W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

 

 

Chapter 2

DEVELOPMENTS

 

Westminster Theological Seminary

This whole matter at last proceeded to the Lord's leading me to Westminster Theological Seminary, an independent Presbyterian one in the USA.  where a similar rupture of clergy from the apostasising body, The Presbyterian Church in the USA, had led to eviction for some of them, also. Since they were ordained, it was called an 'unfrocking', rather a shocking parody of the reality. Since the issues were sharp, public and well-known, in the mercy of God, they were able to form an independent seminary, and I was to be their first Australian student. Later more were to follow.

There, at this independent seminary in Philadelphia,  I met a delightful chap, Professor E.J. Young, whose sanity and scholarship, balance, wit and wisdom were such a joy after the turmoil of oppressive, aggressive, suppressive opinion-making which had preceded this deliverance, when one was yet in Australia. It appeared that he was regarded at that time, as the foremost conservative Old Testament scholar in the world. His knowledge in language in particular, was vast. He would sometimes complete some point, and then begin to peregrinate from side to side in the front of the Classroom, make some moral or ethical reflection, and these were splendid times of mellow wisdom.

We did not agree however in all things. Thus in the millenial area, there was a difference; but this appeared small in terms of the total reprobation of significant portions of the Old Testament statements which had been propounded in Class in Melbourne. Furthermore, the Professor actually praised my presentation in Class, on a point involving this very field, although it was not his own position.

This was a staggering alteration of approach, at the personal level. Indeed, at a point where I had to counter a claim he had made relative to Amos 9, from the text itself, instead of reacting in wrath, he graciously declared, 'You have a gift!' One of the students, with that candour one sometimes sees, then volunteered the thought, 'You'll be right!" This meant with just a little touch of humour, that since Westminster Seminary has a great emphasis on having relevant gifts, solid and sober things for service, this identification by the Professor was a solid thing. It augured well. The whole air of the thing was pleasant, congenial and almost always with very few exceptions, built on goodwill with the Staff.

Equally, a New Testament Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, John Skilton proved a most sensitive and skilled teacher in his field, and in his Class came one of my First Class Honours (others being in Christian Apologetics and Public Speaking). This Bachelor of Divinity course, designed as a residue after the time spent at Ormond College, in Melbourne, took some 16 more months, over 3 semesters,  to complete. This Professor had an extraordinary gift of much grace, and tended to draw out of one, better work with more relish than ever!

With this, there were two other features here of interest. One concerned Professor John Murray, a most estimable gentleman, whose strong Calvinism met in me a resistance on one point, the love of God for those who would eventually be lost. Citing Colossians 1:19ff., and given 5 minutes to speak, I gave the challenge. Calvinism on that point was simply wrong. That presentation in Class was never answered. How could it be ? The Bible is quite categorical at this point.

To be sure, Calvin was right on his 5 points, narrowly conceived, but in the total biblical context they are presented in a way which is demissive of certain aspects of the Bible

(cf. The  Glow of Predestinative Power Ch. 4,
Christ's Ineffable Peace and Grace Ch. 2,
Great Execrations ... , Chs.   7 and   9,
The Christian Pilgrimage Ch. 3,
Celestial Harmony for the Terrestrial Host Ch. 2,
Anguish, Ecstasy and the Mastery of the Messiah Ch. 8,
Deity and Design ... Section 10),

and nothing can alter that. He says one thing; the Bible says another. It is not enough to meet most biblical texts on an issue; you must meet ALL. Less is inadequate. On the false instruction on the occasion noted at Westminster, see Question and Answer Ch. 7.

The stated good pleasure of God before heaven and earth, as shown in Colossians 1, is not to be interpreted as NOT being such a disposition. What He says is His purpose is not to be construed as NOT His purpose. What is the stated scope in heaven and on earth of His good pleasure for reconciliation, is not to be made to mean what it is not. We do not hear from God in order to select the desirable, or what conforms to our preconceptions. What is written is the criterion, and what is to interpret it has as a formal and final duty, this, to utilise and to be governed by ALL of it, without favour or organisational tilt, preferential clinch or philosophical simplification.

This testimony, unanswered in its point from the Bible, in the Class on theology at Westminster Seminary, before the Theology Professor, remained as it remains for that seminary and those who follow that particular approach. It is sad that Calvinism, which has done an enormous amount of good through Calvin's genius and perception, has been taken by many in a way FORBIDDEN in the Bible (I Cor. 3): that is, as a whole system to be adhered to, and used as a name for one's position. If "I of Paul" is not an apt or permissible approach, how much less "I of Calvin". It was the word of God THROUGH this or that party which is commissioned, not the party in himself.

Where it is NOT the word of God as such which is in view, then the criterion for ANY party is still that same word. What joy is conveyed WHEN the word of God is used as it is written, not as it is smitten! (cf. Light of Dawn Ch. 1). Even an apostle can be rebuked by an apostle in public (Galatians 2:14), but the word of God through his instruments, this can be rebuked by none! (cf. Isaiah 8:20). God is not built on men, but men are built on God. Christ as a man was also God as a man, and hence had the power of God and the irreproachability as Messiah (I Timothy 3:16, John 8:58, 12:48-50, 8:46).

If faults were to be ignored, and a man's position and gift to become the criterion, not only would the scriptural command against this use of a man's name in this manner be broken, but faults would be in danger of being sanctioned, for these occur at some point  in nearly every theological presentation somewhere (thus Luther had a few problems of a rather extreme kind with the Jews, Wesley with predestination, though he was goaded by the extremities in presenting it, which he seems to have met in his associations with others). As the above 7 references show clearly, harmony is possible only when the egregious, the unwarranted additions of this or that system are added to scripture; without them, its harmony is intense and composed, and its beauty is systematic as well as brilliant (cf. Anguish, Ecstasy and the Mastery of the Messiah Ch. 8).

While we are still in view of Professor Murray, an anecdote concerning him is of interest. On one occasion, I had given a youth address in the local Orthodox Presbyterian Church. It was on the topic of miraculous spiritual healing, with many cases and scriptural background. Since that body was not strong on this topic, preferring to localise it in the main to apostolic times, in the manner of B.B. Warfield, though this is not entirely warranted, there was some whirling of currents! However it went well. A short time later I seemed to get some sort of virus, possibly a mini-influenza. An event then occurred, impossible to forget.

With a few students about, John Murray entered my room with thermometer. My temperature had to be taken, presumably in order to put to rest (or otherwise) any thought that I might have been expecting some divine healing for such a mini-malady, and still be in some medical danger. The temperature being satisfactory or within bounds, the problem vanished. His practical concern, however, was a highlight, since he had been in the Black Watch, lost an eye, and had an intensely sober mien. Such were some of the joys in my foreign 'service'.

 

THE WORD OF GOD IS PURE, SEVEN TIMES REFINED
but how did MAN ACT ?

However, let us return to the question of Calvinism (which is just one example of an -ism having a forbidden place), and the dangers of truncating scripture in the light of someone's excellent presentation on a complex and deep issue such as predestination. It is then that a good thing can become a bane, since it is made critical of the topic, not a contribution, and that tends to become normative which should be ancillary at best.

It not man but GOD who is perfect; it is not the system of man but that of God's presentation which is to be without qualification endorsed. Following a brilliant light of learning is good to the extent that it is not in the name of the speaker but of the truth where and when uttered, that one acts.

Teaching must ALWAYS be under the protection and inspection, at every point and in every regard, of the word of God, the Bible, not as a collection of errors amid truth; it is the word of God not of man which is the sword which cuts. If indeed this biblical counsel had been followed as in I Corinthians 3, much sadness would have been avoided; for when one follows a fallible champion, then the opposition which may arise, can become inveterate and extreme, and tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee can do inglorious battle.

It is apparently in the very intent of God, as it is certainly in the historical result, that however great any man's gifts may be, however zealous his spirit, and however much he may be used in removing various errors, it is NEVER possible to glory in him; he is always a humble servant seeking to do the will of God. Only then can we afford to find the entire wonder of what someone does for the Church, looking to the Head, Jesus Christ Himself, and to the Bible  as criterion, not in nominal formality, but in actual fact.

It is heartening to reflect that the Presbyterian Church of Australia also saw through that particular error of Calvin, for in its Declaratory Statement, it made it clear that the Westminster Confession must be read IN THE LIGHT OF an additional statement which was made, including the stated fact that God is not willing that any should perish. This is bound as how it must be construed, not in some way which would be adverse to such a consideration (II Peter 3:9, cf. I Timothy 2 and    ).

Although this statement through Peter, cited in the Statement,  is just one part of the necessary amplification, regarding the outreach and sincerity of the love of God, even to be lost, its direction is clear; and it was statedly added for those of 'tender conscience'. It now appears to have been squashed, for the Church at a much later date, 1991, made the staggeringly insensitive and unjust claim that this Declaratory Statement added nothing to the Confession. It was precisely because it did, that it was added (cf. The Biblical Workman Ch. 8).

Alas as that very time, it also made the Confession directly a criterion of what could be permitted (TBW loc. cit.), thus becoming to a significant degree, a confessional rather than a Biblical church. The approach to the love of God here implied merely illustrates this. Traditional tediums become travesties, and authoritarian posturing by any Church violates its integrity and dulls its future, excluding many. Thus was to come to the light ? yes rather to the sadness of dusk, the Confessional Captivity of the Church, the apparent reaction to its earlier enchainment in the desolations of liberalism.

It is for all that, a thing for which to praise God that the PCA of Australia was originally in 1901 so tender-hearted and so keen on the word of God; and indeed it seems that up to 1934, it acted vigorously in defence of the faith, and this with some address. Yet it changed, and allowed what taunted truth to come freely into its midst, in theological liberalism,  as noted. After 'the ball was over', then there came disillusion with folly. Liberalism was out. !974 showed a great change of heart. It was no longer to be desired. What as a student, one had been used to show in the fifties, was now becoming almost normative!

What then ? Alas, it went from one extreme to the other. It moved next to Calvinism rather directly, and without the care of the forefathers, whose work had been so outstanding in so many ways. Indeed, a measure of a similar care was shown in the formulation,  back in 1903  of The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. As we read in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopledia of Religious Knowledge, the revision of 1903 of the Westminster Confession expressly sought to disavow certain inferences that some might draw from the teaching on God's eternal decree, and the text of that*1, or something parallel,  is to be found in various churches, or some portion of it.

That however was the direction of flow in the PC of Australia, the simple fact being this, that in company with another elder, I met with one of the chief executive officers of this Church, who advised us that (as was freely confessed at that time in the 1970s) the Church having gone astray, the question was how to bring it back. ONLY Calvinism appeared to him a way that would succeed (perhaps in numbers and votes); and so ALTHOUGH HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT, this he would endorse (one gained the impression that part of this rejection of Calvinism was this, that it required one to believe in an infallible scripture, the Bible).

Hence he would vote for it, though his conviction was otherwise in alignment. This of course horrified me, since sincerity is of the essence of faith (cf. Mark 7:7ff., Psalm 119). Good intentions so often as even in Caiaphas in an extreme case, as far as they go, do not constitute wisdom. One needs rather to seek good with goodness at hand in all things, and truth and justice and mercy. It is in the truth that mercy is to be found.

Caiaphas wanted the Jewish State to SURVIVE. That seemed to him good; but so could a firm stealing -

bullet not the body of Christ
 
bullet as was done by the Jewish incendiaries seeking crucifixion
 
bullet and the Roman Governor permitting it,
 
bullet but the bank account of someone else -
 
bullet in order to do the same.

Survival may SEEM good, but that is with the Lord, and eternal life is not snuffable. Truth is the criterion to follow, mercy is the mode, not in opposition to it, but in apposition.

Let us however return to John Murray. He presented one approach in one phase of Calvinism, I another approach, from a simply biblical perspective, this time simply by his kind and evidently sincere invitation, in Class. What then ?

Was this 'dangerous' ? It could have been for me; but John Murray was a gentleman, and had a tendency to face facts which was pure joy after so much of the contrary character met in various domains before this; and his honourable action of not seeking to contravene the truth given from the word of God, but remaining silent when answered in this way, was an event of strong ethical significance.

It  helped to show that the world was not yet entirely spiritually bankrupt in the Christian scholarship area. Truth could bind tongues. It had a sanctity of its own, from the word of God, and could not be an assignment for fiddling, but remained, as it does remain, a commission for fidelity.

This world has however made quite a good attempt at being bankrupt in its counsels, many allowing much both irrational and superficial to stand, as if truth were an embarrassment or reason irrelevant. Praise God for the upright who stand, and do not bend, as if spiritual arthritis were de rigueur, and by all means to be desired.

On another occasion, a more dismal result occurred. A young professor in preaching heard a presentation from me on the area of John 3:16 and reacted ardently for rigid and unbending Calvinism. Amazingly, with painfully inept philosophy, he brought out irrelevant texts to the major issue of the love of God towards salvation, and its height and breadth, and having decided earlier not to permit me to speak in Class, he inveighed against the presentation which I had made.

It would not have been too difficult to answer this (cf. Questions and Answers Ch. 7, as marked, cf. The World Belongs ... Ch. 11, and Bay of Retractable Islands ... Ch. 3, *1, The Glow of Predestinative Power Ch. 4, To Know God ... Ch. 1), though there was much to learn on the topic; but when one considered the sacrificial love of one's parents and the duty-bound issues that had brought me to the USA in order to proceed and seek the deliverance of the PC of Australia from its tainted fall and failure, and to proceed in the work to which one was called on a sound basis for the blessing of many, together with the possible prohibition to speak which this teacher could impose once more at any time,  there seemed little point if indeed any opportunity.

To speak in so variable and suppressible a setting it might have been to trivialise on the one hand, the beauty of the word of God, as well as to jeopardise one's duty .

Since one had already given the challenge in the theology class, one that stood, and since the text on which one spoke was in itself categorical on the major point at issue, and could only be contradicted to avoid the issue, therefore, even when another student confronted the Professor on his behaviour towards me in binding to silence and then attacking, it seemed good to leave the matter behind. IT stood. The testimony was clear and incontrovertible on the main issue. For me to be paraded so did not really matter. The word of God here simply and clearly spoke for itself. It did however appal me that here this Australian student, already assailed in Melbourne for the word of God, would be treated in such a cavalier and superficial way, the very passing of the degree brought into question, in such a seminary as this, and for so illicit a reason.

Truly, the works of man are imperfect, but as to God, HIS work is perfect. It is in fact rather wonderful that this particular instructor was the only one in the seminary who behaved in an alien, or unfeeling and staggering way toward me while I was there, using such things as ban on speech or virtual threat concerning examination; and it is this on which one would dwell. Praise the Lord for that. The great bloc of Staff were a joy and with many, it was a privilege to be there with them, in their crusade.

Indeed, this whole matter of theological subordination to intrusive philosophy with its secularities and imperception, is of the utmost importance. Accordingly, a volume in our work, In Praise of Christ Jesus, traces some 20 different areas in which this being avoided, far more harmony and scriptural precision alike, is available to the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, than often is allowed to appear. Wonderful is His word and are His works; but to man must come discretion in being bound to what is written, without additives or adulteration (Mark 7:7ff.). See also *1 below.

The volume is named, The Bay of Retractable Islands, Mission for the Mainland,
From Evanescent Extremes, Back to the Book of the Lord.

 

The other interest was Professor Cornelius van Til, whose humour and concern were of no small value. His realm of Christian Apologetics had many good features and was instructive. Thus in some 17 months, the B.A., B.D. completion of former academic preliminaries was complete.

At this point, it seems simplest to give some idea of a few of the other dramatic areas as the light of the Lord met the darkness of unbelief and an account of some of the above, in a chapter already written, and for some time on the Web. While a little is already noted above, this next Chapter will enable extension in its own mode. It was written in 1997, and now it has some adjustments to meet better the present purpose, without substantial change.

This which follows is substantially from Biblical Blessings, Ch. 11.

 

NOTE

*1

The relevant text of 1903 of this very large Presbyterian body, is as follows.

First, With reference to Chapter III. of the Confession of Faith: that concerning those who are saved in Christ, the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine of His love to all mankind, His gift of His Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and His readiness to bestow His saving grace on all who seek it. That concerning those who perish, the doctrine of God's eternal decree is held in harmony with the doctrine that God desires not the death of any sinner, but has provided in Christ a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all, and freely offered in the Gospel to all; that men are fully responsible for their treatment of God's gracious offer; that His decree hinders no man from accepting that offer; and that no man is condemned except on the ground of his sin.

This resolution of Old and New Presbyterian interests (the former somewhat protected in the preamble) is neither new nor unnecessary, in essence. The emphasis placed in the Bible is not possible to lose, being so often repeated in so many ways, over so long a period. Spurgeon's thought on the topic is quite pithy (as cited in Appendix I). However the PC in Australia has removed anything to transform into scriptural reality, the error of Calvin, and suppressed the new amplitude as in the USA, as in the PC of Australia in its Constitution of 1901, as in the Bible Presbyterian Church in the 1930s, by its nullification of the provision at first made.

An error is one thing; a retrogression into one, alas, and it is a great grief, is quite another.

In such a case, to evidence the reality is one step in a hoped for reformation back to the point of origin, in 1901, to the Bible of vast date in ALL of its declarations, away from this partiality.

Slowness to correct was also seen rather broadly in the 1970s. Thus in conversation with the Church's legal procurator in this period, one pointed out that there was need for a restoration more generally of biblical fidelity. He, a conservative, agreed in principle, while declared that nothing could be done. Look, he asserted, at the PC US, and how it had failed to keep the line (in the early 1900s). It went on its rank way.

That, I replied, was due to failure to exercise discipline against the Auburn Affirmationists so as to apply the standards, rather than deviate or allow the promotion of deviation from them, as happened. Already, one pointed out, the Church in Australia has lost some two thirds of itself to a Uniting Church (which was and is of a thoroughly different creed and ambit, not even nominally holding to the infallible scripture); how much more damage is to be suffered while stark contradiction of the Bible is suffered!

Alas and alas, norms and forms, traditions and agreements do not suffer the word of God to this day to have its sway. A narrowing and constricting confessionalism comports with laxity on female elders which is a political and not a theological consideration. ALL being the same is not the point in the distribution of gifts and responsibilities, for these are varied by nature (Romans 12). Female counsellors in line with the deaconess concept is scriptural, functional and to be desired. When tradition (however recent) and desire mix, and deity is unmixed, you have precisely the sort of consolidated confusion which so often passes for Church work (cf. Assault on Timothy, The Biblical Workman Ch. 8, Questions and Answers  7, as marked, Appendix 1 infra, Christ Incomparable, Lord Indomitable Epilogue).

Hence is there a weakening, just as in the day of Christ (Mark 7:7ff.). When the very love of God, moreover, is delimited where He does the opposite, the odour is rank, and the ranks are misled.

This is but one of the extremes which abort elements of the word of God, and produce needless disharmony. On this, see The Bay of Retractable Islands, Mission for the Mainland, From Evanescent Extremes, Back to the Book of the Lord.