The Arminian has no Assurance by Gordon H. Clark

"Once I had a very friendly conversation with a college professor who was strongly Arminian, I remarked that one difference between Calvinism and Arminianism was that the latter denied the possibility of assurance. 'Not so,' he replied, 'I'm right now completely assured of my salvation. If I should die this moment, I know I would go to heaven. Of course,' he continued, 'if I should live until tomorrow or next week, I do not know whether I shall be saved or not.' This raises the question of the value of assurance. Assurance of salvation does not mean that you will get to Heaven. Assurance that a good restaurant serves good food does not guarantee that it serves good food." - Gordon Clark

"This is an assurance that many popular evangelists do not have themselves and cannot promise to their hearers. Yes, they insist on assurance, but it is not the assurance that the Bible teaches. These evangelists, the ones I have in mind, are Arminians. They do not believe in the perseverance of the saints, or, as they call it, eternal security. They claim to be very sure that they are saved now; but they are not sure that they will be saved tomorrow or next week. If they die tonight, they will be in Heaven immediately. But if they should live a while longer, they might fall into sin, fall from grace, and then they would be eternally lost. But they are very sure just now... To be really saved, i.e., to get to Heaven, one must be born again over and over again. Their hope therefore is one that can easily disappoint. These preachers often talk quite a lot about the Holy Spirit; but they deny to the Spirit the power to give a man eternal life. By eternal I mean eternal; not a life that ends in the near future. Thus they do not have assurance; nor do they preach the Gospel, for the Gospel promises at least the possibility of assurance. It promises, not the mere possibility of eternal life; it promises eternal life." - Gordon Clark

Christian Rap

Without Holy Scripture we cannot discern rightly General Revelation. Apart from Special Revelation no one can discern rightly what is being spoken of in General Revelation (in fact some even have taken liberty to say this does not really exist). God exist and has shown Himself and continues to speak of Himself in nature, but unless God turns man and gives him light to see he will not turn to God and God’s wrath abides.
Scripture alone does not speak on every topic. It does not speak on the topic of arithmetic. If it did then I suppose anyone who failed the class would be all sinners in sin. Fortunately Scripture does not tell us how to sing or what musical instrument should be used. The argument could be stated another way. They did not have Drums (which many of our modern day worship services have), I am pretty sure they did not have a Piano or a Organ (I could be wrong here).
Every time a little child plays an instrument learning how to play the notes yet fails to hit the right notes are in Sin because of the fact that what they are playing is ugly.
I think the real issue here is that Scott just does not like Rap.

Christian Rap and it's suppose sinfulness

I have been following a blog for quite some time now. Hopefully my responses are educated. But I think the debate is finally over (I think). The Link to the last question begins here:

http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music/

It is interesting to note that Scott gives some form of example of music that 'sounds' horrible. He post videos of Christian hardcore music and which he says that some of these songs have lyrics but he cannot understand them. My question is why does he not look up the lyrics if he wants to understand them and perhaps maybe he could learn how to sing the song (most who like that genre do). It is not different than to suggest I am listening to a scream-o in which the screamer is hard to understand (once I begin to understand the lyrics the song becomes a little more reasonable).

It is the usual case in which Scott does not truly understand Scripture. He says let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel (quoting Phil 1:27). I wonder what he would say about acts in which he disagrees with? According to this verse Scripture alone (Gospel) is the basis for our holy living. And the rule and conduct for our lives should be based upon what God has said in Scripture alone. This is not what he wants to say - Scripture does not speak on all areas of life. He just shot himself in the foot.

He assumes (wronglfully) that this music he speaks of is ugly. He simply does not understand the music.

Shai Linne I think has done a wonderful job in pressing the issue. He says, According to the rest of verse 27, a manner of life worthy of the gospel is seen as believers are “standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel”

Wonderful, and how is it that we stand in unity? Ephesians 4. Content, Content, Content.

Finally Scott addresses with his final reply. He speaks of his daughter who was assumingly acting bad. Perhaps maybe she was, maybe she was not. Lets give this to Scott. She is his daughter of course. But, again there are perhaps many things in which would be pride according to Scott that Scripture condones. For instance as calling out false doctrine. Not allowing those who hold to false doctrine to stand in or infiltrate the assembly. Yet in our day the Christian wants to unify with those who have false doctrine. This is Van Tillian presupposition. Well we cannot know whether this is so or not. I know I know you speak the truth, but your actions do not show it. Therefore, you are acting in pride. He assumes things.
Now there are some who want to say that one is speaking in pride when he or she addresses false doctrine. They assume that the communication of it is done in pride and sinfulness. The question is where or show me how this is sinful or prideful. If you press them on this question they cannot answer it. I am expecting certain men to tell me where in my comments I have been in pride. I am afraid they will not be able to show me where this is the case. Scripture already says what pride is and Scott is using extra-biblical reasoning to say that pride is more than what Scripture says it is.
Regardless, the interesting feature is that he cannot cite chapter and verse on the issue with his daughter. We are not talking about whether a man who actually does a sin knows it or not. That is possible. It is part of the fall that men do not know or see their sin as they ought. Perhaps some of the things that could be said is this that the intentions of people matter. This is true. We read books and the first thing we should ask is what does the author intend to say. Essentially this issue goes back to the first post on this issue. Although intentions are very important. Sometimes how we say things do matter in one sense. But again this is not to say that we should always say things in a nice way. Sometimes there are instances in which it is better to yell or to say something in a particular way than another time - this is Ecclesiastes.
Scott does continue on with the 'discussion' and most of what he says spurs on a question of whether he truly understands Shai's point.
Here is the link to the last discussion I think:
 http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-example-of-sinful-music-rebuttal/

Christian Rap and Shai Linne

I think now the Debators are now arguing none essentials. Shai needs to press Scott on what he means by:

Third, you are making a very common category error in these discussions. I agree completely, of course, that whatever God creates is good. God created music. God created meat. These things are good. But God did not create rap. People did. For that matter, God did not create Gregorian chant, German chorales, Appalachian folk tunes, country western, jazz, or rock ‘n’ roll. People did. And because these are all human communication, they are moral. It is very dangerous to ascribe to God something that he did not make.

Brother, I’m not understanding the distinction you’re making. You said that God created music. But then you went on to say that people created particular genres of music. Every genre you mentioned has lyrics, which you rightly termed “human communication”. But my original question was about music apart from lyrics. Can you explain what you mean when you say “God created music.”? Thanks.

Indeed the real issue is not contextualizing the Gospel. But the real issue is whether or not the Gospel is being heard in this form of music. Music - apart from the lyrics - does communicate in one sense (though to be honest Humans are lead by such things). We would rather listen to good music without actually hearing the words. All men struggle with this. Scott believes that emotions play a role in the Christian Life. Whereas the truth of the Scripture is that Emotions play no role at all. Truth matters. That is why Scripture calls us to worship God alone. God says that it is by His Name alone that He saves people. The Christian Faith is intellectual. The real issue here in discerning whether or not a particular Genre is good or not is not the musical instruments used but whether the lyrics themselves speak of divine truth. In one sense we must redefine the issue or restate the issue. The issue is not whether or not I can listen to rap - but whether those lyrics those words in the rap are edifying and God glorifying.

As we stick to the issue now we can consider the rest of the problem going on. The question was asked:

Shai, I have heard you talk about the differences between east coast, southern, midwest, and west coast hip hop and the “flavors” they communicate. Would you say that each of these forms has strengths and weaknesses when attempting to communicate different aspects of biblical truth such as lament, exultation, rebuke, or instruction? If so, could you give examples of what each of these do well and what they do poorly? If not, could you explain why not?

 Some of my points though will be with Shai Linne's comments to the Question. He says that music is used with the Lyrics. Depending on the type of song it is it seems determines the type of music played. This seems to be logical. Likewise with how we communicate truth's of scripture depends on what is being communicated. We obviously would not tell someone they are Totally depraved and apart from Life in Christ you have no hope and that the Law condemns with a smiling face. Likewise music is used to enforce what is being said (it leads the emotions). This is what he says:

This is an excellent question, Scott. It’s something that I think Christian Hip-hop artists need to wrestle with more than we do. My answer is yes. Like all genres, different regional forms of Hip-hop have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to expressing different kinds of truth. It’s something I’m conscious of and it guides how I choose the music I rap over. It’s the point I tried to make starting at the 5:50 point of this video...

Yet, I fail to see how this in itself proves Scott's contention that rap music is wrong. Perhaps maybe he is the one who is moved by the music, rather than by the WORDS of truth Spoken? Maybe he felt compelled to buy a gun after listening to rap music? Bach gave him a Handel on things. Obviously Context determine the Content. There is a Law and Gospel distinction. I would not speak the Law to someone who needs to hear the Gospel and likewise I would not want to speak the Gospel to someone who needed to hear the Law. My tone of voice has nothing to do with the truth being communicated ultimately (though it may help, or may be hurtful in some cases).  So I want to always bring the case back to the Objective reality of things - Content, Content, Content.

With this I want to respond briefly to Scotts' address:

In the meantime, third, I would simply like to observe that you did not use any Scripture to prove that “southern Hip-hop is strong when it comes to encouraging excitement and rallying around something.”

I am not certain Shai has to in this regard. Scott has moved away from Scripture. Scripture does not speak on the tone or music style of the giving of truth. We saw this when we went through various Scripture verses that Scott used. At this juncture this is philosophy. Of course do we believe that Scripture alone is our only Guide for faith and practices? Yes. We need no other guide or tool at all. It would be wrong for Shai to use the music to get people do something that was out of pure emotions. Scripture says that our worship should be Reasonable (Romans 12:1-2).

But here is the point I would like to stress here: often we who argue that certain forms of music are not fitting to communicate God’s truth are cut off from any discussion because the Bible doesn’t explicitly say that music communicates, how music communicates, or that some kinds of music are inappropriate for holy matters. 

Perhaps the better word would be entices rather than communicate. Music certainly can entice us to do something. This is something we must stay away from. But Communication is used rather than entice because entice would be bad. lets say Certain forms of music are not fitting to entice God's truth . . . Because in reality music does not speak anything. This is why many may listen to country music and become entice with the Chivalry climate that is speaks on often. The issue goes straight back to the Bible. The Bible is the Word of God alone and nothing else. Music should not entice us to do anything unscriptural. A preacher or a minister may administer the Word of God fine. But how he does that whether he preaches or writes a book does not matter as long as the Word of God is preached (John 4:21-24; Romans 10:14-17). - This could be my rebuttle to what Scott said:

I’m convinced that if we could get past the “But the Bible doesn’t say anything about music!” argument, we could really move this discussion along to actually discuss the merits and demerits of the genre of rap itself.

Here is a link to Shai's Comment to the Question asked: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content/

Here is a link to Scott's rebuttle: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-how-does-rap-flavor-its-truth-content-rebuttal/

Christian Rap and Man's Sinfulness

Scott Aniol and Shai Linne, continue in their well debate against one another. Interesting remarks to be made is that the point Shai is making is that Music, apart from lyrics, can be sinful. Indeed it can be sinful. Just as the sowing of the evil one is sinful. It is not sinful in and of itself to simply create music. But, the intentions and the darkness of our hearts make it so. Scott is disagreeing (without Scriptural backing) albeit he may have some knowledge of Scripture. certainly his points are full of error though. I agree in one sense Shai's point on Romans 14 - we are not obligated to remain with the two distinctions between a thing and another thing. Shai is debating over whether Rap MUSIC is sinful or not. So you can actually place these distinctions in place of say the meat offered up to idols. Does Rap music actually cause one to commit idolatrous worship?

Scott replies back to Shai's point by saying again the Scripture is concerned with not only the WHAT we say but the HOW we say it, which is something that I disagree whole heartedly. Scripture does not speak on the HOW so much. Consider this as an example: Prayer. Someone who prays to the true God (What) is said to be praying in idolatrous tones because of How he prays, whereas Hindu who prays to whoever is said to be the most devote person in Prayer because of HOW he prayed. Again Scripture is more concerned with What we know and not in how we know it. Of course Scott furnishes for us some scriptural evidences of his view, granted - taken out of context. For one thing Ephesians 4:15 is not speaking to us about how we communicate something. Whether we preach or teach has nothing to do with how we communicate it. The in love furnishes the purpose for why we communicate these truths. In fact, it furnishes the why God has given us the Apostles, and teachers. The purpose of the Apostles and Teachers were to communicate truths of revelation for the purpose that the Church would grow into unity of the knowledge of the faith. Of course there are those of the flesh who do not know the truth and do not want to truth these people are talked about in 1 Corinthians.

1 Corinthains 2:1-5 - simply Paul's point is that God has appointed Paul as an apostle and elder and teacher so that what Paul preaches is not 'lofty speech' but the word of God alone. Nothing here speaks against knowledge but everything in Paul's letters speaks against carnal knowledge. Gnostic knowledge puff's up, but true knowledge which Paul is not talking against does not.

The last point I wish to make is that Scott seems to be making a very very common error with regards to God and secondary causations. For one God is said to have caused the fall in the sense that God simply moved into motion the world so that the world now is on a course in which it cannot stop. Now whatever happens to the world happens because it does it on its own and not because God actually Caused it to happen. Consider this clearly to be the Cosmological Argument. The great danger here is that although God is said to be the Creator of all things He is not the 'maker' of all things. Indeed man makes things out of the saw dust that God made. But man can make something out of the portion that God made sinful. Who is making the jump? Shai or Scott? I believe the prayer of Scott would be like God I thank you that you have given me your dirt so that I could make a beautiful bow and arrow. Not what you have done, but what my hand had wrought (pun intended).

http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-music/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-can-music-be-sinful-rebuttal/

Christian Rap and Scripture alone

The Article (linked below) is interesting. It begins with a Question by one of the persons who adheres to the Form of Music in question. The Question seems to be not whether Christian Rap Music (With lyrics) is sinful, but in general whether Rap music (perhaps other music) without lyrics is sinful. The Answerer responds by saying yes and then goes on a tangent on why it is so. I am not certain if the Complainant really understands the question asked. Perhaps he is answering with a general idea that all 'Rap' music regardless of lyrics is bad. If this is so he must say it clearly and ground it in Scripture. He has not so far done either one of them. But lets comment on what he is saying:

Although, our intentions are first and foremost important to whatever we do or say. It is also clear from certain communicable(Community) ethics that sometimes our actions or words though we may not intend to do so might cause others to stumble. The meaning of this is that though I know the truth and I intend to communicate the truth to others - we definitely understand that understanding facts (especially of Scripture) comes by Grace alone and not by might. Therefore, as a teacher of truth I intend to communicate it in such a way that others would be more in apt to listen and understand - this means by not being a jerk. I understand the way I communicate is not as important as what is being communicated - but as our fallen sinful passions are concerned here is that we concern ourselves more so with the way and not the what. As I will be listening and reading on certain thoughts of certain people it is my goal to listen and hear each of the arguments being said. Though I affirm that Truth is truth and needs to be spoken regardless of the formality of how it is spoken, still though I (personally) try not to be a jerk about it (as I leave the offense of the Cross to the Cross - the truth). I will say that Scripture however is not concerned primarily with the HOW we speak of certain things than the WHAT and with regards to Christian Rap (as oppose to other forms of Christian music) it is one of the best music out there lyrically speaking - as they contextualize Scripture. Though I like some Christian Rap (not all Christian Rap is lyrically good) I personally do not listen to it all the time.

 "The essential thing is the message preached. The same principle applies to hillbilly singing. If it detracts from the message, it is bad. If it were used with a moderately well educated audience, with people who have some taste in music, it would so detract, by repelling them. On the other hand, I cannot agree with a friend of mine who says that good Reformed theology requires that only Bach should be used. Oh dear, no Mozart and not even Handel's Messiah! Personally I prefer good music, just as I prefer good grammar; but the Scripture does not specify what style of music must be used. As the Westminster Confession says, 'There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence." - Rev. Gordon H. Clark

http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/discussion-about-christian-rap-with-shai-linne-can-music-be-sinful/

Scripture alone and its suffciency

"I believe that the Bible is our supreme authority and that it is sufficient to equip us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This means that every single issue in the Christian life is addressed in Scripture by precept, principle, or example. Music is no exception."

A few remarks on this is indeed helpful. By saying that the Scripture is our supreme authority he does not mean that Scripture is alone our authority. Indeed in past conversations with him he says that we are sanctified by other means but rather the Bible is our supreme tool of how we are sanctified. There is a pyramid scheme the Bible is on top, but there are a list of other things that can sanctify. I have a problem with this view of Scriptural authority.

Of course the issue being dealt with here is that there are certain musical styles that Scripture does discredit. Whether this person knows it or not Scripture does not discredit the how to. To say that one must look into the how to as well as the what is to say that ultimately the what and the form is both equally important. For example prayer. Gordon H. Clark uses this example. Scripture is primarily concerned with the What of faith and not the form of faith.

However, the issue I am not dealing with here is necessarily over the issue of Christian rap (some of it is wrong for it does not have a lyrically truthful doctrine. I personally do not always listen to it because my taste in music is not directed towards rap music - though the lyrics are good and I find it more consistent with scripture than other music).

Here is the Article: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-culture/some-answers-to-questions-about-my-views-on-reformed-rap/

Faith and Emotions and Assent

But although the emotions are sometimes referred to, the term heart more often signifies the intellect. It is the heart that speaks, meditates, thinks and understands. At the same time, it cannot be uniformly translated intellect as distinguished from the will or the emotions. This is not because it excludes or is antithetical to the mind, the understanding, or the intellect, but because it includes them all and signifies the total personality. The term heart in reality means the self, or, with some colloquial emphasis, one's deepest self. And as the self acts emotionally, volitionally, and intellectually, the three activities are each represented in the several occurrences of the term. Although the term heart includes the emotions and therefore cannot be translated intellect, still the intellectual reference occurs much more frequently than any other; and this preponderance of the intellectual references shows the preponderance of the intellect in the personality.
- Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation

Hebrews 11:6 and Faith

To return for a moment to Hebrews 11:6, we see that faith in God is impossible without a creed. The first article of this necessary creed is that God exists. And how obvious! Can a man come to God if he believes that God does not exist? To turn an illustration back upon its originators, can you take your money to a bank which you believe does not exist? It is not even necessary to put the matter ...so strongly. The blatant atheist who believes that God does not exist will not come, of course. But what of a man, not a blatant atheist, who merely fails to believe that God does exist? Can such a man any more easily come to God? Hebrews says, No; he who comes to God must believe that he is.
This creed has also a second article which must be believed before one can come to God. If a man believes merely that God exists, he will not come; God in this case might be an indifferent deity with no concern for man; he might even be annoyed at a man's bothering him; or possibly this god might be some impersonal force. Therefore, before a man comes to God, he must believe that he is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him. This, of course, implies that God is personal. What an extensive theology we are getting into! And how intellectual we have already become, for we are now using the logical form of implication.

 

 

 

 - Gordon H. Clark, Religion, Reason and Revelation

Faith is Intellectual and Assent

The thing is justification and sanctification are to be viewed together. It is not like we become justified by faith and then our sanctification is now done through the law by the Spirit. Many people have grown out of the gospel when it comes to sanctification.
All of this bulks on the fact that Believers are Justified by faith in Christ alone. Faith is in itself rational. It is indeed intellectual. As I have said elsewhere the Hebrew writer says that Faith is creedal.
Gordon Clark says, In his vivid style Kierkegaard describes two men in prayer. The one is in a Lutheran church, and he entertains a true conception of God; but because he prays in a false spirit, he is in truth praying to an idol. the other is actually in a heathen temple praying to idols; but since he prays with an infinite passion, he is in truth praying to God. For the truth lies in the inward HOW, not in the external WHAT. Or, again, Kierkegaard says, 'An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for an existing individual.'

The issue is here that many concern themselves more with the HOW than the WHAT. Scripture tells us to concern ourselves with the What and not necessarily with the How. It does not mean that the How does not matter. The how does matter. But in reality we are speaking of Faith alone and that Christians are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Faith is concerned with the what for it deals with the mind of Christians. Romans 12 says that it is by the renewing of our mind that we may understand the will of God which is good and perfect and pleasing. Many would want to say that the Mind and Heart are two different things in Scripture. Perhaps, but then they say that heart is more emotions, some would say heart is the seat of the WILL. However, that is not necessarily the case. Here the heart stands for minds. The Christian faith has to do more with the Mind, the intellect.

With that said Gordon Clark has said: The distinction between believing that a chair is comfortable and the act of sitting in it is perfectly obvious. But in the spiritual realm there is no physical action; there is mental action only: Hence the act of sitting down, if it means anything at all, must refer to something completely internal and yet different from belief. Belief in the chair has been made to stand for belief in Christ, and according to the illustration belief in Christ does not save. Something else is needed. But what is this something else that corresponds to the physical act of sitting down? This is the question that is seldom if ever answered. The evangelist put all their stress on sitting down, but never identify its analogue.

James 2 Speaks of those who merely knew that there was one God - from this knowledge (true) they shuddered. However, it was an issue with the content of their faith. These demons did not assent to the truth that God exist and that he is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Faith = Belief That and Belief In.

An issue for the Lordship Camp

I might as well just say it since I have already been in some sort of dog house so far. But, if it is first essential to believe the objective principles of doctrine first and foremost before one can actually begin to consider 'good' works then why do we then tell someone that they must focus upon the cart before the horse? It seems almost as if existentially we are focusing on our own self-improvement then on the Gospel which saves the elect by faith.
I mean that from our faith growing more and more into the knowledge of the Gospel does our 'good works' flourish. It is not through the law we become good workers.
many will formally agree that gospel is first, but then they spend 98% of time on the Christian life, using it as a means of assurance. This shows where their heart is. And the gospel they start with is a false gospel.

On God's purpose in commands on ethical beings.

"unless you also clarify that the only way He could do that and still be just is if man were not made in the Image of God, which is the reason it is sin in the first place. God is not bound by His commands per se, as I said above. However, every command has a reasoned causal chain that goes back to God’s character and desires, and these are essential to Him as primal manifestation/expression/revelation of Himself both to Himself and to conditional creatures."It is because Man is made in the image of God that they are responsible to Him. God could have commanded anything - with that said His laws are said to be just, holy, and good because God commands them. However, God is not bound by those laws. Even if man obeyed the law of God completely (scripture says in Romans 3 and 10 that it is impossible due to His depravity and fallen nature) he would still be doing that which was his job as a creature. Luke says that they would be unprofitable servants because they did what they were told and what they were responsible for. All men are responsible to God because of the fact that they are creatures of God made in the image of God. This is why I say you should not imply from this that all of God's creatures deserve salvation. Salvation is a free gift of God and not something that is to be inferred on the creature.

Gordon H. Clark says, "In Christianity . . . God is supreme, and any ideas that may be required are dependent upon what God wills to think. God is the legislator, and piety is determined by his preceptive decree." - Religion, Reason and Revelation Indeed to say that God must honor his law is to subject him to a law above him. Clark also says elsewhere "Responsiblility presupposes a superior authority that rewards and punishes. The highest authority is God. Therefore responsibility is ultimately dependent on the power and authority of God. Is it just then for God to punish a man for deeds that God himself 'determined before to be done'? Was God just in punishing Judas, Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the others? The Scriptures answer in the affirmative and explain why. Not only is God the creator of the physical universe, not only is he the governor and judge of men, he is also the moral legislator. It is his will that establishes the distinction between right and wrong, between justice and injustice; it is his will that sets the norms of righteous conduct." From this I inferr that man is responsible to God because He is created in His image. One may also say that Paul says this in Romans 9 when he says that God is the potter we are the clay. The potter has supreme rights.

Two wills of God discussion.

Josh said: God is more complex than for us to limit Him to only one emotional disposition towards individuals. He can desire every human to be saved and at the same only desire to unconditionally save the elect.


Me (Kirk said): if you say God is complex then we in fact cannot know Him. Scripture does not say that God is complex but that God is one. Scripture does not say that God is unknowable, but that He is inexhaustible. This is why Scripture says that what has been revealed is for the purpose that you should follow. God has not revealed to us everything about Himself, but only that which we should know. What God knows as Creatures we to can know. The difference in our knowledge is quantitative and not qualitative. Jesus says that we worship what we know. What we know that is what we speak.


Josh: Well, the idea is not that there are two wills, but two things that He wills. One more than the other. Massive difference. One is confusing and nonsensical, the other is very relatable and understandable.



Me: God wills two things? No one disagrees with that statement. Obviously the command is based upon God's will. You have not clarified the issue. The issue is not whether or not God wills two things. The issue is whether or not God desires in the same sense the salvation of the reprobate that He does the salvation of the elect. Does he at the same time desire to save all when in fact he does not save all? I'd say you should read the Van Til/Clark Controversy which speaks on this issue. 



I (Kirk) asked him: would it not be better to say that God COMMANDS that all would repent and believe the gospel, but only WILLS that the elect should repent and believe the gospel?


Josh: My response is that the idea of a command, if it has any real significance, is that it accords with God’s desires at some level.



Me: I'd disagree. Command does not mean that God actually longs for someone to do something or not. By this you are arguing the same line of the Arminian. God is the legislator.  God as the creator of the universe is the governor of His creation. Apart from salvation-history, Adam (Creature of God) does not have the right to salvation because salvation is a prerogative right that God freely does. As a Creature of God however Adam should obey God. This does not mean however that Adam by obeying God should merit eternal life (this is only grounded in Christ alone - which is covenant language).



Josh: This is how the whole distinction between wickedness and righteousness has fundamental distinction: it is rooted in God’s very nature (i.e. what pleases Him) expressed in desires, which is the formal cause of His will. For example, God makes real commands against wickedness and evil, and those commands are rooted in His character which manifests in desires.



Me: Well God commands are different from what God wills to do. God makes a command because He is the creator. This is the responsibility of man. No one denies the fact that the commands are grounded in who God is. But, you must be careful. God is not bound to certain commands. He could have justly commanded that murder is just as righteous as not to murder. The distinction between wickedness and righteousness is found in Christ. However,  the distinction between wickedness and goodness is ground in sin. However, the distinction between the elect and reprobate is based upon God's free elective choice.





Josh: However, He may, and very often does, desire other things more than “everything” happening according to that set of desires. In the case of His moral commands, He desires that all men obey them, but more than that, at the same time, He desires His plan to unfold as He has ordained according to the counsel of His will. The chief example of this is seen in the Cross: God opposing sin at all times, but because of His grater plan, He ordained the sufferings of Christ at the hands of wicked men.



Me: God command is rooted in God's will of election and reprobation. You cannot make the two on the same level. Nor should you condition the will of election and reprobation on the command. You are using desires and commands equivocatively. However, as Calvin says the command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation so that although God commands not to murder, He however wills that a person does murder. The command based upon God's righteousness is stated to serve the doctrine of election in that sin is revealed by it and that the reprobate are destroyed because of sin.



Calvin says, "Take the matter more briefly and condensedly thus: God wills that adultery should not be committed, in as far as it is a pollution and violation of the holy bond of matrimony, and a great transgression of His righteous law. But, in as as far as God uses adulteries, as well as other wicked doings of men, to execute His own acts of vengeance on the sins of men, He certianly executes the office and performs the sacred duty of judge, not unwillingly, but willingly!"

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism Part two of the work on Providence



In as far as God wills a thing in His word that which should be done, He also wills in His secret counsel that which should not be done this is far because there are two wills in God.

 But that the first further reveals the latter. That in the latter God has so decreed to damn the Reprobate for sin. He does so in righteousness but in God's rejection of the reprobate he withholds His grace and hardens them making them into vessels of wrath to condemn them. He often times uses their sins to chastise his people to bring them unto glory. The command serves the doctrine of election and reprobation.



Josh: So it is with Salvation: God desires the salvation of all men, but more than that desire, He desires the salvation of the elect, being part of His eternal plan, so that the purpose of election might stand, and so He intentionally ordains their salvation and ensures that it will happen by His Spirit, knowing, and ordaining, that without His Spirit irrevocably changing people, they will never repent and believe and so be saved.



Me: Actually salvation is rooted in the justice of God. God desires solely the salvation of the elect, if he had not then the reprobate would not be reprobate but also the elect. What the two wills fail to explain is the fact that salvation is established with the elect alone who are in Christ alone. It is not true that because God commands Christians to preach the Gospel that this administering of the Gospel is actually itself the desire. Again the reprobate by hearing the Gospel are condemned more harshly for the light which they have. Further, they even suppress the truth of God clearly revealed. If God supremely desired to save the reprobate then he would have them to be saved, but he does not. Unless of course you are wanting say that natural revelation is in fact genuine and is capable of saving without the special work of the Spirit to reveal to Him the truths.



Josh: So, it is a surface level distinction to say that the difference between the reprobate and the elect, as regards God’s disposition, is that God wills one set to repent while commanding both to repent because commands are rooted in desire and will.



Me: No the command is that all should repent and believe. The command is that all men should glorify God. But not all do so. God however, in the administration of the gospel commands all to repent, but the command is also effectual and so calls the elect unto Christ.


Josh: All people have lesser desires they will forgo for the sake of more deep and abiding desires.



Me: God's desire is perfect and not complex. Human beings whose nature is fallen are complex and may desire anything under the sun.

  

On Grace, Love, and God

Gods grace is an act of God giving himself. Whereas His love is the act of giving Himself. In other words to be saved by grace alone means that God himself gave Himself to one and it is in love that He does so. Tantamount anyone who has not the Son has not the Father. I lay down my life for them the sheep as Jesus said.

Secondary Causes? Not really.

So i had read something really interesting about Zwingli on secondary causes. Ill quote it later but it was interesting. He essentially says he does not believe that secondary causes are legitimate causes or should be called such things as cause for God alone is the true cause.What is a good way of talking about this? in my language its hard to speak without using secondary cause.

- Assumed secondary causes are nothing more than the observable effects of the immediate cause. It's a matter of perception, but only one is truth, for truth is objective and not subjective.

What the Bible says:

There are a few misconceptions the Arminian heretics seem to carry. First, God is one. This means that God's sovereignty does not override his other attributes but qualifies them. Also it means that God who is the sufficient one is in and of Himself first and foremost these qualities within Himself as the divine trinity. What I mean is that what God does outside of Himself is based upon who He is inside of Himself.  (Therefore I am not focusing too much on God's sovereignty as you are accusing me of missing the forest for the trees - this I will accuse you all of doing).

 

Romans 5:8 speaks of us (the Church, The elect, called out ones). As for John 1:29 - you must take Scripture as a whole and not impute meaning on a word that is foreign to the whole of Scripture. John is a theologian. When John says world he means that Christ is given to the elect who are dispersed not only amongst the Jews, but also the Gentiles. This is what made the "Love" of God so significant that no longer is it Jew and Gentile. This is the mystery revealed according to Paul.

 

The word "ALL" is an elastic term. It does not have to mean all people who ever existed universally, but it can also mean all the people who are part of a group. Say you have a class of students in a particular class the teacher ask - ok are we all here?

 

As for John 3:18 - the antithesis of this is given in John 3:16. Fortunately John limits the atonement even here to those who do believe. So who is it that God loves, who God gave the atonement to? those who do believe (who we later know as the Elect of God, the Sheep). The fact that John says these men are already condemned gives credence to the fact that God did not love these men at all.

 

Romans 6:23 - shows us the fact that Immortality is conditioned upon those being in Christ alone (Covenant language right here).

 

God I said sovereignly uses secondary causes (in a sense) to bring about His purposes. What this means is that God the immediate actor who controls all things (He alone has free will). But even if He controls all things directly, he is still not to be one who is responsible for the actions themselves. For one thing it is not God who does the acts. These men whom God causes to do the act does them. Unfortunately the evil act is a sign of God's hardening, whereas the good act (in some cases) is a sign of softening - like for the elect of God whom God softens.

 

The Gospel is proclaimed Christ alone did in fact in an act of imputation (not from us - but from God) took upon Himself the sins of His people. It is because Christ died for His people that by the grace of God these people are made new and given light to see. The Gospel is about God's Justice.

Repentance

Recently I have been considering a great deal about repentance. What is it exactly? In recent times I have considered that it is an act in which the sinner repents from his self-pride and turns to Christ by faith/assent alone in His gospel. The gospel says that no one is counted righteous outside of Christ, but that all have sinned and fall short of God's holiness which is His glory. It is only in Christ alone that the elect sinner is made right with God because Christ Jesus actually took upon Himself their sins so that by this the Spirit who works upon the particular sinners heart/mind repents from his wicked ways and turns to Christ trusting in Him alone for justification. From this all of our Christian life is about eradicating the false gospel/doctrine we once held dear to upholding the good news.

I am learning and growing in my knowledge of this. But I am no longer a Lordship-Salvationist guy.

Luke 16

The Church I attended today preached out of Luke 16. I find that my understanding of this passage is far different than how they understand it. The position of this passage seems quite clear - Christ rebukes the Pharisees for their love of money. These men are so enwrapped with themselves that they press into the Kingdom of God their own vices and guile. Christ says that God's word stands and will not pass away even to the small law. Of course this chapter is added to enforce the truth that Christ is the Perfector of the Law. He has done what no man has done.
If one wants to consider the whole Chapter it is that we are called to be faithful stewards of God's word. Teachers and Pastors have a greater responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God. As Calvin says this has less to do with our life and more to do with our doctrine.

 "And the master commended the unjust steward Here it is obvious that if we were to attempt to find a meaning for every minute circumstance, we would act absurdly. To make donations out of what belongs to another man, is an action which is very far from deserving applause; and who would patiently endure that an unprincipled villain should rob him of his property, and give it away according to his own fancy? It were indeed the grossest stupidity, if that man who beheld a portion of his substance taken away, should commend the person who stole the remainder of it and bestowed it on others. But Christ only meant what he adds a little afterwards, that ungodly and worldly men are more industrious and skillful in conducting the affairs of this fading life, than the children of God are anxious to obtain the heavenly and eternal life, or careful to make it the subject of their study and meditation.
By this comparison he charges us with highly criminal indifference, in not providing for the future, with at least as much earnestness as ungodly men display by attending to their own interests in this world. How disgraceful is it that the children of light, whom God enlightens by his Spirit and word, should slumber and neglect the hope of eternal blessedness held out to them, while worldly men are so eagerly bent on their own accommodations, and so provident and sagacious! Hence we infer, that our Lord does not intend to compare the wisdom of the Spirit to the wisdom of the flesh, (which could not have been done without pouring contempt on God himself,) but only to arouse believers to consider more attentively what belongs to the future life, and not to shut their eyes against the light of the Gospel, when they perceive that even the blind, amidst their darkness, see more clearly. And, indeed, the children of light ought to be more powerfully excited, when they behold the children of this world making provision against a distant period, for a life which is fading, and which passes in a moment" - John Calvin, Commentary on Luke 16:8


"by 'mammon' are designed riches, wealth, and substance; (See Gill on Matthew 6:24) and is called 'mammon of unrighteousness', because such wealth is often unrighteously detained, and is not made use of to right and good purposes, by the owners of it; or because, generally speaking, it is possessed by unrighteous men; and, for the most part, used in an unrighteous manner, in luxury, pride and intemperance, and is the root, instrument, and means of such unrighteousness: or it maybe rendered 'mammon of hurt', or 'hurtful mammon'; as it often is to those who are over anxious and desirous of it, or other disuse or misuse of it: or, as best of all, 'mammon of falsehood', or 'deceitful mammon'; so in the Targum ^F23, frequent mention is made of (rqvd Nwmm) , 'mammon of falsity'; and stands opposed to "true riches" in ( Luke 16:10 ) for worldly riches are very empty and fallacious; wherefore deceitfulness is ascribed to them; and they are called uncertain riches, which are not to be depended upon. ( Matthew 13:22 ) ( 1 Timothy 6:17 ) unless it should be rather thought that it is so called, because gotten in an unrighteous way; as it was by Zacchaeus, and might be by Matthew, one of the disciples, Christ now speaks to, and the publicans and sinners, who were lately become his followers, and whom he advises, as the highest piece of wisdom and prudence, to dispose of in such a manner, as of it to 'make' themselves 'friends'; not God, Father, Son, and Spirit. These indeed are friends to the saints, but they are not made so by money; reconciliation and redemption are not procured this way; nor is the favour of the judge to be got by such means; the only means of reconciliation, are the blood and death of Christ; though indeed acts of beneficence, rightly performed, are well pleasing to God: nor are the angels meant, who are very friendly to all good men; nor rich men, to whom riches are not to be given, ( Proverbs 22:16 ) but rather riches themselves, which, if not rightly used, and so made friends of, will cry, and be a witness against the owners of them, ( James 5:1-3 ) though it may be the poor saints are intended; who by their prayers are capable of doing either a great deal of hurt, or a great deal of good; and it is the interest of rich men to make them their friends:" John Gill, Commentary

Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters

The free grace and Titus 1:15-16

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work." - Titus 1:15-16

First of all I would like to say that Paul writes similar language in which he writes in Romans 14 and perhaps elsewhere. The kingdom of God is not about eating or drinking, but about righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. To the pure all things are pure. Nothing can separate you dear Christian who have now received Christ as Saviour from the love of God. There is no clean thing to abstain from.
However, second, for the unbelieving one nothing is pure. All things are unclean to him. While they may take the things that God created as good and distort them for their own evil purposes and intentions ultimately they are damnable to God.
Thirdly, about these men although they may profess to know God as in the Gospel, they in fact deny him by their works. Please read this carefully. This means not that they sinned necessarily did things against God's holy character or nature - although that may be true. However, it is just as much true that they as the Jews did in Romans 10 that although they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. Scripture says that Christ is the end of the law for all who believe. What this text tells us is that salvation is by grace alone and not by works. No man can boast before God's sovereign grace. However, these men in their pride self-righteousness - perhaps circumcising themselves (Judiazers) - denied the God, who saves us in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone, by their works. (I hope this is clear please if you have any questions ask)

False accusations of the High and Ultra-High Calvinist who reject Common Grace

"I am not sure that calling persons 'hyper-Calvinists' means much except that you disagree with them. Does it mean that they say 'providence' instead of 'common grace'? Does it mean that they deny that God loves the non-elect? Does it mean that their version of covenant theology is different from yours?"

Philippians 2:5-11

The question is on this early Hymn (whether compromised - made up by Paul or the Church) whether the exaltation is because of Christ Obedience or something else or could it be both obedience and something else?

Christ obeyed by humbling Himself and taking on a form of a human being and submitting himself to death even death on a cross. Therefore God highly exalted him. Although, this is a great interpretation of the text and I think we read in Hebrews 12:2 that Christ received his reward or something like that, I will say however that this is the secondary issue or reasoning why God exalted him. With the first reasoning being the something else which the text does say - That although Christ was in the form of God He did not take equality with God a thing to be grasp but made himself nothing taking upon himself a form of a slave. Now the text is clear Christ was in the form of God I have no need to go through the meaning of this word. However, my goal is to show you that I think this is the reason why Christ was highly exalted not because He was obedient to death - that would imply to say that because one obeys God's law that God will automatically grant a high estate. But, my position on this matter is not that this reward idea is not grounded in the text that is probably true as well. But my position is that the reason why Christ was highly exalted after He submitted Himself to death on the Cross is because of who He was and is that Christ is the eternal God that is above all things and goes before all things. This means that because It was Christ who is God and humbled himself - although he had every right not too - and becoming man (something in which most religions had never taught - that God himself becomes one of us) and after having obeyed God to the point of death even death on a cross, God highly exalted him because He is God. Jesus prayed that God would give Him the glory which he had before in eternity past. (I hope that is clear)

Is my positioning historical? I think so as Athanasius says

"For if being God he became man, and having come down from the height he is said 'to be exalted,' where is he exalted, being God? It is clear that since God is the highest, his Word is also the highest. Therefore, how is one who is in the Father able to be exalted more and be 'like the Father in all things'? Therefore he is without need of every addition, and he is not as these things have been written, what was the need that he humbled himself in order that he should seek to receive that which he has?"

Or elsewhere, 

"And, if now he had his improvement according to them, remembering his own glory before the world and above the world, how did the Son say, 'glorify me, O Father, with the glory which I had with you before the existence of the world' (John 17:5)? But if now he has been exalted according to them, how before this time 'did he bend the heavens and come down' (Ps. 18:9) and again, 'The highest gave his voice (psalm 18:13)? Therefore, if even before the existence of the world the Son had glory and ' was Lord of glory and the Highest' and came down from heaven and is always worshiped; then having come down he was not improved, but rather he improved the things which needed improvement. If he has descended to effect their improvement, he did not have the title of Son and God as a reward; rather, he himself has made us sons to the Father, and deified men, having become man himself."

John 1:1 and The Deity of Christ

"Some have claimed that 'the Word was God' merely identifies Jesus as a god rather than identifying Jesus as God, because the Greek word for God, Theos, is not preceded by a definite article. However, in Greek grammar, Colwell's Rule indicatesthat the translation 'a god' is not required, for lack of an article does not necessarilyindicate indefiniteness ('a god') but rather specifies that a given term ('God') is the predicate nominative of a definite subject ('The Word'). This means that the context must determine the meaning of Theos here, and the context indicates that this 'God' that John is talking about ('the Word') is the one true God who created all things . . . "

On Judging Classes of Men

When Jesus and the Apostles say do not judge this is in relation to the fact hat all men without distinction are part of the body. We are not to judge those who are suffering or who are poor or rich. This is what the Hebrews did. But those who mourn let us mourn and those who rejoice let us rejoice. We are to be truth lovers and prudent as light has no fellowship with darkness. Christ has died for all of His elect (his body, who is the Church also known as Israel of God) so that all would live and glorify God.

On Geerhardus Vos and Supralapsarianism

For although Jacob, in comparison with Esau, revealed some ethically ignoble qualities, yet in spiritual appreciation of the promise he proved himself the superior of the two. In order to guard against all misunderstandings arising from this, the principle was established at a point where no such considerations, pro or con, could possibly enter into the matter.

Emphasis is added - Biblical Theology, Pg. 94

G.H. Kersten and Equal Ultimacy

I am not sure, but it sounds like G.H. Kersten would hold to Equal Ultimacy.

God did not passively allow sin, and although according to all His perfections He hates sin, nevertheless, He willed it in order to glorify Himself in righteousness and mercy. "The Lord hath made all things for Himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Prov. 16:4) Regardless of the purpose of those who would include the fall in God's knowledge, but say He did not decree it, we must insist that God knows all things by virtue of His eternal decree. Thus God knew that man would fall because He had decreed that man would fall.

G.H. Kersten, Reformed Dogmatic, Pg. 213

Calvin and the supposed two wills of God

Take the matter more briefly and condensedly thus: God wills that adultery should not be committed, in as far as it is a pollution and violation of the holy bond of matrimony, and a great transgression of His righteous law. But, in as as far as God uses adulteries, as well as other wicked doings of men, to execute His own acts of vengeance on the sins of men, He certianly executes the office and performs the sacred duty of judge, not unwillingly, but willingly!

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism Part two of the work on Providence

In as far as God wills a in His word that which should be done, He also wills in His secret counsel that which should not be done this is far because there are two wills in God. But that the first further reveals the latter. That in the latter God has so decreed to damn the Reprobate for sin. He does so in righteousness but in God's rejection of the reprobate he withholds His grace and hardens them making them into vessels of wrath to condemn them. He often times uses their sins to chastise his people to bring them unto glory. 

 

On Clark, Equal Ultimacy, and Cause of God

Let it be unequivocally said that this view certainly makes God the cause of sin. God is the sole ultimate cause of everything there is absolutely nothing independent of him. He alone is the eternal being. He alone is omnipotent. He alone is sovereign. Not only is Satan his creature, but every detail of history was eternally in his plan before the world began; and he willed that it should all come to pass. The men and angels predestined to eternal life and those foreordained to everlasting death are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Election and reprobation are equally ultimate. God determined that Christ should die; he determined as well that Judas should betray him. There was never the remotest possibility that something different could have happened.

(Emphasis is mine)Gordon H. Clark., Religion, Reason and Revelation., Pg.  173

God the ultimate Cause of all things whether sin or good

During the times of scripture the people assumed a belief that all things were already controlled. For instance the reason why I had a headache this morning was not because it just happened that way but it goes far deeper than that there were forces yet unseen which caused such things to occur. For instance not only was my head hurting but further the situation with which my head ached was also the cause. But, not only this but going yet more deeper is the fact that my head was hurting not because of the circumstances at hand but also the spiritual forces which was fundamentally the cause of my headache. Either by the influences of the flesh or by the direct actions of the spirits themselves. I woke up w/ a headache because of the spiritual forces at hand. There is a reason for my headache. But still further these spiritual forces whether they be evil spirits sent from Satan or good spirits are ultimately from the direct and final cause of the ruler and sustainer of all things - the Triune God. Who not only commanded the spirits to do such but also had brought about the very necessary actions (if I am using the word correctly) who alone remains the primary or ultimate cause of it all by his sovereign active decree. Men I would say are either committing various actions for either sin or good reasons. Which in turn goes further back. Satan who entices the flesh sent by God or the Spirit of God who is working in them to bring about his good purposes.

On Augustine's weak understanding of Evil

Augustine . . .  Under Neoplatonic influence . . . taught that all existing things are good; evil, therefore, does not exist - it is metaphysically unreal. Being non-existent, it can have no cause, and God therefore is not the cause of evil. When a man sins, it is a case of his choosing a lower good instead of a higher good. This choice too has no efficient cause, although Augustine assigns to it a deficient cause. In this way God was supposed to be absolved. Augustine, admittedly, was a great Christian and a great philosopher. Later in the chapter more will be said about him. But here he was at his worst. Deficient causes, if there are such things, do not explain why a good God does not abolish sin and guarantee that men always choose the highest goods.

This is an interesting quote by Gordon H. Clark. The last sentence seems to say that even if God is void of the cause of sin and evil it still does not give us any real reason why sin and evil are not totally destroyed or absolved. Herman Hoeksema in his Reformed Dogmatics says something of this - for God to be able to stop or prevent evil but does not, would make Him just as responsible.

Clarkian's Revelation and Morality

I have been reading Gordon H. Clark's work Religion, Reason and Revelation in order to under the issues better of Equal Ultimacy which I have slim knowledge of.
It has been good so far, yet some things I have difficulty understanding. Might be worth another read through sometime. But there is a quote from Newman Smyth (I have not heard of him) whom Clark quotes which says, 

Old theology is always becoming new in the vitalizing influence of ethics. . . . It is reason enough for doubting and for restudying any traditional teaching or received word of doctrine if it be felt to harass or confuse the Christian conscience of an age. Nothing can abide as true in theology which does not prove its genuineness under the ever renewed searching of the Christian moral sense. . . . Still less can we allow in Christian ethics any dogmatic belief which would put in bonds the Christian ethical principle itself; as, for instance, the tenet that morality is dependent upon the divine will. . . . Christian ethics cannot consent to commit suicide in any supposed interest of theology.

Clark does not agree with the quote (Neither do I). But he says the reason why is that Smyth separates as Kant and Plato does the truth and the practical. That is truth is set in one arena while ethics is what matters here and now. That the practical is the judge of what is true based upon what the quote says is interesting. It kind of informed me that as a Christian I am to be both the dispenser of truth and while also (not watering the truth down) but showing its practicalness or applying the very truth to the hearers of truth.

Listening to James White

James White believes in Common Grace. I am listening to a Dividing Line today in which he goes through Michael Browns statement about the atonement. Around 45 minutes into this he gets upset about Michael's understanding of a particular passage and Christ Messiahship  saying that the OT does not differentiates the offering of sacrifices. Michael's point is that Christ work is worked out differently from the Non-elect, and the Elect so that Christ is not a saving Messiah toward the Reprobate, but is still a messiah. Now an issue with James Whites consistency is that he does hold to Common Grace - Now granted I am unsure if he would say Christ bought this common grace or not - but many who do hold to common grace (especially my pastor) would say that it does. In one sense Christ merits is for all (both reprobate and elect alike).

Our Freedom in Christ Alone never in the Law

The point in 1 Corinthians 9 is that Paul is no longer under the law but being in Christ has become free unto the law of Christ. The gospel, the good news, is that we are free from the that says my right my want to consider others as more important than ourselves.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians is that of combating issues of disunity within the church. Essentially Paul deals with the quite essential reasons why there are disunity or breaking of fellowship. His last reason and most compelling and important one at that is that their doctrine of the Gospel was messed up. Without a great foundation a house will not stand together not only congruently but perhaps maybe even permanently as foundations shifts and moves the house will suddenly break apart and tumble down eventually. The issue of the church was not their view of the law, but of much extreme importance of the gospel - the resurrection. If Christ has not been raised, then we are still caught in our sins and are most to be pitied never mind the thought that we will then be shown to be most morally good and perhaps praised. Paul knocks this thought down right away in Chapter 15 verse 18.

So with that the law cannot bring unity but only disunity. As Albert Mohler Jr (President of Southern Seminary) says in his book Culture Shift, The city of man is disunified, whereas in the city of God the ruler is God and all are unified under His rulership. Those who are outside of Christ are under the curse of the law and its demands and burdens. No one is free there is no unity to be had in the works of the law. Some might charge this Antinomian - I don't see it this way. The law is preached to those who are dead in trespasses and sins to show them that they have not obeyed and are not righteous but have fallen short of God's glory and are under His just wrath and anger. Paul says in Romans 8 however that God has done what the law weakened by the flesh could not do and that is essentially break down the curse and save humans from the corrupting power and decay of its power by work of the Spirit. In Christ God has not only punished sin but He has justified sinners (Romans 3). Therefore Paul could explain that there is Therefore NOW no Condemnation for God's elect (those who are IN CHRIST). Finally it has been done. The debt has been Paid, nothing do I owe.

So going back to the ninth chapter of 1 Corinthians Paul says that he most certainly does have a right to eat and drink according to his privilege as an apostle, however, he does not take up his privileges but rather has surrendered his rights (v. 12; v. 15). The reason why he has surrendered his rights and could do such is because he is not under the law. Paul in verse 19 - 23 says that in order to win some not under the law he becomes like one not under the law and to win those who are under the law he becomes like one who is under the law So that He might win some to Christ. He could do this because he is not under the law but is in Christ who has become for him a new 'law' - that is the law of love in which believers who are in Christ stand in unity of because of the Gospel truth that Christ has died and has been resurrected destroying both sin and death so that by faith repenting of their sins and trusting in Him alone they might also live freely unto glory.

So with that Paul is able to say that "But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." He can only do such by surrendering his rights and can only surrender his rights only in Christ.

On Christian Joy, Worship, and Happiness

"And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment." Luke 7:37-38

On Christian Truth and Living

Christ Jesus fully embodies the truth and love aspect. Not just in his actions and what He taught but also in that He fully reveals to us the Father and that we are to be made like Him through the Spirit's work.
Essentially what I am saying Knowing who He really is that He  is the great proposition to be taught and understood and that also to be like Him is the end of life.

The freedom from God's condemnation and of the gracious Discipline of God

"I speak of believers only; they do not bear one lash of that deserved wrath, that is poured out for sin, not one lash or stroke; Christ trod it alone himself. Yea, but you will say unto me, Doth not God afflict his children and believers? All the world seeth and knoweth he doth; therefore, why speak you against this? Beloved, give me leave to ask you, Is there not a great deal of difference between God's afflicting believers, and punishing believers for sin?" Tobias Crisp

On the only way to have Peace with God

"Christ is a way to take away the effect of God's displeasure; Christ is the only way to take it away. 'Shall I give the fruit of my body,' saith the prophet Micah, 6.7, 'for the sin of my soul? thousands of rams, or ten thousand rivers of oil?' No, alas! this will not buy out the penance of one sin, when he hath sinned; it is all too mean a price: there must be a better to take away that wrath; that is, the heavy punishment of God from a believer. I say a better price than this; not a dearer price to us poor men, but yet a more dear and acceptable price unto God; a price, in its nature, infinite and invaluable; but, of this price, not a farthing goes out of our purse; there is the greatness. Christ is a way to take away all wrath, in respect of the heavy hand of God, which is the fruit of man's sin." - Tobias Crisp

Imputation and the effectual justification of the atonement

"Beloved, these two are contradictions, for a person to be reckoned a faulty person, and yet that person to be reckoned a just or an innocent person; if he be faulty, he is not innocent; if he be innocent, he is not faulty. Now it is the main stream of the whole gospel, that Christ justifies the ungodly. If he himself justifies him, there is no fault to be cast upon him; mark it well, as that wherein consists the life of your soul and the joy of your spirits. I say, it holds forth the Lord Christ as freely tendering receiving him; you have no sooner received him, but you are instantly justified by him, and, in this justification, you are discharged from all the faults that may be laid to your charge. There is not one sin you commit, after you received Christ, that God can charge upon your person." - Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted

On the End of the Christian Life by Tobias Crisp

"But you will say further to me (for, except a man be a mere Papist, I am sure he cannot deny but that the righteousness by which I stand righteous before GOD, is the righteousness Christ doth for me, and not that I do for myself, you will ask me, I say, Doth not this take off all manner of obedience and all manner of holiness?
I answer, and thus much I say, It takes them off from those ends which they aim at in their obedience: namely, The end for which Christ’s obedience served: as much as to say, Our standing righteousness, by what Christ hath done for us, concerns us in point of justification, consolation, and salvation. We have our justification, our peace, our salvation, only by the righteousness Christ hath done for us: but this doth not take away our obedience, nor our services, in respect of those ends for which such are now required of believers. We have yet several ends for duties and obedience, namely, That they may glorify God, and evidence our thankfulness, that they may be profitable to men, that they may be ordinances wherein to meet with God, to make good what he hath promised." Tobias Crisp (Found this one on a website)

Some might say that Tobias Crisp was Antinomian. I do not think so. But again I have not read his works as of yet. I recently bought his Christ Alone Exalted. So I am looking forward to that.

On Gospel, Justification, and Reconciliation by Robert Traill

"There can be no justification without a righteousness; no righteousness can suffice but that which answers fully and perfectly the holy law of God; no such righteousness can be performed but by a divine person; no benefit can accrue to a sinner by it unless it is in some way his and applied to him; no application can be made of this but by faith in Jesus Christ." - Robert Traill, Justification Vindicated

On Justification, and the Free Gift of God from Robert Traill

"Shall we tell men that unless they are holy they must not believe on Jesus Christ? That they must not venture on Christ for salvation till they are qualified and fit to be received and welcomed by him? This would be to forbear preaching the gospel at all, or to forbid all men to believe on Christ. For never was any sinner qualified for Christ. He is well qualified for us (1 Cor. 1:30); but a sinner out of Christ has no qualification for Christ but sin and misery. Whence should we have any better, but in and from Christ? Nay suppose an impossibility, that a man were qualified for Christ; I boldly assert, that a such a man would not, nor could ever, believe on Christ. For faith is a lost, helpless condemned sinner's casting himself on Christ for salvation; and the qualified man is not such a person." - Robert Traill

On Right, and salvation

God does not have to save anybody. Salvation is a prerogative right belonging to God alone to do as He pleases for His glory. Salvation is not a right that man has. If anything man is a creature of God responsible to Him alone as Creator who created all things and created man especially in His image. In as much as God created man for His glory alone that man would live to represent God and to honor God, man however rebelled in Adam and after the fall All men are lost and depraved. If anything man who sinned against an infinite, holy and just God deserves punishment and condemnation. If anyone is saved it is due to the free sovereign and gracious elective choice of God to save a particular people in Christ.

Finer Definitions for Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian

The definitions of Infralapsarian and Supralapsarian must be finely defined and made clear. Some and have even heard of others surprisingly having defined these terms in the general meaning of the term so that one means by Infra a sort of Arminian while the Supra is understood as a Calvinist. In their much finer definitions I think is that by infra one means the eternal purpose of God to save some... men unto glory in election and to damn others unto condemnation in reprobation out of the mass considered within the mind of God created and fallen. The objects here are created and fallen. Supralapsarians however state that the objects of Gods election and reprobation was without consideration of them having been created and fallen. Thus Supralapsarianism is the eternal purpose of God to save some men unto glory in election and to damn the others unto condemnation in reprobation without consideration of status of the mass of clay. Gods free elective choice was not moved by neither mans goodness nor of mans badness but purely based upon Gods own good and perfect pleasure. As Herman Hoeksema makes clear as I will try is that what comes first in the order of the decree comes last within history so that Gods eternal purposes will indelibly be revealed at the last day. Both Infralapsarian and Supralapsarian are within the compounds of Calvinism when defined in their most finer definitions.

On the Covenant of Grace 3

Essentially the Covenant of Grace is Unconditional and Eternal. Because it is Unconditional therefore it not based upon man's own willing or work. The promises of God ensures that the Creature will recieve the gifts of salvation. Through my reading of David J. Engelsma's book Covenant and Election in the Reformed Tradition I have learned that the Covenant of Grace is governed by God's election what this means is that God's free elective choice essentially gives the scope and intent of the Covenant so that it is not for anyone outside of the elect and therefore is not conditional. Because God's election is not based upon man's goodness or badness (unconditional) therefore God's covenant promises being interwined with election is also unconditional. In Genesis 15 we read how God establishes His covenant with Abraham - this covenant is seen to be apart from works. Nor was Abraham involved in this covenant. Abraham recieved the circumcision after he recieved the covenant not before. So as Paul says it depends not on the one who willeth or who runs, but on Him who chooses sovereignly and most freely.
Because the Covenant was made in eternity past, it therefore means it is unchanging. Nothing in this world will cause the covenant that God so wills to establish to break. God is faithful Romans 3 says. This is the purpose of the world to display this covenant life that God has within himself and which he graciously gives most freely to His elect people in Christ to enjoy by the power of the Holy Spirit. Truly it is because of this that the atonement is effectual and will fail in its purposes.
In summary there is only one covenant that is being established throughout salvation history. The covenant is made between God and Christ and all those in Him as sureties or promises so that the covenant includes election salvation and all things that pertains to eternal life. Praise God.
It is important to understand the Covenant aspect of Calvinism for from it all the other doctrines make more sense and also one is able to respond/answer those who see that the covenant is conditional and seperated from divine election. Anyways I hope I have given some help for those who are wanting understand this part of theology. I am by no means able to explain sufficiently enough this doctrine.

On the Covenant of Grace 2

"The covenant which is eternal is unconditional and not based upon anything found in the creature."

On the Covenant of Grace

I want to start a brief series on the Covenant of Grace to see how my thoughts progress. Hopefully the truth Lord Willing will present itself more and more clearly.

The unconditional covenant was made in eternity past and has been established throughout the history of salvation until the fullness of time had come in which this covenant was made complete in the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Him the saints recieve the gifts of salvation.

The Knowledge of God and His Sovereignty and All-sufficiency

Often the knowledge of God is miscontrued in the form of how a creature thinks. As the creature thinks of something outside of itself onto the action to follow so to God's knowledge is often considered as Him having to rely on something outside of Himself. This is often confused as God's 'foreknowledge' in which the philosopher would say that God looks into the future and therefore knows what will happen and thus decrees the outcome of the event. However with God He simply knows the event, not because He looked into the future and so by that determined the event to occur. This has been coined by James R. White as the passive knowledge of God (or something like that). Reformed Dogmatics however presents the issue the other way around, rather than saying that God is ever contingent upon something outside of Himself - God is in fact all sufficient in His sovereignty, and in His power, and knowledge. He is the eternal active God who is never not active as a dumb idol - this is the related idea of the truth that All of God's works within Himself is the basis for His works outside of Himself. As Herman Hoeksema says, "With man one may distinguish between the part of his knowledge that at a given moment is actually before his consciousness and the other part that remains below the threshold of his conscious mind. But with God there is no such distinction. There is no subconsciousness in him. With respect to his knowledge, he is pure activity. Nor is there nay time element in God's knowledge. Man reasons from premises to a conclusion, but with God all premises and conclusions are eternally before his divine mind in their proper logical relation. Thus the knowledge of God is self-existent and independent. He  does not derive knowledge from the things that are , but instead knows all things in their very essence and all their relations from himself." With this said, His knowledge is has been distinguished between two types one is Natural knowledge which is the knowledge God has with Himself - this is the knowledge that seems to be what Scripture says all of God's works are known to Him, and then there is His free knowledge in which is based on His decree or counsel.

Is faith a work? does it matter if it is or not? Gods election is unconditional meaning that his election was not based upon any foreseen response whether good or bad. Further no one will believe unless they are regenerated and by grace have their faculties restored to believe.

Romans 1 and 2

In Romans 1:18 it says that God's wrath is revealed in heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness supresses the truth of God, which has been made plain to them because God reveals it to them... That which is made plain is of His Attribute and of His being, and of His divine Power. However, inspite of the Fact that God does not hide Himself to the creature, man because of his corruption of sin is at enmity against God by which even though God reveals Himself this light is suppress because of their hatred against God.

Romans 2:13-15 says that Everybody has this law. Now I am wanting to say this law is not an abstract thing that must be obeyed but it is God Himself. The ten Commandments and the summarization of the Ten Commandments say that man is a ethical being created by God to originally glorify God and enjoy Him Forever as their sole good and as He is truly worthy of such things for He is God and their creator. However, Adam rebelled against God and thus plummeting all of his posterity to total contempt. All men are idolaters by heart, mind, soul, and strength and all that they say and do proves this. Man by loving idols shows that they have the law written on his heart and thereby shows that he is without excuse.

On the Love of God and Reprobation and Election

God does not love every single person on the face of the planet equally. But furthermore I would add that He does not love the Reprobates at all nor should we suggest that He loves them even though He is seemingly kind to them. The purpose in which God enacts His love and kindness towards the elect is not and should not be equated as the same in which He lavishes His goodness upon the Reprobate. For one God's end in lavishing His love and kindness and goodness on the particular elect chosen freely and soveriegnly is that they would be like Christ. And the end to which God continues to do good to the Reprobate is that they would continue to love their sin and thereby be decieved. This is best illustrated as a planter feeds the certian plants that he wants to grow and see come to maturity he feeds, but the other plants that he does not want he does things for the purpose that they would die off.