Joel R Beeke has written a new book, entitled, "Living for God's Glory - An Introduction to Calvinism," which was published in 2008 by Reformation Trust Publishing, Orlando. The book covers the main doctrines linked with the Reformer's name, whether fairly or unfairly is a contested matter. The book has many useful aspects, is well produced and will be read or consulted by many Christians and preachers.
It is quite difficult to miss the fact that in a book purportedly dealing with Calvinism - and I suspect that the author believes exactly what the later Calvinists have taught - there are numerous quotations from these Calvinists, but none that I could find from Calvin himself. This rather strange methodology raises certain questions in my mind about the purpose Beeke had in mind when he was writing this book. One thing is abundantly clear - he had no intention of allowing the great Reformer from Geneva to speak from himself. This reduces Beeke's otherwise good book to a compendium of second hand opinions that, in my humble view, do not reflect truly the teaching of Calvin. The book would have been enhanced significantly had the author stated what the Reformer had said, and then subjected this to critical assessment; but alas he failed to do this, and in so doing reduced the value of his writing.
In the two chapters dealing with the atonement, Beeke does not once quote from Calvin. Beeke refers to "most Calvinists," these second-hand witnesses that he has chosen, but has refused to go to the man himself (p.81)! Why is this? What is Beeke afraid of discovering? That his neat little theological system that is linked with the noble name of Calvin, is really built on sinking sand? Second-hand evidence or witness is secondary at best and ought not to be used, especially when the first-hand witness of the reformer's own writing is readily available.
No attempt has been made to exegete John 3:16, 1 John 2:2, et al, and he regularly confuses Arminianism and Amyraldianism. Surely serious theologians have a duty to expound what these verses mean rather than what they do not mean. Beeke and his kind prefer rather to "explain away" than "explain" what the Bible teaches.
Beeke's refusal to quote from Calvin makes it quite clear that the Calvinists whom he quotes are more suited to reinforcing his novel view of the atonement, but Calvin's undermines it, and he knows that very well. This refusal to quote Calvin on the atonement is worrying and suggests a deliberate unwillingness to take the Reformer's teaching seriously. He admits that there is the "universal invitation to believe," (p.96), and also that this is beyond our ability to grasp with, not only our our finite, but I might add, sinful minds.
But then he refuses to take into consideration ALL the available and accessible data that Calvin has provided. We must not therefore believe that what the Calvinists that he quotes and/or refers to, agree with the teaching of John Calvin on the atonement, because this is patently not the case.
To assert that "without faith, Christ's atonement does us no good" (p.97), is exactly what Calvin and all Amyraldians such as Baxter, Doddridge, Edwards, Ryle, Chalmers, Lloyd-Jones, believe. There is salvation for everyone in the atonement if only they believe. So, if everyone believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, everyone shall be saved. This would not be possible if God had not designed the atonement with this end in mind.
Dr Beeke uses the same old worn-out arguments as his fellow-travellers, and adds nothing to the discussion. I am still very worried by his theological dishonesty and resultant compromise. I am worried about his academic credentials to write such a book, when he wishes to give the impression that the Calvinists he quotes, and who have contributed chapters to this otherwise useful book, agree with Calvin on the extent/intent of the atonement. His recourse to scholastic devices betrays his intention in writing/compiling the book - his refusal to consider ALL the data, but only that which supports his own theological agenda. This, in itself, is a serious problem with the book.
His description of Pierre du Moulin as "the foremost French Calvinist theologian of the era" (p.24), is open to challenge. Even Richard Muller does not accept this assessment.
If "the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" had to be "accomplished by conformity to the Word and will of God" (p.28), we are entitled to ask what the will of God as revealed in the Word of God teaches concerning the death of Christ and the salvation of sinners! The NT is replete with examples of the universal applicability of the death of Christ to all mankind. See Jn 3:16; 1 Jn 2:2; 2 Pet.3:9, etc. Why these and other similarly clear texts of Scripture are not quoted, and Calvin's comments included, is most strange.
It is surely strongly significant that Amyraut's great adversary at his trial at Alencon in 1637, J. M. de Langle, in writing to Andre Rivet in 1641, says about Amyraut that "he in no way deviates from the views of Calvin," (F. P. van Stam, 1988:169), at least in their understanding of predestination. It is equally unlikely that Amyraut would deviate from Calvin in his views on the atonement, a fair deduction, I think. Rivet adds with great pleasure that Amyraut's book is "a very learned and well composed study ... You have given a thorough defense of Calvin," (F P van Stam, 1988:170).
It is very sad and disappointing that this book is but a rehash of the old worn rhetoric, no attempt being made to advance our understanding of what lies at the very heart of the Gospel - Christ's death for the sins of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment