Well, I almost let this die in draft mode. So what you read is all Doug Wilson’s fault. I got motivated again.

Moreover, seeing we cannot bring anything to redeem ourselves out of his hand: let us resort to the ransom which he has given us in the person of his own son, according also as S. Peter tells us, hay we be not bought with gold nor silver, but with the precious blood of the unspotted Lamb ( 1 Pet. 1:8,19). Thus ye see that the point whereunto we must come for the concluding of this text, is that after we once know that we be bereft of all means to escape God’s hand, and that we should of necessity be utterly consumed, but that he uses pity towards us: we must understand that he has given us a good remedy, in that it pleased him to offer up his only Son in sacrifice for us: for then were we fully ransomed, and that is a sufficient discharge to put away all our faults, so as the Devil shall not have any interest in us. For although we were overwhelmed with the infinite multitude of our sins: yet notwithstanding if the blood of Jesus Christ answer for us, it is a sufficient satisfaction for all our offences, and enough to appease the wrath of God. Ye see then whereunto our refuge must be. But we cannot come to the blood of Jesus Christ, until we bereft of all stateliness, as well past as to come. Past, to the end we may consider that we should utterly perish in our sins, & be quite and clean overwhelmed if God had not given us this means of being purged by the blood of his Son. And to come to the end, we be no more carried away with such rage, as to lift up ourselves against God, as though we could escape his hand, but rather hold ourselves in such awe, even with a willing mind, as we look not that God should chain us up like wild beasts, but as every [one] of us may bridle himself of his own accord. Let us have such modesty in us, as not to attempt anything against him: but whensoever it shall please him to chastise us, let every [one] of us thing thus himself: Go to, my God chastises me for such sin, and after such a manner: and it behooves me to make my profit of it. Therefore let us not be deaf when God warns us after that fashion: according to the examples he gives us, to the intent we grow not past grace, and so the thing befall us which is spoken heretofore, namely that we heap up continuously a greater wrath and a more horrible vengeance of God upon us (Calvin, Sermons on Job, Sermon 141, 36:15-19, p., 665).

On a another note (see comments), what is “modified amyraldianism”?

Amyraldianism claimed that God sent his son “for all.” My direct research in the subject is scarce. It came up in Boersma’s Hot Pepper Corn and in J. I. Packer’s dissertation on Richard Baxter. Other than that, I only have John Frame’s book review to work with. But I know enough to know that Amyrald was a “four-point” calvinist, the missing point being limited atonement.

Well, lets start with “four-point calvinism” for a moment, and try to fix it. Let’s add limited atonement into the picture. What results? Suprise! One kind of “modified Amyraldianism” is orthodox five-point Calvinism.

In other words, calling someone a “modified Amyraldian” is a disquised admission that the villain in question is not an Amyraldian at all. It is meaningless to use this language. In fact, descriptions of this sort are almost invariably used as an excuse for writing someone off as not needing any refutation because such a refutation has already been made (which is an amazingly charitable interpretation of John Owen, by the way). But if logic and/or sense mattered in the midst of such rhetoric then the only rational conclusion would lie in the exact opposite direction–that a genunely new thing is present that calls for a new response–a detailed, careful response.

Think about it. If these “modified Amyraldians” are so dangerous, they can be compared to a computer virus. When a new form of a virus suddenly appears, do software companies just laugh it off and say, “Not to worry. This is just a modified version of the virus we dealt with ten years ago. You don’t need any new antivirus protection.” No, they don’t. If it is modified, then they have to modify their antiviral work. Warnings to only go to safe websites is not an option.

Of course, I don’t think any of this is a virus, but, if I did, I would hope I would actually deal with it.

By the way, Beisner is a Clarkian. He doesn’t believe in the free offer of the Gospel. That’s his right, of course, but it is a minority position that dictates he would have a negative reaction to other strands of Calvinism (which he would then name into a movement for ease of disposal). On the other hand, as a Clarkian, Beisner teaches that saving faith is nothing more than assent to the right propositions.

The Apostle Paul in Romans 3:19-20 concluded his case against law keeping as a means of right standing before God. It is a case that he had built relentlessly from 1:18 right through 3:18. He raised it to vindicate his declaration in 1:16-17 that the gospel “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes . . . . For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith [or perhaps “beginning and ending in faith”], as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.'” Salvation, Paul asserted, was by belief–by voluntary assent to understood propositions.

Thus, the fact he was asked to write a preface to a book purporting to defend the doctrines of the Westminster Confession is case study in the bizarro world of Reformed identity revision.

So why does anyone care what he has to say about this issue?

Just to be clear here, I’m all for Dr. Beisner constructing rational arguments. But so much is simply him reporting on his own conclusions without any means of following them. It is precisely when a person expects you to simply bow to his authority that question of unspoken commitments on his part become relevant. If his presbytery is happy with his views on faith I don’t want to trouble him. But if he is going try to set fire to the brambles to burn fields in other vineyards, I think I have a right to bring up what might be heating the blaze.