STUDIES IN BIBLICAL DOCTRINE

What is Calvinism.?.
or the Confession of Faith in Harmony
with the Bible and Common Sense
In a series of dialogues between a Presbyterian
. minister and a young convert
by William D. Smith; D.D.
Dialogue IT .
Misrepresentations of Calvinism.
Convert.-Since I saw you, I have
been examining, to some extent, the
Confession of Faith of your church, and
fmd it COrresponds with my OWn views .
o( doctrine in the main, though I find
some things to which i cannot _fully
subscribe. But, when I look at the
tutal references, I am forced to believe
they are taught in the Bible, andamcon-
sqained to leave them. as things I can-
not understand. I do not, however, find
in it, except in one or two places, any-
thing like the representations I have had
of it from others, or the dreadful doc-
trines quoted in the book I gave you.
Have you examined it?
Minister.--! have given it a cursory
examination, and have been very much
sul-prised that such misrepresentations,
and dishonest and even false quotations,
should 'be put forth and palmed upon
the conununity, under the sanction and
by the authority of a . church, . that has
the name of being evangelical. Had it
been done by Universalists, or infidels,
it would hardly have been thought
worthy of ttotice; but, when I see it is
''published by order of the General
Conference" of the Methodist church; I
cannot but regret, that that body would
sanction, by their authority and
fluence, the publication and wide circula-
tion of a work, characterized by such an
entire want of candour and honesty, and
containing so many palpable misstate-
ments. .
Con.-Are any 'of its quotations in-
correCt?
.Min.--There_is scarcely a single quota-
tion cotrect, so far as I have been able
to examine it The first iS a quotation
from our Confession of Faith, chapter
3, which I find on page 8. It pretends to
quote the language of the Confession,
it gives nothing more than a small
part of the language, so garbled as to
give it an entirely different meaning.
The quotation is as follows: "God from
aU eternity did unchangeably ordain
.whatsoever :comes to pass." Now, let
me read the hmguage of the Confession:
"God from all eternity did, by the most
wise and holy counsel of his own will,
. freely and unchangeably ordain whatso-
ever comes. to pass; yet so, as thereby
_neither is God the author of sin; nor is
violence offered to the will of the
creatures; nor is the liberty or contin-
gency of second causes taken away, b1,1t
rather established." I will, at another
time, endeavour to show you, that this
is the doctrine of the Bible, and of co
mon sense. At present, it will be suf-
ficient to- say, that, as you perceive,
whilst it God's wise and holy
purpose respecting "all things," yet it
says, also, that he has "so" ordained
respeeting . them, that "he is not the
: author of sin;" that it daes not offer ally
or constraint "to the will of
. the creatures," and in a way that
"establishes," rather than takes away,
".the liberty, or contingency, of second
causes." So, you perceive, that when all
these saving clauses are taken away
from the language of the Confession, it
has a meaning_ entirely different from
that which is intended.
Con.--l perceive the quotation is
unfai,r and, dishonest
TJie Coiuisel of Chalcedon;, January, 1987 ........ -.....t
Non-Profit Org.
U.S. . _
PAID
BULK RATE
Permit No. 1431
Min.--On the same page is another,
equally unfair, respecting the- fmally
impenitent. It reads thus: "The rest of
mankind God was pleased, for the glory
of his sovereign power over his crea-_
tures, to pass by and ordain them to dis-
honour and wrath." Now, hear the
language of. the Confession: "The rest
of mankind, God was pleased, according
to the \lnsearchable counsel of his own
will; whereby he extendeth or
holdetQ mercy . as he pleaseth, for the
glory of his sovereign power over his .
creatures, to pass by and ordain them to
dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of his glorious justice." You per-
ceive that here_ , a1so; the language of
the Confessiop is so garbled, as to_ give
it -a different meaning altogether. Whilst
it asserts . that God "passes by" the
. fmally impenitent part of -
(that is, he did not determine to. save
them,) and "ordains them to dishonour
and wrath," yet it is "for their sin,"
. in a manner that will redound "to the
: prai,se of glorious But all
thi,s, is purposely left out of the quota-
tion, wit,h the design of making it
_the dreadful doctrine of eternal reproba-
that G,Qd d.arnitsma-l) all eter-:
nity, wit}\01!-t any reference to his sjn,
or: any reas.on except his , arbitrary de-
cree. editor's note below-DEG]
1
, -- -
-Con.-It is swprising that su,ch
things should be published as !an_d
circulated wi.th so much confidence. The
neighbour who gave me the book, said.
that I might depend on it as giving,
truly, the views of Presbyterians, and
that he the best opportunity of
' .
(Continu p) ,
. -. ! ;_: '
critique social policy? Perhaps our fail-
ure to critique such practices is due to
our having too many benefitting partici-
pants, who began before they thought?
Sadly, the arguments of the Open
Letter and article are pragmatic appeals
to secure the future. It holds that,
"Since Social Security benefits are so
great and cannot be duplicated privately,
one would be foolish to attempt it."
This is done by yielding your responsi-
bilities, then benefitting from a govern-
ment redistribution scheme. Particularly
held out as of critical importance is the
Medicare Benefits to subsidize other-
wise "exorbitant" post-retirement medi-
cal expenses. True or not, notice that
God's prerogatives, the family, and
covenant community, are subverted and
exchanged for a socialistic program.
How are our ministers to preach
against the ungodly actions of civil
government if they are subsidized by
the same government? Is socialistic
theft and redistribution wrong EXCEPT
when we are the beneficiaries? How can
the church call for civil government to
be subject to the limits of scripture,
while its ministers are subsidized by
that government, at the expense of their
fellow citizens? To yield at this point
will either silence the church of Christ,
or make hypocrites of her ministers.
Should we now expect letters from
denominational boards encouraging all
eligible church members to promptly
apply for food stamps, government
housing, welfare, or any kind of gov-
ernment subsidies? Is failure to get all
we can from the government to be con- .
sidered neglect of family responsi-
bilities? If doing so would be more
effective, why not?
The people of God are hence trans-
formed into people of the state. Christ's
community of Kingdom warriors, 'en-
listed into his service, become a kept
people by a paternalistic government 1
submit that such a mentality is the seed
of idolatry or state worship. So even if
the economic benefits were . superior,
the .theological and ethical considera-
tions should cause us to ignore a sys
tern built upon theft, redistribution and
idolatry.
(yet ! the economic superiority of
Social Security benefits are highly
debatable. Such superiority is invari-
ably premised upon continuation of
past practices. With lower birth rates
and fewer workers to support a growing
elderly population, the future continua-
tion of past Social Security practices is
anything but secure. Legion of articles
have documented serious problems. The
government's own encouragement for
citizens to supplement future Social
Security benefits with IRA's, company
pension plans, and Medicare Supple-
ment policies, are glaring evidence that
these programs are financially inade-
quate if not vulnerable. Why would de-
nominational boards ignore these prob-
lems and boldly declare the future se-
curity of this system?
However, let us suppose a young
pastor of 30 averages $25,000 income
starting in 1988. If he invested his
CURRENT Social Security tax of
$3,255 (13.02% X $25,000 yearly at
12% average return, he would have
$1,573,672 in 35 years (age 65).
Working to age 70 would yield him
$3,298,440. [That's over three and
a quarter Million dollars, folks -
Ed.] Allowing for catastrophic medi-
cal bills, disability, and old age, this
might not equal Social Security Bene
fits in all hypothetical situations. But
his $1.5 million fund would pay his
$10,500 Social Security benefit at the
highest rate (42% of his last year
$25,000 salary) for over 149 years!
Withdrawing 5% in annual income
would pay him $78,683 yearly. Work-
ing to age 70, the numbers increase to
261 years of $12,600 income
($10,500+20%), or $164,922 5% an-
nual income! This fund could pay some
hefty medical insurance premiums if
necessary, and is fully inheritable as
part of his estate. And these figures
assume NO FUTURE INTEREST
EARNED, NO RAISES, AND NO
OTHER RETIREMENT SAVINGS.
All considered, ministers not only
have a theological/ethical rationale for
opting out of Social Security; but also
have very compelling economic reasons
for doing so. By diligent labor and
investing, those who do not reap over-
whelmingly superior fmancial results
will be a small minority. Could not
those few brothers who need aid be
helped voluntarily? The ministers who
transfer their responsibilities to a gov-
ernment program might find themselves
reflecting 'in old age upon Jeremiah
17:5-6:
Thus says the Lord: "Cursed is the
man who trusts in man and makes flesh
his strength, whose heart departs from
the LORD. For he shall be like a shrub
in the desert, and shall not see when
good comes, but shall inhabit the
parched places in the wilderness, in a
salt land which is not inhabited." D
What Is Calvinism?
(Continued from page 24)
knowing what these views were, as he
was brought up under Presbyterian in-
struction, and had been taught the cate-
chism in his youth.
Min.-As an evidence that he WaS
either unacquainted with the catechism,
or with the contents of the book, I will
refer you to another quotation, which I
fmd on page 195. It professes to be
from the "Assembly's Catechism,
chapter 5." Now, as you say you have
been looking a little at the Confession
of Faith, you have perceived that the
catechisms are not divided into chapters;
and, where to find the fifth chapter of
the Assembly's catechism we will have
to ask "the General Conference," by
whose order the book has been pub-
lished, who should have known, at
least, that there were chapters in the
catechism, before they referred us to one
of them. But you will, perhaps, be
surprised to learn, that there are not
only no chapters in the catechism, but
no such language as is quoted. The
quotation is as follows: "The almighty
power of God extends itself to the first :
fall, and all other sins of angels and
men." Now, there is no such language,
or anything like it, anywhere in either
of our catechisms, nor is there anything
anywhere in the Confession, to afford
the least ground for a sentiment so
grossly blasphemous as this is made to
be, in d1e connection in which it
(Continued on page 20)
..__ ____ _...._ The Counsel of Chalcedon, January, 1987
congregation . with some . unusual visit-
ors. One is a true Christain from a coun-
try where all the churches are dominated
by .liberalism. Some are daydreaming
during the sennon, but not this man.
How he appreCiates the sermon! How
he rejoices to hear the Word preached
without compromise! How he appreci-
ates the preaching! Another visitor is a
recent Christian immigrant from a com-
munist country. How appreciative he is
of the public reading of the Scripture.
He has had no Bible for years and has
had access to the Word only through
foreign . radio broadcasts that survived
jamming efforts .. Also present that
Lord's Day is an elderly lady who is
able to attend church only rarely be-
cause of physical limitations. And she
so appreciates the morning prayer.
What if some member of the church
noticed the enhanced appreciation these
three people had for the service and then
suggested that the church limit the
frequency of Bible reading and preaching
and public prayer so that these would
become inore special? Onecannot deny
that the deprivation would enhance
appreciation, but we all see the folly of
the B!.lt why do some of us
accept this same line of reasoning in
regard to the Lord's Supper?
Let us imagine another hypothetical
church. This church has a tradition of
serving the Lord's Supper once. a
inonth. A new miriister comes ;and asks
that the church have weekly com'"
mtinion. The elders deny this request on
the basis 'that the communion serviCe
woUld no longer be special if itwere
held on a' weekly basis. If this is true;
then why have communion monthly?
Would riot a quarterly comrrhinion ser"
vice be more meaningful than- a
ly communion service? Would not' a
yearly communion service be more
meaningful still? And if we want com-
munion to be really meaningful, ' why
110t limit the service to once every
generation? How about lirriiting
'munion services to one for each pass of
Halley's Comet? Such a service would
be so well attertded and so
and so long remembered. One cannot
deny that such a once in a generation
cot:mnunion service would be' more
meaningful than a quarterly communion
service. When one takes , . the ,;special
because infrequent" principle to this
extreme, the invalidity of the principle-
becomes rather
There are soine events in life that
must be kept infrequent if they are to
remain special, events such as birthdays
and wedding anniversaries. The Mad
Hatter. truly is mad to celebrate his un-
birthdays, for these occur every day of
the year but one. Unbirthdays are com"
mon and mundane, no occasion for a
party. But notice that events that must
be kept infrequent in order to preserve
their specialness do not involve life
necessities. Birthdays and anniversaries
are icing on the cake of life, not life
essentials. Eating is a common event
but eating is still special. Eating is
special in an inherent sense because
without eatirtg; we will die. Is com-
munion special like a birthday, an event
whose specialness is based upon its
frequency? Or is communion more-like
a meal; a frequent event that is special
because of its necessity? Admittedly,
the Lord's Supper, like a birthday cele-
bration, is a memorial. Perhaps infre-
qllent commtmion would be justifi if
the Lord's Supper were only' a mem-
orial. The Lord's Supper, however, is
more thart a mere memorial. God uses
the Lord's Supper as im instrument for
spiritUally 'nourishing His people and
strengthening their faith'. .The Lord's
Supper is a means 'of grace; and we
should take frequent advantage of it.
The crucified Christ should be -bo'th
publicly proclaimed (the preached word)
'and portrayed (the sacramental wordi cf.
3:1).I.;
1
: : .: :
What wilf we say when otir LOrd
asks us why we deliberately hegiec'ted'a
. primary means of grace in most l:.ord
1
s
Day w6rshlp Do we really
believe He. will be 'impressed with otir
,; special beeause infrequent"
. tioh? is it truly gooci stewardShip to
hide the communion cup more Sundays
than we use it?
Allow me to close with a\ quotation
taken from a letter John Calvin wrote
to the magistrates of Beme'in
1
March,
1555: . '.

1
:uwe
times a year, and you thrice. Now
would to. God; messeigneurs, that both
you and we had a more frequent use of
it. For we see in the Acts of the
Apostles by Saint Luke that in the
primitive church they communicated
much oftener. And that custom con-
tinued in the ancient church during a
long space of time, til the abomination
of the mass was devised by Satan,. a_nd
llfas the cause why people communica-
ted but once or twice a year .. Wherefore
we must confess that it is a deject in us
IU)t to follow the example of the
O
What Is Calvinism?
(Continued from page 17)
standS. It is in Tract number 8, entitled,
"A Dialogue between a Preqestinariari
ailCt his Friend," in which the
narian is represented as speaking the
of Calvinists, to prove that
God impels men to sin; and. theri, this
quotation is given, to prove that pur
catechism teaches, that God's almighty
power iS .exerted in compelling men to
sin. On page 194, is another quotation-
of the same kind, professing to be from
the "Assembly's Catechism, chapter 3.';
But the third chapter ofthe c-atechism
w,iil be 'as difficult to fmd, as the fifth, , :
Btit, is _there not something, ,iit
other part of Co'nfession,' )o
a trUth to,
quotation? . . ' ..
' (To be'
. -, i
' [Editor's note- The wordillg .. -:of
Dr. Smith's statement regarding: etehtal
reprobation possibly "leave rooin
for some" tnistinderstartding.' 1 b-elieve. fie
' is here, cc\nsiderlng nis
Views elsewhere and his coilitnitment to
:the system:of doctrine of't.pe Westmin-
ster Confession. of Fai,th; _H:ov.;e.ver, to
allay any. possible of
his statement, -the following coriub.ertts
may he: in
If ;assumed that Dr. was
expressing acusdain fouzny ddctrine of
reprobation,_ ,by his reference to :
dreadfuid.dctrine of
' on
. . , J. n JH
L
l;

the setting up or recognition of a state
(i.e., national) church, or at least the
conferring upon one church of special
favors and advantages which are denied
to others." Furthermore, he stated: "It
was never intended by the Constitution
that the government should be prohib-
ited from recognizing religion, or that
religious worship should never be pro-
vided in cases where a proper recogni-
tion of Divine Providence in the work-
ing of government might seem to re-
quire it" (pp. 224-225).
Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court
Justice in the 1800's stated in his
Commentaries on the Constitution of
the United States (Sec. 1874):
"Probably at the time of the adoption
of the Constitution, and of the
amendment to it now under considera-
tion (i.e., the First Amendment), the
general if not the universal sentiment in
America was, that Christianity ought to
receive encouragement from the state so
far as was not incompatible with the pri-
vate rights of conscience and the free-
dom of religious worship. An attempt
to. level all religions, and to make it a
matter of state policy to hold all in
utfer indifference, would have created .
universal disapprobation, if not uni-
versal indignation ... *
Furthermore, the term "religion" in
the First Amendment was originally
recognized as signifying "Christianity",
not Taoism or secular humanism as a
*It has been out l?Y Bob Miller of
Chalcedon Presbyterian Church that a
parenthetical statement in the first part of this
article last month is erroneous. On page 16 I
state that S.tory served on the U.S.
Supreme Court m the late 1800s. That state-
ment should read "in the early 1800s". I
would like to thank Bob for this correction.
Perhaps I should take this opportunity to
give a sentence or lwo background on Joseph
Story. Story was born in 1779 and was
aQpointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in
1B1l at the age of 32. He served on the
Courffrom 1811 until his :death in
1845. He is generally conceded to be second
only to Jofin Marsha11 among his era's
pioneering jurists. In 1829 he was appointed
professor of law at Harvard University and is
regarded by many scholars as the father of
Harvard's law scnool. From 1832 to 1845 he
wrote a monumental series of volumes called
Commentaries, which dealt with jurispru-
dence. This series established his reputation
internationally in the field of law. H1s views
are still highly regarded today and considered
authoritative m many areas.
The in my article is from
the 5th edition oi his Conunentaries pub-
li;slle4 jn 1891, well after his de!lth. . .
1960's Supreme Court decision stated.
On illustration of this fact, is the
famous situation in which Mormon-
ism's polygamy was outlawed in the
1800's. It went against America's Chris-
tian heritage. Another example is in
March 19, 1782, Continental Congress'
declaration calling on men to "pray that
the religion of our divine Redeemer,
with all its divine influences, may
cover the earth as the waters cover the
seas." The reference to Isaiah ll's
Messianic prophecy is undeniable.
In conclusion, it may safely be said
that the United States Constitution is a
Christian document. God-fearing.
citizens ought to cherish it and defend it'
against humanistic encroachments and
liberal re-interpretations of it Chris-
tianity is a law-based, dominion-ori-
ented, culture-creating faith. And this
sort of Christianity gave birth to the
Constitution of the United States of
America. We must not allow the
modem cleavage between our Christian
heritage and our government to con-
tinue, or else America will be so
radically transformed that it will falter .
and fail as it opposes God.
In the 1700's Thomas Jefferson pre-
dicted of the independence movements
in South America: "They will fall under .
military despotism, and become the
murderous tools of their respective
Bonapartes." (Cited in Rushdoony, This
Independent Republic, p. 7). He saw
these movements as rootless, like that
of the French Revolution.
You cannot cut off the roots of a cui-
and long maintain its fruits.
America's roots and fruits are in many
respects Christian. D
What Is Calvinism?
(Continued from page 20)
especially with the words eternal
reprobation italicised (as they are in
Smith's book), then I believe this
would be to misunderstand his view.
And, had the writer simply referred, in
critical tones, to the "doctrine of eternal
reprobation M that God damns man from
all eternity", then we would certainly
have to disagree with him and confess
that he was out of accord with the
teaching of the Westminster Confes-
sion. However, the fact that he qualifies
his statement with the words, "without
any reference to his sin, or any reason
except his arbitrary decree", we believe
his view is quite sound.
The fact is that there is a doctrine of
reprobation which is, in fact, an eternal
reprobation, and it is true that God con-
demns some men from all eternity. The
important point is that it is with refer-
ence to man's sin and not an arbitrary
decree. It must be remembered that
nothing God does can be said to be
arbitrary. And anything and everything
God does is right.
This is an important doctrine which
has been the battleground of much con-
troversy. The teaching of the Confes-
sion of Faith is clear and we believe,
with Presbyterian and Reformed people
for centuries, that the teaching of the
Confession is based squarely on the
clear teaching of the Bible.
In order to elucidate the doctrine more
thoroughly, we shall present an article
on Reprobation in an upcoming issue
of The Counsel of Chalcedon; hope-
. fully in the February issue next
month.] D
. Th_e .Counsel. Q_f ,Chalcedon, January, 1987