Part
6
A
Hyper-Calvinist Reader
I had planned to continue the critique of common
grace begun in the last editorial but recently a (real) hyper-Calvinist wrote
to me to “correct” my error of duty faith and duty repentance.1 Remember
that hyper-Calvinism is not a denial of the well-meant (or free) offer and
common grace, but a denial of duty faith and duty
repentance. In the third editorial in this series, we addressed genuine
hyper-Calvinism but more, it appears, needs to be said.
I should stress at this point that I do not intend
to answer my hyper-Calvinist objector again. The purpose of this series of
editorials is twofold: (1) to answer the charges of hyper-Calvinism that Phil
R. Johnson makes against the PRC (and the BRF, which also rejects the teachings
of the well-meant offer and common grace) and (2) to repudiate the error of
hyper-Calvinism itself. There are some readers who will never be satisfied, and
to answer every argument and objection would entangle the editor in
interminable debate. This will be the final response to my hyper-Calvinist
reader’s objections. I urge the readers of the BRJ to
understand that, when debating theology or any other subject, wisdom dictates
when one has reached the point where further discussion would be fruitless. Let
us all aim to know when we have reached that stage in our personal
interactions! I hope we can disagree without rancour.
We may have misconceptions about hyper-Calvinism.
The popular caricature is of a church which never preaches the gospel to anyone
except its own members. That, however, is not the issue—the issue is what does
the hyper-Calvinist preach? A person might preach to huge crowds of unbelievers
and still be theologically a hyper-Calvinist. The issue that the reader brings
up is this: to whom do we address the command to
repent and believe, and (related to that) to whom do we
address the promise, and how are the command and the promise
connected?
A good place to start is with the Canons of
Dordt, which authoritatively define true Calvinism. Canons I:3
states, “And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the
messengers of these most joyful tidings, to whom He will and at what time He
pleaseth; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in
Christ crucified.” That the reference here is to the external call is clear
from Canons I:4, which speaks of those “who believe
not.” Canons II:5 states,
Moreover, the promise
of the gospel is that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish,
but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to
repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and
to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His
good pleasure sends the gospel.
Again, Canons II:6 makes clear
that not all who hear that command to repent and believe do actually believe
(“many who are called by the gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but
perish in unbelief”). Clearest of all is Canons III/IV:8,
where we read,
As many as are called
by the gospel are unfeignedly called. For God hath most earnestly and truly
shown in His Word, what is pleasing to Him, namely, that those who are
called should come to Him. He, moreover, seriously promises eternal life and
rest to as many as shall come to Him and believe on Him.
The context, again, makes clear that the external
call is the focus: “[There are] those who are called by the ministry of the
Word [who] refuse to come and be converted” (Canons III/IV:9). We
have examined these creedal references in earlier editorials.
The Canons do not teach
Arminianism and they refuse to overreact to Arminianism by teaching
hyper-Calvinism. They teach the biblical and Reformed doctrine of the call
without confusing it with an Arminian offer. They teach the universal and
serious command to all (including the reprobate) to believe in Christ and to
repent of sin, while they restrict the promise to the “whosoever believeth” or
the elect.
More
Biblical Proof
In the third editorial in this series, I included a
number of texts to prove that Christ and the apostles commanded repentance and
faith of everyone in their audience.2 Let me include a few
more. To the unregenerate, hypocritical and, as far as we can tell, reprobate
Pharisees and Sadducees, John the Baptist spoke these words: “O generation of
vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth
therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:7-8). To do that is to go beyond
repentance—it is to show evidence of genuine conversion! Could these
unbelieving religionists do that? No, but they were commanded to do it. To the
hypocritical, covetous, erstwhile sorcerer, Simon, whose heart was “not right
in the sight of God” and who was, according to Peter’s accurate perception, “in
the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity,” The apostle urged,
“Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought
of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:20-23). Whatever Simon was (elect
or reprobate), he certainly was not a “sensible” (spiritually sensitive)
sinner. Can one in the bond of iniquity pray? Can one in the gall
of bitterness repent? No, but he was commanded to do it. To King
Herod Agrippa, Paul describes his ministry in these words:
Whereupon, O king
Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto
them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea,
and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and
do works meet for repentance (Acts 26:19-20).
Notice what Paul does not say: “I preached that
only the elect or sensible sinners or spiritually qualified sinners should
repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” Paul issued general
commands in his preaching and so must all true Calvinists. The risen and exalted
Lord Jesus issued a command of repentance to the wicked, stubbornly impenitent,
false prophetess Jezebel of Thyatira: “And I gave her space to repent of her
fornication; and she repented not” (Rev. 2:21). Christ adds a warning for her
impenitent children: “Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit
adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds”
(Rev. 2:22).
We could multiply quotations but one entrenched in
hyper-Calvinism will rarely be convinced. Noteworthy about these and many other
examples in Scripture is that (1) the command to repent is addressed to all
indiscriminately; (2) the preacher, whether John, Peter, Paul or Christ, never
promises all the hearers salvation, even conditionally if they repent and believe;
and (3) the preacher does not make an offer or express a sincere desire in
God to save the reprobate. The command is general but the promise is
particular.
My hyper-Calvinist reader submits a list of
questions. I will not include them all but will only address his main
arguments. I will also paraphrase them in places so that the reader can see the
force of the question.
The first major issue for my hyper-Calvinist reader
is the address of Peter in Acts 2 and 3, and of Paul in Acts 16: “May I command
anyone to repent and be converted, and then promise that person the blotting
out of his sins?” “Does Peter command the house of Israel to repent, be
baptized and save themselves from this untoward generation, and promise them
the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost?” “Does Paul command the
unbelieving jailor of Philippi to believe, and promise him and his yet
unbelieving house salvation?” “Will you walk up to any man and proclaim,
‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, and your
house’?” Finally, to make my position seem ridiculous, he asks, “Will you
say, ‘O Iscariot and Jezebel, repent, and be baptized for the remission of
sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Save yourselves from
this untoward generation’?”
These are interesting questions, and they reveal
the confusion in my hyper-Calvinist reader’s mind. He imagines that, if you
teach duty faith and duty repentance, which is my position, it inevitably means
that God promises salvation to all whom He commands to repent and believe,
which I deny.
The
Call and the Promise
Acts 2 records Peter’s Pentecost sermon, at the end
of which, he declares, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God hath made this same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and
Christ” (v. 36). The effect of the sermon is conviction of sin for “they were
pricked in their heart” (v. 37). This does not necessarily mean regeneration
and certainly no preacher can know with certainty that a display of conviction
of sin is genuine. Nevertheless, the frightened sinners cry out, “Men and
brethren, what shall we do?” (v. 37). Peter ministers the gospel to them. At
this point, we wonder what the hyper-Calvinist would say. Would he say,
“Repent,” and thus issue a command? Would he say, “There is nothing you can do.
You are totally depraved. It is utterly hopeless. The best thing you can do is
to wait to see if God converts you”? We know what Peter said: “Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (v. 38). Moreover, “with
many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this
untoward generation” (v. 40).
We see from Acts 2 what a preacher must do. First,
he must preach the command (“Repent,” “be baptized” and “save yourselves”
are imperatives). Second, he must preach the command to everyone:
“every one of you” (v. 38). Third, he must preach the promise. Without the
promise, the hearers will not know to whom salvation pertains.
We see how Peter preaches the promise in verses
38-39: “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is
unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as
the Lord our God shall call.” What my hyper-Calvinist reader does not
acknowledge is that Peter commands all to repent and believe, but he promises
salvation (“the gift of the Holy Ghost” and by implication “the remission of
sins”) only to believers. The promise is not conditional. Peter
does not say, “God promises to each of you and to each of your children,
that, if you and they repent and believe, you and they shall
be saved.”
The promise is unconditional, as Peter explains
with that qualifying clause at the end of verse 39, “even as many as the Lord
our God shall call.” That phrase qualifies or limits the “you,” the “children”
and the “afar off.” Peter does not promise in the name of God salvation to
everyone in his Jewish audience (“you”) or to all of their children (“your children”)
or to all the Gentiles (“afar off”)—he promises salvation to the “called” (the
effectually called) within those three groups. Nevertheless, Peter does not
limit the command to those whom God effectually calls. Peter commands everyone in
the audience to repent and believe in Christ. That cannot be denied.
The same scenario plays out in Acts 3, where Peter
addresses a crowd of unbelieving Jews who have gathered in response to a
miracle that he has performed at the Beautiful Gate of the temple. After charging
them with killing the Christ, he issues the command, “Repent ye therefore, and
be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (v. 19). The words “repent”
and “be converted” are imperatives, and there is no indication here
that the people had been pricked in their hearts before Peter issued the
command to repent.
In Acts 3:19, the people must (1) repent and (2) be
converted (or, literally, “turn”). The purpose of such repentance and turning
is “that [their] sins may be blotted out.” Peter’s words are both a command and
a promise, a command to all the hearers to repent, and a promise of the
blotting out of sins to all who repent and are converted. Peter’s words do not
constitute a conditional promise but identify the true recipients of the
promised blessing—only those who repent and believe will be
forgiven. The hearers are not able to repent and be converted,
but the obligation to do so still rests on them. If they do
not repent, they “shall be destroyed from among the people” (v. 23).
Acts 16 records one of the most dramatic
conversions in the New Testament, the conversion of the Philippian jailor.
Awoken from his sleep by a miraculous earthquake, and knowing that Paul and
Silas were men of God, the terrified jailor cries out, “Sirs, what must I do to
be saved?” (v. 30). Again, I ask the question of my hyper-Calvinist reader,
“What would you say to a person who asked you that question?” What ought a
preacher today respond to a person who asks such a question? Will we respond,
“Do not be foolish! There is nothing you can do. You must stand still and see
the salvation of God”? That is not what Paul and Silas responded. “And they
said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”
(v. 31).
Grammatically, again, the verb “believe” is in
the imperative—it is a command. The words “thou shalt be saved”
constitute a promise. That presents a problem to my hyper-Calvinist reader. Is
Paul declaring to the jailor, whose eternal destiny (elect or reprobate) and
whose spiritual state (regenerate or unregenerate) are unknown to the apostle
that, if he believes, he shall be saved, that is, is Paul preaching
a conditional promise to the jailor? Then may the preacher
today declare to any unbeliever, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and, if you
believe, God promises you salvation”? We answer in the negative. Paul commands
the jailor, and we command everyone to believe. The promise (“and thou shalt be
saved”) pertains only to believers. The jailor can only become partaker of the
promised salvation through faith. However, salvation does not depend on the
jailor, for Scripture everywhere proclaims that repentance, faith and salvation
are gifts of God (Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29).
Therefore, in answer to my hyper-Calvinist reader,
I can and will preach to any person, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you
shall be saved, and your house.” I can and must do that without any
embarrassment or hesitation. I can and must urge upon the audience to which I
speak (whether to an audience of thousands or to an audience of one) the
command to believe, and I can and must proclaim to that same audience that God
graciously promises salvation to believers and to them only.
What about Judas Iscariot and Jezebel? The same
command pertains (pertained) to them. Judas was under the solemn obligation to
believe in Jesus Christ. Judas was not exempt from that command because he was
a known reprobate. In fact, he was not a known reprobate,
except to Christ. Christ even commanded Jezebel (the New Testament Jezebel of
Revelation 2) to repent, as we have noted above. Although Judas could not
repent and although God still commanded Judas to repent, Judas was not promised
salvation. Such a promise would be impossible, since God had eternally
reprobated Judas, and excluded him from Christ’s atonement and from
participation in the grace of the Spirit. Nevertheless, if I meet a Judas
Iscariot today, that is, if I meet a reprobate, I can and must in the preaching
declare to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and
your house.” I must call him to repentance and faith, despite the fact that I
can never identify a reprobate in the audience, and despite the fact that the
preaching will be the “savour of death unto death” to him (II Cor. 2:16).
Another example raised by my hyper-Calvinist reader
is Christ’s preaching to the rich young ruler: “Sell all that thou hast, and
distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come,
follow me” (Luke 18:22). Although the man appears not to have been immediately
converted, we know from Mark 10:21 that, since Jesus loved him, he was an elect
sinner who must have been converted at some point before he died. The grammar
of Luke 18:22 is similar to the passages we have addressed earlier: four
imperatives (“sell,” “distribute,” “come” and “follow”) and one future tense
(“thou shalt have”), which constitutes a promise. Command and promise—that is
the biblical pattern. Christ does not promise everyone treasure in heaven, nor
does He promise this man treasure in heaven on condition that he repents of his
covetousness, which is the essence of His command here. He issues the command
with a promise but a promise which only pertains to the penitent. The preacher
can urge the same thing upon all his hearers today: “Repent, believe in Jesus,
and you shall have treasure in heaven.” There is no Arminianism and no
conditional theology here.
What
Are Reprobates Commanded to Believe?
My hyper-Calvinist reader and I agree that the
reprobate cannot believe and that they cannot have assurance of salvation.
Furthermore, I agree with my hyper-Calvinist reader that a reprobate cannot be
commanded to believe that Christ died for him/her. Where we disagree is my
contention that we can and must in the preaching command a reprobate (with the
caveat that we can never identify a reprobate in the audience) to believe.
To this my hyper-Calvinist reader urges Hebrews
11:1-2 and 6, which state,
Now faith is the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the
elders obtained a good report … But without faith it is impossible to please
him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
All men must believe that God is.
Atheism is sin, for it is the refusal to believe and confess the one true and
living God. An unbeliever cannot please God because he does not believe that
God is. Unbelievers also do not believe that God rewards those who diligently
seek Him, which is why they refuse to seek Him. “The wicked, through the pride
of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts”
(Ps. 10:4). The reprobate is, however, not commanded to believe that God has a
reward for him personally. He is commanded to believe in the God who rewards
the seeker. And he is commanded to seek that God.
My hyper-Calvinist reader asks, “If a person has no
assurance in the promise of the gospel as applicable to himself, does he have
faith?” “If a person does not have assurance that Christ died for his sins,
does he have faith?” “Can a person be commanded to believe that Christ has died
for his sins if that person is a reprobate?” “Can a person be commanded to
believe that Christ has not died for his sins, and would such a belief be
faith?”
With respect, my hyper-Calvinist reader is
over-complicating matters to no good purpose. We need to understand several
things. First, we do not know who is elect and reprobate. Second, since we
cannot know who is elect and reprobate, we can only issue general commands,
which God then applies to individual souls for their salvation or hardening
according to His sovereign good pleasure. Third, therefore, we can never
command an unbeliever, “Believe that Christ died for your sins” or “Believe
that Christ did not die for your sins.” We command simply this, “Believe in
Jesus Christ, who was crucified for sinners.” And we add the promise, “He who
believes will have salvation and will have assurance that Christ died for his
sins.” Beyond that we cannot go. Suffice to say, God does not command a
reprobate to believe a lie, nor does He command a reprobate to hypocritical
repentance or to counterfeit faith. He commands all men, including the
reprobate, to repent and to believe in Jesus Christ. The ground of that command
is not in the hearer’s ability, but in the sovereign will and unchangeable
righteousness of God.
The
Reprobate Are Commanded to Repent
The third part of my hyper-Calvinist reader’s
objection is his contention that not all men are commanded to repent. In fact, he
says, “Some men are commanded not to repent.” He aims to prove
this in two ways. First, he attempts to prove that some reprobates (such as
Judas) were commanded to sin. Second, he attempts to restrict the command to
repent to only certain kinds of sinners. About Judas, my hyper-Calvinist reader
writes, “God does not command Judas Iscariot not to betray
Him, though He laments his betrayal, but rather commands it in
John 13:27, ‘That thou doest, do quickly.’” He adds, “Christ does not command
Judas to believe. He cares for the elect. He cares that Judas betray Him to
bring about salvation for the elect.” While it is true that the betrayal of
Judas was necessary, that does not make it Judas’ duty. To be fair
to my hyper-Calvinist reader, he is not suggesting that Judas was duty bound to
betray Jesus or that Judas’ betrayal was a righteous act. Judas’ duty was to
honour, love and obey Jesus, and to believe in Jesus. Christ merely commands
Judas to do what he has already determined to do quickly or
without delay. Judas’ had planned to perform his dastardly deed after the feast
but God decreed the death of Christ to take place at the Passover.
About the Pharisees, the reader writes, “Jesus does
not command the Pharisees to repent of their hypocrisy, even though He condemns
them for it, but rather commands them to ‘fill up the measure of [their]
fathers’ (Matt. 23:22).” I answer: Christ does not command them to fill up
their sins. He speaks ironically, as we would when we say, “Go ahead, do what
you are planning to do,” even though we do not approve of it. The entire
chapter is Christ’s denunciation of the Pharisees for their wickedness.
About the inhabitants of certain Galilean cities,
the reader writes, “Christ does not command them to repentance or faith—that He
condemns them for not having done so does not diminish the fact that He does
not command them to do so.” But, of course, He commands them to repent! He
upbraided them “because they repented not” (Matt. 11:20). There are only three
options with respect to their duty: (1) God commands them to repent; (2) God
does not command them to repent; (3) God does not care if they repent or not.
The holy God commands sinners to repent. The holy God must require sinners to
repent. God’s purpose with their impenitence, however, is another matter
entirely. God’s purpose does not determine the sinner’s duty. God’s command
determines the sinner’s duty.
In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas preach to pagans
“that [they] should turn” from idols to the living and true God (v. 15). My
hyper-Calvinist reader attempts to circumvent the force of the passage in this
way: “Paul addresses in his promiscuous preaching only those whose hearts God
had filled with food and gladness, which latter term Scripture otherwise
applies to the filling of the heart of Christ with gladness at His resurrection
(Acts 2:28, quoting Psalm 16:11).” I respond: the address of Paul is general:
“Sirs … [we] preach unto you that ye should turn” (Acts
14:15). Notice also that in verse 17 the pronoun changes from “ye should
turn” to “[God] gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful
seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” Paul does
not restrict the command, and my hyper-Calvinist reader’s appeal to Acts 2:28
ignores the context. No one in Paul’s audience, and none of Luke’s readers,
doubted that Paul was addressing all the people in Lystra with
the command to repent.
In fact, insists my reader, there are many places
where the inspired writers did not call unbelievers to repentance. It would
appear that, in the mind of my hyper-Calvinist reader, the “duty faith”
position fails if there is even one place where an unbeliever
is not called to repent and believe the Gospel. He cites examples in Matthew
23—Christ simply pronounces woes upon the Pharisees (23:13ff.), James 5—James
simply calls the rich men to “weep and howl” (5:1), and Jude—Jude simply
excoriates the apostates for their many sins. When a biblical writer condemns a
person for his sins, the call to repentance is implied. When, in
the preaching, we hear the condemnation of a particular sin, we are called to
repent, even if the minister does not explicitly say, “Repent of this or that
sin.”
The arguments of my hyper-Calvinist reader
illustrate the lengths to which some will go to avoid the obvious teaching of
Scripture. God commands all to repent and believe, despite their inability, and
God promises salvation to all who do repent and believe. It only becomes
complicated when someone has a deliberate hyper-Calvinist agenda that clouds
his exegesis.
The
Twofold Call
One final issue is the hyper-Calvinistic
interpretation of Matthew 22:12. My hyper-Calvinist reader refuses to
acknowledge a twofold call in the Scriptures, arguing that “called” in Matthew
22 is the same as “called” in Revelation 19:9, where we read, “And he saith
unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of
the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.” It is true,
of course, that both texts in Matthew 22 and Revelation 19 speak of the marriage
supper, but the context is different. In Revelation 17, for example, those who
follow Christ are “called, and chosen, and faithful” (v. 14),
and in Revelation 19, those who are called are “blessed” (v. 9), but in Matthew
22:14, Christ distinguishes between the called and the chosen: “For
many are called, but few are chosen.”
My hyper-Calvinist reader offers the following, to
my mind bizarre, exegesis of the parable:
Hypers identify the city in Matthew 22:7 as
Jerusalem, the typical abode of the elect. The king’s destruction of the city
refers to the truth that Christ died for “those murderers” (v. 7) and
vicariously endured eternal fire for their sakes. After this, God sends the
Gospel into the whole world to the elect (vv. 9-10), and they hear it and enter
the kingdom of God.
No one reading the parable without
hyper-Calvinistic bias could possibly come to that conclusion. Those who first
heard the parable never imagined that that was Christ’s meaning. Here is the
obvious meaning: God calls some (in the context, the Jews), who refuse to
believe. God judges those unbelievers with damnation. God then calls others,
who do believe. God makes them partakers of the blessings of salvation.
Christ’s explanation for this outcome is (1) many are called—they are
“unfeignedly called” as Canons III/IV:8 explains; (2) of the
many who are called, some do not come, which is sinful rebellion, for it is
their duty to come, and God commands them to come, and punishes them for not
coming; (3) those who do not come, although they were unfeignedly called, are
reprobate, that is, they were not chosen; (4) those who do come enter the
wedding feast because they are elect.
The true Calvinist preaches the Gospel without an
ineffectual offer—he proclaims far and wide the glad tidings of salvation in
Christ crucified. He announces that there is salvation full and free for all
who come to Jesus Christ. He urges everyone in the audience to repent of sin
and to believe in the crucified and risen Saviour. He warns, exhorts and even begs—although
God never begs—sinners to flee from the wrath to come. He promises to all
believers that they will have eternal life. He warns all unbelievers that they
will perish, if they refuse to believe in Christ. And he does this knowing that
God has an elect people, that Christ died only for that elect people and that
the Spirit grants life only to that elect people.
In all this, he avoids Arminian conditionalism and
he repudiates stultifying hyper-Calvinism.
Next time, we shall continue our critique of
“common grace” (DV).
-----------------
FOOTNOTES:
1. The reader in question calls himself a
hyper-Calvinist but he will not be named in the editorial.
2. Matt. 11:20; Mark 1:14-15; 6:12; Acts 2:38;
3:19; 4:12; 13:38, 41; 14:15; 16:31; 17:3, 30; 19:4, 8-9; 24:25; 26:29;
28:23-24, 31.
No comments:
Post a Comment