The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy

 

The Failure of Eastern Orthodoxy
https://youtu.be/3AplWYXFiCA

 

 

My Honest Concerns About Mariology by Austin Suggs

 

Protestant Suggs who is very much into dialogue with non-Protestant denominations like Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy (etc.) discusses his concerns regarding Mariology in Catholicism.

My Honest Concerns About Mariology by Austin Suggs
https://youtu.be/UldloTV7M28

ALL of Charles Spurgeon's Sermons

 

All 36 volumes of Spurgeon Sermons:

 https://www.monergism.com/spurgeons-sermons-36-volumes-ebook

Four Door Labyrinth by Steve Hays

 


Late Apologist Steve Hays' approach to finding your way through Christian theological options. Steve is one of my favorite all time Christian apologists. He died in 2020.

 

Part ONE:
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nl607RS2dUr_gH3bGvovo17rs-n_G0rr/view?usp=sharing

Part TWO:
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jp01_eVWJocgPXAsEf3XnNrcD5kQtUC6/view?usp=sharing

Part THREE:
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1q8M2bQrTJsZF_wk0Yt7f9HoP7OQefxTF/view?usp=sharing

 
Part FOUR:
 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vWQ8TOYOHcuUj4DfelbdpsHhYHhrMuoo/view?usp=sharing

A "Knockout Blow" to Penal Substitution? Engaging John Mark Comer on the Atonement

 

A "Knockout Blow" to Penal Substitution? Engaging John Mark Comer on the Atonement 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLZiqwt4UTw

 Penal Substitution in the Early Church By Brian Arnold

 

 

 

 

William Lane Craig and Gavin Ortlund Discuss the Eucharist and Real Presence

 

Craig and Ortlund Clash on the Eucharist (Respectful Dialogue) 

https://youtu.be/imFpLS1I-Hk?si=Kww5RbfGGUvVv8ua

Playlist of Videos Defending Sola Scriptura

 

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLshImU6jwhvyFYwH_KCsnU_XVdLAbvSF5&si=l5h0y5haeeZ2Lilp

The ULTIMATE Case for Sola Scriptura by Gavin Ortlund

 

 The ULTIMATE Case for Sola Scriptura
https://youtu.be/rpmcr7jOev4

Playlist of YouTube videos Denfending Sola Scriptura:  

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLshImU6jwhvyFYwH_KCsnU_XVdLAbvSF5&si=l5h0y5haeeZ2Lilp

 

Can Christians Pray to Mary and the Saints? A Quick Review of Sam Shamoun's Video

 

A friend asked me to review & critique from a Protestant perspective the following video by Sam Shamoun on praying to Mary. Below the link is my quick and rushed review.

Here's the original video by Sam: Are Catholics right about PRAYING to Mary? | Sam Shamoun

My rushed, cobbled together review:

First off, notice that in this video Sam Shamoun isn't actually debating a seasoned Protestant apologist. He's addressing someone who hasn't studied these issues deeply from a Protestant perspective. So, of course Sam is going to have the upperhand in the discussion with this layman.

Near the end of the video Sam points out that Jesus says the dead are alive and not dead. Citing Luke 20:38. That's a case of obfuscation on Sam's part. Yes, the saints are alive (spiritually), but they are also physically dead. So, it's not a mistake to call them dead in one sense, and alive in another sense.

Sam Shamoun is right that those who leave Catholicism usually didn't know their faith. But that's because most converts on all sides (including both TO and FROM Catholicism or Protestantism or Judaism, etc.) are ignorant. Most people convert without a serious and prolonged examination of their former and prospective/future worldviews. They are usually ignorant of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. 

The majority of conversions are from Catholicism to Protestantism. Even one of the best Catholic apologists, Trent Horn, lamented that fact in a recent video HERE. But, it is true there are a (smaller) number of prominent conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism and Orthodoxy who are highly educated. But often outside the relevant fields. For example, they will often be philosophers or other academics. But not always well versed in the Bible, church history or patristics (i.e. the writings of the church fathers). Though some are moderately.

Most modern Protestants are against praying for the saints. But some Anglicans and Lutherans do pray for the saints. However, Catholics often conflate praying FOR the saints with praying TO or THROUGH the saints. They aren't the same. The former doesn't invoke dead saints, the later does invoke them and attempts to communicate with/to them. One could argue that Protestant theology might allow for prayer FOR the saints, but not TO or THROUGH the saints.

Sam is surely right that the saints in heaven worship God and have "church services," and that they are praying for us. But it's a logical leap from that to assume we may communicate with the dead and ask them to pray for us. In violation of the Biblical prohibition of necromancy and the Biblical teaching that self-initiated prayer and communication to spirits is to God alone. Or at the very least the Bible never encourages us to initiate communication or pray to spirits other than God. Despite there being dead saints whom the authors of Scripture could have prayed to if prayer to or through the dead were permissible. God may send and angel to communicate with us. But that's not self-initiated. That's God initated. Even then, we must test was a supposed angel is communicating to us with the already delivered Gospel [and standardized and finalized in the Scriptures].

1 Thess. 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Gal. 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Rev. 2:2    "'I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.

 Jude 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Shamoun is somewhat right that arguments from silence are wrong (I would say often wrong, or poor, or weak). He then goes on to talk about indirect inferences based on direct Biblical teaching and principles to support praying to or through the dead. But that actually undermines his position because the Bible's principles undermine prayer to or through intermediaries other than Christ. The fact that the Bible doesn't either 1. positively teach or negatively condemn praying to saints isn't necessarily proof it's a wrong practice. Sam is technically correct there. But at the very least it should make one wonder whether it's a Biblically permissible practice. In fact, when we read the Bible we find that invoking invisible spirits is always and only directed to God. Dead saints aren't among the physically living, so asking them to pray for us would seem to violate the Biblical teaching against necromancy. And so would be different from the case of two Christians on earth asking each other to pray for the other. The Bible repeatedly refers back to the dead patriarches of "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" yet never does Scripture tell us they are praying for Israel or the Church on earth, or that we are to pray to or through them for believers on earth. Yes, this is an argument from silence, but it's a deafening silence.

Think of all the times the Bible touches on prayer. How to pray; what to pray [the contents of prayer]; who to pray to; the purpose of prayer; the effects of prayer; the nature of prayer. And yet virtually nothing in the 66 books of the Protestant canon can be appealed to to support praying to deceased saints. 

[[See the debates on the canon. Also these articles by William Webster on the Old Testament Canon:

https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphapart1/ [Part 1]

https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphapart2/ [Part 2]

https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocrypha3/ [Part 3]

]]

The longest book in the Bible, the books of Psalms, is the prayer book and hymn book of the Old and New Testaments people of God and virtually nothing in the psalms is about prayer to deceased saints. It might be argued that that's because the psalms were written and compiled before the saintly dead were taken out of the righteous compartment of Sheol and placed in heaven to live with Christ. Something which only happened around the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. But we still don't see Christians in the New Testament invoking dead saints like David [OT] and Stephen [NT] in the epistles.

Ezek. 14:14 even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD.

Ezek. 14:20 even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness.

Some Catholic appeal to passages like the above to support prayers to the saints. These passages are an excellent opportunity for the Scriptures to tell us that Jews were praying to or through dead saints. Or that it's proper to do so under some circumstances, but it just so happens that in this particular case the sins of believers were too great that God wouldn't listen to the intercession of dead saints. But nothing like that is taught in the canonical Scriptures. There is never any understood or tacit assumption, or warrant or hint in Scripture that we can ask dead saints to intercede for us.

The apostle Paul talked about how it would be more beneficial to Christians on earth for him to continue living and stay on earth. But if Catholicism were true, he would do more after death if people prayed through him to God and if he interceded for the saints on earth from heaven. This suggests Paul was unaware of the idea that saints in heaven can be invoked. Stephen was already dead as a martyr before Paul was even converted. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead many generations prior.

The apostle Paul wrote:

Phil. 1:20 as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death.21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.22 If I am to live in the flesh, THAT MEANS FRUITFUL LABOR FOR ME. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell.23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.24 BUT TO REMAIN IN THE FLESH IS MORE NECESSARY ON YOUR ACCOUNT. 25 Convinced of this, I know that I will REMAIN AND CONTINUE WITH YOU ALL, FOR YOUR PROGRESS and joy in the faith,26 so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Sam's definition of necromancy is too narrow. The Bible condemns all communication to and with the dead. Not just asking them to be inhabited by them and to [essentially] channel through them, making them channelers. But even then, many modern (alleged) Marian apparitions among Catholics have claimed messages from Mary that those who saw her are to relay to others on earth. That's essentially the same as channeling.
See the following audio lecture by Timothy Kauffman on Marian apparitions. I don't agree with all his views and conclusions, but there's a lot of interesting things he says about the apparitions:

The Occult and Roman Superstitions [lecture by Timothy Kauffman]:
https://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/The_Occult_and_Roman_Superstitions,_Timothy_Kauffman.mp3

Sam is right that 1 Timothy 2:5 is in the context of Christian intercession (v.1), but it's an earthly intercession, not a heavenly one. Nowhere does the passage talk about saints in heaven who are interceding, much less of Christians on earth invoking them to pray for people on earth. Admittedly, that might leave room for a heavenly intercession, but a case must be made for it, rather than just assuming it A Priori. Sam is also abusing the word "mediator." In Biblical theology, intercessors aren't necessarily mediators. A mediator is a special kind of go-between. Nowhere do the Scriptures talks about Christians on earth or in heaven as mediators. It seems to reserve it to Christ (in the New Testament). The closest thing would be where Peter talks about Christians as a "holy priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:5; cf. Rev. 1:6; Job 1:5). So, all Christians are priests in that sense. Notice, it's egalitarianizing, not hierarchizing/elitizing/stratifying. Just as Pentecost was egalitarianizing in the sense that all believers will be indwelt with the Holy Spirit in a special way not available to Old Testament saints. God would pour out His Spirit on All flesh [young, old, male, female]. A similar thing is the case with the passage Sam quoted. Sam points out James 5:16 says the holier you are, the more powerful your prayers are ["...The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective  (or availeth much)"]. Yet, it's also the case that James' example in the VERY NEXT VERSE (v. 17) of Elijah is egalitarianizing in that James says, "Elijah was a man WITH A NATURE LIKE OURS..." James uses that fact as an encouragement to pray for miracles like healing, rather than discouraging us because we're not at the level of Elijah in terms of holiness.

In the Old Testament, bowing down in obeisance to earthly rulers and prophets was permissible. But in the New Testament this is discouraged. Or even condemned in a religious [or at least in a supernatural and numinous] context. Praying to or through the saints seems to violate that New Testament precident. Were praying to the saints proper and part of true Christian practice, then one would think that rather than restricting this type of obeisance, the New Testament would widen and loosen it. Instead, it actually RESTRICTS it FURTHER.

Rev. 19:9    And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God."10 Then I FELL DOWN AT HIS FEET TO WORSHIP HIM, but he said to me, "YOU MUST NOT DO THAT! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev. 22:8    I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I FELL DOWN TO WORSHIP AT THE FEET OF THE ANGEL who showed them to me,9 but he said to me, "YOU MUST NOT DO THAT! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."

Acts 14:8    Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked.9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet." And he sprang up and began walking.11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!"12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, THEY TORE THEIR GARMENTS and rushed out into the crowd, crying out,15 "Men, WHY ARE YOU DOING THESE THINGS? WE ALSO ARE MEN, OF LIKE NATURE WITH YOU, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

It's true the Catholic Hail Mary prayer has Scripture in it. But the angelic greetings and descriptions of Mary weren't originally prayers to her. The Hail Mary prayer is a prayer to her that's extra-Scriptural. It's converted from greetings and descriptions and turned into a prayer contrary to their original context.

Sam uses the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man to argue for prayer to or through the saints. But the very passages suggests communication between the dead and the living is not normative. Why wouldn't this apply to praying to or through the saints? Rather, in the story Abraham makes Scripture [i.e. "Moses and the Prophets"] the normative source of religious information and spiritual conviction. It even discourages communication between the living and the (formerly) dead (via resurrection). Instead, he directs the Rich Man to Moses and the Prophets as a sufficient witness to his brothers. Though, there's a tacit exception in that Moses and the Prophets predict the resurrection of the Messiah and His authoritative post-resurrection message.

In Catholic theology there are different kinds of worship. There's dulia, hyperdulia and latria The saints receive dulia, Mary gets hyperdulia, and only God gets the true and proper worship of latria. Catholicism properly seeks to reserve full and proper worship to God alone. That's a good thing. The problem is, that the Bible's description of worship to God includes things which Catholics do toward the dead saints. Like self-initiated supernatural communication to disembodied or unembodied spirits and supernatural entites.

See Gavin Ortlund videos on praying to the saints in response to Joe Heschmeyer:

Praying to the Saints: A Protestant Critique
https://youtu.be/TQRQ-bbmVvI

Praying to the Saints? No, Origen is NOT For it
https://youtu.be/7TxB6_IPmYE

Origen on Praying to Saints: FINAL Response to Joe Heschmeyer
https://youtu.be/fayEcMfouOc

Sam's video is specifically about prayer to Mary because Mary has a special place in Catholic devotion and piety [receiving HYPERdulia]. But when we look at Mary in the Scriptures she isn't treated in ways one would expect given Catholic theology. On Catholicism Mary, due to the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception, was saved by God by preemptively applying grace to her at HER conception such that she lived a sinless life. Keeping Original Sin from tainting her, which leads to actual sins in others who are tainted. But we find Mary in Scripture doubting Jesus' message for a long time despite His miraculous conception, holiness and "signs & wonders." Something one would think a sinless person would NOT do. Since sinful hardness of heart is often the Biblical reason and explanation why people don't undertand or receive Jesus' message. 

Moreover, Jesus doesn't treat Mary in a special way that one would expect if she had the place in God's system as she does in Catholicism. In Catholicism Mary is a perpetual virgin; immaculately conceived; was bodily assumed into heaven (either dead or alive); preserved from Original Sin; never sinned/sinless; receives higher honor than all other saints (hyperdulia rather than mere dulia); and (though not yet dogmatically/officially defined) generally considered the Mediatrix of All Graces. Yet, look at how she's treated in Scripture. She's hardly mentioned in the New Testament. In the book of Acts she disappears after the first chapter (out of 28). She's almost never mentioned in the Epistles (with a few glancing references/allusions like in Gal. 4:4; passim). Galatians 4:4 doesn't even mention her by name but generally refers to her when Christ is said to be "born of a woman." It's disputed whether the reference to the woman in Rev. 12 is to Mary or Israel, or to both Mary and Israel. The woman is described in Rev. 2:2 as "crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth." Yet, such birth pains are a result of the Fall as per Gen. 3:16. But that seems to contradict the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception where she is protected from Original Sin by God's prevenient preemptive grace. Therefore one would think [and it stands to reason] Mary's birthing of Jesus would be painless if she wasn't tainted by Original Sin. 

Notice how Mary is treated by Jesus Himself:

Luke 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "BLESSED IS THE WOMB THAT BORE YOU, and the BREASTS at which you NURSED!"28 But he said, "BLESSED RATHER are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

Matt. 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his MOTHER and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.47 48 But he replied to the man who told him, "WHO IS MY MOTHER, and who are my brothers?"49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "HERE ARE MY MOTHER and my brothers!50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister AND MOTHER."

Mark 3:31    And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you."33 And he answered them, "Who are my mother and my brothers?"34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother."

Luke 8:19    Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.20 And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you."21 But he answered them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it."

 

See also the debates on the topic and related Marian dogmas in the videos linked below: 

 James White's Catholicism playlist with most [or all] of his debates on Catholicism: 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBby84KboLbHnG56Xzlq_91kxhfeSHp_b  

I linked to some classic Catholic vs. Protestant debates on my blogpost here: 
https://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/05/james-white-vs-robert-fastiggi-debates.html

 

John Henry Cardinal Alfred E Newman

 

John Henry Cardinal Alfred E Newman
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/john-henry-cardinal-alfred-e-newman.html 

How Did Infant Baptism Begin: A Story of Five Centuries of Church History [Gavin Ortlund]

 

How Did Infant Baptism Begin: A Story of Five Centuries of Church History 

[Gavin Ortlund]

https://youtu.be/3WE0Ea2ke_c?si=aYNPAT0NAxwC8NMv

English Translations of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion

 

There are four main English translations of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. They are those by Thomas Norton (1561),  John Allen (1813), Henry Beveridge (1845), and Ford Lewis Battles (1960). 

Text of Thomas Norton's Translation of Calvin's Institutes: https://archive.org/details/institutionofchr1578calv

Text of John Allen's translation of Volume 1 of 2 of Calvin's Institutes: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45001

Text of John Allen's translation of Volume 2 of 2 of Calvin's Institutes: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64392

Audio of Allen's translation: https://librivox.org/institutes-of-the-christian-religion-bks-1-4-allen-trans-by-john-calvin/

Text of Henry Beveridge's translation of Calvin's Institutes: https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes

Audio of Beveridge's translation of Volume 1: https://librivox.org/institutes-of-the-christian-religion-book-1-by-john-calvin/

Audio of Beveridge's translation of Volume 2: https://librivox.org/institutes-of-the-christian-religion-book-two-by-john-calvin/

Audio of Beveridge's translation of Volume 3: https://librivox.org/institutes-of-the-christian-religion-book-3-by-john-calvin/

Audio of Beveridge's translation of Volume 4: https://librivox.org/institutes-of-the-christian-religion-book-4-by-john-calvin/

Text of Ford Lewis Battles' translation of Calvin's Institutes:

Volume 1: https://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_BAT1.PDF

Volume 2: https://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_BAT2.PDF

Volume 3: https://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_BAT3.PDF

Volume 4: https://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_BAT4.PDF

John Davenant's Animadversions [A Defense of Calvinism]

 
According to 21st century theologian Michael Lynch, the famous Calvinist church historian William Cunningham said that in his time (19th century) the best defense of Calvinism available in his day was John Davenant's Latin book De Praedestinatione & Reprobatione. However, that book has never been translated into English. Nevertheless, according to Lynch much of the teachings and points Davenant makes in that work are also in his English work Animadversions [linked below]. The Latin work will eventually be translated into English according to Lynch. Cunningham's endorsement is especially noteworthy because Cunningham was an expert in the theology of church history and because Cunningham, himself a Calvinist, held to Owenian Limited Atonement whereas Davenant rejected an Owenian-like Limited Atonement in his Calvinism and held to a version of the atonement that can be labeled under Hypothetical Universalism, as Amyraldianism is labeled as well. Davenantianism's version is not as well known as Amyraldianism. Though, it should be because of how it's a view that arguably is compatible with both the canons of the Synod of Dort and the Westminster Confession of Faith even though it denies Owenian-like Limited Atonement. Also because while Amyraldianism is theologically in between 5 Point Calvinism and Arminianism, Davenant's Calvinism is in between Amyraldianism and 5 Point Calvinism. And therefore is much closer to standard confessional and historic Calvinism.

Davenant's Animadversions can be downloaded HERE:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Animadversions_Written_by_the_Right_Reve/vaFkAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 

More works by Davenant can be found and downloaded HERE: https://www.prdl.org/author_view.php?a_id=232

Christian Biographies [Some Biopics]

 

In no particular order, the following are some videos and written biographies, documentaries, and  biopics [i.e. dramatic cinematic biographies] of past Christian leaders who I appreciate to some degree or another. 

John Wycliffe: The Morningstar | Full Movie | Peter Howell | Michael Bertenshaw | James Downie
https://youtu.be/t1V2cFsVUOM 

John Wycliffe: Morningstar (2022 Remake) | Full Movie | Philip Todd | Jared Morgan
https://youtu.be/CXY4lV0brds 

See also  John Wycliffe Morningstar at www.morningstarfilm.co.uk

 

Luther  The Life and Legacy of the German Reformer (Full Documentary)
https://youtu.be/6VK0p-tuuao 

Luther (2003 movie)
https://youtu.be/WIx82PuGfTk 

 See also the 1953 Martin Luther film, as well as the Luther film with actor Stacey Keach

 

Robber of the Cruel Streets: The Story of George Muller (2006) | Full Movie | Adam Stone  
https://youtu.be/D4KZEU7681w

GEORGE MULLER Documentary | A Cloud of Witnesses | FULL
https://youtu.be/TQ8DKz1mpa8

 Zwingli   German Full Movie   Biography Drama History
https://youtu.be/pv4XYNHf53I

 

The Life Story of Pastor Erwin Lutzer   
https://youtu.be/ROxWNJF6GRg 
See also his book autobiography: He Will Be the Preacher: The Story of God's Providence in My Life

 

UPCOMING: Gavin Ortlund's videos on Christian biographies

Jan Huss 

 

 

Davenantian Hypothetical Universalistic Atonement

As a Calvinist, I'm open to various views on the atonement, from Limited Atonement as popularized by John Owen, to other views, like General Atonement and mediating views like the Hypothetical Universal Atonement of Amyraldianism and Davanentianism [et al.]. If Amyraldianism's view of the atonement and salvation is somewhere in between Calvinism and Arminianism, John Davenant's views are in between 5 Point Calvinism that affirms Owenian Limited Atonement and Amyraldianism. So, Amyraldianism leans more towards Arminianism, while Davenantianism leans more toward Full 5 Point Calvinism and its affirmation of Limited Atonement. Of the non-Owenian Atonement views, I find Davenant's views most appealing.

The following are some YouTube videos on Atonement views that hold to Hypothetical Universalism. Most of the videos are on Davenantism, rather than Amyraldianism and other views. Apparently, Michael Lynch is an avid proponent of Danvenant's views on the atonement.

 

Confessional Orthodoxy and Hypothetical Universalism: Another Look at the Westminster Confession of Faith 
[ESSAY by Michael Lynch]

Episode 51: Michael Lynch on John Davenant's Hypothetical Universalism
https://youtu.be/mSSQKe7Nr8s

John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism, w/Michael J. Lynch
https://youtu.be/UCKlq7Sjs7k

John Davenant: Covenant Theology and Hypothetical Universalism?
https://youtu.be/40rcCERkUvI

That Christ Died for All: A Brief Case for Hypothetical Universalism from Bishop John Davenant
https://youtu.be/4mGlFz8jurk

The Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement: What is Hypothetical Universalism? (w/ Dr. Michael Lynch)
https://youtu.be/REf3p0XCAoI

Was Calvin a Hypothetical Universalist? Chapter 4 of Calvin and the Reformed Tradition
https://youtu.be/fiVHfnlBQ_M

Rethinking the Atonement: Davenant, Du Moulin, and Reformed Diversity – Chapter 5
https://youtu.be/gcCD5W9wFrI

173 - Michael Lynch on…Hypothetical Universalism??
https://youtu.be/C8_9xE0ksi8 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 Miseries of Not Trusting in God’s Providence

 

Taken from a Monergism post on Facebook 

9 Miseries of Not Trusting in God’s Providence

“Ignorance of providence is the greatest of all miseries, and the knowledge of it is the highest happiness” (Institutes, 1541 ed., ch. 8 ). - John Calvin

1. Fear, Worry, Anxiety

When we lose sight of God’s providential rule and fatherly care, our hearts are often gripped by fear: fear of man and fear of circumstances. We begin to imagine a future without God in it—where dangers are real, outcomes are uncertain, and no one is in control. Worry thrives in the soil of unbelief. Jesus gently but firmly reminds us not to be anxious about tomorrow, because “your heavenly Father knows” (Matthew 6:32). When we forget this, we carry burdens never meant for us—robbing today of peace because we don’t trust God with tomorrow (Philippians 4:6–7). Anxiety, then, is not just an emotional struggle, but a spiritual one—a call to remember who God is.

2. Murmuring, Complaining, Chafing

When we fail to trust God's wisdom in our circumstances, we begin to murmur—quietly or loudly—against His ways. We say with our attitudes (and sometimes our lips), “This isn't fair,” or “Why me?” Like Israel grumbling in the wilderness, we grow blind to what God has done and cynical about what He is doing. Complaining is not merely venting frustration—it’s accusing God of mismanaging our lives (Exodus 16:2–3). The Apostle Paul warns us not to follow their example, for such murmuring provokes God's displeasure (1 Corinthians 10:10). True trust silences grumbling by saying, “This too is from my Father’s hand.”

3. Impatience

Impatience surfaces when we believe God is too slow or has forgotten us. We want His blessings, but on our timetable. This restlessness reveals a heart unwilling to wait on the Lord and confident in its own sense of timing. But God's delays are never denials—He is shaping us in the waiting (Psalm 27:14). Like a farmer waiting for the harvest, James reminds us to be patient, for the Lord’s timing is sure and purposeful (James 5:7–8). Impatience is not merely a personality flaw—it’s a theological issue. It questions whether God’s way is truly best.

4. Arm of Flesh (Self-reliance)

When we don’t trust in God’s providence, we instinctively turn to our own resources or human solutions to secure our future. This reliance on “the arm of flesh” (2 Chronicles 32:8) may seem prudent, but Scripture warns it leads to a curse—not a blessing (Jeremiah 17:5–6). Whether it’s strategic planning without prayer, or leaning on relationships, money, or cleverness, self-reliance is the refusal to rest in God. Isaiah rebukes Israel for trusting in Egypt instead of the Lord (Isaiah 31:1), showing us that trust misplaced in man is ultimately rebellion. To walk by faith is to trust in the unseen hand of our wise and sovereign God—even when the arm of flesh seems more tangible.

5. Envy and Covetousness

Without confidence in God’s wise allotment of blessings and trials, we begin to envy others. Like Asaph in Psalm 73, we may stumble when we see the apparent ease of the wicked and feel God has dealt unfairly with us. Trust in providence guards us from this temptation by teaching that “no good thing does He withhold” (Psalm 84:11).

6. Bitterness and Resentment

A distrust in providence often leads to holding grudges or growing resentful when people wrong us or when life disappoints. Instead of seeing God’s hand in hardship or delay (Genesis 50:20), we may grow hardened and accusatory toward the Lord. Jonah, for example, resented God’s mercy toward Nineveh and grew bitter when a plant that brought him shade was taken away. “It is better for me to die than to live,” he said (Jonah 4:8), revealing a heart unwilling to trust God's wisdom and goodness when things didn’t go his way. A woman overlooked for a promotion at work may stew in quiet resentment for months—toward her boss, her co-workers, even God—replaying the unfairness without ever asking, “Lord, what are You doing through this?” Instead of trusting that God governs even our setbacks, she becomes imprisoned by what others owe her. When we forget that God is wise and kind even in trials, bitterness grows like a root in the soul—poisoning not only our peace, but our perspective.

7. Sinful Self-Protection or Control

When we feel like God isn't in control, we try to take control ourselves, often through manipulation, dishonesty, or self-reliance. Like Abraham lying about Sarah (Genesis 12:10–20), we may make rash or unethical decisions driven by fear.

8. Despair or Fatalism

Without a biblical understanding of providence, suffering may lead to hopelessness or a stoic resignation. Trust in God's providence, by contrast, teaches us to say, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" (Job 13:15), because even affliction is not arbitrary but fatherly (Hebrews 12:6–11), not impersonal, but personal.

9. Prayerlessness and Spiritual Apathy

When we don’t trust that God is actively and wisely governing all things for our good (Romans 8:28), we often stop praying with hope. A heart that doubts providence ceases to cast its cares on the Lord (1 Peter 5:7), and instead grows cold, distant, and lethargic in spiritual disciplines.

Non-Christians CAN Do Things to "Prepare" Themselves For Salvation Even On Calvinism

 

Notice I wrote the word "Prepare" in quotation marks. That's because these preparations are not in the Roman Catholic sense of congruous merit, whereby an unregenerate person can do good works which make it proper for God to graciously reward it with regeneration. It is the reward or grace given by God not because it is strictly owed, but because it is fitting for God to give it — due to His love, generosity, and promises even prior to regeneration. Calvinism denies THAT. These "preparations," from a Calvinist point of view, are NOT absolutely necessary before regeneration happens, but are nevertheless commanded by God to be performed by us, and are often the means by which God grants regeneration. Some, like Edwards below, say it is the usual way. I don't know if it is the usual way, but it is the prescribed way by God. The following long excerpt is from the excellent defense of Calvinism titled Veritas Redux by Calvinist John Edwards (1637-1716) [not to be confused with Calvinist Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)]. I've omitted the footnotes. I've also linked to Veritas Redux in my blogpost HERE.

To sum up in a sentence what this blogpost is about, I quote Edwards [taken from below]: "But as the Mariner cannot command the Wind, yet he can hoist up his Sails to receive it. So the Holy Spirit (who is compared to the Wind) is not at our beck; but we can do that, in the use of which the Spirit is usually convey'd to Men."

See also my blogpost: Counsel For Those Doubting or Doubtful of Their Election

I wrote in another blogpost the following which is very similar to the advice that John Edwards gives in the long excerpt below:

As one notable Calvinist put it, "I believe in this infallible book, in the last analysis, because 'of the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in my heart.' " [Cornelius Van Til here is alluding to the WCF]

Does that mean that humans can't affect their eternal destinies by looking for God and examining the various evidences for God? No, it doesn't. One cannot change their pre-ordained destiny, but one can affect it because God ordains both the ends as well as the means; all the while upholding causal relations. In other words, God providentially predestines not only what will happen, but how they will happen.

So, if God ordained that a person will be saved, then God also ordained the means to their salvation. That can include things like their 1. seeking for God, 2. examining the evidences, 3. praying, 4. reading the Bible, 5. studying apologetics et cetera.

It will be argued, "Sure, God may also ordain the means, but people will not actually seek God unless and until God first regenerates them so that they can genuinely and sincerely seek after God." The charges and assumptions being, that it's not possible for people to initiate a search for God. And that therefore there's no point in admonishing people to search for God. Also, unless they first have reason to believe they are regenerated (and/or numbered among the elect), they have no reason to have confidence or expectation that their search will be fruitful and that they will, in the end, actually find God. But those are false inferences. God's promise that those who sincerely seek Him will find Him stand (e.g. James 4:8; John 6:37b; Matt. 11:28-30; Isa. 55:6-7; Jer. 29:13; Ps. 145:18; cf. James 1:8.; Luke 11:9-10; Heb. 11:6). That's true whether one is regenerated or not. Moreover, God doesn't require either the elect or non-elect to know they are regenerated or elect before they can seek after Him. Humans are free moral agents (even if they don't have libertarian free wills as Calvinism implies). Being free moral agents created by God, all humans have the duty to seek after God and believe in Him regardless of the possibility of their success in that search.

Given Calvinism, both the elect and non-elect can "search" for God, but only the elect will sincerely, honestly and persistently search for Him because of regeneration. Since a knowledge of one's regeneration isn't essential to saving faith, everyone can have personal psychological hope that they might find God by searching for Him.

Therefore, regarding those who are currently non-Christians, for all they know, God will use their search for Him (whether it's currently sincere or insincere) to eventually lead to their finding Him. Their search which may have begun insincerely may end up being sincere by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. So, we are all without excuse if we fail to search for God.

Below is the long excerpt taken from Veritas Redux (Book II, chapter 3, page 365 and following pages).


The Fifth and Last Proposition is yet behind, which is this, That tho' God be the sole Author of Man's Conversion, and of all Holiness that accompanies it and follows it, yet this Conversion and Holiness are to be promoted in us by the use of proper Means and Endeavours. Tho' Conversion be from God alone, yet there are some certain Acts which are in our Power, and there are ordinarily required before the State of Regeneration and Conversion. Tho' Grace be Free, yet it is usually conferr'd in a way of previous Dispositions, antecedent Qualifications, and fitting Preparatives. God enables Men to will and to do, but by certain Means which they are to be concern'd in. It is not enough, saith the great Master Medics, for the Physitian to do his Duty, unless the Patient also doth his. Which is very applicable to the spiritual State of Men: God our great Physician requires that we do something towards the Health and Happiness of our Souls. He takes great care of us that we should be saved, but Men ought to have care of themselves. For tho' it is he only that gives Grace, yet he gives it in the use of Means and our proper Endeavours. Some, I know, are unwilling that these should be call'd Dispositions, or Qualifications, or even Preparatives to Grace and Conversion, but I will not quarrel about Words, I will not stand with any one for an Expression; but this is the Thing I contend for, that generally and usually there are certain external and internal Acts which are the Forerunners of Conversion, and we are bound to exert these Acts. We do not admit of, yea we reject Preparatory Works in the Sense of the Romanist [[[by which I suspect Edwards is referring to Congruous Merit as opposed to Condign Merit which are both taught in Catholicism–me AnnoyedPinoy]]; but so far as they signify Means and Ways that God hath appointed to be used to bring us to Salvation, we have reason to allow of them. For God ordinarily saves Men in the use of these, and therefore we are oblig'd to use them.

The Scripture often makes mention of these, and that invites me in the next Place to set down particularly what those Means, what those Acts and Endeavours are which are requir'd on our part towards the obtaining Grace and Conversion, and everlasting Life and Happiness. For tho' Conversion and Salvation be the work of God, yet he hath directed us to Ways which are conduing [[["conducing"?–AP]] to it, and tending towards it. First, We must inform ourselves aright, we must learn what our State and Condition is, and we must labour to understand what is God's Will concerning us, and what it is that he requires of us. We must consult our selves, and look into our own Breasts, and make use of our Reason and natural Light, and exert our Understandings and Judgments. God hath not made us Brutes or Stock, but rational Creatures; wherefore let us act as such, as knowing that God is pleas'd to enlighten and convert Men in the exercise of their natural Faculties, and in the use of those Powers and Abilities which he hath given them, and thereby distinguish'd them from other Creatures.

We must Pray with the greatest Importunity, and earnestly beg the Divine Assistance for the atchieving [[ probably a typo for "achieving"–AP]] so great and weighty an Enterprise. God having promised to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask it, Luke xi. 15. we are to sollicite Heaven for it. Seeing the Way of Man is not in himself, and it is not in Man that walketh to direct his Steps [[Jer. 10:23]]; we ought with the greatest Ardency to beseech Almighty God to help and direct us into the Way of Life and Salvation. He hath abundantly declared in his Word, that this one Way which we are to make use of, and that is generally necessary to the obtaining of Happiness.

We are to apply our selves not only to Prayer, but to Reading and Hearing God's Word. We must often converse with the Scriptures, they being a Lamp unto our Feet, and a Light unto our Path [[Ps. 119:105]]; and hereby we may expect to be directed into the Way of Salvation. These Holy Oracles, if we frequently consult them, will rectify our Apprehensions and Judgments concerning the Things of God. Here we are sure to come to a sight of our Sins, to discern Gods [[sic]] Curse and Judgments against Sinners, and to know how to avoid them. And here are Promises as well as Threatnings; so that we may be wrought upon not only thro' Fear of Punishment, but thro' Hope of Pardon and Mercy. More especially it is God's Will that the Preaching of the Word should be serviceable to this purpose, and that it should be the great Instrument of Conversion and Regeneration. Being assured that Faith comes by hearing [[Rom. 10:17]], we ought to make use of this sacred Institution, and to receive with meekness the ingrafted Word, which is able to save our Souls [[Jam. 1:21]].

Consideration is another previous Act in order to our turning to God. A Man must sit down and consider, and seriously reflect on his Ways, and search and enquire into his past Life, and then his Conscience will represent unto him the danger and misery of his Condition, and shew him the necessity of a speedy deliverance out of it. From the Psalmist's Example and Experience we learn how necessary Thinking is. I thought on my Ways, saith he, and turned my Feet unto thy Testimonies, Psal. cxix. 59. And this Thoughtfulness is accompanied with searching and trying our Way, which prepares us for turning unto the Lord, as we find in Lam. iii. 40. And the constant Attendant of Thinking and Consideration is Resolution, and making solemn Promises and Vows of Repentance and Obedience.

We can in a great measure divert our Thoughts, and not suffer them to fasten on vain and sinful Objects, which are the great Corrupters of our Minds. We can check our Imagination, which s the Ground-work of many Vices. We can also lay a Restraint, on our Outward Senses, which are the common In-lets of Sin. We can turn away our Eyes, and stop our Ears, that they may not take in Impressions of Lust and Vanity. In these things it is certain we have some command over our selves.

We are also to betake our selves to Acts of Mortification, and Self-denial, for some of these are in our power. We are carefully to avoid the Temptations to Sin, to block up all the Avenues to it, and to shun all the Occasions of it. We must, and we can, refrain from converse with the prophane [[sic]]. We must turn from it, and pass away, Prov. iv. 14, 15. And we must not only keep out of evil Company, or abandon it, but we have Legs to carry us into better Society, where we may hold conversation with those that are good.

Again, We can, and ought, to make use of our natural Temper, Ingeny and Instinct, our Frame and Constitution of Body, and the inbred Tendency of our Minds, together with our Education, the Examples that are set before us, the Occurrences and Events which happen by Divine Providence, we are, I say, to make use of all these, and of every Thing in our Life, to the bringing us to a Sense of our State and of our Duty, and to the producing of Religion and Holiness in us.

Lastly, We are to avoid Idleness, which is the great Nourisher of vitious Thoughts and Actions, and we must fill up our Time with lawful Business, and religious Employment. If we be diligent, industrious and active, we shall find a wonderful Success accompanying it. They tell us, that those Two Famous Grecian Orators, Isocrates [[Socrates?]] and Demosthenes, arrived to that perfection, which they were Masters of by exquisite Study and Application. They would sit up late, and rise early; they would keep at home two or three Months together, and shave part of their Heads, that they might not be prevailed with to go abroad. The vast Pains which the latter of them took in forming his Voice is related by several good Authors; they tell strange Things to this purpose, but the Sum of all is, That what was denied him by Nature, he got by Art and Study, by Exercise and Industry. The same may be done with respect to the external Part of Religion, and to the Means that we are to make use of, for of these I'm now speaking. God hath placed these outward and common Things very much in our own Power; wherefore let us be careful that we be not wanting to our selves, but let us do what we can, and what is required to be done on our part; and let us do it strenuously, and to our utmost.

It is in our power to pray, to read the Word, to hear it, to think and meditate on it, to consider our Ways and to call our Sins to remembrance, to abandon some of them, as to the outward Act, to deny our selves, in some measure to improve what happens to us in the World, to our good. Our own Abilities reach thus far; we have Strength to perform these Things: Wherefore it is said, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, Eph. v. 14. that is, use the Means to awaken and rouze [[sic]], and to enliven thy self, and then it follows, Christ shall give thee Life [[sic]], namely, in the conscientious use of those Means. Sinners are are not so fast asleep, nor so dead in their Sins, as to be bereav'd of all Apprehension: They are Men still, their Faculties are not lost and destroy'd, they are capable of some Impressions, they can do something in order to Wakening and Rising, tho' these themselves be from a Divine and Supernatural Power, and are proper to the Almighty alone. Conversion and Repentance are the sole Gifts of God, but they are ordinarily acquir'd in the use of humane [[sic]] Helps and Endeavours. And we must make use of these, as far as in us lies; we must do all that on our part we are able to do, remembring [[sic]] this, that tho' the Change of our Hearts be the Effect of Divine Grace only, yet a neglect and contempt of the Means is unjustifiable.

Wherefore these Two Cautions we must take along with us, or otherwise we shall not understand this matter aright, yea we shall egregiously err, and abuse our selves. First, We must be careful to remember that nothing of all this that we do, or can do, is the work of Conversion. No, that is another Thing; it is no less than an effectual Renewing, and saving Change of the Heart and Life. Now, this is God's sole Work; this is effected by the special Operation of the Spirit. As to the Things before-mention'd, they may be done by those that are not elected, those that were never design'd for Happiness; yea, the worst of Men, and Reprobates may do most of them, or any other external Acts of Religion. But no Man can be Converted, no Man can be effectually Enlightened and Renew'd by any thing that is in his own power, by any Talents of Nature, or by any Humane Efforts whatsoever. It is necessary that the Holy Ghost by a peculiar Operation and Influence upon the Sinner's Eyes, turn his Heart, incline his Will, and sanctifie [[i.e. sanctify]] his whole Man. So that Conversion and Sanctification are to be attributed wholly to God's Spirit, and the Supernatural Assistance of it. This we ought to fix on our Minds, that we may have a right Apprehension concerning those Endeavours which I have before particularly enumerated.

Before we are renew'd by the Holy Spirit, we must not look upon them as any part of Conversion and real Sanctification, but only as Helps to these, tho' afterwards they become Parts and Ingredients of true Holiness. I consider them at present as Helps and Means, which God is wont to make successful to the Elect by a particular Blessing upon them. In the use of these he is pleas'd to give power to believe and repent, and to turn unto him. His Spirit accompanies them, and works Grace in us by them. Of the Lepers it is said, As they were going to the Priests they were cleans'd. They did what Christ enjoin'd them, and we see the Success of it. Their going to the Priests was not the Cause of their being cleans'd, but it was our Saviour's Pleasure that they should be cleans'd as they went, that the one should accompany the other. So it is here, we are bid to pray, to hear and read God's Word, &c. and as we are doing these Things we shall be cleansed, we shall be renewed, we shall be sanctified. Tho' we are by Nature dead in Sin, yet this doth not denote that we are not able to do some Actions, which God makes use of as Means towards the changing of Mens [[sic]] Hearts, and whereby the Spirit doth work Conversion. Wherefore we are to apply our selves to these Means, tho' the efficacious and saving Work is God's only, by his powerful enlightning our Minds, and changing our Hearts. 

Again, we must remember this, that Grace is not due to those who improve their natural Strength, and use the means of Conversion and Sanctification; nothing can be done by us to merit Grace or Salvation; it is for the merit of Christ that any saving Grace is imparted to us. But tho' no performances are acceptable to God for their worth, yet he himself commands us to do them, and will not accept of us without them. We are bid to read, pray, hear, shun the occasions of Sin, avoid evil Company, and use all other means and endeavours; not that there is any value in them, in respect of God, but because he hath ordained that they shall be forerunners of Grace and Mercy, and that in the use o them, Grace shall be given to us. God doth not confer Grace upon us for these Endeavours, but he gives it us by them. We can challenge no such thing, nor is it in consideration of what we do, that God is thus favourable to us; but God is pleased to make this the Order and Constitution of the Gospel, and therefore we are obligated to comply with it. And so as to subsequent Grace, whatever some say, the good use of the former Grace, is no cause of the bestowing more Grace afterwards: It is not for the sake of our Improvements that farther Grace is given; for we are to know, that the After-grace is as freely conferr'd, as the preceding one.

But that which I'm now urging is this; that we must by no means imaging, that the Endeavours before spoken of, are the cause of Conversion, and the procurers of the Efficacious Grace of the Holy Spirit. But as the Mariner cannot command the Wind, yet he can hoist up his Sails to receive it. So the Holy Spirit (who is compared to the Wind) is not at our beck; but we can do that, in the use of which the Spirit is usually convey'd to Men. Those previous Acts are in our power, and they are ordinarily requisite to Conversion and Regeneration: And we have no reason to expect, that we can be regenerated and converted without these. Hence it is, that Men are said in Scripture to convert themselves, and to turn themselves; that is, they use the proper means in order to it: They do their part toward Conversion, tho' the work it self of Conversion be not in their power in the least. This is the true account of the matter.

And hereby these Questions are resolv'd, Whether we may be said to do any thing in the Work of Conversion; and whether there are any Dispositions, Qualifications, or Preparations to Conversion? As to the former, the answer is easie [[easy]]: God himself will have the sole Honor and Prerogative of changing Mens Hearts, of begetting in them true Grace, and the Principle of sincere Holiness; bu the employs us in those things which are in order to it, and which he hath constituted as Means. All that we can do, will not arrive to Regeneration; but we must not be defective in what we are able to do; tho' we can do nothing of the very work it self of Conversion, that requiring an Almighty Power, yet we may do something toward it, and I have shewed what that is: Tho' we can't convert our selves, yet we can do that which God requires us to do. As to the latter Question, it is plain, that there are usually certain Dispositions and Preparations to Conversion; and yet our Church [[i.e. the Church of England]] is in the right when she saith, A Man cannot prepare himself by his own natural Strength and good Works, to faith and calling on God; for an unregenerate Man can do nothing that is acceptable in it self to God. The praying, hearing, reading, &c. which I mentioned before, being performed before Conversion and the infusion of Divine Grace, are not in their own nature valuable; but thus far they are acceptable, that they are in order to that great Change; and likewise we are commanded by God to use them: But the success of them is from him, and it is he that works these Dispositions in us, so far as they are acceptable. Let us then understand our selves aright, and apply our selves seriously to what is our own peculiar part. We are to know, that our personal and proper Action is not inconsistent with God's Grace and Divine Assistance. God effects that which we are not able to do, and yet we have ability to do something, and we must in good earnest set our selves about that. It is not in our power to convert our selves, but our endeavours are, that is, by God's ordinary assistance, and therefore God requires these, and hath no where promis'd to save us, without the concurrence of these.

I am speaking now of what is the usual method of Heaven; but I cannot say that it is thus always, for, as I have observed more than once, God ties not himself up to one certain way; he is pleased to act in a different manner, and to vary from himself. Those Preparations before spoken of, are not absolutely necessary, tho' they are usually required. Sometimes there is no concurrence of Man, God himself doth all: He gives his Grace and holy [[sic]] Spirit, without our asking and seeking, or any other previous dispositions. Of such Conversion we read sometimes in Scripture, and when the Apostle speaks of God's Sovereign Power, in the 9th to the Romans, he is partly to be understood thus. The first Motions and Influences of the holy Spirit, are sometimes precedaneous to all Means and Endeavours in Man: He infuses Grace into some Mens Souls, tho' they are wholly unprepared, as to any of these things that I have mentioned; he immediately acts on their Minds, and in a violent and forcible way breaks in upon them.

But generally it is otherwise; he acts according to the rational Nature of Men, and for the most part in a moral way. They are wrought upon by Persuasion, and in the use of proper Means. He disposes Men for his special Grace, by ordinary and common Grace; he prepares them for one by the other. Yea, it is not improbable that St. Paul himself had been prepared himself in some measure, by the Convictions of his own Conscience, and by his knowledge of the Law of God; but especially he was startled and rouz'd, by those remarkable Thing which hapned [[sic]] to him when he was on his Journey to Damascus, namely, the amazing Light which struck him blind, the wonderful and surprizing [sic] Voice which he heard from Heaven, and his violent and unexpected Fall to the ground. It seem'd good to the Divine Wisdom, that these extraordinary Occurrences should be instrumental toward his Conversion, by awakening his Mind, and fitting him to receive the Divine Impressions.

However, in the ordinary way of God's Dispensations, it is not to be denied, that Means and Preparatives are made use of in order to Conversion. God hath so appointed it, that generally these shall accompany the Divine Power. Yea, tho' Grace be by immediate Infusion, yet it is reasonable to assert, that this is in the use of such means as are of God's appointment; such are our natural Powers and Faculties, our Understanding and Will, and such are our Endeavours, and all those Means before discoursed of. Wherefore a very judicious Writer of our Church, pronounces it very peremptorily [[sic]], that tho' Faith be immediately infused, yet it excludes not, but rather more necessarily requires precedent human Endeavours for the attaining it. For this and other Graces are imparted and conveyed in the use of these Endeavours; and tho' they be infused Habits, yet they are wrought in us by degrees, and not without industry and diligence.

Wherefore here is an Extreme to be avoided, which too many are apt to run into, namely, that because Conversion and continuance in Holiness are from God, and are the work of his holy Spirit, therefore they think they may be idle and careless, and that they are excused from using any means and endeavours; and that they need not strive against their Lusts and vitious Propensions, or take any pains to curb and suppress them: They expect to be wholly assisted from above, therefore they sit still and do nothing. It is God's Work to save them, to sanctifie them, to give them strength against their Sins, to enable them to subdue their Lusts; therefore they neglect the use o those Means that are in their own power, and those Christian Endeavours which are prescribed us by God himself. But let mistaken People say what they will, we must be diligent and laborious in the use of those Means, which are in order to eternal Life and Happiness. This is according to the express Command of our Saviour, Labour for that meat which endureth unto everlasting Life, John vi. 27. Yea, tho' tis added, The Son of Man shall give it unto you, yet we must labour and work for it. And the same infallible Instructer acquaints us, that the kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and the violent (not the idle and lazy) take it by force, Matt. xi. 12. I have thus largely insisted upon this Head, because I would beat down that fond mistake which hath possessed the minds of some well-meaning Persons, that we are to do nothing in order to our Regeneration and Conversion, and the change of our Hearts and Lives.

That Text is misunderstood by some, Come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price, Isai. lv. 1. as if it excluded our labour and Endeavours: But this cannot be the meaning of the words, because God in many other places (which I have above recited) calls us to do our part, to make use of our Faculties and Powers, and not to neglect the helps to Conversion and Salvation. To understand this Text aright, we must know, that this part of the Chapter speaks of the Undertakings of Christ, and of the Grace and Mercy which are contain'd in the Gospel thro' him. These can't be bought by any thing that we can do; we have nothing to give or offer in order to purchasing them: All that is required of us, is to hold but our hands, to take what is offered to us, to accept of what Christ hath done for us, to lay hold on him, and firmly embrace the tender [[i.e. offer]] of Life and Salvation. But then we must remember, that every one that thirsteth is invited to come; and those that are to have a share in this Evangelical Grace, are bid by God to hearken diligently unto him, v. 2. and to encline their ears, and hear, v. 3. and to seek the Lord, and to call upon him, v. 6. All which expresses to us the use of Means. So then, tho' we are to buy wine and milk (which express to us the Grace of God, and the Benefits of the Gospel) without money and without price; that is, without any thing that can be look'd upon as a valuable Consideration for them; yet we cannot (in the ordinary way) attain to these without some pains and industry: For these are the ways in which, and by which, those that God designs to make happy, shall attain to Grace and Holiness. God's working doth not take away ours; that is, our applying our selves to the means, and being diligent in doing all that we can; yea, the former is an encouragement to the latter: For, if we be industrious and sincere, and look up to the Almighty for strength and ability, we shall undoubtedly prosper in our undertaking. We ought then to reckon it our Duty and Concern, to be diligent in the ways of Godliness: We must not, like the idle and slothful Servant [[cf. Luke 19:12ff.]], wrap up our Talent in a Napkin, but conscientiously improve it: For this is certain, that God (in the usual method of his dealings with Mankind) will have our own endeavours concur to our Salvation. For this was my last Proposition, and I hope I have sufficiently proved it, That tho' Conversion be by Divine Grace, yet we are capable of promoting it, by the use of proper Means and Endeavours. 

 Again I've linked to Veritas Redux in my blogpost HERE

 

 

 

 

William Cooper's sermons on Predestination Recommended by George Whitefield

 

Famous Calvinist preacher George Whitefield wrote in a letter to his famous Arminian friend the preacher John Wesley the following:

But I referred you at the beginning of this letter, to Dr. Edwards' Veritas Redux which I recommended to you in a late letter, with Elisha Coles on God's Sovereignty. Be pleased to read those; and also the excellent sermons of Mr. Cooper, of Boston, in New England which I also sent you, and I doubt not but you will see all your objections answered.- from Whitefield's letter to Wesley HERE or in The Memoirs of Rev. George Whitefield, page 640
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Memoirs_of_Rev_George_Whitefield/3-mHU6GQqvwC?hl=en&gbpv=0

I'm not certain that the "Cooper" and the sermons of that "Cooper" that George Whitefield was referring to is the same person as the William Cooper of the following sermons. I asked Artificial Intelligence twice and one time AI said it was likely a "Thomas Cooper" and another time AI said it was a "William Cooper." But since I could only find the sermons of the William Cooper linked below, I therefore post them here on this blogpost. It's likely the correct Cooper, because it's in the right Era and right Location. Whitefield said it was  Mr. Cooper from Boston, and these sermons were preached from William Cooper from Boston to his church in Boston [according to the sermon collections themselves] .

The Doctrine of Predestination Unto Life, Explained and Vindicated: In Four Sermons by William Cooper


An 80 MB scanned file
https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_the-doctrine-of-predesti_cooper-william_1765/mode/2up

or
What appears to be an OCR (optical character recognition) scan to html text version 
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=evans;idno=N03677.0001.001

or
A large 93 MB scanned file
https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_the-doctrine-of-predesti_cooper-william_1740/page/n6/mode/1up

or
A smaller 4.5 MB scanned file, but lower quality
https://archive.org/details/doctrinepredest00coopgoog/page/n8/mode/2up


 

 

 

Veritas Redux: Evangelical Truths Restored by John Edwards

 

In this blogpost I'm featuring Volume One of John Edwards' planned body of divinity. This volume was dedicated to the doctrine of predestination as understood in Calvinism. The second volume was on the doctrine of justification. I'm not sure what volume 3 was focused on or whether he lived long enough to finish a volume 4. This John Edwards [1637-1716] is not to be confused with the more famous Jonathan Edwards [1703-1758]. Both famous preachers Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield recommended John Edwards' works. It's unfortunate that John Edwards is mostly forgotten in the theological community. Surprisingly his books are not hosted at www.Monergism.com. I recently finished reading this first volume and I was thoroughly impressed, informed and edified. He presented a good case for infralapsarianism against supralapsarianism. I myself lean slightly toward supra, but because of reading this book, I'm now much more open to supralapsarianism. I only came across this book because it was recommended in the well known popular introduction to Calvinism, The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele. I also read one of [a number of] John Edwards' books in defense of the Trinity.

Below is the the link to the scanned book. Unfortunately, some pages and sentences were hard to read or illegible. But I was able to read about 99% of the book. It's well worth the effort and frustration. His other book "The Arminian Doctrines Condemn'd" is even more illegible. But I nevertheless include the link to it.

In his book, Steele wrote:

This volume is a study of the five points of Calvinism by one of the great Puritan Calvinists of England. John Edwards (1637-1716) was thought to be one of the foremost Calvinists of his time, and this work represents the very nature presentation of his position both positively, by direct reference to Scriptural foundations, and negatively, by contrast with the Arminian point of view. The work is unfortunately out of print and very rare, but it is one of the plainest and most mature presentations of the Calvinistic point of view ever produced. Some publisher would do a great service to the cause of truth by reprinting this work.

Famous Calvinist preacher George Whitefield wrote in a letter to his famous Arminian friend the preacher John Wesley the following:

"But I referred you, at the beginning of this letter, to Dr. Edwards's Veritas Redux, which I recommended to you also in a late letter, with Elisha Coles on God's Sovereignty. Be pleased to read these, and also the excellent sermons of Mr. Cooper of Boston in New England (which I also sent you) and I doubt not but you will see all your objections answered." -from Whitefield's letter to Wesley which can be read HERE or in The Memoirs of Rev. George Whitefield, page 640 here.

Daniel C. Norman in his (2022?) book Saving the Church of England: John Edwards (1637-1716) as Dissenting Conformer wrote:

Works of John Edwards also found a prominent place in the library of Jonathan Edwards. Six of them are listed in Jonathan Edwards’s “Catalogue.” Upon discovering these six to be of value, Jonathan Edwards expressed a desire to acquire Edwards’s other works.125 Jonathan’s father Timothy, pastor of the Congregational Church in East Windsor for nearly sixty-four years also profited from reading John Edwards, seen in citations from Veritas Redux and Theologia Reformata in his manuscript notebooks.126 With the interest of such high-profile ministers in New England, it is not surprising that some of Edwards’s works were printed in Boston.127 Some of his works were taken to Europe as evidenced by translations into German and French.128

Back in England, Edwards continued to be widely read. In the introduction to his A Compleat Body of Speculative and Practical Divinity, Thomas Stackhouse (1677–1752) wrote that of the “almost innumerable” works published as “Bodies of Divinity,” two are “the best known, and most in use,” those written by Edwards and Richard Fiddes (1671–1725). He called Edwards “very Learned” and his frequently footnoted works, “purely Calvinistical.”

Veritas Redux: Evangelical Truths Restored by John Edwards [VOLUME ONE]
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Veritas_Redux_Evangelical_truths_restore/WYuZmGF4oZMC?hl=en&gbpv=0 [SMALLER FILE]
OR
https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_veritas-redux-evangelic_edwards-john_1707_1 [LARGER FILE]

Veritas Redux Volume 2 [ on the subject of justification by faith, titled, The Doctrin of Faith and Justification Set in a True Light ]
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Veritas_Redux_Evangelical_truths_restore/437s_w0gk4wC?hl=en&gbpv=0

 
Veritas Redux Volume 3 [ on the subject of sanctification, titled, Theologia Reformata ]
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Veritas_Redux_Evangelical_truths_restore/cvYw8cux4dUC?hl=en&gbpv=0

The Arminian Doctrines Condemn'd by John Edwards
https://books.google.com/books?id=XaOgMhzoudUC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false 

 

 

 

Rebutting Bertuzzi's Top 3 Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

 

Another great refutation of Cameron Bertuzzi's arguments against Sola Scriptura. 

 

Rebutting Bertuzzi's Top 3 Arguments Against Sola Scriptura
https://youtu.be/VGQRMq6M4A4
Dr. Christopher Cloos (Philosophy, PhD)

 

Sola Scriptura DEFENDED Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ZAa0gNMvE&list=PLshImU6jwhvyFYwH_KCsnU_XVdLAbvSF5 

 

Is Sola Scriptura True? Refuting ‪@CapturingChristianity‬

 

Here' an excellent video by James Agnew refuting many objections to Sola Scriptura. Especially those of Cameron Bertuzzi. The vast majority of the Agnew's refutations are brilliant. Though, there are a few where his refutations are weak for various reasons. For example, when he occasionally didn't do an internal critique of Catholicism properly (etc.). Nevertheless, over all, this is one of the best take downs of objections to Sola Scriptura I've encountered. It's also a bit funny too. Unfortunately, Agnew admits his theology is not entirely orthodox in its Protestantism. For example, he holds to a Trinitarian model that incorporates partialism. Nevertheless, I post his video below because of how well he refutes Cameron Bertuzzi's arguments against Sola Scriptura.

 

 Is Sola Scriptura True? Refuting ‪@CapturingChristianity‬ 
https://youtu.be/MP7db7IZY2M

 Sola Scriptura DEFENDED Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ZAa0gNMvE&list=PLshImU6jwhvyFYwH_KCsnU_XVdLAbvSF5 

 

 

Why Would the Devil Need to Steal the Word of God Sown in Unbelievers If Total Depravity Is True?

 

I asked Artificial Intelligence the following question:

On the hypothetical that Calvinism is true, why would the devil seek to blind the unregenate who were born blind so as not to see what they already cannot see? Why would the devil need to steal the word of God sown into unsaved people (through a preacher's preaching) if they can't naturally receive it anyway?

My answer has generally been that rhe devil can re-enforce and strengthen hardness of heart against the gospel.

Here's what Meta AI said:

You're raising a nuanced question about the relationship between spiritual blindness, the devil's actions, and the spread of the Gospel in the context of Calvinism. In Calvinist theology, the concept of total depravity suggests that all humans are born spiritually dead and unable to respond to God on their own. The devil's role in blinding the unregenerate is often seen as a reinforcement of this natural state, rather than a literal causing of blindness.

*Spiritual Blindness in Calvinism*

In this framework, spiritual blindness isn't just about physical sight but about the inability to understand or respond to spiritual truth. The devil's actions are often seen as a hindrance to the Gospel's spread, but this doesn't imply that he's causing a change in the unregenerate person's state. Instead, he's working to keep them in their natural condition of spiritual darkness.

*The Parable of the Sower*

Regarding the devil stealing the Word of God from unsaved people, this is often understood as a metaphor for the devil's attempts to prevent the Gospel from taking root in people's hearts. In Calvinist theology, the idea is that God sovereignly chooses to reveal Himself to some, and the devil tries to counter this work. The parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1–23, Mark 4:1–20, Luke 8:4–15) illustrates this concept, where the devil is seen as the one who snatches the seed (the Word of God) from people's hearts.

*Calvinist Perspectives*

Some Calvinist theologians, like John Calvin himself, interpret the devil's role in blinding the unregenerate as a means of preventing them from responding to the Gospel. Others, like Jonathan Edwards, emphasize the devil's efforts to keep people in a state of spiritual darkness, which is their natural condition apart from God's sovereign intervention.

These perspectives highlight the complex interplay between God's sovereignty, human responsibility, and the devil's actions in Calvinist theology.

Here's Grok's answer:

These are fascinating theological questions that hinge on the interplay between Calvinist doctrine and the role of the devil in human salvation—or lack thereof. Let’s unpack this step-by-step, assuming Calvinism’s framework of total depravity, unconditional election, and irresistible grace.

In Calvinism, the unregenerate—those not elected by God for salvation—are indeed spiritually blind from birth due to total depravity. This means they lack the natural ability to perceive or respond to spiritual truths, including the gospel. So, your first question is sharp: why would the devil bother blinding those who are already blind? If they can’t see the truth anyway, what’s the point of his interference?

One possible answer lies in the nature of the devil’s role and motives. Even if the unregenerate can’t naturally grasp the gospel, the act of preaching still scatters the "word of God" into the world, as in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13). The devil, as an adversary of God, might seek to ensure that this word doesn’t linger in their minds or stir any fleeting awareness that could indirectly serve God’s purposes—like prompting reflection or exposing their depravity more clearly. In Calvinism, while the unregenerate can’t savingly respond without God’s grace, they can still hear the word externally. The devil’s "blinding" (2 Corinthians 4:4) could be about reinforcing their natural state, keeping them comfortably numb in their blindness, and preventing any secondary effects of the gospel—like conviction of sin or a cultural shift toward godliness—that don’t require regeneration but still frustrate his aims.

Your second question—why the devil steals the word sown into unsaved people if they can’t receive it—ties into this. In the parable, the devil (the birds) snatches the seed that falls on the path before it takes root. In a Calvinist view, the unregenerate heart is like that hard path: incapable of receiving the word unto salvation without divine intervention. But the devil’s theft might not be about their potential to believe (which Calvinism denies they have naturally) but about his opposition to God’s glory. Every time the word is preached, it’s a declaration of God’s truth and power. By stealing it, the devil minimizes its presence in the world, thwarting even the external testimony to God’s character that the unregenerate might otherwise encounter and reject. It’s less about their salvation (already impossible without election) and more about his cosmic rebellion—ensuring God’s word doesn’t even get a hearing.

Another angle: the devil might not know who’s elect. Calvinism holds that election is God’s secret decree, not fully revealed in time. When a preacher sows the word, the devil could act preemptively, blinding and stealing indiscriminately, unaware of whether God might later regenerate someone. He’d rather overplay his hand than risk losing a soul God has chosen.

So, in short: the devil blinds the already blind and steals the word not because the unregenerate can naturally respond, but to maximize their alienation from God, disrupt the word’s broader impact, and oppose God’s glory at every turn—perhaps even hedging against the unknown of election. It’s a spiteful, tactical overkill consistent with his character as the ultimate enemy of God’s purposes. What do you think—does that resolve the tension, or does it raise more questions for you?

The History and Theology of Calvinism by Curt Daniel

The following link is to Curt Daniel's excellent and well informed lecture series on Calvinism's history ans theology.

 

The History and Theology of Calvinism by Curt Daniel

The Hyper-Calvinist Error of "Eternal Justification"

 

I just finished reading the excellent book "Eternal Justification: Gospel Preaching to Sinners Marred by Hyper-Calvinism" by David H. J. Gay. In the book Gay explains the Hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of "eternal justification" and why it's unbiblical and detrimental to the salvation of souls. Gay has a sermon series on the topic here:

Https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/8499

Presumably the series simplifies the issues and gives an introduction so that people will begin to understand the dangers of the doctrine. For more in-depth information, I recommend reading the book.

I'm now currently reading Gay's other book "Amyraut & Owen Tested: And Found Wanting." It's essentially the renamed and restructured 3rd edition of his book "Particular Redemption and the Free Offer." I'm reading it because I'm curious where he stands on the extent and intent of the atonement of Christ. By the title of the book it seems he likely holds some kind of mediating view that's in between Amyraldism and Owenian Limited Atonement. He has a sermon series on the topic here:

Https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/47209

Theological Frameworks and ChatGPT

 

I've switched theological frameworks a number of times in my Christian life. From what would have been considered Historic Premillennialism, to Revised Dispensationalism, to New Covenant Theology, back to Progressive Dispensationalism and then for a long time back to something like New Covenant Theology but with an affirmation of the imputation of Christ's active obedience and the law as a tutor pointing to Christ (two things which some NCT theologians sometimes rejected). Then in the 2010s I came across Progressive Covenantalism and found that it taught what I generally believed, and also taught additional things that made sense to me. So, from then on my tentative position has been Progressive Covenantalism.

For an introduction to the differences see this 4 lecture series by Stephen Wellum:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/series/155636

 DIRECT LINKS BELOW:

Differences Between Covenant, New Covenant, and Dispensational Theology: Session 1

Differences Between Covenant, New Covenant, and Dispensational Theology: Session 2

Differences Between Covenant, New Covenant, and Dispensational Theology: Session 3

Renewing our Confidence in our God who Makes and Keeps His Promises (Isaiah 40)

I decided to ask the following question of ChatGPT. While, I don't think its answers were always accurate, it was a pleasant surprise to me that it decided on the position that I hold to. Namely, Progressive Covenantalism.

---

---

---

---

---

My Question to ChatGPT: think fresh and don't given me canned and ready answers. Reexamine the Bible and tell me which theological framework better fits with and gibes with the Bible? Classic Dispensationalism, Revised/Traditional Dispensationalism, Hyper-Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, Progressive Covenantalism, Classic Covenant Theology of either the credobaptist or paedobaptist kinds?

ChatGPT said:

Your question asks for a fresh, re-examined look at the theological frameworks and their alignment with the Bible—free from the more standard, conventional answers. To do this properly, it’s essential to recognize that the Bible itself can be interpreted through various lenses depending on the interpretive approach taken, and each theological framework you mentioned offers a different way of understanding how God's covenant and plan unfold throughout history. Let’s consider how each of these frameworks holds up against the biblical narrative, and what might be said to best "fit" with it.

1. Classic Dispensationalism:

Key Idea: Classic Dispensationalism focuses on God's distinct plans for Israel and the Church, which are separated into different dispensations. Israel has a future role in God's plan (especially in terms of the land promises), and the Church is a parenthesis in God's overarching plan for Israel.

Reexamination: Dispensationalism’s rigid distinction between Israel and the Church is a distinctive feature, but it can often feel forced when interpreting the New Testament's handling of Israel’s role post-Jesus. For example, Paul in Romans 9-11 presents a nuanced view where Israel’s rejection is temporary, and the Gentiles are grafted in—but Israel’s ultimate restoration is still promised. This raises the question of whether the Church is truly a "parenthesis" or part of a larger unfolding plan that includes Israel. The growing trend among some scholars suggests that the distinction between Israel and the Church isn’t as sharp as classic Dispensationalism holds.

2. Revised/Traditional Dispensationalism:

Key Idea: A refinement of classic dispensationalism that still maintains a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church, but it often modifies some of the more extreme features, such as how the Church is seen in relation to the Kingdom of God or the new covenant promises.

Reexamination: While Revised Dispensationalism tries to accommodate the tension between Israel’s ongoing role and the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church, the treatment of the Old and New Testament covenants can feel like a piecemeal approach. It's hard to avoid the sense that the new covenant’s promises, which were meant to transform Israel’s heart and open the door to the Gentiles, are still treated as distinct from the Church rather than as something that fulfills Israel's hope. As such, it can struggle to fully incorporate the dynamic unity between Jew and Gentile in Christ, which is a central New Testament theme.

3. Hyper-Dispensationalism:

Key Idea: Hyper-Dispensationalism takes the idea of dispensations to an extreme, often arguing that certain parts of the New Testament (like the Gospels and Acts) are not directly applicable to the Church today. This framework tends to downplay the relevance of the Old Testament and some early Pauline writings for contemporary Christians.

Reexamination: This view takes a very sharp distinction between different phases in God’s plan, but the extreme nature of it is hard to reconcile with the Bible's presentation of continuity in God’s character and moral law throughout the Scriptures. For example, Jesus’ words and actions—especially his teachings in the Gospels—are often foundational for Christian doctrine and ethical living. Disregarding these texts or relegating them to a specific dispensational period seems inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of the continuity between the Old and New Covenants and the role of Christ as the fulfillment of both.

4. Progressive Dispensationalism:

Key Idea: This framework emphasizes a more integrated view of the unfolding dispensations. It seeks to maintain distinctions between Israel and the Church, but it argues that there is more overlap and continuity between them, especially in terms of God's kingdom promises.

Reexamination: Progressive Dispensationalism attempts to mitigate some of the extreme separations between Israel and the Church by suggesting that God's kingdom promises are being progressively fulfilled in the Church, even as there remains a future fulfillment for Israel. This perspective has some strength, especially in its ability to account for the spiritual blessings promised to Israel now being experienced by the Church. But it can sometimes still struggle to balance the tension between Israel’s unique role in God’s plan and the Church’s inclusion in the promises, especially when texts like Romans 11 seem to suggest more continuity than discontinuity.

5. New Covenant Theology:

Key Idea: New Covenant Theology emphasizes the single, unified covenant of grace that culminates in Jesus Christ. It often downplays or reinterprets the Old Testament covenants (such as the Mosaic Covenant) as fulfilled in Christ, and views the New Covenant as a singular covenant for both Israel and the Church.

Reexamination: This view does a better job than others at recognizing the New Covenant’s universal implications, bringing Israel and the Church into one family under Christ. There is a strong biblical case for the idea that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes and that the Church is included in the blessings of the New Covenant. However, the challenge is in how to view Israel’s continuing role—whether it’s entirely fulfilled or if there is still a future, specific role for ethnic Israel in God's plan (Romans 9-11, Revelation 7).

6. Progressive Covenantalism:

Key Idea: Progressive Covenantalism argues that God's covenant promises to Israel find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ, but that these promises are progressively revealed and applied through Scripture, culminating in the New Covenant, which includes both Israel and the Church in the same plan.

Reexamination: This view has a lot of promise in terms of integrating Old Testament promises with New Testament fulfillment. It seeks to honor the continuity of God’s plan while recognizing that the Church is now the people of God, but also acknowledges Israel’s continuing importance in God’s plan. The strength of Progressive Covenantalism is in its robust treatment of Scripture as a unified story, but it also faces the same challenge of reconciling Israel’s national future with the fulfillment of God’s promises in the Church today.

7. Classic Covenant Theology (Credobaptist or Paedobaptist):

Key Idea: Classic Covenant Theology emphasizes the continuity of God's covenant of grace, which is seen as operating through the covenant of works (before the fall), the covenant of grace (after the fall), and the covenant of redemption (between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Paedobaptists or credobaptists apply this framework differently in regards to infant baptism versus believer’s baptism.

Reexamination: Covenant Theology offers a deep sense of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing the idea that the covenant of grace is the same throughout all of Scripture. The challenge here, however, comes in how to handle Israel's distinct role in redemptive history. Is Israel truly superseded by the Church, or does it continue to have a role (Romans 9-11)? Paedobaptists, in particular, wrestle with how the sign of the covenant (baptism) applies to children in light of the New Covenant, which might be at odds with the explicit New Testament teachings on faith as a prerequisite for baptism.

---

What Fits Best?

After considering these views, Progressive Covenantalism seems the most promising framework that both aligns with Scripture and offers a coherent theological understanding. It provides a balanced view of continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the Church, while also recognizing the fulfillment of God's covenant promises in Christ. It sees God's covenant as progressive—revealed over time, culminating in Christ—while acknowledging the Church's integral place in that story without denying Israel’s ongoing, future role.

This framework avoids the extremes of dividing Israel and the Church too sharply or disregarding Israel’s continuing significance, allowing for a fuller and richer understanding of Scripture. It also captures the New Testament's emphasis on the unity of God’s people (Jew and Gentile together in Christ), making it an excellent fit for those seeking a unified, biblical theology of redemption.