Book Reviews

The Black List – Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel
Critiqued by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon

Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel
by David J. Engelsma
Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grandville, MI: 1980.
216 Pages, Paperback.

David Engelsma is part of a small denomination called the Protestant Reformed Church. Their numbers and effectiveness seem to be settled within their denominational lines. They attempt to hold steadfast to their hyper-Calvinistic tendencies, and Englesma’s book is the hallmark of their defense. Englesma’s book relies on half quotes, bad exegetical work, and does not convince at all. The only redeemable quality of the book is the forward written by John Gerstner – and even Gerstner is not explaining himself too well in comparison to the rest of his works already published.

There is not a great deal of technical or exegetical work documented at all, which is always a very bad sign if one is going to defend a position, and his conclusions seem to be more parroted than hermeneutical. His parrots, however, are parroted in half truths. Engelsma deals much with his denomination and the problems they had in their split with the Christian Reformed Church (but a split nonetheless right and true since the CRC has gone apostate in many ways). Oftentimes, any writer from the PRC seems to write with a chip on their shoulder instead of simply exegeting the Bible (this is particularly true of “The Standard Bearer” – their quarterly journal for their denomination). In many of the books and papers I have read on this subject, it is often that they are simply writing to add additional comments on their split with CRC, and I believe that it is not only unnecessary to do this, but more condemning of their own lack of compassion and further aggravation of the subject. It is one thing to stand for the truth, but to continually harp on the split and bring up the same ideas over and over to defend their Hypercalvinism is tedious at best. Englesma’s book is a reflection of that attitude.

Englesma’s attempt to free himself and his denomination of Hypercalvinism biblically and historically fails. The only historical figures that agree with the PRC and Englesma’s position is the advocates surrounding John Gill – and at that point only in some manner. He quotes sections of Turretin, which is always refreshing to read, but does not quote everything Turretin said or stated on the views he is attempting to propagate. I would have enjoyed seeing him quote Turretin’s use of the love of God for all men. Engelsma is not fair with anyone he quotes since he selectively cites them to prove his own points. Engelsma thinks he is fair with Calvin – but he out rightly disagrees with Calvin, seemingly to imply that Calvin did not really spend so much time on the subject of the love of God and His bounty to all men, both reprobate and elect. This is certainly not fair to the Institutes, nor even of Calvin’s Calvinism. Calvin emphatically states that God loves all men, and the Scripture passages to prove this are “innumerable.” Calvin spent a great deal of time surrounding “God’s Fatherly Love” for all men, but we see Engelsma spending very little time on that subject (and rightly so, for if he did, he would be denying what he was writing and what he says Calvin stood for.) Engelsma and the PRC deny that God loves all men, but they like to quote Turretin. However, Turretin defines the biblical position of what he calls a “love of men.” Rather, their elitist mentality propagates that God only loves the elect and only hates the wicked. They do not believe god hates the elect, or ever has (although I have not seen anything well done on Ephesians 2 – were we not “children of wrath” like the others?) Their unbalanced emphasis on reprobation is clearly evident, where the Biblical evidence leans more heavily to the call of all men to repent and believe the Gospel. The denial of common bounty to all men, and the forcefulness of the assertion that God only hates the reprobate are Hypercalvinist ideologies stemming back from the time of John Gill and his mentor John Hussey. The PRC may be better termed the “Husseites”, not akin to Jan Huss. Engelsma, in trying to protect his view and his denomination from Hypercalvinism, simply admits to it by their position and this book. I had to give this work over to the Sour Puss Stamp…