Election and Reprobation Denied (19d)

Dear Forum members,
.
In the past letters I have sent, I have been at some pains to demonstrate from Scripture that the common grace of a universal benevolence and love of God is contrary to the Word of God and the teaching of the Reformed and Presbyterian Confessions. Over against this position, I have also attempted to present a positive Biblical and confessional statement concerning the truth of sovereign and particular grace.
.
In doing this latter, I have, more than once, mentioned that the Biblical teaching is that God’s sovereign and particular grace is rooted in the truth of sovereign and eternal predestination, both election and reprobation . This teaching is found in Scripture and in our Confessions.
.
Without any doubt, this same doctrine of sovereign and eternal predestination, both election and reprobation, was taught by the Reformers, including both Martin Luther and John Calvin. Those who hold to double predestination today stand firmly in the tradition of the Reformation and of the Reformed and Presbyterians Confessions.
.
To maintain double predestination is to close the door to any form of common grace, particularly to the idea that God’s love, kindness and benevolence are shown to all men. But it works the other way around as well. If one is committed to common grace, in whatever form it takes, sovereign and double predestination falls by the wayside.
.
This was evident in a recent reprint of Arthur Pink’s influential book, The Sovereignty of God. In this book, Arthur Pink defended the Biblical doctrines of both election and reprobation. Yet, the Banner of Truth, in republishing the book, deleted all references to reprobation, without any notice in the book of having omitted these sections, without a credible apology for doing so, and without permission from the author, dead at the time the reprint was made.
.
I recently received a letter from one who read my forum articles in which the correspondent claimed to believe in election, (because it was, after all, found in Scripture) but who insisted that we could know nothing about it and that it ought not to be a part of the preaching. As far as we know, he said, God loves all men and presumably, Christ died for all men. To ignore this basic doctrine of Scripture is to deny it.
.
A correspondent and member of the Forum called my attention to the fact that a recent article in The Banner, the official periodical of the Christian Reformed Church, repudiated both reprobation and election. The Christian Reformed Church (CRC) is the mother Church of the Protestant Reformed Churches, and the two denominations have existed separately since the CRC expelled three ministers for repudiating the doctrine of common grace.
.
Where has an adoption of common grace led the CRC? It has led the CRC down the road of increasing apostasy although our interest in this article is in what it says about predestination.
.
The article to which I refer (Alvin Hoksbergen, The New Calvinism: Calvinism is on the Rise – but Other Faith Traditions are Getting all the Credit [The Banner, August, 2009], pp. 38, 39. The article can be read on www.thebanner.org.) is discussing a feature article that originally appeared in Time magazine entitled “10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now,” published in the March 22, 2009 issue of Time magazine. Among these “10 Ideas” Neo-Calvinism was included.
.
The article was, in its description of Calvinism, a caricature of it, understandably if Time was speaking, not of Calvinism, but of Neo-Calvinism. Time’s description of this Neo-Calvinism bore no resemblance to Calvin’s teachings; this kind of Calvinism was indeed “Neo,” and could rightly be called “No-Calvinism.”
.
One would think that a minister in a denomination that professes to be Calvinistic would come to the defense of Calvinism as it has been taught in the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions. But such is not the case. Rather, the author is puzzled that neither the Reformed Church of America (RCA) nor the CRC was included in the lists of churches who are promoting the new Calvinism. The author points out various areas in which the CRC has been active and should have received proper credit: The CRC is active in social work and the CRC properly recognizes the authority of God’s Word in creation (presumably a reference to the CRC’s approval of evolutionism). These certainly, the author opines, are credentials that admit the denomination into the ranks of Neo-Calvinists. But these credentials were obviously ignored by Time.
.
Finally, the author presumably finds the real reason why the CRC has been overlooked. It has an albatross hanging about its neck, which has been hanging there for some time: “I wonder why the RCA and the CRC traditions aren’t mentioned. Whatever the reason, now might be the time for us to take another look at who we are and how we might be included among other Calvinists who make a noted difference in today’s world” (38). He then suggests that the reason for the exclusion of the CRC from Time’s list is: “Our problem with election. An area that we in the CRC tradition must address if we are to be part of the ‘new Calvinism’ is the perception that there is an albatross that hangs around our neck. I am referring to the perception that we believe God predestinates some people to everlasting hell, while others are granted eternal life in glory” (39).
.
The author then goes on to give a caricature of the doctrine, even though, in his opinion, the church no longer believes or, at least, never talks about it: “While most seem to have moved away from the concept of double predestination (God is glorified by those assigned to hell as well as by those accepted into heaven), the biblically based concept of election remains a major factor in our theological structure” (39).
.
He then goes on to say, “[Election] is not a topic that plays well from the pulpit. It is an arrogant position that may consign good acquaintances to hell while granting heaven to only a select few” (39).
.
The author then goes on to define what he thinks election really is. “When God called (elected) Abraham, God mentioned nothing about Abraham’s being translated to heaven after death. Instead, the promise was wrapped up with what Abraham and his descendants were to do in their daily lives” (39). This is a time-worn definition, repeatedly refuted, that election means nothing more than God’s choice of a nation or individual for a specific task in the world; in this article that task is said to be social action.
.
All the Reformed theologians throughout the ages, including Bavinck, Kuyper, Turretin and many others in the Reformed tradition, and Rutherford, Gillespie and others in the Presbyterian tradition, not to mention the outstanding theologians at Dordt and Westminster, and the Reformers themselves, are brushed aside with a careless wave of the hand and dismissed as responsible for an albatross hanging about the neck of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches. Speaking of arrogance, brushing aside in a cavalier fashion outstanding theologians to me is a towering arrogance that cannot be excused. Such dismissal of the traditions of the church of Christ is, of course, done in the interests of a “new Calvinism,” a “neo-Calvinism”, which is no Calvinism at all, but which is, after all, a categorical dismissal of Scripture itself, in which all these doctrines are to be found. And so it becomes a towering arrogance in its own right that lifts man’s vain speculations to a position higher than the Scriptures.
.
Such ecclesiastical disaster comes upon defenders of common grace. It may take years, but it comes, with astonishing certainty. We do well to take heed.
.
With warm regards,
.
Prof. Hanko