1 John 2:2 and Universal Atonement

“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”1 John 2:2 (ESV)

This is undoubtedly the most used and (assumed to be) strongest text used in attempts to prove the doctrine of universal atonement. As proponents of reformed theology rightly point out, the emphasis of texts in the New Testament that speak of God loving the world and Christ dying for all and other universal statements is that Christ did not die for the Jews alone; salvation has been extended to the nations as well. But there is a difficulty in the text quoted above that I don’t often hear addressed. The text is indiscriminately addressed to Christians (5:13) and it doesn’t seem to be specific to a particular church. So the difficulty arises: if this text is addressed to Christians indiscriminately, then it seems that John is saying that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of those who are not Christians. But is John really saying that Christ has made satisfaction for the sins of those who are now or will eventually be in hell? Surely not.

In fact, we have proof from the New Testament itself that John was a missionary to the circumcised as opposed to the uncircumcised. If this can be made clear, it should certainly affect the way we interpret 1 John 2:2. And this is exactly what we learn when we read Paul in defending his apostleship in his epistle to the Galatians. Paul says

“…when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised  (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (2:7-9)

Here we have an apostolic witness to who John was missionary to. This gives us some insight as to who John was writing to in his first epistle. With that understood, the thought of the statement would run “He satisfies the wrath of God due to our sins, and not for us Jews only but also for the sins of all nations”.

So here Paul is not saying that Christ is the propitiation for everyone-one-on-the-planet’s sins but rather that Christ died for the world and not necessarily every individual in it. Christ died for all without distinction, not all without exception.

Paedobaptism: A Seal of the Righteousness of Christ

“For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. (Rom. 4: 9b-11a)

So the circumcision received by Abraham was a believer’s circumcision. I’ve used this very text against paedo-baptism but I think I was missing a point in the text that I hope to make here. The sign was a seal of the righteousness he had by faith. So the righteousness that circumcision sealed was obtained only by faith. I believe this clearly points out that the righteousness spoken of here is not one’s own righteousness but Christ himself since this same circumcision was to be administer to mostly infants. This was clearly administered to infants so we ought to have a coherent view that allows the meaning of Abraham’s circumcision to be given to that of the infants’. If circumcision was to be administered to children who obviously couldn’t show signs of true conversion by their mental capacity but were to nonetheless receive the sign and seal of the righteousness only obtainable by faith, should we not conclude that circumcision for infants was not a testimony to their righteousness by faith but the righteousness of Christ imputed to them upon faith in him? Some food for thought.

“Sure,” one might object, “but we’re not talking about circumcision.” Well it is my conviction that baptism has replaced circumcision with the coming of Christ:

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” (Col. 2:11-12)

So we see Paul equates NT baptism with the circumcision of the OT. This alone, I believe, is plenty reason to reconsider how we administer baptism. Just as circumcision did not profit one unless they were faithful to the covenant that circumcision brought them into, so too with baptism. This text says one who is baptized is buried with Christ. That isn’t a very hopeful state unless that person is raised with him through faith. To whom much is given, much is required.

Paedobaptism: Covenant Membership and Election

Can covenant members fall away?

The reformed reader (whether credo or paedobaptist) will gladly hear that I heartily affirm the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. We know that those given to the Son by the Father will not and cannot fall away as he has revealed to us in his scriptures. We especially see this in Johns gospel as Christ tells the Pharisees

“I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”

(John 10:25-29 (ESV) see also John 6:37, 44)

The elect cannot lose their salvation because it was not accomplished by anything they had done but by the Almighty’s perfect work of salvation.

But what about the apostasy texts of the Bible? Is apostasy a real thing? Or does the Holy Spirit inspire writers of the New Testament to write hypothetically? Does 1 John 2:19 preclude the possibility of apostasy in some sense or another? The two points I’d like to make are yes, one can fall away from a covenantal relation to Christ and that covenant membership ought not be equated with election because the Bible does speak of apostasy as a very real sin.

Let’s talk for a moment about abiding in Christ. In John 15:1-6 Christ says

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.”

(ESV)

Its is my conviction that the text here quoted clearly speaks of people in some sense or another, who are in Christ, yet are being removed from Christ as branches removed from a vine. This text speaks about abiding in Christ. But the text also says that one who is really in Christ (in some sense or another; I know I have to be careful with how I word this) and does not bear fruit can be and is removed from Christ. How does a Baptist explain this? The same argument can be made from the olive tree illustration in Romans.

So when one is baptized as an infant, young child, or even an adult professor of the faith (whether elect or not) they are at that point in some way or another, brought to a union with Christ. We are told by Paul that we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3). We are baptized into his body, the Church (1 Cor. 12:12-13). And it is this kind of covenantal union with Christ that the Bible very clearly speaks of us being capable of falling away from. Is not the body of Christ represented in the True Vine parable? And are they not capable of falling away (ceasing to abide in Christ) from that sustaining (Jn. 15:5) union? That proof text the Arminian friend always goes to in Hebrews that says one can “profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” and will therefore receive a punishment “much worse” is also a text we should not overlook. Its seems at times that we have our proof texts as Calvinists and the Aminians have theirs. Let us have them all! Lets have a covenantal understanding that allows us to have the whole of Scripture.

Paedobaptism: Since when?

I know I haven’t been a very faithful blogger, but over the next few weeks I will do my best to post at least once a week on why we ought to baptized our children.

One thing I always knew was that the reformers didn’t finish the reformation and that they ought to have stopped the practice of infant baptism. No where in scripture, I’d often say, do you find a command or example of infant baptism. Well I am here to say:

I’m no longer a Baptist. And over the next few weeks I will be explaining why.

To begin, let me take the reformed Baptist into the proper mind-set. As a reformed Baptist I would look in the scriptures for commands or examples of baptism and analyze the doctrine from there. Good so far. I would notice that there was no command of infant baptism and assume that what the New Testament does not command it must forbid. Right?

Well perhaps we’re asking the wrong question. Or rather, we’re looking for the wrong “proofs” to prove or disprove the practice. I’d say that the burden of proof is actually on the Baptist. Why? The children of faithful Israelites in the times before Christ were undeniably covenant members (ex. Psalm 103:17-18). God deals with is covenant people generationally “His mercy is on those who fear him from generation to generation.” (Luke 1:48-50) With the first Christians being Jews and them having included their children in the covenant and giving them the covenant sign of circumcision as infants (for many, many generations), it is hard to imagine that the Bible does not speak against or for infant baptism for any other reason other than that it was assumed. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that children are now excluded from the covenant community. In fact we are told the opposite “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 19:14)

So the burden of proof is on the Baptist. Since when have the children been excluded from the covenant?

Hodge on the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church

    God enter into a covenant with Abraham. In that covenant there were certain promises which concerned his natural descendants through Isaac, which promises were suspended on the national obedience of the people. That covenant, however, contained the promise of redemption through Christ. He was the seed in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. The Jews came to believe that this promise of redemption, i.e., of the blessings of the Messiah’s reign, was made to them as a nation; and that it was conditioned on membership in that nation. All who were Jews either be descent of proselytism, and who were circumcised, and adhered to the Law, were saved. All others would certainly perish forever. This is the doctrine which our Lord so pointedly condemned, and against which St. Paul so strenuously argued. When the Jews claimed that they were the children of God, because they were the children of Abraham, Christ told them that they might be the children of Abraham, and yet the children of the devil (John viii. 33-44); as John, his forerunner, had before said, say not “We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matt. iii. 9.) It is against this doctrine the epistles to the Romans and Galatians are principally directed. The Apostle shows, (1.) That the promise of salvation was not confined the the Jews, or to the members of any external organization. (2.) And therefore that it was not conditioned on descent from Abraham, nor on circumcision, nor adherence to the Old Testament theocracy. (3.) That all believers are the sons, and, therefore, the heirs of Abraham. (Gal. iii. 7.) (4.) That a man might be a Jew, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, circumcised on the eighth day, and touching the the righteousness which is of the law blameless, and yet it avail him nothing. (Phil. iii. 4-6.) (5.) Because he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; and circumcision is of the heart. (Romans ii. 28-29.) (6.) And consequently that God cast off the Jews as a nation, without acting inconsistently with his covenant with Abraham, because the promise was not made to the Israel according to the flesh, but to Israel according to the Spirit. (Rom. ix 6-8.)

Romanist have transferred the whole Jewish theory to the Christian Church; while Protestants adhere to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Romanists teach (1.) That the Church is essentially an external, organized community, as the commonwealth of Israel. (2.) That to this external society, all the attributes, prerogatives, and promises of the true Church belong. (3.) That membership in that society is the indispensable condition of salvation; as it is only by union with the Church that men are united to Christ, and, through it ministrations, become partakers of his redemption. (4.) That all who die in communion with this external society, although they may, if not perfect at death, suffer for a longer or shorter period in purgatory, shall ultimately be saved. (5.) All outside of this external organization perish eternally. There is, therefore, not a single element of the Jewish theory which is not reproduced in the Romish.

Hodge Systematic Theology vol. 1 pg. 134-144

Is Jesus “Jehovah”?

They always come at a time when you least expect it. At a time when you’re not ready. You would of course be ready if you were expecting them but since it is always at a random time you’ve not prepared for this kind of discussion. They’ve been trained to handle your arguments and sometimes have very good arguments themselves. I’m of course talking about Jehovah’s Witnesses.

This religious group does door to door evangelism seeking to spread Jehovah God’s kingdom through the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s Watchtower magazine and Awake! magazine. They seem to be very nice people and are zealous enough in there religion to go door to door to share why they believe what they believe. Have they come to your door yet? They have mine. Were you prepared? I wasn’t.

I knew some of their beliefs that made them fall from the category of orthodoxy into what we may rightly consider a cult. I knew for instance that they believe Christ is not eternal but was actually created in eternity as Michael the archangel. At the point of the incarnation Michael ceased to exist for thirty three years and became Christ. After Christ’s death Michael came back to existence. They believe Christ is not the God of the Old Testament, that is, YHWH (or Jehovah is the name they use). They believe Christ is a god (note the little “g”). Therefore we are not to give Christ the same kind of worship as we are to the Father as that would be idolatry, though Christ is to be worshipped in a sense.

I knew they were wrong in these beliefs but I hadn’t spent enough time trying to find places in Holy Scripture to point a “witness” to if I were to have a front porch conversation with one. The natural tendency is to say “You’re a cult!” and slam the door but that doesn’t help anything. So me and my wife have been studying for this very situation. What seems obvious is that their whole system of belief revolves around the idea that Christ should not be identified as Yahweh in the Old Testament.

(For those who don’t know, in most translations when reading the Old Testament you will find that the word “Lord” when referring to God is sometimes “Lord” and other times “LORD” with the “ORD in smaller capital letters. This is the translator signifying that when in all capital letters it is God’s name there: YHWH. But when its only “Lord” it is the Hebrew word for “Lord“: Adonai.)

It seems to me that if this most important doctrine can be refuted there isn’t much (as essential to the Christian faith) that needs to be bothered with in their system.

So in this post I just want to consider two example of how to prove that at times in the Old Testament Yahweh is sometimes Jesus Christ.

The first is from the Psalms. Psalm 102 begins:

Hear my prayer, O LORD [YHWH];
let my cry come to you!
(Ps. 102:1)

So we know that this Psalmist is talking about Yahweh. Then we come to our text in verses 25-27:

“Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
They will perish, but you will remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
but you are the same, and your years have no end.”
(Psalm 102-25-27)

This text is important because the in the New Testament we have a very clear reference to this very text and the author make a clear claim that this text refers to the Son specifically.

“But of the Son he says,

‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’

And,

‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.’”

(Hebrews 1:8-12)

We see in verse 10 through twelve a quote from the 102^nd Psalm that is talking about Yahweh, yet this is claiming the text to be talking about the Son. How a Jehovah’s Witness could get around proof like this I could not imagine. I don’t believe there is a way you could get around this issue. Which leads us to example #2:

On this one it would probably be best to start from the New Testament and work back to the Old Testament. In the twelfth chapter of John’s gospel we read:

“Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

‘He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.’

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him.”

(John 12:39-41)

Isaiah saw Christ’s glory. And where might we find this event? Isaiah 6. Where the quotation in John 12 comes from (“He has blinded their eyes…” is a direct quote from Isaiah 6:10). Here is what happened right before Isaiah said these words:

“In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, ‘Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.’ And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, ‘Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD [YHWH] of hosts.'”

(Isaiah 6:1-5)

This example is also sufficient in my eyes to prove the Jehovah’s Witnesses have no case but it should be pointed out that there is still something even to be added to this. There is a very interesting textual variant in the Septuagint at this passage in Isaiah 6. (The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Old Testament used in the time of Christ. It is interesting to note that the New Testament quotes from the Septuagint even in places where it varies from Hebrew.) In our Bible where we read:

“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple”,

the Septuagint reads:

“…I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne, and the house was full of this glory.” (Isaiah 6:1 Brenton, LXX)

So there was no doubt that when first century Greek speaking Christians read in John’s gospel that Isaiah saw his glory that he was referring to Isaiah seeing YHWH the only God. I don’t want anybody to be confused though. Sometimes YHWH in the Old Testament is clearly the Father (ex. Psalm 110:1). But the Father is the only person that they say the name Jehovah (YHWH) belongs to.

So please if you would get this kind of stuff memorized so the next time this cult comes knocking at your door you can be prepared to maybe bring them to the true God they only thought they knew before.

 

Double Predestination by RC Sproul

“Double” Predestination

by R.C. Sproul

“A horrible decree… .” “Most ruthless statement… .” “A terrible theological theory… .” “An illegitimate inference of logic… .” These and other similar epithets have been used frequently to articulate displeasure and revulsion at the Reformed doctrine of double predestination. Particularly abhorrent to many is the notion that God would predestinate (in any sense) the doom of the reprobate.

The “Double” of Predestination

The goal of this essay is not to provide a comprehensive analysis, exposition, or defense of the doctrine of election or predestination. Rather, the essay is limited to a concern for the “double” aspect of predestination with particular reference to the question of the relationship of God’s sovereignty to reprobation or preterition.

The use of the qualifying term “double” has been somewhat confusing in discussions concerning predestination. The term apparently means one thing within the circle of Reformed theology and quite another outside that circle and at a popular level of theological discourse. The term “double” has been set in contrast with a notion of “single” predestination. It has also been used as a synonym for a symmetrical view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in a parallel mode of divine operation. Both usages involve a serious distortion of the Reformed view of double predestination.

Viewing double predestination as a distinction from single predestination may be seen in the work of Emil Brunner. Brunner argues that it is impossible to deduce the doctrine of double predestination from the Bible. He says:

The Bible does not contain the doctrine of double predestination, although in a few isolated passages it seems to come close to it. The Bible teaches that all salvation is based on the eternal Election of God in Jesus Christ, and that this eternal Election springs wholly and entirely from God’s sovereign freedom. But wherever this happens, there is no mention of a decree of rejection. The Bible teaches that alongside of the elect there are those who are not elect, who are “reprobate,” and indeed that the former are the minority and the latter the majority; but in these passages the point at issue is not eternal election but “separation” or “selection” in judgment. Thus the Bible teaches that there will be a double outcome of world history, salvation and ruin, Heaven and hell. But while salvation is explicitly taught as derived from the eternal election, the further conclusion is not drawn that destruction is also based upon a corresponding decree of doom.1

Here Brunner argues passionately, though not coherently, for “single” predestination. There is a decree of election, but not of reprobation. Predestination has only one side—election. In this context, double predestination is “avoided” (or evaded) by the dialectical method. The dialectical method which sidesteps logical consistency has had a pervasive influence on contemporary discussions of double predestination. A growing antipathy to logic in theology is manifesting itself widely. Even G. C. Berkouwer seems allergic to the notion that logic should play a role in developing our understanding of election.

It is one thing to construct a theology of election (or any other kind of theology) purely on the basis of rational speculation. It is quite another to utilize logic in seeking a coherent understanding of biblical revelation. Brunner seems to abhor both.

Let us examine the “logic” of Brunner’s position. He maintains that (1) there is a divine decree of election that is eternal; (2) that divine decree is particular in scope (“There are those who are not elect”); (3) yet there is no decree of reprobation. Consider the implications. If God has predestined some but not all to election, does it not follow by what Luther called a “resistless logic” that some are not predestined to election? If, as Brunner maintains, all salvation is based upon the eternal election of God and not all men are elect from eternity, does that not mean that from eternity there are non-elect who most certainly will not be saved? Has not God chosen from eternity not to elect some people? If so, then we have an eternal choice of non-election which we call reprobation. The inference is clear and necessary, yet some shrink from drawing it.

I once heard the case for “single” predestination articulated by a prominent Lutheran theologian in the above manner. He admitted to me that the conclusion of reprobation was logically inescapable, but he refused to draw the inference, holding steadfastly to “single” predestination. Such a notion of predestination is manifest nonsense.

Theoretically there are four possible kinds of consistent single predestination. (1) Universal predestination to election (which Brunner does not hold); (2) universal predestination to reprobation (which nobody holds); (3) particular predestination to election with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not elect (a qualified Arminianism) which Brunner emphatically rejects; and (4) particular predestination to reprobation with the option of salvation by self-initiative to those not reprobate (which nobody holds). The only other kind of single predestination is the dialectical kind, which is absurd. (I once witnessed a closed discussion of theology between H. M. Kuitert of the Netherlands and Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary. Kuitert went into a lengthy discourse on theology, utilizing the method of the dialectic as he went. When he was finished, Dr. Van Til calmly replied: “Now tell me your theology without the dialectic so 1 can understand it!” Kuitert was unable to do so. With Brunner’s view of predestination the only way to avoid “double” predestination is with the use of “double-talk.”

Thus, “single” predestination can be consistently maintained only within the framework of universalism or some sort of qualified Arminianism. If particular election is to be maintained and if the notion that all salvation is ultimately based upon that particular election is to be maintained, then we must speak of double predestination.

The much greater issue of “double” predestination is the issue over the relationship between election and reprobation with respect to the nature of the decrees and the nature of the divine outworking of the decrees. If “double” predestination means a symmetrical view of predestination, then we must reject the notion. But such a view of “double” predestination would be a caricature and a serious distortion of the Reformed doctrine of predestination.

The Double-Predestination Distortion

The distortion of double predestination looks like this: There is a symmetry that exists between election and reprobation. God works in the same way and same manner with respect to the elect and to the reprobate. That is to say, from all eternity God decreed some to election and by divine initiative works faith in their hearts and brings them actively to salvation. By the same token, from all eternity God decrees some to sin and damnation (destinare ad peccatum) and actively intervenes to work sin in their lives, bringing them to damnation by divine initiative. In the case of the elect, regeneration is the monergistic work of God. In the case of the reprobate, sin and degeneration are the monergistic work of God. Stated another way, we can establish a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry. We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

The Reformed View of Predestination

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the “hardening” of the sinners’ already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, “work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us.”2 Luther continued:

When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God’s working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God’s own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.2

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God’s justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all—in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy” (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.

The Reformed Confessions

By a brief reconnaissance of Reformed confessions and by a brief roll-call of the theologians of the Reformed faith, we can readily see that double predestination has been consistently maintained along the lines of a positive-negative schema.

The Reformed Confession: 1536

Our salvation is from God, but from ourselves there is nothing but sin and damnation. (Art. 9)

French Confession of Faith: 1559

We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. (Art. XII)

The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, MERCIFUL AND JUST: MERCIFUL, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: JUST, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)

The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566

Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man’s evil into good… . St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: “What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly.” (Art. VIII)

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected … are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His Sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III-Art. VI and VII)

These examples selected from confessional formulas of the Reformation indicate the care with which the doctrine of double predestination has been treated. The asymmetrical expression of the “double” aspect has been clearly maintained. This is in keeping with the care exhibited consistently throughout the history of the Church. The same kind of careful delineation can be seen in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Turrettini, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Berkouwer, et al.

Foreordination to Reprobation

In spite of the distinction of positive-negative with respect to the mode of God’s activity toward the elect and the reprobate, we are left with the thorny question of God predestinating the reprobate. If God in any sense predestines or foreordains reprobation, doesn’t this make the rejection of Christ by the reprobate absolutely certain and inevitable? And if the reprobate’s reprobation is certain in light of predestination, doesn’t this make God responsible for the sin of the reprobate? We must answer the first question in the affirmative, and the second in the negative.

If God foreordains anything, it is absolutely certain that what He foreordains will come to pass. The purpose of God can never be frustrated. Even God’s foreknowledge or prescience makes future events certain with respect to time. That is to say, if God knows on Tuesday that I will drive to Pittsburgh on Friday, then there is no doubt that, come Friday, I will drive to Pittsburgh. Otherwise God’s knowledge would have been in error. Yet, there is a significant difference between God’s knowing that I would drive to Pittsburgh and God’s ordaining that I would do so. Theoretically He could know of a future act without ordaining it, but He could not ordain it without knowing what it is that He is ordaining. But in either case, the future event would be certain with respect to time and the knowledge of God.

Luther, in discussing the traitorous act of Judas, says:

Have I not put on record in many books that I am talking about necessity of immutability? I know that the Father begets willingly, and that Judas betrayed Christ willingly. My point is that this act of the will in Judas was certainly and infallibly bound to take place, if God foreknew it. That is to say (if my meaning is not yet grasped), I distinguish two necessities: one I call necessity of force (necessitatem violentam), referring to action; the other I call necessity of infallibility (necessitatem infallibilem), referring to time. Let him who hears me understand that I am speaking of the latter, not the former; that is, I am not discussing whether Judas became a traitor willingly or unwillingly, but whether it was infallibly bound to come to pass that Judas should willingly betray Christ at a time predetermined by God.3

We see then, that what God knows in advance comes to pass by necessity or infallibly or necessity of immutability. But what about His foreordaining or predestinating what comes to pass? If God foreordains reprobation does this not obliterate the distinction between positive-negative and involve a necessity of force? If God foreordains reprobation does this not mean that God forces, compels, or coerces the reprobate to sin? Again the answer must be negative.

If God, when He is decreeing reprobation, does so in consideration of the reprobate’s being already fallen, then He does not coerce him to sin. To be reprobate is to be left in sin, not pushed or forced to sin. If the decree of reprobation were made without a view to the fall, then the objection to double predestination would be valid and God would be properly charged with being the author of sin. But Reformed theologians have been careful to avoid such a blasphemous notion. Berkouwer states the boundaries of the discussion clearly:

On the one hand, we want to maintain the freedom of God in election, and on the other hand, we want to avoid any conclusion which would make God the cause of sin and unbelief.4

God’s decree of reprobation, given in light of the fall, is a decree to justice, not injustice. In this view the biblical a priori that God is neither the cause nor the author of sin is safeguarded. Turrettini says, “We have proved the object of predestination to be man considered as fallen, sin ought necessarily to be supposed as the condition in him who is reprobated, no less than him who is elected.”5 He writes elsewhere:

The negative act includes two, both preterition, by which in the election of some as well to glory as to grace, he neglected and slighted others, which is evident from the event of election, and negative desertion, by which he left them in the corrupt mass and in their misery; which, however, is as to be understood, 1. That they are not excepted from the laws of common providence, but remain subject to them, nor are immediately deprived of all God’s favor, but only of the saving and vivifying which is the fruit of election, 2. That preterition and desertion; not indeed from the nature of preterition and desertion itself, and the force of the denied grace itself, but from the nature of the corrupt free will, and the force of corruption in it; as he who does not cure the disease of a sick man, is not the cause per se of the disease, nor of the results flowing from it; so sins are the consequents, rather than the effects of reprobation, necessarily bringing about the futurition of the event, but yet not infusing nor producing the wickedness… .6

The importance of viewing the decree of reprobation in light of the fall is seen in the on-going discussions between Reformed theologians concerning infra-and supra-lapsarianism. Both viewpoints include the fall in God’s decree. Both view the decree of preterition in terms of divine permission. The real issue between the positions concerns the logical order of the decrees. In the supralapsarian view the decree of election and reprobation is logically prior to the decree to permit the fall. In the infralapsarian view the decree to permit the fall is logically prior to the decree to election and reprobation.

Though this writer favors the infralapsarian view along the lines developed by Turrettini, it is important to note that both views see election and reprobation in light of the fall and avoid the awful conclusion that God is the author of sin. Both views protect the boundaries Berkouwer mentions.

Only in a positive-positive schema of predestination does double-predestination leave us with a capricious deity whose sovereign decrees manifest a divine tyranny. Reformed theology has consistently eschewed such a hyper-supralapsarianism. Opponents of Calvinism, however, persistently caricature the straw man of hypersupralapsarianism, doing violence to the Reformed faith and assaulting the dignity of God’s sovereignty.

We rejoice in the biblical clarity which reveals God’s sovereignty in majestic terms. We rejoice in the knowledge of divine mercy and grace that go to such extremes to redeem the elect. We rejoice that God’s glory and honor are manifested both in His mercy and in His justice.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Chapter Notes                                              

1.    Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950), p. 326.

2.   Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell, 1957), p. 206.

3.   Ibid., p. 220.

4.   G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960), p. 181.

5.   Francois Turrettini, Theological Institutes (Typescript manuscript of Institutio Theologlae Elencticae, 3 vo]s., 1679-1685), trans. George Musgrave Giger, D.D., p. 98.

6.   Ibid., p. 97.

Against the ancient and modern Pelagians

There are many out attempting to blur the difference between foreknowing and predestining in Romans 8:29 and on. Let the effect be the effect and not make it the cause. In the words of Augustine:

“Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe. For the Lord Himself also sufficiently explains this calling when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” For if they had been elected because they had believed, they themselves would certainly have first chosen Him by believing in Him, so that they should deserve to be elected. But He takes away this supposition altogether when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” And yet they themselves, beyond a doubt, chose Him when they believed on Him. Whence it is not for any other reason that He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” than because they did not choose Him that He should choose them, but He chose them that they might choose Him; because His mercy preceded them according to grace, not according to debt. Therefore He chose them out of the world while He was wearing flesh, but as those who were already chosen in Himself before the foundation of the world. This is the changeless truth concerning predestination and grace. For what is it that the apostle says, “As He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world”?  And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;” when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him. Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also called; nor others, but those whom He so called, them He also justified; nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so. The Apostle James says: “Has not God chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love Him?” By choosing them, therefore; He makes them rich in faith, as He makes them heirs of the kingdom; because He is rightly said to choose that in them, in order to make which in them He chose them. I ask, who can hear the Lord saying, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” and can dare to say that men believe in order to be elected, when they are rather elected to believe; lest against the judgment of truth they be found to have first chosen Christ to whom Christ says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you”?”

-St. Augustine, De Prӕdestinatione Sanctorum ch. 34

Christ’s Lordship. Controversy?

I had no idea that there was any question about what is called “Lordship Salvation” until I came across some videos on YouTube where people said that John MacArthur’s book, ‘The Gospel According to Jesus’, was a lie straight from the pits of hell and everyone else that believes or teaches “Lordship Salvation” are headed there also. So as soon as I was aware of this anti-lordship movement I dove into it to see what they themselves taught and believed. On one video a man said that in nowhere does the Bible say that one has to repent. I heard the hate-filled pastor Steven Anderson doing door to door evangelism and he told a guy that he didn’t have to repent and he even called it a work as if one who believed you must repent also believed that repentance is what saves.

It seemed to me that the idea they were attacking was that you need to live a life that is pleasing to the Lord as evidence of your regeneration. And they seemed to make a case for believing in Christ as your Savior alone is what saves, Christ as Lord being nonessential, and they seem to make piety out to be something for the old veterans of the faith. Well dear reader, please let me tell you that if Christ is not your Lord you do not have Christ.

The anti-lordship folks never fail to quote Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast” and always fail to read on to what Paul immediately adds “for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Likewise do they quickly pass over the weighty serious quotations of Christ “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? (Luke 6:46).  In Matthew, the Lord’s great Sermon on the Mount, Christ tells those who don’t do the will of the Father and even confess that Jesus is Lord “I never knew you: depart from me” (7:23). And also the apostle John says that anyone  who says “I know him” [Christ] and does not do the things that Christ commands ,“is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:4). I don’t want to stack the Scriptures in support of Christ’s lordship on the back of those who don’t give it any importance as it would be a very time consuming task.

Let me clarify that I in no way believe that we are saved by works or a combination of faith and works. There is absolutely nothing we can do to stand right with God. It would be an insult to think you could add to the finished work of Christ. We are only justified by the free grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.  But a simple belief is not a saving faith, as the Bible says that the devils believe also “and tremble” (Jas. 2:19), showing more piety than the average anti-lordship believer. As Christ tells us that you will know a man as you know a tree by its fruit (Lk. 6:43-45), so also James tells us that faith without works is dead (Jas. 2:14-26).  If anyone has any questions on this topic as my position on this subject seems to be a very hated, historically orthodox, modern time heresy that I believe to be a very Biblical and important truth, comment me and we can talk about it.

James White handles this subject very well….

Just a Calvin quote…

“‘I’ Said he, ‘am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.’ ‘As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me’ (John 15:1, 4). If we can no more bear fruit of ourselves than a vine can bud when rooted up and deprived of moisture, there is no longer any room to ask what the aptitude of our nature is for good. There is no ambiguity in the conclusion, ‘For without me ye can do nothing.’ He says not that we are too weak to suffice for ourselves; but, by reducing us to nothing, he excludes the idea of our possessing any, even the least ability. If, when engrafted into Christ, we bear fruit like the vine, which draws its vegetative power from the moisture of the ground, and the dew of heaven, and the fostering warmth of the sun, I see nothing in a good work, which we can call our own, without trenching upon what is due to God.”

-John Calvin

(Institutes, Bk. 2, Ch. 3 Sec. 9)