“Without question. For our congregation, we live by 2nd Timothy 3:16, ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine….’
Interrupting, Jobran asked, “What is your own theological orientation?”
With a touch of pride, Reverend Baxter said, “I am a strong 5-point Calvinist, and was ordained in the Reformed tradition.”
“I’ve heard about those ‘Five Points of Calvinism’ before,” Jobran said. “I don’t remember Calvin expressing these in his major book, the Institutes of the Christian Religion, however; or did I just miss them?”
Reverend Baxter frowned slightly, and said, “Actually, although there were obviously taught by Calvin, they weren’t formally expressed until the Synod of Dort in 1618-1619. Their particular concern was to reject the teachings of the Remonstrants—followers of Jacobus Arminius, who believed that humans have ‘free will,’ and that God’s sovereignty is therefore limited. At Dort, they formulated Calvinism into five points, which can be memorized by the acronym TULIP. The five points are:
1.Total Depravity;
2.Unconditional Election;
3.Limited Atonement;
4.Irresistible Grace;
5.Perseverance of the saints.”
Jobran was noting down all of these points. “Being ‘Reformed,’ you’re obviously part of the Protestant tradition,” Jobran said, and Reverend Baxter nodded. “What is distinctive about the emphasis of Reformed and Presbyterian traditions, as opposed to other Protestant groups such as Baptists, Methodists, Assemblies of God, and so on?”
Reverend Baxter replied immediately, “In the Reformed as well as the remaining conservative Presbyterian traditions—the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the Reformed Evangelical Synod, for example—we tend to emphasize many points that are ignored by other supposedly ‘Christian’ denominations, particularly as regards the sovereignty of God.” With a slight derisive snort, he added, “We also stand firm on the historic Confessions of the Church, whereas many of the liberals have abandoned the beliefs of their own denominations long ago.”
“Well, as I explained in my letter of inquiry,” Jobran said, “My particular area of concern is your denomination’s position—actually, the whole Reformed and Presbyterian position—about the doctrine of life after death, and how one achieves ‘salvation.’ Can you summarize it for me?” Jobran scratched his head, and said, “As I said, I’ve read Hodge—I’ve also read Berkhof, Strong, and some others, but I’m still not sure that I’ve got a good understanding of it.”
Reverend Baxter nodded sympathetically, folded his hands, and then began to talk expansively, almost as if he were instructing a seminary class. “Well, as far as the doctrine of Soteriology—or salvation—is concerned, there are two primary Calvinistic views; that is, two schools which both claim John Calvin as supporting their position.”
“How can that be?” Jobran wondered. “John Calvin’s views have been around for hundreds of years, how can people disagree about what he himself said?”
Reverend Baxter sighed, and said, “Well, I think that perhaps the issue was not discussed in sufficient detail during Calvin’s own lifetime. It’s only later—as subsequent theologians argued and discussed the finer points of these matters—that the question has arisen, and we try to decide, ‘What would Calvin have said, on this issue?’ Anyway, the distinction between the two views has to do with the logical order of God’s eternal decrees. The two views are:
“1. Supralapsarianism, which means ‘before’ or ‘above’ the Fall or ‘lapse’ of Adam. This view is that God decreed both election and reprobation before he decreed the Fall of man; then, there is:
“2. Infralapsarianism, which means ‘after’ or ‘under’ the Fall of Adam. In this view, God decreed election and reprobation after he decreed the Fall.”
“By ‘reprobation,’ you basically mean ‘damnation,’ right?” Jobran asked, and Reverend Baxter nodded. Jobran looked confused, and said tentatively, “I’m not sure that I grasp the significance of the difference; does it really matter which order the decrees took place? I mean, does the eternal God really do things in a particular order?”
“Well, you should first of all understand that both views are valid—at least, they are not considered heterodox—in the Reformed and Presbyterian traditions. Infras do not consider Supras to be heretics, or vice versa. The important thing is that both groups agree that God chose both the elect and the damned before the foundation of the world, and before Adam sinned.”
Jobran still looked puzzled. “Is there a ‘majority view’? What do most of the various theologians think?”
“The Supralapsarian view is probably the less common these days—this view was held by Theodore Beza, William Twisse, Abraham Kuyper, Geerhardus Vos, Herman Hoeksema, Gordon Clark, and probably also by Louis Berkhof, although he’s kind of wishy-washy about it; Robert Reymond has also defended the view more recently. This view supposes that men, before the fall, were the objects of both election to eternal life, and foreordination to eternal death. In other words, God chose some men to receive eternal life, and rejected all others, before they had actually sinned. The first sin of man, constituting his fall, was thus predestined. Both election and reprobation are deeds of God’s sovereignty, logically preceding in God’s decree the Fall, sin, and ultimate redemption through Christ. In this view, damnation is primarily an act of God’s sovereignty, rather than an act of divine justice. So a Supralapsarian would say that the non-elect— the reprobate, the damned—were first ordained to that role, and then the Fall, by which they fell into sin, was ordained.”
“That’s very complex,” Jobran said, frantically scribbling notes. “But I take it that that isn’t your position?”
“That’s correct,” Reverend Baxter said, with a satisfied smile. “My own view is the Infralapsarian one, which was held by such theologians as Charles Hodge,
W.G.T. Shedd, Francis Turretin, John Murray, Anthony Hoekema, Loraine Boettner, as well as the Three Standards of the Christian Reformed church—the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Confession, and the Canons of Dort. It is the official position of the Christian Reformed church, although Supralapsarianism may be held as a personal belief. The Westminster Assembly favored Infralapsarianism, but carefully refrained from condemning Supralapsarianism.” He hesitated for a moment, then added, “Of course, some theologians such as Herman Bavinck and G.C. Berkouwer have held that neither position need be affirmed to the exclusion of the other, and Robert Lewis Dabney suggested that the question ought never to have been raised.”
“How does your view—Infralapsarianism—differ from Supralapsarianism?” Jobran asked.
“In our view, God excluded from His predestination decree the decree to create and to permit the Fall, so we see the reprobate as already fallen, and passed over by God because of their own sins. The first sin of man, constituting his fall, was therefore the object of divine foreknowledge, rather than predestination. God chose from the mass of fallen men that some were elected to eternal life, and others—in just punishment for their sins—were foreordained to eternal death. The Supralapsarian view makes God seem arbitrary, by damning men before they are even known to be sinners.” He paused a moment, then added, “Of course, the Supras accuse us of requiring God to ‘change his plans’ after the Fall of Adam, making him seem unsure of his own decrees.”
“I’m still having trouble understanding the difference,” Jobran said, apologetically. “But this distinction is really important, you say?”
“Oh, absolutely,” said Reverend Baxter, confidently. “In the Supralapsarian view, God predestined the Fall itself, and thus man’s sin—whereas in the Infralapsarian view, God’s predestination takes place after the Fall; thus, the foreordination to death is made to men that are already sinful.”
“Hmm,” Jobran said. “I think I’m starting to s
ee the difference. Is this what I’ve heard called ‘double predestination’?”
Reverend Baxter frowned slightly, and said, “No, not really; all true Calvinists believe in ‘double predestination,’ which really only means that the eternal fate of both the saved and the damned is settled by God, by eternal decree. The idea is that in addition to God’s unconditional election to salvation—which no denomination of Christians seem to object to—there is also an unconditional, positive decree of damnation, as well as God’s resolution to punish these non-elect reprobates eternally in Hell.” Seeing the look of shock on Jobran’s face, Reverend Baxter unfolded his hands, and said, “As I said earlier, in our denomination we tend to emphasize the whole message of the Scriptures concerning the sovereignty of God, including those parts that some Christians don’t like to think about.”
Jobran looked at Reverend Baxter in wonderment, and said, “So you believe that God not only predestines some people to eternal salvation, but also predestines some people to eternal damnation?”
“That’s correct,” Reverend Baxter said, nodding his head.
Jobran was somewhat flustered, to hear such an obviously intelligent man flatly state his belief in a doctrine about which he had often read, “Nobody believes that kind of Calvinism anymore.” (Clearly, some people—and quite intelligent people, at that—continued to believe the doctrine.)
Seeing Jobran’s confusion, Reverend Baxter said, “Actually, we in the Reformed tradition believe strongly that Calvinism is the only logically-consistent approach. Some people don’t mind saying that ‘God foreordained the elect,’ but they ignore the fact that by foreordaining only some people, he is therefore not foreordaining other people. It’s like anything else in life: If you decide to marry one person, you are also deciding not to marry all other people; if you hire one person for a job, you are also deciding not to hire the other applicants.” Jobran nodded, but continued to look troubled, so Reverend Baxter added, “Let me give you a good hint: you can’t just reason this out for yourself. You have to dig in and see what the Bible actually says on the question.”
In a weak voice, Jobran asked, “But isn’t God supposed to love everyone? If he does, then how can he predestine some people to eternal damnation?”
In a confident voice, Reverend Baxter said, “God cannot be said to actually ‘love’ all men. His redemptive purpose is really to save the elect.” He allowed a moment for this to sink in on Jobran (whose mouth dropped open at this statement), before he continued, “This doctrine is the ‘L’ of TULIP: Limited Atonement, which can also be described as ‘Particular Redemption.’” He stood up, and made gestures with his hands, as if he were instructing his congregation. “Is it logical to hold the position that Jesus Christ ‘died for all men,’ but that repentance and faith are given only to some men?” He waited for an answer from Jobran, but none was forthcoming, so he continued, “God’s love, election, Christ’s atonement, and effectual calling are all particular and limited, not universal. The idea that ‘Christ died for all men’ really cannot be reconciled with the Calvinist doctrines of unconditional election and effectual calling—or with the idea that only certain people can be saved, that only certain people can repent and believe.” He stopped suddenly, and faced Jobran directly and asked, “How could Christ ‘die for all men’ when it was known that not all men would have a genuine opportunity to be saved?”
“You believe that all men don’t have a genuine opportunity to be saved?” Jobran responded, with a perplexed expression. “But I would have thought that all Christians believed that all people have a genuine opportunity to be saved?”
Reverend Baxter acquired a distasteful expression on his face, and said in a voice of dismissal, “Well, you’re probably thinking of Amyraldianism, which is named after Moses—or Moise—Amyraut. He taught a kind of ‘4-point Calvinism’—remember that I initially told you that I was a 5-pointer?—which I suppose is intended by its proponents to be a kind of a ‘compromise’ between Calvin’s doctrines of particular redemption and limited atonement, and the universalism of the Arminians. Arminians, remember, believe in free will, and think that ‘anybody can be saved,’ which is not what the Bible teaches at all.”
“I’ve never heard of Amyraut,” Jobran said, fiercely scribbling in his notebook. “Who are some theologians who support his position?”
Reverend Baxter thought for a moment, then replied, “Some theologians such as Augustus Strong and Henry Thiessen have taught this doctrine, or something very near to it; they called it ‘Sublapsarianism.’ Amyraut taught that Christ died equally for all men, to make a universal offer of salvation to all men, and that he gave Himself for all men.” With a distinct frown on his face, Reverend Baxter said, “If you believe that, you might just as well be an Arminian—like a Southern Baptist—or a Molinist.”
“I’m familiar with Arminianism, now—but what is a Molinist?” Jobran asked.
With a sigh, Reverend Baxter said, “Molinism was taught by a Roman Catholic Jesuit named Luis de Molina; it teaches that God takes into account the foreknown merits or demerits of individual men, in making His election of them. In other words, God foreknew that Baxter would be a good guy and thus saved in a particular world situation, so God created that situation, and thereby elected Baxter to salvation; God also foreknew that Hitler would be a bad guy in a particular situation, and God nevertheless created that situation, and thus elected Hitler to damnation. God is basically creating the ‘best of all possible worlds’ based on his foreknowledge, and this preserves their supposed ‘free will.’”
“That sounds more like the position that I’m used to hearing,” Jobran said, nodding his head. “But that isn’t your doctrine?”
Reverend Baxter shook his head forcefully, and said, “No, not at all,” and he began to turn a world globe that sat on the edge of his desk, rotating it around and around on its axis. “You see, what many so-called ‘Bible Christians’ would like to think is that ‘God is in control’ when it comes to their own salvation; that way, they can consider their ‘calling and election sure,’ as it says in 2nd Peter 1:10. But they refuse to allow God to have this same sovereignty—this same dominion, this same control—over the damnation of others. But you can’t have it both ways!” he almost shouted, and he abruptly stopped the globe from spinning. He then began to spin the globe, then suddenly stop it, as indicated by his words, as he said, “God is either sovereign, or He’s not; He elects people, or he doesn’t; He’s either in the driver’s seat, or he isn’t.” He then pushed the globe back to its original position on the desk.
Almost in disbelief, Jobran said, “So you’re telling me you believe that God just—more or less arbitrarily—picks some people to go to Heaven, and some people to go to Hell?”
Forcefully, Reverend Baxter pointed at Jobran and said, “Remember what I said earlier, that you can’t just reason this out for yourself, but you have to rely on what the Word of God says.” Picking up the large, well-thumbed Bible on his desk, he turned quickly to a passage, and read, “Scripture says in the 9th chapter of the book of Romans, ‘Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why has thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonour?’”(Rom 9:20-21) Slapping his Bible shut, Reverend Baxter said, “Scripture clearly says that it is up to God to determine who goes to Heaven, and who goes to Hell.”
Hovering between being perplexed, and being disturbed, Jobran asked in a tone of near-incredulity, “And you think that’s fair, on God’s part?”
“Who are thou that repliest against God?” Reverend Baxter again quoted. Then, with an expression of sympathy on his face, his voice softened, and he said, “Mr. Winter, I’m not saying that all other Christians believe this; and I’m not saying that I don’t struggle with the doctrine myself at times, because I do. Bu
t I am saying that this is clearly what the Bible teaches.”
Starting to become aroused to an argumentative mood, Jobran asked, “But why? What purpose would it serve for God to create beings that he foreknew would sin, and thus merit eternal damnation? If he foreknew that a given individual would be destined for damnation, why create the person at all? Why not only create those who would achieve salvation?”
Reverend Baxter threw his palms open, and said, “That might be the way that you or I would do things, but we aren’t God!” Gesturing expansively toward the window, he said, “Everything that takes place happens within the will of God; his sovereignty is complete. Even damnation itself is an eternal witness to the righteousness of God.” He looked suddenly sad, and added, “If you keep going in that logical direction, you’ll end up getting rid of the doctrine of Hell altogether; which, unfortunately, is what some ‘theologians’ such as Clark Pinnock, John Stott, and John Wenham—who used to be respectable Biblical teachers—have done.”
Shaking his head in disbelief, Jobran said, “So it’s basically capricious: God arbitrarily chooses some people to damn, and arbitrarily chooses some people to save.”
Reverend Baxter held up his hand, and said, “Nothing that God does can properly be called ‘arbitrary.’” He then paused a moment, as if thinking, then continued, “But it seems clear that we don’t know—nor does the Bible tell us in detail—what his reasons are for certain actions, such as the creation of souls that he decreed will be damned.”
With an expression of genuine puzzlement, Jobran added, “And it doesn’t bother you, not knowing what these reasons are?”
Reverend Baxter shook his head, and said, “God is under no obligation to explain himself to us; on the contrary, it is we who are under the obligation to obey his Word, and His laws. It’s remarkable enough that he has chosen to explain himself in the Bible as much as he has.”
Beyond Heaven and Earth Page 23
