No New Ideas from Princeton
In Boettner’s introduction to the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (RDP), he claims he isn’t teaching anything new:
A.A. Hodge makes a similar claim regarding Charles Hodge:
This is basically a claim that Calvinism is taught in the bible. Calvinism becomes not just a system of reconciling scripture, but the very system itself is taught in scripture. That’s a high standard.
I have little hesitation in saying limited atonement is unbiblical; same for irresistible grace. But I am far less confident in saying unconditional election is unbiblical. Many of my views on election and predestination are deducted from other scriptural truths [rather than direct scriptural statements]. But because I can see myself in there interpreting the scriptures, I must admit I could be wrong. I don’t want to elevate my interpretation of scripture to the level of scripture. So, for now, I will only say it’s more likely than not that election is conditional.
My assessment of Calvinism, based on my study of scripture so far, is that it’s an interpretation of scripture, rather than a teaching of scripture. As I move into RDP, through God’s grace, I will 1) lay aside my own preconceptions, and 2) hold Calvinism to the highest possible standard [i.e. not just that Calvinism can be reconciled with the word of God, but that it’s expressly taught by the word of God].
The purpose of this book is not to set forth a new system of theological thought, but to give a re-statement to that great system which is known as the Reformed Faith or Calvinism, and to show that this is beyond all doubt the teaching of the Bible and of reason. (link)
A.A. Hodge makes a similar claim regarding Charles Hodge:
On the day of his semi-centennial celebration, he turned with a beautiful simplicity to his brethren and said that "Princeton had never been charged with originating a new idea." To his mind this was a high distinction. It is mind that has made Princeton a synonym for greatness, but it was mind that feared God and never dared to originate what He had not taught. (link)
This is basically a claim that Calvinism is taught in the bible. Calvinism becomes not just a system of reconciling scripture, but the very system itself is taught in scripture. That’s a high standard.
I have little hesitation in saying limited atonement is unbiblical; same for irresistible grace. But I am far less confident in saying unconditional election is unbiblical. Many of my views on election and predestination are deducted from other scriptural truths [rather than direct scriptural statements]. But because I can see myself in there interpreting the scriptures, I must admit I could be wrong. I don’t want to elevate my interpretation of scripture to the level of scripture. So, for now, I will only say it’s more likely than not that election is conditional.
My assessment of Calvinism, based on my study of scripture so far, is that it’s an interpretation of scripture, rather than a teaching of scripture. As I move into RDP, through God’s grace, I will 1) lay aside my own preconceptions, and 2) hold Calvinism to the highest possible standard [i.e. not just that Calvinism can be reconciled with the word of God, but that it’s expressly taught by the word of God].
Comments
Go to Anthony Hoekema's Saved by Grace for a much better one-volume survey. And I've heard good things about J. V. Fesko's recently released Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine. Plus, Fesko went to Aberdeen, my alma mater.
I enjoy your blog, and I especially appreciate the non-polemical and respectful manner you handle the issues.
"....So, for now, I will only say it’s more likely than not that election is conditional...."
I agree!
Why?
Because of verses like this that opens the door in my mind to agree with what you wrote:
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.
or
Rev 2:16 Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.
or
Rev 2:21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works,
or
Rev 3:3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.
or
Rev 3:19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.
Now, I have a question for you in light of these further verses,
Rev 9:20 The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk,
Rev 9:21 nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their sexual immorality or their thefts.
and
Rev 16:9 They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory.
and
Rev 16:11 and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.
Is God applying a "different" standard to both groups, the Churches of Revelations 2 and 3, and those outside the Churches, Revelation 9 and 16?
I am surprised by your comments on Boettner, because I have always heard of RDP as a well respected Calvinist work. Hum... this is a dilemma. I don't want to spend time on someone who could easily be dismissed as "not the Calvinist view". I might get a copy of Saved by Grace, but since it's not online, I wouldn't be able to link back to the source for additional context. Perhaps I should pick someone else. Turretin would be good, but his work isn’t available online either. Do you know of anyone who would be good? I am looking for someone that is:
A) Dead
B) Available online
C) Representative of Calvinism
D) Detailed enough to be engaging
E) Solid on exegesis
Thanks for the encouraging words and helpful advice.
God be with you,
Dan
Turretin would indeed be good, though a little boring. As for online works, I'd recommend Herman Bavinck's essay on Supralapsariansim and Infralapsarianism. Bavinck has enjoyed something of a revival of late, thanks to the translation of his 4-volume Reformed Dogmatics. If you want a book-length survey of Reformed theology, you can't go wrong with Ursinus' Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (available in pdf, txt, and more). Ursinus was the principle author of the Heidelberg Catechism, and his commentary on it was one of the first and most influential Reformed works.
If you haven't come across it already, I'm sure you would be interested in the blog, Calvin and Calvinism, which has done extensive work on locating "moderate" (anti-hyper) Calvinism in the Reformed tradition, especially on the universal love of God, and pretty well demonstrating that this is the mainstream tradition of Reformed thought.
Thank for the recommendations. That’s the second recent recommendation I have had on Bavnick, so maybe I will check him out first. I have read some of Calvin and Calvinism and appreciate his research into primary sources.
I will also see if I can get my hands on Barth’s critique of Boettner, as it sounds interesting.
God be with you,
Dan
I don't think God is applying different standards. All men need to repent of their sins. Ruther it’s a matter of timing.
God be with you,
Dan
It's not a waste of time. One group of Calvinists may like RDP, while another group may not. If the Majority like RDP then go with RDP.
You can deal with what other Calvinists like later.
I know Calvinists that don't like R.C. Sproul!!! But I also know Calvinists that love him. So whatever you do........it will never be a waste of time.
JNORM888
I hear ya, and RDP is still on the table, but there's got to be somebody that all Calvinist's accept (even if I have to blog through Calvin). :-)
God be with you,
Dan