Beza's 38 Aphorisms: A Concise & Pointed Defense of the Reformed Doctrine of Providence

Calling all "theology nerds"!

Although I am generally not a big fan of Theodore Beza's supralapsarianism, this is nonetheless a key Reformed text that deserves our attention and consideration. As a systematic articulation of divine sovereignty and a sound Biblical/philosophical defense of the Reformed doctrine of Providence, these 38 Aphorisms answer directly the false assertions of modern-day anti-Calvinists such as Leighton Flowers. If I was in serious debate with Flowers, I would ask him whether he has read this text and how he answers it, since it directly contradicts his misreading and misrepresentation of the prevailing Calvinistic viewpoint on these matters. Although these statements are dense and demanding of thoughtful reflection, a careful reading is well worth the time and mental effort involved. Right from the start, you will see how this text influenced the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of 1689. The many Biblical citations are helpful, too.

HT: http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/8/17/theodore-bezas-thirty-eight-aphorisms-against-castalio and http://www.truecovenanter.com/supralapsarian/beza_against_castalion.html

Presented here for your edification and strengthening in the faith—enjoy!

Thirty-Eight Aphorisms against Castalio.

FOR THE STOPPING OF THE MOUTHES OF THE SLAUNDEROUS, AS ALSO FOR THE FURTHER INSTRUCTING OF THE IGNORANT, IN THIS BOTH NECESSARIE AND COMFORTABLE DOCTRINE OF GOD HIS ELECTION, I HAUE THOUGHT GOOD HERE TO SET DOWN A SHORTE SUMME OF THE WHOLE MATTER, CONTAINED IN CERTAINE BRIEFE & PLAINE APHORISMES, TRANSLATED OUT OF A LEARNED TREATISE OF THEODORUS BEZA, AGAINST CASTALION.

Translated by Iohn Stockwood

1. GOD worketh effectually, or bringeth all things to pass according to the counsel of his own will.

2. This counsel doth God execute or fulfill at certain moments of times: yet the counsel itself is everlasting, and going before all things, not only in time, inasmuch as it is before all time, but also in order. For otherwise the will of God should not be the chief rule of the counsel of God: but rather the qualities of things foreseen & foreknown, and driving God to take this or that counsel, should prescribe or appoint a rule to the will of God.

3. This counsel cannot be separated from the will of God, but that we must rob God of his divinity or Godhead.

4. This counsel is not put only in the governing and guiding of the event or that, that cometh to pass, as Pallas is feigned of the Poet to turn away Pandarus Dart from Menelaus breast unto his nether parts fenced with his belt: but hath a working & effectual strength in all things, which Paul hath declared by this word energein, Energein, which signifieth to work effectually.

5. This strength and efficacy is attributed unto God's working, but is not said to be of God. Therefore by this word [Efficacy or strength] is not declared any natural power given by God the Creator, to the things he hath created, that they should do this or that: but by this word is understood the power of God, which he hath in himself to do all things.

6. This universal particle, All, in the saying of Paul, can by no manner of exception at all be restrained, but that God in that point must be made to be idle, according to the opinion of Epicurus. And if we shall say that any thing is done against his will, he shall be robbed of his infinite, or endless power.

7. The conclusion thereof standeth, that God himself, according as it pleased him, to decree all things to come to pass from everlasting, even so also he bringeth them to pass by his power in their time as he willeth.

8. Yet of these things doth there follow none of these blasphemies, to wit, either that God is the Author of sin, either is delighted with iniquity, either willeth iniquity: or that Satan or man in doing of evil, do obey God, or, in that they do evil, they do that that God will, and therefore are without blame. Let all such blasphemies as these, be most far, not only from our tongues, but also from our cogitations or thoughts.

9. And thus it may be proved that these sequels and conclusions that they would gather of our doctrine, are of no force: God doth execute or perform the counsels of his will by second causes and instruments, not as bound unto them as the Stoics did suppose, but freely and mightily making, moving, and guiding them, as it pleased him.

10. Of these instruments there are two principal kinds. For some of them have life, to wit, such as are stirred by an inward moving of their own: others are without life and are only carried of an outward force by others rather than of themselves. Those instruments that have life are also in a double difference. For some of them are endued with judgment and reason, others are without reason, and are carried with a blind force of nature.

11. The instruments which are without life, yea and also they that have life, but are void of reason, are said to do neither well nor ill, because that they are rather caused to do, than to do of themselves: but they which use those instruments, are said to do either well or ill.

12. Instruments endued with reason and judgment, are either Angels, or men, and the same again of two sorts. For Angels, some are good, some are bad: and men by nature are all evil, but by grace there is such difference made between them, that some of them are wholly evil, and some of them are in part good, to wit, so far as the spirit of God hath sanctified or made them holy.

13. Such things as are of this sort, when as in any action they are moved by their own inward moving, are worthily said to work, and therefore in this kind of instruments only falleth the difference of well or ill doing. And in this respect, they cannot properly be called instruments, but rather efficient or working causes.

14. Now I call that an evil action, which hath not the revealed or opened will of God for the end: and contrariwise, I call it a good action which hath respect or looketh to the will of God.

15. The same, albeit they be causes, so far as they work by their own proper motion, yet in another respect they are called instruments, to wit, as often and so far forth as they are moved by another. As when the hangman by the commandment of the Magistrate, killeth a man, or when as by impulsion or setting on of the Devil, men hurt one another: or when as at the commandment, and in the name of any, we do either good or evil unto any man.

16. In this kind of actions, all men see that one & the same work is attributed unto two, to wit, unto the one as to him that moveth, and worketh by another, as by an instrument, and to the other, as to him that worketh himself, for he is in such sort an instrument, that he also worketh by his own inward motion, and not simply, as the Hammer or Axe in the hand of the Smith.

17. Yea, for this double respect, a double work seemeth sometime to be done, insomuch that the one may be laudable or praiseworthy, and the other wicked: as if the Magistrate deliver a man that is an offender unto the hangman to be executed, there is no man but will worthily praise this work: but if the hangman being moved with hatred or covetousness, or any other wicked lust, rather than looking unto the commandment of the Judge, do kill the same offender, certainly before God he cannot escape the crime of murder.

18. Now let us apply these things unto God, whose efficacy or strength, we have proved before to step in, in all things that are done without exception, and in such sort, that by those things which he hath created as by instruments, he doth execute or perform in his time, whatsoever he hath decreed from everlasting.

19. Whatsoever God doth is good, seeing from him, which is the chief good, no evil can proceed. But he doth all things. All things therefore are good, so far forth as they are done by God. And that difference of good and evil, hath only place in the instruments, and in those of whom we have spoken in the thirteenth proposition.

20. For if these instruments be good, and do look unto the opened will of God, they work well, and God also worketh well by them: whereby it cometh to pass, that, that work is always good: as when good Angels do that which God commandeth, and holy men follow, God calling them.

21. Evil instruments (evil I say, not by creation, but by corruption) insofar as they work, they do always work evil, and therefore they worthily incur or run into God's anger: but so far forth as God worketh by them, they do serve to the good work of God, either against their wills, or else of ignorance. For God, by what instruments soever he worketh, worketh always well.

22. Now he so worketh by those instruments, as he doth not only suffer them to work, neither only moderate or rule the event or thing that falleth out, but also he raiseth them up, stirreth, moveth, guideth, and that which is greatest of all he createth them, to the end that he might work by them, which he hath appointed: all which things God doth rightly, and without any injustice.

23. For as often as one evil man sinneth either against himself, or against another wicked person, God without any sin maketh, either that the evil man taketh vengeance upon himself, or that evil men shall punish other evil men, with such punishment as they have deserved: both which works of God are most righteous: and by such examples of his judgments, God lifteth up and comforteth those that are his.

24. But so often as wicked men do hurt the good, the wicked men sin, & in the end, suffer such punishments as they have deserved: yet nevertheless, by them the Lord chasteneth, instructeth and strengtheneth his own, and plainly by the open enemies of his Church maketh his Church glorious.

25. Yet cannot these evil instruments be said to obey God, because albeit God by them bringeth his work to pass, yet they, so far as in them is, and as concerning their own counsel and will, do not the work of God, but their own work for the which they are justly punished. For albeit whatsoever God worketh by the wicked be good, yet whatsoever the wicked work is evil.

26. Neither is this consequent or reason good, God worketh all things, therefore he worketh sin. For the guilt of sin agreeth not but to the vicious and faulty quality, which is wholly in the working instrument.

27. By reason of this corrupted quality, the work which of itself is but one, is made some manner of way twofold and double, insomuch that the one, that is the just work of God, directly fighteth against the other, that is, the unjust work of man.

28. Yet God worketh otherwise by the good instruments than by the evil, for besides that he worketh his work by the good instruments, the good instruments also do work their own work by the same force & efficacy which the Lord giveth unto them: finally the Lord worketh his work by them, and also worketh in them to will & to perform. But by the wicked, as by Satan, or by men, insofar as they are not regenerate or born anew, as often as the Lord executeth or performeth the just counsels and decrees of his everlasting will, he indeed sheweth forth his strength and efficacy in his work by them, either not knowing of it, or against their wills and purposes: but yet insofar as they work their own work, the Lord worketh not in them, but letteth loose the reins unto Satan, to whom by his just judgment he giveth them over being wicked, to be moved and stirred forward, that they may be carried away of their own will and his.

29. Therefore we do not refuse this term, suffering, or granting, neither yet came it in our minds, to say that God so worketh in the evil, as he doth in the good. But because that Sophisters have corrupted the difference of will and sufferance, which Augustine no doubt took of the Greeks, and they received from Augustine, therefore do we flatly refuse it.

30. For the Sophisters set will against permission, or sufferance: whereof doth follow that God suffereth the things which he suffereth, either against his will, or at leastwise being idle,& not caring for them. But contrariwise, lest we should either take from God his endless and unmeasurable power, or after the opinion of the Epicures, say as the thing indeed is, that God neither worketh anything by instruments, but willingly, nor yet suffereth the instruments to work, but willingly, yet in such sort that whatsoever he worketh, he worketh most justly, and whatsoever he permitteth or suffereth, he most justly suffereth.

31. And God worketh in respect of his own work: and permitteth or suffereth in respect of the work that the evil instruments do of their own accord work, or insofar as they are active and not passive instruments, that we may keep the terms used in the schools. Yet doth God justly suffer the thing that these instruments unjustly work, for because that sins, insofar as they are suffered by God that willeth, are not sins: but punishments of sin. For with GOD it is a just thing to punish sins with sins. But these selfsame actions insofar as they come from satan, and evil men provoked by Satan and their own concupiscence or lust, are so far sins, which the Lord in his time doth justly punish. For the Lord doth never suffer sins so far as they are sins, nay he doth always forbid them.

32. Neither is this consequence or reason good: God willeth all things, therefore he alloweth all things. For he willeth many things, and therefore suffereth them, not because he simply alloweth of them, but after a certain sort, for he alloweth them, so far as he suffereth them, even so far as they are no sins, as we said even now: But he disalloweth & punisheth them, so far as he hath respect or looketh unto the evil instruments, whose actions they are.

33. These are Augustine's words, Enchirid. ad Laurent. Cap. 100. "Great are the works of the Lord, for they are excellent in all his wills, so that after a wonderful and unspeakable manner that cometh not to pass besides his will, which is done against his will: because it should not come to pass if he would not suffer it: and doubtless he suffereth it not unwilling, but willing." The same Augustine, Lib. 5. Contr. Julian. Cap. 3. When as he had of purpose disputed against them which make an idle foreknowledge or sufferance, at length he bursteth forth into these words, "We doubtless (saith he) if we suffer those over whom we have power, to do wickedness before our eyes, shall be guilty with them. But how innumerable things doth he suffer (speaking of God) To be done before his eyes, which doubtless if he would not, he would by no means suffer? And yet he is both just and good."

34. The whole Scripture beareth witness, and very common sense or reason doth tell us, that without the will of God nothing is done, no not of those things which seem most chiefly to come to pass by chance or fortune, as Gen. 27.20, God is said quickly to have brought the prey unto Jacob's hands. And Ex. 21.13, As often as murder is committed at unawares, the Lord, saith Moses, caused him to come into thine hands. The selfsame thing is taught as concerning the falling out of Lots, Prov. 16.33. As concerning all the counsels of men, Dan. 4.32. Of the falling of Sparrows, Matt. 10.29. To be short, of all things without exception, Eph. 1.11.

35. And that the will of God, yea and the same most effectually, doth then also step in, when as he worketh by the wicked, may plainly appear almost in every leaf of the scripture. So is he said to have sent Joseph into Egypt, Gen. 45.8. So he stirred up Pharaoh to declare his power in him, Exod. 4.21. So he gave David's wives unto his son Absalom, 2 Sam. 12.11. So he moved the heart of David to number the people, 2 Sam. 24.1. So he commanded Shimei to curse David, 2 Sam. 16.10. So David calleth his enemies the sword & hand of the Lord, Psalm 17.13,14. So the Lord calleth the Medes and Persians his sanctified, and the instruments of his wrath, Isa. 10.5, and 13.6. So he calleth the falling away of the ten Tribes his work, 2 Chron. 11.4. So Job saith, the Lord giveth, and the Lord hath taken away, Job 1.21. So the king of Babylon is compared unto an Axe and a Saw, to wit, because the Lord executed or brought to pass his work by him, thinking on no such thing, Isa. 10.15. So the godly are afflicted or troubled, by the will and Predestination, or foreordaining of God, Rom. 8.29, and 1 Pet. 3.17, and 4.19. So there is no evil in the City which the Lord hath not done, Amos 3.6, and Jeremiah, Lam. 3.37,38. Who is he then, (saith he) which hath said, and it cometh to pass, and the Lord hath not commanded? Out of the mouth of the Lord proceedeth there not good and evil?

36. Go to then, let for example be chosen the most excellent, and also the most wicked deed that ever was: The most excellent, if we behold either both the endless justice, and mercy of the father, or the infinite obedience and love of the son: But the most wicked, if we consider the instruments themselves, to wit, Satan, Judas, the Jews, Pilate, and Herod. This deed (we speak of) is, the death of the son of God, full of cruelty and reproach. In this fact, if we deny the everlasting counsel of God to have stepped in, we shall be convinced or proved to speak false by infinite testimonies of the Scripture. For sure it is, that we were not chosen before the foundations of the world were laid, but only in him appointed to die, Eph. 1.4, and 1 Pet. 1.20. Wherefore he is also called the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, Rev. 13.8, To wit, not only by the foreknowledge, but especially by the determined counsel of God, insomuch that Herod and Pilate, although thinking of no such thing, yet therefore came together, to fulfill such things as the hand and counsel of the Lord had decreed be done, Acts 4.28. Therefore he could not be taken but at his hour, John 7.30, and 8.29, and 12.27. For he was delivered by the determined counsel of God, and decree before going, Acts 2.23. And was wounded of God for our iniquities, Isa. 53.5. For God is he who spared not his own son, but gave him for us all, Rom. 8.32. Therefore if there were but this one example of God's everlasting providence, which never is idle, it were abundant enough to suffice, to convince, or reprove all those which falsely cry out, that God is made the author of sin, when as we say that nothing cometh to pass, but by the righteous will of God.

37. And yet do we not therefore excuse but rather most sharply accuse Satan working in the disobedient children, (Eph. 2.2.) Even then also when as the Lord most effectually, or strongly, and most justly bringeth his work to pass, both by Satan himself, and also by the bond slaves of Satan, 2 Tim. 2.26. Wherefore we do everywhere acknowledge and reverence the goodness and judgments of God, albeit the reason of them many times do not to us appear. And we condemn both the instruments which are evil, and also naughty and wicked actions, to wit, all the counsels and subtleties of Satan: the envy of Joseph's brethren, and the selling of their brother: the ungodliness and hardness of Pharaoh: Absalom's mind bent to kill his Father, and his detestable incest: the unadvisedness also of David himself: the wickedness of Shimei: the malice and treachery of David's enemies: the wicked falling away of Jeroboam, and the ten Tribes: the ravenny [violent plundering] of the Chaldeans: the insatiable covetousness, incredible Lechery, intolerable arrogancy of the Babylonians. To be short, all the wicked counsels, and most savage cruelty of the ungodly against the Church.

38. It is also manifest by very many and most plain testimonies of the scripture, that God doth punish sins with sins, and that with no idle, but very strong and effectual, yet notwithstanding, most just permission or sufferance. For it is he that giveth kings in his anger, Hos. 13.11, Neh. 9.37, and Job 34.30. It is he that causeth to err, Isa. 63.17. Because he mingleth amongst them the spirit of error, Isa. 19.14. It is he which hardeneth and turneth the hearts, which blindeth the eyes, which maketh drunk with the wine of giddiness, Exod. 4.21, and 7.3, and 9.12, and 10.1, and 11.10, and 14.4, Deut. 2.29, Josh. 11.20, and 1 Sam. 2.25, and 2 Chron. 22.7, Psalm 105.25. It is he that punisheth his contempt, giving men up into a reprobate mind, Rom. 1.28, And sending the strength of error to believe a lie, 2 Thes. 2.11. It is he which deceiveth Prophets, Ezek. 14.9. Finally, it is he that sendeth also evil spirits, giving them commandment to hurt, & granting them also efficacy or power to deceive, as 1 Kings 22.22,23, and 2 Chron. 18.21,22, Job 1.12, and 2.6.

       Thesethingsbeeingthusmani-
fest by these so plaine testimonies, let the Pellagians,    Freewillians,    Annabaptistes,  Papistes,  and the rest of that filthie rabble, crye out if they liste, till they ware hoarse, and their heartes ake againe, that wee make G O D the Authour of sinne, from which blasphemie wee are as farre, as they are voide of Christian charitie,  insoiudging of us,  ascribinguntoG O D   hisprouidence the whole swinge in all things, which as they proceede from him (as hath beene shewed before) are verie
good, albeit in respecte of the in-
struments, whereby it pleaseth
him in iustice sometime
to worke by, they
may be verie
evill.

FINIS.

Does God Ordain Everything that Occurs? Sure He Does!

Someone has recently posted a long list of quotations from various Calvinists (and one or two hypers) in order to "prove" that Calvinists believe God ordains all events, including evil ones. He also expresses his strong disapproval of this theology. The list of quotations, found here, is actually a great resource for Calvinists (assuming they can bear with the author's misleading comments, which are interspersed throughout).

Here is the response I posted:

Thank you for sharing this great collection of quotes and your thoughts on them. 

I can certainly understand not liking what you believe to be the unavoidable logical implications of Calvinistic theology. Fair enough. I hope you won’t mind my asking a few follow up questions. 

1. So, you deny that all events are ordained by God, correct? And your primary reason is that certain objectionable events have occurred, and you cannot conceive of a good God ordaining those events, correct? I want to be sure I am accurately understanding your position. 

2. Okay, assuming I have understood you correctly, what are the alternatives? 

• Does God ordain any events? Which ones?
• What are the primary differences between “ordained” and “non-ordained” events?
• Is God aware of “non-ordained” events before they occur? Or does He learn about them as they happen?
• Can anything outside of God (i.e., creation) exist without His initial creative action to “ordain” its existence? If not, how do we separate this initial “ordaining” action on God’s part from the creature’s subsequent actions, so as to say that God in no sense “caused” or “ordained” some of the creature’s actions? At what point do a creature’s actions begin to be “non-ordained”?
• What is the relationship between “ordained” and “non-ordained” events? Do some “ordained” events depend on “non-ordained” events (e.g., does the “ordained” event, forgiveness, depend on the “non-ordained” event, sin)? How does God “ordain” the good events without “ordaining” the evil ones that must occur in advance?
• Does God have the power and authority to prevent “non-ordained” events?
• If God foresees and allows an event, is He not in some sense “ordaining” its occurrence?
• Do “non-ordained” events happen in such a way that God cannot be said to maintain any control over them, i.e. to cause, allow, or prevent them?
• If these events cannot be caused, allowed, or prevented by God, what is His relationship to them? Does He have any authority or power over them?
• In what sense can any event occur outside of God’s ultimate oversight and authority? Does He maintain any sovereignty over these events, and in what sense? 

I don’t expect you to answer all of these questions. My intent is simply to show that it is easier to object to Reformed theology’s answers than it is to propose a well thought out and Biblically grounded alternative. 

Thanks again, and have great weekend. 

Blessings,
Derek Ashton

Anyone who thinks deeply about these matters will quickly run into paradoxes. Is there a better solution than a Biblically faithful, Calvinistic compatibilism?

Is Grace Resistible? Sure it is!

The following quotation was found in a recent post on a popular Arminian blog. It is by James Arminius, the founder of Arminianism, and purports to put the whole controversy between Calvinists and Arminians into perspective by getting down to the root issue:

The representations of grace that the scriptures contain, are such as describe it capable of “being resisted,” (Acts 7:51) and “received in vain” (2 Cor 6:1), and that it is possible for man to avoid yielding his assent to it and refuse all cooperation with it (Heb 12:15, Matt 23:37, Luke 7:30).  While, on the contrary, this [Calvinist] Predestination affirms that grace is a certain irresistible force and operation.

************

In this manner, I ascribe to grace the commencement, the continuance and the consummation of all good.  To such an extent do I carry its influence that a man, though already regenerate, can neither conceive, will, or do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation , without this preventing [i.e. preceding] and exciting, this following and co-operating grace.

From this statement it will clearly appear, that I by no means do injustice to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man’s free will.  For the whole controversy reduces itself to the solution of this question, “Is the grace of God a certain irresistible force?’  That is, the controversy does not relate to those actions or operations which may be ascribed to grace (for I acknowledge and inculcate as many of these actions or operations as any man ever did), but it relates solely to the mode of operation, whether it be irresistible or not.  With respect to which, I believe, according to the scriptures, that many persons resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered. (From Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will and the Nature of God, ed. John Wagner, pp. 45, 69)

Resistance is Futile.

If I was an Arminian I would avoid presenting this quotation, for it only proves that Arminius did not understand the teachings of Calvinism on this subject. We do not teach, "Grace is Irresistible," and just leave the statement there as if it was an absolute fact in all cases. On the contrary, we teach that "Grace is Irresistible when it Works to Effect the Salvation of the Elect." We name this working of grace the Effectual Call because it consists in both the outward and inward call of the Gospel, which, working in combination, bring us out of our blind rebellion and into genuine faith. We call it "saving grace" simply because its effect is to save. Grace is extended and offered to the non-elect as well, but it does not result in salvation. Thus it is not called "saving grace" and it is not irresistible. The person effectively (and voluntarily) resists this grace that could have saved him, had he not resisted. Arminius thoroughly misreads the Calvinist's view.

Scripture is clear regarding the fact that grace is resisted by unbelievers:

Jonah 2:8 Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love.
Isaiah 26:10 If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals corruptly and does not see the majesty of the LORD.

Calvinists actually affirm, with these and other statements of Scripture, that grace is resisted continually by the non-elect--and by the elect themselves prior to their conversion. This is mankind's default mode under Adam. The obvious question is: what could ever be so powerful as to turn a person from this self-destructive course? Well . . . nothing but the irresistible saving grace of a Sovereign God!

It has been said that the real divide between Calvinists and Arminians lies in this question: Whose will is ultimately decisive in salvation: my will, or God's? Both wills are clearly involved; but which one is ultimately decisive? Those who say "God's will" are monergists of one sort or another; those Christians who say "my will" are synergists of some kind (and badly mistaken, I might add). Calvinists are among those who joyously declare, "God's will was ultimately decisive! He chose to save me when, otherwise, I would only have resisted Him forever." And they thank Him for turning their stubborn hearts, granting repentance, bestowing faith in Christ, and bringing them from death to life.

They know it was not their will, but His mercy, that accomplished their salvation. They know because they remember how utterly lost they were when they themselves resisted that mercy.

Here is a song by Sovereign Grace Music that sums it all up very well:



10/13/13 Addendum 
An Arminian commenter has insisted that Arminius actually did understand the Calvinistic teaching on Irresistible Grace, and has asked that I amend my post to reflect this. So noted. I may have misread Arminius (which seems easy to do, since his writings are not as clear as, say, Calvin's, or even Wesley's). In any case, I believe Arminius is now in heaven with the Lord, so he certainly understands the whole truth today, including Irresistible Grace, and likely thanks God for it on a regular basis. Perhaps he is even singing the song in the video above right at this moment!

Whatever

Let's begin the new year with a fresh submission to the will of God, and break the hold of that lackadaisical and purposeless attitude which has flooded our age.
 

"We live in a day of 'whatever.' The problem is that 'whatever' is fate to - 'whatever happens.' The mantra I hear from post modernity is, 'I don't know, I don't care and I don't really matter.' This strikes at the truth and value of human life. This is preached in contemporary music, seen in art and read in literature. The technical terminology for ths frame of mind is agnosticism, narcissism and apathy. 'whatever' leads to hopelessness and hopelessness leads to apathy and apathy eventually leads to depression. This lethargic minded approach of interpreting life is very dangerous to the health of your soul. The attitude shift of repentance is 'Whate'er My God Ordains is Right.'"

 
-Pastor Craig Bowen of Lakeside Community Church (from a sermon delivered on Dec. 18, 2011)

Common Grace and Saving Grace: Flood Light and Spotlight

Here's an important fact to remember about Common Grace and Saving Grace: one never negates the other, as if one were darkness and the other light. Both are lights. They can strengthen one another, but they can never darken or diminish one another.

Some in the Reformed tradition, having accepted the glorious doctrine of unconditional election, begin to view everything through "election glasses" which tend to limit every aspect of God's nature and action.
  

Election Glasses may be stylish and comfortable,
but they can be theologically reductionistic.

It is dangerous to start building our theology with the divine act of election and then read that back into every other divine attribute and action. Some would reason this way: "God only elects some so He must only love some" ... however, God in His Word veritably shouts the exact opposite! Why not say, "God only elects some, so He only has the power to save some?" No Christian would ever say that, yet God has never defined Himself in Scripture as "power," while He has defined Himself emphatically as "love."

A spotlight is directed toward a limited and particular area

The fact that God loves the elect in a special way does not negate His general love for all, any more than an effectual call can negate the reality of a general one. Both work together.

  

Election is a type of love, but it is not the only kind. Election magnifies God's love; it does not shrink His love. Election extends His love to include the salvation of certain worthless wretches ("election according to grace"); it does not rescind His love from the rest. Election makes His willingness to save (all) effectual (in the case of some), but it does not remove His love or His willingness to save from the rest. Election simply takes a general willingness to save and makes it a FIRM WILL to save. In other words, the spotlight of Saving Grace does not unplug the flood light of Common Grace. Both work together in perfect harmony without conflict or negation. Both shed positive light, but in different ways and to different ends. They may be two different kinds of lights, but both are lights indeed.
  

A flood light provides a general ambiance of light

Tensions in Divine POWER and PURPOSE

A central point of theological tension is found at the intersection of God's power and His purpose. Many errors grow directly from the conflation or general misunderstanding of these two distinct facets of theology which sometimes appear to contradict. Let's examine a few of these paradoxes.

Does God have the POWER to keep his creatures from falling into sin? Of course.
Was it God's PURPOSE to prevent the fall? No.
Yet this does not mean God was not grieved by the fall.


Does God have the POWER to save all people? Certainly.
Is God's PURPOSE to save all? No.
Yet this does not mean God does not desire the salvation of all.


Is there sufficient POWER in the atoning work of Christ to save all? Absolutely.
Was this God's PURPOSE in the atonement? No.
Yet this does not mean the atonement is inherently limited.


Does God have the POWER to move every living person to repentance and faith? Certainly.
Is it His PURPOSE to irresistibly draw every living person? No.
Yet the fault for the sinner's unbelief lies with the sinner alone.


Does God have the POWER to keep Christians from sinning? Yes.
Is it God's PURPOSE to make us sinless in this life? No.
Yet we are responsible to grow in grace, mortify sin and persevere in faith.


I have just explained why I am a 5-Paradox Calvinist. 


Here is R.C. Sproul with a few thoughts on God's sincere desire for the salvation of all.

Three Good Reads in Reformed Theology

I've been enjoying these and finding them very beneficial.

#1 The first "good read" is this group of extended quotations from some leading theologians regarding the secret and revealed will of God. This is direct source material, so you can get it from the proverbial horse's mouth. I like this bit from Calvin:

"In fine, give up all fondness for your puerile dilemma, for the Scriptures assure me of the secret will of God; asserting what I have learned from them I do speak of an ascertained truth; but because I do not reach so great a height, I reverently adore with fear and trembling what is too sublime for the angels themselves. Often therefore in my writings I admonish my readers, that on this subject nothing is better than a learned ignorance; for those rave like madmen who arrogate to know more about it than is fit."

And this one from Jonathan Edwards caught my attention:

"... all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them."

Apparently Edwards never met an open theist! God alone knows if Edwards will ever meet one in the future (think about it).

_____________________________________________________________

#2 A second "good read" is Paul Manata's Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - A Contemporary Introduction. Lots of deep philosophical stuff here. Manata has a gift, and I am grateful that he uses it to advance good theology! He argues that Reformed Theology is, by definition, both deterministic and compatibilistic, and decidedly unaffirming of libertarian free will. It's all worth reading and considering, and well documented, too.

_____________________________________________________________

#3  The third "good read" is David Ponter's response to James Anderson's attempt to reconcile the Free Offer of the Gospel with a provisionally Limited Atonement using Newcomb's Paradox (see here and here). It's a deeply complicated argument, but worth thinking about. To me, this is a little bit like Gandalf vs. Saruman (I won't say which one is which). Although James Anderson is a personal hero for expounding so brilliantly on theological paradox, in this case I concur with Ponter (also a personal hero for expounding brilliantly on historic Moderate Calvinism) in his closing remarks:

"Anderson wants to argue that if a moderate Calvinist insists that limited atonement precludes a sincere offer, he must accept that election likewise precludes a sincere offer, for the same reasons. However, a proper rebuttal rejects the assumed univocal relationship between limited atonement and election in relation to the sincere offer, such that one can counter that limited atonement is incompatible with the free offer, while election is not. The only avenue Anderson can have, as I see it, is to attempt to claim that we should see election as equally incompatible with a sincere offer (given our assumptions?). But on what grounds could he suggest that? and does he really want to argue that in the first place? Perhaps Anderson might say both election and limited atonement bare a paradoxical relationship to the sincere offer. My reply would be limited atonement and the sincere free offer entail a contradiction (you cannot offer what you are not able to give), while election and the free offer entail a paradox (one offers, by revealed will, what one does not intend to give, by secret will). We would say we are warranted in rejecting the contradiction, while retaining the paradox. Anderson could only claim that one can indeed sincerely offer what one is not able to give."

The issues in these three "good reads" are tied together, and each of them has bearing on both hyper Calvinism and Arminianism (mind you, I'm not saying any of the people mentioned in this post are hyper Calvinists - far from it - only that the issues covered have direct bearing on refuting that error). To be balanced, I believe we must hold to the paradox of God's revealed and secret wills which are united perfectly in the glorious mystery of His eternal wisdom; we must hold to the paradox of compatibilism so that man is responsible for his actions under the total sovereignty of God; and we must hold to the Free Offer of the Gospel backed up by an infinitely powerful atonement, which, paradoxically, is not intended to save all people. Thank God it saves some!

Bavinck on the Limits of Theology and Philosophy

The will of God is, and from the nature of the case must be, the deepest cause of the entire world and of all the varietas and diversitas found in it. There is no more ultimate ground for this than the absconditum Dei consilium (the hidden counsel of God). The unfathomable mystery of the world compels the intellect and the heart, theology and philosophy alike to fall back upon the will of God and seek rest in it.


It frequently happens, however, that theology and philosophy are not contented with this. They then endeavor, after the manner of Plato and Hegel, to offer a rational explanation of the world. Or, while falling back upon the will of God, they make out of this will a Βυθός άγνωστος (deep unknown), as is done by Gnosticism, or a blind, irrational and unhappy will, as is done by Schopenhauer, or an unconscious and unknowable power, as is done by von Hartmann and Spencer. By his Christian faith Calvin was kept from these different forms of pantheism. It is true, Calvin upholds with the utmost energy the sovereignty of the divine will over and against all human reasoning. Predestination belongs to the divinae sapientiae adyta (shrine of the divine wisdom) which man may not enter and in regard to which his curiosity must remain unsatisfied; for they form a labyrinth from which no one can find the exit. Man may not even investigate with impunity the things God meant to keep secret. God wants us to adore, not to comprehend, the majesty of His wisdom.

Excerpted from Herman Bavinck's article, "Calvin and Common Grace"
Source: The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (1909), p. 450, the parenthetical translations of Latin and Greek terms are mine.

The Long Journey into a House

This post is a little different. It's partly an explanation, partly a testimony, partly a devotional, and partly a political commentary. This is more personal than theological. My schedule is finally getting back to normal again, so more of the usual style posts will be coming along very soon. Thanks for your patience.

It's been quiet on this blog for the last couple of weeks, and here's why: my family has successfully purchased and moved into our first house. We wanted to do this about 5 years ago, when we lived in Kentucky, but that was at the start of the infamous "housing bubble." Home prices were skyrocketing. Then I injured my back, found myself out of work for 10 months, and ended up moving to Florida. Here, home prices were even higher. So we waited, chose (with some struggle) to be content, and found cheap rents.

This year, everything finally fell into place. I have a stable job, the bubble has exploded, home prices are at rock bottom, and the U.S. government is paying people to buy houses. While I don't agree with government intrustion in the marketplace, and I'm both horrified and disturbed by president Obama's dangerous, socialistic policies, I do think it's high time the U.S. government thieves gave something back to the common people. It would have been better if they hadn't robbed us blind in the first place, but giving some money back is a good way to start making amends. If you can't already tell, I'm firmly against the estimated 50+ percent [!!!] tax rate we pay in America. It's time for a new American Revolution, where we reclaim government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people, rather than continuing to be ruled by a bourgeois monarchy of self-servers who are busily stuffing their pockets (and their friends' pockets) with resources that would do more good in the marketplace. I guess I'm a revolutionary at heart. But I digress . . . and this is probably the last word about politics you'll see on this blog for a long, long time. (Vote for Mike Huckabee in 2012).

Back to the house story . . . my family started looking in early February. We became well acquainted with the lowest priced 3+ bedroom houses on the market, and after looking at lots of foreclosures that should have been torn down long ago, we found a spacious house that suited us perfectly. Although it had been vacant for over a year, it was clean and dry. Some cosmetic work was needed, but there were no apparent structural issues. We would have to purchase kitchen appliances and an air conditioning system, but the price was low enough to make all of that feasible, and the bank that owned the house dropped $20,000 from the price in negotiations. We were ecstatic. We were getting a good deal. The best part was, the house was situated on a beautiful piece of property out in the country. One-acre lot, gently sloping, with wooded areas, fenced-off sections for goats, plenty of room for a garden, chickens, etc. (yes, I did say goats). It was a home-schooler's dream!

By mid-March, we had a contract and a closing date. We poured money into inspections, appraisals, surveys, water tests, appliance purchases, etc. (I even bought a door mat) - all in the sure knowledge that this would soon be our place of residence. Everything went smoothly until the day before closing. That's when the unpermitted addition was discovered. That's when the FHA financing came back to bite us. That's when we found out it was going to cost us over $15,000 to bring the addition up to local codes, per FHA rules. That's when we found out the bank selling the home wasn't willing to do ANYTHING to fix the problem (it was HSBC Bank, by the way, and I'll think twice before I ever do business with them again). The bank refused to extend our contract or negotiate the added expenses. They would not put a penny toward it. Since we stood to lose everything we had invested on the botched deal, we went to outrageous lengths to try to make it work. Eventually, we found a contractor who could do the necessary repairs at a reasonable cost and resubmitted an offer to buy the house, with the bank assuming no additional risk or cost. However, a rival buyer had now entered the picture. The rival was using the same financing, offering less money, wanted more time to close, and had more contingencies in the contract. His offer was accepted, ours was rejected, and by the end of May we knew the deal could not be saved. So we started the buying process all over again.

In the meantime, my family had begun reading through the book of James together. And in the middle of the attempted home purchase we were collectively struck by these verses:

James 4:13-16 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.

We made it a point to pray throughout the process, "Lord, if it is Your will, we will move into this house." So, when the deal slipped away, we concluded that it was not God's will. In all of this, my family saw a powerful object lesson about God's sovereignty, and we were humbled by it. We were crushed, but blessedly crushed, because we saw His hand in it.

That's only the first half of the story. Although God never has to explain Himself to us, it's always comforting when we find out why He closes a door.

After more searching, we found a comparably priced house, and this one was not a foreclosure. It was significantly larger, with more bedrooms, and much closer to where I work. There were fewer repairs needed, and the seller made several of them before closing. The house is on a 1/3 acre lot, situated on a private lake, with a nice view and plenty of trees for shade.There's no room for goats, but the previous owner left us a nice chicken coop. The funny part is, we only moved 1.2 miles away from our prior residence. That's right, it took us 6 months to move one mile! It's a much better house than I ever expected, and certainly more than I deserve. I don't deserve to live in a cardboard box! I deserve outer darkness. So, my new house is a gigantic testimony to God's grace.

The front of the house is partly made of stone, which reminds me of these words:

Mark 13:1-2 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

Just as God's beautiful temple was cast down to the ground, so shall my house (should it last long enough) be dashed to bits before His glorious majesty! In that day, I shall literally live in Him, and He in me, in the majestically glorious Kingdom of His eternal grace and truth!

Hebrews 13:14-16 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

I thank God for the gracious, yet temporary, gift of a house to live in. I thank Him even more for the amazing gift of Himself, as the true eternal home of all who trust in Him.

Soli Deo Gloria.

Sure, the road's rough, but look where it's leading . . .

When we melt into the far horizon, then we shall know

the struggles weren't worth comparing

to the eternal weight of glory that will follow

FREE OFFER - Addendum, Part 2

What follows is deep and undeniable Biblical material in support for the four aspects of the free offer. For more on this, see part 1 of the addendum, and also the original post.

First, the easiest one: "the Gospel is to be proclaimed to every individual."

Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and preach the Gospel to every creature . . ."
Mark 16:15 "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation."
Perhaps there's a bit of hyperbole there to emphasize the point, but it only strengthens the argument: PREACH THE GOSPEL TO ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION.


Next: "God invites every individual."

Matthew 11:28-29 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
Isaiah 55:1-3 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourself in abundance. Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, according to the faithful mercies shown to David."
John 7:37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink."
Revelation 22:17 ". . . And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost."

These invitations are given to all, even though the hunger and thirst which move a person to respond are brought about by God's sovereign stirrings of grace. Visibly, the call is universal. Invisibly, the drawing of the Spirit is particular. There's a difference between the general call and the effectual call, but one does not nullify the other.

Next: "God loves every individual."

Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful"

It is objected by some that this refers to God's love for the elect prior to their conversion. I wonder, then, why Christ did not mention this distinction, but commanded His followers to love all enemies? If our heavenly Father does not love the reprobate, and we are admonished to be like Him, why should we love the reprobate? Yet we are commanded to love ALL neighbors and enemies without exception.

Ezekiel 18:23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord God, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"
Ezekiel 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord God. "Therefore, repent and live."

God's pleasure is increased when sinners repent, yet He does not lead all sinners to repentance. His reasons for leaving some in their sins is an unrevealed mystery, but His lack of pleasure in their destruction is directly stated and plainly revealed. Just as God saves some sinners without being unjust, He condemns other sinners without being unloving. Christ's death secured the salvation of the elect, but it also "condemned sin in the flesh." (Romans 8:3) That is a genuine and blessed paradox.

Does God love everyone? My 4-year-old can quote John 3:16, and I think he understands it better than most theologians. What kind of twisted interpretation of "world" does one have to invent in order to deny that "God so loved [every lost person] that He gave His only begotten son . . ."? The violent revisions forced on this text by a petrified theology are bizarre at best, and blasphemous at worst. One of the great benefits of being a paradoxical Calvinist is that we can allow the text to mean exactly what it says. On the downside, explaining things can be tricky, and one's systematic theology may be less than iron clad. But I'd rather be true to the text and scratch all the remaining hair off of my head trying to figure it out than to scratch a single line of truth from God's Bible.

Finally, the tough one: "God wills (i.e. desires) the salvation of every individual."

I Timothy 2:3-4 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Many - even among those who agree with all I have said above - will take exception to the use of this verse in this context. However, I am convinced that the verse is a true statement of God's desire for the salvation of all. The best argument against this view is formed by linking "all men" in this verse to "a ransom for all" in verse 6. Based on limited atonement, "all" in verse 6 is thought to mean "all kinds" (which is sometimes an accurate way to interpret the word), and thus the "all" in verse 4 purportedly has to mean "all kinds." It is a powerful argument. However, Christ's death as "a ransom for all" may well fit within the universal aspects of the atonement. The argument can be just as powerful when stated the opposite way: the "all" in verse 6 proves that the "all" in verse 4 really means "all." Christ's ransom payment was infinite and sufficient for all, though it is efficient and effective only for those who believe. Thus, God desires the salvation of all - especially the elect; and Christ paid the ransom for all - especially the elect. Alas, there are probably only a few Calvinists who will agree, but the point is more disputable than some would ever admit. Let's not allow our theology to become too "limited."

Beyond this, God's desire for the salvation of every individual can be explained this way: every universal invitation, and every universal call to repentance, stands as a statement of God's genuine desire - even if it is not His intention to fulfill that desire. God is not, therefore, "eternally bummed out" or frustrated by man's rejection of Him. Rather, He purposefully mourns with a compassionate heart over the well-deserved destruction of His creatures. He suffers for all, even the reprobate. Yet He also rejoices and finds complete satisfaction in all His decrees. Should it then surprise us that He calls us to find "pure joy" in all our trials and sufferings? And that we should "leap for joy" when people hate us?

Conclusion

The Scripture passages listed above provide strong support for the free offer of the Gospel. But is it a "sincere" and "well meant" offer? The answer is obvious: can God do anything without sincerity? Of course not. Is such terminology redundant? Yes, it is. But is it any more redundant than adding the word "holy" or "righteous" or "kind" or "good" or "perfect" to any of God's other acts? Certainly not. Therefore, we should never be ashamed to speak freely and sincerely of the free, sincere, and well meant offer of the Gospel.

The result of the free offer is sure: "This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14)

So the great commission is a guaranteed success! Let every one of us do his (or her) part to fulfill the command (and the prophecy) of Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria.
_____________________________________
Further information can be found here:

http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/freeoffer.shtml

Excerpt:

Do you have difficulty reconciling the genuine overtures of the Gospel with the truth of God's sovereign election and predestination? To allow any such difficulty to cause you to reject the plain Biblical testimony to the reality of these gracious overtures is to bow down to the false humanistic god of the finality of human reason and is the very antithesis of true Biblical Calvinism. Whilst all of God's Word is reasonable, our powers of reason are those of a finite and fallen creature. We must lean upon the words that have proceeded out of the mouth of God. It is fallen man's pride in his own reason causing him to heed again the words of the serpent, "Hath God said?" (Gen. 3/1). Let us glorify God and say, "I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right" (Psalm 119/128).

God Makes a Wish: The Free Offer of the Gospel

This is a response to an article called "God Makes a Wish," by Bob Gonzales of Reformed Baptist Seminary. The article is here: Reformed Baptist Seminary Blog

Dr. Gonzales provides exposition from the book of Deuteronomy in support of what is commonly known as the "free offer of the Gospel." In the process, he advises us to embrace paradox, keep the Biblical balance, and refrain from reading the foregone conclusions of our systematic theology into a Biblical text merely to maintain the appearance of coherence. That's great advice.

But is the "Free Offer" Biblical?

There are varying streams of thought among modern Calvinists. Some have recommended we discard the term, on the idea that the Gospel is more of a "command" to repent and believe than an "offer" of salvation. However, Scripture and good theology would seem to argue for retaining the term and all that it implies.

THE BIBLICAL CASE

On one hand, there is ample Scriptural warrant for a universal Gospel call, expressions of a passionate desire in God for all people to be saved, and divine love for the reprobate:

Ezekiel 18:30-32 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct,” declares the Lord GOD. “Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you. “Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies,” declares the Lord GOD. “Therefore, repent and live.”

Acts 17:26-31 "and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us . . . Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Matthew 5:44-45 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

Matthew 22:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."

John 3:16 "God so loved the world . . ."

On the other hand, there is the self-evident reality that God has not decreed the salvation of every person, but has elected some to salvation:

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

John 6:65 And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.”

NOTE: You'll have to forgive me for this brief bit of proof texting. It's not as good as solid exegetical analysis, but this is a survey of the topic to show there is some Biblical warrant for my conclusions below.

Taken collectively, these verses show that what God desires is not exactly the same as what He intends. As it has been articulated by various Reformed thinkers, the "free offer" expresses God's desire for all to be saved, while the decree of election enacts His intention to save a remnant of mankind. Can a passion to save all exist side by side with a choice to save only some? Arminians would shout, "NO!" But I will take a Reformed approach and answer this question with a resounding "YES" on the following bases:

1. The Will of God. A "will" in God is not equivalent to a "will" in man. Our wills are impaired by sin, so we cannot imagine a volition that is wholly and comprehensively good. The divine will contains categories of desire and intention to which we are not privy. We are limited by non-omniscience (i.e., ignorance), non-omnipresence (i.e., spatial boundaries) , non-eternality (i.e., time boundaries) and non-omnipotence (i.e., weakness) in such a way that we can barely grasp God's omniscience, omnipresence, eternality and omnipotence. Likewise, we are limited by a fragmented will and are incapable of conceiving an all-encompassing and fully integrated volition such as that found in a transcendent and benevolent God.

2. The Glory of God. Man's salvation is subservient to God's eternal glory. God's passion to save is subject to His higher passion for revealing His glorious nature. If saving every person would provide a more thorough demonstration of God's glory, He would save all. However, according to Romans 9, there is a mystery through which God is more glorified by graciously saving some than He would be if He saved all. The reasons for this may not be readily apparent, but do we trust Him to act wisely, justly, and for our good? If we don't, we are not saved, and we will receive that which is according to our faith (or lack thereof). Those who accuse God of injustice and malevolence ironically receive justice and holy wrath. Those who trust God to extend mercy through Christ's atoning work receive mercy through Christ's atoning work.

THE THEOLOGICAL CASE

In regard to the free offer, Reformed theologians and confessions can be quoted ad infinitum. Calvin's own words tend to affirm the idea of an offer, as this nicely balanced (and somewhat paradoxical) excerpt from his commentary on Psalm 81:13 demonstrates . . .

"If it is objected, that God in vain and without ground utters this complaint, since it was in his power to bend the stiff necks of the people, and that, when he was not pleased to do this, he had no reason to compare himself to a man deeply grieved; I answer, that he very properly makes use of this style of speaking on our account, that we may seek for the procuring cause of our misery nowhere but in ourselves. We must here beware of mingling together things which are totally different as widely different from each other as heaven is distant from the earth. God, in coming down to us by his word, and addressing his invitations to all men without exception, disappoints nobody. All who sincerely come to him are received, and find from actual experience that they were not called in vain. At the same time, we are to trace to the fountain of the secret electing purpose of God this difference, that the word enters into the heart of some, while others only hear the sound of it. And yet there is no inconsistency in his complaining, as it were, with tears, of our folly when we do not obey him.

In the invitations which he addresses to us by the external word, he shows himself to be a father; and why may he not also be understood as still representing himself under the image of a father in using this form of complaint? In Ezekiel 18:32, he declares with the strictest regard to truth, 'I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth,' provided in the interpretation of the passage we candidly and dispassionately take into view the whole scope of it. God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner: How? Because he would have all men turned to himself. But it is abundantly evident, that men by their own free-will cannot turn to God, until he first change their stony hearts into hearts of flesh: yea, this renovation, as Augustine judiciously observes, is a work surpassing that of the creation itself.

Now what hinders God from bending and framing the hearts of all men equally in submission to him? Here modesty and sobriety must be observed, that instead of presuming to intrude into his incomprehensible decrees, we may rest contented with the revelation which he has made of his will in his word. There is the justest ground for saying that he wills the salvation of those to whom that language is addressed, (Isaiah 21:12,) 'Come unto me, and be ye converted.'"

Jonathan Edwards, another heavyweight theologian, likewise affirms that Christ offers Himself to sinners:

"Seeing therefore that it is so evident, that you refuse to accept of Christ as your Savior, why is Christ to be blamed that he does not save you? Christ has offered himself to be your Savior in time past, and he continues offering himself still, and you continue to reject him, and yet complain that he does not save you." (Sermon on The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners." Works, Vol 1 BOT p.676/677)

Ultimately, we must face the fact that there is a theological paradox at work here, and we may not find a human solution for it. The paradox points to a Biblical balance within which we must faithfully abide, even if we cannot fully understand it. This is an aspect of faith with which some are uncomfortable, but it is nonetheless required by Scripture.

The paradox looks something like this:

A: There is a sense in which God wills (and desires) the salvation of all people (by command or precept, i.e. His revealed will)
B: There is a sense in which God wills (and effects) the salvation of the elect only (by decree, i.e. His hidden will)

The implications of these two statements would seem to be contradictory, but both are clearly revealed in Scripture. What is not revealed, what remains a mystery, and what creates a paradox in the human mind is the exact sense in which these two statements are true. It is the sense of the statements that remains hidden in God. We must be careful not to invent senses to accommodate our theology, but leave hidden what God has left hidden. If we cannot tolerate unrevealed nuances of truth, we cannot long abide in the presence of an incomprehensible yet self-revealing God.

Some would say this "two wills" approach divides God's personality, and presents Him as a schizophrenic deity. Let's consult Frances Turretin for clarification on this point:

I. Although the will in God is only one and most simple, by which he comprehends all things by a single and most simple act so that he sees and understands all things at one glance, yet because it is occupied differently about various objects, it thus happens that in our manner of conception, it may be apprehended as manifold (not in itself and intrinsically on the part of the act of willing, but extrinsically and objectively on the part of the things willed).
II. Hence have arisen various distinctions of the will of God. The first and principal distinction is that of the decretive and preceptive will. The former means that which God wills to do or permit himself; the latter what he wills that we should do. The former relates to the futurition and the event of things and is the rule of God’s external acts; the latter is concerned with precepts and promises and is the rule of our action. The former cannot be resisted and is always fulfilled: “Who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19). The latter is often violated by men: “How often would I have gathered you together, and ye would not (Mt. 23:37).

Turretin, Institutes, 1:220-225 (full text can be found here)

Turretin rightly notes that the duality of wills in God is only apparent. Without question, there IS an apparent contradiction here - but if we will be constrained by Scripture, this might be the furthest we can go in understanding how God can will what He does not choose. Rather than denying God's revealed will, let's choose to remain in the place of the creature, and leave the divine prerogatives to God.

What does all of this mean to us? Simply this: we have the privilege and blessed duty of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all people everywhere. We are sent as His ambassadors to call the entire world to faith in Him. We must not fail to evangelize, discriminate amongst the unregenerate, or needlessly limit our presentation of the love of God. The following is a crude illustration, but it fits the topic.

In my High School days, there was a popular heavy metal band with a t-shirt that read: "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." (nice, huh?) I didn't wear that shirt, but I had a crazy looking t-shirt of my own with the bold title, "Teenage Mutant Kamikaze Disciples." One of the kamikaze disciples on the shirt was yelling out, "Evangelize 'em all, and let God sort 'em out." That is a perfect summary of the free offer.

The revealed will of God is a free offer or general call of salvation for all. The unfolding decree of God is a particular and effectual calling of the elect alone. It is through the indiscriminate preaching of the cross to all people that God "sorts out" the elect and the reprobate. The direct cause of the reprobate's damnation is his own choice. The secondary cause is his non-election. The direct cause of the believer's salvation is God's choice. The secondary cause is his own choice. For the reprobate, his own choice is decisive. For the believer, God's choice is decisive. This is the Reformed doctrine of election. If we begin to argue from the standpoint of decree, against the will of God as revealed in the command, we can only do harm to the Scriptures and our own minds. This would be equivalent to removing the gas pedal from one's car and using it to break out the windows. The fact that there is a hidden will of God is contained within the revealed will. Separating out the hidden will and using it as a philosophical crow bar for the purpose of negating the free offer can only be a self-defeating exercise in futility.

Someone will ask, "What about limited atonement? Didn't Christ die only for the elect? Isn't it insincere for God to say He loves and beckons people for whom Christ did not die?" Nonsense. Within this leap of human logic lie the roots of hyper-Calvinism. We do not know who will be among the elect, so by this reasoning we're left peering into the darkness when God commands us to BE the light. The Gospel is for sinners, period. Historic Calvinists, following Calvin, concede that there are universal aspects in the atonement, and that Christ truly died for all men. The difference lies, once again, in the sense in which He died for them. If you ask 100 Calvinists, you will discover 110 views on the matter, but it's safe to say that there is NO Reformed or Biblical reason to believe that Christ did not die for all people in some sense. Let us define the sense as far as Scripture defines it - and no further! The limited aspects of the atonement must never be used as a philosophical wrench for the purpose of taking the wheels off the Gospel bus!

"When Christ died, He purchased for sinners every thing they enjoy that is not part of their condemnation." John Piper (Audio message, "Boasting Only in the Cross." Although this is omitted from the text excerpts, it can be found at 23:01 on the audio sermon. Interestingly, Piper identified this statement as the most important point of the message.)

Without denying an ounce of my Calvinism, I can (and do) affirm that God calls the entire world to Himself, offers Himself to and for the entire world, gave His Son to die for the good of all people, makes Himself available to all who will come, and grieves over those who do not come to Him. The lostness of the lost person is not owing to any lack of mercy or kindness in God, but to the sinner's own will. The eternal condemnation of the reprobate is part of Gods just response, but that does not mitigate or reduce the magnanimity of divine mercy in the slightest. It simply limits the application of that mercy, ultimately, to those who believe.

Anything less than this is a mutant alteration of Calvin's Biblical Calvinism, no matter how much supposed logic is pressed into the conclusions which are spawned. In my reading of Calvin, I find that he recognizes, consistently backs away from, and passionately warns against these logical leaps - and I believe he would sternly warn us not to stray from the truth of the Gospel through the deceptive philosophy of a twisted Calvinism which misrepresents both the reformer and the Gospel he cherished.

________________________________________________________

Note to Dissenters:

Do you believe I have misrepresented Scripture or Calvin? If so, please send me excerpts from Scripture or Calvin's writings containing direct denials that there are some universal aspects of the atonement, that the Gospel should be preached to all, that God wills the salvation of all, or that the lostness of the lost directly results from anything outside of their own choice. I'm ready to hear your arguments and retract if necessary.

________________________________________________________

NOTES:

1. For further study, there is an excellent article by the learned Scotsman Maurice Roberts here:

http://www.bible-sermons.org.uk/text-sermon/1103-the-free-offer-of-the-gospel/

Roberts concludes: "The problem we face is this. God's revealed will appears to conflict with his secret will. God appears to desire some things which he does not decree.
We must accept that both are true. This is a paradox, or antimony. Call it an apparent contradiction even, if you will. But both are revealed in scripture. If we are challenged to reconcile the secret will and the revealed will we must simply say, "We cannot". In this life we do not know how both can be true. But the Bible informs us that both are true. God's secret will elected some from eternity and passed by others. Yet he truly and really desires all who hear the gospel to repent and believe in Christ for salvation. It is pleasing to God when they do and it affords no pleasure to God when they do not believe.
I believe we can say just a little more. God is not only sovereign, but also constitutionally good, benign and affectionate. Such a God cannot but wish the best for his immortal creatures. But for reasons we do not understand, he has seen best to decree the eternal good of only some. Yet in this life God shows sinners very much kindness and even love, both in his daily providence and, more still, by offering them life in Christ. As a good judge, when sentencing a criminal to life imprisonment or death, so God passes sentence on the wicked. He must uphold the claims of justice, but he has no pleasure in passing sentence on them. So it is, surely, with the Almighty God. He would rather send men to heaven than to hell because he is by nature and constitution benign, kind and good.
It should not therefore upset us to say that God loves all sinners. By this we do not mean that he loves them with an electing love. But there is a love and goodness in God which he expresses in this life to the reprobate who hate him.
For God to 'offer' freely and sincerely both pardon and eternal life by Christ is the very highest expression of this love in God. The 'offer' is free and it is well-meant. If some sinners reject this 'offer' their blood is on their own head. They will die in their sins; but God has no pleasure in their death."

2. Another extremely helpful resource is John Piper's article "Are There Two Wills in God?"

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate1995 1580_Are_There_Two_Wills_in_God/

Piper begins thus: "My aim here is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all persons to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world."