| Universalism and the Reformed Churches: A Defence of Calvin's Calvinism. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2 The Condemnation Of Modern Modified Calvinism In The Law Of The Church.The Vindication published by the Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia under the date of 12/2/1965, gave a full account of the matter under this heading. This is now repeated together with other relevant factors brought forward in this essay.
This was declared in the Vindication published by our Presbytery under the date of 13th February 1965, relative portions of which we now quote.
Difference of opinion has arisen as to the procedure by which the controversy may be resolved. The supporters of the controverted propositions maintain that they are allowed by the scope of interpretation, which it is claimed, is inherent in the Westminster Confession. We, however, maintain that an interpretation of the Confession cannot be used to maintain the controverted doctrine, without allowing two diametrically opposed systems of theology to ever disturb the peace of the Church, and so we insist that the controversy cannot be resolved otherwise than by a declaratory act of the Church. In other words, because the controverted doctrine is not declared or refuted in the Westminster Standards, being a gross error, it must first be shown to be contrary to Scripture and then condemned by a declaratory act of the Church, in this case by the principle of interpretation of Scripture.
The following are the ambiguities contained in the doctrine of the Marrowmen and our present opponents. 1. Christ having taken upon Himself the sins of all men, and being a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind, is not a universal benefit or purchase of the death of Christ, therefore, 2. the said deed of gift and grant to all mankind is effective only to the elect, ie., an infallible redemption gifted to all secures only a portion of its objects. 3. A deed of gift and grant to all is only an offer. These ambiguities are embraced by the proponents of the doctrine presently controverted, with the addition of several others, namely, that: The Omniscient and Omnipotent Being of God, 1. earnestly longs for, and desires the salvation of those whom He has for the praise of His glorious justice made reprobate, having made them the objects of his eternal displeasure and wrath, 2. does not inwardly call by His Spirit all those whom He earnestly longs and desires to save, 3. has a desire and longing which is at variance to His will as an efficient cause to the doing of all His good pleasure, 4. has a will to the realisation of that which He has not decretively willed, and a pleasure toward that which He has not been pleased to decree.
"Chapter 5. Conclusion, The application of the Act of 1720, and the rule of interpretation of Scripture to the present controversy." As we have demonstrated, the resolving of the present controversy cannot rest on an interpretation of the Confessional Standards, but must first rest on the definition of the extent and intent of redemption as to purchase clearly given to those standards in the Act of 1720....The Act of 1720 condemns certain propositions of the Book of the Marrow as advocating a universality of redemption as to purchase, which as we have demonstrated, the Assembly accurately condemned in the actual meaning of their terms....These propositions belong to the same school of doctrine as that of Davenant and Amyraut, which asserted an absolute intention for the elect, and a conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe. The Act did not condemn those propositions under meanings which were attached to them by the Marrowmen. So that we are now faced with propositions using terms and expressions which have a double meaning, ie., one which is condemned under the Act of 1720, and the other which is seemingly orthodox, attached by the Marrowmen, on which they and our present opponent have rested their claims to orthodoxy within the Church. The Vindication then stated the terms under which the doctrine of modern modified Calvinism is condemned in our Church. It reads as follows: The position as it stands is this: The terms which are used by our opponents from the Marrow are directly condemned by the Act of 1720, because in fact, they advocate a universality of redemption as to purchase. The ambiguous use of those terms as listed, Nos. 13 (page 52 herein) are condemned by the principle of interpretation of Scripture as stated in the Westminster Confession chapter 1, para. 9, Nos. 47 (page 52 herein) are condemned for the same reason. Since the ambiguous use of terms is the vehicle upon which the notion that God longs for and desires the salvation of all men in the free offer of the Gospel is entirely entered, such notion is also condemned." It is clear from the foregoing that our Presbytery has not, as falsely alleged by the Free Church Synod Report, page 23, ever rested its condemnation of the doctrines of modern modified Calvinism, which includes the whole system of doctrine which derives from a notion of universal benevolence in God, directly on the 1720 Act of the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, or by direct appeal to the Confession. It is equally clear that our Presbytery has rested on the 1720 Act only for condemnation of the terms of the Book of the Marrow and the doctrine of universality of redemption as to purchase. Quite apart from that Act, our Presbytery has declared the use of the ambiguities of the Marrowmen and modern modified Calvinists, which are the vehicle on which the notion that God desires the salvation of all men is entered, to be contrary to the principle of interpretation of Scripture as set out in the Westminster Confession. The Relative Positions Within The Free Church And The Evangelical Presbyterian Church Of Australia.By its adoption of the Report, the Free Church Synod of 1971, being the highest court of that Church, has in effect made a Declaratory statement binding that Church to the doctrine of universal benevolence in God, and to the position that the particularistic doctrines held by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church are invalid and to be rejected. Every Minister and Elder of the Free Church must, therefore, consider his position relative to his vows in respect to the government and doctrine of his Church. He is bound to oppose the position taken by Calvin’s Calvinism. He must embrace and support the doctrine, that God loves that which He hates and desires the salvation of those whom He does not purpose to redeem, together with all the ambiguities and inconsistencies of that system. It is relevant to ask the question, how the Free Church Synod can affirm that "the point at issue is an open one on which individuals may have their own views," and at the same time outrightly reject and virtually outlaw the doctrine held by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church? The Evangelical Presbyterian Church, conversely, has declared against the system which has been embraced by the Free Church. Every Minister and Elder of that Church is therefore bound to oppose the doctrines of universal benevolence in favour of the particularistic doctrines of Calvin’s Calvinism, in the light of which the Westminster Confession must logically be held. Only then is the Westminster Confession properly subordinate to Scripture, because it represents an interpretation of Scripture according to its own internal principle, that Scripture must be interpreted with Scripture and not according to the philosophies and traditions of men. As long as the Evangelical Presbyterian Church remains true to Scripture, Calvin’s Calvinism, and the Reformation, it must remain opposed to the position declared by the Free Church at its 1971 Synod. CONCLUSION.The Free Church Synod in the conclusions of its 1971 Report, page 27, has attempted to relegate the doctrinal differences which are involved in the system which is identified as modern modified Calvinism, as being of minor importance. On the contrary, that system is perhaps the most deceptive of all the errors which have ever assailed the doctrine of the Reformed Churches, because it is a completely ambiguous system. On the one hand it has the appearance of accepting the formularies and standards of the Reformed Church, while on the other, it demolishes them. This it accomplishes through veiling or obscuring its ambiguities in a false mystery concerning Divine Sovereignty. In conclusion let us now recapitulate the main points which have been brought forward in this essay. The Practical Issues Of Modern Modified Calvinism.By its deceptions it creates the following problems in the defence, propagation, and application of the Reformed faith:
The Overthrow Of Calvin’s Calvinism As Set Forth In His Institutes And Commentaries.We have seen how modern modified Calvinism constitutes the overthrow of Calvin’s Calvinism on the following points:
It is God’s requirement that all men, regenerate and unregenerate, obey His moral law. God’s command is man’s rule of duty. If, however, the natural man is allowed to think that God desires that he obey His law without grace, he will either never consider himself bound by the moral law, or imagine that he can please God and merit His favour by his own efforts without grace. It is the function of the moral law and the gospel to show sinners their total inability in this respect, that they may cast themselves on the mercy of God. Final Conclusion.Since the theology of the Westminster formularies and other standards of the Reformed Churches is founded on Calvin’s system of theology, we may now draw the following two conclusions concerning modern modified Calvinism.
Let us therefore learn the lesson of history, that modified Calvinism is the tool of the enemy, who from within, brings about the downfall of a Reformed Church. In its modern form it constitutes a great hindrance to the propagation of the truth. Nothing reacts to Calvin’s Calvinism like modern modified Calvinism. Until those who would propagate the truth of God in our age, recognise it for what it is, all other heresies and the lawlessness of our time will go virtually unchallenged. APPENDIX.The Five Points Of Amyraldianism.
|
||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|