Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism (2025)

The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism(1)

The Covenant Reformed Fellowship in Northern Ireland has called to myattention a recently published book by Scottish Presbyterian theologianDonald Macleod. It was suggested that it would be helpful for the witnessof that group to the Reformed faith in the British Isles if I would commenton the book. The reason is that the book promotes the doctrine of commongrace and attacks the doctrine of sovereign, particular grace confessedby the Protestant Reformed Churches.
The author is professor of systematic theology in the Free Church ofScotland College in Edinburgh. An influential theologian and churchman,he is a leading representative of contemporary Presbyterianism in Scotland.
The book is titled, Behold Your God (Christian FocusPublications Ltd., 1990 -- hereafter, BYG). It is a treatmentof the attributes of God. It is also an ardent defense of the doctrineof common grace. Three of the book's sixteen chapters are expressly devotedto the explanation, defense, and advocacy of a common grace of God. A fourthchapter, the last, enthusiastically applies the theory of common graceto the saving love of God in Jesus Christ, to Christ's atoning death, andto the call of the gospel.
In the course of his defense of common grace, Macleod assails the theologyof Herman Hoeksema. Twice he charges Hoeksema with blasphemy. Hoeksema'steaching that God governs the powers of sin, death, and the curse by Hisprovidence, so that they "are not powers outside Him and apart from Him,which He must restrain" by a common grace, is "virtually blasphemous" (p.131). Similarly, the teaching of Hoeksema that God is love in Himself inthat He loves Himself as the highest good is "well-nigh blasphemous speculation"(p. 150).
In every respect, the defense of common grace in BYGis weak, pitifully so in most cases. It is a small comfort to the opponentof common grace that if common grace in Scottish Presbyterianism restson the foundations laid in this book the fortunes of the doctrine are bleak.

Misleading Quotation of Calvin

Calvin is quoted from the Institutes, 2.3.3 to prove "ageneral divine restraint placed upon human depravity" (p. 117). What thereader is not told, but may discover for himself by reading the entiresection, is that Calvin is teaching God's restraint of wicked men byHis providence. The section concludes:

Thus God, by His providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventingit from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure.

The common grace defended by Macleod restrains sin as an internal operationof the Holy Spirit upon the heart of the unregenerate that keeps him frombeing totally depraved and that makes him somewhat pure. It is this towhich the Protestant Reformed Churches are opposed as the plainest denialof the Reformed doctrine of total depravity.
The controversy over common grace has nothing whatever to do with God'srestraint of the open out-breaking of sin by His providence. With the BelgicConfession in Article 36, the PRC confess that God restrains "the dissolutenessof men" by means of the civil magistrates. There is, however, a qualitativedifference between the restraint caused by the policeman with his gun atthe ready and a restraint supposedly caused by a purifying work of theHoly Spirit on the heart of the unregenerate.

Astounding Appeal to Psalm 73

In one of the most astonishing instances of biblical reference and interpretationin all the history of the defense of common grace, Macleod appeals to Psalm 73 in support of his contention that the prosperity of the wicked is dueto God's grace to them and must be viewed as divine blessing (pp. 118,119). If only the defenders of common grace would seriously take this passageinto account in their thinking on the subject of the good gifts of Godto the reprobate ungodly in time! The PRC would gladly rest the determinationof the entire common grace controversy on this one passage.
The Psalm demands that the present prosperity of the wicked be viewedin light of the eternity to which it leads.
"... then understood I their end. Surely thou didst set them in slipperyplaces: thou castedst them down into destruction. How are they broughtinto desolation ..." (vss. 17-22).
Is it a favorable attitude of God towards the wicked that sets themin slippery places with their prosperity to slide smoothly into eternalhell? Is the abundance of earthly things that constitutes God's castingof the ungodly into destruction a blessing?
God spare me and my loved ones this His grace and blessing. As theEkronites cried out when the lords of the Philistines sent the lethal arkof the covenant to them, "They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us, to slay us and our people" (I Sam. 5:10), so would a sane man cry out when he was threatened with the prosperity of Psalm 73, "Godhas sent us these riches to destroy us; take them away!"
Would Macleod call it grace that sets someone in a boat on a sure coursedown the river that plunges over Niagara Falls, even though the splendidboat is loaded with dainties and fine wine? Would he call the pleasantjourney a blessing?
What is still worse about Macleod's interpretation of the prosperity of the wicked in Psalm 73 is its clear and necessary implication that thepresent affliction of God's Israel is divine curse coming to them in God'swrath. If grace is in things themselves, not only are riches and healthblessing for the ungodly but also poverty and sickness are curse for thoseof a clean heart.
The Psalmist could be thankful that God did not send him a common gracetheologian as a comforter in his affliction. Being plagued all the dayand chastened every morning, while seeing the ungodly prosper in the world,caused his feet almost to be gone and his steps nearly to slip. To havehad a common grace theologian "comfort" him by assuring him that God inthis life blesses the ungodly in His grace, while cursing the godly inHis wrath would have done the Psalmist in.
In fact, however, also the adversity of the godly must be viewed inlight of the eternity which it serves: "Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel,and afterward receive me to glory" (v. 24). Adversity as well as prosperitycomes to the child of God in this life as blessing in the favor of God,working his good. "And we know that all things work together for good tothem that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28).
The grace of God is not in earthly things. Grace is in the attitudeof God towards a man and in His covenant friendship with a man, regardlessof things: "Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou hast holden meby my right hand ... there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, andmy portion for ever" (vss. 23-26).
The truth about the temporal suffering of the beloved and elect churchis stated in the opening words of the Psalm: "Truly God is good to Israel."The truth about the temporal prosperity of the reprobate ungodly is expressedin verse 27: "For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish: thou hastdestroyed all them that go a whoring from thee."
Psalm 73 is not a passage to appeal to in support of the teaching thatthe good gifts of God to the wicked are common grace. On the contrary,the Psalm gives the deathblow to the theory.

The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism(2)

Common Grace and General Revelation

From Scottish Presbyterian Donald Macleod's book,Behold YourGod (BYG), we learn that "the primary instrument of commongrace is God's general revelation" (p. 121). In fact, the author does notmean this. For a little later he makes plain that he thinks the "primaryinstrument of common grace" to be God's special revelation, thatis, the preaching of the gospel. Macleod views the preaching of the gospelas the expression of the grace of God for all men without exception, andthis is supposed to be the highest manifestation of common grace.
Nevertheless, the Scottish theologian teaches that the knowledge ofGod that unregenerated men have from the creation is due to a favor ofGod toward these men. He teaches also that a result of this knowledge ofGod on the part of the unregenerate is the presence of good in both theindividual and society.
Laudable qualities (are) to be found in the lives of those who aretotally alienated from God (p. 117).
Through common grace God also preserves some sense of morality andreligion in human society (p. 119).
Even specifically secular states and avowedly atheistic societies stillpossess strong ethical structures (p. 121).

Macleod goes so far as to make a general revelation arising from thecommon grace of God produce a "natural theology": "If common grace enablesunregenerate men to 'see clearly' in the realm of natural theology (Romans 1:20) how much more in the realm of natural science?" (p. 139) Thus doesthe doctrine of common grace bring a Presbyterian into the murky watersof Roman Catholic theology.
It is fundamental Roman doctrine that the revelation of God in creationand history results in right, though incomplete, knowledge of God in themind of the natural man. This knowledge then becomes the meritorious stepping-stoneto a saving knowledge of God through the gospel. The basic error in Rome'steaching of "natural theology" is her denial of total depravity. The naturalman has some spiritual ability to respond positively to the revelationof God in creation. The same basic error is found in Presbyterian Macleod,as we shall see.
The biblical basis put forward for this is Romans 1:19, 20: "Becausethat which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showedit unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of theworld are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, evenhis eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
Incredibly, Macleod ignores verse 18, with which the passage begins.Verse 18 expressly attributes the revelation of God to the unregeneratedheathen in creation, not to a common grace of God but to His commonwrath: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ...." The immediateand exclusive reaction of the heathen (whether in the jungle of Africaor in the jungle of the University of Chicago) to this knowledge of Godas regards His eternal power and Godhead is that they "hold the truth inunrighteousness" (v. 18); change "the glory of the uncorruptible God intoan image ..." (v. 23); and change "the truth of God into a lie" (v. 25),not liking "to retain God in their knowledge" (v. 28). The sole purposeof God with this manifestation of Himself is "that they are without excuse"(v. 20).
In this general revelation is no grace of God but only wrath burningfrom heaven. Its effect upon the individual and society is not good, butgross evil--the evil of their perversion of the truth of God and the evilof God's avenging Himself by giving them up to ethical perversions. Thepurpose behind it is not divine favor, but awful divine justice: "in orderthat they be without excuse."
In all of the dreadful passage, Romans 1:18-32, there is no grace ofGod, only wrath; no blessing, only curse; no goodness of men, only evil.He who runs may read. This is why the apostle is not ashamed of the gospelof Christ (vss. 16, 17) and is ready to preach it also to the Gentiles(v. 15). Grace, blessing, life, and goodness come only through the gospel.
In passing, Professor Macleod hints very broadly that God's "commongrace revelation" of Himself in creation is the reason why the Presbyterianchurches should accept the current scientific theories of an earth thatis billions of years old and of the origin of all things by evolution.
He is unhappy with those Christian thinkers who are guilty of "virtuallyproscribing (unregenerate science) and invoking the fact of its unregeneratenessto justify rejection of its conclusions, especially in connection withthe theory of evolution" (p. 138). He thinks that we should repent of thefolly of the 19th century defenders of the biblical doctrine of creationwho "blundered with little preparation into the debate on cosmogony andgeology" (p. 140). In this context, Presbyterians are exhorted "cordially"to welcome "the scientific achievements of natural men" (p. 140).
The reader was alerted to this impending havoc that common grace wouldwreak on the inspiration of the opening chapters of the Bible, on the historicityof the first chapters of Genesis, and, thus, on the foundations of theChristian religion already in the fourth chapter of BYG:

We should also bear in mind that mediate creation may have involvedvery long processes; that certain records of the course of events involvedin these processes may be accessible to us today; and that these recordsmay be researched by specialists in the various scientific disciplines.There is indisputably both a theological and a palaeontological recordof the sequence of creation events and each is a legitimate subject ofhuman research (p. 44).

Common grace is doing the same damage to the fundamental doctrines ofthe inspiration of Scripture, creation, and the fall among Presbyteriansin the British Isles that it is doing among the Reformed in North America.

Assault on the Theology of Hoeksema

It is when Donald Macleod considers Herman Hoeksema's objections tocommon grace that error finds allies in misrepresentation and confusion.

World-Flight!

Professor Macleod portrays Hoeksema's opposition to common grace asthe anabaptistic and monkish penchant for world-flight:

A second objection to the doctrine of common grace (by Herman Hoeksema--DJE)is that it is inconsistent with the accursedness of creation. Accordingto this point of view, the world is exclusively evil and horrible and Christianscan have no part in it. The only course open to them is to separate fromit, create their own self-contained communities and leave secular art,politics, culture and commerce to the children of darkness (p. 126).

To the Protestant Reformed reader, this description of the ProtestantReformed objection to common grace is laughable. It needs no refutation.To the Reformed and others in the United States and Canada who are familiarwith the history of the PRC and who know the members of these churches,this attempt to answer the Protestant Reformed objection to common graceby rendering the objection absurd itself falls by the weight of its ownabsurdity.
But Macleod's book circulates in the British Isles and elsewhere inEurope where readers lack this firsthand acquaintance with the PRC andtheir people and may, therefore, suppose that the objection of the PRCto common grace actually is a form of anabaptism. Reading this descriptionof the PRC, a Scot might well imagine that the members of the PRC in NorthAmerica huddle together in their isolated communes like the old Mennonitesor the Amish of the present day.
Protestant Reformed people live in many of the largest cities, as wellas in the country. They are found in every occupation, including businessand the professions. They are active in politics. There are among themaccomplished musicians, poets, painters, and other artists. They attendthe symphony, visit the art galleries, and even occasionally take in aball game on a weekday. Their Christian schools educate their childrenin every branch of human knowledge and prepare them to live and work inNorth American society.
This way of life does not conflict with their opposition to commongrace but is in harmony with it.
The PRC do indeed regard the world as "exclusively evil and horrible."By "world" is meant the unbelievers and the system of life that they control. This is the world whose god is Satan (II Cor. 4:4); the world that lies in wickedness (I John 5:19); the world that all Christians are forbidden to love (I John 2:15). The world is "evil and horrible," spiritually andethically--exclusively "evil and horrible." Its evil is that itdoes not know, glorify, and serve God. Its evil is horrible in that the world is now exposed as having crucified the Son of God (cf. John 12:31).
From this world, God has separated Protestant Reformed Christians,with all true Christians everywhere. He has done this by the sanctifyingcall of the gospel on the basis of the cross according to eternal predestination (cf. I Pet. 2:9; Gal. 1:4; John 17:6). Protestant Reformed Christians,with all true Christians everywhere, know themselves to be called by Godto live in separation from the world: "Be ye not unequally yoked togetherwith unbelievers ... come out from among them, and be ye separate ... " (II Cor. 6:14-18).
This separation is absolute. The world has been crucified unto ProtestantReformed Christians, and Protestant Reformed Christians unto the world (Gal. 6:14). Surely this is also true of Presbyterian Christians in theBritish Isles.
But the separation is spiritual, not physical, although it can, andshould, take physical form, e.g., in not marrying an unbeliever. Physically,God wills New Testament Christians to live in and among the world. Thereason is not, however, that the world is somewhat good by virtue of commongrace. To suppose so, and teach so, is to destroy the spiritual antithesisthat must at all costs be maintained. Professor Macleod is guilty of this:"Common grace provides us with a biblical rationale for involvement inthe world" (BYG, p. 142). But the reason is that both the churchand the world must develop by means of this close contact with each other.Also, God will be glorified by a church that shines as light in the midstof darkness. Besides, it is not creation, the creatures, and the earthly ordinances that are evil (cf. I Tim. 4:1ff.).
Herman Hoeksema's objection to common grace was not an expression ofanabaptism, that is, physical world-flight. It was an expression of zealfor the antithesis, that is, spiritual world-fight. Macleod may be excusedfor not having read Hoeksema'sNiet Doopersch Maar Gereformeerd(Not Anabaptistic but Reformed), with which he may be unfamiliar.He is to be faulted, however, for ignoring what Hoeksema wrote in explanationof the antithesis in his Reformed Dogmatics (hereafter, RD),with which Macleod is quite familiar. What Hoeksema wrote concerning thechurch's attribute of holiness is typical--and crystal-clear:

For these members of the body of Christ are in the world. They haveno calling to go out of the world and to organize a colony of saints insome secluded spot. On the contrary, they must be in the world, and liveits whole life in all its relationships, in home and school and state andsociety, in labor, in industry, in business, in commerce. But in all thesedifferent relations and departments of life they are called to reveal themselvesas members of the body of Christ, the holy church, the communion of saints.They must be holy in all their walk and conversation. They are called tobe holy in the home, in the education of their children, in the state,in the relation of employer and employee, in store and office and shop,in all of life. They represent the cause of the Son of God and walk accordingto the will of their Lord Jesus Christ. This means that in the spiritual,ethical sense they can never be unequally yoked together with unbelievers(pp. 616, 617; cf. also p. 743).

To represent this urgent call to the saints as a plea for world-flightis misrepresentation.

The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism(3)

Providence and Sin

More serious is Professor Macleod's condemnation, in his book, BeholdYour God (BYG), of Hoeksema's doctrine of providence as"virtually blasphemous" (p. 131). Macleod is here commenting on Hoeksema'scriticism of common grace's deviation from the Reformed doctrine of providence.
Hoeksema is treating the question of the relation of the fall of maninto sin and death to the providence of God. He is setting forth the truththat the one purpose of God with the creation was its perfection in JesusChrist in the way of sin and grace. In this connection, Hoeksema deniesthat an original purpose of God to develop the creation through Adam wasunfortunately spoiled by the devil so that the work of Jesus Christ ismere "repair work" (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 235). Then Hoeksemawrites:

But with this same conception we can also depart from the truth ina different direction, namely, in that of common grace. According to thistheory, God has in mind the creation ordinance; and He still maintainsit: the riches of creation must be brought to light under the dominionof man. Satan meant to frustrate this purpose of God through the fall ofman. But God through common grace, by which He restrains sin and checksthe curse in creation, so that man does not become a devil or descend intohell or fall dead in paradise before the tree of life, counteracts thisattempt of the devil and maintains His original ordinance of creation,realizing His purpose. In the meantime, however, the Lord begins a newwork, through which the chief purpose of all things is realized and allthings will be reunited in Christ Jesus as their head.

Hoeksema criticizes this conception in these words:

Also this conception finds no support in Holy Writ. Besides, it iscertainly a dualistic conception: for it proceeds from the erroneous assumptionthat sin, death, and the curse, instead of being powers which God works,manifestations of His wrath, are powers outside Him and apart from Him,which He must restrain (RD, p. 236).

Macleod is severe in his condemnation of this objection to common graceas unbiblical dualism:

From a Christian point of view this is quite unacceptable; and, whenit goes the length of regarding sin as something which "God works," virtuallyblasphemous (BYG, p. 131).

Hoeksema makes plain that he does not mean that God "works" sin in thesense that God performs sin. God is not the author of sin. But sin, particularlynow the fall of Adam, is included in God's eternal counsel. God decreedthe fall. Also, God governed the fall, as He governs all the sinful deedsof men.

And the providence of God certainly implies that from the very firstbeginning to the end of the world, that is, till the return of Christ,God governs all things and guides them by His counsel unto the end He hasin view. And from the beginning to the end nothing ever occurs in all theworld which does not happen according to the counsel of the Most High (RD,p. 236).

Hoeksema is explaining the Reformed doctrine of providence. TheReformed doctrine of providence denies the existence and operation of admittedlyhostile powers operating apart from God's sovereign decree and sovereigngovernment, needing, therefore, to be restrained by a common grace.
Hoeksema is applying the Reformed doctrine of providence to the vitaltruth of the goal of God with creation and history. The Reformed doctrineof providence, thus applied to creation and history, affirms the express teaching of the Bible in Ephesians 1:9, 10; in Colossians 1:13-20; andin other places, that God's one purpose with creation and history was,is, and shall be Christ as head of the redeemed church. God has no purposewith creation, that He is now realizing by common grace, alongside thispurpose.
Macleod sourly dismisses this view of world-history as "a thorough-goingmonism" (BYG, p. 131). In fact, it is the Reformed faith's unique,glorious "philosophy of history." It is also biblical: "All things werecreated by him, and for him (Jesus Christ): And he is before all things,and by him all things consist.... For it pleased the Father that in himshould all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of hiscross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven" (Col. 1:16-20).
The objection of the Scottish Presbyterian to Hoeksema's use of theword, "works," to describe God's sovereign control of sin, death, and thecurse to serve His one purpose in Christ should disappear as soon as Macleodrealizes that "works" refers to the decree and power of divine providence.To teach this is not blasphemy.
Or was Martin Luther a blasphemer when he wrote that "since God movesand works all in all, He moves and works of necessity even in Satan andthe ungodly. . . . Here you see that when God works in and by evil men,evil deeds result; yet God, though He does evil by means of evil men, cannotact evilly Himself, for He is good, and cannot do evil . . . ."?
And did the German Reformer blaspheme when, a little later in the samebook, he wrote, concerning the inclusion of the fact of sin in the decreeof God:

If God foreknew that Judas would be a traitor, Judas became a traitorof necessity, and it was not in the power of Judas or of any creature toact differently, or to change his will, from that which God had foreseen.It is true that Judas acted willingly, and not under compulsion, but hiswilling was the work of God, brought into being by His omnipotence, likeeverything else (The Bondage of the Will, tr. J. I. Packer and O.R. Johnston, James Clarke & Co., Ltd., 1957, pp. 203ff.)?

Did John Calvin blaspheme, in his great work, "A Defence of the SecretProvidence of God by which He Executes His Eternal Decrees being a Reply to the `Slanderous Reports' (Rom. 3:8) of a Certain Worthless Calumniatordirected against the Secret Providence of God," when he adopted as thevery "principle" of his view of God's government of sin the truth that"those things which are vainly or unrighteously done by man are, rightlyand righteously, the works of God!"?
Was it blasphemy of Calvin to go on to affirm that "the fall of Adamwas not by accident, nor by chance; but was ordained by the secretcounsel of God"? And was it raving blasphemy of Calvin to assert that

All who are in the least acquainted with the Scripture, know fullwell that a whole volume might be made of like passages of the Holy Scriptures,where God is made the author, as commander, of the evil and cruel deedsdone by men and nations. But it is utterly vain to spend more words upona subject so well known and self-evident (Calvin's Calvinism, tr.Henry Cole, Eerdmans, 1950, pp. 207ff.)?

Is it blasphemous of the Westminster Confession to teach concerningGod's eternal decree that

God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel ofHis own will, freely, and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass:yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offeredto the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of secondcauses taken away, but rather established (3.1).

Does the Confession require Presbyterians to blaspheme when it putson their lips this confession concerning providence:

The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness ofGod so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itselfeven to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and thatnot by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise andpowerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in amanifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulnessthereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, beingmost holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver ofsin (5.4)?

Is it blasphemy of Holy Scripture to say of Absalom's adultery with David's concubines that Jehovah did it (II Sam. 12:11, 12)? of Shimei'sgrievous curse of David that Jehovah God commanded Shimei to curse David (II Sam. 16:10)? of all the loss inflicted on Job by Satan and wicked men that "Jehovah hath taken away" (Job 1:21)? of the most heinous sin evercommitted, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, that the wicked did "whatsoeverthy (the Lord God's) hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (Acts 4:28)? It should not be overlooked in the last passage that the HolySpirit extends God's government of sin to His hand, the instrumentof working.
It is a departure from creedal Presbyterianism to teach that God stillmanages to fulfill an original purpose with the creation by restrainingantagonistic forces with common grace. To teach that heaven and hell arelocked in a titanic struggle, while denying God's providential governmentof the devil and sin, is dualism. It is dualism even though one is willingto add that "eventually, heaven will be completely triumphant" (BYG,p. 131). Christianity has renounced dualism. Heaven is completelytriumphant. Jehovah God is laughing at the enemies raging against Christ (Psalm 2). "Our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased" (Psalm 115:3).

The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism(4)

Denial of Total Depravity

Influential Scottish Presbyterian theologian Donald Macleod denies thecreedal Reformed and Presbyterian doctrine of total depravity. This isthe biblical truth that the natural man, that is, the unregenerated human,is completely sinful. Macleod denies this doctrine in his recent book,Behold Your God (BYG).
The denial of total depravity is clear, bold, and explicit:

Some unregenerate men ... (are) good (BYG, p. 130;emphasis, Macleod's).
Laudable qualities (are) to be found in the lives of those who aretotally alienated from God (BYG, p. 117).

Such is the goodness and moral excellence of these praiseworthy qualitiesin the unregenerated and in the wicked world outside of Christ, accordingto Donald Macleod, that the apostle of Christ commends them to the believerand commands the believer to think on them constantly. In what must rankas the most extravagant praise of common grace hitherto penned, Macleod ascribes the perfections of Philippians 4:8 ("whatsoever things are true,whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever thingsare pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report")to common grace and locates them in the unregenerated world.

(The objection to common grace) ignores Paul's recognition in Philippians 4:8ff that there are things of good report outside the sphere of grace(BYG, p. 127).
Paul indicates in Philippians 4:8ff that there exist, even outsidethe sphere of redemption, things which are true, righteous, honourable,praiseworthy and virtuous and which deserve the support of the Christian... (BYG, p. 129).

Christians then are to be thinking always on the excellent things inHomer; on the virtuous things in Socrates; on the just things in Romanjurisprudence; and on the lovely things in the latest novel, movie, andpiece of secular music.
If the perfections of Philippians 4:8 are indeed found in the unbelievingworld (the world judged by the Bible to be a Christ­crucifying world),the Holy Spirit of sanctification is superfluous; the judgment upon the world and all that is in it in I John 2:16 is false; and the call to separation from the world in II Corinthians 6:14ff. is unreasonable.
The truth is that the perfections of Philippians 4:8 are not foundin unregenerated men and the system of life that they control. That Paul did not think so is plain in Philippians 2:15 where he describes the worldof unregenerated men as "a crooked and perverse nation." The glorious perfections of Philippians 4:8, upon which the saints are always to be thinking, arethe perfections revealed in the gospel of Christ and found only in theholy church. As the following verse indicates, the perfections of Philippians 4:8 are "those things which ye have both learned, and received, and heard,and seen in me."
According to Macleod, however, unregenerated men, possessing these"laudable qualities," can perform works that are really good: "Fallen manremains capable of both civil good and domestic affection" (BYG,pp. 119, 120). Having posed the problem of the flat declaration in Romans 3:12 that "there is none that does good, no, not one," Macleod hedges:"The range of such statements needs to be carefully defined, however."With appeal to the Westminster Confession, 16.7, Macleod then affirms theability of the unregenerate to do works that are truly, though not "spiritually,"good:

But the unregenerate man may still be capable of works which, "forthe matter of them, may be things which God commands, and of good use bothto themselves and others" (BYG, p. 129).

These good works of the wicked occur in the sphere of theology; in thesphere of ethics; in the sphere of science; and in the sphere of art (BYG,pp. 133­142).
The cause and explanation of the good works of the man and woman outsideof Christ is common grace. In the favor that God has for every human, accordingto Professor Macleod, He works by the Holy Spirit within most, if not all,unregenerated people, preserving them from being completely depraved; makingthem virtuous with "laudable qualities"; and enabling them to do much good.

All the blessings enjoyed by the reprobate, all their laudable qualitiesand all their achievements derive ultimately from this source (namely,common grace ­­ DJE) (BYG, p. 117).

Scottish Presbyterian Donald Macleod denies the Reformed doctrine oftotal depravity. With the rare exceptions of a Judas Iscariot, a Hitler,the keepers of Auschwitz, and the men of Sodom, unregenerated men and women,although depraved to an extent, are also good (cf. BYG, pp. 128,129).

Partial Depravity

Macleod believes and teaches the doctrine of partial depravity.
In order to establish the doctrine of partial depravity as Presbyterianorthodoxy in the face of the historic, creedal Presbyterian confessionof total depravity, Macleod does three, important things. First,he redefines the English word, "total." "Total" no longer will mean `complete.'"Totally," as in "totally depraved," will no longer mean `wholly,'or 'entirely,'or `completely.' Rather, it will now mean `in every part.'
That the unregenerated man and woman are "totally depraved" merelymeans that there is depravity in every part of their being. Their mindhas some depravity or is affected somewhat by depravity. Their will hassome depravity or is somewhat affected by depravity. Their body has somedepravity or is somewhat affected by depravity. But there is also somegood in their mind, in their will, and in their body. Or, to say it differently,their mind, will, and body are also affected by good ­­ good thatcomes from God by the operation of the good and Holy Spirit in common grace.

The third objection is that the notion of common grace is inconsistentwith the doctrine of man's total depravity. According to both Scriptureand confessional theology every function of human personality is affectedby sin (BYG, p. 127).

What percentage of every function of human personality is affected bysin, Macleod does not tell us. 90%? 50%? 10%? Is the unregenerated manthen 90% good? 50%? or only 10%?
It would be interesting to see how successful this redefinition of"total" would be in everyday life. I tell my insurance agent that my houseand its furnishings were totally destroyed in a fire, but he discoversthat I mean that the damage extended somewhat to every part of the houseso that much of the house and many of the furnishings, in fact, are ingood shape.
The redefinition of "total" makes for intriguing revision of Biblehistory. Saul informs Samuel that he has totally exterminated Amalek, peopleand animals. When the prophet condemns him for disobeying the Word of Jehovah(to say nothing of lying) in that he spared Agag and the best of the beasts,Saul protests that for him "totally" means `every part of the nation.'
Peter asks Ananias and Sapphira how much of the money that they receivedfor their land they are giving to the church. They respond, "The totalamount." But just before they are to be struck dead, they inform the apostlethat to them "total" means a part of each payment that they receivedfor the land.

Partial Depravity and Free Will

The seriousness of this redefinition of "total" for the gospel of grace­­ the heart of the Reformed faith -­ appears in this, thatnow the will of the unregenerated sinner is somewhat good, or somewhataffected by good, that is, somewhat free. When this teaching is broughtinto connection with Macleod's doctrine that "the sending of preachersis an expression of God's desire that all men should be saved and thatit puts men in a position of hope by placing the possibility of faith andsalvation within their grasp" (BYG, p. 131), the result is the RomanCatholic and Arminian heresy of salvation by the free will of the sinner.
Macleod professes to oppose the heresy of free will. But his doctrinefavors it. The theory of common grace embraced by Macleod teaches an operationof the Spirit within the ungodly that makes them somewhat good. This is,as such, denial of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity. Denial oftotal depravity always and necessarily leads to affirmation of free will:The will of the natural man is able to respond positively to the gospel.And the doctrine of free will cuts the heart out of the gospel of salvation by the mercy of God (Rom. 9:16).
In this denial of total depravity is the death of confessional Calvinismin Scottish Presbyterianism.
If Professor Macleod's denial of total depravity represents the viewof contemporary Scottish Presbyterianism on the doctrine (as I suspect),Calvinism is already dead in the country that was the mother of Presbyterianism.
If Macleod's denial of total depravity is influencing Scottish Presbyterianism,Calvinism is doomed in Scotland.

The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism(5)

In his recent book, Behold Your God (BYG), prominentScottish Presbyterian theologian Donald Macleod denies the Reformed doctrineof total depravity. He denies this basic truth of Calvinism in the interestsof defending the doctrine of common grace. Macleod teaches an operationof the Holy Spirit within unregenerated men and women that makes them somewhatgood, that fills them with "laudable qualities," and that enables themto do much good in the areas of theology, ethics, science, and art.
With the exception of a few hardened evildoers (Macleod mentions JudasIscariot and Hitler), unregenerated men and women are somewhat good. Theyare somewhat good in every faculty and part of their being ­­ mind,will, affections, and body.
Professor Macleod teaches partial depravity.
The preceding editorial dealt with Macleod's attempt to harmonize histeaching with historic Calvinism by redefining "total" as 'in every part.'"Total depravity," Macleod would have us believe, merely means that theunregenerated sinner is depraved in every part of his being. But he isnot completely depraved in every part. Every part of the sinneris also somewhat good.

Partial Depravity and the Westminster Confession

A second, and still more grievous, way in which the Scottish Presbyteriandefends his un­Presbyterian doctrine of partial depravity is by misrepresentingthe teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). In support ofhis definition of "total" as meaning merely 'in every part,' Macleod appealsto the WCF, 6.2 (he gives the reference as 6.3, but this is a mistake):

By this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and communionwith God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the facultiesand parts of soul and body.

Macleod would have us suppose that the Confession here describes totaldepravity as merely a defilement of every part of man (BYG, p. 128).
The fact is that the WCF very definitely states, not merely that theunregenerated man is depraved "in all the faculties and parts of soul andbody," but that he is "wholly defiled" in every faculty and part.Every faculty, e.g., the will, and every part, e.g., the brain, of allunregenerated sinners is completely defiled. In every faculty and partis nothing else than defilement. There is no good in any faculty or partof fallen man.
Also, Professor Macleod neglects to call attention to what followsin this chapter in the WCF on total depravity:

From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed,disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil,do proceed all actual transgressions (6.4; emphasis mine, DJE).

What loophole is left to a Presbyterian through which he can introducegood into the unregenerate? Where in the creature described by the Confessionof Faith are the "laudable qualities" that Professor Macleod has discoveredin unregenerated man? How is it possible to interpret chapter six of theWCF as teaching merely defilement "in every faculty and part"?
In light of the creed's describing the condition of the unregeneratedsinner as that of death ("dead in sin, and wholly defiled," etc.),there is something absurd, something ludicrous, about the notion that thissinner is yet somewhat good and, therefore, capable of doing good works.The teaching that unregenerated men are somewhat good requires us to believe,as sound Presbyterian theology, that dead men are also somewhat alive.Indeed, the dead men are somewhat alive in every faculty and part.
Were I to assert such nonsense in the physical realm of everyday life,I would be dismissed as a fool. "My Uncle Harry is dead, and he has somelife yet in soul and body so that he is working quite actively." But inthe realm of Presbyterian and Reformed theology, this passes for greatwisdom. "The unregenerated is dead in sin, and he has some ethical lifeso that he is vigorously producing good works."
A similar misrepresentation of the Presbyterian creed as supportingpartial depravity is Macleod's mishandling of the Confession in the matterof the supposed good works of the unregenerate. He quotes a line in theWCF, 16.7 in support of his contention that the unregenerate are good andcapable of doing good:

But the unregenerate man may still be capable of works which, "forthe matter of them, may be things which God commands, and of good use bothto themselves and others" (BYG, p. 129).

The words, "for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands,and of good use both to themselves and others," are a quotation of theWCF in 16.7. But this use of the quoted words makes the Confession saythe very opposite of that which it actually is teaching in this article:

Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them,they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselvesand others: yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;nor are done in a right manner, according to the word; nor to a right end,the glory of God; they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God,or make a man meet to receive grace from God ...(my emphasis, DJE).

Macleod quotes a line of the article to teach that the unregeneratedman performs good works. The article, however, expressly states that allthe works of the unregenerate are "sinful and cannot please God," includingthose works that outwardly conform to God's law.

The Confession's Definition of a Good Work

In this article of the Westminster Confession appears the samedefinition of a good work that is found in Question 91 of the HeidelbergCatechism:

Q. But what are good works?
A. Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performed accordingto the law of God, and to his glory; and not such as are founded on ourimaginations, or the institutions of men.

According to both the Westminster Confession and the HeidelbergCatechism, a good work is one that has three characteristics. Thesecharacteristics concern source, standard, and goal. The source is faith;the standard is the law of God; and the goal is God's glory.
According to both the Westminster Confession and the HeidelbergCatechism a good work is exclusively one that has these threecharacteristics. No work that lacks these three characteristics is good.Every work that lacks these three characteristics is evil.
Christ alone is the source of good for men, and, therefore, only worksthat originate in the faith that draws from Christ are good.
The law of God is the sole standard of good, and, therefore, only worksthat conform to the command to love God and the neighbor are good.
There is none good but God, and, therefore, only works that aim atGod ­­ the Triune, holy God revealed in Scripture ­­ aregood.
This creedal definition of a good work rules out all possibility ofan unregenerated man's doing good works and judges all the works of theunregenerated to be sins.

Macleod's Definition of a Good Work

Macleod's bold solution to the problem (for he is determined to havethe unregenerated sinner perform works that are good, regardless of thePresbyterian creeds) is to propose another, different definition of a goodwork:

But if we allow that, without forgetting this higher meaning, wemay also define the good quite biblically as doing what nature teaches,showing natural affection and manifesting respect for life, property andmarriage, for duly constituted authority and for the ordinances of thechurch, then we may distinguish some unregenerate men from others as good:and go on to explain the difference as a gift of God, expressing His commongrace (BYG, pp. 129, 130).

To define "the good" differently from the WCF in 16.7 is not allowed.This definition is God's own definitive definition. Accordingly, whateveris not out of faith, according to the law of God, and to God's glory issin. If, outwardly, the deed conforms to the law's precept and if, seemingly,it serves humanity well, it is only a glittering sin. Augustine calledsuch deeds of the ungodly "glittering vices"; the Puritans called them"painted sins."

How Will Presbyterians Define a Good Work?

Every Presbyterian inclined to accept Macleod's novel definition ofa good work should reckon with three facts: 1)The new definition contradictsthe definition of the WCF; 2) the devising of good works by Professor Macleodis forbidden by the WCF in the opening article of chapter sixteen: "Goodworks are only such as God hath commanded in his holy word, and not suchas, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal,or upon any pretence of good intention"; and 3) there is absolutely nocreedal proof of any production of good works in unregenerated men by theHoly Spirit by means of a "common grace."
The Presbyterian creeds, like the Reformed creeds, teach the totaldepravity of unregenerated men. The creeds themselves make plain that "total"means 'complete' and 'entire.' From this total depravity proceeds not onegood work, but only "all actual transgressions" (WCF, 6.4).
Which definition of a good work do Scottish Presbyterians accept? Thatof the Westminster Confession or that of Donald Macleod?
Their answer will indicate whether they confess total or partial depravity.

The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism(6)

The recent book, Behold Your God (BYG), by ScottishPresbyterian theologian Donald Macleod is a passionate plea for the doctrineof common grace. Three of the sixteen chapters are devoted to common graceexplicitly. A fourth consists of the application of common grace to thesaving will of God and the atonement of the cross.
Macleod's defense of common grace involves the denial of the Reformeddoctrine of total depravity. For common grace keeps the unregenerated frombeing completely defiled by sin.
The Presbyterian theologian defends his denial of total depravity inthree ways. First, he redefines "total" to mean merely 'in every part.'Fallen men are depraved "in every part," but they are not completely depravedin every part. Second, he misrepresents the Westminster Confession of Faithto make it teach both that "total depravity" is merely depravity 'in everypart' and that unregenerated sinners are capable of performing good works.
We have examined these attempts to vindicate the denial of total depravityas orthodox Presbyterianism in previous editorials.

"Absolute Depravity" and "Total Depravity"

A third way in which Professor Macleod tries to establish the denialof total depravity effected by his doctrine of common grace is the inventionof a distinction between "total depravity" and "absolute depravity." Accordingto Macleod, the doctrine of "total depravity" is the teaching that unregeneratedsinners are defiled in every part of their being, although they also remainsomewhat good in every part of their being by virtue of common grace. Thedoctrine of "absolute depravity," on the other hand, is the teaching thatevery unregenerated sinner is as developed and hardened in evil as he canpossibly be.
The former, of course, is the teaching of Professor Macleod. He wouldlike the reader to think that this is also the teaching of the Presbyterianconfessions. The latter ­­ absolute depravity ­­ is allegedlythe strange, foolish teaching of Herman Hoeksema and of the ProtestantReformed Churches.
The argument of Professor Macleod is simple. Since these are the twoalternatives and since "absolute depravity" is obviously false, it mustbe Presbyterian to hold that the unregenerated sinner is merely defiledin every part of his being, although remaining also somewhat good in everypart of his being because of common grace.
The refutation of the argument of Professor Macleod is also simple.There is a third alternative: All unregenerated sinners are completelydefiled by sin in every part of their being, although there are degreesof wickedness among them and although there is development of wickednessboth in the individual and in society.
Because this distinction between total and absolute depravity is widespreadamong those who propound common grace and because it is commonly used bythem to falsify the theology of the PRC (which is not so important) andto corrupt the Reformed doctrine of total depravity (which is very important),we may profitably allow Professor Macleod to carry on at length:

Theologians who ... advocated the doctrine of common grace ... distinguishedbetween total depravity ("wholly defiled in all the faculties and partsof soul and body," Westminster Confession, VI.III) and absolutedepravity. Hoeksema is well aware of the distinction (Reformed Dogmatics,p. 252) but denies that it can give any help to the exponents of the ideaof common grace. It is difficult to follow him in this. Absolute depravitymeans such a degree of hostility to God as admits of no progression orvariation. This is not the way the Bible portrays man. Human beings arenot devils. Nor is any man so advanced in evil that he could not possiblybecome worse. Nor again does human society present a uniform level of degradationand depravity. It would be absurd to minimize, let alone deny, the differencebetween Hitler and Gandhi, Pharaoh and George Washington, Judas Iscariot and Pilate's wife. It would be equally absurd to maintain that Romans 1:18­32gives an accurate description of human society in every age and every place.The theology of the Reformation was well aware that "some sins in themselves,and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight ofGod than others" (Shorter Catechism, Answer 83). To conceive ofall men as standing together on a flat, undifferentiated moral plateauis to exclude from theology altogether the doctrine of judicial abandonment.All men are depraved. But not all men are "hardened" or "given over toa reprobate mind." Not every prison is an Auschwitz or every city a Sodom.Many men are capable of natural affection, fidelity and even of heroicself­sacrifice. The doctrine of common grace recognizes this and insists that such qualities are gifts from "the Father of lights" (James 1:17)(BYG, pp. 128, 129).

"Absolute Depravity" an Absolute Fiction

The opening statement in the lengthy paragraph quoted above is true:The distinction between "total depravity" and "absolute depravity" is theinvention of the theologians who have advocated common grace. They inventedit in order to discredit Hoeksema's teaching of total depravity and inorder to promote their own denial of total depravity in the doctrine ofcommon grace.
The distinction did not originate with Herman Hoeksema. He did notaccept "absolute depravity" as the description of his doctrine of the depravityof the natural man. He positively rejected the notion of "absolute depravity,"that is, as Macleod describes it, "such a degree of hostility to God asadmits of no progression or variation."
The PRC today repudiate the distinction between "total depravity" and"absolute depravity." It is not biblical. It is not confessional. It isnot part of the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition. It is not even usefulfor understanding the real issue at stake in the controversy over the spiritualcondition of fallen man. The great conflict for the Reformed faith in historyhas not been between "total depravity" and "absolute depravity." In fact,no one has ever taught "absolute depravity." "Absolute depravity" is afiction. It exists only in the minds of the advocates of common grace.

The Real Distinction: Total or Partial Depravity

There is one important distinction to be made as regards the spiritualcondition of unregenerated man. This is the distinction between "totaldepravity" and "partial depravity." "Total depravity" is the doctrine offallen man's complete sinfulness without any good whatever. "Partial depravity"is the doctrine of fallen man's wickedness in all parts of his being whileretaining some good in all parts as well, whether because of a limitedfall or because of the operation of common grace.
The PRC confess total depravity.
Total depravity holds that all sinners are alike completely wickedand wholly devoid of all good. As respects the extent of inheritedcorruption, there is no difference among unregenerated sinners. Gandhiwas as completely sinful as Hitler. On the supposition that George Washingtonwas unregenerated, he lacked all goodness as much as did Pharaoh. The Bible says so: "There is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12).

Total Depravity and Development of Sin

But it is perfectly in harmony with the doctrine of total depravity,and certainly the truth, that one sinner is worse than another, even asone sin is worse than another sin. The apostate from the faith is far more wicked than the pagan (cf. Matt. 11:20­24). The professing Christian who abandons his wife and family is worse than an unbeliever (I Tim. 5:8).Both the unregenerated husband who faithfully loves his own wife and theunregenerated husband who commits adultery against his wife are completelydepraved. Both the faithful love and the adultery are sin, and nothingbut sin. But the adultery is worse sin, and the punishment of the adultererwill be more severe.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism says that "some sins ... are moreheinous in the sight of God than others" (Q. 83). It does not say, or imply,that some deeds of the unregenerate are good in the sight of God.
Degrees of wickedness among unregenerated persons are to be explainedin terms of greater and lesser knowledge; the circumstances of their lives;their own more or less intense development of their sinfulness; and thedegree to which God hardens them and gives them over to their reprobatemind.
The spiritual difference among the unregenerated is a difference indegree of wickedness. It is not a difference in extent of goodness.
The doctrine of total depravity, as held by Herman Hoeksema and thePRC (and by the Reformed and Presbyterian creeds), does surely allow for"progression or variation." There is development of sin in both individualand society. But this development is not development from partial depravityto complete depravity, that is, from more goodness to less goodness orno goodness at all. Rather, it is development of sin.
The completely depraved person, in whom is no good from birth, developsand works out all the possibilities of his depravity during his lifetime,according to his circumstances. Baby Judas was as completely depraved aswas adult Judas at the moment that he betrayed Jesus. But the adult traitorhad made "progress" in the intensity and expression of his depravity.
The development of sin in the world throughout history is similar.Things do not go from good to bad but from bad to worse. What is now takingplace in Western civilization is not the becoming bad of a society thatformerly was somewhat good but the increase of lawlessness.
The figure that accurately pictures the development of sin in the unregeneratedsinner and in the world outside of Christ is not that of the sick man whogradually dies. But it is that of the dead man who gradually decays andstinks more and more.
As for Professor Macleod's objection that the doctrine of total, thatis, complete, depravity makes devils out of men, the answer is at hand.I suppose that even Professor Macleod would acknowledge that unregeneratedmen and women in hell are at last completely depraved. No longer is therean operation of common grace within them causing them to be somewhat goodin every faculty and part, filling them with "laudable qualities," andenabling them to perform good works in theology, ethics, science, and art.At long last, they are dead in sin. But surely Professor Macleod wouldadmit that these wretched persons are still humans, and not devils.
Man always remains man. He remains man when he falls into spiritualdeath. But now he is totally depraved man.
All of Scottish Presbyterian Macleod's arguments in support of hisdoctrine of partial depravity and against the Reformed doctrine of totaldepravity fail.
The doctrine of total depravity stands: Unregenerated men and womenare completely sinful, devoid of any good. All of them. All of us, by nature.
This doctrine is fundamental. It is fundamental to the whole systemof truth known as Calvinism. Deny this doctrine, and the whole of Calvinismis demolished.
The doctrine is basic to the gospel of grace. Total depravity is thejudgment ­­ the searing, humbling, offensive judgment ­­of the gospel upon us in the interests of the good news of sovereign mercy in the cross of God Incarnate (Rom. 1:16­3:30). Deny it, and the entiregospel is subverted.
But this is the present position of Professor Macleod and, I fear,of Scottish Presbyterianism.
Because of the doctrine of common grace.

The Death of Confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism(7)

Our Reformed readers may need to be informed that it is the glory ofconfessional Presbyterianism that it boldly proclaims the particular loveof God. The eternal source of this particular love is God's decree of predestination.The revelation of this particular love is the definite, limited atonementof the cross of Jesus Christ. The realization of this particular love ­­its being shed abroad in the hearts of the elect ­­ is the callof the gospel, effectual and irresistible in the power of the Holy Spirit.
The glory of confessional Presbyterianism is the same as the gloryof the creedal Reformed faith. The Presbyterianism of the Westminster Standardsand the Reformed faith of the "Three Forms of Unity" are confessional Calvinism.And the glory of confessional Calvinism is the glory of God in the sovereigntyof His particular love.
Confessional Presbyterianism teaches that God loves and wills to savethe elect; that Christ died for the elect; and that the Spirit calls theelect through the gospel unto saving union with Christ. Confessional Presbyterianismalso explicitly teaches that God has eternally ordained others to damnationin hatred; that Christ did not die for these reprobate; and that the Spiritdeliberately refuses to call the reprobate unto eternal life.
Our Presbyterian readers already know this.
The eternal particularity of divine love and mercy in the counsel ofpredestination is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF),3.3, 5, and 7:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some menand angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordainedto everlasting death.
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before thefoundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutablepurpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosenin Christ unto everlasting glory ....
The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchablecounsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as hepleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to passby, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praiseof his glorious justice.
In 8.5, the WCF teaches definite, particular, limited atonement:

The Lord Jesus ... hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father;and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance inthe kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.

The particular, exclusive, effectual saving work of the Spirit throughthe gospel is taught in the WCF, 10.1:

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only,he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which theyare by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ ....

This truth of the particular love of God is denied by influential ScottishPresbyterian theologian Donald Macleod in his recent book, BeholdYour God (BYG). Macleod teaches a love of God in Christand a will of God to salvation that are universal. He proclaims a deathof Christ for every sinner without exception. He defends a gracious workof the Spirit in the gospel that is directed by the Spirit to all who hear.
The doctrine of the universal, ineffectual love of God for sinners,Macleod contends, is genuine Scottish Presbyterianism.
I fear that this doctrine does indeed pass for Presbyterianism in Scotlandtoday. If so, write "Ichabod" over contemporary Scottish Presbyterianism!For the glory has departed. Macleod's doctrines of a universal love ofGod, a universal atonement, and a universal grace in the preaching soundthe death knell for confessional Calvinism in Scottish Presbyterianism.
The serpent in the Eden of Presbyterian truth was the doctrine of commongrace. In previous editorials, we saw that the doctrine of common graceled Professor Macleod to reject the doctrine of total depravity for thedoctrine of partial depravity. This same intruder has corrupted the doctrinesof predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace in the theologyof Presbyterian Macleod.
Having set forth, defended, and advocated common grace in chapters13­15 of BYG, in chapter 16 Macleod applies this favor of Godtoward all humans to the love of God for sinners in Jesus Christ. God'slove is His outstanding perfection, writes Macleod, and the love of Godis supremely revealed at Calvary. The Presbyterian theologian quotes and expounds John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his onlybegotten Son ..." (pp. 146­149). "Herein," he correctly states, "islove" (p. 149).
And then comes the vital, inescapable question:

The biblical teaching on the love of God confronts the Calvinistwith a question of real urgency: What is the extent of God's love? Whomdoes it embrace? And is it at all possible, against the background of predestination,to speak of God loving all men? (pp. 149, 150)

Macleod does not hesitate: "There must be no hesitation. The world isugly and unlovely and some of its constituents will be finally and irrevocablylost. Yet we cannot stop short of saying that God loves it." "His loveextends to those who are not yet reconciled to Him and even to those whoare never reconciled (emphasis his­­DJE)."
As Macleod makes clear in his question about the extent of God's love, a question directly linked with the love of God of John 3:16, the loveof God for all men is not merely a love that gives all men earthly gifts.It is a love that wills the salvation of all men:

Most important, God's love for the world means that He will have all men to be saved (I Timothy 2:4).... God will have all men to be savedin the sense that He has provided a salvation suited to the needs of all....Furthermore, the salvation is offered to all.... (God) has no pleasurein the death of the wicked, but longs that they should turn and live (Ezekiel 33:11) (pp. 150, 151).
This affirmation of universal love is the denial of election. Forelection is selective love.
Denial of limited atonement follows. Macleod quotes Preston withapproval: "Go and tell every man without exception that there is good newsfor him, Christ is dead for him." Christ is the Savior of every human "inthe deed of gift and grant to mankind lost." We may tell all sinners withoutexception that "Christ loves them so much that He offers to be their Saviourand pleads with them to accept Him" (pp. 152, 153).
This universal love of God revealed in the cross of Christ is expressedin the preaching of the gospel. The preaching of the gospel is an offerof salvation to all sinners expressing the love of God in Christ for themall and the desire of God to save them all.

To evoke that response (of receiving Christ Jesus as Lord ­­DJE) we may tell them that Christ loves them so much that He offers tobe their Saviour and pleads with them to accept Him. But they must come.If the offering love is spurned ­­ if the crucified Christ is rejected­­ they are lost (p. 153).
The biblical view ... is that the sending of preachers is an expressionof God's desire that all men should be saved ... (p. 131).
It is clear, then, that the love of God for all men as expressedin the free offer of Christ and His salvation is something which Reformedtheology has been at pains to conserve and even to emphasize (p. 153).

This now, apparently, is contemporary Scottish Presbyterianism: a universallove of God in Christ that fails to secure the salvation of many; a deathof Christ for all that fails to redeem many; and a grace toward all inthe preaching that fails to call many into union with Christ.
This doctrine of an ineffective universalism is directly related tothe glaring absence in the whole of Macleod's book about God of the truthof reprobation. Macleod has no place for an eternal, sovereign decree ordainingsome persons to damnation. If there is such a decree in the God whom Macleodwants us to behold, Macleod is ashamed of it and hides it from our view.But the inevitable result is universal electing love, universal atonement,and universal grace in the preaching. This is the death of the gospel ofparticular, sovereign grace confessed by Dordt and Westminster.
This doctrine of an ineffective universalism is directly related tothe glaring absence, in the whole of Macleod's book about God, of the truthof reprobation. Macleod has no place for an eternal, sovereign decree ordainingsome persons to damnation. If there is such a decree in the God whom Macleodwants us to behold, Macleod is ashamed of it and hides it from our view.But the inevitable result is universal electing love, universal atonement,and universal grace in the preaching. This is the death of the gospel ofparticular, sovereign grace confessed by Dordt and Westminster.
Professor Macleod saves us the trouble of charging that this contemporaryScottish "Presbyterianism" is nothing else than the heresy of Arminianism.He admits this himself:

Arminianism believes that God so loves all men that He has made theirsalvation possible, if only they believe. It also believes that God soloves all men that He offers them this salvation freely. The Calvinistbelieves all that and the Arminian believes nothing more (p. 154).

This may be contemporary Scottish Presbyterianism. But it isnot confessional Presbyterianism. If this theology represents Presbyterianismin Scotland at the end of the 20th century (and I have not seen one wordof protest coming out of Scotland), confessional Calvinism is dead in Scotland.
"Behold Your God"?
We confessional Presbyterians and creedally Reformed believers cannotrecognize our God in this theology.

Last modified: 08-Mar-2000