Feeling kind of hyper

I have been listening through the Systematic Theology lectures made freely available at Covenant Seminary's Worldwide Classroom at work. I highly recommend them as mostly irenic and not at all "too high" for the layperson, while being doctrinally sound.

While listening to a certain section of the series the proclamation of the gospel came up as a topic. Dr. Peterson made his opinion known in no uncertain terms, that to reject the proclamation of the gospel as a "well intentioned offer" is to be a Hyper-Calvinist. I cringed.

I cringed because this is the very accusation levied against the guy I use for my picture on this blog- John Gill. John Gill denies that the gospel is a "free offer of salvation". At this point, the somewhat more "apologetic" set of Calvinists cut off Gill flat and fear him, because we certainly don't want to offend the sensibilities of the Arminian crowd, and we(rightfully) do not even want to touch "Hyper-Calvinism".

Well, upholding the sovereignty of God in salvation has already offended the Arminian very much, so keeping the "free offer" or "well meant offer" terminology is too little too late.

The other accusation of Hyper-Calvinism levied against John Gill is against his Supralapsarianism, which has to do with the logical sequence of God's decrees concerning creation, election and reprobation, and the fall of man.

Supralapsarianism places logically God's decree to elect and harden men prior to the decree of the fall of man, while the opposing view, infralapsarianism, places the decree of election and reprobation logically after the decree of the fall of man. I won't go into the particulars of the arguments because it would take a long time, and even Gill admits it is an academic argument, making little practical difference.

Those who don't like Gill make it more than academic, and make it a mark of Hyper-Calvinism.

I would like to point out here that Robert Reymond, modern Presbyterian scholar and theologian and former professor at Knox Seminary, and author of the excellent and widely lauded single-volume systematic theology A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (which I highly recommend), is a Supralapsarian. Not only so, but he also advocates the idea of equal ultimacy, that God is equally the ultimate cause of both the election of men to salvation and the reprobation unto damnation of the rest of men. Equal ultimacy is usually associated with Hyper-Calvinism.

Where are Reymond's accusers? Why hasn't he been labeled "Hyper" and shunned as has Gill? Why is he still considered an evangelical Calvinist despite holding the same views as Gill? Is it because he's a Presbyterian?

Back to the "universal and well intentioned offer".

The gospel, over-simplified, is a message about Jesus Christ having made a way for the salvation of condemned sinners by making satisfaction to God for their sins (redemption) by paying the penalty for sins on the cross, and being resurrected from death, conquering death and hell, ascending to heaven where he makes intercession for the saints, restoring us to fellowship with God through him.

The command of the gospel is that we repent of sins and believe this gospel for our salvation.

The promises of the gospel are that whosoever obeys the command, repents of sin and believes this Gospel will be forgiven their sins and granted eternal life; whosoever disobeys the command, does not repent of sins and rejects this gospel will receive eternal condemnation.

It is a covenant- the New Covenant in Christ's blood (his death), with the command to repent and believe containing the promise of salvation for obedience and damnation for disobedience.

The proclamation of this gospel along with the command to repent and believe and the promise of forgiveness of sins and eternal life for obedience and eternal death and condemnation for disobedience is commanded by Jesus Christ to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all peoples from every nation, throughout the whole world.

This message is the ordinary means through which the Holy Spirit works salvific grace in the hearts of men, calling them to Christ and regenerating their hearts, thereby granting the faith and repentence commanded, which are the fruits of regeneration.

John Gill believed and taught everything that I have stated thus far concerning the gospel and evangelism.

Now, what of the word "offer"? First, lets define offer:

"make available or accessible, provide or furnish; present for acceptance or rejection; put forward for consideration; extend: make available; provide; propose: ask (someone) to marry you;" and so forth (see this Princeton WordNet Search)

Does this word "offer" do justice to the biblical proclamation of the gospel, as a message about Jesus with a command and promises? I don't really think so. The gospel is not given as optional, a proposal for consideration, or anything of the sort. It is commanded that we believe this message, along with a gracious and wonderful promise for obedience, and a solemn and terrible promise for disobedience.

The gospel is not presented as optional, and salvation is not a take-it or leave-it proposition; in a very real sense we are to, by authority of God, command people to recieve salvation! I think to call this an "offer" is akin to calling the ten commandments "the ten well intentioned offers". God's commandments demand obedience, and the commandments are universal, and are to be proclaimed throughout the world to all people.

This is why Gill rejected the term "offer". It is weak and does not do justice to the gospel message, its command or the promises, and especially the way it is presented in Scripture.

Am I a Hyper-Calvinist?

The strange world of Dr. Scott Clark

Dr. R. Scott Clark is finally drawing some attention to himself with his incredibly sectarian views on what it means to be "Reformed" and "Covenantal". Dr. Bob Gonzales, dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary
has written a short article calling attention to Clark's contentions, including this amazing statement:

We would discipline someone if they left our church and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect…. I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments

Good thing Dr. Clark left that baptistic sect he used to belong to and discovered the true church. At least he was baptised with true Christian baptism before he left.

I don't believe that Dr. Clark considers Baptists to be damnably heretical, so I have to wonder how he reconciles the idea that he has that a person can be in the body of Christ and not a member of the true church. That is a strange idea to say the least.

Ironically, in another statement quoted by James White at the Alpha & Omega blog, Clark accuses Baptists of the same error:

As a consequence, we regard our children as Christians and as baptized persons. Baptists, of course, do not regard our children as Baptized persons nor do they regard those of us who've not been re-baptized as Baptized persons!

That's a huge matter. According to the Baptists I'm not a Christian. That's no small thing.

Evidentally Dr. Clark associates baptism with Christianity so closely that one can be saved and not a Christian. I am really confused about this one, but I can say for sure no Baptist would say that anyone is not a Christian because they havn't been baptised.

Note that in the same statement he admitts that he believes that his infant children are Christians simply be recieving infant baptism.

So in Clark's strange world one one can be unsaved and Christian, saved but not a member of the true church, saved but not a Christian.

Dr. Gonzales lists a few good links to discussions about Baptist use of the adjective "Reformed". I have a feeling this conversation is just getting warmed up.

Give John Piper the benefit of the doubt

I just wanted to say this briefly, as a man who confesses the 1689 LBCF and Keache's Catechism and the Cambridge Declaration and believes that Calvin's threefold use of the law makes good biblical sense, that I am dismayed by John Piper's recent comments about and invitation to Doug Wilson of Federal Vision heresy fame. I believe (and hope) that in this case that John Piper is reading Wilson wrong and believes that Wilson has been misunderstood.

The problem is, as far as I know, that those who have seen a different gospel in Wilson's beliefs have not been rebuked by Wilson for mis-reading him but have been told that they are misreading Scripture, much in the same way Tom Wright has poo-pooed anyone who labels his heretical departure from the gospel for what it is. Of course, Wright goes farther and humbly explains that his detractors' main problem is that they have not read enough Wright and went to the wrong schools.

But I digress; as I have also read some of Dr. Piper's works and listened to many sermons by him, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his actions involving Wilson, because I have never heard another Pastor preach the gospel of justification by grace through faith with more clarity and conviction, and his Christ centeredness and commitment to the absolute sovereignty of God is compelling and commendable.

That being said, I do not consider John Piper to be a Reformed Baptist because he does not adhere to the theology of one of the historic Baptist confessions of faith or its modern equivalent, most likely because of his views of the law and gospel, which I believe lean toward New Covenant theology which is basically antinomian. He admits as much (not the antinomian part). I have that against him.

What dismays me more is some of the assaults I have read recently on John Piper from the Reformed Baptist blogosphere, which, ironically, accuse Piper of legalism and assault his character and ministry. Now there are many thoughtful and Christlike posts out there expressing concerns about Piper's comments and selection of Doug Wilson, such as the post by Pastor Keith Throop, but there are many that seem to harbor some hateful grudge against Piper that is definitely not compelling nor Christlike, that make a concerted effort to disparage Piper with half-truths and misinformation, quoting Piper out of context, etc. This is worthless drivel, and I would that these posters would repent or may hap lose interest in opining on the internet altogether.

I think John Piper is a man of God who has done much to advance the kingdom of God and glorify Christ and God, and deserves better than to be slandered with straw-man attacks against his character and ministry. He may forsake the gospel and make me eat my words, but I say he deserves the benefit of the doubt concerning this.

I have purposefully left out links to the posts that have irritated me concerning this, and would hope that readers would read and listen to Piper's sermons and books and judge him based on his own work and ministry. All of his sermons and books are available for free from the website Desiring God.