Terrified of the Decree

Rev. Martyn McGeown is terrified of the decree. He is terrified of it because he hates it. Fear and hatred go together, just as perfect love casts out all fear. If he loved the decree, then he would not be so intent on undermining it in the minds of his readers. In the previous article we saw his fear of the decree in his assault on eternal justification.¹ He actually wrote that the danger of the doctrine of eternal justification is the “extreme view that we were always saved.”² If that is a danger with regard to eternal justification, then that is a danger with regard to the whole truth of God’s decree. So now there is a Reformed minister—I use the term in the loosest possible sense—in the Protestant Reformed Churches of Herman Hoeksema who actually writes that we should not regard the truth of the decree as teaching that “we were always saved,” and he wants to be taken seriously. The appalling thing is that he is taken seriously by many in the Protestant Reformed Churches. He obviously is taken seriously by the light and un-Reformed men of the board of the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA) who gave him the position of editor of the RFPA blog, and he now defiles it with his theological pontificating. That is how far that organization and the churches that the organization represents have fallen from the truth. I say to the members of the Protestant Reformed Churches: remember and let it sink in that your ministers, elders, professors, and deacons actually think that it is an extreme view that the decree of God means that “we were always saved.” This is shocking. This is a wholesale assault not only on the doctrine of eternal justification but also on the very concept of the decree of God as a whole and on the doctrine of God, who declares the end from the beginning. I am as saved in God’s decree as I will be in my possession of salvation in everlasting life, and so are all God’s people. This terrifies Reverend McGeown. He does not want any professing Christians to think that. The reason is that he does not want them to think that they do not have to do something for their salvation. And so he goes to work to undermine the very idea of the decree.

Specifically in his series on justification, he goes to work on the doctrine of eternal justification.³ In a series of articles on justification, it is obvious that he has to mention eternal justification, but he undermines that doctrine in the mind of his audience and in so doing undermines the idea of the decree generally. Reverend McGeown does not dwell on the glory and comfort of the doctrine of eternal justification for the believer that God never beheld iniquity in him—that the believer was always saved!—and that his salvation is absolutely certain from all eternity, but Reverend McGeown spends most of his treatment of the doctrine writing about how important time is, as though anybody denied the importance of time. His opponent throughout this series is simply a figment of his imagination, one sucked out of his thumb, created out of whole cloth, an invention, a fiction, or whatever else one wants to call it. He creates this opponent out of straw and clothes it in a scarecrow’s rags in order to hide behind the mask of a valiant defender of the truth, all the while he attacks the truth and sows doubt about it in the minds of his readers.

It is really slippery. Slippery McGeown slithering around again.

Reverend McGeown bolsters his undermining of the doctrine of eternal justification—and of the whole decree of God—by trying to make it seem as though Herman Hoeksema was afraid of the doctrine too. McGeown inserts a quote from another document into the mouth of Hoeksema, as though in Hoeksema’s treatment of the doctrine he held the same view as McGeown and cautioned against overemphasizing the doctrine or somehow placing the decree of justification over against the temporal act of justification. So McGeown writes, “It must be maintained with equal firmness that we personally become partakers of this benefit only by a sincere faith.” But that quote is simply part of the Conclusions of Utrecht that Herman Hoeksema quoted. He did not single that out for emphasis, but Reverend McGeown did and tried to make it look like Herman Hoeksema singled it out too. But that is not at all the emphasis of his treatment of the doctrine. Herman Hoeksema was not afraid of the decree or of eternal justification. A truly Reformed man cannot be afraid of the doctrine of eternal justification any more than he can be afraid of God’s decree generally. If the decree of justification in eternity is open to the charge of being antinomian and is made out to be a dangerous doctrine that makes men careless and profane, then God’s decree generally is open to that same charge. Thus in one’s attack on the doctrine of eternal justification on those grounds, he also in principle attacks the whole concept of the decree of God and shows what he thinks of decretal theology. The truly Reformed man trumpets the decree and seeks to comfort God’s people with the truth of the eternal and unchanging love of God toward them, out of which he determined their salvation. The truly Reformed man seeks to comfort God’s people with the reality of that decree that they were saved, perfectly and absolutely saved, eternally and that all of their salvation is the gift of God to them in his love for them and his will for their salvation.

Thus Reverend McGeown is not only slippery, but he is also not Reformed. He certainly is not Protestant Reformed according to its historic conception of the truth. He is Arminian. He is not honestly Arminian, but he is Arminian nevertheless. Whoever attacks the decree in such a fashion as Reverend McGeown does reveals that he is Arminian, and all his other words are by that measure deception and misdirection.

His attack on the decree of God in the mind of his audience serves the purpose of his teaching justification by faith and works. Indeed, his whole series “Preaching Repentance and Forgiveness” has as its purpose to teach justification by faith and works. The specific work by which a man is justified is repentance. Reverend McGeown is really teaching justification by repentance. Remember that if one is going to hinge man’s salvation on his deeds and activities, then he needs to get rid of the decree in some shape, form, or fashion. Making the decree suspect in the minds of his readers is as good as denying it outright. The tactic here is simply to relegate the decree to irrelevancy in man’s reception and enjoyment of his salvation. And then the works of man can be introduced and made that on which the knowledge of salvation and thus the work of salvation depend. The attitude is that God always does what God does, and we cannot do anything about that: now let’s talk about what man needs to do.

Notwithstanding God’s Decree

I said in my last article that I would treat further Reverend McGeown’s view of the decree. And I begin there in this article. In his effort to undermine the doctrine of eternal justification in the mind of his audience, he lets slip his own view of the decree generally. He writes,

In this regard it is important to distinguish between time and eternity. In eternity God determined what would happen, what he would do, in time.

Now, why it would be important to distinguish something so obviously different as time and eternity is anyone’s guess. I suspect that he is glancing nervously at the decree like the cat does the rocking chair. Reverend McGeown does not want that rocking chair of God’s decree to pinch his tail of man’s works that he keeps flicking around. He is not so much interested in distinguishing time and eternity—what fool would confuse them—as in giving a certain view of the relationship between time and eternity and of asserting the decisive character of what happens in time. I think it can be fairly stated that his view is that time makes the decree of eternity real.

In this connection he writes,

To speak as a fool, if Jesus had not died, notwithstanding God’s decree that he should die, we could not be saved.

Reverend McGeown does indeed speak as a fool. No Reformed man could even conceive of this idea of time nor of God’s decree. In these words McGeown shows that he views the relationship between time and eternity as adversative, really time being the contingency of all that was decreed. He brings this out in two ways.

1 Peter 1:19–20

First, he bolsters his view of time as the contingency of eternity by quoting 1 Peter 1:19–20. This passage reads,

19. But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.

Reverend McGeown supposes that he has hit upon a passage that so clearly teaches his view—that notwithstanding God’s decree, if Jesus had not died, then we could not be saved—that he does not even bother to explain the passage.

So I will explain it. In the passage there is what is called in Greek a men-de construction. This construction means that the relationship between the foreordination of Jesus Christ and his manifestation in time is not an adversative but, as McGeown wants to maintain, but a correlative; so that it is as though the apostle had said, “On the one hand, Christ was foreordained; and on the other hand, he was manifested.” And that relationship could be even more sharply stated as “because Christ was foreordained, he was also manifested for you.” In these verses there is no disjuncture between time and eternity, as though time is the but to eternity. Rather, time is the unfolding of what God decreed in eternity.

Furthermore, in his thorough abuse of the passage to serve his foolish statement about God’s decree, Reverend McGeown does not do justice either to the word “foreordained” or to the word “manifested” used by the Spirit in these verses. The word “foreordained” in verse 20 means that Jesus Christ and the cross of Jesus Christ and the perfect and complete salvation of God’s people existed before the foundation of the world. Because they existed before the foundation of the world, Peter did not say that these things happened for you or that these things then were made real in time. It is true that they happened. Jesus Christ was incarnated, he suffered, he died, and he accomplished full and complete salvation. That all happened in time and history. But Peter wrote “manifested.” “Manifested” is the disclosure of what already is or the appearance of what already is or even the making public of what was before hidden. So, for instance, the sun shines, but it is behind a cloud, and so it is obscured. When the cloud is removed, the shining sun is manifested. So is Jesus Christ and his salvation. He was manifested. He and with him his salvation were already foreordained and existed in eternity; and because Christ and salvation were foreordained, they were manifested. So far are Peter and the Holy Spirit from teaching the foolish thought of Reverend McGeown—that notwithstanding God’s decree, if Jesus had not died, then we could not be saved—that the Holy Ghost through Peter was emphasizing the decree and the reality of the decree in the salvation of God’s people and that what happened in time was the manifestation of what was in eternity.

In the same vein and perhaps even stronger is John in Revelation 13:8. This passage reads, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him [the beast], whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Here John not only said that God decreed that the cross would happen, but he also said that Jesus Christ, the Lamb, was actually slain from the foundation of the world. Golgotha and all that was associated with it and all that happened at Golgotha—the agony of Christ in the garden, the fleeing of the disciples, the wicked trial of Christ before the Sanhedrin, Peter’s denial of Jesus, the condemnation of Christ before Pilate, and the crucifixion of Christ on the cross—were already in eternity. The happening, the event, and all the benefits of the cross were already from the foundation of the world. Time is the revelation, the manifestation, and the unfolding of that eternal reality.

2 Timothy 1:9–10

To confirm his idea of the relationship between eternity and time expressed in his foolish statement—“To speak as a fool, if Jesus had not died, notwithstanding God’s decree that he should die, we could not be saved”—Reverend McGeown also quotes 2 Timothy 1:9–10. This passage reads,

9. Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

10. But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

His explanation of the passage is again that time is an adversative or a contingency of eternity. He writes,

God decreed that Jesus should suffer and die for his elect people, and therefore the cross was certain, as certain as God’s decree is certain. However, it was still necessary for Jesus actually to die…It is still necessary that the Holy Spirit should apply the benefits of Christ’s atonement.

Here again is his “However,” which is nothing more than a different way of saying But. He relegates the decree to irrelevancy and gives to time its own importance, as though the point of the Spirit in the passage is to make sure the church does not think that time is unimportant. Reverend McGeown is constantly seizing on the word But. He does this especially with the decree. He mentions some true things about the decree and then erases them all with a But. Here too, he seizes on the word But: “but—again, Paul writes ‘but;’ the Holy Spirit inspired ‘but’!” So his interpretation: time and what happens in time are the but to what was decreed in eternity. Thus the meaning of the Holy Spirit here for Reverend McGeown is that God decreed these things, but they were not really real until they happened in time. Time made the blueprint of God’s counsel real. I think that is a good way to describe Reverend McGeown’s view of the decree. The decree is God’s divine blueprint. McGeown will say that the blueprint is certain because, of course, he has to. It is, after all, God’s blueprint. But as every builder knows, the blueprint is not the house. The house is the thing. The house does not have an existence or any reality apart from being built. The house in the blueprint is simply a conception.

But that is not God’s decree at all, a divine blueprint. The decree is God’s eternal and living will. By his Word God brings that will to pass and unfolds the counsel of his sovereign will. The relationship between eternity and time is not that one is real and another is not real; the relationship is not, as is so foolishly expressed by Reverend McGeown, that “to speak as a fool, if Jesus had not died, notwithstanding God’s decree that he should die, we could not be saved.” This means that God could have decreed all he wanted, but the event had to happen. And that thought demands that that event in time has its own and independent necessity outside of the decree. I simply do not see how anyone who has even a modicum of understanding about God and his decree could say that.

Now, Reverend McGeown supposes that he has found this idea of the relationship between eternity and time in 2 Timothy 1:9–10. “The Holy Spirit inspired ‘but’!” we are told and told with emphasis. The Holy Spirit apparently inspired that word so that we would believe that notwithstanding God’s decree, if Jesus had not died, we could not be saved.

It is evident then that Reverend McGeown takes the word “But” in verse 10 in its adversative force. He should know that there is a Greek word alla and that if the Holy Spirit wanted to emphasize the adversative sense, as Reverend McGeown does, the Spirit could have used it. I still maintain that even if alla were used, the passage would not be teaching the idea of the decree in relationship to time that Reverend McGeown imputes to the passage. His concept of the relationship between the decree and time is foreign to the entire scripture, and it is foreign to this passage. The word “But” that he gleefully holds aloft for all to see is in fact the word de in the Greek. There is a distinction being made in these verses, but it is not what Reverend McGeown explains. First, in the passage the apostle said that God saved us and called us according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. Grace was given to us in Christ Jesus before the world began. It is not that God purposed that he would give us grace but that we still had to receive that grace in time. God purposed and gave grace to us before the world began. “Grace” in verse 9 means not only the favor of God but also the gifts of salvation defined in verse 10 as “life and immortality.” You could say without any injustice or violence to the text that God gave us life and immortality in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world. The reality of his eternal will and counsel is such that we had the grace already before the world began, or eternally.

Then the apostle wrote in verse 10, “But is now made manifest.”

Reverend McGeown, in his insistence that notwithstanding (in spite of) God’s decree, if Jesus Christ had not died, we could not be saved, falters yet again on the word “manifest.” He does not know what the word “manifest” means. He ignores it here, as he did in 1 Peter 1:19–20. Here his lapse is doubly inexcusable because the apostle explained exactly what he meant when he wrote “manifest.” He wrote “and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.” “Manifest” means to bring to light. That manifestation happened in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and his atoning death, and he makes that public and publishes it throughout the world by the gospel of the perfection of Christ’s death and eternal life that is found in his name alone. “Manifest” is to illuminate or to bring to light what had previously been hidden. Life and immortality in his case did not begin to be at the moment of the event of the cross, and neither are they brought into existence through the preaching of the gospel and thus only become real in the possession of those things by the child of God. But life and immortality have their origin and existence in the eternal purpose of God. They were given to us in Christ before the foundation of the world. God’s purpose is not made real in time but is made public in time.

There is no contrast in the text between time and eternity, as though the Holy Ghost was guarding against the idea that we might think too much of God’s decree, and we might then slight time. That is impossible. Rather, the Spirit is teaching that what is made public and disclosed in time was already in eternity.

Applied to the Possession of Salvation

I have said before that if you read Protestant Reformed ministers, be careful that you do not lose your faith. In this case be careful that you do not lose your faith in the decree and suppose that the scriptures and thus the Reformed faith are wary of the decree and are constantly guarding against the exaltation of the decree at the expense of time. I do not believe anyone does that. I do not believe that anyone in history has exalted the decree too much. I do not believe that is even possible. I do believe that the proper view of the decree and the only proper understanding of time is that time is the revelation, the manifestation, and the unfolding of the decree. The decree of God is not a would or a could. The decree is as real and eternal as God himself. He always had his people, the world, and indeed the end and consummation of all things with him from before the foundation of the world. He makes this manifest, and he unfolds as his living will in time what he before decreed.

Reverend McGeown thinks that notwithstanding God’s decree, events must happen in time. Apply that—and this is Reverend McGeown’s goal, after all—to faith and to repentance. Notwithstanding God’s decree to give faith and repentance, if you do not believe and you do not repent, then you cannot be saved. If Reverend McGeown says what he does about the cross of Christ, he must say that about everything in history. And he must say that also about faith and repentance: notwithstanding God’s decree to give faith and repentance, you must also do faith and repentance. That gives to faith and to repentance a necessity outside of God’s decree. And it is a convenient way and a slippery way to dispose of the decree as the eternal necessity of Christ and all of salvation and every gift of salvation.

Reverend McGeown’s view of the relationship between the decree and time—which he expresses in his phrase “to speak as a fool, if Jesus had not died, notwithstanding God’s decree that he should die, we could not be saved”—he then applies not only to the cross but also to the application of the salvation of the cross to hearts and lives. And here he shows what he is really after. He writes,

It is also true that in 2 Corinthians 5:20 “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” In Christ the righteous basis for our pardon has been secured, and—may I even say ‘but’?—we come into the conscious possession of that pardon when we repent of our sins and believe in Jesus Christ. That is why [in order that we come into conscious possession of our pardon] in the next verse Paul urges his readers, who are Christians, “Be ye reconciled to God” (v. 21).

Slippery McGeown.

He also mutilates the text. And with this he adds to his folly. His exegesis of the verse means this: notwithstanding the decree of God and notwithstanding the cross of Christ, we do not come into the conscious possession of pardon until we repent and believe. Or, to phrase it another way, God decreed our salvation and Christ accomplished our salvation, but that is not enough. We do not come into conscious possession of that pardon until we repent and believe. In this exegesis our repenting and believing do not flow out of the decree and are not the fruits of the cross of Jesus Christ. They are the but of the decree and of the cross. They are the contingency not only of the decree but also of the cross. This is very strange theology, indeed.

His interpretation is simply an imposition on the text and is entirely foreign to the meaning of the passage. The reconciliation of the people of God to God is not “notwithstanding” the decree and the cross but because of the decree and the cross. Reverend McGeown will go on to apply this thought of God’s decree being the “notwithstanding” of time to repentance and faith in connection with justification. I will look more closely at his theology of repenting and believing and his doctrine of justification by repenting and believing next time.