Article: The Covenant of Works in Dutch Reformed Orthodoxy

The mono-covenantalists (both Legalists and Antinomians) deny the very idea of the Covenant of Works. Some of those from the Dutch Reformed tradition have even come close to historical revisionism in postulating a new antithesis of Reformed versus the Puritans. According to this revisionist understanding, the Continental Reformed with their 3 forms of unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession of Faith, Canons of Dordt) do not believe in the Covenant of Works. It is rather the *evil* Puritans who introduced the concept of "merit" and as such formulated the Covenant of Works, giving it confessional status in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

In this article by Pastor Shane Lems, the historical record is set straight. As written:

The doctrine of the covenant of works has come under fire once more in Dutch Reformed churches. Some Dutch Reformed Christians have called the covenant of works an unscriptural theory that must be rejected outright. The covenant of works, they say, has traces of Arminianism or Roman Catholicism in it. Of course, the battle rages elsewhere as well, but Dutch Reformed church history has volumes to add to this debate.

Despite recent criticism of the covenant of works within Dutch churches, it is very clear that the covenant of works is both a Presbyterian and Reformed — indeed Dutch Reformed — doctrine. The main point of this essay is simple: the Dutch Reformed church has taught the covenant of works since the Reformation. While we may owe much to our Presbyterian brothers and sisters, we did not adopt the covenant of works from the Westminster Standards. Rather, the English and Dutch Reformed theologians were influenced by each other, and stood side by side on the covenant of works.

Those in Dutch churches who deny the covenant of works today usually only use a select few recent Dutch theologians to help disprove it. Alternatively, they suggest that the covenant of works is foreign to Dutch Reformed theology, as if there were no major Dutch theologians before the turn of the twentieth century who taught it. But what about the 350 years of Dutch Reformed theology before the late twentieth century? Is Dutch Reformed theology from 1900-1940 the norm for our understanding of the covenant of works today?

For the sake of space, only a few major Dutch Reformed theologians will be mentioned. This article is designed to be a descriptive walk through Dutch Reformed history beginning in the mid sixteenth century. We will look at Caspar Olevian (1536-1587), Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583), Herman Witsius (1636-1708), Wilhelmus a' Brakel (1635-1711), Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), and Louis Berkhof (1873-1957). All these influential Reformed thinkers clearly demonstrate that the covenant of works is a teaching that is not unique to Presbyterianism.

We should note that not every major Dutch theologian since the Reformation taught the covenant of works. At the same time, an impenetrable case can be made that the vast majority did teach it. I have tried to be as brief as possible in the following summaries. I leave it to the reader to follow these leads and look at the details of each theologian's description of the covenant of works.

...

Denial of the Covenant of Works, while not by itself outrightly heretical, has very serious consequences. As the essay concludes:

... First, it is necessary for those of us who uphold and defend the Three Forms of Unity to admit that the covenant of works is neither a Roman Catholic nor an Arminian construction. We must be honest with all this church history and openly declare that it is thoroughly a Reformed - even Dutch Reformed - doctrine.

Secondly, those who deny the covenant of works must not ignore Dutch Reformed theology that precedes the late nineteenth century. To paraphrase what Geerhardus Vos wrote in 1891, if one has the "historical sense" to be able to separate the mature development of a doctrine from its beginnings, there should be no trouble in recognizing the "covenant of works as an old Reformed doctrine." The covenant of works flows through the veins of Dutch Reformed churches; this much is clear.

Finally, the present day opponents of the covenant of works have to be careful when attacking it. By calling it an unscriptural theory, Arminian construction, or medieval Roman Catholic doctrine, one indicts the above Dutch theologians. I trust no one who loves the confessions would want to accuse any of the above theologians as being anything but confessional, orthodox, and Reformed.

To conclude on a practical note, as a' Brakel and Bavinck indicated, the covenant of works directs us away from our own works and drives us to trust in the works of another, the second Adam, Jesus Christ. He has merited salvation for the elect and paid for their sins. Jesus has agreed to the stipulations of the covenant of works: "Do this and live" applied to the last Adam, the true Israel, Jesus Christ. Praise God that Jesus has obeyed and paid, that our salvation depends not upon our merit, but on His. Jesus has done this and lives; therefore, we live with Him. Praise God that where we have failed, He has prevailed and covered our sins with His sacrifice. It is clear why both a' Brakel and Bavinck understood that a denial of the covenant of works can quickly lead to a misunderstanding or denial of the covenant of grace, of the gospel. After all, without Jesus' perfect obedience to the law credited to our account, how could we stand righteous before God?

Merit and the concept of the Covenant of Works

Will any one of you who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and recline at table’? Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink’? Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’” (Lk. 17:7-10)

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality (Rom. 2:6-11)

Question 63. What! do not our good works merit, which yet God will reward in this and in a future life? Answer: This reward is not of merit, but of grace (Lk. 17:10) (Heidelberg Catechism, Q63)

... So then, we do good works, but nor for merit — for what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he who "works in us both to will and do according to his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13) — thus keeping in mind what is written: "When you have done all that is commanded you, then you shall say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have done what it was our duty to do.' (Lk. 17:10) ...

(Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 24)

One of the characteristic of Mono-covenantal Antinomianism is its denial of the idea of merit especially in the Covenant of Works. As opposed to its opposite number, Mono-covenantal Legalism as found in the heresy of the Federal Vision, the very idea of merit sickens the Mono-covenantal Antinomians, who see the idea of merit as leading to a form of works-based religion as epitomized in the Federal Visionists. In the battle within the two sides, the balance of the right preaching of the Law and Gospel are lost by both. In the camp of the Mono-Covenantal Legalists, Gospel becomes Law, and thus their idea of gospel is made up of commandments of doing and believing. In the camp of the Mono-Covenantal Antinomians, Law becomes Gospel, and thus the Law lose much of its power of warning, condemnation and exhortation. Instead, the Law mostly becomes something we are reminded of so that we can run back to God's grace (which is certainly correct but not enough). The motivation for living holy lives has been greatly reduced, and warnings against apostasy and carnality muffled since after all, aren't we justified by God's grace apart from works?

In this post therefore, I would like to address the error of the Mono-Covenantal Antinomians in their rejection of the concept of merit especially in the Covenant of Works, especially in the interpretation of Lk. 17:10 and in the Continental Reformed Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. It must be noted here that both sides of the mono-covenantal spectrum reject the Covenant of Works, the Legalists to make grace into law, and the Antinomians to make law into grace.

Covenant Theology historically teaches bicovenantalism as opposed to monocovenantalism. Redemptive history is split into two overarching covenantal paradigms: the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, reflecting the Lutheran contrast of Law (Covenant of Works) and Gospel (Covenant of Grace). While the Puritan and Scottish tradition expressed this teaching succinctly in the Westminster Confession of Faith (cf WCF Chapter VII, Para II), it is not expresseively found in the Confessions and Catechisms of the Continental Reformers due to their creeds and confessions being written early in Reformation history. Yet, a look at for example eminent Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Witsius' magnum opus The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man [1] would prove that the Continental Reformed churches also do embrace bicovenantalism, although of course variations between Reformed theologians are to be expected (Compare for example Samuel Rutherford's [2] understanding of the covenants to Witsius').

A covenant is made up of two contracting parties, with stipulations for the parties involved, and rewards and punishments for the fulfilling of the obligations. Covenants may be unilateral as being more along the lines of ANE (Ancient Near-East) suzerainty treaties, of which God's covenants are similar to [3]. As O. Plamer Robertson defines the biblical idea of covenant when predicated of God, it is a bond-in-blood sovereignly administered [4]. Within the context of a covenant initiated by God, God bonds himself to the other party (i.e men, Adam, Israel etc) by His own free choice and unilaterally lays down the stipulations of the covenant (what they are to do), and the rewards and punishments for their obedience and disobedience respectively for fulfilling these stipulations.

In the context of a covenant therefore, where men under the covenant fulfil the stipulations of the covenant, they are said to have "merited" the rewards promised them in the covenant God made with them. The historic idea of "merit" and the concept of "earning salvation" is set in the context of God's covenants as initiated by Him.

Therefore, historic Covenant Theology talks about men meriting with God on the basis of the covenant. This does not mean that God owes men something for some good they have done, but that rather God owes it to His own integrity as the Covenant God who makes good on what He has promised.

Both the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism have a section on the idea of merit, and both of them are quoted to support the attack of the Mono-covenantal Antinomians against the historic view of bicovenantalism. However, is that a proper appeal to the confession and catechism, or rather an improper appeal to them?

Question 63 of the Heidelberg Catechism in situated in the context of salvation; of being right with God. Question 60 asks of us how we are righteous before God, and the only answer that we should give is that we are righteous only because of having faith in Christ. Question 62 asks us why our good works cannot be the whole, or part, of our righteousness before God. The answer in itself damages the case of Mono-Covenantal Antinomianism. It is as follows:

Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, (Ga. 3:10, Deut. 27:26) and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin (Is. 64:6).

It can be seen that question 62 teaches that there IS indeed a righteousness which can be approved before the tribunal of God, which is that of perfect righteousness. As long as a person has perfect righteousness, his righteousness can be approved before God. Of course, that is impossible for fallen men, but that's besides the point here.

Question 63, following question 62, enquires as to whether our good works merit before God. In other words, do our good works count for anything in God's sight such that He would reward us for doing them?

The answer given to the question is an emphatic no. The catechism teaches here that our good works do not earn us anything before God, but rather God rewards us for them due to His grace, not our merits.

The context of this answer however shows us that it is addressed to fallen sinful men who have already violated the works principle in the Covenant of Works (cf Rom. 2:6-11). Postlapsarian men are all born sinners and thus cannot hope to merit anything with God, nevermind the fact that even if they were to do the impossible — to not commit sin plus somehow avoid the Original Guilt of Adam — they still cannot earn the positive righteousness before God necessary to enter heaven, for there is no Covenant of Works made with them.

In the Belgic Confession of Faith, the section whereby the passage is taken from is Article 24 which is entitled the Sanctification of Sinner. Similar to the case of the Heidelberg Catechism, it is addressed to postlapsarian sinners whose only way of salvation is fond in Jesus Christ alone.

Both of these passages proof-text Lk. 17:10 to support their statement, and a look at the passage and verse would show that the case the catechism and confession is making is solid, and in fact the verse is broader in application than either have used them; being applicable across the lapsarian divide. Creatures are obligated to their Creator, and cannot merit anything with Him.

After understanding the teachings of historic Covenant Theology and look at the teachings of Scripture, we perceive immediately that the objections of the Mono-covenantal Antinomians miss the mark altogether. We have said that in Covenant Theology, the idea of "merit" within the context of Covenant is that God does not "owes men something for some good they have done, but that rather God owes it to His own integrity as the Covenant God who makes good on what He has promised". The issue therefore is not, as the distractors would have it, that men obligate God to reward them (an erroneous teaching soundly refuted by Lk. 17:10), but that God obligates Himself to reward them. When this is properly understood, the objection on this ground made by the Mono-covenantal Antinomians are seen to be baseless.

In conclusion, men can "merit" before God only in the framework of a covenant. Specifically, only within the framework of the Covenant of Works can such "meriting" happen, as only the Covenant of Works has a stipulation attached to it for men to fulfil. In the Covenant of Grace however, the stipulation is fulfilled by our represetative head which is Chrst in His humanity. For His own people the elect therefore, the Covenant of Grace does not contain any stipulations or conditions on our part, as our salvation is purely of grace and grace alone.

---

References:

[1] Herrman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man – Comprehending A Complete Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank (Original printed 1822; Reprinted Kingsburg, CA: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990; Distributed Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing)

[2] Samuel Rutherford, C. Matthew McMahon (Ed.), , The Covenant of Life Opened (Original 1654; New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005)

[3] See Michael Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (p. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), pp. 23-28.

[4] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R publishing), p. 15

Rom. 5, the doctrine of Imputation and Original guilt

I have been interacting with an Arminian recently who asserts, among many other things, that Rom. 5 especially verse 12 does not teach the Reformed teaching of Original Guilt through the imputation of Adam's sin to us sinners. While I have addressed his eisegesis in the meta in that post, I would like here to present a brief positive exegesis of Rom. 5: 12-19 and show that the plain interpretation of Scripture do teach the doctrines of Imputation of sin and Original Guilt.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned — for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:12-19)

A striking feature, and in fact, the important thing to notice in this passage is the parallelism made between Adam and Christ, as they are compared and contrasted in many different ways. The end of verse 14 in fact informs us that the parallelism made is one of typology — Adam as the type and Christ ("who was to come") the antitype.

The entire passage therefore is governed by the concept of typology. Adam therefore is or did something which is then compared or contrasted with how Christ is or did that same thing. Whatever the interpretation of the text is, failure to read it as typology would render the interpretation necessarily errant.

The passage starts off with the mention of death coming into the world because of sin. Breaking this sentence in verse 12 down into logical form, we would have the following argumentation:

Premise 1: Sin entered the world through one man
Premise 2: Death comes with sin
Premise 3: All sinned
Conclusion: Death came to all men

Expanding the argument:

Premise 2: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)/ Death comes with sin
Implicit premise 1a: Sinlessness merit eternal life (cf Gal. 3:12, Rom. 2:6-7,11)
Intermediate conclusion 1a: If and only if sin is real, then death must occur.

Premise 1: Sin entered the world through one man
Intermediate conclusion 1b: If and only if sin entered the world through one man, then death must occur.

Implicit premise 1c: If sin entered the world through one man, then all have sinned
Intermediate conclusion 1c: If and only if all have sinned, then death must have came to all men.
Premise 3: All sinned
Conclusion: Death came to all men

The argument as follows is valid and sound, which shows us the force of Paul's argumentation in verse 12. Paul is saying that all have sinned, and therefore all men die. Yet even here the fact of the "one man" in which sin entered the world came into focus. According to Scripture therefore, sin entered the world through that "one man" resulting in the fact that all of us die because sin has entered the world of our existence.

Verse 13 is a short digression into the relationship between sin and the law, stating that the law did not create sin since sin was already present before the giving of the law (the Ten Commandments and the laws at Sinai). Rather, the law showed sin to be sin (so that it becomes counted as sin), echoing Paul's later teaching in this regard as seen in Rom. 7: 8-10.

In verse 15, the parallelism starts to be mentioned and contrasted. Adam's sin ("one man's trespass") caused many men to die, whereas in Jesus Christ, the "free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ" abounded for many [unto life]. Verse 16 makes it even more explicit that the original sin of Adam was in Paul's mind, since it is through that ONE sin that condemnation follows, and death came which reigned in all of us (v. 17a). In Jesus Christ however, his free gift "follow[ed] many trespasses" (thus noting the fact that it is not because of men's righteousness that the gift was given) which brought justification. In verse 17b, Jesus Christ is the one who through His grace and His free gift cause those in Him to have life.

The contrast is thus formed as follows:

Adam	Christ
One trespass	One gift
Brought condemnation	Being justified
Death	Life

It must be here noted that all men are considered to be under the federal headship of either of these two heads. Adam brought death to many through his trespass, while Christ brought life to many through His free gift.

Rom. 5:18 continues the line of thought in the previous section. Adam brought condemnation and death to all men through his trespass, while Christ brought justification and life to all men through His righteousness. This modifies the chart as follows:

Person:	Adam	Christ
Act:	One trespass	One gift of righteousness
Meritorious cause:	Sin	Righteousness
Legal status:	Condemnation	Justification
Result:	Death	Life

Verse 19 in Rom. 5 sums up the teaching of federal headship in the entire passage, by contrasting what we get by being in Adam, and being in Christ. Adam's original sin caused the many to be made sinners. Conversely, Christ's obedience caused the many to be made righteous. The parallelism is remarkable, and show forth the contrasts the two heads bring to those under them.

There are a few outstanding issue to be sorted out here, which we shall do now.

The first issue is the use of "many" and "all" in the passage. Just because the word "all" is used does not mean that all men everywhere are saved by Christ, neither does that necessarily mean that "all" men are sinners just because the quantifier "all" is used. Rather, the word "all", just like the word "many", is used as a quantitative modifier of the class they are describing. The Scriptures therefore do not teach Universalism based upon some sophomoric misinterpretation of the Greek word panta and its derivatives as used in this passage.

All men are sinners, not because the word "all" is used to modify "men", but because "all men" belong to the class of being "in Adam". The fact that we have all died proves that to be the case. Contrary to Arminian thought which states that we die solely because we actually sin, the Scriptures even in verse 12 itself teaches that sin and death entered the world through Adam (not separately through us), while verse 15 explicitly states that we first died in Adam even before committing any actual sin. Adam's "one trespass" caused our deaths because all of us have sinned in Adam as our federal head. While actual sins do cause death, a fact which the Arminians do admit, Adam's sin caused our death even before any one of us have committed any actual sins.

We all sin in Adam as our federal head, and therefore we all possess this Original guilt. Adam's sin is thus imputed to us, or considered to our account. Likewise, following the parallelism, Christ is the new federal head for all true Christians who are in Him (εν χριστω). Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and therefore we have His righteousness as ours.

As a parallelism, the manner in which the two are compared and contrasted must be the same. Therefore, a change in the mode of the transmission of Adam's sin would necessitate a change in the mode of the transmission of Christ's righteousness. The Arminians change the transmission of Adam's sin into purely a genetic transmission of a sinful nature. For the parallelism to hold, they must likewise consistently admit that the transmission of Christ's righteousness is a actual giving process, which is the process of infusion. In infusion, Christ's righteousness is not credited to men, but truly and ontologically given to men such that they are actually righteous. It is here that we can see the error of Romanism and semi-Pelagianism come to the fore. Embrace of the Arminian heresy with its attendant error of the denial of original guilt would cause original sin to be merely a sinful nature, which should make Christ's righteousness to believers an infused or actual righteousness, and there we go back to the faith-and-works religion of Romanism. After all, if you are actually righteous, then you must act righteous (works) otherwise you are not in Christ and thus not saved. Justification in such a system as Rome's is therefore through faith and good works, otherwise euphemistically stated as "a living faith" or "faith which works through love".

Rom. 5:12-19 therefore teaches 1) the federal headships of Adam and Christ, 2) Original guilt, 3) the imputation of Adam's sin to his seed, and 4) the imputation of Christ's righteousness to his seed. A denial of Original guilt, when interpreted in the light of the parallelism of Rom. 5:12-19, would necessarily result in the embrace of the heresy of infused righteousness and such would further necessitate a denial of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone. It is no wonder therefore that the Synod of Dordt spoke for the Church of Jesus Christ in denouncing the heresy of Arminianism in her Canons, seeing the pelagianizing tendencies within her false teachings. Historically, the person of Remonstrant theologian Conrad Vorstius (who apostatized into Soccinianism — a form of incipient universalism at best) is more than sufficient to prove such tendencies inherent within Arminianism itself.

ADD: For the exegesis of Rom. 5:12 :

The preposition "so" indicate that whatever comes after is a conclusion from what comes before, while the word "because" indicates that whatever comes after this preposition is a premise for the one that comes before that prepostion. Therefore, the agument would be as follows:

Therefore, just as (P1) "sin came into the world through one man", and (P2) "death through sin", and so (C) "death spread to all men" because (P3) "all sinned". (Rom. 5:12)

Witsius' quote and the proof of Scripture

I am in the midst of leading a Bible study series for my cell group, and in one of the Bible study, the passages I brought up are the one by Witsius as seen here. Here therefore is the proposed Scriptural cross-references for the propositions in the quotes taken from his book The Economy of the Covenants:

... it must be confessed, that in the present dark state of our minds, even the most illuminated are ignorant of a great many things (Job. 38-40:5; Is. 55:8-9); and that many things are believed with an implicit [tacit] faith (Mt. 7:17,20; 17:20, cf. Jn. 9), especially by young beginners and babes in Christ, so far as they admit, in general, the whole scriptures to be the infallible standard of what is to be believed; in which are contained many things which they do not understand, and in as far as they embrace the leading doctrines of Christianity, in which many other truths concenter, which are thence deduced by evident consequence, and which they believe in their foundation or principle, as John writes concerning believers, that they knew all things, 1 John ii. 20. ... (III.7.9. Vol. 1, p. 376.)

Moreover those things which are necessary to be known by the person who would believe, are in general, the divinity of the scriptures (Ps. 119 esp. v. 81, 114; Eph. 1:13), into which faith must be ultimately resolved; more especially, those things which regard the obtaining of salvation in Christ; which may summarily be reduced to these three heads (Eph. 1:13): 1st To know, that by sin thou art estranged from the life of God, and art come short of the glory of God, Rom. iii.23. That it is not possible, that either thou thyself, or an angel from heaven, or any creature in the world, nay, or all the creatures in the universe, can extricate thee from the abyss of misery, and restore thee to a state of happiness. 2dly. That thou shouldst know Christ this Lord to be full of grace and truth, John i.14. who is that only name given under heaven, whereby we can be saved, Acs. iv. 1. and in the knowledge of whom consists eternal life, John xvii. 3. 3dly. That thou shouldst know, that, in order to thy obtaining salvation in Christ, it is necessary that thou be united to Christ, by the Spirit and by faith, and give up thyself to him, not only to be justified, but also sanctified, and governed by his will and pleasure, proving what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, Rom. xii. 2. (III.7.10. Vol. 1, p. 377.)

The three things that all Christians must hold to therefore are: 1) The divinity of the Scripture, 2) the message of the Gospel, 3) the divinity of Christ and the Godhead. These are the fundamental truths of Scripture which all Christians must hold to in order to be saved.

Phil Johnson on the Neo-Liberal Stealth Offensive

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4)

I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30)

In the e-Journal by 9Marks ministry (Jan/Feb 2010, 7:1), Phil Johnson, who is the Executive Director of Grace to You, has written an excellent and extremely pertinent article on the attack of the enemy against the churches. He begins:

The gospel’s most dangerous earthly adversaries are not raving atheists who stand outside the door shouting threats and insults. They are church leaders who cultivate a gentle, friendly, pious demeanor but hack away at the foundations of faith under the guise of keeping in step with a changing world.

No Christian should imagine that heresy is always conspicuous or that every purveyor of theological mischief will lay out his agenda in plain and honest terms. The enemy prefers to sow tares secretly, for obvious reasons. Thus Scripture expressly warns us to be on guard against false teachers who creep into the church unnoticed (Jude 4), wolves who sneak into the flock wearing sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15), and servants of Satan who disguise themselves as angels of light (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

In light of the disaster of the New Evangelical experiment, especially as epitomized in the Seeker sensitive movement, causing biblical illiteracy to rise to shockingly new levels, evangelical churches are ripe for the infiltration and taking over by liberals of all stripes, from the capital "L" Liberals on the left to the Neo-Orthodox on the right.

In his article, Johnson details the 4 trends that is leaving evangelicals vulnerable to subversion:

1. They recklessly follow the zeitgeist.

...

Beware of church leaders who are more worried about being contemporary than they are about being doctrinally sound, more concerned with their methodology than they are with their message, and more captivated by political correctness than they are by the truth. The church is not called to ape the world or make Christianity seem cool and likable, but to proclaim the gospel faithfully—including the parts the world usually scoffs at: sin, righteousness, and judgment (cf. Jn. 16:8). Jesus expressly taught that if we are faithful in that task, the Holy Spirit will convict hearts and draw believers to Christ.

...

2. They want the world’s admiration at all costs.

... When we need to shave corners off the truth or compromise righteousness in order to gain the world’s friendship, bearing the reproach of Christ is an infinitely better option. No true friend of God deliberately seeks the world's camaraderie (Jas. 4:4).

But one of the common characteristics of liberalism is an obsession with gaining the world’s approval and admiration no matter the cost.

...

When churches give in to that craving for worldly approval, they inevitably subjugate the gospel to a more popular message. At first, they won’t necessarily deny (or even challenge) core gospel truths such as the historical facts outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. But they will abbreviate, modify, or add to the message. The embellishments usually echo whatever happens to be politically correct at the moment — climate change, world hunger, the AIDS crisis, or whatever. Those things will be stressed and talked about repeatedly while the historic facts of Christ’s death and resurrection, the great themes of gospel doctrine, and the actual text of Scripture itself will be largely ignored or treated as something to be taken for granted.

Feed any church a steady diet of that for a few years and they will have no means of defense when someone attacks the faith more directly. That’s precisely what is happening today with various attacks on substitutionary atonement, the exclusivity of Christ, the authority and inerrancy of Scripture, and other essential Christian truths. All of those things were first downplayed in order to make the church’s message sound more “positive.” Now they are being subjected to a full-scale assault.

...

3. Their “faith” comes with an air of intellectual superiority.

Liberals treat faith itself as an academic matter. Their whole system is essentially a wholesale rejection of simple, childlike belief. Their worldview foments an air of academic arrogance, setting human reason in the place of highest authority, treating the Bible with haughty condescension, and showing utter contempt for the kind of faith Christ blessed.

Consequently, liberals are and always have been obsessed with academic respectability. They want the world’s esteem as scholars and intellectuals—no matter what they have to compromise to get it. They sometimes defend that motive by arguing that the secular academy’s acceptance is essential to the Christian testimony.

Of course that is a quixotic quest. It is also a denial of the Bible’s plain teaching. Believers cannot be faithful to Scripture and win general accolades from the wise men, scribes, and debaters of this age. The world hated Jesus, and he made it clear that his faithful disciples mustn’t expect — or seek — the world’s honor (Jn. 15:18; Luke 6:22; cf. Jas. 4:4). Paul, himself a true scholar in every sense, wrote this world’s wisdom off as sheer foolishness: “Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God” (1 Cor. 3:18-19).

True Christian scholarship is about integrity, not accolades. Liberalism covets the latter, and that explains why liberals are always drawn to ideas that are stylish and politically correct, yet they are resistant to virtually all the hard truths of Christianity, starting with the authority Scripture claims for itself. Be on guard against that tendency.

4. They despise doctrinal and biblical precision.

This may sound like an oxymoron, but while treating faith as an academic matter, liberals prefer an almost anti-intellectual, agnostic approach to dealing with the specific truth-claims of Scripture. They like their doctrine hazy and indistinct.

...

Heavy doses of that flavor of postmodern, neo-liberal evasion have conditioned multitudes of church members to regard carefulness and precision in handling doctrine as both unimportant and potentially divisive. These days the person who shows evidence of doctrinal scruples is much more likely to be held in suspicion or disdain among evangelicals than the neo-liberals who have deliberately made the study of biblical doctrine seem so cloudy, confusing, and contentious.

...

Do read the complete article by Phil Johnson, as it shows us the deadly compromises made by New Evangelicalism, who sold out their evangelical birthright for a bowl of academic respectability soup. When you sow to the wind, you reap the whirlwind. May we learn from their mistakes and turn from them.

Carl Trueman on the "New Evangelical Liberalism" and Academic Respectability

In the e-Journal by 9Marks ministry (Jan/Feb 2010, 7:1), Carl Trueman wrote an excellent article entitled The Real Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, playing a pun on Mark Noll's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Eerdmans, 1995). In his article, Trueman addresses the issue of the need for acceptability and academic respectability among the [New] Evangelicals. As he wrote:

... there would seem to be a pervasive evangelical inferiority complex. This means that, while we do not wish to exclude anybody, we dread being excluded ourselves. Indeed, for the evangelical academic, in a world so ill-defined, it is always tempting to cut just a few more corners, or keep shtum on just a couple of rather embarrassing doctrinal commitments, in order to have just that little bit more influence, that slightly bigger platform, in the outside world. This is particularly the temptation of evangelical biblical scholars and systematicians whose wider guilds are so utterly unsympathetic to the kind of supernaturalism and old-fashioned truth claims upon which their church constituencies are largely built. In so doing, we kid ourselves that we are doing the Lord’s work, that, somehow, because we have articles published in this journal or by that press, we are really making real headway into the unbelieving culture of the theological academy. Not that these things are not good and worthy—I do such things myself—but we must be careful that we do not confuse professional academic achievement with building up the saints or scoring a point for the kingdom.

It remains true (as James Barr pointed out years ago) that evangelical academics are generally respected in the academy only at precisely those points where they are least evangelical. There is a difference between academic or scholarly respectability and intellectual integrity. For a Christian, the latter depends upon the approval of God and is rooted in fidelity to his revealed Word; it does not always mean the same thing as playing by the rules of scholarly guild.

New Evangelicalism from its inception desires favor with the world, and the world's respect for its teaching. Far from compromising the truths of Scripture, the entire New Evangelical experiment desired both favor with their academic peers and no compromise of the Gospel message — an experiment in trying to have their cake and eat it too, as the case of the early New Evangelicals Harold Ockenga and Edward Carnell showed [Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950 to 2000 (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 20].

Christian scholarship is indeed important, and intellectual integrity especially. But because Christian scholarship is, for lack of a better term, Christian, it MUST needs be despised and to some measure rejected by the world for moral and spiritual reasons. It is treachery to desire the favor of a world in rebellion against her Creator if we ourselves profess allegiance to this same Lord of heaven and earth.

Instead of desiring the recognition of a God-hating world, Christian scholarship should be about desiring the recognition from God and the edification of His body the Church.

... too few evangelical academics seem to have much ambition. ... Yet true ambition, true Christian ambition, is surely based in and directed towards the upbuilding of the church, towards serving the people of God, and this is where evangelical academics often fail so signally. The impact evangelical scholars have had on the academy is, by and large, paltry, and often (as noted) confined to those areas where their contributions have been negligibly evangelical. Had the same time and energy been devoted to the building up of the saints, imagine how the church might have been transformed.

This is not to say that high-powered scholarship should be off-limits, nor that the immediate needs of the man or woman in the pew should provide the criteria by which relevance is judged; but it is to say that all theological scholarship should be done with the ultimate goal of building up the saints, confounding the opponents of the gospel, and encouraging the brethren. The highest achievement any evangelical theological scholar can attain is not membership of some elite guild but the knowledge that he or she has done work that strengthened the church and extended the kingdom of God through the local church.

As the world grows ever more and more wicked, and with the failure of the New Evangelical experiment, a time is coming when the New Evangelicals will have to count the cost and choose whom they will serve

The day is coming when the cultural intellectual elites of evangelicalism — the institutions and the individuals — will face a tough decision. I see the crisis coming on two separate but intimately connected fronts. The day is coming, and perhaps has already come, when, first, to believe that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired, authoritative, and utterly truthful, will be seen as a sign at best of intellectual suicide, at worst of mental illness; and, second, to articulate any form of opposition to homosexual practice will be seen as the moral equivalent of advocating white supremacy or child abuse. In such times, the choice will be clear, those who hold the Christian line will be obvious, and those who have spent their lives trying to serve both orthodoxy and the academy will find that no amount of intellectual contortionism will save them. Being associated with B. B. Warfield will be the least of their worries.

As Trueman said, the problem with "[New] evangelical scholars and scholarship" is not there is no mind or little thinking, but there is "precious little evangel;" little Gospel. After 50+ years of the New Evangelical experiment, the time has come to terminate it for its horrendous fruits it has produced and continue to produce in the Church.

Essays on "New Evangelical Liberalism"

In this recent e-Journal by 9Marks ministry (Jan/Feb 2010, 7:1), various notable evangelical theologians including Carl Trueman, R. Albert Mohler, Phil Johnson, Mike Horton and Darryl Hart have written excellent articles on the state of the church — On the "New Evangelical Liberalism".

As written in the editor's note:

In general, the danger of liberalism, which we define broadly as gospel-denial within the church, occurs when we allow the world's demands to ring a little too loudly in our ears. It occurs when we let the world dictate the terms of our beliefs or practices. Or when we let the world determine, "These things are good and worthy, not those things," or, "This is the salvation we are looking for." As soon as we let the world influence the terms of the church's life and mission, we have let another authority enter the house and tie up the king of the church, Christ.

A question for evangelicals to ask themselves is, has the way we think about church prepared us for compromise? The challenge for churches, we're told, is striking the balance between isolation and assimilation. Usually, this translates into, "Change your church structures and the way you talk, but not your doctrine." The trouble is, changing our structures and the way we talk changes the way we think, because words and structures shape thinking. For instance, change how you talk about the gospel and your congregation will think differently about the gospel. Change what membership means, to use another example, and your congregation will begin to understand the inclusiveness and exclusiveness of God's love—and so God himself—differently. In short, the question about finding the balance between isolation and assimilation may be the wrong question. It may open a side door through which the authority of the world sneaks into the church. Wouldn't a better question be, how can we be utterly faithful to God's Word in everything? After all, faithfulness will preclude both isolation and assimilation. It's often been suggested that the doctrinally aberrant Emergent church is a reaction to fundamentalism. This may be true for some individuals, but could it be that the Emergent church's doctrinal aberrations are more the result of an entire generation who grew up in doctrinally anemic seeker-sensitive churches?

It's in this light that evangelicals should always be willing to "examine ourselves" (2 Cor. 13:5), especially since our very place of strength is also our Achilles Heel. Our desire to reach the world is what can lead us to mimic the world. Many things in our churches are encouraging, but some things are discouraging. And for the sake of love, we should, from time to time, take stock of those places where we will be tempted to compromise the gospel and move toward liberalism. That's what this issue of the 9Marks eJournal tries to do.

Michael Lawrence, Carl Trueman, Al Mohler, and Phil Johnson examine how liberalism happens and offer wise counsel for the academic and the pastor's heart. Greg Gilbert, Michael Ovey, Russell Moore, and I point to several specific areas where evangelicals appear to be walking on thin ice (yet a careful reader will notice a slight divergence of views here). Greg Wills, Michael Horton, and Darryl Hart present notable lessons from history, which Bobby Jamieson rounds out by observing some striking similarities between the ecumenical movement of the 20th century and evangelicalism today. Finally, Mack Stiles does the hard work of challenging one particular organization which he loves, I dare say, with the love of Christ— a love which is willing to both build up and tear down for the purposes of holiness and glory.

Dear reader, we offer these pieces not to be alarmists or critics, but in the attempt to be lovers of our churches and yours. Where we overstep, we ask for your patience and loving correction in return.

Do check out ALL the articles in this journal, as it speaks much to the state of the New Evangelical movement in our day. I would be going through some of them here also myself in subsequent posts

[HT: Pyromaniacs]

The marks of true faith: Fiducia? Or?

[continued from here and here]

In Reformed circles, there has been a controversy regarding the nature of saving faith — whether it be dipartite (two parts) or tripartite (three parts). Both sides accept cognitio and assentia in the definition of faith. Those who follow Van Til (the majority) tend to add fiducia as a third element of faith, while Gordon Clark denied fiducia as being a proper element, not disagreeing with the concept but subsuming it under the element of assentia, noting that adding it as an element is tautological, since the root of Fiducia is Fide, which is basically Latin for "faith".

While the debate would properly not go away any time soon, no matter how much Van Tillians would like that to be, where does Witsius land on this issue?

According to his The Economy of the Covenants, Witsius does not put trust (Fiducia) as one of the elements of faith. Following on knowledge (cognitio) (III.7.8) and assent (assentia) (III.7.11), the next "acts of faith" are "love of the truth" (III.7.17), then followed by "a hunger and thirst after Christ" (III.7.18), "a receiving of Christ the Lord for justification, sanctification, and so for complete salvation" (III.7.19), "recline and stay itself upon him [Christ]" (III.7.21), "surrender to Christ" (III.7.23), and to "conclude, that Christ with all his saving benefits are his" (III.7.24). A careful reading of Witsius however show us these other acts of faith are indeed ACTS of faith, not elements of faith. Starting from the third act of the "love of the truth", we read thus:

It is indeed true, that love, strictly speaking, is distinguished from faith; yet the act of both virtues, or graces, are so interwoven with one another, that we can neither explain nor exercise faith without some acts of love interfering; ... (III.7.17. Vol. 1, p. 381)

These other acts of faith therefore are rather the fruits of faith, not the elements of faith strictly speaking.

However, between discussing the second and third acts of faith, it can be seen that Witsius qualifies the assentia of saving faith by linking them with the idea of it having substance, using the Greek word ύποστασις (of which the nuance cannot be fully expressed when translated) to modify the assent that is required. In Witsius' words:

XIII. The term, ύποστασις hypostasis substance, is also very emphatical, which the apostle makes use of when he speaks of faith, Heb. xi. 1. Nor have the Latins any word that can fully express all its force and significancy. 1st Ύποστασις hypostasis denotes the existence, or, as one of the ancients has said, the extantia, the standing up of a thing; in which sense philosophers say that a thing that really is has an ύποστασις, that is, real existence, and is not the fiction of our own mind. An indeed faith makes the thing hoped for, though not actually existing, to have, notwithstanding, an existence in the believer's mind, who so firmly assents to the promises of God, as if the thing promised was already present with him. ... And [John] Calvin's interpretation looks this way; faith, says he, is hypostasis, that is, a prop or possession on which we fix our feet. ... And indeed there is something in faith that can with intrepidity sustain all the assaults of temptations, and not suffer it to be moved from an assent to a truth once known. Now it we join all this together, we may assert, that faith is so firm an assent to divine truth, as to set things future before us as if they were present, and that it is a proper to the soul on which it fixes its foot without yielding to any assault whatever. (III.7.18. Vol. 1, pp. 378-379. Emphases original)

From what can be seen, Witsius does not seem to fit any of the two categories. Maybe we should change the term "fiducia" (trust) to "hypostasis" (substanced confidence?)??

The marks of true faith: Assentia

In a previous post on the nature of saving faith, I have expounded a bit on the element of cognitio which is basic to the concept of saving faith. In this post, I would continue with Witsius' second element of saving faith: Assentia, which has been alluded to already in the previous post.

XI. To this knowledge must be joined assent, which is the second act of faith, whereby a person receives and acknowledges as truths those things which he knows, receiving the testimony of God, and thus setting to his seal, that God is true, John iii. 33. This assent is principally founded on the infallible veracity of God, who testifies of himself and of his Son, 1 John v. 9, 10. On which testimony revealed in scripture, and shedding forth all around the rays of its divinity, the believers relies with no less safety than if he had been actually present at the revelation of these things. For when the soul, enlightened by the Spirit, discerns those divine truths, and in them a certain excellent theoprepy, or beauty worthy of God, and a most wise and inseparable connection of the whole, it cannot but assent to a truth that forces itself upon him with so many arguments, and as securely admit what it thus knows, for certain, as if it had seen it with its own eyes, or handled it with its own hands, or had been taken up into the third heavens, and heard it immediately from God's own mouth. Whatever the lust of the flesh may murmur, whatever vain sophists may quibble and object, though perhaps the soul may not be able to answer or solve all objections, yet it persists in the acknowledgment of this truth, which it saw too clearly, and heard too certainly, as it were from the mouth of God, ... . And this faith is accompanied with ύποστασις, substance, and βεγχος [sic] evidence, Heb. xi. 1. and πληροφορια, full persuasion or assurance, Rom. iv. 21. (III.7.11. Vol. 1, pp. 377-378. Emphases original)

Assent according to Witsius consists in "receiving the testimony of God, and thus setting to his seal, that God is true". Not only is there knowledge of what is true (cognitio), but such knowledge must be taken to be sealed in the person who knows that truth based upon the "infallible veracity of God", not mere human reasoning. In other words, saving "assent" does not function in the same manner as the "assent" which functions according to the framework of humanistic rationalism — that "assent" which only accepts whatever is true based upon what seems "rational" to fallible human presuppositions. Rather, saving "assent" functions out of the axiom of God and of His Word, and receives Christianity as true because that is its epistemic foundation. (ie. Christianity is not be argued for, but argued from).

This assentia manifests in new believers in an interesting way, which Witsius utilizing 2 Peter 1: 16, 18 speaks of: that believers "perhaps ... may not be able to answer or solve all objections, yet it persists in the acknowledgment of this truth, which it saw too clearly, and heard too certainly, as it were from the mouth of God". Just as cognitio does not require complete knowledge of God and the Faith, neither are they required for the aspect of assentia. Ironically therefore, assentia has the dubious honor of making new believers (and believers also) seemingly stupid and foolish in the eyes of the world. Barring the few Christians scholars and theologians and philosophers, who through Spirit-given wisdom silence the unregenerate and earn their hatred, most Christians will look like anti-intellectual fools in the eyes of the world. Nevertheless, as Scripture says, "For the foolishness of God is wiser than men", it is better to be foolish on God's side, than wise on Man's side.

Article: On the heresy of Classical Arminianism

Based mainly on the blog posts on the topic, I have compiled and written an article entitled The Heresy of Classical Arminianism, here.

The marks of true faith: Cognitio

I have been laboring through Herman Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity recently. This two volume work is Herman Witsius' (1636-1708) magnum opus, and reported to be one of the best volumes of Covenant Theology from the continental Dutch Reformed tradition.

In volume 1 Book III, Chapter VII — Of Faith, Witsius writes about what faith actually is. The first component of faith is what is typically termed cognitio or knowledge. On this aspect, Witsius wisely states:

... it must be confessed, that in the present dark state of our minds, even the most illuminated are ignorant of a great many things; and that many things are believed with an implicit faith, especially by young beginners and babes in Christ, so far as they admit, in general, the whole scriptures to be the infallible standard of what is to be believed; in which are contained many things which they do not understand, and in as far as they embrace the leading doctrines of Christianity, in which many other truths concenter, which are thence deduced by evident consequence, and which they believe in their foundation or principle, as John writes concerning believers, that they knew all things, 1 John ii. 20. ... (III.7.9. Vol. 1, p. 376. Bold added)

Witsius in this instance addressed the issue of "implicit faith", which is the faith of new believers who would know little of the Christian faith. If faith does includes cognitio, then saving faith must have certain cognitive contents in it in order for a person to be saved. No doubt new believers know little about the faith, yet they cannot be saved without some amount of knowledge.

Witsius thus distill the faith to two things mentioned here: 1) a belief in the Scriptures as the Word of God, and 2) "leading doctrines of Christianity". What are these "leading doctrine of Christianity"? According to Witsius, who in the next paragraph explains himself:

Moreover those things which are necessary to be known by the person who would believe, are in general, the divinity of the scriptures, into which faith must be ultimately resolved; more especially, those things which regard the obtaining of salvation in Christ; which may summarily be reduced to these three heads: 1st To know, that by sin thou art estranged from the life of God, and art come short of the glory of God, Rom. iii.23. That it is not possible, that either thou thyself, or an angel from heaven, or any creature in the world, nay, or all the creatures in the universe, can extricate thee from the abyss of misery, and restore thee to a state of happiness. 2dly. That thou shouldst know Christ this Lord to be full of grace and truth, John i.14. who is that only name given under heaven, whereby we can be saved, Acs. iv. 1. and in the knowledge of whom consists eternal life, John xvii. 3. 3dly. That thou shouldst know, that, in order to thy obtaining salvation in Christ, it is necessary that thou be united to Christ, by the Spirit and by faith, and give up thyself to him, not only to be justified, but also sanctified, and governed by his will and pleasure, proving what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God, Rom. xii. 2. (III.7.10. Vol. 1, p. 377. Bold added)

The "leading doctrines of Christianity" is nothing more than the Gospel; the "obtaining of salvation in Christ". The two things that all Christians, even new born believers, are to believe in are 1) that the Bible is the Word of God, 2) the Gospel of salvation.

If cognitio includes that, therefore by deduction those who deny one or the other cannot be true believers since they do not have true faith. For the first, while new believers certainly do not know the intricacies of the doctrine of Scriptures and its inspiration, yet they have a childlike trust that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. In the second, they do not have to know the intricacies of salvation either, of depravity, election etc, but they know that they are sinners and God saves them through the Cross of Jesus Christ.

According to Witsius' criteria therefore, all peoples and groups who deny the above two criteria are false believers in danger of the fires of hell. Denials of the first criteria would include the Neo-Orthodox, the Romanists, the Eastern Orthodox, the Liberals, Neo-Liberals and Post-Liberals and Post-Conservatives and Emergents. Denials of the second criteria include many if not all of the above groups as well, as well as Classical Arminians, Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Socinians, Universalists etc. Furthermore, since the Gospel message has as its object God, those who distort the doctrine of God are out as well since they cannot believe the true Gospel. That throws out all the Sabellians, Nestorians, Arians and all who do not subscribe to the Definition of Chaceldon.

"Implicit faith" or the faith of new Christians is indeed simple. Yet, a multitude of errors exist which destroy through denial or redefinition the simple "faith statements" in the cognitio element. It is indeed a sad reality that many professing believers educate themselves into hell instead of heaven, proving in themselves that "For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many." (Mt 7:13b). May we therefore keep watch over our life and doctrine and so manifest that we have the true saving faith in Christ instead of the false faith which damns. Amen.

James White responding to Bryan Cross and Francis Beckwith

In this video, Dr. James R. White responded to the arguments of apostates Bryan Cross and Francis Beckwith on their denial of the sufficiency of Scripture through a special appeal to the doctrine of the Trinity.

[HT: Aomin.org ]

Machen: Christianity and the religion of 'me'

We value God solely for the things that He can do; we make of Him a mere means to an ulterior end. And God refuses to be treated so; such a religion always fails in the hour of need. If we have regarded religion merely as a means of getting things — even lofty and unselfish things — then when the things that have been gotten are destroyed, our faith will fail. When loved ones are taken away, when disappointment comes and failure, when noble ambitions are set at naught, then we turn away from God. We have tried religion, we say, we have tried prayer, and it has failed. Of course it has failed! God is not content to be an instrument in our hand or a servant at our beck and call. He is not content to minister to the worldly needs of those who care not a bit for Him. ... Has it never dawned upon us that God is valuable for His own sake, that just as personal communion is the highest thing that we know on earth, so personal communion with God is the sublimest height of all? If we value God for His own sake, then the loss of other things will draw us all the closer to Him; we shall then have recourse to Him in time of trouble as to the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.

— J. Gresham Machen

[J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith? (Originally published 1925; Carlisle, PA, USA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991, 2008), p. 74]

Evangelical Arminianism versus Classical Arminianism

[continued from here and here]

The question, however, was a pressing one, whether the Evangelical elements thus taken up could consist with the Arminian principle. Calvinists earnestly urged that the union was an unnatural one, and could not be stable: that either the Evangelical elements ought to rule to the exclusion of the unharmonizable Arminian principle, in which case we should have consistent Calvinism; or else the Arminian principle would inevitably rule to the exclusion of the Evangelical doctrines forced into artificial conjunction with it, and we should have consistent Arminianism.

[B.B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield II, ed. John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg, N.J., USA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), p. 315]

They [the Methodists] call themselves Arminians; but it is perfectly obvious that their theology differs widely from that of Limborch, and Whitby, and Warburton, and all the recognized Arminian divines of Holland and England ... They differ widely and radically in principles and in results; whereas when we hear the gospel preached by a Methodist, we feel that it is the very same to which we love to listen, and are accustomed to hear as Presbyterians. ... Man's ruin by the fall, his native depravity and alienation from God, his absolute need of a Saviour, and utter inability to save himself, the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, justification, not by works, but by faith alone in the blood and righteousness of Jesus, the free offer of the gospel to every human being without money and without price, the necessity of holiness, not to merit heaven, but to become meet for it — these articles constituted the very burden of their preaching.

[Review of Annals of the American Pulpit (Methodist), in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, vol. xi (London, UK: Nisbet, 1862), pp. 301-2. As cited in Iain H. Murray, The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening (Carlisle, PA, USA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), p. 156]

Evangelical Arminianism, Olsen's so-called "Arminianism of the heart", is the "Arminianism" founded mainly by Methodist founder John Wesley. A revivalist following up on the First Great Awakening (the so-called Methodist Awakening), John Wesley was an Anglican who focused much on preaching the Gospel to all. While his forerunner George Whitefield was a Calvinist, Wesley due to certain burdens was unable to accept Calvinism even though many of his compatriots did (ie Richard Hutchins and James Hervey, former members of his Holy Club, a few of his own itinerants like John Bennet, John Whitford and John Edwards, and of course the famous John Newton, author of the hymn "Amazing Grace") [1].

While Wesley was convinced of Arminianism, and his opposition to it stiffened rather than weakened in light of Calvinistic influence [2], several points can be made to show the differences between Wesley and his Evangelical Arminianism, and the Classical Armininism of former times.

The first point can be found in the fact that Wesley was not a proper theologian. His bifurcation on the topic of full sanctification (embracing then modifying it) shows us that "his beliefs in their totality made up a loose synthesis, an amalgam, rather than a coherent system. Taken as a whole there was an absence of consistency" [3]. The Modern Arminian Roger Olsen similar states that "Wesley was not a systematic thinker" [4], citing his horrible contradictions in his sermons preaching on the topic of justification as an example that Wesley's "theology often was ad-hoc — determined by perceived errors and imbalances that needed correcting" [5].

Pursuant to this point is Wesley's historical context, whereby Wesley stubbornly refuse to separate the doctrine of Calvinism from the dying Dissenter congregations they were found. Over time, a form of Hyper-Calvinism and Antinomianism had crept into the Dissenting (formerly Puritan) congregations, and Wesley stubbornly refuse to delink them, thinking for instance that Antinomianism "was a direct consequence of Calvinistic belief" [6]. Such strawman beliefs held by Wesley held him unable to see much good in Calvinism, which together with his inconsistency, caused him to embrace the national "religion" on this subject - Synergism.

The second point we must note was that Wesley was a revivalist, and revivalists focus on the Gospel. As noted by the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, the Gospel proclaimed by Wesley and the Methodist movement was essentially orthodox and no different from that found in for example Presbyterianism, unlike the "gospel" of the Classical Arminians. Keeping the Gospel at the center yielded a benefit for the Evangelical Arminian movement which distinguished it sharply from Classical Arminianism: the presence of the Gospel, with its doctrine of the sinfulness of Man as opposed to the partial sinfulness of Man in Classical Arminianism.

Putting both points together, we can see that Evangelical Arminianism with its focus on the Gospel is thus orthodox. Wesley's inconsistency would ironically save Evangelical Arminianism from heresy. Right from the start however, the forced fusion of Evangelicalism and Arminianism in Wesleyan thought created logical, philosophical and theological contradictions of all kinds.

As B.B. Warfied has said, the Evangelical and Arminian elements in Evangelical Arminianism war against each other. To the extent that Evangelical Arminians are irrational and Gospel-centered, to the same extent they would remain evangelical. To the extent however that they are logically consistent, they ironically lose their faith, or be Calvinists.

The logical irrationality inherent in Evangelical Arminianism also extends to their doctrine of sin. Being Evangelical, a form of Total Depravity was required to be embraced. At least in their Gospel presentation, men must be presented as being totally depraved and unable to save themselves. The Classical Arminian teaching of Partial Depravity with their denial of Original Guilt can have no place in the Evangelical Arminian Gospel. Similarly, the orthodox doctrine of Justification by Faith alone with the teaching of double imputation is believed and taught in Evangelical Arminianism, while such is impossible in the context of Classical Arminianism. Thus, while Classical Arminians reject all five points of the Calvinist TULIP, Evangelical Arminianism embrace the first point however inconsistently— as long as they remain Evangelical that is.

Being an Evangelical Arminian and living with its logical inconsistencies is indeed unstable, as what Warfield himself has said with regards to the situation. Wesley himself was led into two errors — viz weakening the finality of justification and embracing some form of Christian perfection [7]. The Modern Arminian Roger Olsen evidently has little problems with the heresy of Open Theism [8], a sober reminder to us of the tenacious nature of the "Evangelical" in Evangelical Arminianism indeed.

In conclusion therefore, Evangelical Arminianism is indeed orthodox, though at a very steep cost in terms of logical and theological inconsistencies. Due to its instability, Evangelical Arminianism tend to settle into either of two trajectories: towards Calvinism or some form of Liberalism (or it could remain irrationally evangelical). While we would gladly call Evangelical Arminians our brothers and sisters in Christ, we know that they are constantly on a precipice near error, and we should strive to bring them closer to the truth of Scripture, instead of toying with teachings that come, as the Canons of Dordt put it, from the "pits of hell".

THE END!

---

References:

[1] Iain H. Murray, Wesley and Men Who Followed (Carlisle, PA, ISA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2003), p. 69

[2] Ibid., p. 68

[3] Ibid., p. 76

[4] Roger E. Olsen, Arminian Thelogy: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL, USA: IVP Academic, 2006), p. 213.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Murray, p. 65

[7] Ibid., p. 66

[8] Olsen, pp. 198-199

The heresy of Classical Arminianism

[continued from here]

... Therefore this Synod of Dordt in the name of the Lord pleads with all who devoutly call on the name of our Savior Jesus Christ to form their judgment about the faith of the Reformed churches, not on the basis of false accusations gathered from here or there, or even on the basis of the personal statements of a number of ancient and modern authorities — statements which are also often either quoted out of context or misquoted and twisted to convey a different meaning — but on the basis of the churches' own official confessions and of the present explanation of the orthodox teaching which has been endorsed by the unanimous consent of the members of the whole Synod, one and all.

Moreover, the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers. ...

(Conclusion, in the Canons of the Synod of Dordt)

Classical Arminianism refers to the belief system of the Remonstrants, especially as codified in the Remonstrant Articles and Opinions. Her founder, James Arminius, did not always share the same view as what Classical Arminianism in the Remonstrants taught — as seen most notably in Arminius' uncertainty regarding the doctrine of Eternal Security [1], while the Remonstrants rejected it outright [2]. This must be seen as the slow [d]evolution of Classical Arminian theology, from Arminius who started off rejecting parts of Reformational theology, followed by the Classical Arminianism of the Remonstrants, and then on to later Remonstrants like Limborch with a steady drift leftwards.

Among the declension of ArminianismS, there would most definitely be a variety of views of what exactly each Arminian believes. For Classical Arminianism however, such a system must be defined especially by the Arminianism formed around the time of the Synod of Dordt, and expressed most notably in the Remonstrant Articles and Opinions, the confessional statements that were "squeezed" out of the Remonstrants (who through being ambivalent were not forthcoming with their views and tried as much as possible to forestall a synod being convened to examine their views, even though they were creating havoc in the Dutch Reformed churches [3] ).

In the Remonstrant Opinions, a Remonstrant creedal statement was obtained from the Remonstrants "only with difficulty" [4]. In this creedal statement, the doctrines of Classical Arminianism were properly delineated, and their distinctive parts shown as follows [5]:

(1) Partial depravity
(Therefore God has not with this plan created in the one Adam all men in a state of rectitude, has not ordained the fall and the permission of it, has not withdrawn from Adam the grace which was necessary and sufficient, ... –The Remonstrant Opinions A3. Bold added.)

(2) Conditional election
(The election of particular persons is decisive, out of consideration of faith in Jesus Christ and of perseverance; not, however, apart from a consideration of faith and perseverance in the true faith, as a condition prerequisite for electing. –The Remonstrant Opinions A7. Bold added.)

(3) Universal Atonement
(The price of redemption which Christ offered to God the Father is not only in itself and by itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole human race but has also been paid for all men and for every man, according to the decree, will, and the grace of God the Father; therefore no one is absolutely excluded from participation in the fruits of Christ’s death by an absolute and antecedent decree of God. –The Remonstrant Opinions B1. Bold added.)

(4) Resistible Grace
(The efficacious grace by which anyone is converted is not irresistible; and though God so influences the will by the word and the internal operation of His Spirit that he both confers the strength to believe or supernatural powers, and actually causes man to believe – yet man is able of himself to despise that grace and not to believe, and therefore to perish through his own fault. –The Remonstrant Opinions C5. Bold added.)

(5) Conditional perseverance in the faith
(True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish. –The Remonstrant Opinions D4. Bold added.)

The errors of Classical Arminianism are many. Besides the errors stated above, its humanistic slant is seen especially in the work of Grotius for example [6]. Classical Arminianism also has a problem with the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone in the doctrine of imputation (by making faith credited as righteousness instead of Christ's righteousness imputed as our righteousness) [7].

The concepts of Justification and Imputation is linked to the doctrine of sin and depravity, and ultimately to the Gospel. This is one of the the reasons why Classical Arminianism is serious heresy, because they explicitly undermine a key tenet of the Gospel: that of the sinfulness of Man.

The Remonstrant Opinions revealed that Classical Arminianism taught the error of Partial Depravity. In his polemic against Arminianism as it reared its ugly head in England, the Puritan scholar John Owen produced a booklet entitled A Display of Arminianism [8] to combat this heresy. Quoting from the Classical Arminians of his day and refuting their arguments, Owen has incidentally given us a window into what these Classical Arminians taught.

In his book, Owen devoted a chapter Of Original Sin [9] to examining the doctrine of sin and imputation held to by the Classical Arminians, where Classical Arminianism's doctrine of the non-imputation of sin is shown.

Quoting the Arminian Venator, it was said that "Infants are simply in that estate in which Adam was before his fall, ..." (p. 70). Boraeus states that "Adam sinned in his own proper person, and there is no reason why God should impute that sin of his unto infants" (p. 72). Corvinus affirmed that "That it is absurd, that by one man's disobedience many should be made actually disobedient" (p. 73). In the Remonstrant Apology, they have even said that "We confess that the sin of Adam may be thus far said to be imputed to his posterity, inasmuch as God would have them all born obnoxious to that punishment which Adam incurred by his sin, or permitted that evil which was inflicted on him to descend on them" [10], and "We account not original sin for a sin properly so called, that should make the posteriority of Adam to deserve of Adam to deserve the wrath of God, nor for an evil that may properly be called a punishment, but only for an infirmity of nature" [11].

All of these evidences Owen collected and deduced their view of original sin. Original sin as historically defined is the imputation of Adam's sin unto the whole human race without respect to the actual sinning of anyone - this the Classical Arminians deny. Rather, especially as seen in the case of infants, infants are born without the stain of original sin (guilt). Through the use of the concept of "prevenient grace", all infants are stated to be born without the guilt of sin. As Owen states, the Classical Arminians redefine Original Sin to mean "a defect of nature, and not of this or that particular person" (p. 73).

Therefore, in Classical Arminianism, all men are born with an "original sin nature" (thus an "infirmity of nature"), but without "original guilt". Sin is genetic rather than federal, transmitted but not imputed. Infants therefore are said to be actually sinless but possessing a sinful nature, and it is from this errant notion that the entire Arminian notion of "an age of accountability" is derived, not to mention the teaching that infants by default go to heaven.

On the topic of sin, justification and imputation then lies a most pernicous error in Classical Arminianism, which makes it heresy. It is not simply a denial of Predestination that makes Classical Arminianism heresy, but its denial of Original Guilt, the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin etc which stands behind their teaching of Partial Depravity, which makes it heresy indeed.

In the next section, we would do some comparisons with Evangelical Arminianism to see the differences between these two which are often confused with each other, and see why Evangelical Arminianism is EVANGELICAL and thus orthodox, while Classical Arminianism is not.

---

References:

[1] James Arminius (1560 - 1609), The Works of James Arminius, vol. 1, 2.5.6 A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius on: The Assurance of Salvation. Accessed on CCEL.

[2] Appendix H — The Remonstrant Opinions D4, as cited in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dordt 1618-1619 (Grandville, MI, USA: Reformed Fellowship, 1968, 2008), p. 267

[3] Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), Crisis in the Reformed Churches, pp. 50- 51, 148-149

[4] Introduction in Appendix H — The Opinions of the Remonstrants, in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), p. 261

[5] Appendix H — The Opinions of the Remonstrants, in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), pp. 261-268.

[6] Marten H. Woudstra, The Synod and Bible Translation, in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), pp. 132-134.

[7] Louis Praamsa, The Background of the Arminian Controversy (1586 - 1618), in Peter Y. De Jong (ed.), p. 48, states:

Arminias interpreted the doctrine [of justification] as teaching that man is justified before God not on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ but by the human act of believing which constituted his righteousness before God.

In his book, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL, USA: IVP Academic, 2006), pp. 200-220, Roger E. Olsen tried to spin Arminius' teaching by saying that Arminius cannot mean this because he contradicted himself by stating an orthodox formulation elsewhere. This of course begs the question why one must read it in a Olsen's manner instead of the other way round, especially since some of the later Arminians interpret Arminius' phrase "faith imputed for righteousness" as precisely the error that human faith is considered as righteousness in God's sight, as Olsen himself admits (ie. Philip Limborch, Richard Watson, William Burton Pope, H. Orton Wiley). Despite Olsen's spin, the historical facts are unequivocal that Classical Arminianism is in error at this point.

[8] John Owen, A Display of Arminianism — A Discovery of the Old Pelagian Idol Free-Will, with the New Goddess Contingency, Advancing Themselves into the Throne of the God of Heaven, to the Prejudice of His Grace, Providence, and Supreme Dominion over the Children of Men (Originally published in 1644; Dahlonega, Georgia, USA: Crown Rights Book Company, Reprinted 1999)

[9] Owen, Chapter VII Of Original Sin and the Corruption of nature, pp. 68 - 82

[10] As quoted in Owen, p. 74

"Fatemur peccatum Adami, a Deo posse dici imputatum posteris ejus, quatenus Deus posteros Adami eidem malo, cui Adamus per peccatum obnoxium se reddidit, obnoxios nasci voluit; sive quatenus Deus, malum, quod Adamo inflictum erat in poenam, in posteros ejus dimanare et transire permisit." — Rem. Apol. p. 84

[11] As quoted in Owen, p. 75

"Peccatum itaque originale nec habent pro peccato proprie dicto, quod posteros Adami odio Dei dignos faciat, nec prop malo, quod per modum proprie dictae poenae ab Adamo in posteros dimanet sed pro infirmitate," etc. — Rem. Apol. fol. 84