthless. That is what
we must see in the broad dimension of God’s purpose and the way of God’s
judgment (pp. 214-217).
Even the war of
Revelation 12:7ff.,
which Scripture expressly describes as “war in heaven,” Walhout
explains as social struggle on earth (p. 129).
The central message that the
book reads into Revelation is the coming perfection of the human race and its civilization
in time. This will be the kingdom of Christ,
if not the coming of Christ itself. The
calling of the church is that she work at accomplishing this perfection.
The book very definitely
suggests that one important aspect of this perfection will be the salvation of all humans
without exception. At least, there is not,
and never will be, a real hell for real people. Every
statement in the book of Revelation concerning God’s wrathful judgment upon, and
damnation of, the ungodly is explained as promising only the eventual defeat and abolition
of evil. There is no hell, for Jesus loves
everybody, and the love of Jesus rules out hell.
Walhout’s interpretation of
Revelation 14:10, 11,
God’s judgment upon those who worship the
beast, deserves quotation at some length. The
text is: “the same shall drink of the
wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his
indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy
angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And
the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever:
and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and
whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” This
is Walhout’s explanation:
Taken literally, it offers a picture of Jesus
and the angels watching as people burned with everlasting fire but without burning up or
dying. It is a picture of total, complete,
and endless misery—with Jesus gloating in heaven.
Such an understanding violates the picture we get from the Gospels where love is
the decisive characteristic of Jesus. A
loving Jesus would not gloat through endless eternity over the torment of sinners in
burning sulfur. God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone
(Ezek. 18:32);
neither does Jesus. John
wants us to understand by this image exactly what he says in the context: no rest day or night for those who live
unnaturally. There is no peace, no
contentment, no joy, no love, and no happiness. Don’t
think of this as in the future, beyond the grave, or beyond the end of history. It is now, in the present. Think existentially, of what life for an
unbeliever is like. Everyone has experienced
how miserable life can be, how stressful and pressurized daily existence can be. Christians know that in spite of this they can
find contentment, forgiveness, acceptance, and new perspectives on life. They can live with a genuine personal peace of
heart and soul…. In this third gospel angel’s message, do not see Jesus gloating
over the eternal anguish of people in eternal fire, but see him now as he watches from
heaven as people continue to resist the gospel, suffering under the delusions they accept
from the dragon and the beasts. Jesus is not
gloating; he is anguishing over their tenacity in sin.
He wants them to get out of Babylon, to recognize that Babylon’s day is past,
and to come stand on Mount Zion with him. He
wants them to come out of that doomed city where life is so miserable, and come with him
where life is good and pleasant and peaceful (pp. 149, 150).
Not even the devil will
suffer eternal punishment. The reason is that
the devil is not a real spiritual person. The
devil merely “represents the possibility of wrong decision making on our part”
(p. 202).
This
work is no commentary on Revelation. Nor is
it biblical eschatology. But it is a
startling revelation of hermeneutical and theological developments in Reformed churches. Edwin Walhout is a Christian Reformed theologian.
Calvin: A Biography,
by Bernard Cottret. Tr. M. Wallace
McDonald. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Pp. xv + 376. $28 (cloth). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
From a French historian who
is neither a theologian nor a Calvinist, we have a new biography of John Calvin that is
outstanding. It gives insight into the man
John Calvin without resorting to miserable psychologizing.
“Thin as a lath,” writes Cottret of Calvin, contrasting him with his fat
foe, Perrin, “(he) said only what he knew, and detested bluster.” It traces Calvin’s life and development. It takes up all of Calvin’s controversies
with the heretics, as well as all of the important church-struggles in Geneva. The issues in these controversies and struggles
are described fairly. The gifted writer does
justice to the pressures and tensions for Calvin in these conflicts. And the third main section of the book, headed
“Beliefs,” consists of brilliant analysis of Calvin the polemicist, Calvin the
preacher, Calvin’s Institutes, and Calvin the French writer.
The book is the product of
fresh study of the sources. The result is new
light on aspects of Calvin’s life and work. The
French Reformed synod that met in Paris in 1559 to draw up a confession of faith replaced
Calvin’s proposed first article on “The Word of God” with five articles of
their own. Calvin’s proposed article
concluded with the words, “it is God who speaks.” Rightly, Cottret observes, “this is
undoubtedly the most perfect summary of Calvin’s theology: God speaks, God chooses, God summons.” Cottret adds:
“But this message, by its audacity, escaped his contemporaries.”
To the Reformed in France
who were about to hold a conference with the Roman Catholics, Calvin sent advice
instructing them that the main issues were, first, the regulative principle of worship
and, second, justification by faith alone.
As regards the bitter
struggles in Geneva, when Berthelier was rebuked by the authorities for disrupting
Calvin’s sermons by coughing violently, he responded, “Calvin doesn’t want
us to cough? We’ll fart and belch.” An opponent of Calvin’s teaching on
predestination, carrying on the opposition of Jerome Bolsec, blasphemed predestination
with a shockingly foul adjective. Cottret’s
account of Calvin’s encounter with the infamous Servetus is fascinating. The account of the Reformer’s encounter with
Idelette de Bure—Calvin’s wife—is ironic:
“connubial bliss.”
Although Cottret himself is
plainly no Calvinist, his analysis of Calvin’s doctrine is correct, as the analysis
by many who claim to be Calvinists is not. Cottret
understands, though he does not agree, that “the Calvinist doctrine, in its
implacable character (sic), promises salvation without conditions; it does not
depend on any works, on any will, on any contrition, on any repentance.” There is hardly a Calvinist theologian in the
world today who shares this understanding of Calvinist doctrine.
Cottret also recognizes,
though he doubts Calvin’s wisdom for doing so, that Calvin himself “gave an
increasing emphasis to predestination in his work,” so that “it is right to ask
whether Calvinism is not simply predestination.”
Today, the theologians hate or fear predestination with all the intensity of
Calvin’s anti-predestinarian enemies, all the while advertising themselves as
Calvinists. Probably, they suppose that they
are.
Besides all this, the style
of the author, which the translator, M. Wallace McDonald, has managed to keep, is lively
and vivid. An example, which will add to our
knowledge of Calvin the man:
He hardly had a body. Sleeping little, eating similarly, prey to violent
headaches, Calvin did not hesitate to dictate certain of his works while lying in bed at
the end of a life of austere labor. The
clarity of his style and the transparency of his thought found their origin in this
asceticism, crowned by a proverbial chastity. Fasting
was neither mortification nor weakness for Calvin; instead, it was the result of a disgust
for food, or rather a way of protecting his sickly body.
He was a meditator certainly, but nevertheless not a contemplative; a dreamer, and
also an often inflexible man of action, sometimes even frantically so, from fear of
yielding to weakness, to the secret “softness” and “mildness” that his
adversaries hardly suspected. His slender,
almost elegant body housed a will of iron….
Holy
Fairs: Scotland and
the Making of American Revivalism, by Leigh Eric Schmidt. Second edition with a new preface. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2001. Pp. xxix + 278. $27 (paper).
[Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
“Holy fairs” was
the fitting name for a peculiar, if powerful, institution in Presbyterian Scotland not
long after the Reformation: the communion
season. Hundreds and sometimes thousands of
people from all over a certain large area of Scotland would gather at set times for an
elaborately ritualized celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Usually, the celebration lasted four days. It was held out-of-doors. This communion season was promoted among the
Presbyterians as the high point of the spiritual life of the people. Numbers of preachers preached many experiential
and emotional sermons. The gatherings aimed
at personal conversions and at revival of the churches.
To a student of the history of the Presbyterian church in Scotland, the Cambuslang
revival of 1742 represents an exceptional instance of such communion season revivals.
The book Holy Fairs
is a thorough study of this strange, long-lasting practice.
The author offers well-grounded criticisms. The
communion season was expected to provide what ought to be found in the regular worship of
God within doors every Sabbath. It elevated
the sacrament above the preaching of the gospel. The
preaching at these events encouraged mystical experiences and indecent, disorderly bodily
behavior on the part of the audience. The
exaltation of the Lord’s Supper at these services was virtually a Presbyterian
counterpart to the Roman Catholic ritual of its Eucharist.
And these large gatherings in the open air for days on end often took on a holiday
atmosphere that resulted in drunkenness and sexual immorality. They were “holy fairs.”
The special importance of
the book lies in its demonstration that the Scottish holy fairs contributed to American
revivalism. The immigrant Scots brought their
communion seasons to America, where they became camp meetings and revivals. The famed Cane Ridge revival (in Bourbon County,
Kentucky in 1801) had its origin in the Presbyterian communion season. Even the frenzied physical manifestations of the
Spirit at the American revivals owed a great deal to the communion seasons in Scotland. The weepings, groanings, visions, falling to the
ground, and jerking had their source, if not in most cases their exact equivalents, in the
holy fairs in Scotland. They are all now
continued, and intensified, in the charismatic movement.
Scottish
Presbyterianism has long suffered from the serious weakness of looking to revivals for the
conversion of sinners, the heightened experience of salvation, and a richer season of
grace for the church. This book is further
confirmation of this reviewer’s growing conviction that nothing good has ever come
from revivals, and nothing ever will.
Looking
into the Future: Evangelical
Studies in Eschatology, ed. David W. Baker. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. 383 pp. $29.99
(paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
The worth of this volume on
eschatology is not at all the astigmatic look into the future, but the penetrating glimpse
it provides into the present condition of “evangelicalism.” Evangelicalism is shot. The best of the evangelicals are the bizarre
premillennial dispensationalists. The worst
are the “open theists.” Much of the
book is taken up with Clark Pinnock’s defense of a god who does not even know the
future, much less ordain it and direct all toward it.
What feeble opposition there is to this idolatry is pathetic. The reason is that open theism is the logical,
natural, inevitable development of the theology of Arminianism: a god dependent on the will of depraved man. And evangelicalism is committed, heart and soul,
to Arminian free-willism. The few who still
hold out for something of the sovereignty of the God of Christianity refuse to condemn
Arminianism as a false gospel.
Open theism is not even
original. Its favorite figure for the
relation between God and humans is that of a master playing chess with mere novices. The master chess player — open theism’s
god — neither knows nor governs the moves of the novices, but because of his superior
ability he is able in the end to counter all their moves, checkmate their king, and win
the game. This was the philosopher William
James’ defense of free will against the sovereignty of God long ago. In his essay “The Dilemma of
Determinism,” James wrote (about 1900):
The belief in free will is not in the least incompatible with the belief in
Providence, provided you do not restrict the Providence to fulminating (sic!)
nothing but fatal decrees. If you
allow him to provide possibilities as well as actualities to the universe, and to carry on
his own thinking in those two categories just as we do ours, chances may be there,
uncontrolled even by him, and the course of the universe be really ambiguous; and yet the
end of all things may be just what he intended it to be from all eternity. An analogy will make the meaning of this clear. Suppose two men before a chessboard — the one
a novice, the other an expert player of the game. The
expert intends to beat. But he cannot foresee
exactly what any one actual move of his adversary may be.
He knows, however, all the possible moves of the latter; and he knows in
advance how to meet each of them by a move of his own which leads in the direction of
victory. And the victory infallibly arrives,
after no matter how devious a course, in the one predestined form of check-mate to the
novice’s king. Let now the novice stand
for us finite free agents, and the expert for the infinite mind in which the universe
lies. Suppose the latter to be thinking out
his universe before he actually creates it. Suppose
him to say, I will lead things to a certain end, but I will not now decide on all
the steps thereto. At various points,
ambiguous possibilities shall be left open, either of which, at a given instant,
may become actual. But whichever branch of
these bifurcations become real, I know what I shall do at the next bifurcation to
keep things from drifting away from the final result I intend. The creator’s plan of the universe would thus
be left blank as to many of its actual details, but all possibilities would be marked
down…. So the creator himself would not
need to know all the details of actuality until they came; and at any time his own
view of the world would be a view partly of facts and partly of possibilities, exactly as
ours is now. Of one thing, however, he might
be certain; and that is that his world was safe, and that no matter how much it might
zig-zag he could surely bring it home at last.
James’ zigzagging deity
is one of the more interesting gods of the philosophers.
If he existed, I would challenge him to a game of chess. Novices sometimes accidentally beat masters. Master chess players sometimes make a stupid move. This now is the god of open theism. Accordingly, open theism’s doctrine of the
last things is that everything is up for grabs. This
is some “gospel”! This is some
“hope”! The god of James and
Pinnock, however, is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. At least, the open theists in Looking into the
Future should have credited William James for their theology.
In addition to his bold
espousal of an ignorant, hapless Christian God, evangelical Pinnock proclaims the
salvation of pagans by their own good works of service to their heathen deities. This teaching is advertised as the development of
Christian doctrine “toward a more inclusive eschatology.”
The evangelical falling away
from the gospel of God carries with it the publishing houses as well. The book is published by Baker, once known the
world over for producing solid Reformed works. Rather
than publish this vain volume on eschatology, Baker should have scoured the Reformed
community for men of God who would write the truth about the last things—Reformed
amillennialism—and defend it. Admittedly,
Baker would have had to have “run … to and fro through the streets of
Jerusalem” to find a few.
There
is one exception. Presbyterian Bruce
Waltke’s opening article on “The Kingdom of God in Biblical Theology” is
sound, scholarly, and helpful. His detailed
explanation of the typology of Israel’s relation to the land of Canaan is
particularly good.
Dictionary of the Presbyterian & Reformed Tradition in America, ed.
D. G. Hart and Mark A. Noll. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999. Pp. vii
+ 286. $16.99 (paper). [Reviewed by David J. Engelsma.]
The editors of this new
dictionary are right when they claim that it “fills a significant gap in historical
and theological reference works.” This
dictionary concentrates on the many aspects of the development of the Reformed faith in
America. It pays special attention to
prominent persons and to churches. The
coverage is thorough. The explanations are
succinct and usually accurate.
There are also longer essays
on themes, doctrines, and movements that are of importance to the Reformed tradition. The editors have an informative introduction,
“The Presbyterians: A People, a History
& an Identity.” There are articles
on covenant theology, predestination, Puritanism, and other subjects. The article on revivalism is rightly critical of
the entire movement. In their introductory
article, the editors also criticize revivalism. The
revivalism of Whitefield and Edwards had a harmful effect upon virtually every aspect of
the Reformed faith.
James Bratt writes the
article on Herman Hoeksema. Herman Hanko has
an article on the Protestant Reformed Churches. Hoeksema
comes up for mention also in the article on the Canadian Reformed Churches and in the
article on the Christian Reformed Church.
The treatment of Reformed
worship is bland. There is no mention of the
regulative principle as a fundamental principle of Reformed worship from Calvin on. Why the editors picked Baptist Norman Geisler to
write the important article on the Reformed doctrine of predestination is a mystery. Geisler thinks that the predestination of Dordt is
“extreme Calvinism.” The author of
the article on “Arminianism” is seriously confused about the infralapsarian view
of predestination. He describes it as a view
“which held that God’s decrees were not eternal but were made after and in light
of the Fall.” The same author is
correct, however, in his analysis of the “distinguishing feature” of
Arminianism: “a conditional view of
grace.”
The
dictionary will be useful for all who desire information about many aspects of
Presbyterian and Reformed Christianity in America.
The
Eschatology of the Old Testament, by
Geerhardus Vos. Ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R, 2001.
Pp. ix + 176. $11.99 (paper). [Reviewed David J. Engelsma.]
Geerhardus Vos is not the
easiest going under normal publishing conditions. The
difficulty of reading him is aggravated in The Eschatology of the Old Testament inasmuch
as the book is a compilation of his writings on the subject from various of his course
lectures and unfinished manuscripts. Nevertheless,
this slim volume will handsomely repay the effort of the Reformed minister to work through
it.
Vos traces the development
of the doctrine of the last things in the Old Testament.
In keeping with the method of biblical theology for which the Princeton Seminary
professor is known, Vos considers the eschatology of several distinct periods and
junctures in the history of revelation in the Old Testament, including the
“pre-redemptive,” the flood, Sinai, and the “Mosaic Theocracy.”
He also explains outstanding eschatological prophecies and promises, including
Genesis 3:15,
the Shiloh prophecy in
Genesis 49,
the “oracles” of Balaam, and the Davidic promise of
II Samuel 7.
Of great importance in view
of the literalist interpretation of Old Testament prophecy regarding the Messianic kingdom
both by fundamentalist premillennialism and by postmillennialism now making inroads into
Reformed churches is the chapter on “The Mosaic Theocracy.” Vos affirms the characteristic Reformed (and
Christian!) understanding of the earthly form of Old Testament prophecy of the coming
theocratic, Messianic kingdom. In the earthly
form that was necessary for Israel at that time, the prophets foretold a spiritual
reality. “In the New Testament it is
spiritualized” (p. 118). As for the
“hermeneutical principle” that decides the spiritual fulfillment and explains
the fulfillment in detail, this hermeneutical principle is simply “the New Testament
teaching in regard to that fulfillment” (p. 119).
In fragments from Vos’
writings that make up an appendix to the book, Vos gives helpful exegesis of eschatology
in the prophets, especially the visions of Zechariah.
Throughout, the believing
Old Testament scholar interacts judiciously with leading liberal, higher-critical
scholars, particularly Wellhausen and Gunkel.
Vos is to be faulted for his
hesitancy to find Messianic prophecy where scholarship might have some doubt about it. He doubts that the seed of the woman in
Genesis 3:15
is Jesus Christ. He rejects Shiloh in
Genesis 49
as a proper name for the future ‘Rest Giver.’ According to Vos, there is no connection between
Balaam’s star and the star that heralded the birth of Jesus. Vos leaves undecided whether
Psalm 72
is
Messianic.
Vos is capable of expressing
grand truth in a fetching manner. He
expresses the contrasting effect of eschatology upon the life of the ungodly world and
upon the life of the Christian this way.
The world throws itself headlong into all
excesses of wickedness because it is obsessed by a desperate sense of the speedy approach
and the inevitableness of its doom. The world
makes all the use possible that this night of dissoluteness affords it; for it reasons,
“Let us eat, drink, for tomorrow we die.” The
world lives, as it were, in kind of cosmical night-club, whereas the Christian should
pursue the last things to be attended to before the break of morning... (p. 40).
Of the eschatology in the
Psalter, Vos says, “The worshiping congregation of Israel sing ‘a new song’
because their hearts are full of the ‘new things’ that are on the wing with
which the air is already vibrant” (p. 131).
Christ’s
Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed
Amillennialism by David J. Engelsma. Published by The Reformed Witness, Redlands,
CA, 2001. 158 pp. $9 (paper). [Reviewed by
Russell Dykstra.]
There has long been a dearth
of material published in defense of the Reformed position of amillennialism over against
the many errors in eschatology that abound today. This
book goes far toward filling the gap. It was originally written as a series of articles in
the Standard Bearer. The Standard
Bearer, with Editor David J. Engelsma taking the lead, has been virtually alone in the
battle for a Reformed eschatology. The book
will be welcomed by all those who love the Reformed faith and seek support and guidance in
eschatology.
The term millennium or
millennialism, of course, comes from the thousand-year period described in the vision of
Revelation 20.
Engelsma sets forth the
amillennial view that he defends as biblical and Reformed.
The present age, from
Christ’s ascension until shortly before His second coming, when Satan shall be loosed from his prison, is the thousand year period of
Revelation 20.
The Messianic kingdom in history is not a future
carnal kingdom, whether of Jews reigning from Jerusalem or of saints exercising political
power…. It is, rather, Christ’s
spiritual reign by His gospel and Spirit in the hearts and lives of the believing elect. The victorious kingdom of Christ is, as it ever
has been, the true, faithful church in the midst of a hostile world (pp. 22-23).
Engelsma goes where the
battle is hottest, namely, opposing the postmillennial and especially the postmillennial
Christian Reconstruction movement. He exposes
their position as contra the Reformed creeds, which creeds reject an earthly kingdom and
teach the true, spiritual kingdom (pp. 8, 9, 17, et al.).
The sad consequences are enumerated. Postmillennialism
can lead to passivity where there should be zeal (sometimes no interest in establishing
Christian schools) (p. 11); a desire to Christianize the world (11); unholy alliances (pp.
11, 12); judaizing (restoring Old Testament civil laws) (p. 12), and, what is to me the
most damning element – the loss of the believer’s hope. For, since the postmillenial
Reconstruc–tionist rejects the near coming of Christ, “that Christ will not come
for hundreds of thousands of years saddens [the] post–millennialist not at all. Indeed, this gladdens his heart. For Christ’s coming is not his hope; the
carnal kingdom is” (p. 11).
Engelsma is careful and
precise, as he must be, for the battle soon comes to him in the form of strongly worded
letters and challenges. He writes,
“‘Stupid’ is your word and suggestion, absolutely not mine.… I did not demean the postmil–lennialist. I condemned post–millennialism. There is a difference” (pp. 16, 17). And again, “I never used [in the particular
article attacked, RJD] the word ‘heresy’ to describe the
post–millennialists. Not once. That was deliberate. The reason was my very high regard for some of the
theologians mentioned…” (p. 28).
At the same time, no reader
will charge the author with being timid. He
continues by affirming that the postmil–lennialism taught by a well-known writer as
well as by Christian Reconstruction is heresy, that is, “not only a serious departure
from the teaching of Scripture, but also a grievous corruption of the gospel” (p.
28).
Make no mistake about this
book – it is not sensationalist. While
it is bold and challenging, it is that for the sake of the truth. It is pointed and cuts to the heart of the error. It demonstrates that Christian Reconstructionism
is preterist, that is, that it believes that Jesus’ second coming, and virtually all
the activities that the Scripture connects with that coming – all happened in A.D.
70. There is not another coming of Christ. Indeed, the believer’s hope is nullified by
the postmillennial Christian Reconstructionist. This
extraordinarily serious charge is carefully proved. This
book is incisive.
And it is far more. It is pastoral.
The very first chapter is not a dogmatics-like introduction to eschatology; it is
about the believer’s hope!
It is historically
researched and accurate. The (amillennial)
positions of the church fathers such as Augustine and John Calvin are accurately set forth
over against the false presentation of a Christian Recon–structionist.
The book is most
instructional. Chapter eight carefully explains
Revelation 20
over against the millennial errors.
Chapter nine answers the question “What must the believer expect?” by
rejecting the notion that the world will improve and the church dominate. Rather, it demonstrates that the Reformed
creeds’ answer (and thus the Bible’s) is, “Expect apostasy and
persecution.”
This work is exegetical. Four chapters expound Jesus’ teachings on the last things found in
Matthew 24.
It deals with the exegetical heart of the postmillennial
error – the Old Testament prophecies of a glorious kingdom of the Messiah, which they
interpret to refer to a literal, earthly kingdom. Engelsma
chooses a representative text (Is. 65:17-25) used by the postmillennialist and exegetes
the text, exposing the false interpretations, and explaining the true and spiritual
meaning.
One of the most endearing
aspects of the book is that it demonstrates throughout that Reformed amillennialism is
not, as it is charged, pessimistic, defeatist, encouraging lazy, isolated believers. Quite the opposite.
It is the eschatology of victory. Christ is victorious – accomplishing every
facet of God’s eternal counsel. Christ
is victorious not only in that He will have the victory one day when He returns. He rules now, seated at God’s right hand, and
He rules in His church on earth. The gospel
goes forth, gathering His people. The church
is victorious, and nothing can destroy her. The
same is true of each and every member of Christ’s church also. The Reformed amillennialist does not reject
victory. He rejects the impossible and
non-biblical victory that establishes an earthly kingdom. Christ rules victoriously.
The
Evangelism Committee of the Redlands Protestant Reformed Church is to be commended for
making this book available. Those who enjoyed
the articles will appreciate reading the book even more.
It is well worth having this defense in one small book. Copies can be purchased from that committee. (1307
E. Brockton Ave., Redlands, CA 92374). Highly
recommended.
Endnotes:
Setting
in order the Things That Are Wanting
1 The
Greek text places the second person personal pronoun first in the
sentence for emphasis. It’s as if the
inspired apostle is saying, “Titus, pay attention to what I’m about to
say!”
3 The
Authorized Version (hereafter, AV) has “sound doctrine.” The Greek is tee ugiainousee didaskalia
which A. T. Robertson translates “healthful teaching” (cf. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New
Testament on this verse.
4 The
Greek is doulos, which the AV almost always translates
“servant,” but which properly means slave.
5 See
Romans 14:23, “…for whatsoever is not out of faith is
sin,” and Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 91.
6
See, e.g., I Corinthians 5:11 and 6:9 - 10.
8 See
the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 21.
10
Again, the apostle uses the verb hugiainoo. See note 3 above.
11 AV
has “charity”; the Greek is agapee.
12
Matthew 22:34 - 40. In this connection see also
I John 3:11 - 17
and 4: 7 - 21.
13
The Greek here is hupomonee.
This word means steadfastness, constancy, endurance.
14
The Greek is katasteema, from the verb root kathisteemi.
17
The Greek is, dedouloomenas, which is the perfect, passive
participle of doulooo, which means to be a slave.
18
Neither the translation nor the word order of this phrase is as
accurate as it could be in the AV. The Greek
has it thus, mee oinoo polloo dedouloomenas, “not to much wine enslaved.” This is much more emphatic than the AV’s
“not given to much wine.”
19
The Greek is kalodidaskalous, a compound noun meaning
teachers of good things.
20
See Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol.
IV, pp. 602-603.
A
Comparison of Exegesis: John Calvin and
Thomas Aquinas
1 David Steinmetz did compare the exegesis of
Romans 9
by Aquinas, Calvin, and Bucer in
“Calvin Among the Thomists,” Calvin in Context, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1995), pp. 141-156. To date
I have not found any other direct, published comparison of exegesis.
2
T.L.H. Parker documents the history of the false notion that
Calvin was a man of one book only (Calvinus homo unius libri) and then proceeds to
demolish the myth, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993)
Second Edition, pp. 6ff.
3
Matthew L. Lamb, O.C.S.O in the introduction to the Commentary
on Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, by Thomas Aquinas, (Albany: Magi Books,
Inc., 1966), pp. 22-23.
4
Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the
Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church: Volume 3, The Medieval Church.
(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), p. 408.
5
T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Commentaries, pp. 6-35. Cf.
T.H.L. Parker, Calvin the Expositor, pp. 187-189 for a chronological list of
Calvin’s commentaries, and W. de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin,
translated by Lyle D. Bierma, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), pp. 89-120, for a concise
discussion of Calvin’s commentaries, lectures, and sermons.
6
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3 vols. (New York:
Benziger Brothers, 1947), I, 1, 10.
7
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge, (Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), I, 7, 1.
8 Sermon on
2 Timothy 3:16-17,
in The Mystery of Godliness,
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950), p. 129.
9 Sermons on
2 Timothy 3:16-17,
Godliness, p. 133.
10
Thomas Aquinas, In Joan. 21, Lecture 6, quoted by Lamb,
Introduction to Commentary on Ephesians, p. 19.
11
Preface to his Commentary to the Romans, quoted by T.H.L.
Parker, Calvin’s Commentaries, p. 91.
12
Quoted by Parker, Calvin’s Commentaries, p. 96. In the
same place Parker cites more instances of the same.
13
Parker, Calvin’s Commentaries, p. 107.
14
Parker, Calvin’s Commentaries, p. 108.
15
Parker, Calvin’s Commentaries, p. 108.
16
Parker, Calvin’s Commentaries, p. 92.
17 Calvin’s
Commentaries, Translated by William Pringle, (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1979), Vol. 21.
18
Cf. Han-Joachim Kraus, “Calvin’s Exegetical
Principles,” Interpretation, 31, (1977), 8-18.
19
Frederick W. Farrar, History of Interpretation, Bampton
Lectures, 1885, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 271.
20
Quoted by Henri de Lubac in Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses
of Scripture, Vol. I, (Grand Rapids :William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: 2000), p.
1.
21 De
Lubac, Four Senses, pp. 1, 2.
22
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.
23 De
Lubac, Four Senses, II, p. 197.
24
Along with Albert the Great, cf. Richard Muller, Post
Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), p. 18.
25
O’Meara, Theologian, pp. 14f.
26
Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages,
2nd revised edition (New York: Philosophical Library, 1952), p. 301.
27
“Scientific Hermeneutics According to St. Thomas
Aquinas,” Journal of Theological Studies 13 (1962), 259, cited by Keith A.
Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura. (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001), p. 67.
28 Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.
29
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.
30
Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 19.
31
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10.
32
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1, 10. In his defense of
Scripture having more than once sense, Aquinas frequently cites Augustine. He does this with some justification, for
Augustine was sometimes guilty of allegorizing, although he was generally more careful
than many of the ancient fathers. However,
the allegorizing escalated greatly in the Middle Ages under the influence of Pope Gregory
I (A.D. 590-604).
33 Lamb, Introduction to Commentary
on Ephesians, p. 23. Lamb contends that this is due to Aquinas following the lead of
patristic sources.
What is
the Well-Meant Offer of Salvation
1 Engelsma, Hyper-calvinism & The
Call of The Gospel, p. 48.
2 Barrett L. Gritters, Grace Uncommon, (The Evangelism Society of the
Byron Center Protestant Reformed Church, Byron Center, Michigan), p. 13.
3 John Murray and Ned B. Stonehouse, The
Free Offer of the Gospel, (New Jersey: Lewis J. Grotenhuis, Belvidere Road), p. 3.
4 Peter Y. De Jong, Ed.. Crisis in the
Reformed Churches, Essays in commemoration of the great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619,
(Published by Reformed Fellowship, Inc. Grand Rapids, Michigan), p. 226.
6 Ibid., p. 226.
8 A. C. DeJong, The Well-Meant Gospel
Offer: The Views of H. Hoeksema and K.
Schilder, (T. Wever - Franeker, 1954), p.130.
10 Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics,
pp. 513, 4.
12 Archibald A. Hodge, The Atonement,
(T. Nelson And Sons, Paternoster Row; Edinburgh; New York), pp. 385-390.
13 Herman Hanko, The History of the Free
Offer, (Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches, Grandville, Michigan),
p. 183.
15 Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved By Grace,
(William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Grand Rapids, Michigan), p. 78. Note: No one reading Art. 8 of Head III/IV and
the rest of the Canons can imagine the divines of Dort making such a statement.
17 Canons, Heads III/IV, Article 10.
18 Matthew Winzer, Murray on the Free
Offer: A Review, (The Blue Banner, vol. 9, Issue 10-12, Oct./Dec. 2000), p. 3.
19 Ibid., p. 3. Note: Robert L. Reymond had
a nice section in his recent Systematic Theology dealing with the ways of the
antinomist — the ways of mysteries and paradoxes, pp. 103-110.
20 Tom Wells, Notes on the Free Offer Controversy, (West Chester, OH:
Tom Wells, 7686 Grandby Way), p.5.
21 A. C. DeJong, The Well-Meant Gospel
Offer, p. 130. Note: Having read Hoeksema myself, I do not find
DeJong’s remarks on him fair.
Loathsome
Stench
1
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.1.2. Ed. John T. McNeill. Tr. Ford Lewis Battles. (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1960). All
citations of the Institutes in this article are from this edition unless otherwise
noted.
2
Question and Answer 2, in Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom,
vol. 3 (New York: Harper & Brothers,
1877), p. 308.
3 Inst.,
2.1.3. Denial of
God’s creation of man as good, therefore, which is the implication of every
evolutionary theory of man’s origin, theistic as well as atheistic, is necessarily
the annulment of man’s knowledge of himself as sinful.
What the Christian church (to say nothing of the
Bible!) has regarded as the sinfulness of man is merely the innate savagery of his
animal ancestry, a “congenital weakness,” as Henri Rondet puts it (Original
Sin: The Patristic and Theological Background,
New York: Alba House, 1972, p. 245). If man has not fallen from the original high estate described in
Genesis 1
and 2, there is no original sin. That this is indeed the implication of theistic
evolution’s account of the origin of man is acknowledged by the Reformed writer, Jan
Lever, in his book, Where are We Headed? A
Christian Perspective on Evolution (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1970) and by the evangelical, Henri Blocher, in his book, Original
Sin: Illuminating the Riddle (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997). On the similar surrender of the biblical teaching
of original sin in order to accommodate modern science by contemporary Roman Catholic
theology, see S. Trooster, Evolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin (New York: Newman Press, 1968).
4
John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle
to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1959), p. 215. Earlier on the same text,
Calvin had written, “He indeed teaches us, that it was needful that men’s ruin
should be more fully discovered to them, in order that a passage might be opened for the
favour of God” (p. 214).
5
Question and Answer 95, in Schaff, Creeds, p. 342.
6
John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice
against Pighius. Ed. A. N. S. Lane. Tr. G. I. Davies.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), p. 145.
7
John Calvin, “A Defence of the Secret Providence of
God,” in Calvin’s Calvinism. Tr.
Henry Cole. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), p. 270.
8
Calvin, Romans, pp. 199-210.
10.
Again in the second part of verse 19, the verb is kathisteemi.
11.
Canons of Dordt, III, IV/2, in Schaff, Creeds, p. 588. The Latin original of “in consequence of a
just judgment of God” is “justo Dei judicio” (Schaff, Creeds,
p. 564). Some editions of the Canons,
following the translation of the Reformed Dutch Church, omit the phrase—a very
serious defect.
13.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1. Tr. Henry Beveridge. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1957).
14.
John Calvin, Institution of the Christian Religion. Tr. Ford Lewis Battles. (Atlanta: John
Knox Press, 1975), Chapter 1, B.
16.
Luther also used the figure of a horse ridden by Satan to
describe the bondage of the will of the natural man.
“So man’s will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills .
. . If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan wills.
Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders
themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it” (The Bondage of the Will,
tr. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston, London: James
Clarke & Co., 1957, pp. 103, 194).
17.
Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 69.
18. Anthony A. Hoekema opts for the interpretation of
Romans 7:13-25
as a description of the condition of the unregenerated: “I believe that what we have here in
Romans 7:13-25
is not a description of
the regenerate man, but of the unregenerate man who is trying to fight sin through the law
alone, apart from the strength of the Holy Spirit” (The Christian Looks at Himself,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975, p. 62).
19.
For Abraham Kuyper’s common grace theory, see De Gemeene
Gratie, 3 vols. (Amsterdam: Hoveker &
Wormser, 1902-1904) and Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, repr. 1981). For Herman Bavinck’s common grace theory, see
De Algemeene Genade (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans-Sevensma,
n.d.).
20.
Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, p. 27.
21.
Reformed theologian Anthony A. Hoekema maintains that what
Reformed theology has traditionally called “total depravity” means only that
“the corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature: to one’s reason and will as well as to
one’s appetites and impulses.” It
does not mean that “the unregenerate person by nature is unable to do good in any
sense of the word. Because of God’s
common grace … the development of sin in history and society is restrained. The unregenerate person can still do certain kinds
of good and can exercise certain kinds of virtue.”
Recognizing that it is a mistake, if not absurd, to call a depravity that is merely
partial, “total,” Hoekema proposes a new adjective to describe the depravity of
the unregenerated man: “pervasive”
(Created in God’s Image, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986, pp. 150-152). Although Hoekema does not
notice, this results in a change in the historic acronym describing the Reformed
confession of the doctrines of grace: PULIP. Hoekema’s doctrine, which is probably the
prevailing opinion in Reformed circles today, is open rejection of the confessionally
Reformed doctrine of man’s total, that is, complete, depravity by nature. So open a rejection is it that this new doctrine
changes the name of the traditional, confessional doctrine.
It is a doctrine of partial depravity.
And common grace is the cause. For a
critique of the ongoing revision of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity because of
the notion of common grace, see my article, “Total, Absolute, or Partial
Depravity?” in the Standard Bearer 77, no. 12 (March 15, 2001): 268-270.
22 Clark H. Pinnock and others, A
Case for Arminianism: The Grace of God, the
Will of Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1989), p. 21.
Last
modified: 23-Apr-2002