Contra Scott Price on Arminianism

Scott Price, who runs a blog and FB page promoting supralapsarianism, recently posted on his wall, and re-posted a note in the FB group "I am a Supralapsarian" that seems to run in a certain errant direction. Now, I have not been following the controversy over the supposed "free will debate" between Sonny Hernandez and Theodore Zachariades on the one side, and Leighton Flowers and Jonathan Pritchett on the other side, and I didn't even hear in full the two hour dissection Dr. James White did on his Dividing Line show. Generally, I have little interest in interactions where the side I am supposedly on holds to false teaching concerning the Gospel and is selective in their understanding of church history. This post by Scott Price follows at least a similar line of reasoning as Hernandez and Zachariades. Whether or not Price holds the same view as Hernandez and Zachariades on the topic, the similarities are just too common and disturbing, and I have decided to respond to the issue here.

The most disturbing section from the note is seen in these two paragraphs:

Those who are well-read, well-studied, with lettered credentials behind their name are who I blame for the most toxic spread of fake gospel-news by their endorsement of the false gospel of Arminianism. It is simple and very clear how this is done. They call Arminians their brothers. They imply it is merely error or inconsistency on the Arminian’s part, but we know that adding conditions or works to grace perverts the gospel of grace (Rom 11:6).

The Arminian, Semi-Pelegian and Pelegian preachers are guilty of preaching and teaching the false gospel for the hearers to believe it in the first place. That is bad enough, but those who should know better are the educated ones who claim to believe the free and sovereign grace who snuggle up to the false gospel and legitimize it by calling the Arminain their brother. They are the ones who spread the Fake News of Conditionalism being a legitimate gospel used to convert in God’s salvation. Arminianism is BAD NEWS, which conditions salvation on the sinner and displays a failed, false christ. This means the compromising Sovereign Grace, Calvinist, Reformed are promoting the same false gospel in the very spirit of anti-Christ.

Now, I have no wish to defend anyone and everyone who calls himself "Sovereign Grace, Calvinist, Reformed." In fact, I probably have no wish to defend more than 60% (an arbitrary estimated figure) of those who self-identify as such. My standpoint is as one from the creedal and confessional Presbyterian and Reformed tradition. That is my stance, and that is the ground upon which I will begin my interaction with the problematic views being promoted here.

Historical Theological critique

My first point of critique is the ahistorical and arbitrary manner of how Price determines what is or isn't heresy, coupled with a simplistic view of church history. It is rather insufficient to cite the Canons of Dordt, because citing Dordt without understanding or contextualizing what is happening at Dordt is to do to church history what eisegesis does to the biblical text in the disciplines of exegetical and biblical theology, i.e. proof-texting out of context. Yes, Dordt proclaimed Ariminianism as heresy. In fact, in Canons of Dordt (CD) 2 Rejection of Errors 3, the divines at Dordt charge the Arminians as those that "summon back from hell the Pelagian error." But what does this mean in the CONTEXT of early 17th century Dutch religious life and to what extent it applies today? It is not as simple as just to say, "Dordt claims Arminianism is heresy. Here in the 21st century we find some Arminians. Therefore they are heretics." Whoever argues this way shows they have not even begun to think correctly about historical issues and judgments, and whether on the "right" or "left" (whatever they mean when taken out of their normal political context), such mishandling of history is reprehensible.

The Arminians at Dordt were a scholarly group of theologians who knowingly and willfully rejected the Reformed faith. Quite a number of these classical Arminians turned "liberal" in their theology, with Conrad Vorstius rejecting the Trinity and dying a Socinian, while Hugo Grotius gave us the moral governmental theory of the atonement. And within a generation or two, Philip Limborch expressed the total apostasy of Remonstrant Arminianism by turning them into a rationalist movement, a fact which even the modern-day Arminian Roger Olsen acknowledges even as he tries to rehabilitate the original Remonstrants [Roger E. Olsen, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006), 23]. Thus, historically, the Remonstrants were not some hillbillies pratting about things they do not know. Rather, they were evil men knowingly promoting error that leads to greater apostasy in due time from the truth.

Much of modern Arminianism especially in the English-speaking world comes to us from the line of John Wesley, and his version is what is called "Evangelical Arminianism." As I have written in an article, Evangelical Arminianism is not the same as Classical Arminianism. And it is not just that Evangelical Arminianism affirms Total Depravity whereas Classical Arminianism obfuscates on total depravity, but rather that Evangelical Arminianism inconsistently couples an idea of prevenient grace sufficient for Man to respond to God with the idea that Man cannot respond to God's grace apart from God working in Man. In other words, Evangelical Arminianism is self-contradictory, and that actually saves it from being heretical like Classical Arminianism. This Evangelical Arminianism in its various permutations and reduction in intellectual sophistication for a popular audience is what we see in modern-day 21st century popular evangelical Arminianism.

Therefore, in light of the facts of church history, it is an error today for anyone including Scott Price to claim that the Arminianism that was judged as heretical at Dordt is necessarily the same as the many ArminianismS that populate the modern day Evangelical churches. This of course is not to say that no version of Arminianism is heretical, but it is to make the perfectly legitimate statement that not everything that terms itself as "Arminian" or "Arminianism" is heretical. There must be actual examination of the person's beliefs instead of mere sloganeering, and most definitely no blanket statement condemning ALL Arminians as necessarily heretics, which brings me to my next point.

Confusion of the Gospel

What is the Gospel? And how is anyone saved at all? According to Scripture, we are saved purely by faith in Jesus Christ (e.g. Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 10:9-10), and the key description of faith is "trust." Salvation comes about when people repent of their sins and put their trust in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. When they do that, they are truly saved.

The reason why heresies are called "heresies" is that their teachings in some way impedes a person from believing the Gospel unto salvation. For example, the heresy of Modalism when believed causes a person to believe in a false god, which means that he cannot put his trust in Jesus Christ, for his "Jesus" is not the true Jesus the Son of God. Likewise, the heresy of Pelagianism when believed cause a person to not put his trust in Christ, but rather trust himself to be holy. The heresy of Classical Arminianism likewise causes a person to not put his trust in Christ, but rather to look at his faith, as what saves is his faith justifying him before God.

Therefore, heresies are heresies because they prevent a person from believing the Gospel. Otherwise, false doctrines which do not prevent a person from believing the Gospel is just that, a false doctrine which a believer might hold to. Belief in false doctrines is a sin, but it is hardly damning. For just as one is not perfect in holiness of life while on this earth, how can one expect any and all believers to be perfect in holiness of doctrine while on this earth? Sanctification is a process, and perfectionism is a false teaching that causes harm to all who hold to it. Thus, belief in false doctrines is not cause for utilizing the "heresy" label, unless one is a perfectionist, an error which I may add is taught by the Evangelical Arminian John Wesley AND the Pelagian Charles Finney. If one claims to be a "very pure" Calvinist, surely the mere association with the likes of Wesley and Finney would be detested!

In his attacks on Arminianism, Price asserts that Arminians themselves are not saved and therefore cannot be called "brother." What Price is doing therefore is elevating Arminianism into a heresy. But, as we have mentioned, the reason why any heresy damns is because it prevents a person from repenting of their sins and putting their trust in Jesus Christ. But what impediment to this action of repentance and faith do modern-day popular evangelical Arminianism pose? Price suggests that Arminianism denies Sola Gratia (Grace alone) and thus make salvation dependent on faith and work (using the idiosyncratic term "conditionalism" to that end). While that is the logical conclusion of Arminianism, this is not the teaching of Wesley's Evangelical Arminianism and most devolved strains of popular ArminianismS. Upon what basis are we to say that a person cannot be inconsistent? Price seems to suggest that we are to judge a person based on the logical conclusion of his (incoherent and contradictory) beliefs. But is it possible for anyone to be inconsistent? Again, are we perfectionists? Yes, a person OUGHT to be consistent. Yes, a person OUGHT to be fully biblical. But OUGHT is not IS. Just because something OUGHT to be does not make it the case.

Thus Price errs in claiming that Arminians are "adding conditions and works to grace." Most of them do not do so, and just because they logical OUGHT to do so if they are consistent does not imply they have done so. Again, one should discover what any self-professed Arminian actually believes before consigning them to hell, and disowning them as brothers, and one should not be hasty in doing either! Likewise, Price errs in claiming that those who are willing to call an Arminian a brother is saying that the "false gospel of conditionalism" is a "legitimate gospel." First, there is no such term as "conditionalism," neither is there a need for that term, so stop making things up. Second, the Gospel is not primarily about right doctrine. Right doctrine protects and informs the Gospel, while false doctrine diminishes the Gospel and heresies impedes the Gospel. There is no such thing as a "Gospel of Calvinism" neither is there a "false gospel of conditionalism." Third, nobody is saying that Arminianism in any variety is true, so such statements made by Price is a straw man, and I really really detest straw men!

Conclusion

As I have said, I have no wish to defend anyone or everyone who self-identifies as "Calvinist, Reformed etc." But I do not believe that Price is telling the truth in charging that many Calvinists are endorsing a false gospel. Again, what is the Gospel? It seems that for Price, either he believes that the Gospel is belief in Calvinism (therefore non-Calvinists are damned), or that he holds to perfectionism in doctrine, so that one is NOT allowed to be inconsistent and still be saved. Either option is wrong. The former is the error of Hyper-Calvinism, and the latter perfectionism. But Arminanism is heresy, you say. Well, Classical Arminianism is heresy, but Evangelical Arminianism is not. And just because a teaching is heresy does not mean that those who identify as such are consistent. Due to these reasons, most Calvinists have always held that we can call Arminians "brother," save those that hold to Classical Arminianism. And due to these reasons too, Price is in error in his attack against those of us who disagree, and in error against his brothers who are not Calvinists but yet have put their full trust in Jesus for their salvation.

One more problem with the Cheungian view of direct agency

The heretic Vincent Cheung denies the ontological reality of second causes, while, as it must noted, he does not deny their epistemic reality. Cheung as a Hyper-Calvinist makes God the Author of Sin, and he is proud of it. But this kind of direct agency and strong Occasionalism would result in an interesting problem: How does Cheung deal with the death of Christ?

The death of Christ is ordained by God, but in the traditional Calvinistic understanding the Pharisees and Romans freely put him to death, without compulsion from God to do such a wicked act (cf. Acts 2:23). But if one takes Cheung's position, one must assert that God directly cause the Pharisees and the Romans to put him to death. In other words, since God the Son is God, what we have here is divine sadomasochism, or, since they are two different people, divine child abuse. Of course, such conclusions are absurd, but one must take these positions if one believes in only direct causation. And no, I do not admit the blank assertion that God is not "X" because by definition He is not "X." I am done arguing with extreme Nominalists, who think that defining their way out of actual problems in their theories makes valid arguments.

Recent consolidated articles

I have consolidated my posts on Vincent Cheung and 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism into one article here, and consolidated my review of Ronald E. Osborn's book Death Before the Fall: Biblical Literalism and the Problem of Animal Suffering, with some editing and a brief conclusion, here.

Repost: Eternal Justification and Hyper-Calvinism

Back in 2010 (how time flies), I had posted on the topic of Eternal Justification here. I have matured in my thinking since then and would like to modify some things in that piece.

The main thing I would modify is with regards to the distinction I made between "timeless" and "everlasting." I would now say that God in Himself is timeless (imminent Trinity) while God in His works is everlasting (economic Trinity). The problem with both Eternal Justification and Hyper-Calvinism is the flattening of the distinction between the imminent and economic Trinity, such that everything is about the imminent Trinity, the "naked God" as it were. I would also like to modify the issue regarding the rationalism of the 18th century Hypers with the discussion I had in my previous post on the issue.

Overall, I stand by what I have written 4 years back. The blog post I had referenced on the heinous errors of Hyper-Calvinism seemed to have disappeared, but, as with almost anything on the Internet, what is posted will never truly disappear, and it can be found here. It is interesting to note the first point stated about Hyper-Calvinism is the statement that God is the author of sin and evil, precisely the point at which Vincent Cheung has gone astray.

Vincent Cheung and 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism: The temptation to over-react

Fourthly, the Hyper-Calvinists were sincere men of average intelligence, but they lacked a prophetical and discerning spirit. They keenly desire to glorify God and mistakenly believed that God was more glorified in the exaltation of free grace in the pulpit and on the printed page, than in the evangelism and conversion of men. They became so obsessed with the defence of what they regarded as sound doctrine that the evangelistic note of Scripture as basically an overture by God towards sinners was muted. This lack of interest in evangelism (and a reference to evangelism in their books is virtually impossible to find) came, as we have seen, with the deduction of the duty of ministers in preaching from the secret will of the Lord, the will of His decrees. They did not realise what a baneful influence their doctrines would have upon those who followed in their footsteps. [Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (London, UK: The Olive Tree, 1967), 148]

As we have seen, it was a reaction within Nonconformity to Neonomism and Arminianism that resulted in the rise of Antinomianism and Hyper-Calvinism in the early 18th century. The Noncomformist pastors and theologians had good intentions, but good intentions alone is insufficient in the Christian life. Sadly, their efforts resulted in an arid church climate, such that God used the Evangelical Arminian John Wesley in the later half of the 18th century to chastise them for their lack of concern over evangelism, which was caused by their flawed theologies. Likewise, I am deeply concerned over the extreme views emanating from the online pen of Vincent Cheung, and the almost fanatical devotion his followers have for his views to the point of comparative neglect of many others.

My question to Cheung and his followers are thus: Are you open to the possibility that you just might be wrong? Does it not bother you at all that no one else in the entire 20 centuries of church history held to your position? Can you see that you just might have overreacted to the errors of the modern contemporary American (and American-influenced) churches, in the same way as the 18th century Noncomfromists overreacted to the errors of their time?

When you read those whom you disagree with, do you try to read them to understand where they are coming from, instead of circling the wagons and pigeon-holing them into a particular category? I am no Vantillian, but I appreciate Van Til's writings even where I disagree with some of what he says. Can you say that about those whom you disagree with, and actually try to understand where they are coming from? Would you even consider the objections people have made, instead of imputing whatever meaning you please to the words they use, and see any critique of e.g. rationalism, as an attack on rationality?

I admire your zeal, but it is greatly misplaced. Your philosophy has clouded your thinking, instead of clarifying it. There is a reason why tradition (small "t") exists, not that we are held captive to it, but that it guides us in the path we should go in our theologizing. Christianity was not born yesterday, and true theology has not been lost until the dawning of Vincent Cheung, or anyone else for that matter. Shouldn't you be guided by the Reformed and Christian tradition, instead of thinking that everyone, every single one of you is doing theology de novo? To raise some precedents, almost all biblicists have deviated in some way from the faith, from the Seventh-Day Adventists to the Jehovah's Witnesses to even Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell (founders of the Stone-Campbell movement). The fruit of biblicalism has been anything but biblical, so why do you insist on going down that path?

The temptation to over-react is always there. But overreactions almost invariably have potentially deadly consequences. For the sakes of your souls, please abandon Cheungism. Being "logical" (as opposed to being truly biblical and logical) is not a sufficient price for jeopardizing your salvation. Stop being so proud and certain of yourselves, and come and learn from the Reformed tradition. Not everything found in the Reformed tradition may be right, but at least you will be on the right track.

If you persist in Cheung's errors, be warned that it would lead you onto a path of death. For the sake of your souls, awake from your slumber and abandon it now. Do not be deceived, there is no life in that way, and only fools tread in that path.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. (Prov. 14:12)

Vincent Cheung and 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism: The rise of heresies

Secondly, between 1689 and 1765, High Calvinism was placed in an environment which emphasised the role of reason in religious faith. This meant that the High Calvinists were in danger either of absorbing the rationalism, or of rejecting it completely, or of doing both. It would seem Joseph Hussey fell prey to both temptations. He absorbed the rationalistic tendencies of his day and applied strict logic to Biblical doctrines so that from the doctrines of eternal election and irresistible grace he deduced that Christ should not be offered to all men. And also he deduced from the part which he believed that Christ played in the covenant of grace the doctrine that Christ's humanity was "standing in God" before the creation of the world. One of Hussey's followers, Samuel Stockell, abandoned the doctrine of eternal generation because he could not conceive how "the Begetter and the Begotten" could be of equal date. [Lewis] Wayman, [John] Gill and [John] Brine applied logic to the (hypothetical) covenant of works and deduced the doctrine that it is not the duty of hearers of the Gospel to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet all these men believed that they were not being rationalistic in a human sense but were simply applying "evangelical reason", or reason inspired by the Holy Spirit, to the Bible's teaching. [Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (London, UK: The Olive Tree, 1967), 147]

In the 18th century, the orthodox (what Toon called the "High Calvinists") were shocked at the growing apostasy within both Anglican but especially Nonconformist circles. They were appalled and "a group of influential laymen decided to sponsor a series of lectures in defence of what they considered to be the main doctrines of the Protestant faith." (ibid., 42). The upshot was a strong reaffirmation of sound doctrine, yet at the same time danger lurks even within the camp.

The orthodox were not immune to the rationalist zeitgeist. They decided to use what they think is "evangelical reason." Here, we already seen a problem with their hermeneutics. Reason according to sound orthodoxy is a reason that reasons after faith. Fides quaerens intellectum — Faith seeking understanding. Faith provides the premises and manner for the exercise of reason. In this so-called "evangelical reason" however, reason chose the manner of reasoning and faith provides the "premises" through proof-texting. The traditional view is that reason works only after faith has provided the framework for it to function. The new "evangelical" view is that reason provides the framework while faith provides only the premises. That is why we can have biblicists like Samuel Stockell abandoning the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son. His reasoning process is as follows: The premises derived from Scripture are: "The Begetter is from eternity" and "The Begotten is from eternity." "By definition" the Begetter is temporally prior to the Begotten, so in conclusion, the eternal generation of the Son must be denied. Notice that Stockell's reasoning uses biblical truths as mere premises. Instead of understanding the form of reasoning behind the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son and evaluating it rationally, he uses a rationalistic form of argument with the input of biblical premises in his form of "evangelical reason."

This 18th century evangelical rationalism resulted in the emergence of two main errors within Noncomformity: Antinomianism and Hyper-Calvinism. Antinomianism is the denial of the third use of the Law, and had its main proponent in Tobias Crisp (d. 1642). It is noted that we are speaking of "Doctrinal Antinomianism" here, as there is no indication that those promoting these teachings were in any way deficient in Christian conduct. As a reaction to Richard Baxter's neonomism, Crisp denied that God's law performed any function at all for a Christian. As Toon wrote:

The basic underlying difference of opinion in the Antinomian controversy concerned the nature of the law of God. Since his purpose was to extol Christ and free grace, Crisp had little to say about the moral law. ... he believed that God's justice is affronted by human transgression of His law, although he never seems to have explicitly stated that God's law is an eternal expression of His righteousness and justice.

...

He believed that the law served a useful purpose in convincing men of their need of a Saviour; nevertheless, he gave it little or no place in the life of a Christian since he held that "free grace is the teacher of good works." (ibid., 54)

As it can be seen, Crisp's stance is reactionary and directly opposite Baxter's neonomian idea of a salvation that takes account of works in some sense.

Following upon the heels of the antinomian controversy was the hard-shelling of Calvinism into Hyper-Calvinism. First, the doctrine of eternal justification was promoted by Isaac Chauncy (ibid., 61). The embrace of Eternal Justification betrays the flatenning of the imminent and economical Trinity in the theologies of the Hyper-Calvinists as time and eternity begin to be blurred. God's work in time was rationalistically seen to be a mirror portrayal of the imminent workings of the Trinity, and therefore justification must be eternal if it is to be actual for believers. The distinctions between God's being, God's decrees and God's work are burred in this rationalistic theory of eternal justification. Such blurring codified itself in Hyper-Calvinism, its logical conclusion. In 1706 and 1707, Joseph Hussy took this philosophical blurring of the imminent and economical Trinity to its logical conclusion in the denial of the offer of the Gospel (ibid., 74-5). Since God issues forth his irresistible grace only to the elect, this grace (of the economical Trinity) is a reflection of His call only to the elect (imminent Trinity). An offer to the non-elect (economical Trinity) has no reflection at all in God's eternal decree (imminent Trinity) and therefore such is to be rejected. As one of Hussey's 20 propositions states, "We must preach the Gospel as it is most fitted to the display of effectual grace. To offer God's grace is to steal: God saith, Thou shalt not steal." (ibid., 81) From Joseph Hussey to Lewis Wayman, John Gill and John Brine, this rationalistic tendency follows through in their denials of the offer of the Gospel. To be sure, Hussey, Gill and other do not deny that the Gospel ought to be preached to all. Rather, they deny that the Gospel is to be offered to all.

We see thus that rationalism had caused the creation of two heresies within the supposed defenders of the faith. Reacting against Neonomism and Arminianism, they swung to the opposite errors of Antinomanism and Hyper-Calvinism. The rise of heresies oftentimes come out of good intentions, as the case of the devolution of 18th century Noncomformity shows.

The parallels with Vincent Cheung in the early 21st century is not hard to discern. Cheung reasons rationalistically as well, using biblical truths as mere proof-text premises to insert into a priori rationalistically formed syllogisms. The Hyper-Calvinists of the 18th century flattened the distinction between the imminent and the economic Trinity, which resulted in their promotion of Hyper-Calvinism. Cheung likewise flattens the distinction between primary and secondary causation, which results in his monstrous doctrine of God being the author of sin. The 18th century Hyper-Calvinists were reacting to Arminianism and Socinianism, so likewise Cheung reacts against the soft-peddling of Calvinism in the Neo-Amyraldian views of contemporary New [Evangelical] Calvinism. The parallels are striking. And just as the 18th century English Hyper-Calvinists are in error, so likewise Cheung is in error.

[to be concluded]

Vincent Cheung and 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism: Social religious contexts

First, we may note that after the Restoration in 1660 orthodox Calvinism became, as it were, a cause under siege. The majority of Puritans who were orthodox Calvinists left the Church of England in 1662 to become Noncomformists. Thus the religious leadership of the nation was lodged firmly in the hands of men who were either Arminian or moderately Calvinistic in theology. The ejected ministers, being Noncomformists, were placed under harsh and cruel restrictions until 1688 and this severely curtailed their influence upon the religious thought of the nation. As the older men died their places were taken by younger men who had been educated under liberalizing influences in Holland and so a Moderated Calvinism gradually became popular, especially amongst the Presbyterian Dissenters. As the years passed by High Calvinism became more and more the sole preserve of the Independents and the Particular Baptists. The Antinomian controversy of the 1690s served to widen the gap between High Calvinism and Moderated Calvinism, and as the eighteenth century passed by, High Calvinism became in the main, the faith of the poorly-educated Independents and Baptists. These men who clung to the doctrines of High Calvinism saw themselves as a group preserved by God in an apostate age to defend “the faith once delivered to the saints”. Their time was taken up by the defence of their faith and it was in this atmosphere of a cause under siege that Hyper-Calvinism was born and nurtured. [Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765 (London, UK: The Olive Tree, 1967), 146]

England in the late 17th and early 18th century was a time of moderation of religion. It was the Augustan era, which was followed by the Victorian era. The Glorious Revolution in 1688 had deposed the last Roman Catholic Stuart Monarch James II. James II had presided over the continued persecution of Nonconformity and the killing fields of Scotland, where he tried to impose Prelacy upon the Scots. After all the inter-confessional strife, the terrible 30-years war (1619-1648) on the continent and both the English Civil war (1642-1651) and the ruthless persecution and bloodletting following the Restoration of 1660, European Christianity entered into the deconfessional and nascent Enlightenment era. People desired peace and toleration, even within the churches. What was the point of continued strife, as if killing everyone who disagreed with you was an answer to anything? In 1689, the Act of Toleration was signed into law allowing for the meeting of Protestant Dissenters, but not Roman Catholics, as long as they register with the government.

The times were changing. This was the period preceding the Industrial Revolution. Descartes had kick-started modern thought as he tried to come up with a third way (tertia via), as a reaction to the terrible massacres of the wars of religion. The turn to reason or empirical inquiry sought to ground knowledge on something more objective that can be argued for, instead of the confessional impasse between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Contrary to modern rationalism, non-French Enlightenment was not trying to supplant religion altogether, but rather Anglo-American Enlightenment thought desired to use reason to explicate the truths of religion. The Enlightenment in its three main forms (French, Anglo-American, German) can be seen as the bitter reaction against the Constantinian captivity of the Church in both its Roman and Protestant forms.

It is not surprising, though sad, that people were abandoning the Christian faith for the new teachings. Socinianism came into England where it was embraced by members within the Church of England, and it provoked controversy within the Anglican Communion (Toon, 36-7). Samuel Clarke, a rationalist and biblicist, published his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity in 1712 which examined the doctrine of the Trinity and denied it as being taught in Scripture (ibid., 37). We must remember that Clarke was not denying the Trinity because of any denial of the authority of Scripture. Rather, he was claiming that precisely because He follows Scripture only (biblicistically), the doctrine of the Trinity should be denied. Within the establishment, the eruption of Socinianism and Arianism caused much controversy

Among the Calvinistic Dissenters, many were influenced by the "moderate Calvinism" of the school of Saumur (most famous for its "4-point Calvinism or Amyraldism). Others followed Richard Baxter's Neonomian thought. The "moderate Calvinism" proved to be a Trojan Horse for many errors. In the continent, "moderate Calvinism" resulted in deconfessionalism and the toleration of errors in the days of Jean-Alphonse Turretin in the early 18th century. In England, "moderate Calvinism" became the vehicle for rationalism in religion resulting in many dissenters, particularly Presbyterians, denying the doctrine of the Trinity and becoming Arians (ibid., 39). In both establishment and dissenting circles, apostasy from the faith was rife. It was truly a sad time for orthodoxy.

The orthodox party among the dissenters consists mostly of less learned laymen, and increasingly, many of them were Baptists. (ibid., 146). Faced with the assault upon orthodoxy, they felt obliged to defend the faith. Many of them were self-taught and sought to defend the Calvinistic faith as best as they could. Being less learned, there was a tendency to veer towards the opposite error of what they were opposing, and this led to the various controversies that will plague Noncomformity in the early 18th century.

The relevance this has for today can be seen in the similar environment we find ourselves in. Mainstream Christianity, both mainline and evangelical, are riddled with all manner of errors, many of them serious. There is a need to defend the faith and affirm the truths taught in Scripture. More particularly, there is much soft-pedaling of Calvinism even within the so-called "New Calvinist" circles, in which their "Calvinism" has more in common with Amyraldism than true orthodox Calvinism. The social religious contexts of both early 18th century England and our times are very similar. In both situations, there is a dire need for sound teaching, and in both situations, catastrophe strikes even within orthodoxy.

Vincent Cheung and 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism: Introduction

I have been shifting in my attitude towards Vincent Cheung, as it can be seen from my posts. I initially stumbled unto his stuff quite some time back and found them provocative. Note, I found them provocative, not that I found them necessarily orthodox. So I had thought of what he wrote as something that could be read to stimulate thought on various topics, and that was then. Fast forward to now when one of my friends have sadly fallen under Cheung's spell, and things have become different. Now, it is personal. What grieves me is that I was the one who mentioned Cheung to him as someone who is an interesting thinker, but I never in a million years would have realized just how deep he has fallen into Cheung's heresies. This is a regret that I will hold for as long as he continues under Cheung's errors.

My one main article dealing with Cheung's thoughts deals with perhaps the most egregious and outrageous position he holds to, that God is the author of sin. This of course is just the surface of Cheung's many heresies. Cheung is a Rationalist (capital "R") sometimes, and a "biblicist" otherwise when it suits him. He utilizes philosophy as his first principles, despite any protestations to the contrary. After all, nowhere in Scripture is Occasionalism taught; you wouldn't find it. One could argue for Occasionalism, like Jonathan Edwards, but I doubt Edwards' Occasionalism is as bad as Cheung's. Starting from a priori "logical principles," Cheung utilizes Scripture propositions as proof-texts for his philosophy, instead of using Scripture as the beginning of knowledge (principium cognoscendi).

An example of Cheung's Rationalism is not hard to find. In his heretical book speaking about God being "the author of sin," Cheung writes about "metaphysical distanciation." Now, I seriously doubt THAT concept was being discussed in the Westminster Assembly at all. Is it something that Christians should think about? Yes, I think we should, which is why I had initial positive views of Cheung as an interlocutor. But note that this issue, while important, is an apologetic issue. It is something that we must think about in order to formulate a rational apologetic response. The concept of "metaphysical distanciation" itself should have no bearing at ALL on the biblical doctrine of God and theodicy. It should be discussed after the doctrine is established, not as something to establish doctrine. Scripture before reason, reason in service to the faith — that is how Christianity is to operate between the twin poles of Rationalism and Irrationalism. We reason AFTER faith, not before faith, which is one main reason why I am against natural theology.

Cheung establishes himself online as some sort of expert, formulating a path that is claimed to be the best of Van Tillian and Clarkian presuppositionalism, while rejecting anything in either that he thinks is false. Of course, who exactly is Vincent Cheung? Who knows? In which church is he a pastor, and who is he accountable to? I doubt many people know that. Unfortunately, the nature of the Internet is such that those who can make the most noise and appear knowledgeable have an influence that they probably will not have in real life. Unfortunately also, it is those who hunger for more of God's truth that will be attracted to his form of godliness. It is past time that Cheung is exposed, and I as someone who identifies with Clarkian apologetic want nothing to do whatsoever with this heretic. He does not speak for [G.H. Clark] and there is no "progression" from [G.H. Clark] to him. I have read Clark, and I have read Van Til, and I read Cheung. To put it in perspective, if I were given the choice between Van Til and Cheung, I will choose Van Til. Even the "one-person" teaching of Van Til is more orthodox in comparison to Cheung's blasphemies.

After saying all that, why do I juxtapose Cheung with 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism? I put them together because Cheung's emergence is very similar to the emergence of English Hyper-Calvinism. The spiritual climate of the times were similar, the pressures on the faith were similar, and the "solutions" of Cheung and the Hyper-Calvinists were similar. Through looking at the history of the 18th century English Hyper-Calvinism, it is hoped that we can see the similarity in our times, and beware of people like Cheung, and not just Cheung, but also anyone like him.

[to be continued]

Consolidated article: God, the Author of Sin and Metaphysical Distanciation: A Brief Rebuttal of Vincent's Cheung Theodicy

The consolidated article refuting Vincent Cheung's errant theodicy has been done and can be found here.

God's sovereignty and "metaphysical distanciation"

A charge Cheung makes against the idea that God is not the author of sin is that such makes him to be not sovereign. In his book The Author of Sin [Vincent Cheung, The Author of Sin (Boston, MA: Vincent Cheung, 2005)], Cheung makes the following statements:

I affirm the meaningfulness of so-called "second causes" only in the sense that these are the means by which God executes his immutable decrees; however, these second causes are not themselves self-existent, self-determined, self-caused, or self-powered. Rather, all so-called "secondary causes" are themselves immediately caused and controlled by God, and the objects on which these secondary causes supposedly act upon react in ways that are also immediately caused and controlled by God. (p. 20)

...

Now, "soft" determinism is used in contrast with "hard" determinism. Using these terms, the popular Reformed/Calvinistic position, which is compatibilism, would be called "soft" determinism, whereas my position would be called "hard" determinism.

The former is "softer" in quality and/or in quantity regarding the level and/or amount of control (determinism) that God exercises over his creation, whereas "hard" determinism is absolute, affirming that God exercises complete (in level or quality) and comprehensive (in amount or quantity) control over everything.

But this means that "soft" determinism is really partial determinism – that is, partial (not full) either in quality or in quantity, or both. And if what God does not absolutely determine can still actually happen, then this means that there is another (one or more) determining power in the universe. When we are speaking of God's relation to man, attributing only partial determinism to God necessarily implies attributing partial determinism to man also. So this becomes a version of dualism.

In other words, one who believes that God absolutely determines everything is a full determinist, since he believes that God fully determines everything, in terms of both quality and quantity, and in terms of both the level (extent) and the amount of control exercised. To believe anything less than this is not full; therefore, it is partial.

Also, since "soft" determinism really means partial determinism, this also necessarily means that it is partial indeterminism (that is, partial non-determinism). Granted, since Calvinists usually (claim to) affirm greater determining power to God than man, this indeterminism is a very "soft" indeterminism, but it is still partial indeterminism.

It becomes just a matter of emphasis as to which term one wishes to use. So the term "soft" determinism is at least a little misleading, making its adherents look better than they really should. To some, it has the effect of sounding "softer," kinder, and less extreme. But if we don't let the language deceive us, we see that it is really partial determinism, weak determinism, incomplete determinism, or "soft" indeterminism. And, at least by implication, dualism. (p. 25. Bola and emphasis original)

...

Those who see that it is impossible to disassociate God from the origination and continuation of evil still attempt to distance God from evil by suggesting that God merely "permits" evil, and that he does not cause it. However, since the Bible itself states that God actively decrees and causes everything, and that nothing can exist or happen apart from his will and power, it makes no sense to say that he merely permits something – nothing happens by God's mere permission. In fact, when it comes to ontology, "God's permission" is an unintelligible term. (p. 70)

According to Cheung therefore, to embrace the idea of contingencies and second causes, except as mere means, is to believe in "partial indeterminism." It invokes metaphysical distanciation of God from the event, introduces uncertainty into the equation, and thus lead to a compromise of God's sovereignty. God must exercise "complete and comprehensive control over everything," or He is not fully sovereign at all.

The problem with Cheung is that he is involved in categorical confusion, and reasons one-dimensionally. Firstly, Cheung confuses sovereignty with direct control. If agent G causes action x to agent A, and agent A causes action y to cause event B, why is agent G not as sovereign over event B as over agent A? The syllogism pairs 'If p, then q'; 'if q then r' would yield 'if p, then r' as a logical deduction. So upon what basis does Cheung claim that non-direct control implies a loss in sovereignty?

Cheung claims that language such as "permission" and the idea that secondary agents are actually really agents introduces indeterminacy into the equation. In other words, indirect control means that the indirect agents have some measure of determinacy. However, such is to confuse agency with sovereignty. Just looking at the basis syllogism pairs for instance, does the fact that agent A could choose otherwise factor into the fact that 'if p, then r'? No, the syllogism pairs (if correct) function independently apart from the state of agent A in doing q to get event r. Even if A does not want to get to event r, yet if the syllogism holds true, his doing q would necessitate the happening of event r. In other words, intention has nothing whatsoever to do with sovereignty. God and the secondary agents could both be free in their respective spheres (divine and creaturely freedom), and yet God is sovereign over all things.

Cheung of course has a counter in the idea that "freedom" is defined from God, and thus creatures are not free, as defined by freedom from God. Contingencies of second causes are not free from God and thus not free (Cheung, 23). Thus, Cheung divorces creaturely intentions from the equation altogether. But such is a redefinition of "freedom" as well as a strange definition of "direct control." Upon what basis does Cheung glosses over human intentions, and claim that, since God is sovereign, therefore "direct control" implies "ultimate control"? It's as if Cheung claims that God's ultimate control over all things means that the intention of the secondary agent can be overloooked, when the issue under discussion is whether God's control is direct, not whether God's control is ultimate. How can one claim that God's control is direct by writing the creaturely intention out of the equation, and then claim that proving God's ultimate control implies proving God's direct control? One can only do that by illegitimately claiming that denying direct causation implies denying ultimate causation, a claim which is logically fallacious (as seen in our syllogism pairs) and having a unbiblical idea of what sovereignty implies, which brings us to our second point.

Cheung's second error is that he reasons one-dimensonally. In theological terms, he confuses the archetypal/ectypal distinction. But even worse than that is his flattening of all categories into a one-dimensional strait-jacket. Even secular philosophers may think in more than one level, whereas for Cheung everything must be reduced to one level. Thus, for Cheung, sovereignty implies direct control, and he has no place whatever for more sophisticated understanding of sovereignty. In other words, by his definition, if a theory denies direct control, they necessarily must deny sovereignty since that is all his strait-jacket thinking can conceive of.

Cheung's thinking of sovereignty looks like this:

Fig. 1

The problem here of course is that the whole process is one-dimensional. There is in this case metaphysical distanciation because God is removed from B greater than from A; (x + y) is certainly greater than x.

If one however sees a difference in the manner of causation of God and the agent A, then one could hold on to a two-dimensional view of causality, as follows:

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

In figures 2 and 3, the distance between God and event B is a vector of x.y, as opposed to the simple scaler equation of (x + y). As seen in figure 3, the vector can function in such a way that the distance between God and event B is exactly the same distance as that from God and agent A (in an isoceles triange), but such is not necessarily the case.

For a Christian however, figure 4 betters fits the biblical data of what we know about God, as follows:

Fig. 4

In figure 4, God is at the center of the sphere. God is sui generis and is totally unlike the rest of creation, which are on the surface of the sphere. God is at once totally immanent and totally transcendent, at once close to His creation (since it's a distance away), but far from it (since it's a distance away). God thus causes agent A through action x to do action y resulting in event B, but all things (agents, events) are at the same distance away from the center by the radius of the sphere. God is thus just as near and just as far away from secondary, tertiary and further removed events. Just as the distance from the center to any point in the surface of the sphere is the same, so likewise God is just as sovereign and in control of the effects as the agents, without being directly causing them.

So God is sovereign over all things. All things are under God's control, directly or indirectly, and there is no distanciation involved by positing the contingencies of secondary causes. God's freedom is freedom indeed, as there is an infinite number of lines possible to be drawn from the center to the surface of the sphere. Creaturely freedom is also real (by which we do not mean freedom from God, a ridiculous redefinition of "freedom"), for there are an infinite number of points chosen for A to connect. A could connect to B, C, D, E, F and so on.

God is sovereign, and Man is free. That is not a contradiction, when one understands that creaturely freedom functions on a different plane from God's freedom. Cheung's errors in the whole issue is that of confusing categories, flattening the categories into a rationalistic straitjacket, and in so doing impinges the character of God by either making God the culpable agent of evil, or by divorcing God's will from His nature.

Vincent Cheung and the Author of Sin

Vincent Cheung is a hot-headed polemicist who does post lots of provocative thoughts. As a interlocutor, his writings are challenging to interact with, if one can see past the slurs, ridicule and insults. However, the problem with Cheung is that people actually think he is right, and tragically such a following does harm to the Body of Christ. Just because evangelicalism is wrong on many issues does not mean that the opposite extreme on any one issue is right, and the positing of such sharp dichotomies by Cheung makes his position seem reasonable, since it is painted as the consistent opposite of the error that Evangelicalism holds to.

Cheung's book on theodicy, The Author of Sin, is a case in point. The book has tremendous shock value, and is most certain to repulse most Christians. Yet the book raises legitimate questions, which most people wouldn't think about as they are repulsed by its errant conclusions. So on the one hand, we have Christians who legitimately reject what Cheung is saying, yet they miss out on the legitimate questions Cheung raises out of revulsion at what Cheung is promoting. On the other hand, we have those who are more rational who see the legitimate questions Cheung raises, and because they are more philosophically inclined (and also without adequate discernment I may add), they accept Cheung's conclusions. In the storm of dissension, clarity on the subject is surely missing.

Without interacting with the entirety of Cheung's book, I would like to address his blog post dealing with the subject, entitled WCF, secondary causes, etc.. In this blog post, the crux of Cheung's issue with the phrase "author of sin" is expressed. The question Cheung raised is a good one: "What is wrong with saying that God is the "author of sin"? In Cheung's argument, since God is the ultimate cause of all things, and in colloquial speech, an "author" is someone who orchestrates all things to come about, God is certainly the "author of sin," because God as sovereign brings about all things including sin. God "metaphysically cause(d) evil" but does not "morally commit evil," and thus the language of the WCF (Westminster Confession of Faith) is said to be confusing and in error.

As mentioned, the question Cheung raises is a legitimate one. Surely, the Scriptures does portray God to be totally sovereign. Surely, the ultimate cause of sin in this sense must be God. Doesn't this therefore mean that God is the "author of sin"? The answer however is NO, as I will show why.

Now, it must be admitted that one can posit that God can cause evil without being culpable for evil, since God does not actually do evil. Cheung raises a valid point here against those who try to soften God's sovereignty by distancing Him from evil. Yet the problem with Cheung's solution is that it raises an insurmountable problem in theology proper. While formally resolving the problem of theodicy, it raises questions regarding the nature of God. Is God actually good? Does God actually act according to His nature? Phrased another way, is God's will independent of His nature?

The problem with the denial of contingency and secondary causes is that it makes God out to be a monster. Yes, one exonerates God of moral evil in creation and providence, but that only comes at the expense of either divorcing God's will from God's nature, or making God evil. Either option makes God to be something other than who He has revealed Himself to be. To the former, if God's will is divorced from his nature, if extreme nominalism hold true, then how can one trusts such a capricious God? To the latter, there is no difference here between God and the Devil.

Cheung is seriously in error, even heretical, in his portrayal of God as the "author of sin." According to Cheung, "to say that God is not the author of sin necessarily means that his sovereignty cannot be direct and exhaustive." In reply, I would counter that "to say that God is not sovereign if He operates through contingencies and secondary causes is fallacious." Why does the usage of contingencies and secondary causes necessarily imply that God is not absolutely sovereign? Why is such a usage considered "distant"? Upon what basis can Cheung make such a claim? Such philosophical claims cannot be found in Scripture! Since Cheung claims to be following Sola Scriptura, why has he imported philosophical concepts not taught in Scripture into the teachings of Scripture?

My challenge to Cheung and his followers stands here: Prove from Scripture where it is stated that (1) God is not sovereign if He operates through contingencies; (2) Operating through contingencies means that God is not directly sovereign over the process, (3) God can will and do anything contrary to His nature. Let's see if any of them dares to take up the challenge!

An analysis of Eternal Jusfication

I have finally finished my paper on Eternal Justification. While I do not claim to know everything on this issue, it is my hope that this paper would cover at least the main points regarding the issue of contention, which is indeed of importance with regards to the defence of the Gospel.

...

The doctrine of Eternal Justification is the theory that the Elect are justified before God from eternity. For adherents to this doctrine, the decree to justify the elect is from eternity, and so therefore from eternity the elect of God are considered as being justified, and this fact they term Eternal Justification. This is distinguished from the Justification that occurs in time which is by faith. Eternal Justification adherents typically believe in a two-fold justification, one active and objective which is by God from eternity, and the other passive and subjective which happens by faith[7]. As stated by Gill[8]

Justification is an act of God's grace, flowing from his sovereign good will and pleasure; the elect of God are said to be "justified by his grace"; and as if that expression was not strong enough to set forth the freeness of it, the word "freely" is added elsewhere; "Being justified freely by his grace", #Tit 3:7 Ro 3:24. Justification is by many divines distinguished into active and passive. Active justification is the act of God; it is God that justifies. Passive justification is the act of God, terminating on the conscience of a believer, commonly called a transient act, passing upon an external object. It is not of this I shall now treat, but of the former; which is an act internal and eternal, taken up in the divine mind from eternity, and is an immanent, abiding one in it; it is, as Dr. Ames expresses it, "a sentence conceived in the divine mind, by the decree of justifying."

There are therefore two kinds of justification being discussed: a "justification from eternity" which is an "immanent" (internal and eternal) act of God and a "justification by faith" which is a "transient" (acting externally in time) act. As Gills continues,

Now, as before observed, as God's will to elect, is the election of his people, so his will to justify them, is the justification of them; as it is an immanent act in God, it is an act of his grace towards them, is wholly without them, entirely resides in the divine mind, and lies in his estimating, accounting, and constituting them righteous, through the righteousness of his Son; and, as such, did not first commence in time, but from eternity[9].

In other words, because God is eternal and so timeless, his decree of election is the same as his electing of his people, as his decree of justification is the justification of them. God being immutable cannot change and thus his immanent decree originating from Himself cannot change either. According to this reasoning therefore, since God decreed to justify His people from eternity; it is an act of God and thus active; this decree must be immanent and therefore eternal. God being timeless therefore means that His decree must equate to the actions being "done" in God's perspective.

[more]

The Westminster Confession of Faith against the error of Eternal Justification

As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only

(Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, Para VI. Bold added)

The previous Sunday, a group of us Reformed Christians (The Reformed Resurgence) come together for fellowship over dinner. I have decided that we should go through the Westminster Confession of Faith together as we have adopted it as our default Statement of Faith for our group. We went through the first 3 chapters of the Westminster Confession and have some spirited discussion over its contents. It really helps that we are all theologically informed and thus are able to follow the passage as it is, instead of making every point an entire discussion in itself which will happen when one tries to talk about such issues with uninformed Christians — topics like impassibility (WCF Ch. 2 para 1), or the Chalcedonian Trinity (WCF Ch. 2, para 3), not to mention the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture (WCF Ch. 1, para 6, 7, 10). This is of course not to look down on rank and file Christians whom we do love, but it is a fact that such would really take a class meeting weekly for around a year at least to catechize them.

Anyway, while moving through the Westminster Confession, Chapter 3 paragraph 6 really got my attention. In light of the issue of Hyper-Calvinism and Eternal Justification (a serious error which I am convinced leads to hyper-Calvinism), this passage in the Westminster Confession expressively refutes the doctrine of Eternal Justification. While it is unknown to me if the Confession was written with an eye to refute Eternal Justification, the phrasing of this passage rules out any such belief in Eternal Justification.

Let's look at the paragraph again.

As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only

(WCF, Chapter III, Para VI. Bold added)

Justification in the Westminster Confession in its relation to Election is stated to be a working of the Holy Spirit "in due season". The Confession thus expressively denies that Justification is eternal in any sense, since what occurs in time cannot be eternal.

In the further section on justification, it is also stated:

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them

(WCF, Ch. XI, Para IV. Bold added)

God's decree to justify the elect is from eternity, BUT the act of justification itself occurs in time, as the Confession makes plain.

The Westminster Confession and Scripture itself has no inkling of the unbiblical creation of two categories of Justification as postulated by the Baptist theologian John Gill in his A Body of Doctrinal Divinity. Also, as seen in the earlier paragraph in chapter 3, the Westminster Confession does not consider Justification as an eternal act even in light of the doctrine of election, thus removing a central plank in the crpyo-Hyperist system which creates a false hermeneutical framework in which everything is read through the lenses of the nefarious concept of "absolute predestination".

For now, it would help us to see that the Westminster Confession of Faith is decidedly against the erroneous doctrine of Eternal Justification. No amount of spin by the Hyper-Calvnists could undo that fact.

James Galyon: What is hyper-Calvinism?

As we know, hyper-Calvinism is a heinous error, one which by God's providence I have had occasion to deal with about a month ago in the controversy with P-Net. In this light, Dr. James Galyon has given us a succinct definition as to what hyper-Calvinism is, which is defined as holding to any one of these beliefs:

• God is the author of sin and evil
• Human beings have absolutely no will whatsoever
• Individuals are not responsible for their own decisions and actions
• Justification occurs in eternity, not in time
• God does not command all people to repent of sin
• Not everyone is required to believe upon Christ Jesus for salvation
• God creates unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect
• Assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
• Election is evident simply by a profession of faith, regardless of sanctification(antinomianism)
• Saving faith is equivalent to believing predestination (only “Calvinists” are Christians)
• Limited atonement must be believed in order to hear the gospel and be saved
• Evangelism is unnecessary, or even wrong
• God has no love whatsoever for humanity in His providence (common grace)

From my interaction with the hyper-Calvinists at P-Net, I would like to offer this additional point:

• There is no real fundamental difference between God's decrees and their executions

For more info, see also:

All House and No Doors by C. Matthew McMahon

The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism by Peter Toon

[HT: Turretinfan]

Brandan Kraft and the abomination stewing over at P-Net

Over the last three posts (here, here and here), I have attempted a rebuttal of the error of Eternal Justification as well as its corollary doctrines (a denial that the elect were ever actually under wrath and the idea of timeless eternity). While it is probably the case that not all participants in the Predestinarian Network (hereafter P-Net) and the forums have the same beliefs in these matters, the founder of this website, Brandan Kraft, does indeed embrace such errant doctrines.

Matt Powell (who it seems had prior interactions with P-Net two years back) has came up with three excellent posts (The Heresy of Eternal Justification, More on Eternal Justification, Eternal Justification and Antinomianism) in which he analyzes the issues concerned in its interaction with the Gospel message (as opposed to mine which come from a more epistemic perspective). As I read it, I began to see how deep the doctrinal rot in P-Net and especially in its founder Brandan Kraft had been. In my initial post on this topic, I have worked out the logical implications of embracing the Eternal Justifcation error. In looking at Powell's posts and the links that he provided, I see with my own eyes that they are not on their way there but are already there. Now, generally, I focus on addressing the issues and as such do not check out much on the people involved. Powell's links however show me how deep the rot is.

Kraft's profile page on P-Net shows the following description:

Soteriological Position: Hyper-Calvinism (Hardshellism)

Creeds and Confessions: London Baptist Confession of 1644, Canons of Dort [sic], Goat Yard Confession of Faith (1729), Gospel Standard Articles of Faith

When Adam and Eve sinned, what really happened?: It was revealed to Adam that he was a sinner and needed the righteousness of Christ which demonstrated the eventual regeneration of every elect individual.

[Bold added]

Kraft flaunts his hyper-Calvinism (don't need to call him out on this one), and this can be seen even in the creeds and confessions he holds to - The Gospel Standard Articles of Faith (GSAF). This is what the document states:

XXIV We believe that the invitations of the Gospel, being spirit and life, are intended only for those who have been made by the blessed Spirit to feel their lost state as sinners and their need of Christ as their Saviour, and to repent of and forsake their sins. (Isa. 55:1, John 7:37, Prov. 28:13, Matt. 11:28-30, John 6:37.)

XXVI We deny duty faith and duty repentance - these terms signifying that it is every man's duty spiritually and savingly to repent and believe (Gen. 6:5, Gen 8:21, Matt. 15:19, Jer. 17:9, John 6:44, John 6:65.) We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So that we reject the doctrine that men in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God of themselves. (John 12:39-40, Eph. 2:8, Rom. 8:7-8, 1 Cor. 4:7.)

[Bold added]

The GSAF denies the offer of the Gospel and duty faith and duty repentance, which is a mark of Hyper-Calvinism.

In my initial post, I have made plain that one of the logical consequences of believing in eternal justification is that it leads to a theory that believers are to be considered as "saints who happen not to realize that they are already justified". All of this was initially meant by me to shock the adherents of Eternal Justification to their senses by showing the hopefully undesirable consequences of embracing such an error. However, it seems I have misjudged Kraft and company. They are already there as it were.

Notice Kraft's answer to the question as to what really happened when Adam and Eve fell — he came to know that he was a sinner and shown that he needed Christ's righteousness as a demonstration of the eventual regeneration of the elect. So, firstly, Adam and Eve did not became sinners, but rather they become conscious of the fact that they were sinners all along. We must note that the question does not ask regarding the episode when God confronted Adam and Eve after their sin, but rather what happened WHEN they sin.

Likewise, the doctrine regarding Christ's righteousness has been altered. Since it is more of a demonstration, substitutionary atonement takes a back seat (if it has a seat at all). Rather, Christ's righteousness becomes primarily to do with showing that all the elect will be regenerated in due time - as we "pardoxically" experience it in time of course). As Powell succinctly states:

[In Kraft's scheme] Conversion is simply becoming aware of our status as saints. Adam didn't change when he fell, believers don't change when they are saved... (Eternal Justification and Antinomianism)

This is a full-blow assault on the Gospel in the name of "grace", which it seems is similar to the "grace" teachings promoted from the other side of the spectrum in the teachings of Joseph Prince.

Moving on, we see a post on something very foundational to the faith, which left me initially stunned and at a loss of words.

...

In this article, I will present evidence, that should be sufficient to indict James the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, for the crime of Judaizing the Pauline doctrine of Justification by faith alone, without the works of law. James the brother of Jesus, is the antithesis of Paul and never fully comprehended the Pauline doctrine of Justification. I do not believe he was even an apostle as some suggest. A false apostle perhaps, but no true apostle of the Gospel of Christ. However that is another subject worth discussion.

...

[Nicholas Laurienzo, James Exposed]

And here is what Kraft wrote on his profile:

Is the book of James authoritative?: I don't believe it is authoritative.

Such is a denial of the authority of Scripture by attacking the canonicity of James' epistle. Who is Kraft that he thinks he has the right to decide what constitutes or does not constitutes the Word of God? So much for any claim to be Evangelical through this attack on Sola Scriptura, nevermind Reformed.

Branda Kraft is a heretic who is in danger of the fires of hell for his wicked deeds and false doctrines. He and those like him are called to repent of their wickedness, and produce fruits in keeping with genuine repentance.

Eternity and Time: A brief look

[continued from here and here]

The third main pillar of the Hyperists, which informs their error of Eternal Justification, is the [Neo-Platonic] theory of Timeless Eternity. In this post, we would briefly look at this theory, and show from Robert Reymond's magnum opus, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith 2nd Ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1999) why the idea of eternity being timeless is untenable according to the biblical data and the concept of eternity being "everlasting" rather a better understanding of God and his ways in the world.

The issue of hermeneutics

When addressing the issue of eternity, it must first be acknowledged that Scripture is not explicit regarding this issue. Scripture affirms that God is "eternal", but whether eternity includes the concept of timelessness or everlasting is rather inferred from the text of Scripture. It is therefore simply eisegesis of the worst order to assume that eternity must include the concept of timelessness based upon extra-biblical concepts such as the scientific concept of time being the 4th dimension in the created order. Certainly since the dawn of Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity, space and time and velocity (most noticeably the speed of light at 3× 10⁸ ms^-1 in vacuum), and gravity in the case of General Relativity, are seen as intricately related to each other such that [perceived or situational] time can be altered by increasing velocity near light-speed (Special Relativity) or positions/movements at or through gravitational fields of huge magnitudes (General Relativity). Through Einstein's theories of relativity, the assumption of time as a created order may enter into the discussion of such issues.

The main contention from theologians and philosophers however would not come from science bur rather [obviously] from philosophy. While we would look at some of the contentions later, the issue here we need to beware of is precisely what Scripture itself mentions:

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ (Col. 2:8)

While philosophical enquiry is not evil per se, if Sola Scriptura means anything at all, it is that our theories and doctrines about the faith are to be primarily deduced from Scripture, while philosophical enquires come later. It may be said that the idea of the mind being a tabula rasa such that one can come to the Scripture without a priori ideas derived from the world and philosophy is well neigh impossible, which is indeed true. Yet, it is precisely because of this that Christians are called to be renewed in their minds according to God's Truth (Rom. 12:2), and through meditation on Scripture, remove the ideas they have which are not biblical while embracing those taught in Scripture, as the Scripture interprets itself. Semper Reformanda — Always being reformed!

Now, since the concept of eternity is not explicitly taught in Scripture, it must certainly be the case that all other major doctrines in the Scriptures must be prioritized. In this instance for example, the concept of eternity must be settled only after we have settled according to Scripture the doctrine of justification. Instead of interpreting the doctrine of justification according to one's concept of eternity, shouldn't we not do the reverse and interpret the non-explicit concept of eternity based upon what Scripture has already plainly taught about the doctrine of justification?

The Hyperists in the Predestinarian Network are to be congratulated for attempting to be consistent in their worldview. There is nothing wrong with attempting to be consistent, since God after all is not irrational. The problem with the Hyperists is that they refuse to interpret the concept of eternity according to the other doctrines explicitly taught in Scripture, and thus reverse the order of interpretation of the Scripture; they are simply not critical enough. Granting their argument that "If p, then q", whereby p = 'the concept of timeless eternity is true' and q = 'eternal justification is true', they insist on arguing along the lines of modus ponens (p → q; p, therefore q) instead of modus tollens (p → q; ~q, therefore ~p).

As I have mentioned in the first post refuting the Hyperists, we use the framework of Scripture to interpret all of Scripture. We therefore do not use an "Absolute Predestination" framework or a "Timeless Eternity" framework to interpret Scripture. In their usage of the modus ponens form of argument and thus the "Absolute Predestination" and "Timeless Eternity" hermeneutical frameworks, the Hyperists have shown themselves to be violating the basic principles of biblical exegesis. It is therefore no wonder that they go astray and embrace such abominations as the heresy of Eternal Justification. While other Christians whom they claim are inconsistent [1] may indeed be inconsistent, at least they understand the basics of hermeneutics and are thus blessedly inconsistent, instead of being consistent at the expense of sound doctrine.

Disposing of the argument from science

The first objection (and the one that to scientific minds is more pertinent) is the argument according to Relativity. While one can legitimately argue regarding the validity of science to attain truth, let us assume for the sake of argument that the theory of Relativity or some form of it is indeed correct. Does this therefore mean that time is a created being of which therefore God, being apart from the creation, does not partake of.

If must be stated that God is definitely apart from created time. God in this sense is eternal, for God is present before the world (Gen. 1:1 - In the beginning ...), and will be around after the end (cf Rev. 21-22). In this sense, God is above time. Time as how we chronologically experience it is thus foreign to God. However, what this cannot prove or disprove is that there is a form of "divine time", separate from created time, in which God functions. The argument from science therefore is limited by the subject matter of this cosmos in which the empirical methods apply, and thus has no bearing at all on the topic of God, eternity and time.

Disposing of a few arguments by the Hyperists

In the piece "The Eternal God" [2], the author with the pseudonym "Forester07" has made some interesting points. The quoting of Is. 57:15 is certainly a peculiarity in its own right, for the passage does not makes clear whether when it is predicated of God that he "inhabits eternity" that it is referring to a state of time or a state of place that God inhabits.

More pertinent to our discussion here is this particular objection laid against the idea of God not being timeless. In his own words: "To say God does not exist outside of time makes time god and God not really God". This is astonishing since many things are predicated of God and God cannot function outside of these parameters. God is rational, so can we say that "To say God does not exist apart from rationality is to make rationality god and God not really God"? Can we say that "To say God does not exist outside of morality makes morality god and God not really God'? Or what about the case of any of God's other attributes?

In dealing with the idea of the relationship between God and Logic, C. Matthew McMahon in his book The Two Wills of God (New Lenox, IL: Puritan Rublicatios, 2005), p. 24 footnote 5, states thus: "Epistemology, logic precedes God. Ontologically, God precedes logic". In other words, God is most definitely before all things, and all things thus owe its existence to Him. Yet, God does not exist in a vacuum apart from His attributes (a most ridiculous idea). Logic being the manner of God thinking [3] proceeds ontologically from God, yet it is just as eternal as God and in fact precedes God in our way of knowing Him.

Likewise, in the case of time, it may be the case that "divine" time ontologically proceeds from God. If such is indeed the case, then "forester07" 's objection with its negation of God being in time is baseless.

We have been mentioning the word "time" often. However, what exactly IS time? If God is not apart from time so to speak, does this therefore mean that He is mutable?

Here, we would have theologian and pastor Robert Reymond to engage the issue and show us the way forward.

... it is a non sequitur to conclude from the fact of God's omniscience that God has no idea of succession, that is, that relative to his own existence he has no knowledge of a past, present, and future applicable to his own existence. This is to confuse the notion of the succession of ideas, which is surely not true of God if one means by this notion that God learns new facts, with the notion of the idea of succession which I submit God surely has. Robert Lewis Dabney observes:

If ... the divine consciousness of its existence has no relation to successive duration, I think it unproved, and incapable of proof to us. Is not the whole plausibility of the notion hence; that divines ... infer: Since all God's thoughts are ever equally present with Him, he can have no succession of His consciousnesses; and so, no relation to successive time. But the analysis is false and would not prove the conclusion as to God, if correct. ... In all the acts and changes of creatures, the relation of succession is actual and true. Now, although God's knowledge of these as it is subjective to Him, is unsuccessive [I take him to mean here that God does not first learn about them as the creature thinks and acts these changes — author], yet it [his knowledge] is doubtless correct, i.e. true to the objective facts. But these [the objective facts] have actual succession. So that the idea of successive duration must be in God's thinking. Has He not all the ideas which we have; and infinitely more? But if God in thinking the objective, ever thinks successive duration, can we be sure that His own consciousness of His own subsistence is unrelated to succession in time?

I concur with Dabney's analysis. Not to do so and to insist that God is timeless, that is to say, that the distinctives of time and hence existence with succession have no reference to him, lies behind much theological mischief. For example, Charles Hodge, who stands in the classical tradition, writes that "with [God] there is no distinction between the present, past and future, but all things are equally and always present to Him. With Him duration is an eternal now," that "to Him there is neither past nor future ... the past and the future are always and equally present to Him [as an eternal now (or present)]," and that "to Him there is neither past nor future, neither before nor after."

But such words seem to go too far, first, in that, if taken literally, they reduce to zero significance the temporal reference in every finite Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek verb form God employed in his revelational description to us of his thoughts, words, and actions, and virtually transform them all into timeless participles. [4]

Time has to do with succession. However, as what Reymond has pointed out, the advocates of timeless eternity confuse the "idea of succession" with the "succession of ideas". The idea of "divine time" therefore has to do with the "idea of succession". God never does learn anything new nor change in any way, yet that does not mean that He does not have an [epistemic] idea of succession in which He knows every single event in successive detail. To make it simpler, God knows everything past, present and future, but these past, present and future events do happen successively in chronology before God.

Reymond continues:

.. as well as the significance of the proposition προ, pro, in "foreknew" (προγινωοσκω, proginosko) and "predestine" (προοριζω, proorizo) in Romans 8:29 and in the expresson, "He chose us in him before [προ, pro] the creation of the world" (Eph. 1:3; see also John 17:24). Does not God inform us in these verses that he had a plan (his "eternal purpose") before he created the world? Does this data not mean that before the creation of the world God could have said, indeed, woud have had to say as the God of truth if an angel had asked him about the "when" of the world's creation: "I have not yet created the world. Its creation is still in the future"? And does he not now have to say as the God of truth: "I have created the world; its creation is no longer in the future, it is now in the past"? It would certainly seem that the past is past for God, the present is present for God, and the future is future for God as surely as they are for us! And while he certainly and infallibly knows the future because he ordained it, it is still as the future that he knows it. It is odd, to say the least, to argue as does E.L. Mascall that all of God's acts are dipolar, and that a given act at the creature's end is temporal (either past, present or future), while at the Creator's end the same act is timeless. If God's "time-words" to us respecting his plans and actions do not mean for God the same as they mean to us, then for him the creation of the world may not have actually occurred yet, for him Christ's second coming may be a thing of the past, ... In short, if God is timeless and if all of his acts are for him timeles acts, then we can have no true and certain knowledge of anything except pure mathematics.

Third, there seems to be an inherent contradicton in saying that a timeless person lives in the "eternal present" because the referent of the word "present" has significance only in the ordering category wich includes past and future as well. Nicholas Wolterstorff points out:

In order for something to be timeless, none of these ordering relatonships [past, present, or future[ can be applicable to that being. If a being is truly timeless, it should be impossible for it to exist simultaneously with anything else, or before anything else, or after anything else. Once it is established [or argued, as Hodge does — author] that a being does occupy one of the ordering relations, thn that being is clearly temporal.

For these three reasons it would seem that the ascriptions to God of the attributes of timelessness (understood as the absence of a divine consciousness of successive duration with respect to his own existence) cannot be supprted from Scripture nor is it self-consistent. At best, it is only an inference (and quite likely a fallacious one) from Scripture. These reasons also suggest that the Christian should be willing to affirm that the ordering relationships (before, now, after) that are normally represented as relationships of time are true for God as well as for man. [5]

The idea of a God who is immanent and works out His decrees in time is completely inimical to the concept of timelessness in God. For all these reasons, the Neo-Platonic idea of timeless eternity cannot be predicated of the biblical God. Rather, God in eternity is everlasting — without beginning or end. God knows all things past, pesent and future, and remains the same throughout all time, yet God does have an idea of succession within Himself, and His decrees and the events that are caused by the decrees have a chronological ordering to them.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Neo-Platonic idea of timeless eternity is distinctly not supported by Scripture and in fact inimical to its teachings. The Hyperists therefore are in error in their view of eternity and time. Not only is their choice of hermeneutical framework in error, even the basis of their framework is in error, substituting the doctrines of God for the philosophies of Man. May God show them their errors so that they would return back to the truths of God's Word and abandon their cryto-hyper-Calvinism. Amen.

---

References:

[1] "Forester07" , The Eternal God - "However, it seems that in reality most people who claim that God is eternal do not truly understand the many implications this has on understanding Christian doctrine and practice".

[2] Ibid.

[3] W. Gary Crampton, The Scripturalsm of Gordon H. Clark (Unicoi, TN: Trinity Foundation, 1999), p. 25]

[4] Robert Reymond, pp. 173-174

[5] Reymond, pp. 175-176

Eph. 2:1-4, the wrath and the grace of God

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved — and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands — remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2: 1-13)

[In response to my previous post refuting the heresy of Eternal Justification]

Brandan Kraft (on the Facebook Predestinarian Network page): You have quoted Eph. 2:3, but what about verse 4? “Eph 2:4, (KJV), But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,” Here Paul clearly states that while we were by nature children of wrath (that is we were by outward appearance no different from a reprobate) God LOVED US.

The defenders of the heresy of Eternal Justification have sortof responded to the critique of their position in my previous post. It has been rather amusing reading their so-called responses which can be seen here. Basically, their responses have followed these tactics: 1) Advocating for the idea that the "eternity" of God is that of eternal timelessness, 2) Against my usage of Eph. 2:1-3, argue against the idea of the unregenerate being sinners under wrath by referring to Eph. 2:4, and/or 3) Argue that making justification based upon faith leads to work righteousness

It has been extremely revealing that the crypto-hyperists do not even bother thinking logically with respects to their position. They ignore the entire critique of their hermeneutical method. They also ignore the fact that their position logically commits them to actual sinlessness and glorification now, and of course that time and sequence would not be real and just a matter of illusion. (Of course, since there is no real difference between God's decree to do something and the doing of it except from Man's perspective, I guess we are all actually glorified just that we have not realized it yet.) The irrationality of these hyperists is just sad — that they can claim that there is no difference between God's decree of justification and the event of justification itself, yet they refuse to consistently apply this to all of God's other decrees.

Similarly, Rom. 8:29-30, the Golden Chain of Salvation, is not read by them as being a chain in any sense of the term. Even if a temporal order in the Ordo Salutis is denied (which may well be the position of these hyperists), some form of order between the things (predestination, calling, justification, glorification) must exists otherwise the verse does not make sense at all. If one were to hold to eternal justification, one must also hold to eternal calling since calling is prior to justification in Rom. 8:29, regardless of whether you treat it as a temporal or logical order or something else altogether.

Let us however go back to the second objection by hyperist Brandan Kraft, and address the first issue of timeless eternity in the next post. Is such an interpretation an accurate handling of the Word of God, or merely the reading of foreign [Neo-Platonic] ideas into the text of Scripture?

In order to exegete the Scriptures well, I have included the first 13 verses in Eph. 2, certainly sufficient to show the context of the first 4 verses. It must also be stated that Kraft's objection continues to suffer from the 1-Dimensional thinking he is utilizing - viz that love and wrath cannot both coexist at the same time. Of course, one wonders about the counter-example of a parent angry at their child for disobeying rules.

Eph. 2:1-3 states that we, referring to believers, were at one time "children of wrath" and walked in the same ways of disobedience like the rest of mankind. Verse 4 introduces the power of the Gospel by stating what God has done ("But God"). While we were still wretched sinners under His wrath, God who loves us has decided to save us through His grace (v. 5) and give us all the benefits of salvation (v. 6). Verses 8-10 inform us that our salvation is purely of grace through faith not of works, and so salvation is of God from beginning to end.

So while God's love for the elect is truly from "eternity" (I am using this carefully since the hyperists have an unbiblical notion of this term informed by their Neo-Platonism), the idea that the context of Eph. 2 as nothing to do with events in time is totally unfounded. We can already see in verse 7 through the phrase "the coming ages" that the idea of time is prominent in the entire passage. As if the grammer of the verses was not clear enough, verses 11-13 should nail the coffin on the strained eisegesis of the hyperists, for they clearly speak about changes in time ("at that time" cf v. 12). So once we were _____ ("separated from Christ", "having no hope and God in the world" etc), but now we are ____ ("have been brought near by the blood of Christ" etc). The entire passage is just pregnant with the concept of happenings in time, and tells us the state of the elect before and after our conversion.

The hyperists' second objection therefore fails because they 1) did not refute the plain teaching of Scripture that the unregenerate elect are under God's wrath before their conversion, and 2) love and wrath can exist at the same time by one individual towards another (one) individual

We would look briefly and refute the third and last objection raised by the hyperists against the orthodox doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. Instead of this fundamental doctrine, the hyperists put foward their doctrine of "faith by justification alone". According to their flawed thinking, making justification by faith implies that justification depends upon faith, which would make salvation synergistic as both God and Man cooperate in the work of salvation.

One thing that we can see immediately is that the Arminians and the Hyperists share one thing in common — the unbiblical conviction that faith is a work of men. The Arminians believe that faith is Man's work, so therefore unconditional election is false for how can God saves Man without demanding of him his exercise (work) of faith? The Hyperists on the other hand believe that since faith is Man's work, therefore salvation is not dependent on faith, for otherwise faith would be made a condition for salvation which creates an opening for works righteousness.

The biblical teaching however is that faith is a gift of God (cf Eph. 2:9, Phil. 1:29), not a work of men. It is precisely because faith is God's work and gift that the Hyperists' third objection falls flat. Once again, it seems that the Arminians and the Hyperists actually do deserve each other, for they share a lot of false assumptions in common.

In the next post, we would look at the idea of time and eternity (of timeless eternity and everlasting time) and see what the Scriptures teach about the matter.