No! to "Hypercalvinism"

This post has been revised.

One measuring stick by which to measure any system of theology is to think of the two concepts of: 1)  God's Will, and 2) Freedom, or History, as ordained by God.

Those who inhabit the so-called "calvinistic" systems have to maintain a Scriptural position which affirms God's decree of history, along with the freedom that he has ordained on the created level, and the divine interaction with that creation in the course of history.

This is affirmed by the Westminster Confession, which states that:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. (WCF 3:1).

We could summarize this by saying that God ordained what comes to pass in history, but God also ordained that the process of history be real.  History is not a vapor that dematerializes before the decree of God, but is the reality -- the real process -- which has been ordained to take place by the decree of God, and by which the ends of his decree are met.

It is only in the process of history that prayers make sense.  It is only in the process of history that God's goodness is manifested to the undeserving.  It is only in the process of history that common grace exists -- even a measure of grace to the non-elect.  It is only within time that the love for sinners leads to the propagation of the gospel.  It is only within time that the moral process of growth, conversion and even apostasy can take place, because all this takes place in the visible church, in process of time.  The visible church is not a mistake.  Prayers that ask for anything besides simply "God's will" are not wrong.  We do not preach the gospel to all, only because we do not know who the elect are.  The fact that the non-elect reject all natural and special revelation from God does not mean that God's exclusive motive was damnation when he revealed his goodness to them.

There is a mystery here.  God has ordained the ends.  But, he has also ordained the means to his ends.  How can he make an offer of Christ to those whom he does not call, and yet speak of this offer of Christ as a manifestation of his goodness, when he has ordained eternal suffering for those he knows will not accept it?  But he has done all this.  This is a mystery we cannot solve, and it is not a mystery simply because of our creaturehood, but it is a mystery in God, creation and time, all under the sovereign control of God.

When the ultimate ends of God's decree are used to override his expressed motives in Scripture during the execution of the decree, then elements of the moral significance of history simply vanish.  For one thing, "common grace" vanishes.  But, the church of Christ, and all her members, must play their parts in history, with all tribulations, questions, prayers, and joys.  We have to see that the Triune God, in our Lord Jesus Christ, is truly engaged in the history he has ordained.  We have no "platonic," static Greek God, but an active God involved in history.  History is real -- he has ordained it.  And, history moves to his ordained ends.  But, let us not short circuit the process by intellectually or practically denying the fact that God participates in history with us, as it moves to his ordained ends.

How thankful we ought to be that in the simplicity of his offer of his saving goodness, he has called us unto himself!  And, yet we too cannot deny that he is good, and means to be good, even to those who are not made to submit to his call, by the Spirit.  It is because they reject his real and true expression of real goodness to them that they are condemned.  They end up condemned by their response to his common grace -- but that "common grace" was a real offer of grace to them, from God, in history.

We know that the Triune God lisps to us at our level about himself, when he reveals himself as a moral agent as well as a sovereign.  Let us be content with what he lisps to us in our language, and not break the paradigm by beginning to say, "Well, I know how he really is!" by viewing our present reality only through the decree.

The TULIP vs. Reformed Theology (revised)

It seems to me (as a person knowledgable about Reformation times and its theology, both Lutheran and Reformed), and also somewhat knowledgable concerning the 19th century American Princetonian Theology (and its competing Mercersburg Theology), that mainstream "orthodox Reformed theology" as we know it in our place and time in the Reformed Church at large has fallen into reductionism and serious theological imbalance.

What has happened, as I think I see it, is that the mainstream American vision (the Princetonian Theology) has evolved from the original Reformation form into a system of thought which is simply "evangelical," in the 19th and early 20th century sense, to which is added the "Five Points of Calvinism."

The key theological concept which distinguishes this kind of "Reformed Theology" appears to me to be "Particularism."  One can read B B Warfield's Plan of Salvation, for instance, and this is plain to see.  He makes the virtual definition of Reformed Theology to be Particularism.

However, one seeks in vain for this "look and feel" in the Reformation versions of Reformed Theology.  Particularism is there, but within Scriptural bounds.  Predestination and election are taught, but this is by no means a monopoly of the Reformed theology!  Observing that God does not preach the gospel to all nor does he save all those to whom the gospel is preached, and also having Scriptural doctrines about this is far from making the Reformed Theology simply a vehicle for preaching Particularism.

Therefore, I believe that our "modern" inheritance from the Princetonian legacy, as valuable as it is, is a serious distorting emphasis within the theological system which we profess to represent.  True Reformed Theology is "catholic," offers the Gospel to all who hear it, and is not simply a vehicle for making a hobby-horse of Particularism.

Truth is, the evangelical+5point notion of Reformed Theology is seriously affected by the spirit of Revivalism, Americanism, and too much Rationalism.  The Revivalism and Americanism are inimical to the true Reformational and Reformed idea of the institution of the Church.  And, the Rationalism is the fruit of the proximity of the Enlightenment.  If the mind of man can solve all mysteries (as the Enlightenment postulated), then it is tempting to think that the mind of man must be able to fight back using the same tools in the defense of Christianity, as 19th (and 18th) century Reformed Theology evidently thought.  Perhaps no one ever thought that the human mind could thereby unwittingly be overextended into realms beyond its competence, and that to attempt to defend Christianity by using the same methods and tools as the world would be an error, and might even lead to spiritual and intellectual disaster.

One can see the visible affect of the pre-eminence of American Reformed "Particularism" from "outside the camp" by reading Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics.  His main "enemy" in this work of American Confessional Lutheranism is the Particularism of the Reformed Church.  To Pieper, Particularism as preached by the Reformed Church is the single greatest error of that church, and the one which most radically de-Christianizes and refutes it.  Now, as surely as Mr. Pieper's complaints need to be taken seriously by the Reformed, this is surely a powerful 19th century style response to the 19th century over-emphasis on Particularism in the American Reformed Church.  This "Particularist Reformed" spirit still lives on among the Reformed in the 21st century, especially in the more Baptistic circles.  But to many Reformed thinkers nowadays this definition of the meaning of "Reformed," and the rationalistic tactics that go along with it, is beginning to be recognized as old-fashioned.

In this post-Enlightenment age when we have been freed not from the use of the mind but from rationalism, we need to rethink our theology in a manner which more meekly evaluates our rational capabilities, more highly evaluates the meaning of Scripture, and which avoids the "five-point trap" of thinking that only those points adequately characterize the whole of Reformed Theology.

There is a world of books out there about this.

One could profitably begin with D G Hart's biography:
     John Williamson Nevin, High Church Calvinist.

Predestination and Evangelism (rev. 7 Oct 2010)

You'll have to pardon me for making this post a little technical, but I think the big words are useful in this post.  I'll try to define them, for my purposes, as I write.

One of the theological struggles of the Reformed theology is to properly maintain the visibility and relationship of both particularism and universalism.  In the context of the doctrine of salvation, we may speak of "election," or predestination to salvation, which is God's choice of those sinners upon whom he will have mercy.  This is a kind of particularism.  Yet many Scripture passages show God making a universal offer of salvation to all the sinners who hear the gospel preached.  This is a kind of universalism -- not meaning that all get saved willy nilly, but meaning that all are in principle offered the free grace of the Gospel. 

The problem here is to ask how the particularism of election and the universalism of the gospel offer are to be reconciled with one another.  What is the balance?  How to we keep one aspect of the truth from being emphasized in some manner which is wrongly at the expense of the other?

It's pretty simple to envision the consequences of imbalance toward predestination.  When the divine predestination dominates, then the question that will be asked implicitly is whether the people I propose to witness to are elect.  I think this is "subliminal."  The consequence will likely be the downplaying of evangelistic efforts.  God is in charge.  Let him bring them.  If they show an interest, we'll try to take them in.  Why spend your effort on so many who are likely non-elect? 

Now it sounds like I'm mocking, but I'm serious.  I think I'm describing a position that is implicitly held in the heart, though never expressed verbally, nor consciously acknowledged.  What else can happen if you think God really doesn't express love to all who hear the gospel offer, or that his gospel call to everyone who hears is not a bona fide offer?  You really cannot say to anyone that "God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life," if you wonder if it's true! You don't dare say to someone what you're actually thinking: "Christ's death may or may not be for you, but if you believe that it is for you, then you will be saved by it!"

This way of thinking is all wrong.

No matter how true predestination is -- and it is very true -- it is still the case that a bona fide offer of the gospel is made by God to all sinners who hear the gospel preached.  If God is going around having the gospel preached all over the place and making bona fide offers of salvation to all who hear, who could ever think that love for sinners, and recognition of their real need for the gospel, should somehow be stifled by the doctrine of predestination?  

To think so is contrary to every decent Reformed doctrinal statement ever written on the subject.  The Westminster Confession says, referring to Adam's breaking of the Law of God:

WCF 7:3  Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant [of creation], the Lord was pleased to make a second,(1) commonly called the Covenant of Grace, whereby He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;(2) and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.(3)

(1) Gal. 3:21; Rom. 8:3; Rom. 3:20,21; Gen. 3:15; Isa. 42:6.
(2) Mark 16:15,16; John 3:16; Rom. 10:6,9; Gal. 3:11.
(3) Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:44,45.

You will notice that the offer of salvation is made by God (through his preachers).  The genuineness of the offer cannot be denied by saying that it's the preachers' offer, and they don't know who the elect are, and therefore they have to preach to everyone.  That's not the Confession's point, and that's not God's point!

No matter how predestination and gospel preaching may seem to conflict in our rationality, we have to accept the Scripture presentation of both sides of this issue.

Both are simply true.

Westminster and Free Will

The Westminster Standards teach "Free Will."

What is meant is that Adam sinned by the exercise of his Free Will.  Likewise, men act in accordance with their nature, in exercising their wills freely, whether they are good or evil.  Evil men cannot rise to will the good, because they don't want to.  Those made good by grace can freely will the good, because they want to, but only in part, as they are empowered by the Holy Spirit.  In the resurrection we will be truly and entirely free to will only the good.

Thus, there are two senses of freedom when "Free Will" is spoken of.  The first sense is the ability of the uncoerced will to act in accordance with its own nature, whether good or evil.  The second sense, seeing that true freedom is only freedom to do the good, is that true freedom was only had by Adam before he sinned, and is only had by us in part, when empowered by the Spirit, and will be had by us perfectly in the resurrection.

True freedom (to freely do the good) and false freedom (to freely fall short) both take place within the sovereign ordinance of God.  So, every instance of true freedom acting to do the good is an act freely done which is ordained by God.  Do not miss this.  The acts, which to a free man are truly free, are from God's perspective ordained.  True freedom and divine sovereignty are simultaneous.

WCF 5:2 "Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."

God immutably decrees the events which come to pass truly freely. The language of the Confession agrees that man is free to act in accordance with his nature, and that our good works are freely done, by the power of the Spirit.  Men are free, but God is most free.  Note the use of the term "most free" when reading the Confession.

From above, God governs through his providence, determining all things that come to pass.  From below, we are truly free to act in accordance with our nature.  And, if freed by Christ, we are truly free to do the good.

The Confession is not teaching determinism.  It is not teaching that there is no free will.  On the contrary, it is teaching that there is free will.  But, there is also divine sovereignty. The point here is that divine sovereignty and human freedom both are true.  The sovereignty of God is a mystery, because by his sovereignty he makes us truly free, in our own sphere, while remaining sovereign over all the actions of truly free men.

This mystery cannot be resolved.  Though it is an irresolvable mystery, it is also truth in which we can rest.  Any human attempt to resolve this mystery will lead to a distortion.  It will lead to a determinism which denies Scriptural freedom and responsibility in the Christian life, or to a determinism that denies God's free and well-meant offer of the gospel.

The mystery is manifest in Christ's own deportment.  Christ mourns over his rejection by Jerusalem, but then later sovereignly prays for "his own," and not for the world.

In the myriad sides of his own behavior, he shows himself the sovereign comforter in whom we can rest.

He infallibly calls many who hate him into his fellowship -- but not all.   Yet, he receives all those who desire him, and weeps over those who reject him.