The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth: Part 2

 

“. . . By 1936 the signers of the Auburn Affirmation showed that they had captured the church by reorganizing Princeton Seminary and placing one of the signers on its governing board, by electing one of their number Moderator of the General Assembly [of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America], and, what was decisive, by excommunicating those ministers who had insisted on maintaining the Westminster standards in practice.  Thus, ministers who rejected the Scripture and all it contains were given authority, while men who believed the Bible and all it contains were rejected as disturbers of the peace.  Since that day the Westminster Confession has been a dead letter in that denomination, and now the process to drop it officially has begun.” 

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?  The Westminster Confession Yesterday and Today.  1^st Ed.  1965.  (Unicoi:  Trinity Foundation, 2001).  P. viii.

 

 

The Free Offer of the Gospel, Common Grace, and Pragmatic Church Growth:  Part 2

 

I will now discuss the free offer of the Gospel or FOG.  This is closely related to another doctrine proposed by those who wish to water down the Bible and the best summary of the Bible ever produced, namely the Westminster Confession of Faith.  The other doctrine is called the well-meant offer of the Gospel.  The doctrine of the free offer of the Gospel presupposes that the reprobate wicked can be persuaded to believe the Gospel and thus moved from the category of reprobation to the category of unconditional election.  The justification for this is that we here on earth do not know what God’s eternal decree has foreordained to happen.  Since we have no knowledge of God’s hidden or secret decree, it is therefore justified to completely ignore the doctrines of predestination, special providence, regeneration/effectual calling and to preach the Gospel as any Arminian would preach it.  (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Those who prosecute the doctrines of the free offer of the gospel, common grace, and pragmatism in evangelism and mission will tell us that we should never mention predestination or special providence when preaching because those are doctrines that immediately irritate unbelievers and stand as roadblocks to our evangelistic mission.  Unfortunately, the downgrade begins with ignoring certain parts of Scripture and focusing on more favorable portions of Scripture instead.  These semi-Calvinists want to focus on the common ground that Calvinists and Arminians have instead of the differences and the distinctions.

In my Pentecostal days, it was often claimed that Pentecostals alone preached the full Gospel message.  Of course, what they meant by this was the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, which they claim is normative for all times and places up until the parousia or the return of Christ.  The proposition comes from Acts 20:27  KJV.  “For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27 NKJ)  Presupposing Pentecostal experiential theology, I suppose that could be one way to interpret that verse.  But Presbyterians focus on propositional revelation in the Scriptures, not experiential hermeneutics.  The Bible contains numerous propositions from which other propositions can be deduced.  These logical propositions can then be arranged into a system of propositional truths which is deduced from Scripture by good and necessary consequence:

WCF 1.6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:  . . .  (Westminster Confession of Faith.  Of the Holy Scripture.)

The Presbyterian who truly believes that all Scripture is God-breathed, including ministers and the laity, has an obligation to believe all of the Scriptures.  As the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark once said, all Scripture is profitable for doctrine.  2 Timothy 3:16. This means that not only are the evangelistic verses appropriate for doctrinal teaching, but also the less significant portions of Scriptures like the genealogies and how many pots and pans were in the temple that Solomon built.  Since the Westminster Confession is arranged in a descending order of theological importance, the most important doctrine of Scripture is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in chapter one.  Scripture alone is the written Word of God.  (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21; John 10:35; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-19).  The second most important doctrine of the Bible, according to the Westminster divines, is the doctrine of God as Triune.  The most important attributes of deity are dealt with in chapter 2, Of God, and the Holy Trinity.  However, the third most important doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith is the most controversial one, yet the most avoided doctrine.  It is the doctrine of predestination:  chapter 3, Of God’s Eternal Decree.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark lays out the issue that is most disturbing to unbelievers and Arminians:

The Protestant Reformation, the greatest religious awakening since the days of the Apostles, was characterized by a zeal to understand God’s Word.  Not only were its obvious teachings emphasized, e.g., the sufficiency of Christ’s work for our salvation and the uselessness of purgatory and penance, but also its deeper doctrines, e.g., predestination, were carefully examined.

However, two or three centuries later, after the love many had waxed cold, and when unbelief came in like a flood, the discouraged and fragmented faithful became Fundamentalists and were content to defend a few vital doctrines.  Sometimes they even said that Christians ought not to go too deeply into the Scriptures.  It is presumptuous, useless, and worst of all, divisive.

Such an attitude is not commended in the Scriptures themselves, nor was it the practice of the Reformers and the Westminster divines.  The Bible says that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, not just some.  And the Reformers did not draw back from the difficult passages on predestination, foreordination, and God’s eternal decrees.  [Emphasis is mine.]  Really, these passages are not difficult to understand, though many people find them difficult to believe.  But if they are God’s words, then we should study, believe, and preach them.

The Westminster Confession, summarizing the Bible, asserts in Chapter III that God from all eternity did ordain whatsoever comes to pass.  Obviously, if God is omnipotent, if nothing can thwart his will, and if he decided to make a world, then all his creatures and all their actions must be according to his plan.

This is easy to understand; but many people find it difficult to believe that God planned to have sin in the world.  Does Chapter III of the Confession mean that God commits sin?  And even in the case of a man’s doing something good, does it mean that God makes the man do the good act while the man willed to do something evil?  These questions have perplexed many minds, but the first question is, What does the Bible say?  If the Bible talks about foreordination, we have no right to avoid it and keep silent.   [Emphasis is mine.]

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  What Do Presbyterians Believe?, pp. 36-37.

On one side of the issue are those who oppose the doctrine of the free offer.  The objection is that it is impossible to persuade a person who has been unconditionally reprobated prior to the creation of the world by God’s eternal decree.  The opponents of FOG do not object to the promiscuous preaching of the Gospel everywhere on earth to all who will hear the message.  That is often a false misrepresentation used to label opponents as “hyper-Calvinists” who do not believe in evangelism or foreign missions. 

On the other hand, the proponents of the FOG will then argue two things.  First, they argue that we cannot know God’s secret will in His archetypal mind.  We can only have an analogical and ectypal knowledge of God’s will revealed in Holy Scripture.  From this they further infer that it would be confusing to the congregation to speak the truth emphatically that no one can come to Christ without first being born again.  This would upset those in the congregation who are not fully on board with what the Bible says about unconditional election and reprobation.  This objection is a telling indictment on those who refuse to teach all that the Bible says.

One proponent of the doctrine of the free offer is Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, California.  He objects to David Engelsma’s contention that the Latin word for offer, namely offero, means only to present or exhibit:

Both Klaas Schilder (1890-1952) and Herman Hoeksema and more recently David Engelsma and Randy Blacketer have argued that when Dort and our theologians said, “offero” they only meant, “to present” or “to demand.” There is weighty evidence to the contrary however. For example, Caspar Olevianus (1536–87) used this term and its cognates frequently to mean “to offer with intention that the offer should be fulfilled if the recipients meet the condition of trust in Christ.” In his massive 1579 commentary on Romans and in his final commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, De substantia foederis gratuiti inter Deum et electos (1585) he used it frequently this way (e.g. “oblatum beneficium”) just as Dort later used it.

 

When our theologians wished to say “present” or “exhibit” or “demand” they had other verbs (e.g. “exhibeo” or “mando”) with which to do it. They did not need “offero” to perform the same function. Rather, when our theologians spoke of the “evangellium oblatum,” i.e., “gospel offered” in preaching, they believed that it entailed a well and sincerely meant revealed divine intention that whoever believes should be saved. As we shall see below, the semantic range of “offero,” as it was used by the orthodox is closer to “invitation,” than “demand.”

R. Scott Clark.  The Heidelblog, “The Reformed Tradition On The Free Or Well-Meant Offer Of The Gospel,” December 29, 2013.

Scott Clark then proceeds to argue in an equivocal manner that Christ is offered on the cross for the sins of the whole world.  I say that he is arguing equivocally because here he substitutes the Latin term oblatae or oblation for the word offero.  Any Calvinist worth his salt will instantly recognize that nowhere does Scott Clark even mention the fact that Christ died on the cross as a propitiation for the sins of all the elect in all times and places from the beginning of the world to the end of the world.  So, the offer of the Gospel is not effectual to all who hear it, as even Scott Clark must acknowledge.  Yet, the oblation that Christ was offered on the cross for the all the sins of those who are unconditionally elect is an effectual oblation or sacrifice which propitiates God’s wrath against the elect, who by original sin and total depravity are sinners.  Only the elect are provided for efficaciously by the cross of Jesus Christ.  This makes me wonder why Clark even brings it up?  Does Scott Clark think that there is a possibility that the person who is eternally decreed to reprobation can be persuaded?  In other words, Clark is deliberately conflating the atonement with the general call of the Gospel.  One is effectual and efficacious and the other is not.

Apparently, Scott Clark is offended that the general call of the Gospel is a command to repent and to believe the Gospel.  It is the Arminians who spend the most of their time trying to convince reprobate persons that the Gospel is true.  But this is because Arminians do not believe in total depravity or total inability.  Instead, Arminians believe that common grace makes depravity less than total.  Common grace, according to the Arminians lessens the effects of original sin so that libertarian free will is restored such that even the worst sinner has enough liberty to choose between two equal choices:  salvation and damnation.  But is that what the Bible says?  The so-called “reformed” doctrine of common grace is meant to be a compromise between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the doctrines of the Remonstrance.  The “reformed” insist that there are two kinds of grace:  1.  Special or efficacious grace, and, 2. Common grace that is not salvific.  So why does Scott Clark pivot to an Arminian presentation of the Gospel instead of preaching the biblical view of election, regeneration, and effectual call?  Is for pragmatic purposes?

John Wesley referred to the Arminian view of common grace as “prevenient grace.”  However, even here Wesley is misusing the term prevenient in a way that is opposed to the way the term in used in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which he as an Anglican clergyman would be obligated to believe.  But that is information to be discussed more fully in the next article.

The major problem with R. Scott Clark is that his view is to downplay the clear biblical doctrines of predestination, special providence, effectual calling, total depravity and to find a middle ground between free will and predestinaion:

In this regard, the approach of the Synod of Dort is in contrast to that of both the Remonstrants and the modern critics of the well meant-offer. Rather than making deductions from the revealed fact of God’s sovereign eternal decree, the Synod was committed to learning and obeying God’s revealed will, even if it seems paradoxical to us.  [Emphasis is mine.]

R. Scott Clark, Ibid.

In other words, R. Scott Clark rejects propositional revelation and instead proposes that we accept all Scripture as paradoxical--even when Scripture is crystal clear that God alone decides who will be save and who will be lost.  For Scott Clark, the preaching of the general call of the Gospel must conform to the Arminian presentation of persuasion, begging the sinner to repent, and an outward appeal to libertarian free will.  Of course, Clark denied all that by citing The Canons of Dort, Rejection of Errors 2:6.  But this debate has nothing to do with merits or congruent grace.  The problem is that Clark talks out of both sides of his mouth.  Is election unconditional or is it conditioned on faith? 

That one is called by the preaching of the Gospel does not make one elect, because this call is common to elect and reprobates, on the condition of faith (sub conditione fidei).  R. Scott Clark.  Ibid.

Just above, Clark contradicts himself:

Having ordained the means of grace, God is free is to confer faith or not through the external Gospel call. [Emphasis is mine.]  The moral culpability for unbelief lies in those who “carelessly do not receive the Word of life” (verbum vitae non admittunt securi). “Therefore,” Dort says, justifying faith is the “Dei donum,” not because “it is offered by God to man’s free will,” (a Deo hominis arbitrio offeratur) but because faith is “conferred,” (conferatur), “inspired,” (inspiretur) and “infused,” (infundatur).  R. Scott Clark.  Ibid.

As you can clearly see, Scott Clark knows that his view is apparently contradictory or "paradoxical."  That's why he has to reject WCF 1:6 and propositional revelation in favor of a theology of paradox.  The Bible is not analogical revelation.  It is a logical and propositional revelation from God because God is Logic.  John 1:1. Man is responsible to obey God and the Gospel precisely because the moral law is written in man's heart in creation and because as God's image man is a rational creature.  (John 1:9; Genesis 1:27; Romans 2:14-15).  Mankind alone is created with rationality and holiness.  Animals, not being in God's image, cannot sin.

What is the apparent contradiction?  The apparent contradiction or paradox that Scott Clark favors is the idea that God "sincerely" desires or wills the salvation of the reprobate by giving them a well-meant offer of salvation.  But how could God both desire and will the salvation of those He has decreed to reprobation while withholding the grace of regeneration which He alone can bestow or confer?  We agree that God is the primary cause of their reprobation, and that the sinner is the secondary cause of his or her own unbelief, and, therefore, morally culpable for their own damnation.  The problem is that Scott Clark does not wish to acknowledge that sin is ultimately caused by God, and, by logical inference, so is the sin of unbelief.  We call that reprobation.  Scott Clark calls it paradox. 

Here ends Part 2 of my blog series on efficaciously the free offer, common grace, and pragmatic church growth.  I will post Part 3 in the near future.

You can read the previous post here:  Part 1.  You can read the next post here:  Part 3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Brief Response to Scott Clark on Predestination and the Well Meant Offer

 

Indeed, in the next few lines Calvin says much the same thing: “It is unreasonable that man should scrutinize with impunity those things that the Lord has determined to be hidden in himself.… The secret of his will which he determined to reveal to us, he discovers [discloses] in his Word.”2 It is not only unreasonable to scrutinize the hidden will of God, as Calvin says; it is impossible. Knowledge of predestination is to be sought in God’s revealed will, in the Word, and in the Word alone. Let us not pry elsewhere with that curiosity that Calvin condemns, but let us not neglect to study carefully what God reveals to us and intends that we should study.

 

Gordon H. Clark. Predestination (Kindle Locations 97-102). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

"But I do want to make it clear that while I am no universalist, my own inclination is to emphasize the "wideness in God's mercy" rather than the "small number of the elect" motif that has often dominated the Calvinist outlook."  Richard Mouw.

Further, if God’s will can only be spoken of in one sense, then we would become universalists! Nevertheless, we must deal honestly with God’s Word and recognize that, given the hiddenness of the divine decree, there is a genuine and true sense in which God must be said to will the salvation of all.   R. Scott Clark

 

 

A Brief Response to the Theologian of Paradox and Contradiction:  Is Denying Common Grace, the Free Offer and the Well Meant Offer Hyper-Calvinism?

 

I generally do not waste much time refuting an old strawman fallacy leveled at the apologetics of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the Protestant Reformed Church in America, Dr. David Engelsma, and others who reject the liberal progressives in the mainstream Evangelical and Reformed movement.  Sadly, the most conservative Calvinists and Evangelicals are constantly vilified with abusive ad hominem fallacies, gaslighting, and unjustified polemics by the so-called “tolerant” and confessional Reformed academics.  I speak specifically of Dr. R. Scott Clark, a professor of theological history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California.  R. S. Clark recently rehashed a litany of false accusations against those who refuse to accept the theology of paradox which is advocated by the students of the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til and which was advocated by Van Til himself.  You can read his article here:  Hyper-Calvinism, Rationalism, and Anti-Predestinarians.

Scott Clark is the perfect example of what happens when an earlier departure from the biblical and confessional Reformed theology begins to diverge into even greater departures from the system of propositional truth revealed in the Bible.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark traced this theology all the way back to the Romanist theologian, Thomas Aquinas, who proposed a two-fold view of truth, one for God and another humanity.  While it is true that there are differences between how an eternally omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and immutable God knows everything intuitively, and how humans only know discursively and in time, it does not follow that truth changes from the Creator to the creature.  If so, then humans cannot know anything God knows.  But as Dr. Gordon H. Clark once said, does God know that 2 + 2 = 4?  Of course He does know this.  There must be a univocal connection between what God has revealed and what we know of that revelation.  This twofold view of truth, which is being advocated by the students of Cornelius Van Til, actually began with Abraham Kuyper and his influence on the Old Princeton Seminary in New Jersey and on Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Along with that came the new liberalism of neo-orthodoxy and existentialism, which was promoted by Karl Barth, Gerhard Von Rad, Emil Brunner, and others.  These theologians wanted to curb logic and rationality because they did not believe that supernatural revelation could withstand the scrutiny of internal consistency.  Ironically, R. Scott Clark and most of the semi-Calvinists today agree more with the higher and lower liberal critics and the neo-orthodox theologians than with the twentieth century Fundamentalists and Evangelicals of Old Princeton.

Somehow, R. S. Clark believes that we must curb rationality because rationality questions supernatural revelation and attacks the Bible and the Christian worldview.  While it is certainly true that reason divorced from faith and supernaturalism results in natural religion and liberalism, it does not logically follow that philosophy cannot be subservient to Scripture.  Even Richard Muller argues for this magisterial and ministerial use of philosophy in his first volume on the what he calls Reformed dogmatics. 

(See:  Muller, Richard A. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy;  Volume 1: Prolegomena to Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Print.)

R. S. Clark wants to argue that he is not a rationalist because he affirms the theology of paradox as his default go to when confronted with apparent contradictions.  Instead of using the logical propositions in the Bible to solve the apparent antinomies and dilemmas, RSC wants to excuse his inability to reconcile the biblical texts to his cultural concerns and pastoral concerns as they relate to evangelism and pastoral care in the local congregation.  But this is not the approach taken by Jesus and the apostles.  Instead, they faced their opponents head on with Scripture.  However, RSC does not like Sola Scriptura that much either, and anyone who opposes his theology or exegesis of the biblical texts is gaslighted with abusive ad hominem attacks like hyper-Calvinist, biblicist, and rationalist.

Astonishingly, R. S. Clark says that the hyper-Calvinsts have more in common with universalists, presumably Arminian universalism, than with Calvinism:

Ironically, the “evangelical” universalists and the hyper-Calvinists (we should speak of “hyper-predestinarians”) deserve each other. The universalists cannot see how it is that God can freely and genuinely offer the gospel to all unless it is the case that Christ actually died for everyone who ever lived and unless it is that Christ’s death has made it possible for all to be saved if they will only do their part. Methodologically, in both cases, what their nets cannot catch are not butterflies. The limits of their intellect are the limits of what God can or cannot do.

Orthodox, confessional Calvinism does not limit God by the limits of our comprehension. We understand that God transcends our ability to comprehend Him. We may be wrong, but we really do believe that we are following God’s Word when we confess both that God has known his elect from all eternity, and that he reprobates some by passing them by, and that Christ died for those whom the Father gave to him from all eternity (pactum salutis), and that God has ordained that the gospel of free salvation through faith alone (sola fide), by grace alone (sola gratia), in Christ alone (solo Christo) should be preached and offered freely to all as a well-meant offer of the gospel.

But this is his position, not ours.  In fact, Clark openly admits that he cut his teeth in the Universalist and Unitarian church of his upbringing.  He cannot seem to divorce himself from his past and falsely projects his own universalist tendencies upon traditional and classical Calvinists who insist on a strict reading of the Reformed confessions and Calvin himself.  Common grace, which R. S. Clark promotes, is a universalist doctrine which comes amazingly close to the Arminian doctrine of common grace, with the exception that RSC admits that there are two kinds of grace; one kind of grace is special and particular to the elect and the other kind of grace is general and common to both the elect and the reprobate.   But what kind of grace is it that does not save anyone?  It’s not even the Arminian common grace because at least the Arminian common grace makes salvation a contingency.  Semi-Calvinist common grace says that God loves the reprobate, knowing that He will not save them.

Furthermore, Scott Clark conveniently fails to mention that the well meant offer means that God actually desires to save everyone while not decreeing to save everyone.  In the first case, the well meant offer is simply preaching a contingency to humans and telling them that God really does want to save everyone without exception--which is essentially lying to them, because the Bible clearly says that God will not save everyone.  If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then God should be able to save everyone without exception, which is a universalism that goes well beyond what the Arminians argue for, namely libertarian free will and contingency.  If God is able to save everyone but does not do so, then it cannot be that God both desires or wills to save everyone and yet does not decree or will to save everyone.  And this is precisely the contradiction that RSC does not wish to discuss here.  Instead, he attacks his theological and apologetical opponents with polemics based on his self acknowledged ignorance of what God knows in His archetypal knowledge.

While Clark denies that he is a universalist, other promoters of the well meant offer, the free offer and common grace, such as Richard Mouw, have openly said that they hold out hope that everyone would be saved in the last day.  If this is not univeralism, I do not know what else to call it:

Throughout this discussion I have been rather free in employing the well-worn Calvinist categories of "elect" and "non-elect" or "reprobate." I make no apologies for doing so. The categories are biblical ones. Nevertheless, I do not mean to mean [sic] to imply that I actually have clear notions about how to divide the human race up into these classifications. Here too - even especially here, I am convinced - we mortals stand before a great mystery. But I do want to make it clear that while I am no universalist, my own inclination is to emphasize the "wideness in God's mercy" rather than the "small number of the elect" motif that has often dominated the Calvinist outlook. I take seriously the Bible's vision of the final gathering-in of the elect, of that "great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages," who shout the victory cry, "Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb" (Revelation 7:9-10). For all I know - and for all any of us can know - much of what we now think of as common grace may in the end time be revealed to be saving grace.  . . .

Richard J. Mouw. He Shines in All That's Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Kindle Locations 1020-1027). Kindle Edition.

As we can see from the comments of Richard Mouw, the semi-Calvinists affirm Calvinism and then openly deny Calvinism because their theology requires that everything is a mystery and an apparent contradiction or paradox.  How this is different from neo-orthodoxy they are unwilling to explain, because that too would constitute “rationalism”.  Richard Mouw claims that he is not a univeralist, yet if common grace applies to the whole human race from the beginning to the end, then

much of what we now think of as common grace may in the end time be revealed to be saving grace.

Richard J. Mouw. He Shines in All That's Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Kindle Locations 1026-1027). Kindle Edition.

What Mouw is saying is based on a postmillennialist view of eschatology.  However, implicit in his remarks is that the wide road will lead to salvation and the narrow road to damnation, precisely the opposite of what Jesus said (Matthew 7:14).  It is my contention that this is deliberate on their part and a way of hiding what their true beliefs are.  Liberals do not wish to openly admit what they believe privately--much like progressives in the political sphere--so that by the time the churches realize what has happened, it is too late to turn back.  The frog in the kettle analogy comes to mind here.

If God says that not everyone will be saved and that some will go to hell by His predetermined foreknowledge and predestination, does that mean that God somehow wills to save those whom He has not decreed to election, regeneration and ultimate salvation?  Of course not.  But this is where the theology of paradox comes in to rescue the semi-Calvinists from their Arminian accusers.  The semi-Calvinists will agree with the Arminians and the universalists that both are true at the same time and in the same way.  God both desires to save the reprobates who were decreed to reprobation prior to the creation of the world, and God does not will to save them at the same time and in the same way.  This is an outright contradiction, not merely an apparent contradiction or paradox.  Any Arminian can understand that this is a contradiction. 

The Arminian solution to the problem is to make God unable to save and to make salvation merely a possibility left up to partially depraved sinners, who have had libertarian free will restored sufficiently so that the sinner can have enough common grace to make a genuine choice between salvation and damnation.  Of course, this is exactly the same view held by the semi-Calvinists, though they wish to deny it by appealing to a legitimate desire on God’s part to save those who frustrate His desire, even foreknowing that they will not accept the “free” offer.

The problem here is that God’s foreknowledge is perfect, otherwise God would not be omniscient, knowing the exact future as it will inevitably occur in historical time.  The Arminian says that God makes His election decisions based on peering into the future to learn how history will unfold once God set the creation in motion.  This smacks openly of deism whereby God creates and then has no providential control over nature, humanity, or anything else.  As the old saying goes, “Stuff happens.”  But the Arminian view entails that God must be ignorant of the future and therefore He must learn new information in order to decide who to save.  This also leads to the heresy of Open Theism.  Even Arminians once identified Open Theism as a heresy but now it has become popularized by the chief heresiarch of Arminianism, Roger Olson:

Open theism is, in my opinion, although mistaken, closer to the true heart of Arminianism than is Molinism (insofar as it uses middle knowledge to reconcile divine determinism with free will). It ought to be considered a variety of Arminianism just as, say, supralapsarianism is considered a legitimate variety of Calvinism. Calvinism is a diverse tradition.  (Is Open Theism a Type of Arminianism?).

These kinds of heresies and deviations are not just resident with the Arminians.  They exist with the post Reformation dogmatics of the semi-Calvinists as well.  In fact, there is much infighting amongst the followers of Van Til.  John Frame, for example, holds to two different existences of God to try to bridge the gap between God’s transcendence as the Creator and God’s immanence with His creation and His creatures.  Scott Oliphant has proposed using an anology of the incarnation and applying that to the Creator so that He now has this third category of covenantal properties or attributes, which allow for Him to interact with His creation.  And Richard Muller has suggested that the ectypal revelations of God in the form of the written Scriptures are actually derived from the archetypal knowledge of God, which is known only to Himself.  But if what Muller, Oliphant, and Frame says is true, it is yet another mystery or outright contradiction.  I say that because you cannot derive ectypal knowledge from an unknown archetypal knowledge which is accessible only to God Himself.  Even more telling, Muller himself acknowledges that he disagrees with Francis Turretin’s view of the ectypal and archetypal knowledge of God.  For Turretin, the distinction is not an outright contradiction or a paradox, much to the chagrin of the Van Tilians.  Turretin’s view, in fact, seems much more in tune with the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s view of univocity between God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge at certain points of convergence. For the irrationalists, as GHC pointed out, there is no contact between two parallel lines and therefore, creatures can know nothing whatsoever that God knows.  Muller, at least, acknowledges that ectypal knowledge is derived from God’s archetypal knowledge, implying that there are points of contact between God’s knowledge and our knowledge, not irrational parallel lines.  I am sure that Muller and the Van Tilians will disagree with my analysis but the implications are there for all to see if you read volume one of his Post-Reformation Dogmatics.

R. Scott Clark cannot understand the apparent contradiction between predestination and the general call of the Gospel, so his response is to contend for an actual contradiction which he calls a paradox.  First of all, a paradox is not an actual contradiction.  Paradoxes have logical solutions; actual contradictions have no solution.  So if God foreknows who will be saved, it is not a contradiction to say that God has never intended to save those whom He has decreed to reprobation prior to creation.  Whether the theologian opts for supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism, the decree is an eternal and timeless decree, not subject to what happens in time.  Therefore, an eternal God could not have an emotional desire to do what He has not predetermined in eternity.  God has no emotions or passions, precisely because God has no body or bodily sensations.  It is inescapable for Scott Clark that predestination ultimately determines who is saved and who is not saved, whether he likes it or not.  Predestination is a central doctrine to the doctrine of God and the trinity.  If God is sovereign, then predestination is an essential attribute of God’s eternal will, His eternal omniscience, and His eternal omnipresence.  

Dr. Gordon H. Clark solved the problem of predestination versus the general call of the Gospel.  However, he is not the first to do so.  There were many of the primary reformers who also solved this problem.  John Calvin’s distinction between remote and proximate causation is just one example.  Scott Clark claims to believe in predestination; but then he sweeps predestination under the rug because he does not want to actually discuss the doctrine or any solutions to the paradox.  This is why Dr. Gordon H. Clark referred to these men as semi-Calvinists.  

R. Scott Clark openly admits that he is neo-orthodox and universalist, in the Arminian sense at least, by his remarks at the end of his article.  He says that there is no point of contact between the written word of God and RS Clark's view of the well meant offer, which is always in the mysteries of God's hidden and archetypal knowledge:

To my hyper-Calvinist friends and correspondents, I was reminded by a post on Reformation Theology by John Samson, of this verse: “Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). The English verb “to desire” translates the Greek verb which is usually translated “to will” (θελειν). Against the free or well-meant offer, it has been argued that we cannot speak of God’s will in two aspects or in two ways, that we must speak univocally. Univocity, however, assumes an intersection between the divine and human intellect, and that is, of course, a form of rationalism. It is not Reformed theology, which is premised on the Creator-creature distinction.

Further, if God’s will can only be spoken of in one sense, then we would become universalists! Nevertheless, we must deal honestly with God’s Word and recognize that, given the hiddenness of the divine decree, there is a genuine and true sense in which God must be said to will the salvation of all. It is in light of this sort of biblical language that the Reformed faith has historically taught the substance of what has come to be called the “free” or “well-meant” offer of the gospel.

Ibid., R. Scott Clark. 

There is a reason that R. Scott Clark does not like the doctrine of predestination.  It is because he knows that the well meant offer and the free offer of the Gospel, as defined by RSC and other semi-Calvinists, directly contradicts what the Bible plainly says about predestination.  If God foreknows that particular individuals will not receive regeneration and believe, then obviously election cannot be conditional as the free offer of the Gospel entails.  Election is particular and foreknowledge of who is elect and reprobate is an immutable decree of God (Romans 9:11-13).  Simply because we do not know who is elect or reprobate does not entail that God both decrees particular individuals to election and reprobation, and that God does not decree particular individuals to election and reprobation.  Scott Clark wants there to be contingencies and possibilities in God's immutable mind so that he can preach an Arminian gospel of possibility.  Even the late R. C. Sproul recognized that he could not tell an unbelieving person that Jesus died for their sins.  There is no way to know that unless you're preaching contingencies.  Ironically and paradoxically, it is Scott Clark who is the universalist, and he openly admits that his view is not founded on the Scriptures but in his theology of paradox!

I will be making more remarks on the topic of predestination in the next series of posts.  I am currently reading Richard Muller’s first volume of Post-Reformation Dogmatics.  He apparently thinks that later departures from the earlier positions taken by the initial Protestant Reformers trumps what the first generation Reformers said.  Muller also tries to read his own views into the post-Reformation theologians rather than letting them speak in their own terms.  I have many examples of this, and there is more to follow.

[Postscript:  1 Timothy 2:4 means that God wants to save His elect from every class of mankind, high and low.  It does not literally mean universal salvation for all of mankind as the Arminians, the Unitarian Universalists, and the common grace Semi-Calvinists contend.  The general call of the Gospel does not prove that God literally desires to save everyone head for head, as the purveyors of paradox contend.  Rather, the general call of the Gospel is preached to all indiscriminately because we do not know whom God has individually elected.  He wants us to preach to all so that the elect may be gathered from all nations and classes of men.  The common grace people take this is as a contradiction with no solution.  See Calvin's Commentaries: 

4. Who wishes that all men may be saved. Here follows a confirmation of the second argument; and what is more reasonable than that all our prayers should be in conformity with this decree of God?

And may come to the acknowledgment of the truth. Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth. This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is proved from the effect; for, if “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth,” (Rom. 1:16,) it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life. In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life.

Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. “If God,” say they, “wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestinated by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition.” They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man.

But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. That God wishes the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident from the passages already quoted, and from other passages of a similar nature. Not without good reason was it said, “Now, kings, understand,” and again, in the same Psalm, “I will give thee the Gentiles for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for a possession.” (Ps. 2:8, 10.)

In a word, Paul intended to shew that it is our duty to consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be. Now the duty arising out of that love which we owe to our neighbour is, to be solicitous and to do our endeavour for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling, and to testify this by godly prayers.

Calvin's commentary on 1 Timothy 2:4.

Calvin, John, and William Pringle. Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010. Print.]

 

Gordon H. Clark: Predestination and Regeneration Guarantee the Salvation of the Elect

If the state of regeneration were permanent, and if one could not possibly fall from grace, and if God were really going to complete his good work in us, there would be no place for fear.  This Romish, Lutheran, Arminian position [fear of losing one's salvation] fails to take into account the fact that there are different objects of fear.  --  Dr. Gordon H. Clark


This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;   Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 17:2.

 
Philippians 2:12–13 (NKJV)

¹² Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; ¹³ for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

The idea that man has free will, an idea sponsored by Pelagius, adapted by the Council of Trent, and emphasized by Arminius and Wesley, is totally inconsistent with the Biblical plan of salvation.  It is also inconsistent with the sovereignty of God, with divine omniscience and omnipotence, with the necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and of course with the pervasive Scriptural teaching of predestination.  

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  Philippians.  (Hobbs:  Trinity Foundation, 1996).  Pp. 71-72.

There is more to say on these two verses, for as yet "fear and trembling" has not been explained.  Those who hold that regeneration is a result of humanly initiated faith and must be protected by further good works see in this fear a fear of eternal punishment and because of that fear they must tremble.  If the state of regeneration were permanent, and if one could not possibly fall from grace, and if God were really going to complete his good work in us, there would be no place for fear.  [Philippians 1:6] This Romish, Lutheran, Arminian position fails to take into account the fact that there are different objects of fear. 

(Ibid.  P. 73).

Modern Lutherans do not believe in eternal security.  But Martin Luther did believe in eternal security.  In fact, if God is eternally immutable and His plans are eternally unchanging, it is impossible that any single person who has been eternally and unconditionally elected will be lost.  Not one of them will go to hell!  The Lutherans who claim to believe in justification by faith alone must cause themselves to persevere in the faith or they can "lose" their regeneration and their election and their salvation. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith, on the other hand, says that perseverance does not depend on man's efforts or man's will.  Instead, the WCF rightly emphasizes that God causes the elect to persevere apart from their will:

Chapter XVII:  Of the Perseverance of the Saints

  1.      They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. (Phil. 1:6, 2 Pet. 1:10, 1 John 3:9, 1 Pet. 1:5,9)

  2.      This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; (2 Tim. 2:18–19, Jer. 31:3) upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, (Heb. 10:10, 14, Heb. 13:20–21, Heb. 9:12–15, Rom. 8:33–39, John 17:11, 24, Luke 22:32, Heb. 7:25) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, (John 14:16–17, 1 John 2:27, 1 John 3:9) and the nature of the covenant of grace: (Jer. 32:40) from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. (John 10:28, 2 Thess. 3:3, 1 John 2:19)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

Most people are not aware of the fact that Lutherans today do not agree with Luther's book, The Bondage of the Will.  Modern Lutherans are semi-pelagians who teach a form of free will, conditional election, and the defectibility of regeneration.  So you got baptized and regenerated?  You gave yourself the gift of faith?  That means nothing because you could lose it all.  Saved today and lost tomorrow?  

John 10:26–30 (NKJV)

²⁶ But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. ²⁷ My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. ²⁸ And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹ My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. ³⁰ I and My Father are one.” 

How do we know who is elect and who is reprobate?  Jesus just told you.  God always regenerates the elect and causes them to hear His voice and follow Jesus.  Regeneration is a sovereign grace of God that no man can merit by free will.  Dead men are either raised to new life or they continue to blaspheme the Gospel of free grace just as the Pharisees did.  Those who were chosen to believe before the creation of the world will be given the gift of regeneration and believe the Gospel.  Salvation is guaranteed.  Predestination is a comfort to God's people.  They know that they will never fall away because God promises to keep them apart from their own bad and willful choices.

 

2 Thessalonians 2:13 (NKJV)

¹³ But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, . . . 

Addendum:  It should be noted that the other objects of fear of which Dr. Clark speaks refers to the respect that Christians have for God as their Father and the discipline they will face from Him should they walk in disobedience.  Fear does not mean fear of losing one's salvation but a godly fear and respect for God's sovereignty.

 

Calvin Against the Free Offer of the Gospel

Calvin clearly disputed the idea that God wills to save the reprobate when the Gospel is presented to all.  God has only one will, not two wills.  The secret will of God does not contradict His revealed will.  What God commands men to do is a prescriptive will, yet God is not in heaven wringing his hands and hoping someone will choose be saved.  Not only does God know exactly who will be saved and who will be lost but he has predetermined this from before the foundation of the world.  There is no conflict between God's secret decrees and God's revealed will.  God is not "hoping" the reprobate will save himself.  God already knows that this will not happen and there is never any conflict within God over this whatsoever.  God knows what will happen because he has predetermined it, and he has appointed all the means whereby he accomplishes his decrees.  

Calvin says:

Their first objection - that if nothing happens without the will of God, he must have two contrary wills, decreeing by a secret counsel what he has openly forbidden in his law - is easily disposed of. But before I reply to it, I would again remind my readers, that this cavil is directed not against me, but against the Holy Spirit, who certainly dictated this confession to that holy man Job, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away," when, after being plundered by robbers, he acknowledges that their injustice and mischief was a just chastisement from God. And what says the Scripture elsewhere? The sons of Eli "hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them," (1Sa 2: 25) Another prophet also exclaims, "Our God is in the heavens: he has done whatsoever he has pleased," (Psa 115: 3) I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil, (Isa 45: 7) that no evil happens which he has not done, (Amos 3: 6) Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgements willingly or unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who smites him, (Deuteronomy 19:5) so the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke, declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired "to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done," (Acts 4: 28) And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing. Paul terms the calling of the Gentiles a hidden mystery, and shortly after adds, that therein was manifested the manifold wisdom of God, (Eph 3: 10) Since, on account of the dullness of our sense, the wisdom of God seems manifold, (or, as an old interpreter rendered it, multiform,) are we, therefore, to dream of some variation in God, as if he either changed his counsel, or disagreed with himself?  Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 18, Section 3.

The Westminster Divines agreed with this view since the Confession says:

   2.      Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, (Acts 15:18, 1 Sam. 23:11–12, Matt. 11:21, 23) yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. (Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, 18)
  3.      By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels (1 Tim. 5:21, Matt. 25:41) are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. (Rom. 9:22–23, Eph. 1:5–6, Prov. 16:4)
  4.      These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. (2 Tim. 2:19, John 13:18)
  5.      Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, (Eph. 1:4, 9, 11, Rom. 8:30, 2 Tim. 1:9, 1 Thess. 5:9) out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto: (Rom. 9:11, 13, 16, Eph. 1:4, 9) and all to the praise of His glorious grace. (Eph. 1:6, 12)
  6.      As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. (1 Pet. 1:2, Eph. 1:4–5, Eph. 2:10, 2 Thess. 2:13) Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, (1 Thess. 5:9–10, 1 Tit. 2:14) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified,adopted, sanctified, (Rom. 8:30, Eph. 1:5, 2 Thess. 2:13) and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. (1 Pet. 1:5) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (John 17:9, Rom. 8:28, John 6:64–65, John 10:26, John 8:47, 1 John 2:19)  [WCF, Chapter 3, Of God's Eternal Decree, Sections 2-6]


The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

In regards to 2 Peter 3:9, Calvin says in his commentary that the Gospel is applicable to all mankind.  But then he asks and answers his own question:

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.

God Knows the Future and Determines Every Detail Through His Providence

God knows every twist and turn in the road.  (Luke 9:57).

Who Knows What the Future Holds?

by Charlie J. Ray

As I listened to a lecture on predestination in the Old Testament given at Covenant College by the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark and recorded some years ago, I noted that one of the moderators joked about Dr. Clark's contention that all things that happen are predetermined right down to even our evil acts. I found it odd that a Presbyterian school would question that doctrine but the moderator made a remark that a football player thought that he and Dr. Clark had a divine appointment to meet in the parking lot after the lecture. The contention of some of the students was that God's sovereignty over everything down to the last detail would remove human responsibility. But Dr. Clark's answer was that knowledge makes human free agents accountable to God and responsible for their actions and choices—even if their actions were predetermined by God Himself. Romans 1:18-21 reveals that the Apostle Paul thought that general revelation or natural revelation did indeed give men enough knowledge about God to make them without excuse and fully accountable to God—even if salvation is impossible without special revelation (Romans 10:7-17; Acts 4:10, 12; John 5:24, 25; John 14:6; Matthew 1:21).

It seems silly to me for anyone to trust in themselves to persevere to the end. Why would I say that? Well, first of all anyone reflecting on their pre-conversion experience must acknowledge that although they had a general knowledge about God most folks think that they are just fine and good people go to heaven. So what does the Arminian have to offer in addition to that view? Pragmatically nothing at all. After all for the Arminian it is keeping God's laws—albeit a lowered standard that men can attain by their own “free will”--that ultimately decides who will go to heaven or hell. Basically a general offer of salvation and a general atonement only makes salvation a possibility for all. Since Jesus died for all then all must save themselves by believing the Arminian gospel of faith plus good works. Unfortunately even modern Lutherans are essentially Arminians since the vast majority of them no longer believe Luther's doctrine of the bondage of the will. Rather modern Lutherans believe there is a common grace given to all men without exception—this is nothing more than the semi-pelagianism of Rome masquerading as Lutheran or Reformed theology.

If God simply provides prevenient grace for all and the death of Christ for all, including those already in hell, then ultimately it is not faith in Christ that saves or even the justification of Christ that saves but it is the sinner who must save himself by working up a faith of his own. How this is possible when the Bible clearly says that sinners are spiritually dead in their trespasses and sins and are in fact slaves to sin and unable to choose Christ in the first place is indeed a mystery (Ephesians 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Romans 5:8; Colossians 2:13; John 8:33, 34; Romans 6:17, 18).

Faith is itself a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8, 9). If we could give ourselves faith we would have something to boast about. But even our conversion and repentance are gifts of God, not something we do in and of ourselves (John 1:13; John 3:3-8; Acts 11:18). If common grace gave actual power to change then salvation would be universal and no one would be lost whatsoever. Salvation is not by “chance” but by God's divine degree (Proverbs 16:33). The truth is conversion is God's action upon His elect people chosen before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4, 5, 11; Titus 3:5, 6, 7). If men had the ability to convert themselves who would want to go to hell? The reason they do not believe is because God has justly blinded them and rendered them unable to believe (John 12:40). A god who is unable to overcome sin and actually save anyone at all is a powerless and helpless god who is not God by any definition (Isaiah 45:20).

Trying to persuade dead men by mere reason is like trying to preach conversion and repentance in the graveyard. Dead men cannot and will not hear that the Law condemns them as unworthy sinners and justly damned to an eternity in hell. Dead men cannot and will not hear that God promises to save all who believe His Gospel and that Christ alone justifies. The catch here is that the “whosoever will” is limited to believers, not “potential” believers. Those who believe the Gospel do so because God opens their heart (Acts 16:14) and gives them repentance (Acts 11:18). Those who say that the doctrine of sovereign grace gives the reprobates an excuse that they are unable to believe have forgotten that Paul says they are without excuse (Romans 1:18, 19, 20, 21). Simply because they are commanded to believe (Mark 1:15; 16:16) but refuse to do so does not obligate God to grant them the ability to believe. Since they freely and willfully refuse and have enough knowledge from both general and special revelation they are accountable to God for their own unbelief (James 1:13, 14, 15). Only God can give good gifts to His elect and bring forth the fruit of faith and conversion (James 1:16, 17, 18; John 6:37, 44, 65).

The fact of the matter is that Scripture teaches that salvation is all of God (Exodus 14:13; 2 Chronicles 20:17; Lamentations 3:26). It is not our strength or our efforts that save us but literally God's sovereign will (Isaiah 31:1; Zechariah 4:6).

Furthermore, since God knows the future He determined it (Isaiah 46:9, 10; Deuteronomy 29:29). Nothing happens but by God's divine appointment (Hebrews 9:27). Even the crucifixion of Christ was predicted in the Old Testament (Psalm 22:1ff; Isaiah 53:1ff) and every single detail happened just as God had predetermined it, even down to Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate (Acts 2:22, 23; 4:27, 28). God knows His elect from before birth (Psalm 139:13, 16; Jeremiah 1:5; Galatians 1:15) and even every single thought they will think before they think it (Psalm 139:4). In fact, God knows all the days that His elect will live and the exact number of them and everything that will happen to them (Psalm 139:16).

God does not just have a general knowledge of the future or even a knowledge of many different possible outcomes. He knows exactly what will happen because in fact He determined it (1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:11, 12, 13; Proverbs 16:33; Matthew 1:20, 21, 22, 23; John 1:47, 48). The idea that God provides a general grace that fails to save the vast majority of those it is supposed to provide salvation for is foreign to Scripture. Mere possibility is no guarantee that anyone at all will be saved. The doctrines of grace and the Scriptures, however, show that every single elect person God intended to save before creation will in fact be saved and all the sins of the elect were paid for on the tree by Jesus Himself (1 Peter 2:24; Revelation 13:8). All of the elect will be called from the four corners of the earth and it is not possible that even one of them will be deceived (Matthew 24:24, 31; Mark 13:22, 27).

It is not true that Calvinists need not evangelize because God's appointed instruments and means are the preaching of the Gospel and special revelation. Not one of the elect will be saved apart from God's normative means (Romans 10:7-17; Matthew 28:18-21). In fact famous missionaries like William Carey and Stanley Livingston were Calvinists.

The bottom line is that double predestination is a great comfort for believers because they know that the works of the law do not apply to them. All the promises of God in Christ are yes and amen! (2 Corinthians 1:20). Predestination is only discouraging for those who continually refuse to believe that they cannot earn or merit salvation and that salvation is completely a free gift of God. Those who refuse to accept that salvation is all of God thrust themselves into eternal insecurity and fear for their souls. The 39 Articles of Religion makes this doctrine clear in Article 17, which is itself drawn from the most certain warrant of Holy Scripture. (See Article 17).

God knows the obstacles ahead in the road. But nothing can separate God's elect from His love or His promises (Romans 8:28-33).

EV News :: Archbishop of Canterbury to step down December 2012

Anglo-Catholic regalia hides the liberal within.

It looks like the infamous leader of the Anglican Communion is going to step down.  Unfortunately his replacement could be worse.  As a friend of mine likes to say, "Who knows what the devil is going to do?"  Of course the answer is, "God knows!"  

Article 6 

That some receive the gift of faith from God and others do not receive it proceeds from God's eternal decree, for “known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). “Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Ephesians 1:11). According to which decree, He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe, while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men, equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation revealed in the Word of God, which though men of perverse, impure and unstable minds wrest to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.  (Canons of Dort, First Head of Doctrine:  Of Divine Predestination.  Article 6).

And even the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, which is the confessional statement of the Anglican formularies, says in Article XVII:

Article XVII

Of Predestination and Election

Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.

As the godly consideration of Predestination and our Election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living no less perilous than desperation.

Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth in Holy Scripture; and in our doings that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.

Click here to read the story at Evangelical News dot Org:  EV News :: Archbishop of Canterbury to step down December 2012

1552 Book of Common Prayer: Prayer for Rulers in Authority

ALMIGHTIE and everlastyng god, we be taughte by thy holy word, that the heartes of kinges are in thy rule and governaunce, and that thou dooeste dispose, and turne them as it semeth best to thy godly wysedome: we humbly beeseche thee, so to dispose and governe the heart of Edwarde the sixth, thy servaunt, our king and governoure that in al his thoughts, wordes, and workes, he may ever seke thy honor and glory, and study to preserve thy people committed to his charge, in wealth, peace, and godlynes. Graunt this, O mercifull father, for thy deare sonnes sake Jesus Christ our Lorde. Amen.


Notice from the above that Archbishop Thomas Cranmer upholds the doctrine of the sovereignty of God over even the heart, thoughts and mind of kings and rulers. The line reading, "we be taught by thy holy word, that the hearts of kings are in thy rule and governance, and that thou dost dispose, and turn them as it seemeth best to thy godly wisdom: we beseech thee, so to dispose and govern the heart of Edward the sixth, thy servant, our king and governor that in all his thoughts, words, and works, he may ever seek thy honor and glory...," is in fact a Calvinistic or Reformed prayer in that it says specifically that God is in control of everything the king says and does to accomplish God's will. The Scripture texts from which Cranmer draws the theology of this prayer are Proverbs 21:1; Psalm 33:13-15; Ezra 6:22; Hebrews 4:12.

There are many other references to the sovereignty of God in the Scriptures but we are often taught to overlook them as they are explained away by the Arminians. I would highly recommend Loraine Boettner's book, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Boettner's book is available online at: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: Quote of the Day

The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, by Loraine Boettner.

27. The Practical Importance of the Doctrine


2. A SOURCE OF SECURITY AND COURAGE

"It is the doctrine of a particular providence," says Rice, "that gives to the righteous a feeling of security in the midst of danger; that gives them assurance that the path of duty is the path of safety and of prosperity; and that encourages them to the practice of virtue, even when it exposes them to the greatest reproach and persecution. How often, when clouds and darkness seem to gather over them, do they rejoice in the assurance given by their Saviour, 'I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.'" (153) (God Sovereign and Man Free, p. 46).

The sense of security which this doctrine gives to the struggling saint results from the assurance that he is not committed to his own power, or rather weakness, but into the sure hands of the Almighty Father,—that over him is the banner of love and underneath are the everlasting arms. He realizes that even the Devil and wicked men, regardless of whatever tumults they may cause, are not only restrained of God but are compelled to do His pleasure. Elisha, lonely and forgotten, counted those who were with him more than those who were against him, because he saw the chariots and horsemen of the Lord moving in the clouds. The disciples, knowing that their names were written in heaven, were prepared to endure persecutions, and on one occasion we read that after being beaten and reviled "they departed from the presence of the council rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name," Acts 5:41.

"The godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ," says the seventeenth article in the creed of the Church of England, "is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons." Paul's injunction was, "In nothing be anxious." And it is only when we know that God actually rules from the throne of the universe, and that He has ordained us to be his loved ones, that we can have that inward peace in our hearts.