Monthly Archives: January 2007

Some thoughts on Siouxland Presbytery’s document: Part 6-Justification

Posted here:

1. a. We affirm that justification is an act of God’s grace whereby God pardons the sins of those he calls, and imputes the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ unto them (C 11.1 and L 70).
1. b. We deny that God imputes faith itself, the act of believing, or any other obedience as their righteousness (C 11.1).
1. c. We deny that justification is by anything done by or wrought in the believer. We affirm that Christ’s perfect obedience and full satisfaction is imputed or reckoned to the believer (L 70).

All good except 1c might need tweaking since it seems to imply that the preposition “by” cannot be used instrumentally but only in reference to ground. That can’t be right (i.e. “justification by faith”).

2. a. We affirm that those who are justified are justified perfectly in this life (L 77).
2. b. We affirm that those who are justified can never fall from the state of justification (C 11.5).
2. c. Consequently, we deny that any but the elect are justified (C 3.6).
2. d. Consequently, we deny any definition of justification that would extend it in any way whatsoever to the reprobate.

Nothing in what leads up to it provides any reason in 2.d. to “deny any definition of justification that would extend in any way whatsoever to the reprobate.” The Westminster divines knew that the word “justify” could apply to other situations beside what happens uniquely to declare the elect right with God. If there is an argument for this, I would like to see it. As it stands it is supported neither by Scripture, nor by the Reformed tradition, nor by our doctrinal standards.

Example: God told Moses that he was, in the Exodus, bringing judgment on Egypt. The Exodus was then an event that condemned Egypt and vindicated Israel. So there is, by some definition, and in some way, that justification can apply to a group that is both elect and reprobate, for some Israelites later died as unbelievers. The Apostle Paul, tellingly, uses this example to warn the Corinthian Church against idolatry (1 Cor 10.1-22).

3. We deny that justification has primary reference to membership of the Church; rather, it has primary reference to the acceptance of the individual sinner before God.

How can Reformed believers be force to choose here? If the Church is the house and family of God, how can one be reconciled with God, received into his favor, and not be received into his family? If we are right with God then we are right with God’s children as brothers and sisters. Can one posit a meaningful primacy in the parable of the prodigal son between being forgiven by the Father and being received by him into his household? I notice there is not citation from the Westminster documents here? Where could one go to justify these as mutually exclusive options? The very fact that the Westminster Divines made election coterminous with membership in the invisible Church would indicate a much closer relationship.

Having said all that, the statement may be right. I would like to pursue the issue with open Bibles. I appreciate that they Presbytery has not denied any reference to membership in the church in justification.

A lot of it depends on what is meant by “has primary reference to”–which is not obvious to me.

Another issue here is the suspicion raised whether certain parties are in fact arguing for what is denied. Are they? Or are they simply wanting to emphasize something not because it is “primary” in some universal sense, but because it has been woefully neglected in our own church culture.

4. We deny that any so-called reconstruction of Second Temple Judaism requires us to reformulate the above truths.

Agreed. But if this is supposed to be a way of dealing with PCA ministers who appreciate some things Tom Wright has to say, I think it is pretty much a complete misfire. No one is resting in the authority of noncanonical documents.

Some thoughts on Siouxland Presbytery’s document: Part 5-Effectual Calling

Posted here:

1. We affirm that all those whom God has predestined unto life, and those only, He calls effectually out of the state of sin and death unto grace and salvation by Jesus Christ (C 10.1).
2. a. We affirm that the reprobate may experience some common operations of the Spirit with the elect (C 10.4).
2. b. We deny that these common operations cause the reprobate, even those reprobate who are baptized, to truly come to Christ, be saved, effectually called, justified, adopted, or sanctified.

Yes. Fine. Great. Uncontroversial because tautological.

Some thoughts on Siouxland Presbytery’s document: Part 4-Christ’s Mediatorial Work

Posted here:

1. a. We affirm that God’s eternal purpose was to give a people to Christ as His seed who would be by him in time redeemed, effectually called, justified, and glorified (C 8.1).
2. b.We deny that Christ purchased any temporal saving benefits for the reprobate, even those that are members of the visible Church, such that they would be, for a certain time only, redeemed, effectually called, justified, or sanctified.

Sidenote: I’m not sure why “temporal” has replaced “temporary” in these sorts of statements (I’m not picking on one side or the other here). Sanctification in the elect occurs just as much in time as the temporary benefits that the non-elect enjoy.

More substantially, by definition no temporary benefits can be saving. The reason why effectual calling is indeed effectual is because it lasts in the elect through the special grace of God whereas the reprobate are temporarily called and are not given the faith that would lead them to persevere in their calling. Both here and under the Effectual Calling heading there is not much to add to my earlier comments about how all this is tautologically true.

2. a.We affirm that Christ did purchase not only reconciliation but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father gave to Him (C 8.5).
2. b.We deny that any for whom Christ purchased reconciliation will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Nothing wrong with any of this. Not sure why it was thought necessary to say.

Some thoughts on Siouxland Presbytery’s document: Part 4-Covenant of Grace

Posted here:

1. We affirm that in addition to the covenant of works made with Adam, God made a covenant of grace with Christ as the second Adam and all the elect in him as his seed in order to deliver the elect out of a state of misery and bring them into an estate of salvation (L 30-31).
2. We affirm that in this covenant of grace God not only offers to sinners salvation and life by faith in Jesus Christ, but also promises to give unto all the elect the Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe (C 8.2).
3. Consequently, we deny any definition of the covenant of grace that would make it apply equally to the elect and reprobate.

To say it does not apply “equally” makes all of the above perfectly fine for anyone in the PCA. If the “equally” is a throwaway word and what is intended is to deny that non-elect church members are within the covenant of grace at all, then I think the statement is counter-confessional. To wit:

Q. 162. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without.
Q. 163. What are the parts of a sacrament?
A. The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ’s own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.
Q. 164. How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his church under the New Testament?
A. Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s supper.
Q. 165. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.

Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.

Q. 101. What is the preface to the Ten Commandments?
A. The preface to the Ten Commandments is contained in these words, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Wherein God manifesteth his sovereignty, as being JEHOVAH, the eternal, immutable, and almighty God; having his being in and of himself, and giving being to all his words and works: and that he is a God in covenant, as with Israel of old, so with all his people; who, as he brought them out of their bondage in Egypt, so he delivereth us from our spiritual thraldom; and that therefore we are bound to take him for our God alone, and to keep all his commandments.

There is some sense in which members of the visible Church are in the covenant of grace, even though the promise of the Holy Spirit to enable belief only applies to the elect. This conclusion is backed up by a comparison with the description of the administration of the Covenant of Grace and the description of the visible Church.

Again, if the “equally” in point 3 above is taken seriously, then there is no real problem.

Some thoughts on Siouxland Presbytery’s document: Part 3-Covenant of Works

Posted here:

1. We affirm that for man to enjoy God as his blessedness and reward requires a voluntary condescension on God’s part.
2. We affirm that God did make such a voluntary condescension in the covenant of works (C 7, L 20, 22, S 12, 16).

True though some (Meredith Kline for example) don’t agree that this should be a separate act from Creation itself. I’ve never heard of anyone getting in trouble with a presbytery for this sort of thing, yet.

There is nothing wrong with these affirmations per se, but what about other terms that have been used for the Covenant of Works both in the Westminster documents itself and by other orthodox Reformed theologians? What about “covenant of life” or “covenant of creation” etc? Since this document only uses one term are we going to see its statements used to narrow the openness of description that has been traditionally allowed? It would be nice for the Presbytery to give us some indication of how these statements are intended to be used. If other confessional and/or descriptions are allowed, then the affirmation is fine.

3. a.We affirm that in this covenant God promised life to Adam and all his posterity on the condition of perfect and personal obedience (C 7.2).
3. b.We deny that this condition of the covenant of works can be equated with the instrumentality of faith in relation to justification in the covenant of grace.

The affirmation above is unproblematic as is its denial, but the oddness of the denial leads me to make some comments. Adam did not need a representative to stand in his place so he could be right with God. His faith did not require the intstrumentality of the sort we find in the covenant of Grace as recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. But quite clearly both Covenants involve a promise which in fact needed to be trusted if Adam was to remain in God’s blessing. Confirming this deduction, the story of Adam’s Fall is a straightforward explanation of how Adam believed a lie from the Serpent rather than a promise from God. This means that Adam fell through unbelief.

In addition, Jesus, the new Adam is held out to us as an example of faith. Hebrews 11.1 begins a great list of the saints who demonstrated the effectiveness of faith. It climaxes with Jesus as the best of all the saints for his faith (12.2). As John Owen points out in this passage:

But he ascends now unto Him who had all in himself, and gave a Asuniversal example of faith and obedience in every kind. From our companions in believing he leads us unto “the author and finisher of our faith.” And therefore he doth not propose him unto us in the same manner as he did the best of them, as mere examples, and that in this or that particular act of duty; but he proposeth his person in the first place, as the object of our faith, from whom we might expect aid and assistance for conformity unto himself, in that wherein he is proposed as our example.

And the respect of Christ unto these promises and prophecies, with his doing things so as that they might be all fulfilled, is frequently mentioned in the evangelists. So was the joy set before him, or proposed unto him. And his faith of its accomplishment, against oppositions, and under all his sufferings, is illustriously expressed, Isaiah 50:6-9.

This blessed frame of mind in our Lord Jesus in all his sufferings, is that which the apostle proposeth for our encouragement, and unto our imitation. And it is that which contains the exercise of all grace, in faith, love, submission to the will of God, zeal for his glory, and compassion for the souls of men, in their highest degree.

No one denies the uniqueness of Christ as object of faith (and as I said, Adam would not need to place faith in another for righteousness the way we do), the fact remains that Jesus as believer is a Biblical teaching. If Jesus kept covenant by faith, why not suggest that Adam was supposed to do so as well? John Flavel, is another Reformed theologian who saw Christ’s belief as important to his work. He writes of Jesus crying out to God in abandonment, “Though God took from Christ all visible and sensible comforts, inward as well as outward; yet Christ subsisted, by faith, in the absence of them all: his desertion put him upon the acting of his faith. “My God, my God”, are words of faith, the words of one that wholly depends upon his God…” (Sermon 33. The fourth excellent Saying of Christ upon the Cross, illustrated).

The simple question here is: What is the purpose of stating the obvious that the condition of the covenant of works is not to be equated with the instrumentality of faith? Either it is intended to refute a position nobody is voicing or it is intended to be used against actual teaching and preaching in the PCA. If the latter, could we see some better description so that we know what is off limits? Otherwise, we will end up living in fear of using Owen or Flavel.

4. We affirm that the penalty of the covenant of works was eternal death for Adam and all his posterity descending from him by ordinary generation (L 22).
5. We affirm that Adam’s violation of the covenant of works brought all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation into an estate of sin and misery wherein they are incapable of any spiritual good and wholly and continually inclined to all evil (L 25).

Absolutely true. Not sure what this has to do with the controversy.

Obviously

To propound “two-kingdom” public ethics and try to get everyone to follow them is a theocratic activity. It doesn’t matter if it is secularism; if the rationale for secularism is because the Bible teaches it and God is pleased with it then it is theocracy. You are demanding that everyone organize their public lives according to what God wants.

Some thoughts on Siouxland Presbytery’s document: Part 2-The Law of God

Posted here:

1. We affirm that every sin both original and actual is a transgression of the righteous law of God and makes him liable to temporal and eternal death (C 6.6).

2. We affirm that the law of God is useful for unbelievers and believers to show them the corruption of their lives, to convict them of sin, and give them a clearer view of the need they have of Christ, and as a rule of life informing them of the will of God (C 19.6).

All true, though I note that 19.6 also says that “It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.” I may be getting overly sensitive to what is missing here. It is not clear to me why these affirmations were felt to be relevant and others not, so I thought I would register the question that came to mind.

3. a. We affirm that the same Ten Commandments that were given on Mt. Sinai were given to Adam as a covenant of works (C 19.1). b. We deny any formulation that entirely excludes the covenant of works from the Ten Commandments.

If (b) is meant to imply that the Ten Commandments now are, in some sense, a covenant of works, I don’t see how this can be mandated by PCA ministers who restrict what they require of others to what is taught in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The Westminster Confession is quite explicit on this point:

CHAPTER 7

Of God’s Covenant with Man

1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

The Decalogue was given as a part of the covenant of grace. It was given to the visible Church of that time “to show them the corruption of their lives, to convict them of sin, and give them a clearer view of the need they have of Christ, and as a rule of life informing them of the will of God.” As professing Christians, they were not to regard themselves as under the Law “as a covenant of works” (19.6).

So while Adam was given the moral law in a covenant that set as a condition “perfect and personal obedience,” and all sin is defined as a transgression of the moral law, the Law was given to Israel in a different covenant. Nothing in Confession 19.1 says otherwise. Why require of PCA pastors what the Westminster Confession does not require?

Furthermore, statement 1 makes a claim that is not in the Westminster Confession. What the Confession claims is:

God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables.

If certain members of Siouxland Presbytery believe that “the same Ten Commandments that were given on Mt. Sinai were given to Adam,” that is their right. But the Confession does not say that the Ten Commandments were given to Adam. It says that the law given to Adam was given at Sinai “in ten commandments.” Why would a report meant to set boundaries around Confessional orthodoxy say something different than the Confession or Catechisms express? I have been around enough Presbyterians to know that disagreement with this statement will by no means be restricted to anyone currently associated with “FV.” I would have asked the Presbytery, if I had been present, why they would want to have their response to a controversy get entangled in a new controversy.

Some thoughts on Siouxland Presbytery’s document: Part 1-Election

Posted here.

1. a. We affirm that God has appointed the elect unto glory, and that all those who are elect unto glory, and those only, will be redeemed, justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation (C 3.6).

This is absolutely true and beyond question. But it is also tautological. The only reason that we can say this is because we have, at the outset, defined “redeemed,” “justified,” “adopted,” “sanctified,” etc as ways that can only apply to those predestined to glory. These concepts are useful and necessary, but many of the words are used in Scripture to describe alike those who are appointed unto final glory and those who are not.

Thus, Paul was not being subversive to the doctrines of Westminster when he wrote of unbelieving Israel, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Romans 9.4) or that, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy (“sanctified”) because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband” (1 Cor 7.14).

And surely if Israel can be said to be adopted, so can the visible Church if it is truly “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” It would not be hard to imagine that, in line with our doctrine, all the great acts of salvation are approximated in the professing Christians who do not inherit glory–which in turn makes their guilt that much worse for neglecting so great a salvation (Heb. 2.3).

1. b. We deny that these saving benefits accrue to members of the visible church simply by baptism.

Again it is absolutely true and beyond question that no saving benefits accrue to anyone (elect or not) simply by baptism. 1. Saving benefits must be received by faith and only by faith. 2. The reprobate can receive no such benefit especially since the restrictive nature of the definitions is brought out: “saving.” By definition those who are not predestined for salvation do not receive “saving benefits.” If they were truly saving then the beneficiaries would inherit glory according to God’s own appointment.

However, this statement seems to assume that the person baptized has already been admitted into the visible Church. This seems to stand in tension with WCF 28.1 (Baptism is “the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church”).

This, I think, is actually important because, without entry into the visible Church, then the “controversial” point that benefits are “conferred” in baptism is rendered more controversial than it actually is. According to our Confession, head for head, everyone baptized receives the common grace of being admitted into the visible Church, which is “the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation”. This is arguably the entire reason there is a controversy right now because some have regarded this point as important. It ought not be silently ignored, or worse, revised–no matter how unintentionally–in a document dealing with the controversy.

Finally, I will also point out that blessing are sealed and offered in the sacraments, including baptism, that the unregenerate are guilty of neglecting and despising. To show one example:

Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

Again, the whole reason there is a controversy, in regard to baptism, is because of a perception that, according to Scripture and the Reformed standards, we are supposed to exhort all baptized people to respond to what God has given them in baptism by faith and repentance. While there is disagreement over how this should be articulated or whether it has been done properly, this document passes over the entire issue of what privileges are conferred in baptism. I appreciate and agree with the presbytery’s insistence that none of these benefits that accrue are saving. But if the great benefits of being received into the house and family of God are not acknowledged, then the alleged distance between the so-called “Federal Vision” and Reformed Orthodoxy is made to seem greater because Reformed Orthodoxy is being mutated.

One final note, I see the Presbytery uses the word, “saving” as I often do, and as can easily be Biblically justified, as referring to one’s destiny in resurrection glory and everything that invincibly leads to this goal. That is fine. But since so much confusion seems to be arising over the relation of words to concepts and technical terms, I feel obligated to point out that Paul can use the term for those who will not, in fact, be “saved” in the sense used in this document. God “is the savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (First Timothy 4.10).

1. c. We deny that any who are not elect unto glory have in any manner or sense the saving benefits of justification, adoption, or sanctification.

I repeat, this is all absolutely true because it is tautologically so, as is made explicit by the description of “justification, adoption, or sanctification,” as “saving benefits.” But I’m unsure how helpful it is to make the expansive claims–“in any manner or sense”–when the definition is of justification etc is so restricted. Obviously the Apostle Paul can say that unbelieving Israelites have “adoption” and an unbelieving wife is “sanctified,” without violating this report (Romans 9.4; 1 Cor 7.14). But then who really is the intended target. Would the Apostle Paul, if he were a minister in the PCA, be brought up on charges for saying to the Ephesian elders, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 19.28).

2. a. We affirm that this doctrine of election is highly useful for the glory of God and the comfort of believers (C 3.8).

2. b. We deny that this doctrine of election is of little use or should not be taught in the Church.

3. We deny that election cannot be a part of our assurance.

There is, of course, nothing to disagree with in the affirmations of what the Confession properly teaches in 3.8. What I find strange is how the Confession’s pastoral wisdom, which is, again, arguably directly responsible for the concerns expressed by PCA pastors now being labeled as allegedly “Federal Vision.” To see what I mean, let us consider the paragraph from the Confession:

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

What is noticeable in this passage is that being assured of one’s election is as much or more at issue than gaining assurance from election. Indeed, while “abundant consolation” is “afford”ed by the doctrine of “the high mystery of predestination” (not “election,” incidentally), that is only listed after “humility” and “diligence.” The first sentence does not state that the doctrine is highly useful for the glory of God and the comfort of believers, but that it requires “special prudence and care” and that one is to gain assurance of one’s election “from the certainty of their effectual vocation [i.e.”calling”] which is done by “yielding obedience” to “the will of God revealed in his Word.” Again, the affirmations are correct, but they are affirmations that the Westminster Divines themselves would only make after giving what they felt was needed direction on pastoral care.

I applaud the report for affirming the claims of the Confession, but it is precisely these pastoral considerations that are left out that are a real source of the whole discussion among Reformed and Presbyterian pastors which has been labeled “Federal Vision.” I don’t understand how simply extracting from the Confession that which is taken for granted by all the parties involved, and skipping anything that has actually provoked our current controversy, can be helpful to the peace and purity of the Church.

Someone should have told Cowper that election was good news.

This post by Jandy about one of the hymn writers in the denominational hymnbook of the PCA is just amazing.

So the question is, was Cowper anomalous?

Possibly yes. If his depression was caused by other factors it might as wrong to blame Calvinism on his despair as it would be to blame Nietszche’s insanity on his atheism.

But possibly no. The fact is that there are entire denominations (albeit necessarily small ones) where this sort of self-doubt is considered essential. For example, the Blue Ridge Primitive Baptists where one finds,

Baptism, funeral, ordination, and wedding often assume a sequence in Primitive Baptist life cycle different from that in many Protestant denominations. This is because baptism often occurs very late in the life of the Primitive Baptist–perhaps in middle age or even very old age. Accordingly, one may be married before being baptized. Some person have been baptized, ordained as deacons, and then buried in close succession, owing to the late age of baptism…

…Given the Calvinist creed, no promise is given that the deceased will go to heaven–although, in the funeral we attended, the elder state that the deceased had fine qualities suggesting that she was a “child of God” (pp. 26, 27)

This is not restricted to Baptists. There are paedobaptist denominations that go way back wherein there are only a few members and most of the congregation is made up of “adherents” or some other term for people who are professing Christians and who attend church diligently but who are not permitted or who refuse to participate in the Lord’s Supper because they are not sure if they are elect.

Of course, this still doesn’t settle the issue. I’m not sure it can be settled.

But consider something else–the final paragraph on predestination

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

What is notable here is how little is said about the doctrine of election being of any comfort. The first sentence in fact, makes election a problem to be solved rather than a comfort. It is solved by one gaining certainty that he was converted (effectually called–“effectual vocation”). How one gains this certainty is not clear, but it apparently involves “attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto.” How much obedience? How much attentiveness? Doesn’t say.

The second sentence tells us that the doctrine affords certain things–three things godward and three things relating to the lives of believers. Of the latter three, “abundant consolation” comes in third. The doctrine of election is first supposed to afford humility and diligence. Since one has to make sure that one has yielded enough obedience to be certain of one’s effectual calling, one can see how humility and diligence might be encouraged.

Of course, this is not all that the Westminster documents say on the matter. The material on the sacraments gives us other ways, for example, to have our interest in Christ confirmed. But it remains an interesting that one doesn’t find those statements in the chapter on election nor on the chapter on assurance. This may reveal something of a prominant mindset.

I find the paragraph quoted above especially interesting since it was put on the end of a chapter explaining a doctrine as if the explanation could easily be misused. Readers nead to be told, be careful with this, handle it “with special prudence and care.” Yet the chapter on predestination is quite commonly circulated among laymen as if it were intended as a teaching tool. I can understand the Shorter Catechism being used that way, but the Confession seems to tell us not to use it this way.

Before the Westminster Assembly there was, in Holland, the synod of Dordt. They spelled out the doctrine of election in response to the “remonstrants” who followed Arminius (hence, “Arminians”). It is interesting that they also tacked on some warnings about how the doctrine was to be handled.

And this is the perspicuous, simple, and ingenuous declaration of the orthodox doctrine respecting the five articles which have been controverted in the Belgic Churches; and the rejection of the errors, with which they have for some time been troubled. This doctrine the Synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God, and to be agreeable to the confession of the Reformed Churches. Whence it clearly appears that some, whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public:

That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than an interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers’ breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them; and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.

Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, conjures as many as piously call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ to judge of the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the calumnies which on every side are heaped upon it, nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted and wrested to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from this declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod.

Moreover, the Synod warns calumniators themselves to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them, for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches; for distressing the consciences of the weak; and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful.

Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father’s right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth; bring to the truth those who err; shut the mouths of the calumniators of sound doctrine, and endue the faithful ministers of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. Amen.

So there were people saying that the Calvinists considered prayers and baptisms ineffectual. This was false. But the Synod felt it necessary to warn people not to allow their language to exceed the limits of Scripture so that they wouldn’t give “a just pretext” for attackers.

If everyone acknowledges the need for special prudence, is it so hard to believe that such prudence was often not exercised? Perhaps someone needed to handle William Cowper with more “special care” than he received.

Or consider something I reported earlier, about a faithful Calvinist minister’s defense (?!) of his doctrine.:

Whereas our doctrine is this: that whether a man be predestinate or no, yet he should live so much as may be in a holy obedience. Because if he be predestinate he must make his election sure by well doing, working out his salvation in fear and trembling; for he that hath that hope that he is one of God’s sons doth purify himself, and being a vessel of honor must keep himself fair and clean for the use of his Master, being sanctified and prepared unto every good work. But if he find not himself to be predestinate yet may he not loose the reins to the lusts of concupiscence, as do the Gentiles which know not god, but rather bridle and restrain both his actions and his passions, yea his very affections and perturbations that he receive not . . . deeper damnation, . . . [and] that it may be easier for him in the day of judgment, being ascertained that in the world to come there are degrees as well of torment as reward.

All right. Be honest now. Wouldn’t this leave you depressed?

(By the way, this isn’t just bad presentation; see my discussion of serious errors therein.)

Beyond all this, savor the irony that Cowper’s temporary escape from this depression occurred through John Wesley’s preaching! Ha! Two cheers for Arminianism indeed! But even here we find no help. Cowper couldn’t maintain his enthusiasm. And perhaps conditional and unconditional election are all red herrings. Maybe the real culprit is not Calvinism or Arminianism but “expriential pietism” wherever it may be found.

So John Wesley’s heart was “strangely warmed” when he heard Romans read. Good for you, John. But my heart might stay at normal body temperature. Is that OK? Or is it a sure sign I’m going to Hell?

And did Cowper think it was not possible for God’s child to be depressed? Did he think this was abnormal? Was this his peculiar delusion or did everyone think this way?

And notice how this all ties into Pharisaism and Jesus polemic against wealth. One man is raised by a large family where all the children survive and his parents remain alive. And so he’s a cheerful optimist. Does that make him more Spiritual than Cowper? Of course not. But one could see that being assumed.

I meet depressed Christians sometimes. And what usually bothers me most is that in addition to feeling depressed they also have to feel guilty for feeling depressed. Many times, when they explain their circumstances, you feel depressed for them. So the first thing to do is to give them the right to feel depressed so they can stop feeling guilty. Ugh.

One final note, this whole issue is one reason why it was so great to hear John Barach preach in 2002 about how the doctrine of election is supposed to be proclaimed as genuine good news. Even today it is still a needed message.