Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
Transcript of Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
1/30
Editorials: Professor David
Engelsma"Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish
Presbyterianism"
(Prof. David Engelsma is professor in the Protestant Reformed Seminary,
4949 Ivanrest, S.W., Grandville, MI 49418 USA
His e-mail address is: [email protected]
Vol. 68 and Vol. 69 of theStandard Bearer(1992-1993)
The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish
Presbyterianism (1)
The Covenant Reformed Fellowship in Northern Ireland has called to my
attention a recently published book by Scottish Presbyterian theologian
Donald Macleod. It was suggested that it would be helpful for the witness of
that group to the Reformed faith in the British Isles if I would comment on
the book. The reason is that the book promotes the doctrine of common grace
and attacks the doctrine of sovereign, particular grace confessed by theProtestant Reformed Churches.
The author is professor of systematic theology in the Free Church of Scotland
College in Edinburgh. An influential theologian and churchman, he is a
leading representative of contemporary Presbyterianism in Scotland.
The book is titled,Behold Your God(Christian Focus Publications Ltd., 1990
-- hereafter, BYG). It is a treatment of the attributes of God. It is also an
ardent defense of the doctrine of common grace. Three of the book's sixteen
chapters are expressly devoted to the explanation, defense, and advocacy of a
common grace of God. A fourth chapter, the last, enthusiastically applies thetheory of common grace to the saving love of God in Jesus Christ, to Christ's
atoning death, and to the call of the gospel.
In the course of his defense of common grace, Macleod assails the theology
of Herman Hoeksema. Twice he charges Hoeksema with blasphemy.
Hoeksema's teaching that God governs the powers of sin, death, and the curse
by His providence, so that they "are not powers outside Him and apart from
Him, which He must restrain" by a common grace, is "virtually blasphemous"
(p. 131). Similarly, the teaching of Hoeksema that God is love in Himself in
that He loves Himself as the highest good is "well-nigh blasphemous
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
2/30
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
3/30
Is it a favorable attitude of God towards the wicked that sets them in slippery
places with their prosperity to slide smoothly into eternal hell? Is the
abundance of earthly things that constitutes God's casting of the ungodly intodestruction a blessing?
God spare me and my loved ones this His grace and blessing. As the
Ekronites cried out when the lords of the Philistines sent the lethal ark of the
covenant to them, "They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to
us, to slay us and our people" (I Sam. 5:10), so would a sane man cry out
when he was threatened with the prosperity of Psalm 73, "God has sent us
these riches to destroy us; take them away!"
Would Macleod call it grace that sets someone in a boat on a sure course
down the river that plunges over Niagara Falls, even though the splendid boat
is loaded with dainties and fine wine? Would he call the pleasant journey a
blessing?
What is still worse about Macleod's interpretation of the prosperity of the
wicked in Psalm 73 is its clear and necessary implication that the present
affliction of God's Israel is divine curse coming to them in God's wrath. If
grace is in things themselves, not only are riches and health blessing for the
ungodly but also poverty and sickness are curse for those of a clean heart.
The Psalmist could be thankful that God did not send him a common gracetheologian as a comforter in his affliction. Being plagued all the day and
chastened every morning, while seeing the ungodly prosper in the world,
caused his feet almost to be gone and his steps nearly to slip. To have had a
common grace theologian "comfort" him by assuring him that God in this life
blesses the ungodly in His grace, while cursing the godly in His wrath would
have done the Psalmist in.
In fact, however, also the adversity of the godly must be viewed in light of
the eternity which it serves: "Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and
afterward receive me to glory" (v. 24). Adversity as well as prosperity comes
to the child of God in this life as blessing in the favor of God, working hisgood. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love
God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28).
The grace of God is not in earthly things. Grace is in the attitude of God
towards a man and in His covenant friendship with a man, regardless of
things: "Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden me by myright hand ... there is none upon earth thatI desire beside thee. My flesh and
my heart faileth: butGod is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever"(vss. 23-26).
The truth about the temporal suffering of the beloved and elect church is
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
4/30
stated in the opening words of the Psalm: "Truly God is good to Israel." Thetruth about the temporal prosperity of the reprobate ungodly is expressed in
verse 27: "For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou hast destroyed
all them that go a whoring from thee."
Psalm 73 is not a passage to appeal to in support of the teaching that the good
gifts of God to the wicked are common grace. On the contrary, the Psalm
gives the deathblow to the theory.
The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish
Presbyterianism (2)
Common Grace and General RevelationFrom Scottish Presbyterian Donald Macleod's book,Behold Your God
(BYG), we learn that "the primary instrument of common grace is God's
general revelation" (p. 121). In fact, the author does not mean this. For a little
later he makes plain that he thinks the "primary instrument of common grace"
to be God's special revelation, that is, the preaching of the gospel. Macleod
views the preaching of the gospel as the expression of the grace of God for all
men without exception, and this is supposed to be the highest manifestation
of common grace.
Nevertheless, the Scottish theologian teaches that the knowledge of God that
unregenerated men have from the creation is due to a favor of God towardthese men. He teaches also that a result of this knowledge of God on the part
of the unregenerate is the presence of good in both the individual and society.
Laudable qualities (are) to be found in the lives of those who
are totally alienated from God (p. 117).
Through common grace God also preserves some sense ofmorality and religion in human society (p. 119).
Even specifically secular states and avowedly atheistic
societies still possess strong ethical structures (p. 121).
Macleod goes so far as to make a general revelation arising from the common
grace of God produce a "natural theology": "If common grace enables
unregenerate men to 'see clearly' in the realm of natural theology (Romans
1:20) how much more in the realm of natural science?" (p. 139) Thus does
the doctrine of common grace bring a Presbyterian into the murky waters of
Roman Catholic theology.
It is fundamental Roman doctrine that the revelation of God in creation and
history results in right, though incomplete, knowledge of God in the mind of
the natural man. This knowledge then becomes the meritorious stepping-
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
5/30
stone to a saving knowledge of God through the gospel. The basic error in
Rome's teaching of "natural theology" is her denial of total depravity. The
natural man has some spiritual ability to respond positively to the revelation
of God in creation. The same basic error is found in Presbyterian Macleod, aswe shall see.
The biblical basis put forward for this is Romans 1:19, 20: "Because that
which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed itunto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternalpower and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
Incredibly, Macleod ignores verse 18, with which the passage begins. Verse
18 expressly attributes the revelation of God to the unregenerated heathen in
creation, not to a common grace of God but to His common wrath: "For the
wrath of God is revealed from heaven ...." The immediate and exclusive
reaction of the heathen (whether in the jungle of Africa or in the jungle of the
University of Chicago) to this knowledge of God as regards His eternal
power and Godhead is that they "hold the truth in unrighteousness" (v. 18);
change "the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image ..." (v. 23); and
change "the truth of God into a lie" (v. 25), not liking "to retain God in theirknowledge" (v. 28). The sole purpose of God with this manifestation of
Himself is "that they are without excuse" (v. 20).
In this general revelation is no grace of God but only wrath burning fromheaven. Its effect upon the individual and society is not good, but gross evil--
the evil of their perversion of the truth of God and the evil of God's avenging
Himself by giving them up to ethical perversions. The purpose behind it is
not divine favor, but awful divine justice: "in order that they be without
excuse."
In all of the dreadful passage, Romans 1:18-32, there is no grace of God, only
wrath; no blessing, only curse; no goodness of men, only evil. He who runs
may read. This is why the apostle is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ (vss.
16, 17) and is ready to preach it also to the Gentiles (v. 15). Grace, blessing,
life, and goodness come only through the gospel.
In passing, Professor Macleod hints very broadly that God's "common grace
revelation" of Himself in creation is the reason why the Presbyterian churches
should accept the current scientific theories of an earth that is billions of
years old and of the origin of all things by evolution.
He is unhappy with those Christian thinkers who are guilty of "virtually
proscribing (unregenerate science) and invoking the fact of its
unregenerateness to justify rejection of its conclusions, especially in
connection with the theory of evolution" (p. 138). He thinks that we should
repent of the folly of the 19th century defenders of the biblical doctrine of
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
6/30
creation who "blundered with little preparation into the debate on cosmogony
and geology" (p. 140). In this context, Presbyterians are exhorted "cordially"
to welcome "the scientific achievements of natural men" (p. 140).
The reader was alerted to this impending havoc that common grace would
wreak on the inspiration of the opening chapters of the Bible, on the
historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, and, thus, on the foundations of the
Christian religion already in the fourth chapter ofBYG:
We should also bear in mind that mediate creation may haveinvolved very long processes; that certain records of the
course of events involved in these processes may be accessible
to us today; and that these records may be researched byspecialists in the various scientific disciplines. There is
indisputably both a theological and a palaeontological recordof the sequence of creation events and each is a legitimate
subject of human research (p. 44).
Common grace is doing the same damage to the fundamental doctrines of the
inspiration of Scripture, creation, and the fall among Presbyterians in the
British Isles that it is doing among the Reformed in North America.
Assault on the Theology of HoeksemaIt is when Donald Macleod considers Herman Hoeksema's objections to
common grace that error finds allies in misrepresentation and confusion.
World-Flight!Professor Macleod portrays Hoeksema's opposition to common grace as the
anabaptistic and monkish penchant for world-flight:
A second objection to the doctrine of common grace (by
Herman Hoeksema--DJE) is that it is inconsistent with theaccursedness of creation. According to this point of view, the
world is exclusively evil and horrible and Christians can haveno part in it. The only course open to them is to separate from
it, create their own self-contained communities and leavesecular art, politics, culture and commerce to the children ofdarkness (p. 126).
To the Protestant Reformed reader, this description of the Protestant
Reformed objection to common grace is laughable. It needs no refutation. To
the Reformed and others in the United States and Canada who are familiar
with the history of the PRC and who know the members of these churches,
this attempt to answer the Protestant Reformed objection to common grace by
rendering the objection absurd itself falls by the weight of its own absurdity.
But Macleod's book circulates in the British Isles and elsewhere in Europe
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
7/30
where readers lack this firsthand acquaintance with the PRC and their people
and may, therefore, suppose that the objection of the PRC to common grace
actually is a form of anabaptism. Reading this description of the PRC, a Scot
might well imagine that the members of the PRC in North America huddletogether in their isolated communes like the old Mennonites or the Amish of
the present day.
Protestant Reformed people live in many of the largest cities, as well as in the
country. They are found in every occupation, including business and the
professions. They are active in politics. There are among them accomplished
musicians, poets, painters, and other artists. They attend the symphony, visit
the art galleries, and even occasionally take in a ball game on a weekday.
Their Christian schools educate their children in every branch of human
knowledge and prepare them to live and work in North American society.
This way of life does not conflict with their opposition to common grace but
is in harmony with it.
The PRC do indeed regard the world as "exclusively evil and horrible." By
"world" is meant the unbelievers and the system of life that they control. This
is the world whose god is Satan (II Cor. 4:4); the world that lies in
wickedness (I John 5:19); the world that all Christians are forbidden to love (I
John 2:15). The world is "evil and horrible," spiritually and ethically--
exclusively "evil and horrible." Its evil is that it does not know, glorify, and
serve God. Its evil is horrible in that the world is now exposed as havingcrucified the Son of God (cf. John 12:31).
From this world, God has separated Protestant Reformed Christians, with all
true Christians everywhere. He has done this by the sanctifying call of the
gospel on the basis of the cross according to eternal predestination (cf. I Pet.
2:9; Gal. 1:4; John 17:6). Protestant Reformed Christians, with all true
Christians everywhere, know themselves to be called by God to live in
separation from the world: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with
unbelievers ... come out from among them, and be ye separate ... " (II Cor.
6:14-18).
This separation is absolute. The world has been crucified unto Protestant
Reformed Christians, and Protestant Reformed Christians unto the world
(Gal. 6:14). Surely this is also true of Presbyterian Christians in the British
Isles.
But the separation is spiritual, not physical, although it can, and should, take
physical form, e.g., in not marrying an unbeliever. Physically, God wills New
Testament Christians to live in and among the world. The reason is not,
however, that the world is somewhat good by virtue of common grace. To
suppose so, and teach so, is to destroy the spiritual antithesis that must at all
costs be maintained. Professor Macleod is guilty of this: "Common grace
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
8/30
provides us with a biblical rationale for involvement in the world" (BYG, p.
142). But the reason is that both the church and the world must develop by
means of this close contact with each other. Also, God will be glorified by a
church that shines as light in the midst of darkness. Besides, it is not creation,the creatures, and the earthly ordinances that are evil (cf. I Tim. 4:1ff.).
Herman Hoeksema's objection to common grace was not an expression of
anabaptism, that is, physical world-flight. It was an expression of zeal for the
antithesis, that is, spiritual world-fight. Macleod may be excused for not
having read Hoeksema'sNiet Doopersch Maar Gereformeerd(Not
Anabaptistic but Reformed), with which he may be unfamiliar. He is to be
faulted, however, for ignoring what Hoeksema wrote in explanation of the
antithesis in hisReformed Dogmatics (hereafter, RD), with which Macleod is
quite familiar. What Hoeksema wrote concerning the church's attribute of
holiness is typical--and crystal-clear:
For these members of the body of Christ are in the world.
They have no calling to go out of the world and to organize acolony of saints in some secluded spot. On the contrary, they
must be in the world, and live its whole life in all itsrelationships, in home and school and state and society, in
labor, in industry, in business, in commerce. But in all these
different relations and departments of life they are called toreveal themselves as members of the body of Christ, the holy
church, the communion of saints. They must be holy in alltheir walk and conversation. They are called to be holy in the
home, in the education of their children, in the state, in the
relation of employer and employee, in store and office andshop, in all of life. They represent the cause of the Son of God
and walk according to the will of their Lord Jesus Christ. Thismeans that in the spiritual, ethical sense they can never be
unequally yoked together with unbelievers (pp. 616, 617; cf.
also p. 743).
To represent this urgent call to the saints as a plea for world-flight is
misrepresentation.
The Death of Confessional Calvinism in ScottishPresbyterianism (3)
Providence and SinMore serious is Professor Macleod's condemnation, in his book,Behold Your
God(BYG), of Hoeksema's doctrine of providence as "virtually
blasphemous" (p. 131). Macleod is here commenting on Hoeksema's criticism
of common grace's deviation from the Reformed doctrine of providence.
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
9/30
Hoeksema is treating the question of the relation of the fall of man into sin
and death to the providence of God. He is setting forth the truth that the one
purpose of God with the creation was its perfection in Jesus Christ in the way
of sin and grace. In this connection, Hoeksema denies that an originalpurpose of God to develop the creation through Adam was unfortunately
spoiled by the devil so that the work of Jesus Christ is mere "repair work"
(Reformed Dogmatics, p. 235). Then Hoeksema writes:
But with this same conception we can also depart from thetruth in a different direction, namely, in that of common grace.
According to this theory, God has in mind the creationordinance; and He still maintains it: the riches of creation
must be brought to light under the dominion of man. Satan
meant to frustrate this purpose of God through the fall of man.But God through common grace, by which He restrains sin
and checks the curse in creation, so that man does not become
a devil or descend into hell or fall dead in paradise before thetree of life, counteracts this attempt of the devil and maintains
His original ordinance of creation, realizing His purpose. Inthe meantime, however, the Lord begins a new work, through
which the chief purpose of all things is realized and all things
will be reunited in Christ Jesus as their head.
Hoeksema criticizes this conception in these words:
Also this conception finds no support in Holy Writ. Besides, it
is certainly a dualistic conception: for it proceeds from theerroneous assumption that sin, death, and the curse, instead of
being powers which God works, manifestations of His wrath,are powers outside Him and apart from Him, which He must
restrain (RD, p. 236).
Macleod is severe in his condemnation of this objection to common grace as
unbiblical dualism:
From a Christian point of view this is quite unacceptable;and, when it goes the length of regarding sin as somethingwhich "God works," virtually blasphemous (BYG, p. 131).
Hoeksema makes plain that he does not mean that God "works" sin in the
sense that God performs sin. God is not the author of sin. But sin, particularly
now the fall of Adam, is included in God's eternal counsel. God decreed the
fall. Also, God governed the fall, as He governs all the sinful deeds of men.
And the providence of God certainly implies that from the very
first beginning to the end of the world, that is, till the return of
Christ, God governs all things and guides them by His counsel
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
10/30
unto the end He has in view. And from the beginning to the
end nothing ever occurs in all the world which does not
happen according to the counsel of the Most High (RD, p.
236).
Hoeksema is explaining the Reformed doctrine of providence. The Reformed
doctrine of providence denies the existence and operation of admittedly
hostile powers operating apart from God's sovereign decree and sovereign
government, needing, therefore, to be restrained by a common grace.
Hoeksema is applying the Reformed doctrine of providence to the vital truth
of the goal of God with creation and history. The Reformed doctrine of
providence, thus applied to creation and history, affirms the express teaching
of the Bible in Ephesians 1:9, 10; in Colossians 1:13-20; and in other places,
that God's one purpose with creation and history was, is, and shall be Christ
as head of the redeemed church. God has no purpose with creation, that He is
now realizing by common grace, alongside this purpose.
Macleod sourly dismisses this view of world-history as "a thorough-going
monism" (BYG, p. 131). In fact, it is the Reformed faith's unique, glorious
"philosophy of history." It is also biblical: "All things were created by him,
and for him (Jesus Christ): And he is before all things, and by him all things
consist.... For it pleased the Fatherthat in him should all fulness dwell; And,having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all
things unto himself; by him,I say, whetherthey be things in earth, or thingsin heaven" (Col. 1:16-20).
The objection of the Scottish Presbyterian to Hoeksema's use of the word,
"works," to describe God's sovereign control of sin, death, and the curse to
serve His one purpose in Christ should disappear as soon as Macleod realizes
that "works" refers to the decree and power of divine providence. To teach
this is not blasphemy.
Or was Martin Luther a blasphemer when he wrote that "since God moves
and works all in all, He moves and works of necessity even in Satan and the
ungodly. . . . Here you see that when God works in and by evil men, evildeeds result; yet God, though He does evil by means of evil men, cannot act
evilly Himself, for He is good, and cannot do evil . . . ."?
And did the German Reformer blaspheme when, a little later in the same
book, he wrote, concerning the inclusion of the fact of sin in the decree of
God:
If God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas becamea traitor of necessity, and it was not in the power of Judas or
of any creature to act differently, or to change his will, from
that which God had foreseen. It is true that Judas acted
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
11/30
willingly, and not under compulsion, but his willing was the
work of God, brought into being by His omnipotence, like
everything else (The Bondage of the Will, tr. J. I. Packer and
O. R. Johnston, James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1957, pp. 203ff.)?
Did John Calvin blaspheme, in his great work, "A Defence of the Secret
Providence of God by which He Executes His Eternal Decrees being a
Reply to the `Slanderous Reports' (Rom. 3:8) of a Certain Worthless
Calumniator directed against the Secret Providence of God," when he
adopted as the very "principle" of his view of God's government of sin the
truth that "those things which are vainly or unrighteously done by man are,
rightly and righteously, the works of God!"?
Was it blasphemy of Calvin to go on to affirm that "the fall of Adam was not
by accident, nor by chance; but was ordained by the secret counsel of God"?
And was it raving blasphemy of Calvin to assert that
All who are in the least acquainted with the Scripture, know
full well that a whole volume might be made of like passagesof the Holy Scriptures, where God is made the author, as
commander, of the evil and cruel deeds done by men and
nations. But it is utterly vain to spend more words upon asubject so well known and self-evident (Calvin's Calvinism,
tr. Henry Cole, Eerdmans, 1950, pp. 207ff.)?
Is it blasphemous of the Westminster Confession to teach concerning God's
eternal decree that
God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counselof His own will, freely, and unchangeable 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 isthe liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but
rather established (3.1).
Does the Confession require Presbyterians to blaspheme when it puts on theirlips this confession concerning providence:
The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinitegoodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence,
that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins
of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, butsuch as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful
bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, ina manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the
sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not
from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
12/30
can be the author or approver of sin (5.4)?
Is it blasphemy of Holy Scripture to say of Absalom's adultery with David's
concubines that Jehovah did it (II Sam. 12:11, 12)? of Shimei's grievous curseof David that Jehovah God commanded Shimei to curse David (II Sam.
16:10)? of all the loss inflicted on Job by Satan and wicked men that
"Jehovah hath taken away" (Job 1:21)? of the most heinous sin ever
committed, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, that the wicked did "whatsoever
thy (the Lord God's) hand and thy counsel determined before to be done"
(Acts 4:28)? It should not be overlooked in the last passage that the Holy
Spirit extends God's government of sin to His hand, the instrument of
working.
It is a departure from creedal Presbyterianism to teach that God still manages
to fulfill an original purpose with the creation by restraining antagonistic
forces with common grace. To teach that heaven and hell are locked in a
titanic struggle, while denying God's providential government of the devil
and sin, is dualism. It is dualism even though one is willing to add that
"eventually, heaven will be completely triumphant" (BYG, p. 131).
Christianity has renounced dualism. Heaven is completely triumphant.
Jehovah God is laughing at the enemies raging against Christ (Psalm 2). "Our
God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased" (Psalm
115:3).
ConfusionIf the Presbyterian theologian's attack on Hoeksema's doctrine of providence
is completely unwarranted, his treatment of the "organic idea" in the
Protestant Reformed theologian is hopelessly confused.
In developing the truth of the idea of the end (goal) of all things, Hoeksema
maintains that after the fall all "creatures in the natural sense continue to exist
in organic connection and affinity." All men, elect and reprobate, live in
close, earthly relationship with each other, "and man ever continues to stand
in organic connection with the cosmos, in the midst whereof he moves and
develops" (RD, p. 743).
God does not realize His purpose of predestination by physically separating
the elect church from the reprobate world. Rather, God realizes His purpose
by the process of grace and sin in connection with the organic existence of all
things, as this earthly whole - the "cosmos" - is governed by divine
providence (p. 744).
From this doctrine of the organic connection of all things earthly, Macleod
oddly draws the conclusion that Hoeksema too teaches that God blesses the
reprobate wicked so that, in reality, Hoeksema has no quarrel with the
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
13/30
doctrine of common grace.
On this view, evil men receive blessings not because of
common grace not because of any gracious disposition onGod's part towards them but because they are so closely
connected with the people of God, socially and organically,that God cannot bless the one group without blessing the
other. The tares are blessed only because they are inextricably
mixed up with the wheat.... But it is difficult to see any conflictbetween this and the doctrine of common grace (BYG,p. 132).
This makes Hoeksema out to be not only a blasphemer but also a dunce.
After all his strenuous opposition to common grace, he has God blessing the
ungodly.
What Hoeksema actually wrote, on the very page in the RD referred to by
Macleod, is the very opposite of the conclusion drawn by the Presbyterian:
It will readily be understood in the light of the preceding that
we cannot possibly speak of a common grace.... The sinful andcorrupt creature can qua talis (as such - DJE) never be
pleasing to God, but is object of His dislike, wrath,
indignation, hatred, and curse.... There proceeds out of theeternal good pleasure of God in Christ an operation of grace
upon the elect kernel of our race, in connection with theorganic whole of all creatures.... But, on the other hand, the
wrath of God abides upon the reprobate shell, outside of
Christ. And an operation proceeds from God's wrath,indignation and repulsion and hardening whereby this
reprobate shell becomes ripe for destruction (pp. 743, 744).
However one may regard the theology of Herman Hoeksema, it is consistent.
There is no place in it for the blessing of the reprobate ungodly outside of
Jesus Christ, whether that blessing is deliberate or, as Macleod would have us
believe, accidental.
One can only hope here that the readers of Macleod's BYG will check the
original source.
The views and charges of Professor Macleod treated in this and the preceding
editorials are serious enough. But the worst is yet to come. If the teachings of
the Presbyterian theologian that will be examined next represent Scottish
Presbyterianism today, or if they influence contemporary Presbyterianism in
Scotland, confessional Calvinism is dead, or dying, in Scottish
Presbyterianism.
These are Macleod's teachings on total depravity, predestination, and
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
14/30
particular, limited atonement.
The Death of Confessional Calvinism in ScottishPresbyterianism (4)
Denial of Total DepravityInfluential Scottish Presbyterian theologian Donald Macleod denies the
creedal Reformed and Presbyterian doctrine of total depravity. This is the
biblical truth that the natural man, that is, the unregenerated human, is
completely sinful. Macleod denies this doctrine in his recent book,Behold
Your God(BYG).
The denial of total depravity is clear, bold, and explicit:
Some unregenerate men ... (are) good (BYG, p. 130;emphasis, Macleod's).
Laudable qualities (are) to be found in the lives of those who
are totally alienated from God (BYG, p. 117).
Such is the goodness and moral excellence of these praiseworthy qualities in
the unregenerated and in the wicked world outside of Christ, according to
Donald Macleod, that the apostle of Christ commends them to the believer
and commands the believer to think on them constantly. In what must rank asthe most extravagant praise of common grace hitherto penned, Macleod
ascribes the perfections of Philippians 4:8 ("whatsoever things are true,
whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things
are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good
report") to common grace and locates them in the unregenerated world.
(The objection to common grace) ignores Paul's recognition
in Philippians 4:8ff that there are things of good reportoutside the sphere of grace (BYG, p. 127).
Paul indicates in Philippians 4:8ff that there exist, evenoutside the sphere of redemption, things which are true,righteous, honourable, praiseworthy and virtuous and which
deserve the support of the Christian ... (BYG, p. 129).
Christians then are to be thinking always on the excellent things in Homer; on
the virtuous things in Socrates; on the just things in Roman jurisprudence;
and on the lovely things in the latest novel, movie, and piece of secular
music.
If the perfections of Philippians 4:8 are indeed found in the unbelieving world
(the world judged by the Bible to be a Christcrucifying world), the Holy
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
15/30
Spirit of sanctification is superfluous; the judgment upon the world and all
that is in it in I John 2:16 is false; and the call to separation from the world in
II Corinthians 6:14ff. is unreasonable.
The truth is that the perfections of Philippians 4:8 are not found in
unregenerated men and the system of life that they control. That Paul did not
think so is plain in Philippians 2:15 where he describes the world of
unregenerated men as "a crooked and perverse nation." The glorious
perfections of Philippians 4:8, upon which the saints are always to be
thinking, are the perfections revealed in the gospel of Christ and found only
in the holy church. As the following verse indicates, the perfections of
Philippians 4:8 are "those things which ye have both learned, and received,
and heard,and seen in me."
According to Macleod, however, unregenerated men, possessing these
"laudable qualities," can perform works that are really good: "Fallen man
remains capable of both civil good and domestic affection" (BYG, pp. 119,
120). Having posed the problem of the flat declaration in Romans 3:12 that
"there is none that does good, no, not one," Macleod hedges: "The range of
such statements needs to be carefully defined, however." With appeal to the
Westminster Confession, 16.7, Macleod then affirms the ability of the
unregenerate to do works that are truly, though not "spiritually," good:
But the unregenerate man may still be capable of works
which, "for the matter of them, may be things which Godcommands, and of good use both to themselves and others"
(BYG, p. 129).
These good works of the wicked occur in the sphere of theology; in the
sphere of ethics; in the sphere of science; and in the sphere of art (BYG,pp.
133142).
The cause and explanation of the good works of the man and woman outside
of Christ is common grace. In the favor that God has for every human,
according to Professor Macleod, He works by the Holy Spirit within most, if
not all, unregenerated people, preserving them from being completelydepraved; making them virtuous with "laudable qualities"; and enabling them
to do much good.
All the blessings enjoyed by the reprobate, all their laudable
qualities and all their achievements derive ultimately from thissource (namely, common grace DJE) (BYG, p. 117).
Scottish Presbyterian Donald Macleod denies the Reformed doctrine of total
depravity. With the rare exceptions of a Judas Iscariot, a Hitler, the keepers of
Auschwitz, and the men of Sodom, unregenerated men and women, although
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
16/30
depraved to an extent, are also good (cf. BYG, pp. 128, 129).
Partial DepravityMacleod believes and teaches the doctrine of partial depravity.
In order to establish the doctrine of partial depravity as Presbyterian
orthodoxy in the face of the historic, creedal Presbyterian confession of total
depravity, Macleod does three, important things. First, he redefines the
English word, "total." "Total" no longer will mean `complete.' "Totally," as in
"totally depraved," will no longer mean `wholly,'or 'entirely,' or `completely.'
Rather, it will now mean `in every part.'
That the unregenerated man and woman are "totally depraved" merely means
that there is depravity in every part of their being. Their mind has some
depravity or is affected somewhat by depravity. Their will has some
depravity or is somewhat affected by depravity. Their body has some
depravity or is somewhat affected by depravity. But there is also some good
in their mind, in their will, and in their body. Or, to say it differently, their
mind, will, and body are also affected by good good that comes from God by
the operation of the good and Holy Spirit in common grace.
The third objection is that the notion of common grace isinconsistent with the doctrine of man's total depravity.
According to both Scripture and confessional theology every
function of human personality is affected by sin (BYG, p. 127).
What percentage of every function of human personality is affected by sin,
Macleod does not tell us. 90%? 50%? 10%? Is the unregenerated man then
90% good? 50%? or only 10%?
It would be interesting to see how successful this redefinition of "total" would
be in everyday life. I tell my insurance agent that my house and its
furnishings were totally destroyed in a fire, but he discovers that I mean that
the damage extended somewhat to every part of the house so that much of the
house and many of the furnishings, in fact, are in good shape.
The redefinition of "total" makes for intriguing revision of Bible history. Saul
informs Samuel that he has totally exterminated Amalek, people and animals.
When the prophet condemns him for disobeying the Word of Jehovah (to say
nothing of lying) in that he spared Agag and the best of the beasts, Saul
protests that for him "totally" means `every part of the nation.'
Peter asks Ananias and Sapphira how much of the money that they received
for their land they are giving to the church. They respond, "The total
amount." But just before they are to be struck dead, they inform the apostle
that to them "total" means a part of each payment that they received for the
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
17/30
land.
Partial Depravity and Free WillThe seriousness of this redefinition of "total" for the gospel of grace the heartof the Reformed faith - appears in this, that now the will of the unregenerated
sinner is somewhat good, or somewhat affected by good, that is, somewhat
free. When this teaching is brought into connection with Macleod's doctrine
that "the sending of preachers is an expression of God's desire that all men
should be saved and that it puts men in a position of hope by placing the
possibility of faith and salvation within their grasp" (BYG, p. 131), the result
is the Roman Catholic and Arminian heresy of salvation by the free will of
the sinner.
Macleod professes to oppose the heresy of free will. But his doctrine favors
it. The theory of common grace embraced by Macleod teaches an operation
of the Spirit within the ungodly that makes them somewhat good. This is, as
such, denial of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity. Denial of total
depravity always and necessarily leads to affirmation of free will: The will of
the natural man is able to respond positively to the gospel. And the doctrine
of free will cuts the heart out of the gospel of salvation by the mercy of God
(Rom. 9:16).
In this denial of total depravity is the death of confessional Calvinism in
Scottish Presbyterianism.
If Professor Macleod's denial of total depravity represents the view of
contemporary Scottish Presbyterianism on the doctrine (as I suspect),
Calvinism is already dead in the country that was the mother of
Presbyterianism.
If Macleod's denial of total depravity is influencing Scottish Presbyterianism,
Calvinism is doomed in Scotland.
The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish
Presbyterianism (5)In his recent book,Behold Your God(BYG), prominent Scottish
Presbyterian theologian Donald Macleod denies the Reformed doctrine of
total depravity. He denies this basic truth of Calvinism in the interests of
defending the doctrine of common grace. Macleod teaches an operation of the
Holy Spirit within unregenerated men and women that makes them somewhat
good, that fills them with "laudable qualities," and that enables them to do
much good in the areas of theology, ethics, science, and art.
With the exception of a few hardened evildoers (Macleod mentions Judas
Iscariot and Hitler), unregenerated men and women are somewhat good. They
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
18/30
are somewhat good in every faculty and part of their being mind, will,
affections, and body.
Professor Macleod teaches partial depravity.
The preceding editorial dealt with Macleod's attempt to harmonize his
teaching with historic Calvinism by redefining "total" as 'in every part.'
"Total depravity," Macleod would have us believe, merely means that the
unregenerated sinner is depraved in every part of his being. But he is not
completely depraved in every part. Every part of the sinner is also somewhat
good.
Partial Depravity and the Westminster ConfessionA second, and still more grievous, way in which the Scottish Presbyterian
defends his unPresbyterian doctrine of partial depravity is by misrepresenting
the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). In support of
his definition of "total" as meaning merely 'in every part,' Macleod appeals to
the WCF, 6.2 (he gives the reference as 6.3, but this is a mistake):
By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and
communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly
defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
Macleod would have us suppose that the Confession here describes total
depravity as merely a defilement of every part of man (BYG, p. 128).
The fact is that the WCF very definitely states, not merely that the
unregenerated man is depraved "in all the faculties and parts of soul and
body," but that he is "wholly defiled" in every faculty and part. Every faculty,
e.g., the will, and every part, e.g., the brain, of all unregenerated sinners is
completely defiled. In every faculty and part is nothing else than defilement.
There is no good in any faculty or part of fallen man.
Also, Professor Macleod neglects to call attention to what follows in this
chapter in the WCF on total depravity:
From this original corruption, whereby we are utterlyindisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and
wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual
transgressions (6.4; emphasis mine, DJE).
What loophole is left to a Presbyterian through which he can introduce good
into the unregenerate? Where in the creature described by the Confession of
Faith are the "laudable qualities" that Professor Macleod has discovered in
unregenerated man? How is it possible to interpret chapter six of the WCF as
teaching merely defilement "in every faculty and part"?
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
19/30
In light of the creed's describing the condition of the unregenerated sinner as
that of death ("dead in sin, and wholly defiled," etc.), there is something
absurd, something ludicrous, about the notion that this sinner is yet somewhat
good and, therefore, capable of doing good works. The teaching thatunregenerated men are somewhat good requires us to believe, as sound
Presbyterian theology, that dead men are also somewhat alive. Indeed, the
dead men are somewhat alive in every faculty and part.
Were I to assert such nonsense in the physical realm of everyday life, I would
be dismissed as a fool. "My Uncle Harry is dead, and he has some life yet in
soul and body so that he is working quite actively." But in the realm of
Presbyterian and Reformed theology, this passes for great wisdom. "The
unregenerated is dead in sin, and he has some ethical life so that he is
vigorously producing good works."
A similar misrepresentation of the Presbyterian creed as supporting partial
depravity is Macleod's mishandling of the Confession in the matter of the
supposed good works of the unregenerate. He quotes a line in the WCF, 16.7
in support of his contention that the unregenerate are good and capable of
doing good:
But the unregenerate man may still be capable of workswhich, "for the matter of them, may be things which God
commands, and of good use both to themselves and others"
(BYG, p. 129).
The words, "for the matter of them, they may be things which God
commands, and of good use both to themselves and others," are a quotation
of the WCF in 16.7. But this use of the quoted words makes the Confession
say the very opposite of that which it actually is teaching in this article:
Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter ofthem, they may be things which God commands, and of good
use both to themselves and others: yet, because they proceednot from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right
manner, according to the word; nor to a right end, the gloryof God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, ormake a man meet to receive grace from God ...(my emphasis,
DJE).
Macleod quotes a line of the article to teach that the unregenerated man
performs good works. The article, however, expressly states that all the works
of the unregenerate are "sinful and cannot please God," including those works
that outwardly conform to God's law.
The Confession's Definition of a Good WorkIn this article of the Westminster Confession appears the same definition of a
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
20/30
good work that is found in Question 91 of theHeidelberg Catechism:
Q. But what are good works?
A. Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performedaccording to the law of God, and to his glory; and not such as
are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men.
According to both the Westminster Confession and theHeidelberg
Catechism, a good work is one that has three characteristics. These
characteristics concern source, standard, and goal. The source is faith; the
standard is the law of God; and the goal is God's glory.
According to both the Westminster Confession and theHeidelberg
Catechism a good work is exclusively one that has these three characteristics.
No work that lacks these three characteristics is good. Every work that lacks
these three characteristics is evil.
Christ alone is the source of good for men, and, therefore, only works that
originate in the faith that draws from Christ are good.
The law of God is the sole standard of good, and, therefore, only works that
conform to the command to love God and the neighbor are good.
There is none good but God, and, therefore, only works that aim at God the
Triune, holy God revealed in Scripture are good.
This creedal definition of a good work rules out all possibility of an
unregenerated man's doing good works and judges all the works of the
unregenerated to be sins.
Macleod's Definition of a Good WorkMacleod's bold solution to the problem (for he is determined to have the
unregenerated sinner perform works that are good, regardless of the
Presbyterian creeds) is to propose another, different definition of a good
work:
But if we allow that, without forgetting this higher meaning,
we may also define the good quite biblically as doing what
nature teaches, showing natural affection and manifestingrespect for life, property and marriage, for duly constituted
authority and for the ordinances of the church, then we maydistinguish some unregenerate men from others as good: and
go on to explain the difference as a gift of God, expressing His
common grace (BYG, pp. 129, 130).
To define "the good" differently from the WCF in 16.7 is not allowed. This
definition is God's own definitive definition. Accordingly, whatever is not out
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
21/30
of faith, according to the law of God, and to God's glory is sin. If, outwardly,
the deed conforms to the law's precept and if, seemingly, it serves humanity
well, it is only a glittering sin. Augustine called such deeds of the ungodly
"glittering vices"; the Puritans called them "painted sins."
How Will Presbyterians Define a Good Work?Every Presbyterian inclined to accept Macleod's novel definition of a good
work should reckon with three facts: 1)The new definition contradicts the
definition of the WCF; 2) the devising of good works by Professor Macleod
is forbidden by the WCF in the opening article of chapter sixteen: "Good
works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy word, and not such
as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon
any pretence of good intention"; and 3) there is absolutely no creedal proof of
any production of good works in unregenerated men by the Holy Spirit by
means of a "common grace."
The Presbyterian creeds, like the Reformed creeds, teach the total depravity
of unregenerated men. The creeds themselves make plain that "total" means
'complete' and 'entire.' From this total depravity proceeds not one good work,
but only "all actual transgressions" (WCF, 6.4).
Which definition of a good work do Scottish Presbyterians accept? That of
the Westminster Confession or that of Donald Macleod?
Their answer will indicate whether they confess total or partial depravity.
The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish
Presbyterianism (6)
The recent book,Behold Your God(BYG), by Scottish Presbyterian
theologian Donald Macleod is a passionate plea for the doctrine of common
grace. Three of the sixteen chapters are devoted to common grace explicitly.
A fourth consists of the application of common grace to the saving will of
God and the atonement of the cross.
Macleod's defense of common grace involves the denial of the Reformed
doctrine of total depravity. For common grace keeps the unregenerated from
being completely defiled by sin.
The Presbyterian theologian defends his denial of total depravity in three
ways. First, he redefines "total" to mean merely 'in every part.' Fallen men are
depraved "in every part," but they are not completely depraved in every part.
Second, he misrepresents the Westminster Confession of Faith to make it
teach both that "total depravity" is merely depravity 'in every part' and that
unregenerated sinners are capable of performing good works.
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
22/30
We have examined these attempts to vindicate the denial of total depravity as
orthodox Presbyterianism in previous editorials.
"Absolute Depravity" and "Total Depravity"A third way in which Professor Macleod tries to establish the denial of total
depravity effected by his doctrine of common grace is the invention of a
distinction between "total depravity" and "absolute depravity." According to
Macleod, the doctrine of "total depravity" is the teaching that unregenerated
sinners are defiled in every part of their being, although they also remain
somewhat good in every part of their being by virtue of common grace. The
doctrine of "absolute depravity," on the other hand, is the teaching that every
unregenerated sinner is as developed and hardened in evil as he can possibly
be.
The former, of course, is the teaching of Professor Macleod. He would like
the reader to think that this is also the teaching of the Presbyterian
confessions. The latter absolute depravity is allegedly the strange, foolish
teaching of Herman Hoeksema and of the Protestant Reformed Churches.
The argument of Professor Macleod is simple. Since these are the two
alternatives and since "absolute depravity" is obviously false, it must be
Presbyterian to hold that the unregenerated sinner is merely defiled in every
part of his being, although remaining also somewhat good in every part of his
being because of common grace.
The refutation of the argument of Professor Macleod is also simple. There is
a third alternative: All unregenerated sinners are completely defiled by sin in
every part of their being, although there are degrees of wickedness among
them and although there is development of wickedness both in the individual
and in society.
Because this distinction between total and absolute depravity is widespread
among those who propound common grace and because it is commonly used
by them to falsify the theology of the PRC (which is not so important) and to
corrupt the Reformed doctrine of total depravity (which is very important),
we may profitably allow Professor Macleod to carry on at length:
Theologians who ... advocated the doctrine of common
grace ... distinguished between total depravity ("wholly defiled
in all the faculties and parts of soul and body,"WestminsterConfession, VI.III) and absolute depravity. Hoeksema is well
aware of the distinction (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 252) butdenies that it can give any help to the exponents of the idea of
common grace. It is difficult to follow him in this. Absolute
depravity means such a degree of hostility to God as admits ofno progression or variation. This is not the way the Bible
portrays man. Human beings are not devils. Nor is any man so
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
23/30
advanced in evil that he could not possibly become worse. Nor
again does human society present a uniform level of
degradation and depravity. It would be absurd to minimize, let
alone deny, the difference between Hitler and Gandhi,Pharaoh and George Washington, Judas Iscariot and Pilate'swife. It would be equally absurd to maintain that Romans
1:1832 gives an accurate description of human society in
every age and every place. The theology of the Reformationwas well aware that "some sins in themselves, and by reason
of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of Godthan others" (Shorter Catechism, Answer 83). To conceive of
all men as standing together on a flat, undifferentiated moral
plateau is to exclude from theology altogether the doctrine ofjudicial abandonment. All men are depraved. But not all men
are "hardened" or "given over to a reprobate mind." Notevery prison is an Auschwitz or every city a Sodom. Many men
are capable of natural affection, fidelity and even of heroic
selfsacrifice. The doctrine of common grace recognizes thisand insists that such qualities are gifts from "the Father of
lights" (James 1:17) (BYG, pp. 128, 129).
"Absolute Depravity" an Absolute FictionThe opening statement in the lengthy paragraph quoted above is true: The
distinction between "total depravity" and "absolute depravity" is the invention
of the theologians who have advocated common grace. They invented it inorder to discredit Hoeksema's teaching of total depravity and in order to
promote their own denial of total depravity in the doctrine of common grace.
The distinction did not originate with Herman Hoeksema. He did not accept
"absolute depravity" as the description of his doctrine of the depravity of the
natural man. He positively rejected the notion of "absolute depravity," that is,
as Macleod describes it, "such a degree of hostility to God as admits of no
progression or variation."
The PRC today repudiate the distinction between "total depravity" and
"absolute depravity." It is not biblical. It is not confessional. It is not part ofthe Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. It is not even useful for
understanding the real issue at stake in the controversy over the spiritual
condition of fallen man. The great conflict for the Reformed faith in history
has not been between "total depravity" and "absolute depravity." In fact, no
one has ever taught "absolute depravity." "Absolute depravity" is a fiction. It
exists only in the minds of the advocates of common grace.
The Real Distinction: Total or Partial DepravityThere is one important distinction to be made as regards the spiritual
condition of unregenerated man. This is the distinction between "total
depravity" and "partial depravity." "Total depravity" is the doctrine of fallen
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
24/30
man's complete sinfulness without any good whatever. "Partial depravity" is
the doctrine of fallen man's wickedness in all parts of his being while
retaining some good in all parts as well, whether because of a limited fall or
because of the operation of common grace.
The PRC confess total depravity.
Total depravity holds that all sinners are alike completely wicked and wholly
devoid of all good. As respects the extent of inherited corruption, there is no
difference among unregenerated sinners. Gandhi was as completely sinful as
Hitler. On the supposition that George Washington was unregenerated, he
lacked all goodness as much as did Pharaoh. The Bible says so: "There is
none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12).
Total Depravity and Development of SinBut it is perfectly in harmony with the doctrine of total depravity, and
certainly the truth, that one sinner is worse than another, even as one sin is
worse than another sin. The apostate from the faith is far more wicked than
the pagan (cf. Matt. 11:2024). The professing Christian who abandons his
wife and family is worse than an unbeliever (I Tim. 5:8). Both the
unregenerated husband who faithfully loves his own wife and the
unregenerated husband who commits adultery against his wife are completely
depraved. Both the faithful love and the adultery are sin, and nothing but sin.
But the adultery is worse sin, and the punishment of the adulterer will be
more severe.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that "some sins ... are more
heinous in the sight of God than others" (Q. 83). It does not say, or imply,
that some deeds of the unregenerate are good in the sight of God.
Degrees of wickedness among unregenerated persons are to be explained in
terms of greater and lesser knowledge; the circumstances of their lives; their
own more or less intense development of their sinfulness; and the degree to
which God hardens them and gives them over to their reprobate mind.
The spiritual difference among the unregenerated is a difference in degree ofwickedness. It is not a difference in extent of goodness.
The doctrine of total depravity, as held by Herman Hoeksema and the PRC
(and by the Reformed and Presbyterian creeds), does surely allow for
"progression or variation." There is development of sin in both individual and
society. But this development is not development from partial depravity to
complete depravity, that is, from more goodness to less goodness or no
goodness at all. Rather, it is development of sin.
The completely depraved person, in whom is no good from birth, develops
and works out all the possibilities of his depravity during his lifetime,
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
25/30
according to his circumstances. Baby Judas was as completely depraved as
was adult Judas at the moment that he betrayed Jesus. But the adult traitor
had made "progress" in the intensity and expression of his depravity.
The development of sin in the world throughout history is similar. Things do
not go from good to bad but from bad to worse. What is now taking place in
Western civilization is not the becoming bad of a society that formerly was
somewhat good but the increase of lawlessness.
The figure that accurately pictures the development of sin in the
unregenerated sinner and in the world outside of Christ is not that of the sick
man who gradually dies. But it is that of the dead man who gradually decays
and stinks more and more.
As for Professor Macleod's objection that the doctrine of total, that is,
complete, depravity makes devils out of men, the answer is at hand. I suppose
that even Professor Macleod would acknowledge that unregenerated men and
women in hell are at last completely depraved. No longer is there an
operation of common grace within them causing them to be somewhat good
in every faculty and part, filling them with "laudable qualities," and enabling
them to perform good works in theology, ethics, science, and art. At long last,
they are dead in sin. But surely Professor Macleod would admit that these
wretched persons are still humans, and not devils.
Man always remains man. He remains man when he falls into spiritual death.But now he is totally depraved man.
All of Scottish Presbyterian Macleod's arguments in support of his doctrine of
partial depravity and against the Reformed doctrine of total depravity fail.
The doctrine of total depravity stands: Unregenerated men and women are
completely sinful, devoid of any good. All of them. All of us, by nature.
This doctrine is fundamental. It is fundamental to the whole system of truth
known as Calvinism. Deny this doctrine, and the whole of Calvinism is
demolished.
The doctrine is basic to the gospel of grace. Total depravity is the judgment
the searing, humbling, offensive judgment of the gospel upon us in the
interests of the good news of sovereign mercy in the cross of God Incarnate
(Rom. 1:163:30). Deny it, and the entire gospel is subverted.
But this is the present position of Professor Macleod and, I fear, of Scottish
Presbyterianism.
Because of the doctrine of common grace.
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
26/30
The Death of Confessional Calvinism in ScottishPresbyterianism (7)
Our Reformed readers may need to be informed that it is the glory ofconfessional Presbyterianism that it boldly proclaims the particular love of
God. The eternal source of this particular love is God's decree of
predestination. The revelation of this particular love is the definite, limited
atonement of the cross of Jesus Christ. The realization of this particular love
its being shed abroad in the hearts of the elect is the call of the gospel,
effectual and irresistible in the power of the Holy Spirit.
The glory of confessional Presbyterianism is the same as the glory of the
creedal Reformed faith. The Presbyterianism of the Westminster Standards
and the Reformed faith of the "Three Forms of Unity" are confessional
Calvinism. And the glory of confessional Calvinism is the glory of God in the
sovereignty of His particular love.
Confessional Presbyterianism teaches that God loves and wills to save the
elect; that Christ died for the elect; and that the Spirit calls the elect through
the gospel unto saving union with Christ. Confessional Presbyterianism also
explicitly teaches that God has eternally ordained others to damnation in
hatred; that Christ did not die for these reprobate; and that the Spirit
deliberately refuses to call the reprobate unto eternal life.
Our Presbyterian readers already know this.
The eternal particularity of divine love and mercy in the counsel of
predestination is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), 3.3,
5, and 7:
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, andothers foreordained to everlasting death.
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before
the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternaland immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good
pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlastingglory ....
The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth orwithholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his
sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordainthem to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his
glorious justice.
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
27/30
In 8.5, the WCF teaches definite, particular, limited atonement:
The Lord Jesus ... hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father;
and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlastinginheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the
Father hath given unto him.
The particular, exclusive, effectual saving work of the Spirit through the
gospel is taught in the WCF, 10.1:
All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those
only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time,effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that state of
sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace andsalvation by Jesus Christ ....
This truth of the particular love of God is denied by influential Scottish
Presbyterian theologian Donald Macleod in his recent book,Behold Your
God(BYG). Macleod teaches a love of God in Christ and a will of God to
salvation that are universal. He proclaims a death of Christ for every sinner
without exception. He defends a gracious work of the Spirit in the gospel that
is directed by the Spirit to all who hear.
The doctrine of the universal, ineffectual love of God for sinners, Macleod
contends, is genuine Scottish Presbyterianism.
I fear that this doctrine does indeed pass for Presbyterianism in Scotland
today. If so, write "Ichabod" over contemporary Scottish Presbyterianism!
For the glory has departed. Macleod's doctrines of a universal love of God, a
universal atonement, and a universal grace in the preaching sound the death
knell for confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism.
The serpent in the Eden of Presbyterian truth was the doctrine of common
grace. In previous editorials, we saw that the doctrine of common grace led
Professor Macleod to reject the doctrine of total depravity for the doctrine of
partial depravity. This same intruder has corrupted the doctrines ofpredestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace in the theology of
Presbyterian Macleod.
Having set forth, defended, and advocated common grace in chapters 1315 of
BYG, in chapter 16 Macleod applies this favor of God toward all humans to
the love of God for sinners in Jesus Christ. God's love is His outstanding
perfection, writes Macleod, and the love of God is supremely revealed at
Calvary. The Presbyterian theologian quotes and expounds John 3:16: "For
God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son ..." (pp. 146149).
"Herein," he correctly states, "is love" (p. 149).
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
28/30
And then comes the vital, inescapable question:
The biblical teaching on the love of God confronts the
Calvinist with a question of real urgency: What is the extent ofGod's love? Whom does it embrace? And is it at all possible,
against the background of predestination, to speak of Godloving all men? (pp. 149, 150)
Macleod does not hesitate: "There must be no hesitation. The world is ugly
and unlovely and some of its constituents will be finally and irrevocably lost.
Yet we cannot stop short of saying that God loves it." "His love extends to
those who are not yet reconciled to Him and even to those who are never
reconciled (emphasis hisDJE)."
As Macleod makes clear in his question about the extent of God's love, a
question directly linked with the love of God of John 3:16, the love of God
for all men is not merely a love that gives all men earthly gifts. It is a love
that wills the salvation of all men:
Most important, God's love for the world means that He willhave all men to be saved (I Timothy 2:4).... God will have all
men to be saved in the sense that He has provided a salvation
suited to the needs of all.... Furthermore, the salvation isoffered to all.... (God) has no pleasure in the death of the
wicked, but longs that they should turn and live (Ezekiel33:11) (pp. 150, 151).
This affirmation of universal love is the denial of election. For election is
selective love.
Denial of limited atonement follows. Macleod quotes Preston with approval:
"Go and tell every man without exception that there is good news for him,
Christ is dead for him." Christ is the Savior of every human "in the deed of
gift and grant to mankind lost." We may tell all sinners without exception that
"Christ loves them so much that He offers to be their Saviour and pleads with
them to accept Him" (pp. 152, 153).
This universal love of God revealed in the cross of Christ is expressed in the
preaching of the gospel. The preaching of the gospel is an offer of salvation
to all sinners expressing the love of God in Christ for them all and the desire
of God to save them all.
To evoke that response (of receiving Christ Jesus as LordDJE) we may tell them that Christ loves them so much that He
offers to be their Saviour and pleads with them to accept Him.
But they must come. If the offering love is spurned if the
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
29/30
crucified Christ is rejected they are lost (p. 153).
The biblical view ... is that the sending of preachers is an
expression of God's desire that all men should be saved ... (p.131).
It is clear, then, that the love of God for all men as expressed
in the free offer of Christ and His salvation is somethingwhich Reformed theology has been at pains to conserve and
even to emphasize (p. 153).
This now, apparently, is contemporary Scottish Presbyterianism: a universal
love of God in Christ that fails to secure the salvation of many; a death of
Christ for all that fails to redeem many; and a grace toward all in the
preaching that fails to call many into union with Christ.
This doctrine of an ineffective universalism is directly related to the glaring
absence in the whole of Macleod's book about God of the truth of
reprobation. Macleod has no place for an eternal, sovereign decree ordaining
some persons to damnation. If there is such a decree in the God whom
Macleod wants us to behold, Macleod is ashamed of it and hides it from our
view. But the inevitable result is universal electing love, universal atonement,
and universal grace in the preaching. This is the death of the gospel of
particular, sovereign grace confessed by Dordt and Westminster.
This doctrine of an ineffective universalism is directly related to the glaring
absence, in the whole of Macleod's book about God, of the truth of
reprobation. Macleod has no place for an eternal, sovereign decree ordaining
some persons to damnation. If there is such a decree in the God whom
Macleod wants us to behold, Macleod is ashamed of it and hides it from our
view. But the inevitable result is universal electing love, universal atonement,
and universal grace in the preaching. This is the death of the gospel of
particular, sovereign grace confessed by Dordt and Westminster.
Professor Macleod saves us the trouble of charging that this contemporary
Scottish "Presbyterianism" is nothing else than the heresy of Arminianism.He admits this himself:
Arminianism believes that God so loves all men that He hasmade their salvation possible, if only they believe. It also
believes that God so loves all men that He offers them this
salvation freely. The Calvinist believes all that and theArminian believes nothing more (p. 154).
This may be contemporary Scottish Presbyterianism. But it is not
confessional Presbyterianism. If this theology represents Presbyterianism in
Scotland at the end of the 20th century (and I have not seen one word of
-
8/8/2019 Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyter Ian Ism
30/30
protest coming out of Scotland), confessional Calvinism is dead in Scotland.
"Behold Your God"?
We confessional Presbyterians and creedally Reformed believers cannot
recognize our God in this theology.