Monday, August 31, 2009

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

4 comments:

  1. Point of clarification/correction regarding your paragraph above where you wrote, "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." Iain Murray has fully explained this in the book, "The Life of A.W. Pink," chapter 16. Lest we be accused of merely trying to sell another book, we have reprinted this entire chapter and continue to send it, free of charge, in PDF format to anyone interested in truly understanding what has occurred, and why. Simply email me and I will gladly send it to whomever. My email address is: steve@banneroftruth.org. Thank you.
    Steven L. Burlew, Manager
    Banner of Truth, North America
    Carlisle, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Was the chapter left out deliberately or was it a mistake? That is the question. I find Professor Hanko's comments in this article timely and amazingly accurate. In fact, I found an online article by some alleged former "Reformed" men who are now Roman Catholics. They quote and cite the same article from the New York Times which Hoksbergen cites and says that it proves that Calvinists are moving in the Roman Catholic direction whether they realize it or not. You can view my article on this subject at Reasonable Christian: " Neo-Calvinism: The New Road to Rome."

    I look forward to reading more of your timely critique of Neo-Calvinism and the errors of common grace, Professor Hanko. I literally felt a chill when I realized that you had seen this same error and had commented on it. Your comments and critique are clear and insightful. I have listed your blog on my blog page and will be encouraging others to follow your blog.

    Sincerely in Christ,

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  3. Professor Hanko,

    Steve Burrell at Banner of Truth was so kind as to e-mail me the PDF of Murray's book, The Life of A.W. Pink, chapter 16. The following is a quote from that chapter:

    Iain Murray says, "He [Pink] had ceased to believe that Christ’s compassion for the lost over whom he wept in Jerusalem was only human rather than divine compassion. He even went as far as saying, as we noted above, ‘God is willing to be on terms of amity [friendship] with the sinner.’"

    "Yet Pink never withdrew from his belief, stated in the 1929 text, that the only love in God is love for the elect. At this one point the Banner of Truth revisers of 1961 went beyond what Pink himself would have allowed; their revision and abridgement removed his case that the love of God is always to be understood in exclusive terms."

    "Arthur Pink’s great concern, writing in an era when man-centred preaching was so prevailing, was to show that God is not helplessly waiting for the consent of the sinner before he can save him. He was indignant that such an impoverished view of God could ever be received. He had seen how the liberal presentation of the ‘love of God’ had near obliterated in the churches that ‘great love’ that redeems, keeps and saves to glory. For Pink sovereign grace was not an idea. It was the only explanation of all that he was, and of all that he hoped to be." From Iain Murray's The Life of A.W. Pink,Chapter 16.

    It seems to me that the proponents of common grace and the free offer cannot stop contradicting themselves. They removed the most offensive part of the book to their view and did not remain faithful to Pink's own views as they stated. Either God's predestination is absolute or it is not. If it is, then how can God be benevolent to those He already knows are reprobate before the foundation of the world by His own eternal decree?

    I believe there are problems with Pink's distinction between natural inability and moral inability since the natural inability he speaks of implies a spiritual and moral inability. (In the 1929 edition of The Sovereignty of God). I also have problems with Pink's view that the rich young ruler was elect even though he walked away from Christ. It is my belief that the rich young ruler loved his wealth more than God and demonstrated a violation of the command not to covet. (See Mark 10:21).

    What is particularly revealing about Murray's essay is where he remarks, "To critique Pink’s Sovereignty of God as we have done is not to question the fundamental principle of his treatment of his subject. God is sovereign, and it is to the grace that is sovereign that every
    believer owes his salvation. God loves the elect with a special and invincible love. To uphold that truth Pink argued in his book for the denial of any broader love in which God shows compassion to all and is not willing that any should perish. But many Calvinists, from Calvin to Spurgeon, have believed both that God is sovereign and that he has a love for all people. Christians of Arminian persuasion believe God commands that a sincere offer of salvation be made in his name to all men, which offer may be resisted. A biblical Calvinist believes the same, only he believes more. Not all resist because God has chosen them to salvation, while with others he ‘permits their self-destruction despite the entreaties of his benevolence." (p. 6, pdf file).

    Surely Gordon Clark's book on predestination is correct here. Why would God "entreat" those He already has decreed to reprobation? This is inconsistent with Scripture, Calvin, and with God's decrees to election and reprobation.

    Sincerely in Christ,

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Mr. Ray,

    Thank you for the observations you have made concerning my latest installment of my treatment of common grace. I appreciate very much your thoughtful comments.

    Your material on Arthur Pink's book is interesting and I was pleased to hear that It has been confirmed that Pink never changed his mind on fundamentals, especially on the truth of predestination. It has been said that the edition of Banner of Truth was because Pink changed his mind on predestination before he died. But no proof has ever been forthcoming. While I too cannot agree with all Pink's views, especially his view of the church, I found his book on "The Sovereignty of God" a masterpiece and I am thankful that the book still is used by God to influence people around the world.

    The British Reformed Journal ran some articles on this edition of Pink's book some years ago. I do not have access to these articles in my home office, but if you are interested in reading them, it is possible, I think, to obtain copies of them. I would think the best way to do this is to write Rev. Angus Stewart at angusnmartystewart@tiscali.co.uk

    Concerning your questions, my answer is the following.

    Concerning Mark 10:21: It is my judgment that the rich young ruler was indeed an elect. I base this on the following: 1) He did not "leave" Jesus, but "went away." You suggest that "leaving" was a determination not to listen to Jesus. I am doubtful whether that is correct. 2) He showed unusual perception when he expressed dissatisfaction with a mere outward keeping of the law (even though this was exactly what the Pharisees taught) and knew there were deeper principles of the law of which he was unaware. 3) He went away sorrowful because it was difficult to part with wealth. But his sorrow demonstrated that he was sure Jesus was right. I think I, in his place, would also go away sorrowful as I considered the inner demands of the law. 4) Jesus, in speaking of his riches, referred to the tenth commandment -- which is the perfection of the whole law, but emphasizes the inner demands of the law. 5) Sorrow is a sure indication of salvation -- sorrow for sin. 6) An old tradition (certainly not decisive) is that the rich young ruler was Joseph of Armimathea. At least it demonstrates that from ancient times, the rich young ruler was considered an elect. Finally, I am puzzled by the fact that it is suggested that Jesus did not know His elect. In John 13: 1 we are told that Jesus loved His own -- to the end. That implies, it seems to me, that Jesus knows who are His elect. And the love Jesus has is for His own.

    It is clear from Scripture that Jesus knew things He could not have known in His human nature. It must be that the divine nature revealed things to Jesus that only the divine nature could know. This then would not be a confusion of natures. Whether such revelation to Jesus' human nature by the divine nature was constant, Scripture does not tell us. It may be that the divine nature revealed all those things that were part of the circumstances at that moment. But the union of God and man remains the great mystery -- and yet is our only hope of salvation.

    Cordially in Christ,

    Prof Hanko

    ReplyDelete