It’s been a long time…

So I’ve been away from the blog for a long time.  We moved house, twice (kind of), in the past few weeks, then there was a (successful) week long fishing holiday and now I’m in America for work so I have had neither the time, not the ability, to blog.  I’ll get back to posting regularly next week, DV, but for now my only news is that my article ‘James Durham and the Free Offer of the Gospel’ has been accepted for publication in the Puritan Reformed Journal December edition (sadly it was not in early enough to make the June edition).

Durham’s Top Five Theological Opponets

The list below contains what Durham regarded as the top 5 major theological errors if we judge by volume of references in his writing/strength of his language when mentioned (not in descending order):

1) Socinianism

They were “the enemies of Christ’s satisfaction,” “blasphemers” and “wretched.” Indeed so far had they sunk into error that they “are not worthy to be disputed with, nor accounted Christians; but rather to be joined with, and reckoned among, Heathens, or the followers of Mahomet…”

2) Arminians

Arminians were the “enemies of grace” who made conversion dependent not of the sovereignty of God but “on man’s fee will.” Durham felt it was easy to demonstrate “how dangerous and damnable this error is.” Arminians indeed deserved to be listed among “’the most gross heretics of old and of late.” Durham’s opposition to Arminianism arose in part from his belief that Arminian tenets “overthrow the design of grace in the salvation of sinners.”

3) Popery

To cite just two examples:

“… that blasphemous conceit and fancy of the Papists, who account their abominable Mass a propitiatory sacrifice … which … is most horrid blasphemy…”

“… nothing doth more natively breed anxiety and spiritual torment than the principles contained in the Popish Doctrine…”

4) Antinomianism

In some respects an opposite error to Popery, “…the Antinomians … make all sanctification to be justification … the Papists make all justification to be sanctification; therefore we would learn to distinguish these two, yet not so as to separate them.”  They get particluar criticism each time Durham broaches their view of justification.

5) Sects

Particulary “that foolery of Quakers.”  They didn’t hold back in their polemics in these days!

Is Calvinism a useful label?

Richard Muller argues that it is not:

As for the terms “Calvinist” and “Calvinism,” I tend to avoid them as less than useful to the historical task. If, by “Calvinist,” one means a follower of Calvin who had nothing to say that was different from what Calvin said, one would be hard put to find any Calvinists in the later sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. If by Calvinist one means a later exponent of a theology standing within the confessional boundaries described by documents such as the Gallican Confession, the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism, then one will have the problem of accounting for the many ways in which such thinkers – notably, Amandus Polanus von Polansdorf, Bartholomaus Keckermann, William Perkins, Franciscus Junius, and Bucanus, just to name a few – differ from Calvin both doctrinally and methodologically. One might even be forced to pose Calvin against the Calvinists. Given the diversity of the movement and the fact that Calvin was not the primary author of any of the confessional norms just noted, the better part of historical valour (namely discretion) requires rejection of the term “Calvinist” and “Calvinism” in favour of the more historically accurate term, “Reformed.”
PRRD, 1:30

(Inspired in part by the discussions over at ThomasGoodwin).

Defining Faith – Rutherford Style

How should we define faith?  Samuel Rutherford, via Guy Richard, is very helpful indeed.  Richard’s summary of  Rutherford is as follows:

Faith necessarily and in the first instance involves the intellect. Certain facts must be known and believed to be true.
But saving faith is more than that, because ‘it is not enough to salvation [simply] to believe that God is true in his Word’.  Saving faith also contains the voluntaristic element of trust or fiducia.  And, in continuity with Calvin, specifically, and Reformation and post-Reformation thinking generally – including such men as Musculus, Ursinus, Ames, Leigh, Ussher, and Macovius – Rutherford placed fiducia at the very center of his definition of faith:
‘True Faith in the Scriptures is not merely a firm assent [assensus] to the way of God, which is prescribed by Christ; this is the Historical and dogmatic faith of the Papists; but more than an assent [assensus] of the mind, true faith is determined by the heart’s trusting [fiduciam] in God through the Mediator, and by a fiducial [fiducialis] leaning upon him.
Richard, Supremacy of God, 187-8

Rutherford’s polemic here is directed against Arminian, as well as Roman, theology (those who know the modern American debate over the definition of faith should understand the irony in this!).  Richard’s goes on to explain:

By denying that fiducia is of the essence of saving faith, the Arminians are, as Rutherford sees it, placing their emphasis on the rational rather than on the experiential … As a result, the Christian life becomes primarily a rational pursuit rather than an intimate relationship … involving every faculty within the individual … they reduce the object of faith merely to factual information that must be personally understood, believed and trusted in. Such a view according to Rutherford, is wholly ‘misleading’ and ‘futile’,
‘[b]ecause the object of Faith, in this way of thinking, is not Christ … But the History of the Gospel, by which I firmly believe that I avoid hell and obtain eternal life only through Christ and his reasoning [rationem], as prescribed in the Gospel … [and because] to believe in Christ in this way is merely to believe in Christ recounting [narranti] that people obtain eternal life by repentance and faith: But this is an Historical faith, which is in the Demons and many of the reprobate.’
Ibid, 190-1

What is the implication of this definition of faith, involving as it does more than simple intellectual apprehension?  Well it should mean that preaching seeks to do much more than simply impart knowledge:

Rutherford, therefore, believes that every minister should preach in such a way as to appeal to and excite all the faculties of the soul, but especially the affections. A sermon that concentrates only on the presentation of information to the mind fails to excite the affections and, thus, leaves its hearers no better off in their pursuit of sanctification. Truth must be crafted and presented in such a way so as to encourage love in the affections for Christ.
Ibid, 203

Amen to that Mr Rutherford!

Rutherford, The Will of God and ‘Desire’

I’ve been really enjoying Guy Richard’s work on Rutherford.  With Richard’s and Coffey’s complimentary studies Rutherford is well served in terms of fair representations of his life and theology.  Richard’s work is well written and a pleasure to read, but it is not “easy,” is fairly “in depth” and definitely requires concentration!  The best thing about the book is that he “gets” Rutherford and understands the theological tradition, and therefore the distinctions, Rutherford was working with.  [He is a country mile or ten ahead of me!]  One key distinction which bears on my own studies is over the will of God and how we understand the relationship between God’s commands (revealed will) and his decree (secret will).  What Richard’s says is eminently helpful:

…the voluntas signi, which is the ‘revealed’ (revelata), ‘approving’ (approbans), or ‘commanding’ (preacipiens) will of God, whereby he makes known to his creatures all that he approves of, as being ‘morally lawful and noble, even if the future actuality of … [those] good thing[s] may never by decreed by God.’  In this way God desires, approves, and commands many things to be done, which he decrees not to be done in actuality … For example Rutherford says that God ‘desires the obedience of Judas and Herod and Pilate‘, by his approving, commanding and revealed will, and ‘yet he decreed [by his hidden or decretive will] that they should crucify the Lord of Glory‘.
p103 [emphasis added]

So according to Richard, Samuel Rutherford, man of extremes that he was, had no difficulty with speaking of the “desire” of God (as defined above) for things he had not decreed.  Who would have thought it possible

PS Much more to come from this book – it really is top notch.

Leighton, Lapsarianism and Blogs

I was working through Archbishop Leighton’s works (yes there are – sadly many- good 17th C Scottish theological works still on my ‘to be read’ list) and came across his take on the lapsarian controversy (Works 2:577):

To say the truth, I acknowledge that I am astonished, and greatly at a loss, when I hear learned men, and professors of theology, talking presumptuously about the order of the Divine decrees, and when I read such things in their works.

Now judging by the secondary literature Leighton was a good “Calvinist” - despite his conformity – but I’m not posting this to discuss the theological merit of his statement.  What struck me was that we have here an eminent and respected theologian expressing amazement at how bold some leading Reformed thinkers have been when speaking of the order of the Divine decrees.  If Leighton was astonished at leading Reformed theologians discussing these matters what would he make of today’s reformed blogs and discussion boards where dogmatic pronouncements about the various lapsarian positions are routinely made?  Indeed, perhaps this is the greatest danger of blogs/internet discussions – everyone has a platform from which to opine on areas where even the most qualifed theologians must tread with care.

Coming soon – some thoughts from this excellent book:

Does “offer” really mean present?

Not according to Durham as I have argued elsewhere:

One of the most common images Durham uses to define offer is that of wooing and beseeching. He explains that “The offer of the gospel … is set down under the expression of wooing … and supposes a marriage, and a bridegroom, that is by his friends wooing and suiting in marriage…” So in understanding what the gospel offer is it is appropriate to think of a man trying to persuade the woman he loves to marry him. This image, of course, carries with more than a simple presentation of facts. It would be an absurdity for a man to try and win the affections of a woman simply by presenting a few facts about himself. No, the image carries with it the ideas of an attempt to win the girl by earnest persuasion. And so it is with the Gospel where Christ, “doth beseech and entreat, etc. that thereby hearts may be induced to submit cheerfully to Him.” We can “Consider further how our Lord Jesus seeks and presses for this satisfaction from you; he sends forth his friends and ambassadors, to woo in his name, and to beseech you to be reconciled … he pleads so much and so often, and entreats every one in particular when he is so very serious in beseeching and entreating, it should, no doubt, make us more willing to grant him what he seeks.” So simply from this one image Durham uses it is clear that offer is, for him, more that a presentation of facts. 

Now who do you think understands 17th century English better-  Durham or modern critics of the free offer?

Is the Westminster Confession Supralapsarian?

An article by Dr. Guy M. Richard, recently republished in the fine Confessional Presbyterian Journal (Vol. 4, 162-70), Samuel Rutherford’s Supralapsarianism Revealed: A Key to the Lapsarian Position of the Westminster Confessionof Faith, made the case that the Westminster Confession is best read as an inherently supralapsarian document.  The article was valuable for a variety of reasons, among which are, an insightful survey of Rutherford’s supralapsarianism (milder than often thought) and an attempt to understand the Confession through contextualised mid 17th century polemics rather than through later dogmatic positions (an approach often found in theological commentaries on the Confession).  However, I have a few questions around the central thrust of the article – which is that the Westminster Confession is inherently supralapsarian.  Key questions are:

• Don’t the debates at the Assembly lend themselves to the understanding that a studied ambiguity on this subject was the aim?  For instance on the subject of the decree(s) Reynolds argued “Let us not put in disputes and scholastical things into a Confession of Faith.”  Gillespie added a suggestion for wording that would enable “every one [to] enjoy his own sense” and Calamy added “why should we put it [number of decrees - referring to Twisse by name] in a Confession of Faith” (Mitchell and Struthers, Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, 150-1).  This is hardly the language of a body striving to put in their confession a firm view of the logical order of the Divine decrees.  In view of this perhaps the quest to find “the” lapsarian position of the Westminster Confession of Faith is in itself a false starting point?  The first question then might not be “Is Westminster Surpa or Infra” but “Does the Confession take a lapsarian stance at all”?  Alexander Mitchell argues that ”care was taken to avoid the insertion of anything which could be regarded as indicating a preference for supralapsarianism.” (Minutes, lv).
• Granted that Twisse (who died in 1647 – during the Westminster Assembly) and Rutherford were influential and Surpa does it follow that the confession is (even just inherently) Supralapsarian?  Dort was not short of influential supras and yet can be read more easily as infra (see below).  However influential certain members of a minority are, when it comes to a vote the minority still loses   To take another case I dont think anyone would argue that Edmund Calamy was insignificant in English Presbyterian circles (or that he was quiet in the Assembly!) – yet he held to a broader concept of the design of the atonement that the Scottish Divines were content with.  Should we conclude the Confession is inherently “hypothetical universalist” (take your pick of terms!)?  The point is of course clear – and I don’t think would be disputed – just because an influential member holds a position does not mean that it is the majority position, or that it would be enshrined in the confession itself, i.e. no one would argue that the Confession is inherently “universal redemptionist.”  (Of course some argue that ”universal redemption” is not excluded by the confession – a different discussion).
  Again it does not appear to me, for all the respect that was given to Twisse, everyone agreed with all his positions.  To take two examples, his position on the extent of the atonement (despite being a Supra!), or his being, in the words of Baillie, an “express Chillast” i.e. Premillenialist (Baillie, Letters, 2:313) would not have found much acceptance in the enlightened part of the British Isles – that is Scotland for anyone in any doubt
• How does the fact that Dort was infra come in to play? James Durham, Rutherford’s illustrious contemporary, read Dort as infra.  But to him that was no cue for Supra’s to form an orderly line and march out of the Reformed churches never to return.  Indeed he comments as follows: “yet the synod [Dort] has not made any division by censuring of such, neither have these who differ from that determination broken off communion with the church, but have kept communion, and union in the church has not been thereby interrupted. Yet those who apprehend themselves to be right cannot but think the other is in an error, and if this forbearance is not allowed, there can never be union in the church, except we should think that they behoved all to be in the same mind about such things, and there should never be a decision in a church, but when there is absolute harmony.”  So if I read Durham right on this point he is saying that even though a Confession may take a position on the lapsarian question charity should still be extended to those who disagree.  This might explain how Rutherford could still be ok with the Westminster Confession even if it was infra, far or less if it is was ambivalent over the issue?
• How did Rutherford’s Scottish contemporaries view his supralapsarianisn?  Fellow Scottish Westminster Divine Robert Bailie appears not to have been a cheerleader for Rutherford’s position.  Nowhere does this come out more clearly in the case of Prof. John Strang of Glaswow University.  He held something less than infralapsarianism (Baillie, Letters, 3:5) and yet Baillie would endeavour “that our Assembly meddle not with such subtle questions, but leave them to the schools.” (Letters, 3:6).  This is hardly the language of a man who would wish a Confession to take a stance on the lapsarian issue.  Indeed Baillie particularly states that no Reformed confession has taken a supralapsarian stance, “When such made a most diligent search into his [Strang's] private and public management, that they might have somewhat against him, he was found beyond reproach in his personal carriage, and in the discharge of his office; only in his dictats to his scholars, some few things were taken notice of, wherein he differed in his sentiments from Dr Twiss and Mr Rutherford in some scholastic speculations. He was not so much as blamed for any departure from the confession of any reformed church, . . . but, in a few questions, exceeding nice and difficult, as to God’s providence about sin, he thought himself at liberty, modestly to differ in his sentiments from so many privat men.” (Chambers, A Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen, 4:309 – emphasis added).  This is not to suggest Rutherford was alone in his supralapsarianism in Scotland, or even to suggest he was in a minority, but simply that he was not speaking for the Scottish Church on this issue, and that significant theologians in his Church thought his views “scholastic speculations”.  Durham’s sermons also reveal an unwillingness to address the issue – which would be strange if the Confession of the Church addressed the issue.
  [Whether Baillie's reading of Strang was influenced by his family relations are beyond the scope of this post!]
• Again how does the earlier history of the lapsarian question in Scotland come in to play?  If Melvile, Rollock, Bruce etc. were infra (as argued by Mitchell) then surely that comes in to play?

So from my point of view the article left too many questions unanswered to challenge the conclusion of Warfied: “But the wise plan was adopted with respect to the points of difference between the Supralapsarians, who were represented by a number of the ablest thinkers in the Assembly (Twisse, Rutherford), and the Infralapsarians, to which party the great mass of the members adhered, to set down in the Confession only what was common ground to both, leaving the whole region which was in dispute between them entirely untouched.”  So is it not still safer to conclude that the Confession is neither inherently Supra or inherently Infra and follow the eminent John Murray:

“The Confession is non-committal on the debate between the Supralapsarians and the Infralapsarians and intentionally so, as both the terms of the section and the debate in the Assembly clearly show.  Surely this is the proper reserve in a credal document.” (Collected Writings, 4:209 – see also 249).

A time to refrain from speaking…

As the blog has been silent for a while now (I’m not slacking e.g. work on Friday finished at 2:30am Saturday) here are some words from Westminster Divine Robert Baillie which fit in with that: 

When I took my leave of the [Westminster] Assembly I spoke a little to them.  The Prolocutor, in the name of the Assembly, gave me an honourable testimony, and many thanks for my labours.  I had been ever silent in all their debates; and however this silence sometimes weighted my mind, yet I found it the best and wisest course.  No man there is desired to speak: four parts of five do not speak at all; and among these are many most able men, and known by their writings and sermons to be much abler than sundry of the speakers; and of these few that use to speak, sundry are so tedious, and thrust themselves in with such misregard of others, that it were better for them to be silent.  Also there are some eight or nine so able, and ready at all times, that hardly a man can say any thing, but what others, without his labour, are sure to say as well or better. Finding, therefore, that silence was a matter of no reproach, and of great ease, and brought no hurt to the work, I was content to use it, as Mr. Henderson also did for the farrmost part of the last two years.
Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie

Now, as per Baillie, silence at times is acceptable.  In reference to critics of the free offer in the blogsphere I think the Baillie approach is best.  The historical evidence has been (and continues to be ) put out there in a positive and irenic manner.  The exegetical case has been put out as well.  If people are interested they can find out and weigh the case for themselves.  That is my hope.

James Durham and the Free Offer – The Audio

Here is the audio of my address to the Scottish Reformation Society given in November last year on “James Durham and the Free offer of the Gospel” (the audio quality is not great and there is a pause a few minutes in while they tried to fix the microphone):

http://www.bible-sermons.org.uk/audio-sermons/1958-james-durham-and-the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/

Bear in mind that this was intended to be a level that was easy to understand so for a number of clarifications/fine theoigcal distinctions etc. you will have to wait for the published version