What is Sanctification?

"In the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly the question is asked, "What is sanctification?" To which the following answer is returned: "Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby, they whom God hath before the foundation of the world chosen to be holy, are in time through the powerful operation of His Spirit, applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life."

Now far be it from us to sit in judgment upon such an excellent and helpful production as this Catechism, which God has richly blest to thousands of His people, or that we should make any harsh criticisms against men whose shoes we are certainly not worthy to unloose. Nevertheless, we are assured that were its compilers on earth today, they would be the last of all to lay claim to any infallibility, nor do we believe they would offer any objection against their statements being brought to the bar of Holy Scripture. The best of men are but men at the best, and therefore we must call no man "Father." A deep veneration for servants of God and a high regard for their spiritual learning must not deter us from complying with "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bereans were commended for testing the teachings even of the apostle Paul, "And searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). It is in this spirit that we beg to offer two observations on the above quotation.

First, the definition or description of sanctification of the Westminster divines is altogether inadequate, for it entirely omits the most important aspect and fundamental element in the believer’s sanctification: it says nothing about our sanctification by Christ (Heb. 10:10; 13:12), but confines itself to the work of the Spirit, which is founded upon that of the Son. This is truly a serious loss, and affords another illustration that God has not granted light on all His Word to any one man or body of men. A fuller and better answer to the question of, "What is sanctification?" would be, "Sanctification is, first, that act of God whereby He set the elect apart in Christ before the foundation of the world that they should be holy. Second, it is that perfect holiness which the Church has in Christ and that excellent purity which she has before God by virtue of Christ’s cleansing blood. Third, it is that work of God’s Spirit which, by His quickening operation, sets them apart from those who are dead in sins, conveying to them a holy life or nature, etc."

Thus we cannot but regard this particular definition of the Larger Catechism as being defective, for it commences at the middle, instead of starting at the beginning. Instead of placing before the believer that complete and perfect sanctification which God has made Christ to be unto him, it occupies him with the incomplete and progressive work of the Spirit. Instead of moving the Christian to look away from himself with all his sinful failures, unto Christ in whom he is "complete" (Col. 2:10), it encouraged him to look within, where he will often search in vain for the fine gold of the new creation amid all the dross and mire of the old creation. This is to leave him without the joyous assurance of knowing that he has been "perfected forever" by the one offering of Christ (Heb. 10:14); and if he be destitute of that, then doubts and fears must constantly assail him, and the full assurance of faith elude every striving after it." - A.W. Pink, The Doctrine of Sanctification

False assertions by Stephen M. Reynolds on Assent-Justification by Gordon H. Clark

"Some of the more professorial readers of this book may be disappointed that so little attention is paid to current authors and so much to earlier theologians. There is a simple explanation. The earlier theologians, as the quotations indicate, wrote rather extensively on the subject, whereas during the second and third quarters of this century the material has been shorter in length and poorer in quality. One example illustrates both deficiencies. In the Presbyterian Journal (November 26, 1980) Stephen M. Reynolds had an article titled 'Justification Faith and Works.' Particularly noticeable is his failure to define his terms. To quote:

The message of James becomes especially important when the teaching of bare faith-justification, or even assent-justification, arises to trouble the church, as it evidently was doing in his day, and as it is certainly doing in ours. This is the view that justifying faith does not necessarily include obedience or good works.
The man who relies on assent-justification claims he has justifying faith when what he has is no more than intellectual assent to the Gospel and a desire to escape eternal damnation. The one who relies on assent-justification says, 'I accept Christ as Savior, but not yet as Lord.' He thinks he is assured of salvation because he has faith, but he does not understand what faith truly is.
To understand the words of James, 'a man is justified by works,' to mean no more than that he demonstrates his justification by his works, leaves the one who relies on assent-justification a false way of feeling that all is well with his soul.

In addition to his loose terminology the writer depends on false assertions. The end of the first quoted paragraph insists that 'assent-justification' 'does not necessarily include obedience or good works.' The word necessarily perhaps saves the paragraph from being outright false, provided the writer can quote an exponent of assent who explicitly says that good works are not included. Or, perhaps the truth of the statement can be defended by insisting that those who defend assent do not include good works in assent - they only say that good works follow. But without even this excuse the next-to-last sentence in paragraph two, namely 'The one who relies on assent-justification says, 'I accept Christ as Savior, but not yet as Lord,' cannot escape the charge of outright falsehood. None of the Calvinistic theologians quoted above ever said any such thing. It is regrettable that a periodical, supposedly Calvinistic, should print such incompetent drivel. The Apostle Paul in his day met the essentially similar objection that justification by faith alone encouraged immorality. He defended his position in Romans 6, 7, and 8." - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?

A.W. Tozer disparages theology

"Dr. Tozer seems little interested in what a person believes. he is little interested because he has a low opinion of intellectual truth. He wishes to substitute a different kind of 'truth.' Exactly what it is, he does not make clear; but whatever it is, it is incompatible with evangelical theology and contradictory of John's Gospel. Read the quotation carefully:
[']The battle line, the warfare today, is not necessarily between the fundamentalist and the liberal. There is a ...difference between them, of course. The fundamentalist says God made the heaven and the earth. The liberal says, Well, that's a poetic way of stating it; actually it came up by evolution. The fundamentalist says Jesus Christ was the very Son of God. The liberal says, Well, he certainly was a wonderful man and he is the Mater, but I don't quite know about his deity. So there is a division, but I don't think the warfare is over these matters any more. The battle has shifted to another more important field. The warfare and dividing line today is between evangelical rationalists and evangelical mystics.[']

Note how Dr. Tozer disparages the difference between believing that God is creator, that Jesus is the Son of God, and presumably other fundamental doctrines, and believing that God did not create the world, that Jesus is no more than human, and that a good part of the Bible is untrue. He admits that there is a difference between the liberal and the fundamentalist, but he seems little interested in that difference. This warfare is over - says Dr. Tozer. But for a true Christian, if he has average common sense, this warfare is not over. A true Christian cannot treat the deity of Christ so lightly, nor the doctrine of creation, either. There may be a sense in which the battle line of the twenties has shifted in the seventies; but it is not such a new field as that between 'evangelical rationalists and evangelical mystics.' In one sense, a very fundamental sense, the battle line has not shifted at all. The old battle line that centered on Harry Emerson Fosdick's denial of the virgin birth and his warning against worshiping Jesus was itself a question of the truth of the Bible. Some people may have seen only that the deity of Christ and the atonement were involved. But scholars like J. Gresham Machen saw clearly that the whole Bible and all of Christianity were involved. This is still the battlefield. What may be new, since the middle of the nineteenth century, is a view that Truth is not true, and that the Bible instead of being honestly false, as Wllhausen asserted, is dishonestly 'true' like Aesop's fables. For the new 'truth' is simply the old falsehood." - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith

The Information Jesus gives of God

"The third point was somewhat covered under the first. In showing the illogicality of Bultmann's inference, it was also made clear that John cannot be accused of never having heard of Matthew and Luke. Now, to continue the quotation:
[']Though Jesus says in departing from the earth, 'I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world,' still he has imparted no information about God at all, any more than he has brought instruction about the origin of the world or the fate of the self. He does not communicate anything, but calls men to himself.[']

The first chapter of the Gospel contains important information about the creation of the universe, the spiritual plight of man, the nature and mission of Christ, and something of Old Testament prophecy. The occurance of this information does not contradict the quotation made just above because these verses are the words of John and not of Jesus. Bultmann claims that Jesus offered no information. On this two things should be said. First, a Christian cannot permit himself to be restricted to the ipsissima verba of Jesus, as if the author's words were less true, less authoritative, less important. Redletter Bibles, if they do not strain the eyesight, have some small use; but only a small part of Christianity is found in the red sections. In the second place, there can be no objection to asking the question, Did Jesus himself impart any information about God? Did he only call men to himself without instructing them concerning their state and their fate? Did he communicate nothing at all?
Well, obviously he communicated several bits of information; and Bultmann himself quotes a part of it. Jesus, in the verse Bultmann cites, informs his disciples that God has given him a certain group of men chosen from out of the world's population. In fact, chapter 17 contains considerable information about God. It tells us that God gave authority to Jesus to give eternal life to those people God had chosen. Eternal life is defined as knowledge of God. God sent Christ into the world. All that belongs to God belongs to Christ. And a second time God sent Christ into the world. God is in Christ and Christ is in God. Again, God gave Christ a certain people. God loved Christ before creation of the world. These several items of information about God, to which no doubt a few implications could be added, are by themselves enough to contradict Bultmann's rash assertion that 'Jesus . . . has imparted no information about God at all.'" - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?

No one has gone to be with the Lord.

Whether we live or sleep no man has yet gone to be with the Lord but our hope is nonetheless that we will one day be with the Lord - Our eternal dwelling.
2 Corinthians 5
For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: 3If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. 4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. 5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

This passage from 2 Corinthians 5 is a passage usually used to say that when we die we immediately go to be with the Lord. However, this view of the passage is not warranted. For one thing this passage is about the believer's hope. We are home in the body - so we are absent from the Lord who is in Heaven. Our confidence and will is to be absent from the body and so be present with the Lord. This verse does not say that once we die we go immediately to the state of eternal bliss.

Please Study 2 Corinthians 3

"Foundational to this intellectualism, this rationalism, or however anyone wishes to name this emphasis on truth, is the doctrine that man is the image of God. One should not try to dilute this doctrine by picturing man as a container somewhere within which the image of God may be found. 1 Corinthians 11:7 does not say that man has the image of God; it says that man is the image of God. This image, which distinguishes man from animals, is rationality. It was not destroyed by the fall, for we are still human beings and not animals. We are till generically rational, though sin has considerably damaged our use of reason. We add up our check stubs incorrectly, and our emotions drive us into foolish conduct (or worse). But we are still human because we are the created image of God. Though we often believe falsehoods, we are still obligated to believe the truth. And if God causes us to believe, since faith is the gift of God, then we are slowly renewed in the knowledge and righteousness of our original creation." - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?

Believing in the Gospel is the issue not Moral Improvement

"If any reader is disturbed by the present author's insistence on logic, reason, intellect, and knowledge in comparison with his lack of emphasis on righteousness, it should be remembered that (1) there can be no righteousness without knowledge; (2) American evangelicalism puts most of its emphasis on conduct, morality, the fruits of the Spirit, and 'practical' Christianity; (3) there is a woeful lack of emphasis on truth, theology, the teachings of Scripture. Of course these... teachings have moral implications, but the righteousness enjoined in Romans 12-15 plus some in chapter 16 has as its foundation the eleven preceding chapters. Does it not follow, therefore, that a minister should preach eleven sermons on deep doctrine to every six or five-and-a-half on conduct? The latter should by no means be omitted: The crime and depravity of American society is without parallel in history aince the time of the Roman Empire. Nor has the church itself much to be proud of it. But a one-sided preaching of righteousness will have little effect on Las Vegas or New York. Not until this alcoholic, drug-ridden scum hears and believes -- faith comes by hearing, not by mystic encounters -- hears and believes the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the atonement, justification by faith, and the Second Advent, will there be any moral improvement. It is justification alone that produces sanctification, and justification occurs by means of faith alone." - Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?

Either you Believe or you do not

What do you do with a report? You either believe it or you don't, there is no middle ground. Likewise, you hear the good news of Christ; the report of what Christ has done. You either believe the report or do not. Faith comes by hearing. You cannot believe something you have not heard before. Now if your wife is sick and she tells you, you either believe her or you do not. Perhaps if you do believe her then this entails that you go buy medicine. By faith alone do we work. Of course the difference between the species of faith is the object.

To Believe in is to be believe that

"While Professor Berkhof serves as a good example, many other Protestant theologians also, both Lutheran and Reformed, tend to make a sharp distinction between 'a confident resting on a person' and 'the assent given to a testimony.' 'Confident reliance' is supposed to differ from 'intellectual assent.'
The term resting or reliance is seldom if ever explained in theology books. One  is left in the dark as to what it means. An illustration may furnish a clue and make the words intelligible. Suppose a high school student is assigned a problem in geometry. He works out a solution, looks at it from all angles, perhaps he corrects a small detail and then tests each step again to see if he has made a mistake; seeing none, he now puts down his pencil and rests. That is to say, he has assented to his argument. He believes he now has the truth.
But most theologians are not so clear, nor can they, as earlier indicated, bolster up their imagined distinction with references to pisteuein eis, for a few paragraphs back Kittel disposed of such a contention. English also has the same usage.As Modernism developed in the 1920's and suspicion attatched to this or that minister, people would ask, Does he believe in the virgin birth? Does he believe in the atonement? They did not ask, Does he believe the virgin birth? The preposition in was regularly used. But of course the meaning was, Does he believe that the virgin birth is true? Does he believe that Christ's death was a substitutionary sacrifice? Thus, to believe in a person is to be confident, i.e., believe that he will continue to tell the truth." - Gordon H. Clark, Faith and Saving Faith.

The Lordshiper's assurance is in his works not in Christ alone

"Perhaps it will be thought needful, that I should define, with greater precision than I have hitherto done, what I mean by the popular doctrine; especially as I have considered many as preachers thereof who differ remarkably from each other; and particularly as I have ranked amongst them Mr. Wesley, who may justly be reckoned one of the most virulent reproachers of that God, whose character is drawn by the apostles, that this island has produced. To remove all doubt concerning my meaning, I shall thus explain myself.
Throughout these letters, I consider all those as teachers of the popular doctrine, who seek to have credit and influence among the people, by resting our acceptance with God, not simply on what Christ hath done, but more or less on the use we make him, the advance we make toward him, or some secret desire, wish, or sigh to do so; or on something we feel or do concerning him, by the assistance of some kind of grace or spirit; or, lastly, on something we employ him to do, and suppose he is yet to do for us. In sum, all who would have us to be conscious of something else than the bare truth of the gospel; all who would have us to be conscious of some beginning of a change to the better, or some desire, however faint, toward such change, in order to our acceptance with God; these I call the popular preachers, however much they may differ from each other about faith, and grace, special or common, or about anything else. For I am disposed rather to reconcile than widen the various difference among them.
But my resentment is all along chiefly pointed against the capital branch of the popular doctrine, which, while it asserts almost all the articles belonging to the sacred truth, at the same time deceitfully clogs them with the opposite falsehoods. This I would compare to a chain having one link of gold and another of brass alternately: or, I would call it a two-fold cord, wherein one thread of truth and another of falsehood are all along entwisted together. If we think of its practical address to, and influence on the minds of the people, as contrasted with its formally avowed tenets, it resembles a whited sepulcher, inwardly full of rottenness." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

The Difference between the Apostle's Gospel and the Popular Religion

"'Tis agreed, by the great majority in all Christian countries, that there is no salvation but by Jesus Christ. Thus far general consent agrees with the apostolic doctrine. But, then, a capital difference between these two arises in the following manner.
The apostles maintained, that Christ did enough to save sinners in his own person, without their concurrence, and that all who were so persuaded, accordingly found salvation in him. As the natural counterpart of this, they at the same time maintained, that if any man went about to deny or undermine the all-sufficiency of Christ's work to save, by insisting on the necessity of any other concurring requisite whatever, Christ should profit him nothing.
On the other hand, since Christianity began to flourish and prevail in the world, the majority of those wearing the Christian name have been agreed in maintaining the necessity of something beside Christ's work to save them, or procure them acceptance with God. Yea, long before that time, even in the apostolic age, the Judaizing Christians, who were far from being few in number, proceeded upon the same plan. This we are taught by the apostles to call a corrupted or perverted gospel. And here chiefly we may perceive the consent of the Christian world all along opposed to the apostolic doctrine." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Understanding the Ten Commandments Rule 1

"Rule 1. Where a duty is required, the contrary sin is forbidden (Isaiah 58:13); and where a sin is forbidden the contrary duty is required (Ephesians 4:28). Every command forbids the sin which is opposite to, or inconsistent with, the duty which it requires. The duties required in the law cannot be performed without abstaining from the sins forbidden in it; and the sins forbidden cannot be avoided unless the contrary duties are performed. We must not only cease to do what the commands forbid, but do what they require; otherwise we do not obey them sincerely. A negative holiness is far from being acceptable to God. Every affirmative precept includes a negative one, and every negative command contains an affirmative. Every precept, whether affirmative or negative, has two parts: It requires obedience and forbids disobedience." - John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and Gospel


I have been reading the Institutes as well. It is really interesting that Calvin himself also says this very thing in Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 8

"The design of the first commandment is, that God alone may be worshipped. The substance of this precept, then, will be, that true piety, that is, the worship of his majesty, is pleasing to God, and that he abominates impiety. Thus in every commandment we should first examine the subject of it, in the next place we should inquire the end of it, till we discover what the Legislator really declares in it to be either pleasing or displeasing to him. Lastly, we must draw an argument from this commandment to the opposite of it, in this manner: - If this please God, the contrary must displease him, if this displease him, the contrary must please him; if he enjoin this, he forbids the contrary; if he forbid this, he enjoins the contrary."

Believe in Christ.

"63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." - John 6
" 21Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had ...not died. 22But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. 23Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. 25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." -John 11

All men are Enlightened by the Light

"The Identification of the image with reason explains or is supported by a puzzling remark in John 1:9: 'It was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.' How can Christ, in whom is the life that is the light of men, be the light of every man, when Scripture teaches that some are lost in eternal darkness? The puzzle arises from interpreting light in exclusively redemptive terms.
The first chapter of John is not soteriological only. Obviously there are references to salvation in verses 7, 8, 12, and 13. It is not surprising that some Christians understood verse nine also in a soteriological sense. But it is not true that all men are saved; hence if Christ lightens every man, this enlightening cannot be soteriological. This is not the only non-soteriological verse in the chapter. The opening verses treat of creation and the relation of the Logos to God. If the enlightening is not soteriological, it could be epistemological. Then since responsibility depends on knowledge, the responsibility of the unregenerate is adequately founded.
In order to avoid this interpretation and to retain the idea of salvation here, one exegete suggests that the Light shines on all but does not penetrate all. He might even have quoted earlier verses that the light shines in darkness and the darkness did not grasp or understand it. But the later verse does not speak of darkness in the abstract; it speaks of all men. Can it now be said that the light lights all men without enlightening them?
The verb occurs about eleven times in the New Testament. . . . Subjective enlightenment is also found in Hebrews 6:4 and 10:32." - Gordon H. Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man

Assent to the propositions understood.

". . . When he [Thomas Manton] says that 'true believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of all the heart,' he is not accurately confronting 'the former age.' The former age never said that true believing or false believing either, is an act of the understsnding only. The former age and much of the latter ages too specify assent in addition to understanding. They make this specification with the deliberate aim of not restricting belief to understanding alone. One can understand and lecture on the philosophy of Spinoza; but this does not mean that the lecturer assents to it. Belief is an act of assenting to something understood. But understsnding alone is not belief in what is understood." - Gordon H. Clark, What is saving faith?

What is Assurance?

"13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," - Ephesians 1
"24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." - John 5

The Christian life is not a seamless robe of holiness

"In an absolute sense, the question, 'Are we' holy, can be answered only in the negative. One should ask, Am I increasing in holiness? Ryle of course is well aware of all this, but authors, like the present also slip into inexactitudes which can confuse careless readers. Ryle continues, 'A man may go to great lengths and yet never reach true holiness' (34). This form of expression seems to present holiness as a seamless robe, an all or nothing. Of course Ryle adds, 'A holy man will endeavor to shun every known sin.' He 'will strive to be like our Lord. . . . A holy man will follow after meekness. . . temperance . . . purity of heart . . .' (36, 37). Then he says explicitly, 'Sanctification is always a progressive work' (39). Perhaps I am overly critical of his previous inadequate phrases; but if so, it is because I have had contacts with alleged sinless perfectionists and some contemporary Pentecostalists." - Gordon H. Clark, What is the Christian Life?

The issue must be clarified

"By the time that the famous controversy with Arminus arose, it appears, that many were in readiness to take part with that learned oppose of the truth. And it would seem, there were but few who opposed him on the same footing with Gomarus, who was chiefly concerned about the ground of acceptance with God, as he understood it to be affected by that controversy. The greater part of disputants chose to make the controversy turn upon another hinge, contending about grace and fre...ewill, and what influence these had in the conversion of a sinner. It may be maintained by some, that conversion is carried on by grace assisting nature, and by others, that this matter is conducted wholly by irresistible grace; and yet both sides may be equally disaflected to that doctrine, which maintains the work finished by Christ on the cross, to be the only requisite to justification. The controversy about grace and freewill, as managed by many on both sides, has as little to do with the revealed ground of acceptance with God, as the philosophical dispute about liberty and necessity. And I may add, that while many Christian teachers maintain, that no man can be eminently virtuous without Divine energy, they say no more than heathen philosophers have said before them." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Malachi 1:1-3

"Objectors here allege that this covenant and its decree referred to Canaan, on which the Prophet Malachi dwells (Mal. 1.1-3). And, indeed, this objection might be worthy of notice if God had designed merely to fatten the Jews in Canaan as pigs in a sty. But the mind of the prophet is very different from this. God had promised that land to Abraham as an outward symbol or figure of a better inheritance, and had given it to Abraham's posterity for a possession, that He might there collect them together as a peculiar people unto Himself, and might there erect a sanctuary of His presence and grace. These great ends and objects are those which the prophet is revolving in his deep and reflective mind. In a word, the prophet is holding Canaan to be the sacred habitation of God. And as Esau was deprived of this habitation, the prophet sacredly gathers that he was hated of God, because he had been thus rejected from the holy and elect family, on which the love of God perpetually rests. We also, with the prophet, must carefully consider the particular nature of that land, and the peculiar quality which God assigns to it, that it might be a certain earnest or pledge of that spiritual covenant which God entered into with the seed of Abraham. It is in full sacred point, therefore, that the apostle records that the free election of God fell upon Jacob, because, being yet unborn, he was appointed to enjoy the inheritance, while his brother was, at the same time, rejected. But Paul is proceeding much father still in his sacred argument, and maintaining that this inheritance was not obtained by works, nor conferred on Jacob from any respect to works which he should in his after life perform. Nor is even this all. The apostle expressly declares that the brothers were thus separated, and this difference made between them, before either of them had done any one thing good or evil. From these facts the apostle solemnly settles it, that the difference made between the children was not from any works whatever, but from the will of Him that called." John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God

The question is what is the Intentions of God

"Just because the crier - if we may use this figure for comparison - travels up and down the streets and alleys of the village to invite all to the auction sale, does this cancel out the condition that he really is inviting only: (1) those who desire to buy something; (2) those who have money to buy; and (3) those who have opportunity to go t the auction? By this illustration we can clearly see that by sating all these exceptions, one distorts the nature of the dispute, does not at all advance a solution, and unnecessarily prevents a meeting of the minds.
The only way by which you achieve clarity is to inquire about the intention of God and proceed directly to what thoughts filled the heart of Christ when he, the Son of God, died." - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace

Either one is a universalist or a particularist

"The two ways of conceiving the issue stand in sharp contrast before us now. On the one hand, there are the universalists, or advocates of general grace, who maintain this position: When Jesus died on the cross, it was God's will and Christ's purpose to bring about the kind of atonement that, if need be, was sufficient for all men. In addition, they contend that this atonement, offered in Jesus' name to all men, would be a blessing to as many as, according to Jesus' intention, desired to accept this salvation, while the atonement would remain unused only by as many as did not believe, even though it was so appointed for them and even though Jesus had intended and expected that they would believe.
On the other hand, there are the particularists, or advocates  of special grace, who teach this: The church must preach to all creatures that there is atonement obtained through Christ's death for everyone who believes, has believed, or will believe; that is, because all believers are elect, atonement is only for the elect, not according to the [foreseen] result, but according to Christ's purpose and God's counsel. Particularists also teach concerning the application of this salvation that it is not concerned with possibly but as yet unconverted persons; on the contrary, it has to do with a persons whom the Lord loves with an eternal love, even before they were born, and whom he calls by name." - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace

God's intention is always the question

"In God's holy garden, we must not want to plant trees upside down - with their roots facing the sky and their branches in the soil! To turn things upside down from the very beginning is a perversion of the whole way. Let the cause, the fountainhead, the root, remain in God, and let nothing else ever be seen in us than the resultant effect, the stream that flows from its source, and the branch with its bud and blossom. There is no election, therefore, on the basis of a foreseen faith, but there is faith as the result of an antecedent election.
And if it is now established that Christ was God, and hence as God knew whom he had chosen and who would come to saving faith as a the result of that election, then it is self-evident that our Mediator, who never desired to bring any other atonement than for those who would believe, intended the provision of the atonement solely and exclusively for his own.
That is why, when discussing whether Christ has died for all individuals or for all the elect, we can never employ the distinction between God's will and God's decree, as the Hessian and Bremen delegates advocated it at Dordt, since this distinction exclusively applies when considering our intention, but never may be given validity when there is a discussion of God's intention.
When Joseph was about to be sold by his brothers, it was God's revealed will to Judah and Reuben, 'Do not sell your brother!' Yet it was God's hidden decree that 'Joseph will be sold by his brothers.'
Accordingly, when we are talking about our activity, about what we are doing or what we intend, oh then most definitely, not only may we, but we must continually reckon with this golden maxim of evangelical wisdom: 'Blind as regards the outcome, but fully obedient to the commandment!'
On the contrary, when, as here, we are discussing not what we but what Christ intended, and not what we but what God willed, then everyone senses that it is the height of absurdity to dare to distinguish in God himself between what he wills and, nevertheless, does not will!" - Abraham Kuyper, Particular Grace

The Spirit does not work apart from the truth nor does the truth come apart from the Spirit

There is no seperating the agency of the Holy Spirit from the knowledge of the truth. To know the truth is life eternal; and this life is begun and supported by the Spirit of Christ. On the other hand, all who resist the truth, and do not admit its evidence, are expressly said to resist the Holy Ghost. We ought not, then, to imagine, with the popular preachers that the gospel can in any respect be considered as a dead letter, or destitute of Divine power. For being the voice of God, it is unchangeably powerful to save all who believe it, and to destroy all who oppose it. Believers are said to grieve the Holy Spirit, when they neglect to hearken to the words of the gosoel, and their consciences are answerably grieved, when they are brought to repentance. - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

God desires to save all men from different orders

"That no one but a man deprived of his common sense and common judgment can believe that salvation was ordained by the secret counsel of God equally and indiscriminately for all men. The true meaning of Paul, however, in the passage now under consideration is perfectly clear and intelligible to every one who is not determined on contention. The apostle is exhorting that all solemn 'supplication, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men: for kings and for all that are in authority.' And because there were, in that age, so many and such wrathful and bitter enemies of the Church, Paul, to prevent despair from hindering the prayers of the faithful, hastens to meet their distresses by earnestly entreating them to be instant in prayer 'for all men,' and especially 'for all those in authority.' 'For (said the apostle) God will have all men to be saved.' Who does not see that the apostle is here speaking of orders of men rather than of individuals?" - John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God

Predestination done before the consideration of works?

"Paul concludes that no respect of works existed in God's election of His people, because He preferred Jacob to his brother before they were born, and before they had done 'either good or evil.' But these opponents of election, to make good their doctrine, that those were chosen of God whom some mark of goodness distinguished from the reprobate, would make it appear that God foresaw what disposition there would be in each person to receive or to reject offered grace." - John Calvin, The eternal Predestination of God

John Calvin on the work of Christ

"'All that the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me; and him that cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast out.' here we have three things, briefly indeed, but most perspicuously expressed. First, that all who come unto Christ were before given unto Him by the Father; Second, that those who were thus given unto Him were delivered, as it were, from the hand of the Father into the hand of the Son, that they may be truly His; thirdly, that Christ is the sure keeper of all those whom the Father delivered over to His faithful custody and care, for the very end that He might not suffer one of them to perish. Now if a question be raised as to the beginning of faith, Christ here gives the answer, when He says that those who believe, therefore believe because they were given unto Him by the Father." - John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God

John Calvin on the Early Church Fathers

"In his reply he remarks that before the heresy of Pelagius, the fathers of the primitive Church did not deliver their opinions so deeply and accurately upon predestination; which reply, indeed, is the truth. And he adds: 'What need is there for us to search the works of those writers, who, before the heresy of Pelagius arose, found no necessity for devoting themselves to this question, so difficult of solution? Had such necessity arisen, and had they been compelled to reply to the enemies of predestination, they would doubtless have done so.' This remark of Augustine is a prudent one, and a wise one. For if the enemies of the grace of God had not worried Augustine himself, he never would have devoted so much labour (as he himself confesses) to the discussion of God's election." - John Calvin, The eternal Predestination of God

No difference between sinners

"It is evident, that he who prayed to Jesus on the cross, saw no difference betwixt himself and his fellow criminal." Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

The two criminals on the cross were criminals

Let us, then, observe what was the faith of this transgressor, as it appeared in the expression of it. No difference filled his mind, or took place in his thoughts, but rhat immense one betwixt himself, a sinner of the vilest class, and the perfections of righteousness shining forth in a person of the highest dignity, under the severest trials. This is the proper point of view at which sinful men come to the knowledge of the true God. To this point was Paul, that eminent guardian of virtue and holiness, reduced, when he became a Christian. - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Making your own salvation certain does not mean others make it certain

2 Peter 1:10, Gordon Clark says, "To make my divinely decreed election certain to or for myself is simply a matter of assurance. Simply, not because the doctrine of assurance is guaranteed to be devoid of problems; but because it does not face the impossible problem of making God's decree more certain than God could make it. The text deals with assurance. Kierkegaard, who should never be trusted, has a good point, though even in this case he exaggerates, when he says we must in humility always be certain of others' salvation and always doubtful of our own. The idea of becoming assured of one's own salvation is perfectly Scriptural, and part of the method is self-examination. Therefore one commentator's view that we cannot make our own election sure, on the ground that only God can grant assurance, is without foundation; for though it is God who gives us certainty, he does this through several means. The same commentator's suggestion that Peter refers here to our making our election certain to others by our good works is altogether implausible. The idea of assuring others cannot be found in the text. The middle voice means oneself. The second half of 1:10 clearly indicates the individualism of the argument. Furthermore, since God alone can see and judge the heart, another person, an observer, can never be made certain by my good works. These are observable because external; my internal motives, an indispensable element in my moral standing, the observer cannot see." New Heaven, New Earth

Takes more irrationalism to believe in Scofield

On Revelation 2: "These messages are just plain letters to the seven churches with their consequent lessons to all churches in all places and times. Some extravagant notions have been entertained in regard to these messages. Dr. C.I. Scofield says : 'The messages to the seven churches have a prophetic application, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A.D. 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the church period ther...e should be no such foreview. These messages must contain that foreview if it is in the book at all; for no church is mentioned after 3:22. These messages do present an exact foreview of the spiritual history of the church and in this precise order. Ephesus gives the general state at the date of the writing; Smyrna, the period of the great persecution; Pergamos, the church settled down in the world 'where Satan's throne is,' after the conversion of Constantine, say A.D. 316.Thyatira is the Papacy, 500 to 1500 A.D. Sardis is the Protestant Reformation whose works were not 'fulfilled.' Philadelphia is whatever bears clear testimony to the Word and Name in the time of self satisfied profession represented by Laudicea.' . . .
If Dr. Scofield finds such a scheme in these chapters, he must have use of a miscroscope that ordinary men do not possess. This is all sheer invention. By these methods one can prove anything; and find anything in the Scriptures whether it is there or no. Such interpretations are almost as rationalistic as the rationalism they condemn. A recent writer gives us an example in his reference to Joseph: Joseph is a type of Christ; He marries Asenath, a type of the Gentile church. This occurs before Joseph's brethren arrive in Egypt and become reconciled to him; thus the conversion of the Gentiles must precede the conversion of the Jews which will occur only when they meet Christ at his second advent. To make such farfetched arguments, is the extreme of allegorical interpretation. We might proceed with this kind of argument and say that since Joseph died and left his brethren in bondage, therefore the conversion of the Jews will result in their servitude to Satan; - a reduction and absurdum, but quite as legitimate." - David S. Clark, The Message From Patmos

What to believe? The Truth!

"The gospel proposes nothing to be believed by us, but what is infallibly true, whether we believe it or not. For shall our own unbelief make the fsith or veracity of God of none effect? Far be it! Heaven and earth shall pass away but not one of his words shall fall to thebground. The gospel, which foretells the final perdition of so many of its hearers, so many seriously and zealously exercised about it, can never warrant us to persuade every one who hears it, to believe that Christ died for him; unless we shall say that Christ died for every individual of mankind, and consequently, that none of mankind owe their salvation wholly to his death." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Faith is belief in the Truth

"But it is now time that we should hear Aspasio. He tells us, 'Faith is a real persuasion that Christ died for me.'
This account of faith given us by Aspasio, seems to me somewhat to resemble the arch of a bridge thrown over a river, having the one end settled on a rock, and the other on sand or mud, so needing a great many subsidiary props to support its own weight; and which after all is liable to be undermined by every land-flood or swell of the river; and therefore, the t...raveller had need to be cautious how he ventures upon it.
That Christ died, that he gave his life a ransom for many, is indeed a truth fully ascertained in the Scriptures, and established there, firm as a rock, for the relief of the shipwrecked and the desperate; yeah, many finding rest here, have been determined to follow Christ, at all hazards, having no other reason to give for their attachment, but, Thou has the wrods of eternal life.
That Christ died for me, is a point not so easily settled: and, therefore, I am not surprised to find Aspasio laboring hard, with much eloquence and skill, to establish it by a variety of props; and after all very ready, not only to pardon, but to sympathize with his friend upon his remissness and inactivity to come up to it." - Robert Sandaman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Error in our Faith

"To believe in vain, then, is to hold, along with the truth, some error which undermines it, makes it void and of no effect. And the same Apostles shows us at large, in his epistle to the Galatians, that however zealous Christians we may be, if we add to Christ's death any requistic whatsoever in the matter of acceptance with God, Christ shall profit us nothing, Christ is become of no effect unto us. In general, the apostles ascribe every opinion or practice which they condemn to some error in faith, or a lie held in the place of the truth, 1 John i,8, and ii,4." -Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

We believe the truth in the same sense as the Apostle believed it

"Every one who believes the same truth which the apostles believed, has equally precious faith with them. He has unfeigned faith, and shall assuredly be saved. If any man's faith be found insufficient to save him, it is owing to this, that what he believed for truth, was not the very same thing that the apostles believed, but some lie connected with, or dressed up in the form of truth. So this faith can do him no good; because, however seriously and sincerely he believes, yet that which he believes is false, and therefore it cannot save him. There is but one genuine truth that can save men.
To illustrate this matter, let it be remembered that the saving truth which the apostles believed was, That Jesus is the Christ. The apostles had one uniform fixed sense to these words, and the whole New Testament is writ to ascertain to us in what sense they understood them. Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ in a different sense from the apostles, or who maintains anything in connection with these words subversive of their real meaning, believes a falsehood, so his faith cannot save him. In the days of the apostles many affirmed along with them, that Jesus is the Christ, who yet meant very differently from them. The far greater part of Christendom will affirm in like manner; yet we shall not easily find many who, when they come to explain themselves, have the same meaning with the apostles. Let us, then, lay aside all questions about faith, or how a man believes; and let the only question be What does he believe? what sense does he put on the apostolic doctrine about the way of salvation?" - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

The Primacy of the Truth

Also Clark says, "The primacy of the intellect, then, cannot be a power automatically exercised over the volition regarded as a separate faculty. This would violate the unity of the person. Instead of the phrase 'THE PRIMACY OF THE INTELLECT', the essential idea might better be expressed as 'THE PRIMACY OF THE TRUTH'. And the primacy is one of authority rather than of psychological power. The older forms of expression generate an old perplexity dating from Platonic dialogues. On the assumption that the intellect dominates the will, it would follow that no one does wrong knowingly. All evil is due to ignorance, and education guarantees correct conduct. The ambiguities hidden in this apparently simple language are enormous. But if we speak of the primacy of truth, we can avoid, even if we do not solve, these perplexities. The primacy of truth will mean that our voluntary actions ought to conform to the truth. Obviously sometimes they do not. If it is true that worshiping God is good, we ought to worship him. Perhaps we choose not to worship God, but the truth is superior in right to our will. This way of putting the matter extends as well to the voluntary choice of belief. We may choose to believe a truth, or we may choose to believe a lie. Both types of choice actually occur. But the primacy of truth means that we ought to believe the truth and we ought not to believe the lie." - Emphasis is mine. Found in his Three R's

The elect will love the truth while the reprobate remain at enmity

"In the first intimation of the saving truth to fallen man, is hinted a distinction of mankind into two classes, under the designations of the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent: And this hint is sufficiently illustrated to us in other places of Scripture. Thence it appears, that in the former class are comprehended all with whom the Son of God took part in flesh and blood, and who, partaking of his Spirit, are joined to him as members of one body to the head: so, according to the apostolic style, make in him one new man - And of every member of this body it may be said, He that is joined to the Lord, is one spirit. This account of the seed of the woman is supported by the like account given by the Apostle Paul of the seed of Abraham, Gal. iv. The spirit by which this one body is animated, is distinguished from every other, under the titles of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Truth: and, according to the Scripture, this Spirit is God. In the latter class are comprehended all who have the same temper of mind which began in the first oppose of the truth, who borrows his name from the serpent, which he made use of in deceiving man. The Scripture declares all such to be under his influence, and to be conducted by him, in their opposition to the truth: so he is called the Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief or disobedience. And the union of all who are influenced by him, is to be seen in nothing else but their enmity to the saving truth." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Justified by Faith alone apart from works

"We are likewise told, that faith has two hands; one for taking home Christ to ourselves, and another for giving a way ourselves to Christ. But if faith must be called an instrument, and if it be at the same time maintained that justification comes by faith only; then I am at full liberty to affirm, that he who is possessed of the instrument, hand or mouth, is already justified without regard to his using the instrument, his taking or giving with the hand, or recieving with the mouth. Thus the artifice by which they would impose upon us may be very easily discerned." Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio

Loraine Boettner against Supralapsarianism

"It is not in harmony with the Scripture ideas of God that innocent men, men who are not contemplated as sinners, should be foreordained to eternal misery and death. The decrees concerning the saved ‘and the lost should not be looked upon as based merely on abstract sovereignty. God is truly sovereign, but this sovereignty is not exercised in an arbitrary way. Rather it is a sovereignty exercised in harmony with His other attributes, especially His justice, holiness, and wisdom. God cannot commit sin; and in that respect He is limited, although it would be more accurate to speak of His inability to commit sin as a perfection. There is, of course, mystery in connection with either system; but the supralapsarian system seems to pass beyond mystery and into contradiction.‘" - Loraine Boettner


Now a couple of weeks ago I posted a link of what appeared to be from Loraine Boettner's work. His conclusion is that the Supralapsarian system seems to pass beyond mystery and into contradiction. My question is how? From what he just wrote it is really difficult to see where the Supralapsarian leads to such things. The Supralapsarian need I say it more than once says that God choice was apart from any foreseen works whether those works were good or bad. That God is not at liberty to dispense His grace as He pleased is quite the contrary of what the Bible says. God at some point in time decided to create. I find it interesting that he speaks against Abstract sovereignty - I also wonder what he means by such things, especially when he proclaims that this is mystery. By Abstract sovereignty he does not define but merely speaks of it. Saying that God is Simple is also abstract does it make it meaningless or mysterious? Of course not. Some theologians do not believe in such qualifying rules.

The Lord who bought Whom? Limited to the Church of God alone made up of His elected people

"Acts 20:28 reads, 'feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' This verse is often used to show that Jesus, who shed his blood, was himself God, the second Person of the Trinity. But for the present purpose let us note that his blood purchased the church. Liberals will complain at the base notion of a commercial transaction, but Paul, whose words they are, was never troubled on this score. The church had to be purchased and Jesus bought it: 'Ye are bought with a price' (1 Cor. 6:20 and 7:23); and 2 Peter warns against false prophets and false teachers who deny 'the Lord that bought them.' If, as Dr. Hendry claims, Christ did not have to fulfill any condition in order to save us, why did he have to be crucified? Why indeed did he have to come to earth at all?" - Gordon Clark, What do Presbyterians Believe?

God is soveriegn over both Good and Bad

"For if you hesitate to believe, or are too proud to acknowledge, that God foreknows and wills all things, not contingently, but necessarily and immutably, how can you believe, trust and rely on His promises?" - Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

Why the faith we preach is particular

The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Saviour on whom it rests. It is never on account of its formal
nature as a psychic act that faith is conceived in Scripture to be
saving,—as if this frame of mind or attitude of heart were itself a
virtue with claims on God for reward, or at least especially pleasing to
Him (either in its nature or as an act of obedience) and thus
predisposing Him to favour, or as if it brought the soul into an
attitude of receptivity or of sympathy with God, or opened a channel of
communication from Him. It is not faith that saves, but faith in Jesus Christfaith in any other saviour, or in this or that philosophy or human
conceit (Col. 2:16, 18, 1 Tim. 4:1), or in any other gospel than that of
Jesus Christ and Him as crucified (Gal. 1:8, 9), brings not salvation
but a curse. It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that
saves, but Christ that saves through faith. The saving power resides
exclusively, not in the act of faith or the attitude of faith or the
nature of faith, but in the object of faith; and in this the whole
biblical representation centres, so that we could not more radically
misconceive it than by transferring to faith even the smallest fraction
of that saving energy which is attributed in the Scriptures solely to
Christ Himself.
....Biblical Doctrines, vol. 2 of The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1932; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000),
504

God and Evil

I read a work by some arminians called Whosoever Will - edited by David Allen and Steven Lemke. Lousy bunch of non-sense those arminians. Anyways one chapter has me smirking. The one on God and evil. As i skimmed through the section i thought well these arminians must make a buck somehow. Anyways their work was hardly scholarly. My question is how they answer the problem of evil if there is such issue for them. Arminianism and molinism do not solve either and where i come from you are part of the problem as these men are or part of the solution.

Assurance and Faith belong in Christ alone

We must begin our religion then as we would end it. Our acceptance with God, first and last, must rest entirely on the work finished by Jesus Christ on the cross: or we must betake ourselves to what many call the religion of nature, and what God warrants us to call the religion of pride, as being no less opposite to the law of nature, than to the gospel. - Robert Sandeman

The Supralapsarian position entails Limited atonement

I have been considering and pondering such things and so would like to briefly write up a thought or two before I forget. But the thought is that the Supralpsarian position entails limited atonement. The atonement is limited only for those who were elected in Christ. The scheme that I like to follow is very simple but any scheme of it will work:

God decrees to elect and reprobate individuals from amongst the Jews and Gentiles in Christ, Then He decrees to create said elect people organically, Then He decrees to cause the Fall so that through the sin of Adam - Death, and guilt enter in, He decrees to Christ would atone for the sins of His elect alone, while also decreeing that the reprobate would be hardened and hence would fall into more and more sin to be condemned, and finally that the Spirit would apply the cross saving work to Church of God's elect in time.

But this is only Limited in that everything that pertains to salvation is done in consideration for the Elect alone.

The Spirit who makes doctors of his Word

"But be assured that no man can make a Doctor of Holy Scripture except the Holy Spirit from heaven. As Christ says in John 6:[45], 'They must all be taught by God himself.' Now the Holy Spirit does not ask for red or brown birettas or other decorations. Nor does he ask whether a person is young or old, lay or cleric, monk or secular, unmarried or married. In fact, in ancient times he actually spoke through an ass against the prophet who was riding it [Num. 22:28]. Would to God that we were worthy to have such doctors given to us, regardless of whether they were lay or cleric, married or single! They now try to force the Holy Spirit into pope, bishops, and doctors, although there is not the slightest sign or indication whatever that he is in them." Martin Luther, To the Christian Nobility

Our Sensations are not adequate in Knowledge.

"The main and more philosophic reply to Reymond's widely accepted view, that sensations must play a role in the learning process, is directed against two words, sensation and role. Clark's reply to both is the same, viz., they convey no meaning. Like nearly all, one could actually say all, Clark's empirical critics within the evangelical movement, Reymond refuses to define sensation. If it be defined as Aristotle and John Locke defined it (though these two did not completely agree) there is no such thing. Augustine made that quite clear. We never see a poem with our eyes nor do we ever hear a tune with our ears. A single note may be a sensation, but it is not a tune. In ordinary parlance we must hold in mind remember, compare, judge a series of notes in order to 'hear' a tune. Similarly, no one has ever seen a tree. Since Clark was so deeply influenced by Augustine, his critics are remiss in not meeting Augustine's position." - Clark Speaks from the Grave

On the Law and Gospel distinction

"Since true believers are already irrevocably interested in the covenant of grace, in the righteousness of Christ, and in favor of God; and since they have in Christ, and on the ground of His righteousness imputed to them, a complete security against eternal death and a full title to eternal life; the law as the law of Christ has no sanction of judicial rewards or punishments. It has no promise of eternal life or threatening of eternal death annexed to it. The form of the covenant of works, indeed, is eternally binding on all who live and die under that violated covenant, but because Christ, as last Adam, has answered all the demands of it for believers, they are delivered from the law in that form (Romans 7:4-6).
The law which believers are under is the law of Christ, and of God in Christ, which has no promise of eternal life to them for their obedience to it. The promise of eternal life to the saints is the promise of the covenant of grace or the gospel, and not of the law, as a rule of duty. Eternal life is promised to them not in consideration of their sincere obedience to the law as a rule of life, but on account of Christ's perfect obedience to it as a covenant of works received by faith and imputed by God. It is promised to them not as a reward of debt for their sincere obedience, but as 'the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord' (Romans 6:23). The righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to them gives them a perfect title to life; they are already heirs of it, 'and joint heirs with Christ.' They have begun possession of it, and have the gracious promise of the gospel that they shall, in due time, attain thr perfect and everlasting possession." - John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and Gospel.

Why John Macarthur will never be assured

"Perhaps the most obvious reason for lacking assurance is disobedience, because assurance is the reward for obedience. Hebrews 10:22 strongly points that out: "Let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." It's been well said that high degrees of assurance cannot be enjoyed by those who persist in low levels of obedience. To live in sin is to live in doubt."
There are eight reasons for why one lacks assurance says Macarthur. All of them deal with man.
My response obviously when you look to yourself you begin to lack assurance. Am i doing enough? Are my works genuine? By these questions perhaps you begin to work harder, do more things, join a monastery. The truth is that your assurance rest on the gospel of Christ alone. 2 Peter 1 says we must have assurance before we can do good work. The lack of assurance brings about sin and self righteous works. How do you gain assurance? By knowing and understanding the gospel.
Many conditionalist have a gospel that depends on the sinner, whether it is what we do or what the Spirit does in us. They universalize the grace of God and say man must do something or respond. The fact is however this is not the gospel. The good news has nothing to do with us. The gospel is about what God has done freely and unconditionally for His people by dying for them and declaring them righteous for the sake of Christ alone so that they will believe in Christ and trust not in their own righteousness but hope in His righteousness alone imputed.

Loraine Boettner on Supralapsarianism

I read something about Supralapsarianism from Loraine Boettner. He says, "One of the leading motives in the supralapsarian scheme is to emphasize the idea of discrimination and to push this idea into the whole of God’s dealings with men. We believe, however, that supralapsarianism over-emphasizes this idea. In the very nature of the case this idea cannot be consistently carried out, e.g., in creation, and especially in the fall. It was not merely some of the members of the human race who were objects of the decree to create, but all mankind, and that with the same nature. And it was not merely some men, but the entire race, which was permitted to fall. Supralapsarianism goes to as great an extreme on the one side as does universalism on the other. Only the infralapsarian scheme is self-consistent or consistent with other facts."
Found Here: http://www.the-highway.com/election4_Boettner.html

He calls discrimination one of the leading motives in Supralapsarianism. I am not sure exactly what he means by this. I would have thought that Infralapsarianism also held to some sort of discrimination. Both do it seems like. However, he says Supralapsarians over-emphasis this idea. My question is how do we overemphasis this idea? He proclaims this idea (of discrimination?) cannot be carried out in creation or the fall... Of course one of the points of Supralapsarian is the fact that God has elected and reprobated apart from man's goodness or badness apart from any works found in the creature. And that then God created both the elect and reprobate together in Adam (the head of the human race) so that by his fall - all in Him fell.

God did not create individual people but rather he created a species of Mankind. The fall of Mankind (In Adam) meant that the whole lump was now deprived.

This statement of Loraine Boettner makes no sense. Hopefully, he will say some sort of substance later in this Article.

Theology is no longer needed by Tim Challies

For my calvinist brothers
"How to destroy a perfectly good theology from the inside:
1. By loving Calvinism as an end in itself.
2. By becoming a theologian instead of a disciple.
3. By loving God's sovereignty more than God himself.
4. By losing an urgency in evangelism.
5. By learning only from other Calvinists.
6. By tidying up the Bibles "loose ends"
7. By being an arrogant know-it-all.
8. By scoffing at the Hang-ups others have with Calvinism." Greg Dutcher, Killing Calvinism
Found this on a Tim Challies blog.
http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/killing-calvinism

Just a few issues atleast - 2. Becoming a theologian instead of a disciple - how can you become a disciple if you do not have the knowledge of God? 3. This one is unintelligible. Do they mean only loving the attribute or are they suggesting that there is a distinction between knowing facts of God and having a relational encounter with God. Just would like to say there are more to God than just his soveriegnty just like Love is not the only divine attribute. 6. What does this one mean? That we should not seek to understand things? This is what makes us apologist. If we never sought to put things together then we would never be able to give a reasonable defense to what we believe.

I like how the Anti-Intellectual side wants to diminish Theology so much that they want to unify around some sort of big blob of mash potatoes. Why call yourself anything if you want to learn from others. I remember various other kinds of philosophers saying basically the same thing. God teaches us in falsehoods as well.

What is the Church?

"Whoever would not go astray should therefore hold fast to this, that the church is a spiritual assembly of souls in one faith and that nobody is reckoned a Christian for his body's sake. Thus one will know that the true, real, right essential church is a spiritual thing and not anything external or outward, by whatever name it may be called. For a non-Christian may have all those other things but they will never make him a Christian without true faith, which alone makes Christians. It is on this account that we are called Christian believers, and on Pentecost we sing:
'Now let us pray to the Holy Ghost For the true faith of all things the most.'
It is in this way, and never in any other, that the Holy Scriptures speak of the holy church and of Christendom . . . . The name 'spiritual estate' is given primarily to the bishops, priests, and monks, not on account of their faith, which they perhaps do not have, but because they have been consecrated with an external anointing, wear crowns, use a distinctive garb, make special prayers and do special works, external matters of worship. But violence is done to the word 'spiritual' or to the word 'church' when it is used for such external affairs. These words are concerned only with the faith which, working in the soul, makes right and true spiritual person and Christians. Yet this manner of using these words has spread everywhere, to the great injury and perversion of many souls who think that such outward show is the spiritual and only true estate in Christendom or the church." - Martin Luther, The Papacy in Rome

Herman Hoeksema on Sovereignty and Responsibility

"Let us put both truths in propositional form:
1. God is absolutely sovereign, even so that he determines the moral acts of man, both good and evil.
2. Man is responsible before God for all his moral acts.
It may well be that we cannot answer the question how God is able to determine man's deeds without destroying man's responsibility. That he is able to do so is asserted plainly by the two propositions stated above. But whether or not we can understand this operation of the... sovereign God upon man is not the question. The sole question is whether the two propositions concerning God's sovereignty and man's responsibility are contradictory. This we deny. In fact, they cannot possibly be, for the simple reason that they assert something about two wholly different subjects.
They would be contradictory if the first proposition denied what is affirmed in the second. But this is not true. The first proposition asserts something about God: He is absolutely sovereign and determines the acts of man. The second proposition predicates something about man: He is responsible for his moral acts. Does the first proposition deny that man is responsible? If it does you have here a contradiction. But it does not. Those who like to discover a contradiction here, usually the enemies of the truth of God's sovereignty, simply take for granted that to assert that God is sovereign even over man's acts is to say the same as that man is not responsible. It must be pointed out, however, that this is neither expressed nor implied in the first proposition. In the two propositions responsibility is not both affirmed and denied at the same time to man.
The two propositions would, of course, also be contradictory if the second proposition denied what is affirmed in the first. In that case, sovereignty even over the acts of man would be both affirmed and denied to God. But also this is neither expressed nor implied in the two propositions, unless it can first be shown conclusively that to say that man is responsible is the same as declaring that God is not sovereign over his moral acts. And this has never been demonstrated, nor is it self-evident.
If they were really contradictory they could not both be the object of the Christian's faith. We could only conclude that either the one or the other were not true." - Herman Hoeksema, The Clark Van Til Controversy

Knowledge and Truth

If Gods knowledge and mans knowledge is not the same univocally thus rendering God and man analogous in knowledge, then it would in fact be the case that man would know nothing of God. The word 'God' would be insufficient and this whole paragraph would be impossible. Mans words would also fail to communicate correctly to one another. Therefore, Gods and mans knowledge are in fact not analogous but are univocal. God simply knows more quantitatively not qualitatively.
Of course a word may have two or three or more other meanings. But the fact is that a word will not have an infinite array of meanings. In order for a word to mean something it must also not mean something. A cat does not mean a dog, or a horse, but rather it means pussy cat or feline.

Martin Luther on The Papacy in Rome

"I contend for only two things. First, I will not suffer any man to establish new articles of faith and to abuse all other Christians in the world and slander and brand them as heretics, apostates and unbelievers simply because they are not under the pope. It is enough that we let the pope be pope, and it is not necessary that for his sake God and his saints on earth should be blasphemed. Second, all that the pope decrees and does I will receive on condition that I first test it by the Holy Scriptures. He must remain under Christ and submit to being judged by the Holy Scriptures." - Martin Luther, The Papacy in Rome

Martin Luther on Justification by Faith alone in Christ alone

"This is what it means to prevail against the gates of hell: Not to be bodily in an external communion, authority, jurisdiction, or assembly according to your way of babbling about the Roman communion and its unity, but by a firm and true faith to be built upon Christ, the rock which can never be suppressed by any power of the devil, even if he counts more followers and uses unceasing strife, cunning, and violence against it." - Martin Luther, The Papacy in Rome

Gordon Clark on the Trinity

"One substance or essence means that neither the Father nor the Son is an 'essence.' Each is a 'person.' Only the Trinity as such is an 'essence.' The confusion here and in the footnote above disappears, or at least is alleviated, by using the word definition instead of essence; and also by remembering that the Son has an 'essence' that is different from the 'essence' of the Father, but which in both cases contains the 'essence' of Deity. The definition of Deity does not define the Son; nor can the definition of the Son apply to Deity. A succulent does not have all the qualities of a cactus, but the latter has all of the characteristics of the former. That is to say, the Trinity or Godhead, absolutely and as such, does not have the characteristics of any one Person, absolutely and as such; but each Person has all the predicates of Deity. Note that the word here is Deity, not Father." - Gordon Clark, The Trinity

Martin Luther on Limited Atonement

"But if you ask where faith and confidence may be found or whence they come, it is certainly the most necessary thing to know. First, without any doubt it does not come from your works or from your merits, but only from Jesus Christ, freely promised and freely given. As St. Paul writes in Romans 5[:8], 'God shows his love toward us as exceedingly sweet and kind in that Christ died for us while we were yet sinners.' This is as if Paul said, 'Ought this not give us a strong, in...vincible confidence in that before we prayed about it or cared about it, yes, while we still continually walked in sin, Christ died for our sins?' [Paul] goes on, 'if then Christ has died for us while we were yet sinners, how much more shall we be saved through him, being justified by his blood. And if, while we were still enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be preserved through his life' [Rom. 5:8-11]." - Martin Luther, Treatise on Good works.

What are Good Works?

Good Works are those that God commands us in his word to do. Nothing more and nothing less. Jeremiah 7:21-23, Deuteronomy 12:8, 32, and Jeremiah 32:35


John Calvin also says, "Now, since the Lord, when about to deliver a rule of perfect righteousness, referred all the parts of it to his own will, this shows that nothing is more acceptable to him than obedience. This is worthy of the most diligent observation, since the licentiousness of the human mind is so inclined to the frequent invention of various services in order to merit his favour. For this irreligious affectation of religion, which is a principle innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in all ages, and betrays itself even in the present day, for men always take a pleasure in contriving some way of attaining righteousness, which is not agreeable to the Divine word. Hence among those which are commonly esteemed good works, the precepts of the law hold a very contracted station, the numberless multitude of human inventions occupying almost the whole space. But what was the design of Moses, unless it was to repress such an unwarrantable license, when, after the promulgation of the law, he addressed the people in the following manner! 'Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the Lord thy God. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.'" - The Institutes, 2. 8. 5.

Calvin also says, "We are certainly bound by the same declaration, for the claims of the Lord on behalf of his law, that it contains the doctrine of perfect righteousness, beyond all doubt remain perpetually the same; yet not contented with it, we are wonderfully laborious in inventing and performing other good works, one after another. The best remedy for this fault will be a constant attention to this reflection, that the law was given to us from heaven to teach us a perfect righteousness, that in it no righteousness is taught, but that which is conformable to the decrees of the Divine will; that it is therefore vain to attempt new species of works in order to merit the favour of God, whose legitimate worship consists solely in obedience, but that any pursuit of good works deviating from the law of God is an intolerable profanation of the Divine and real righteousness." - The Institutes, 2. 8. 5.

Here we have it from Calvin that good works are  what God commands as oppose to what many so-called 'Christians' who have never read their Bibles think of good works as something done for the nilly willy of it.

Martin Luther and Assurance

"But you say, how can I be absolutely sure that all my works are pleasing to God, when at times I fall, talk,eat, drink and sleep too much, or otherwise transgress in ways I cannot avoid? Answer: This questions shows that you still regard faith as a work among other works and do not set it above all works. It is the highest work because it blots out these everyday sins and still stands fast by never doubting that God is so favorably disposed toward you that he overlooks such everyday failures and offenses. Yes, even if a deadly sin should arise (which, however, never or rarely happens to those who live in faith and trust in God), nonetheless faith always rises again and does not doubt that its sin is already gone. As it is written in 1 John 2 [:1-2], 'My dear children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate before God, Jesus Christ, who is the forgiveness for our sins.'" - Martin Luther, Treatise on Good Works

Gottschalk on Double Predestination and Equally Ultimacy

"I believe and confess that the omnipotent and immutable God has gratuitously foreknown and predestined the holy angels and elect human beings to eternal life, and that he equally predestined the devil himself, the head of all the demons, with all of his apostate angels and also with all reprobate human beings, namely, his members, to rightly eternal death, on account of their own future, most certainly foreknown evil merits, through his most righteous judgment." - Gottschalk of Orbais

Gottschalk on Limited atonement and Double Predestination

"All those impious persons and sinners for whom the Son of God came to redeem by shedding his own blood, those the omnipotent goodness of God predestined to life and irrevocably willed only those to be saved. And again all those impious persons and sinners for whom likewise the Son of God neither assumed a body nor prayed, I say that he did not shed [his] blood nor was in any way crucified for them. In fact, those whom he foreknew were going to be very evil and whom he very justly foreordained unto eternal torments into which they should be cast, he thoroughly does not want them in any way to be eternally saved.
Therefore, I very faithfully believe, very confidently speak, and likewise most certainly and fruitfully confess and most truthfully profess that our omnipotent God, the creator and maker of all creatures, has deigned to be the gratuitous repairer and restorer of all of the elect alone, but willed to be the Savior of none of the perpetually reprobate, the redeemer of none, and glorifier of none." - Gottschalk of Orbais

"Sanctification once begun is never wholly lost. It fluctuates with the fidelity of the believer, but he never falls back into the stupor and death of the unregenerate state..." - W.G.T. Shedd

There is a struggle with sin in the life of the believer. But though he struggles yet he has hope.

I am finding that the older Reformers were not like the neo-reformers such as John Macarthur, R.C. Sproul. The Lordshipers put all their eggs in one basket of works. They become existentialist.

It is about what we believe not what we do

"Christianity is neither action nor introspection: It is truth. Christianity is doctrine, teaching, theory, truth; it is not practice, action, or agitation. To be sure, a certain sort of behaviour is the result of Christianity, but the behaviour is not the Christianity. To confuse the two is to make an error as serious as that of confusing justification and sanctification, faith and works. Anyone confused on those points is in danger of hell. Yet it is very popular today in some allegedly Christian circles to emphasize action and ignore doctrine, as though the action were the important thing." - John W. Robbins, Introduction to The Trinity.

Lutheran's Theology

I once had a very delightful conversation with a Lutheran. He told me that the Calvinist cannot have assurance. I told him the Bible seems to say so. He said no. Christ died for all men universally, he said. My response was - does that give you assurance? Maybe those who end up in hell did not have assurance? Regardless, assurance is not based on my belief but based upon the infallible promises of God. Perhaps maybe I cannot have assurance. The Gospel is not that Christ died for you. The Gospel is that Christ actually atoned for sins. The sins he atoned for are the Elect people of God. Without election, no one is atoned for.

Common Grace and Abraham's children

Interesting thought but that common grace is not found even in Genesis 17. So as long as Abraham's child Ishmael remains faithful to the covenant established there will not be any wrath. This is not the covenant of grace as many suppose. It is conditional. In this covenant both the elect and reprobate are in national Israel.

God's Word and the Bible

Considering this subject, as a Calvinist, I agree with Calvin and others like him who would say that the word of God is contained in the Bible for our modern English speaking folks I do not mean in the sense of Barth. God's word is the Bible alone and the Bible alone is the word of God. What is written is God's word. But how does that relate to the fundamental thought of conversion? Would it not be better to say that God's word is different than what is written on the pages of Scripture? My response is no. God is God and so has authority. His word because he spoke it is authoritative because God is authoritative. Therefore, whatever is said in the Bible has authority and should be headed because God says it.
When God converts the sinner he is not coming to the sinner with different words than what is revealed in the Word. God commands sinners to do lots of things, including to love Him with their whole minds. As the word of God is spoken and God speaks to us by the preached word - we hear God speak.
The thing is we do not all head the commands to repent and believe. Indeed no one can do that unless God Himself does. God removes the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh so that there is no more enmity against His word and so the mind of man receives the things of God. Until this happens, God's word is not headed and we do not receive them and we remain responsible as disobedience sinners.

Supralapsarian

Only the Supralapsarian scheme can be said to be Trinitarian. God decrees his Glory which is the final cause for why He does anything. From this God decrees to that end.

We are saved by correct Gospel doctrine

Someone asked me to point them to the references that speak about the fact that we are saved by correct Gospel doctrine. They said, "I do remember that verse in the bible.... just can't remember the reference...."

Romans 10 says our Faith is Intellectual and Assent. If we believe with our hearts and confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord then we will be saved.

Hebrews 11 shows us that our Faith is confessional and creedal. I simply believe in and believe that.

Matthew 7 shows us that we know a tree by its fruit. It just so happens that in this verse the fruit represents doctrine. It is the False prophets who are known for their false fruit. They speak on behalf of themselves.

John 15 demonstrates the fact that we must abide in Christ. We abide in Christ by Faith in him (which Romans 11 says is the fruit of the tree).

1 John 1 says that we heard the testimony of the Apostles. Our Faith is based upon the Prophets and the Apostles and not upon our own vain conceited ideas. 1 Corinthians 1-4 speaks of this fact in fact it speaks primarily of our epistemology. Through out the whole Bible we see references of certain people praying in the name of God, or God saying that it was by His name alone people were redeemed or rescued. The fact that God is a Person gives credence to the fact that we are saved to believe a certain standard. What we believe does matter.

Who are the Antinomians?

The true antinomian is the one who says we can live by the law. That the curses of the law are of no effect. However, this is not true. The law hands out curses. No one shall live by them. The just shall live by his faith not by the law.

On God's will and the Supposed Decretive, and Preceptive will of God.

"Dr. Clark holds that man's knowledge of any proposition is identical with God's knowledge of the same proposition. Any proposition has the same meaning for God as for man. The complainants deny this. As an item of interest we may mention here that during the examination of Dr. Clark by the Presbytery of Philadelphia the question was asked him: 'You would say then, that all that is revealed in the Scripture is capable of being comprehended by the mind of man?" And the answer was given by him: 'Oh yes, that is what it is given us for, to understand it.'" - Gordon Clark, The Clark-Van Til controversy.

"The opponents may at this point claim that Calvinism introduces a self-contradiction into the will of God. Is not murder contrary to the will of God? How then can God will it?
Very easily. The term will is ambiguous. The Ten Commandments are God's perceptive will. They command men to do this and to refrain from that. They state what ought to be done; but they neither state nor cause what is done. God's decretive will, however, as contrasted with his precepts, causes every event. It would be conducive to clarity if the term WILL were not applied to the precepts. Call the requirements of morality commands, precepts, or laws; and reserve the term will for the divine decree. These are two different things, and what looks like an opposition between them is not a self-contradiction. The Jews ought not to have demanded Christ's crucifixion. It was contrary to the moral law. But God had decreed Christ's death from the foundation of the world. It may seem strange at first that God would decree an immoral act, but the Bible shows that he did. This point will be discussed more fully later on; but though it may now seem strange, it should be clear at least that a clear definition of terms by which two different things are not confused under one name removes the charge of self-contradiction.
When the term will is used loosely there is also a second distinction that must be made. One may speak of the secret will of God, and one may speak of the revealed will of God. Those who saw self-contradiction in the previous case would no doubt argue similarly on this point too. The Arminian would say that God's will cannot contradict itself, and that therefore his secret will cannot contradict his revealed will. Now, the Calvinist would say that same thing; but he has a clearer notion of what contradiction is, and what the Scriptures say. It was God's secret will that Abraham should not sacrifice his son Isaac; but it was his revealed will (for a time), his command, that he should do so. Superficially this seems like a contradiction. But it is not. The statement or command, 'Abraham, sacrifice Isaac,' does not contradict the statement, at that moment known only to God, 'I have decreed that Abraham shall not sacrifice his son.' If Arminians had a keener sense of logic, they would not be Arminians!" - Gordon H. Clark, The three R's