"But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil."- Hebrews 5:14
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts

Friday, June 27, 2025

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



Wednesday, June 25, 2025

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 




 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Monday, June 2, 2025

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

 

 

 

 

Sunday, June 1, 2025

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 

 



 

 

Sunday, April 6, 2025

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?

Saturday, March 29, 2025

Saturday, March 1, 2025

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





Thursday, October 10, 2024

Is Limited Atonement Biblical? Lecture by James White

 

As I've recently pointed out in my new blogpost HERE I'm no longer as confident the doctrine of [Owenian] Limited Atonement as I used to be, despite continuing to be a Calvinist. Here's Calvinist popularizer James White's lecture in defense of Limited Atonement. I've appreciated Dr. White's ministry since the 1990s, so his defense has some weight in my opinion.


Is Limited Atonement Biblical? w/Dr. James White (Part 4)
https://youtu.be/N57nbTLTCWE


See also James White's most recent debate on the topic:

DEBATE: The Reformed Doctrine of Atonement is Biblical and Important |
James White vs. Jason Breda

https://youtu.be/6Yg2cIpfyeg









John Calvin's view of Limited Atonement - by Dr. Roger Nicole

 

 

I'm not dogmatic on the extent of the atonement. Here's an articles on John Calvin's view on Limited Atonement. I'm not convinced. I think Calvin was inconsistent and that he generally seemed to affirm universal atonement. My default position is Owenian Limited Atonement that teaches that both the extent and intent of the atonement was particular. But I'm also very open to the mediating position whereby the Extent of the atonement was universal, while the Intent of the atonement was particular.

 

John Calvin's view of Limited Atonement - by Dr. Roger Nicole
https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/

See also:
John Calvin's Position by Paul Helm
https://www.the-highway.com/articleJuly02.html

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Was Orthodox Saint & Patriarch Cyril Lucaris A Calvinist?

 

I don't take a stand on this issue. But here are some videos on the topic from Protestant points of view.

Cyril Lucaris Calvinist Patriarch Orthodox Saint

https://youtu.be/_yQBY2lPWUc?si=Ix9ueolwGMXLyIik




Let's Make Cyril Lucaris Great Again!

https://youtu.be/vM4tcSQz16A?si=ShSKmvT4bMRiHZnD




The Two Faces of Cyril Lucaris. Was He An Evil Calvinist Patriarch Or A Good Eastern Orthodox Saint?

https://youtu.be/r4Dhtkwpqw4?si=Mp92vovJl9sXrGfX



Ah Yes, That Calvinist Orthodox Patriarch (Cyril Lucaris) [by Gavin Ortlund] 

https://youtu.be/A7cE1IfHC2w?si=7fps55KQWe_poRhH





Friday, September 13, 2024

Two Calvinists Debate the Extent of the Atonement


One Calvinist argues for classic [Owenian] Limited Atonement, the other Calvinist argues for Christ not dying for the elect alone, but for the elect Especially.


Debate: "Did Christ Die For The Sins of The Elect Alone?" Austin C. Brown vs. Jon Bowlin

https://www.youtube.com/live/rwkyf8YnZnc?si=yTrZEYbUUufkjaq3













Saturday, September 9, 2023

Calvinism by Ben A. Warburton

 

I just found out that Ben A. Warburton's book Calvinism is freely online. It was one of the books I read that I found to clearly explain the basics of Calvinism. It's similar to the earlier published book by Loraine Boettner's titled, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, but doesn't go off into tangents and speculations like Boettner's does. I agree with some of the speculations and tangents Boettner makes in his book, and others I think are unnecessary, or false or are misleading. For example, I myself am  now a postmillennialist, but Boettner gives a false impression by speaking as if Calvinism and postmillennialism are necessarily linked. Boettner speaks about physics in a Newtonian fashion and correlates that with Calvinism's doctrine of God's exhaustive providence. But Newtonian physics has been replaced by quantum physics in the world of science, and so the correlation that Boettner makes no longer works. Though, I do not think that quantum mechanics undermines God's exhaustive providence. With qualifications like that (and others) I can recommend Boettner's book [linked above]. But I don't need to make such kindS of qualifications in Warburton's book. Here's the link:


Calvinism by Ben A. Warburton
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001594563

OR DOWNLOAD PDF HERE

 

 

Tuesday, September 21, 2021

Thursday, March 5, 2020

Counsel For Those Doubting or Doubtful of Their Election


It is not necessary to be a Calvinist to be saved. However, for those who are either convinced of Calvinism or are considering it, there's a common problem that arises. Namely, the fear that one is not numbered among the elect. The following quotes by high predestinarian Protestants [mostly Calvinists] can help. They don't all directly address the problem, but their counsel applies to the problem nonetheless.

See also my blogposts:

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

Detecting and Finding God


"Let a man go to the grammar school of faith and repentance before he goes to the university of election and predestination."- John Bradford often quoted by George Whitefield

"The decree of God does not affect my endeavour; for he that decreed my salvation decreed it in the use of means, and if I neglect the means I reprobate myself. No man argues thus: God has decreed how long I shall live, therefore I will not use means to preserve my life, I will not eat and drink. God has decreed the time of my life in the use of means, so God has decreed my salvation in the use of the Word and of prayer. As a man who refuses food murders himself, so he that refuses to work out his salvation destroys himself. The vessels of mercy are said to be prepared unto glory. Rom 9: 23. How are they prepared but by being sanctified? and that cannot be but in the use of means; therefore let not God's decree take thee off from holy endeavours. It is a good saying of Dr Preston, 'Hast thou a heart to pray to God? it is a sign no decree of wrath has passed against thee.’ "
- Thomas Watson in A Body of Divinity
https://www.monergism.com/body-divinity-ebook
https://www.apuritansmind.com/wp-content/uploads/FREEEBOOKS/ABodyofDivinity-ThomasWatson.pdf

Hence as to future time, because the issue of all things is hidden from us, each ought to so apply himself to his office, as though nothing were determined about any part.
- John Calvin (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, (1552) trans. J.K.S. Reid, (London, James Clarke & Co. 1961, 171)

Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. I speak of all unto whom God doth make himself manifest by the gospel.
- John Calvin, Commentary on Acts [regarding chapter 2 verse 21]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom36.ix.iii.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc36/cc36018.htm

 But here we must shut the mouths of those sacriligeous and arrogant spirits who, mere beginners that they are, bring their reason to bear on this matter and commence, from their exalted position, to probe the abyss of divine providence and uselessly trouble themselves about whether they are predestined or not. These people must surely plunge to their ruin, since they will either despair or abandon themselves to a life of chance.

You, however, follow the reasoning of this letter in the order in which it is presented. Fix your attention first of all on Christ and the Gospel, so that you may recognize your sin and his grace. Then struggle against sin, as chapters 1-8 have taught you to. Finally, when you have come, in chapter 8, under the shadow of the cross and suffering, they will teach you, in chapters 9-11, about providence and what a comfort it is. [The context here and in St. Paul's letter makes it clear that this is the cross and passion, not only of Christ, but of each Christian.] Apart from suffering, the cross and the pangs of death, you cannot come to grips with providence without harm to yourself and secret anger against God. The old Adam must be quite dead before you can endure this matter and drink this strong wine. Therefore make sure you don't drink wine while you are still a babe at the breast. There is a proper measure, time and age for understanding every doctrine.
- Martin Luther, Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans
https://www.ccel.org/l/luther/romans/pref_romans.html

If the events of things be not in our power, as you [[[i.e. Erasmus]]] say, how can it be in man to perform the causing acts? The same answer which you gave me, the same receive yourself! Nay, we are commanded to work the more for this very reason, because all things future are to us uncertain: as saith Ecclesiastes, "In the morning sow thy seed, and in the evening hold not thine hand: for thou knowest not: which shall prosper, either this or that" (Eccles. xi. 6). All things future, I say, are to us uncertain, in knowledge, but necessary in event. The necessity strikes into us a fear of God that we presume not, or become secure, while the uncertainty works in us a trusting, that we sink not in despair.
- Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will [translated by Henry Atherton]
https://web.archive.org/web/20180105074033/http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html
[pages 257-258 in the J.I. Packer & O.R. Johnston translation]

Since the future events are hidden and unknown to us we should be as industrious in our work and as earnest in the performance of our duty as if nothing had been decreed concerning it. It has often been said that we should pray as though everything depended on God, and work as though everything depended on ourselves.
- Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination, chapter 18
https://ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest

Wherefore, with reference to the time future, since the events of things are, as yet, hidden and unknown, everyone ought to be as intent upon the performance of his duty as if nothing whatever had been decreed concerning the issue in each particular case. Or (to speak more properly) every man ought so to hope for success in all things which he undertakes at the command of God, as to be freely prepared to reconcile every contingency with the sure and certain Providence of God. The Lord, moreover, promises His blessing upon the work of our hands. By this promise each godly man will acknowledge himself to be appointed of God, an instrument of His glorious Providence. And such godly one, relying on this same promise, will gird himself with alacrity to his undertaking, and will be persuaded that he is not casting into the air labour in vain; but, resting on the Word of God, he will believe that God, by His secret counsel, will direct all his labour to the issue that shall be best. In a word, as the Providence of God, rightly considered, does not bind our hands, but free them for work, so it not only does not hinder prayer, but strengthens and confirms its earnestness.
- John Calvin, A Defence of the Secret Providence of God, Introduction
https://www.the-highway.com/calvin%27s_calvinism_index.html

I wrote in another blogpost the following:

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.







Sunday, February 2, 2020

My Observations and Notes on the Debate Between Luis Dizon vs. Joshua Gibbs on Justification



Luis Dizon's blogpost on the debate:
https://eacanada.wordpress.com/2020/02/01/debate-on-the-doctrine-of-justification-luis-dizon-vs-joshua-gibbs/



Here are my personal observations and notes on the debate as a Calvinistic and continuationist Baptist. They are my notes, rather than a case for my position. They are also a clarification of my present position for my own continuing understanding of Justification and Sanctification.

In the debate Joshua kept going over time. That was fine because he was lenient with Luis' use of time as well. Though, I wish that he would have told Luis that after he finished his opening he had over 2 minutes more left. Luis could have used that time productively.

I think that Luis could have pressed Joshua to Biblically defend the imputation of Christ's active obedience/righteousness (IAO). Which isn't as biblically supported as many Protestants think. Though, I personally think it's sufficiently supported.

Regarding the Lordship Salvation Controversy in the 1990s, I hold to Lordship Salvation. But Joshua seems to hold to the Non-Lordship Salvation position of either Charles Ryrie or [the more extreme view of] Zane Hodges. If so, then Luis should have asked whether Joshua thought Luis himself is still saved. Given Joshua's view, it would seem that he would have to say, "Yes". In which case, it was safest for Luis to cover all the bases and revert to Catholicism. Since, he can't lose his salvation by reverting given Joshua's apparent view of justification and optional sanctification. And Luis' attitude toward Jesus isn't like the hypothetical atheist that Joshua struggles to categorize. Lordship Salvation sees sanctification as necessary [in some sense], while Non-Lordship Salvation sees it as optional. As a Calvinist I believe God always sanctifies those whom He justifies [unless the person immediately dies after justification]. The Non-Lordship Salvation view of "Eternal Security" or "Once Saved, Always Saved", while similar, should never be confused with the more robust Calvinist view of the "Perseverance of the Saints".

I think Trent Horn clearly won his debate with James White on perseverance. I think that's partly because, as James has repeatedly said, he intentionally no longer debates like he used to in order to win the debate. But to win the audience. I think that attitude and approach has negatively affected the quality of his debates. I also wonder whether if he's no longer preparing or brushing up for his debates with Catholics. Compare his debating style in the 1990s with his recent debates and there's a huge difference. If I recall correctly, I think White did a much better defense of the Perseverance of the Saints in his debate with Atkin and Matatics.

Predestination debate with Akin
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=327181522286

Eternal Security debate with Matatics
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5301512831


I completely agree (or virtually so, say 99%) with the historical survey of the 1st part of Luis' Opening. He mentions that R.C. Sproul claimed Catholicism denies Sola Gratia. That might be so. But Michael Horton (and presumably others at the White Horse Inn) has said that it's IRONIC that while there is a long list of theologians in the stream and tradition of Roman Catholicism who affirmed Sola Gratia while denying Sola Fide, that there are many contemporary Evangelicals who affirm Sola Fide, but deny Sola Gratia (e.g. Arminians). So, there are Reformed folk like Horton and myself who acknowledge that Roman Catholicism (or at least some of their theologians) affirm Sola Gratia.

I agree that Roman Catholicism officially denies both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism [as I understand them]. At least since the rediscovery of the Canons of the Council of Orange sometime in the 16th century. My limited understanding is that Pelagianism teaches grace, while useful, isn't absolutely necessary because humans can earn salvation by their use of their freewill and strict merit good works. Grace is not strictly necessary. Whereas Semi-Pelagianism does affirm that grace is absolutely necessary, but that man always, or at least sometimes can move toward God and respond to God's grace apart from that grace first influencing him and moving him toward a response. Roman Catholicism rejects that Semi-Pelagian view and affirms enabling/initiating grace, or what they call Operating Grace prior to initial justification. As well as Cooperating Grace after initial justification. Wesleyans and most non-Reformed/non-Lutheran Evangelicals refer to enabling/initiating grace as Prevenient Grace.  Prevenient grace doesn't leave men merely indifferent or neutral. It also draws and woos people to respond to God's grace. As Arminian theologian Roger Olson described it, "...it is an operation of the Holy Spirit that frees the sinner’s will from bondage to sin and convicts, calls, illumines and enables the sinner to respond to the gospel call with repentance and faith (conversion)." Calvinists don't merely hold grace is necessary, but that it's also sufficient. Hence the term Efficacious Grace which is redemptive, special and applied only to the elect, as opposed to Common Grace which all humanity receives. In Calvinism all those whom God regenerates, He also justifies; and all those whom He justifies He also sanctifies [on the assumption that they don't die immediately and have time to perform good works]. Compare my blogpost HERE.

Luis rightly points out that there are differences among the Reformed regarding justification and sanctification. Though his emphasis on that could lead some to think there aren't differences among non-Calvinistic Evangelicals among themselves or among Catholics themselves and the patristic fathers themselves. For example, even among Wesleyans there are about 10 different views regarding Prevenient Grace. See chapter 9 of Still Sovereign edited by Schreiner. Not to mention that John Wesley himself continually modified his views on justification throughout his life. Wesleyans also disagree on the definition of Entire Sanctification. While it's slightly out-dated and not as scholarly as it could be, Peter Toon's survey on the different views on justification and sanctification in Christendom is freely online here: http://assets.newscriptorium.com/toon-collection/doctrine/justsanct1.htm

Luis rightly points out that the Reformed disagree on the concept of Final Justification (or what he also referred to as double justification). I myself affirm a double justification. I've defended Piper's views as Biblical and historical for a long time. For example, here's a dialogue I had in 2010 regarding the Piper's view against the Neo-Sandemanian view of the definition of faith by Gordon Clark and his disciples. I posted as Annoyed Pinoy.
https://godshammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/clark-quick-quote-7/

Here's a quick video on John Piper's view of the Justification of the Thief on the Cross where he applies his understanding of final justification to the thief.
https://www.facebook.com/TogetherfortheGospel/videos/440569583487014/

In the 1990s there was the Lordship Salvation vs. Non-Lordship Salvation debate among Evangelicals [e.g. MacArthur vs. Ryrie/Hodges], and I sided with the former. Though, MacArthur's views could have been stated better. See Christ the Lord  by Michael Horton and other contemporary Reformational authors on the topic of Lordship Salvation.

I agree with Calvinist Jonathan Edwards that Christ's righteousness is also infused in us in sanctification [not just imputed in justification]. That God makes sinners objectively righteous.

I agree with the last paragraph of Calvinist A.W. Pink's book, _The Doctrine of Justification_:

Let it be said in conclusion that the justification of the Christian is complete the moment he truly believes in Christ, and hence there are no degrees in justification. The Apostle Paul was as truly a justified man at the hour of his conversion as he was at the close of his life. The feeblest babe in Christ is just as completely justified as is the most mature saint. Let theologians note the following distinctions. Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience; finally so at the Day of Judgment, when God shall sententiously, and in the presence of all created things, pronounce them so.- A.W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, chapter 10, last paragraph [bold added by me- AP]
https://web.archive.org/web/20180205183443/http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Justification/index.htm

And John Gerstner's statement:

Christians will receive rewards in heaven for every one of their imperfect “good” works for a very good reason. Those post-justification good works are not necessary for heaven because Jesus Christ purchased heaven for those in Him by faith. The works are necessary to prove the genuineness of professed faith but they are not necessary for earning heaven. They are real “works of super-erogation,” if you wish. Anyone who goes to heaven does so for the merit of Christ’s work alone, apart from any merit in any and all of his own works of obedience. If faith could exist apart from works, which it cannot, the believer could go to heaven without ever doing one good work. As it is, he goes to heaven without one iota of merit in anything and everything he does. But every post-justification good work he ever does will merit, deserve, and receive its reward in heaven.

You protest, “But post-justification works have sin in them, and therefore cannot merit any reward.” You forget that their guilt of sin has been removed. Moreover, do you dare impugn the justice of God by saying that He would “reward” what did not deserve reward? (P.S. I confess my own and Augustine’s past error in using the oxymoron: “rewards of grace.”)

In conclusion, faith, as union with Christ, possesses Christ’s righteousness which justifies perfectly forever. Being true faith, it is inseparable from works which contribute zero to justification. But being unnecessary for heaven (which Christ’s merit alone purchases), works are meritorious and the Christian is now to leap for joy because every one of his weakest of works will deservedly receive an everlasting reward in heaven. [The Nature of Justifying Faith - by Dr. John H. Gerstner]
https://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/the-nature-of-justifying-faith-by-dr-john-h-gerstner/

So I affirm a kind of "condign" merit for rewards, or what Piper calls "conditional unmerited grace", but not for justification or acceptance before God.

With regard to the second part of Luis' Opening, the Biblical arguments:

I agree that faith in the New Testament can sometimes have the meaning of allegiance/loyalty, even faithfulness. I also agree that "works of the Law" in Paul can sometimes refers to the Mosaic Covenant and its laws. But I don't think that these facts necessarily undermine the general Reformed view of Justification.

I affirm the usefulness and legitimacy of the distinctions of the different theological types of works that Roman Catholics [and others] can refer to. For example:

Types of works: 1. keeping of the Mosaic Covenant and its laws; 2. merely the ceremonial laws; 3. any keeping of moral precepts [as opposed to or distinguished from ceremonial or civil laws in the Mosaic Covenant]; 4. any type of works prior to initial justification; 5. strict merit works; 6. Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian works; 7. congruous merit; 8. condign merit et cetera

These are good theological distinctions, but they aren't Biblical distinctions. So, I nevertheless think that Paul excludes all types of works for justification. Such categories were not in his mind when he wrote his epistles.

I'm willing to say that the Apostle James teaches our works vindicates us, or vindicates our faith before God, but I don't think he's addressing what Paul is addressing when it comes to justification. We have to allow Biblical authors to use theological terminology and categories of thought in their own way, and not shoehorn different Biblical authors into meaning what another author meant or was addressing. Though, this in no way denies that we ought to harmonize and systematize Biblical teaching on a topic. Nevertheless, different authors do have different frameworks on the same topics.  The distinct Christian communities described theological truths differently. The soteriology and Christology in the Pauline corpus is expressed very differently/distinctly than in the Johannine corpus. For example, Paul never referred to Christ as the "Logos of God" or as "the Son of Man". The Johannine corpus is willing to explicitly say that we have eternal life immediately upon the exercise of faith. While Paul usually likes to reserve the obtaining of eternal life to the future eschaton. John meanwhile never spoke of justification proper.

Nowhere does the Scripture explicitly state that Abraham or David lost their justification. At most one might appeal to Paul's citation of Ps. 32 to infer David lost his justification and needed to be re-justified. However, we have to understand three things. 1. the way New Testament authors quoted the Old Testament; 2. that we have to be careful to not anachronistically have New Testament authors imposing their theology onto the Tanakh; and 3. not anachronistically imposing later post-Biblical theological distinctions onto New Testament authors [as I warned above].

Regarding #1, I recommend listening to Arnold Fruchtenbaum's 3rd lecture in his series The Jewish Life of Christ. There he deals with how New Testament authors cited, quoted or alluded to Old Testament passages.
https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

My summary doesn't do justice to Fruchtenbaum's live explication of the Jewish PaRDeS hermeneutical methods. So, I highly recommend listening to the first few minutes of his 3rd lecture to feel the weight of the point I'm making in point #1.

Fruchtenbaum points out that quotations by NT authors of the Tanakh doesn't necessary mean that they thought the passage from the OT they were citing taught the point they were making or that there are direct lessons one can learn from and OT passage cited in the New Testament which matches the New Testament author's point. Their citations could be much looser, and almost eisegetical. Here I would again recommend listening to his 3rd lecture.

In light of that, we can't necessarily infer that because New Testament authors cited different times when Abraham was justified that he was justified multiple times [the OT refers to his being justified in Genesis chapters 12, 15, 22]. Especially since more than one NT author is involved in making that inference of multiple justifications. That would violate the principle I mentioned above about allowing each author to express his theology and concerns his own way. Their letters are called "occasional epistles" for a reason. They were specifically written for occasions that dealt with particular issues. On justification, Paul was often dealing THEOLOGICALLY [orthodoxy] with how we are made acceptable before God, and then applying that to the Christian life. While James was dealing PASTORALLY [orthopraxy] with the problem of complacency and lack of zeal for good works and repentance among Christians. So, while Paul began with theology and ended with application in the Christian life, James did the opposite and began with living the Christian life to come to doctrinal conclusions. Paul was primarily dealing with the justification of the person, while James the justification of one's professed/claimed faith. While James does seem to be addressing the vindication of the person's faith (or maybe even the person himself) before God [pace some Protestants who absolutely deny this]; the vindication of the person and/or his faith isn't necessarily logically or theologically equivalent to the basis on which one is accepted by God and gains legitimate entrance into the Kingdom of God. For the historic Protestant, that's the finished work of Christ. His passive and active obedience.

It seems to me that "Golden Chain of Redemption" of Rom. 8:28-29 implies justification cannot be lost. As has been noted by some, the fact that sanctification isn't included in the chain might be because Paul didn't want anyone to infer that our salvation hinged on our sanctification. Also, in order to emphasize the proleptic certainty of how election leads to certain glorification. There doesn't seem to be any room in Paul's use of the "Chain" for any of the justified to fail to be glorified.

It seems to me that 1 John 2:19 and 3:9 suggests justification or eternal life cannot be lost.

No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.- 1 John 3:9

The author seems to be saying that those who have been born again cannot persist in serious sin because regeneration is irreversible/irrevocable. In which case they cannot lose their "justification" [to use the Catholic sense].

Of course the Catholic sense believes in baptismal regeneration. I've addressed that in my thread of comments at Steve Hays' blogpost here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/11/catholicism-28-weeks-later.html?showComment=1573347331188#c6534021569072313175

Though, I'm open to the possibility that genuine believers can lose their salvation, and agree with the distinction between 1. the Perseverance of (only) the Elect and 2. the Perseverance of (all) the Saints, I lean against that position and view the two groups as coterminous rather than that the elect being a a smaller subset of the saints. I've also addressed the topic of the loss of salvation in that thread at Triablogue as well. My default position as a Calvinist is to affirm the Perseverance of the Saints.

While Catholics can epistemologically affirm with some certainty that they are currently in a salvific/gracious state, Trent denies that one can have assurance of making it to heaven in this life apart from a revelation from God. So, in one sense Catholics can affirm the Johannine claim that we can know we have eternal life [1 John 5:13; John 5:24]. Catholics can interpret that as referring to a present knowledge of a present state. However, I don't think that interpretation does justice to the Johannine authors' use of the phrase "eternal life" and the possibility of assurance and certainty of having it. The author says, "...He does not/shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life" (John 5:24b). Which seems to correspond to Paul's statement, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..." (Rom. 8:1ff.).

The following verses (Rom. 8:2ff.) have been used to support the idea that salvation can be lost, but Paul goes on to make a distinction between those who are in the flesh and those who are in the Spirit. Teaching that the response of those in the Spirit will be to live righteously, and that being "in the Spirit" [and having the Spirit] is a work of God, not of one's proper use and improvement of available offered grace. Remember too this is the same chapter that Paul introduces the the topic of predestination. While chapter divisions aren't part of the autographes, it's natural for Paul to transition from justification to predestination if justification is a permanent once for all reality as Reformed theology teaches. Justification and predestination are mentioned in the same verse, verse 30; and condemnation and justification is contrasted in the same verse just three verses later 33. With verse 32 implying God will give all things to believers for whom Christ died. Why shouldn't that include the "gift of perseverance" [to use Augustine's terminology]? Again, I delved into this in my comments at Steve Hays' blogpost HERE.

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.- Rom. 8:30
32    He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?
33    Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.- Rom. 8:32-33
I believe it might be possible to attain apodictic and philosophic certainty that one will persevere in the faith and make it to the Kingdom of God, but that it requires a special inner testimony of the Holy Spirit that most Christians don't have. Though, the average Christian can have a lower level warranted assurance of that given the usual inner testimony of the Holy Spirit coupled with a credible profession of faith. Though, even that normal assurance of salvation is not, as Protestant theologians have said, "of the essence of faith". One can lack such assurance and still be in a salvific state. Just ask one can have a subjective erroneous assurance and be in a lost state. Since, it's possible to be deceived into to thinking one is "saved". Deception and self-deception is a real phenomenon and it's not contrary to Calvinism to affirm the following Biblical injunctions:

Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.- Heb. 12:14

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?---unless indeed you fail to meet the test!- 2 Cor. 13:5
Security of salvation is an objective theological and/or onotological issue. While Assurance of salvation is a subjective psychological issue. In Calvinism, one HAS BEEN saved [past tense] from the penalty of sin in Justification; IS BEING saved [present tense] from the power of sin in Sanctification, and WILL BE saved [future tense] from the presence of sin in Glorification.

Finally, it seems to me that I can be more gracious regarding the salvation of Catholics than Catholics can be of Protestants like myself given past Ex Cathedra statements and the anathemas of Canons of the Council of Trent regarding my alleged damnable heresies on justification. Though, some Catholic apologists claim that they don't apply to modern Protestants like myself since they were aimed at 16th century heretics and individuals, and/or because I may not be knowingly and intentionally rejecting the truth of Catholicism. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't urge Catholics to leave Catholicism for some Evangelical position. I would, because I think Catholicism waters down or virtually [or actually] denies fundamental core teachings of the Bible.

The following are some of the Catholic ex cathedra statements that would condemn me as a Protestant to hell. Modern Catholics have a way of getting around these anathemas so that they don't apply to "separated brethren" like myself [per the historical revisionism of Vatican II]. But I think the original intention and interpretation of the following statements necessitates that I fall under the category of a "heretic and schismatic" doomed for Gehenna.

Ex Cathedra: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, Forth Lateran Council, 1215

Ex Cathedra "Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctuam, 1302

Ex Cathedra: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely neccesary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctuam, 1302

Ex Cathedra: "[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels', unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739) (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

 " The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that NONE of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics [Protestants] and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, NO ONE, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).
Seventeenth Ecumenical Council -- Florence