What is meant by the Law of God anyway?

"The term 'law' in Scripture is to be understood either in an extended or in a restricted sense.
In its extended or large acceptance, it is used sometimes to signify the five books of Moses (Luke 24:44), at other times all the books of the Old Testament (John 10:34), sometimes the whole Word of God in the Scriptures of the Old and the New (John 1:17), in others the Old Testament dispensation, as including prophecies, promises, and types of Messiah (Luke 16:16; Hebrews 10:1) and in several the doctrine of the gospel (Isaiah 2:3 and 42:4).
In its restricted or limited sense, it is employed to express the rule which God has prescribed to His rational creatures in order to direct and oblige them to the right performance of all their duties to Him. In other words, it is used to signify the declared will of God, directing and obliging mankind to do that which pleases Him, and to abstain from that which displeases Him.
This, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is the law of God; and it is divided into the natural law and the positive law. The natural law of God, or the law of nature, is that necessary and unchanging rule of duty which is founded in the infinitely holy and righteous nature of God. All men, as the reasonable creatures of God are, and cannot but be, indispensably bound to it. The positive law of God comprises those institutions which depend merely upon His sovereign will, and which He might never have prescribed and yet His nature always continued the same; such as the command not to eat of the forbidden fruit; the command during the period of the Old Testament dispensation to keep holy the Sabbath of Jehovah, the seventh day of the week, which under the New Testament is altered to the first day; the ceremonial law given to the Israelites which prescribed the rites of God's worship, together with many of the precepts of their judicial law; and the positive precepts concerning the worship of God under the gospel." - John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and Gospel


The interesting aspect of the law of nature is that it is good, holy, and just. However, the positive law is good, holy, and just because God commanded it. I am reminded of what Gordon H. Clark says that a thing is right just because God commands it.

Zanchius sadly is not a Supralapsarian but is still a good infralapsarian

"Jerome Zanchi is a reformer well known for his scholasticism and his Aristotelianism. As previously mentioned, he along with Peter Martyr Vermigli, were trained in the Thomist school of thought prior to joining the Reformation. In fact, regarding his scholasticism Richard Muller writes:

Zanchi presents the picture of a Reformer of the era just following that of Calvin, Vermigli, and Musculus, whose views had much of the same foundation as theirs, but who, because of his immersion in the system, rechniques, and philosophy of late medieval scholasticism, was able to add another dimension to Reformed theology in the sixteenth century - the dimension of detail and of clear continuity with the medieval theological tradition. 

Hence, given the fact that Zanchi's thought was entrenched in scholasticism and Aristotelianism, one might therefore conclude that he should be a supralapsarian. Yet, it might be of some surprise that Zanchi was not a supralapsarian despite his use of the scholastic metho. Zanchi writes:

Consider predestination relating to the elect only, and it is 'that eternal, unconditional, particular and irreversible act of the Divine will whereby, in matchless love and adorable sovereignty, God determined with Himself to deliver a certain number of Adam's degenerate offspring out of that sinful and miserable estate into which, by his primitive transgression, they were to fall,' and in which sad condition they were equally involved, with those who were not chosen, but, being pitched upon and singled out by God the Father to be vessels of grace and salvation.

One should take note that Zanchi identifies the object of predestination as the infralapsarian homo creatus et lapsus by the phrase: 'God determined with Himself to deliver a certain number of Adam's degenerate offspring out of that sinful and miserable estate.' What is even more interesting is that Zanchi's definition of reprobation is moderate in comparison with Calvin's. For example, Zanchi writes: 'Predestination, as it regards the reprobate, is 'that eternal, most holy, sovereign and immutable act of God's will, whereby He hath determined to leave some men to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them.'' Zanchi does not define reprobation as an absolute act of God as does Calvin. On the contrary, Zanchi defines reprobation in Augustinian terms of preterition. For these reasons Muller concludes that 'Zanchi defines the decree in relation to man creatus et lapsus and views election as remedy to the end that his doctrine will be soteriologically and christologically oriented.'
Hence, Zanchi, an Aristotelian, Thomist, and scholastic, is an infralapsarian, and William Perkins, a Ramist, is a supralapsarian. Along these lines, Lynne Boughton comments: 'Perkins, although he admired Beza and cited him as an authority, had arrived at a supralapsarian position based on his own philosophical and theological inquiry. The English Puritan's philosophical Scotism and Ramism led to the same conclusions in theology as had Beza's post-Renaissance Aristotelianism.' This evidence points to the fact that philosophical and methodological commitments do not serve as indicators to the lapsarian position of a theologian. What, then, do the two competing methodologies show in the work of the various theologians?" - J.V. Fesko, Diversity Within The Reformed Tradition: Supra- and Infralapsarianism in Calvin, Dort, and Westminster

What is the Essence of a thing?

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational: psuches logikes] soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence [en prosopon kai mian upostasin] not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." - The Creed of Chalcedon


"In order to understand the creedal statement, one must begin somewhere. There must be a pou sto, a point d'appui, a basic agreement on a fundamental term. Otherwise we shall drown in an ocean of ambiguity. No choice is better than the Nicene term hypostasis. This earliest of all creeds affirms that the Godhead is mia ousia and tres upostaseis. The term ousia is a participial noun from the verb to be; the translation commonly is being. A dog is a being, a rock is a being; but if ousia is simply a form of the verb am, are, is, be, then since there are dreams, dreams are: They are beings. Sometiems the term reality is used. But dreams, especially bad dreams, are real: They are real bad dreams. Plato claimed that his Ideas were realities: The Idea of Justice, the Idea of Man, the Idea of Horse, and the Idea of Number are realities. Therefore the term ousia is not a so good a basic term as hypostasis.
Another form of the verb 'to be' is esse or essence. The term can be useful, if defined. To illustrate: Someone sees a new gadget, or an animal he has never seen before. He asks, 'What is it?' His friend replies, 'It is this sort of gadget or this sort of animal.' In ordinary conversations the answer is usually incomplete, but if the friend is at all knowledgeable he gives a part of the definition. The full answer to the question 'What is it?' is the definition. Now, if the theologians had been content, or able to use the term unambiguously, a great deal of confusion would have been avoided. The essence is the definition. The essence of a plane triangle is an area bounded by three straight lines. The phrase 'it is of the essence. . .' means it is a part of the definition. Unfortunately many theologians do not explicitly say this, but often by usage deny it. In an historical survey, however, the author must reproduce the blunders of those whom he quotes."

Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 5-6

Was Christ only a human or also God in the flesh?

". . . assuming the existence of God and human souls, in fact accepting the Bible as the inerrant revelation of divine truth, we approach the main topic: the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. The approach, however, requires a statement of what the problem is. Since God is omnipotent, the question is not how such a stupendous event could be possible, but, rather, what precisely was this event.
The Scriptural assertions are clear enough as far as they go. In the Gospel of John (1:14) we read 'The Logos was made flesh.' John also says, 'Jesus Christ is come in the flesh . . . every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, but this is the spirit of the anti-Christ.' Paul too, in 1 Timothy 3:16, insists that 'God was manifest in the flesh.' Nearly every verse in the Gospels presupposes an Incarnation. Similarly the epistles of Paul: Philippians 2:6-8; also 1 Peter 1:19, and by clear implication dozens of others.
But, (do you notice?) that while the flesh or body of Jesus is so frequently mentioned, these verses say nothing about the mind or soul of the person. That God wanted to impress us with the fact that the Second Person assumed a body is perfectly clear; but did he also wish to obscure the fact that the incarnate Christ had a human mind? That Christ assumed a body causes no difficulty to anyone who believes the Bible; but to understand how the Second Person could have a human soul and a be a human person (which virtually all orthodox Christians deny), and how that mind or soul was related to the divine Person is perhaps the most difficult problem in all theology. No one, Catholic, Calvinist, or atheist can deny that the Bible teaches an Incarnation. But an 'in-psuch-ation' troubled the church fathers over a period of 400 years. The results of their labors are at best woefully incomplete. Yet there is no better way to begin the subject than by tracing its history."

- Gordon H. Clark, The Incarnation

We know God by knowing propositional statements about Him

"Of course Jesus is the living Word of God. We do not for a moment deny it. Of course God has in these last days revealed himself to us in his Son. But if the person of Christ is divorced from what Jesus of Nazareth said, and if the person of Christ is divorced from what God said about him through the apostles, how can we know what Christ has done for us? A mere encounter would leave the terms regeneration, imputation, and justification meaningless. Indeed, if there were no intelligible speech or thought, we could never know whether an encounter was an encounter with Christ the Son of God or wehther it was Kierkegaard's encounter with an idol. The very identification of Jesus as the Son of God cannot possibly be made without intelligible thought.
Knowledge by acquaintance, in the anti-intellectual sense of encounter, begegnung, or Erlebnis, will result in no religion other than some emotional entertainment. Theology there cannot be."

- Gordon H. Clark, God's Hammer

The Bible does use metaphors

"One hardly escapes the impression that the author does not treat his opponents fairly. He says,

Yet because revelation is given in human words, it cannot be more precise than language allows. [How true! A perfect tautology. But is God, who produced language, unable to use it with perfect precision?] The belief that the Bible consists of statements of literal truth [italics his], therefore, is ill-conceived. [The therefore is a logical fallacy.] The notion of literal truth is quite correct if we oppose literal to the mythical . . . .In this sense we must say that God literally created the world . . . . It is quite another matter, though, if we insist that all the statements of Scripture are literally true.

This sort of argument is hardly fair to the Reformation view because no one from the time of Moses to the present ever said that all statements are strictly literal. Did Luther, Quenstedt, Gaussen, or Warfield ever say so? Of course there are figures of speech, metaphors, anthropomorphisms, and the like. But these would be meaningless if there were no literal statements to give them meaning. For example, 2 Chronicles 16:9 - 'The eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth' - is ludicrously ridiculous if taken literally: little eyeballs rolling over the dusty ground. But unless the statement, God is omniscient, is literal, the figure has nothing to refer to. Surely Hamilton did not publish his book to remind us that the Bible contains some figures of speech. And yet his argument here depends on the alleged fact that someone said 'all the statements of Scripture are literally true.'" - Gordon H. Clark, God's Hammer The Bible and It's Critics


"It is no objection to this, that the parts of an human body are sometimes attributed to God; since these are to be understood of him not in a proper, but in an improper and figurative sense, and denote some act and action, or attribute of his; thus his face denotes his sight and presence, in which all things are, Gen xix. 13, sometimes his favour and good will, and the manifestation of his love and grace, Psal. xxvii. 8, lxxx. 3. and soemtiems his wrath and indignation against wicked men, Psal. xxxiv. 16, Rev vi. 17." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 32


"In metaphors it is necessary that something be different from the real thing, because, as they say, similarity is not identity. At the same time, there must be a likeness between the thing and that which represents it, for otherwise there wouldn't even be a representation." - Martin Luther, Against Latomus

We are freed from the law of sin and death's penalty

"Thus sin in us after baptism is in its nature truly sin; but only according to substance, and not in its quantity, quality, or action, for it is wholly passive. The motion of anger and of evil desire is exactly the same in the godly and the godless, the same before grace and after, just as the flesh is the same before grace and after grace; but in grace it can do nothing, while outside of grace it gets the upper hand. Because of this Paul says in Rom. 8[:2], 'For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death.' Why does he not say that, 'It has set me free from sin and death'? Has not Christ set us free from sin and desth once and for all? Paul, however, is speaking of the proper operation of the law of the Spirit, which does what Christ has merited. Indeed, Christ once and for all absolved and freed everyone from sin and death when He merited for us the law of the Spirit of Life." - Martin Luther, Against Latomus

Knowledge must know propositional truth

"If Ryken's peculiar aesthetics is relatively unimportant, his undefined view of truth is a more serious flaw, and the implications of such a defective view of truth are disastrous for the preaching of the Gospel.
It is undoubtedly true that 'one can experience the truth about God and salvation while listening to Handel's Messiah.' The reason is The Messiah is composed of words from Scripture. Otherwise, one can experience boredom, think about investments, or decide which restaurant to go to after the concert - all while listening to The Messiah. But if one has thoughts of God and salvation while and because of the oratorio, they come by reason of the Scriptural words. The music adds little or nothing. In fact, many people do not have thoughts about God while listening, because the music is distracting.
The use of the word while is a propaganda device: Literally the sentence is true, but the writer means something else. Fortunately, after inducing a favorable response on the part of the reader by the word while, he twice says what he actually means. First, a pastor initially believed Jesus rose from the dead, not during a sermon, which told him so, but with (of course with is ambiguous too) the sound of the concluding fanfare. At any rate, the pastor did not believe in the resurrection with his mind or intellect: He sensed it. One might grant that he sensed the noise of the trumpets; but how can anyone sense Christ's resurrection? This is utter nonsense, and the final line of the quotation shows how Antichristian the whole viewpoint is.
He says, 'Handel's Messiah is as important to us as a Christmas sermon.' Naturally, if the Christmas sermon in a liberal church centers on Santa Claus, and not on the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, Handel's music might be as important - the equal importance being about zero. Only the writer means that the music is as important as the words. If this were so, there would be no necessity to preach the Gospel and ask people to believe the good news.
Art is no substitute for Gospel information. A gigantic tapestry, depicting the miraculous draft of fishes, hangs in the Clowes Hall at Butler University in Indianapolis. It is supposed to be a great work of art. On one occasion, I accompanied a group of Japanese professors through the Hall, and one of them asked, 'What is the story?' No amount of art appreciation could give him the information found in the bible. That Christ was God and worked miracles during his incarnation is understood only through the intellectual understanding of words. Not even a blast of trumpets could have conveyed this truth to my Japanese guests.
If Ryken's views were true, the work of missionaries would be conveniently easier. They would not have to learn a difficult language: They could just put on a recording of Handel and conversions would follow. Why didn't Paul think of that? Don't preach the Gospel, don't give information, just play some music! But Paul said that faith comes by hearing the Word of God. No tapestry, no sculpture, no fanfare. It is Paul who defines Christianity. Anything else is something else. Pity those who substitute art for the Gospel; they worship what they know not and care little about knowledge and truth." - Gordon H. Clark, In Defense of Theology

Knowing God

"Why, then, should anyone study theology? First, if there is a God, assuming we have discarded atheism, he must be someone we should know. Everyone likes to receive information about his friends, at least if the information is good news. Even though it saddens us, we even want to hear bad news, such as news of an injury or accident. If someone like Abraham is a friend of God, news about God is welcome; and the more welcome in proportion as God is a better friend than one's classmates, business associates, or even relatives. To recommend theology in more Biblical terms, one could say, 'This is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.' There is more meaning in this verse than appears to a hurried reader, but it is evident one cannot be a Christian without theology - a knowledge of God." - Gordon H. Clark, In Defense of Theology

Preaching the law to secured sinners not humbled saints

"On a certain occasion a rich young man approached Jesus and said to Him: 'Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' Jesus declined the title 'Good Master' because it would have put Him in the same class with the self-righteous young man, who considered himself a 'good master.' That rich young man was not sincere in addressing the Lord thus. If he had regarded Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world, if he had believed in Christ and for that reason had called Him 'Good Master,' it would have been quite proper. But because he merely meant to offer the Lord a bit of flattery, Christ declined the title and turned to the young man with the challenge: 'Keep the commandments.' When the young man asked, 'Which?' Jesus said, 'Thou shalt do not murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother, and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' The young man replied: 'All these things have I kept from my youth up; what lack I yet?' He meant to say: 'If Thou hast no other teachings to propose, Thou art not such a wise man as some consider Thee to be. What Thou hast told me I have known for a long time.' How does Christ answer the young man's last question? Does He say, 'You lack faith?' By no means; since He is dealing with a miserable, secure and self-righteous person, He does not preach one word of Gospel to him. Though knowing in advance, by reason of His omniscience, that all His efforts would be in vain, He felt that He must first bring him to a realization of his spiritual misery. God, in His love, does many things that to us may seem useless in order that on Judgment Day no man may have an excuse for not coming to faith in Christ. God will say to many: 'This and that I did for you, but you spurned Me.' Jesus, accordingly, said to the rich young man: 'If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me.' Now the record states: 'When the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.' He departed with an accusing conscience which, no doubt, told him: 'That is indeed a different doctrine from the one I used to hear. What He tells me I cannot do. I have become too greatly attached to my possessions. I would rather forfeit my fellowship with Him than do what He says. I am not going to roam the country with Him like a beggar.' Probably his conscience also testified to him that according to the teaching of Christ he was damned, that hell was his goal.  That was the effect which the Lord had intended to produce in dealing with this young man. Whether he was converted later, we do not know, nor is it of any consequence here. The point is that in this episode we have an example to guide us when we are dealing with such as are still secure and self-righteous. True, we cannot issue orders such as Christ, the Lord of lords, issued. But there are enough questions that we can ask to make a person of this kind realize that he is still deeply steeped in sins and a lost creature. "
- C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel

The Bible does not teach Free Will

"The question therefore is, Does the Bible teach the freedom of the will? By freedom of the will is meant what most ordinary people mean: the absence of any controlling power, even God and his grace, and therefore the equal ability in any situation to choose either of two incompatible courses of action. There are some semi-Calvinists who, presumably through fear, assert the freedom of the will, and then more or less disguise the fact that they define freedom of the will in a way most people would never guess. In a similar situation the seventeenth-century French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal, in his Provincial Letters, excoriates the Dominicans for using Jesuit terms with Jansenist meanings. The Jesuits were too powerful; they were about to crush the Jensenists; and the Dominicans were afraid. Pascal makes the point that Jesuit terms will convey Jesuit meanings to the populace, and hence the Dominican theology, in thought similar to Jansenism, will be defeated by the terms it uses. So too, semi-Calvinists who use Arminian terms support Arminianism, for the populace will never discover their esoteric definitions. Freedom of the will, almost universally, means that God does not determine a man's choice. It means that the will is uncaused, not predetermined. The present book uses free will in its ordinary, commonly accepted sense. The question is: Does the Bible teach freedom of the will?
It is so obvious that the Bible contradicts the notion of free will that its acceptance by professing Christians can be explained only by the continuing ravages of sin blinding the minds of men. To some this sounds like an extreme statement. But the appeal is to the Bible, and the Bible says that the heart of man is deceitful above measure. It will use all possible devices to avoid acknowledging that it is a worm, a lump of clay, a creature, and not an independent, autonomous being. The appeal is to the Bible." - Gordon H. Clark, Predestination

Free Will found in Scripture? No.

"The matter of 'free-will offerings' is easily disposed of. There are several other Old Testament verses that use this phrase. But they have nothing to do with theory of free will. The Hebrew term for 'free will,' as an English word, means abundantly, spontaneously, voluntarily. It contrasts with the offerings that are prescribed by law, and which therefore are not spontaneous, nor even abundant. The question as to whether or not God controls the decision is entirely absent. So too in [Ezra] 7:13 the same Hebrew word is used the English term 'free will,' we would not be greatly impressed by his theology, Artaxerxes simply meant that if any Jew wanted to return to Jerusalem, he was free to go - free from royal restrictions. But Ezra, to indicate the inspired view of the matter, adds in 7:27, 28, 'Blessed be the Lord . . . who has put such a thing as this in the king's heart . . . and has extended mercy unto me before the king.' Ezra does not reflect on God's moving some Jews to return to Jerusalem, but he is very clear that God controlled Artaxerxes." - Gordon H. Clark, Predestination

It is not that Christ died for everyone but that the Gospel is Proclaimed to all

4 Who wishes that all men may be saved. Here follows a confirmation of the second argument; and what is more reasonable than that all our prayers should be in conformity with this decree of God?And may come to the acknowledgment of the truth. Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth. This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is proved from the effect; for, if"the gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth," (Romans 1:16,)it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life. In short, as the calling is a proof of the secret election, so they whom God makes partakers of his gospel are admitted by him to possess salvation; because the gospel reveals to us the righteousness of God, which is a sure entrance into life.Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "If God" say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man.But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations. That God wishes the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident from the passages already quoted, and from other passages of a similar nature. Not without good reason was it said, "Now, kings, understand," and again, in the same Psalm,"I will give thee the Gentiles for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for a possession." (Psalm 2:8-10.)In a word, Paul intended to shew that it is our duty to consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be. Now the duty arising out of that love which we owe to our neighbor is, to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling, and to testify this by godly prayers.With the same view does he call God our Savior; for whence do we obtain salvation but from the undeserved kindness of God? Now the same God who has already made us partakers of salvation may sometime extend his grace to them also. He who hath already drawn us to him may draw them along with us. The Apostle takes for granted that God will do so, because it had been thus foretold by the predictions of the prophets, concerning all ranks and all nations.

John Calvin on 1 Timothy 2:4

Did Christ die for the salvation of every single human being?

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all [34] The mention of redemption in this passage is not superfluous; for there is a necessary connection between the two things, the sacrifice of the death of Christ, and his continual intercession. (Romans 8:34.) These are the two parts of his priesthood; for, when Christ is called our priest, it is in this sense, that he once made atonement for our sins by his death, that he might reconcile us to God; and now having entered into the sanctuary of heaven, he appears in presence of the Father, in order to obtain grace for us, that we may be heard in his name. (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7:17.) So much the more does he expose the wicked sacrilege of the Papists, who, by making dead saints to be companions of Christ in this affair, transfer to them likewise the glory of the priesthood. Read the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, towards the conclusion, and the beginning of the fifth chapter, [Hebrews 4:14-5:10,] and you will find what I maintain, that the intercession by which God is reconciled to us is founded on the sacrifice; which, indeed, is demonstrated by the whole system of the ancient priesthood. It follows, therefore, that it is impossible to take from Christ any part of the office of intercession, and bestow it on others, without stripping him of the title of priesthood.Besides, when the Apostle calls him antilutron, "a ransom," [35] he overthrows all other satisfactions. Yet I am not ignorant of the injurious devices of the Papists, who pretend that the price of redemption, which Christ paid by his death, is applied to us in baptism, so that original sin is effaced, and that afterwards we are reconciled to God by satisfactions. In this way they limit to a small period of time, and to a single class, that benefit which was universal and perpetual. But a full illustration of this subject will be found in the Institutes.That there might be a testimony in due time; that is, in order that this grace might be revealed at the appointed time. The phrase, for all, which the Apostle had used, might have given rise to the question, "Why then had God chosen a peculiar people, if he revealed himself as a reconciled Father to all without distinction, and if the one redemption through Christ was common to all?" He cuts off all ground for that question, by referring to the purpose of God the season [36] for revealing his grace. For if we are not astonished that in winter, the trees are stripped of their foliage, the fields are covered with snow, and the meadows are stiff with frost, and that, by the genial warmth of spring, what appeared for a time to be dead, begins to revive, because God appointed the seasons to follow in succession; why should we not allow the same authority to his providence in other matters? Shall we accuse God of instability, because he brings forward, at the proper time, what he had always determined, and settled in his own mind?Accordingly, although it came upon the world suddenly and was altogether unexpected, that Christ was revealed as a Redeemer to Jews and Gentiles, without distinction; let us not think that it was sudden with respect to God but, on the contrary, let us learn to subject all our sense to his wonderful providence. The consequence will be, that there will be nothing that comes from him which shall not appear to us to be highly seasonable. On that account this admonition frequently occurs in the writings of Paul and especially when he treats of the calling of the Gentiles, by which, at that time, on account of its novelty, many persons were startled and almost confounded. They who are not satisfied with this solution, that God, by his hidden wisdom, arranged the succession of the seasons, will one day feel, that, at the time when they think that he was idle, he was framing a hell for inquisitive persons.

- John Calvin on 1 Timothy 2:6

God's sovereignty over the good and evil angel's

"4. God Governs Angels: Both Good and Evil Angels.
The angels are God’s servants, His messengers, His chariots. They ever hearken to the word of His mouth and do His commands. "And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the Lord beheld, and He repented Him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, Stay now thine hand. . . .And the Lord commanded the angel; and he put his sword again into the sheath thereof" (1 Chron. 21:15, 27). Many other scriptures might be cited to show that the angels are in subjection to the will of their Creator and perform His bidding—"And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent His angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod" (Acts 12:11). "And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to shew unto His servants the things which must shortly be done" (Rev. 22:6). So it will be when our Lord returns: "The Son of Man shall send forth His angels and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity" (Matt. 13:41). Again, we read, "He shall send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matt. 24:31).
The same is true of evil spirits: they, too, fulfil God’s sovereign decrees. An evil spirit is sent by God to stir up rebellion in the camp of Abimelech: "Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem,. . . which aided him in the killing of his brethren" (Judges 9:23). Another evil spirit He sent to be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets—"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee" (1 Kings 22 :23). And yet another was sent by the Lord to trouble Saul—"But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him" (1 Sam. 16:14). So, too, in the New Testament: a whole legion of the demons go not out of their victim until the Lord gave them permission to enter the herd of swine.
It is clear from Scripture, then, that the angels, good and evil, are tinder God’s control, and willingly or unwillingly carry out God’s purpose. Yea, Satan himself is absolutely subject to God’s control. When arraigned in Eden, he listened to the awful sentence, but answered not a word. He was unable to touch Job until God granted him leave. So, too, he had to gain our Lord’s consent before he could "sift" Peter. When Christ commanded him to depart— "Get thee hence, Satan"—we read, "Then the Devil leaveth Him" (Matt. 4:11). And, in the end, he will be cast into the Lake of Fire, which has been prepared for him and his angels.
The Lord God omnipotent reigneth. His government is exercised over inanimate matter, over the brute beasts, over the children of men, over angels good and evil, and over Satan himself. No revolving world, no shining of star, no storm, no creature moves, no actions of men, no errands of angels, no deeds of Devil—nothing in all the vast universe can come to pass otherwise than God has eternally purposed. Here is a foundation for faith. Here is a resting place for the intellect. Here is an anchor for the soul, both sure and steadfast. It is not blind fate, unbridled evil, man or Devil, but the Lord Almighty who is ruling the world, ruling it according to His own good pleasure and for His own eternal glory."
-A.W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God

God is sovereign over what happens in this world

"Let us pursue a similar course of reasoning in connection with the human race. Is God governing this world of ours? Is He shaping the destinies of nations, controlling the course of empires, determining the limits of dynasties? Has He described the limits of evil-doers, saying, Thus far shalt thou go and no further? Let us suppose the opposite for a moment. Let us assume that God has delivered over the helm into the hand of His creatures, and see where such a supposition leads us. For the sake of argument we will say that every man enters this world endowed with a will that is absolutely free, and that it is impossible to compel or even coerce him without destroying his freedom. Let us say that every man possesses a knowledge of right and wrong, that he has the power to choose between them, and that he is left entirely free to make his own choice and go his own way. Then what? Then it follows that man is sovereign, for he does as he pleases and is the architect of his own fortune. But in such a case we can have no assurance that ere long every man will reject the good and choose the evil. In such a case we have no guaranty against the entire human race committing moral suicide. Let all Divine restraints be removed and man be left absolutely free, and all ethical distinctions would immediately disappear, the spirit of barbarism would prevail universally, and pandemonium would reign supreme. Why not? If one nation deposes its rulers and repudiates its constitution, what is there to prevent all nations from doing the same? If little more than a century ago the streets of Paris ran with the blood of rioters, what assurance have we that before the present century closes every city throughout the world will not witness a similar sight? What is there to hinder worldwide lawlessness and universal anarchy? Thus we have sought to show the need, the imperative need, for God to occupy the Throne, take the government upon His shoulder, and control the activities and destinies of His creatures."

Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God

Hume's attack on the empirical arguments for God's existence

"It was David Hume who first among the moderns formulated empiricism as the all-inclusive criterion of truth and applied it to theological assertions with an agnostic outcome. Hume's theory struck hard at the Thomist case for Christian theism, which, in contrast to the Scriptures, rests its argument on empirical considerations rather than divine revelation. Hume insisted that effective scientific inquiry is thwarted unless finite effects are correlated with equivalent causes only, rather than with an infinite cause; moreover, he denied any objective status to causality in nature. The Humean assault on Christian theism is therefore specially directed against the Thomistic contention that the existence of God, and the existence and immortality of the soul, are logically demonstrable simply through empirical considerations independent of divine revelation. Hume's contention was that those who profess theological beliefs on empirical grounds have no right to such believes unless they produce requisite perceptual evidence, and that in the absence of demonstrative empirical proof, belief is unreasonable."- Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority

Double predestination does not eliminate accountability

"As therefore I hold, in truth, that Christ will in the last day recompense unto the elect the reward of righteousness, so I by no means speak falsely when I assert that the reprobate will in that day pay the punishment of their unrighteousness and of all their iniquities. And though I firmly maintain that God, in His eternal counsel, chose those whom He pleased unto life eternal and left those whom He pleased to eternal destruction; yet there will not be found in the whole of my doctrine an assertion, either that there are no punishments ordained for evil works, or that there is no reward ordained for good works."

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism

God's foreknew and elected most freely apart from any consideration of the creature

"God therefore foreknew His own, not as foreseeing their merits - for they had none - but because He cast upon them an eye of mercy and favour, thus distinguishing them from others, and numbering them among His children, notwithstanding all their sin and unworthiness, according to that word of Paul, 'Who maketh thee to differ?'"

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism

He is confidently a Supralapsarianist

Pighius, however, still pushes on his violent opposition, alleging that if what I teach be true, that those who perish were ordained unto everlasting death by the eternal will of GOd, of which the reason is imperceptible to us, the persons so ordained are made worthy of everlasting death, not found so. I reply that three things are here to be considered: 1. That the eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the Fall of Adam, what should take place in the whole human race and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined. 2. That Adam himself, on account of his departure from God, was deservedly appointed to eternal death. 3. And lastly, that in the person of Adam, thus fallen and lost, his whole future offspring were also eternally condemned; but so eternally condemned that God deems worthy the honour of His adoption all those whom He freely chose out of that future offspring. Of these mighty things I have neither dreamed any part, nor fabricated any part.

- John Calvin, Calvin's Calvinism

Conversion is a work of God alone

"It is necessary, on the other hand, to consider the remedy of Divine grace, by which the depravity of nature is corrected and healed. For since the Lord in the assistance which he affords us, bestows on us that which we need, an exhibition of the nature of his work in us will immediately discover the nature of our necessity. When the Apostle tells the Philippians, that he is 'confident that he which hath begun a good work in them will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ;' by the beginning of a good work he undoubtedly designs the commencement of conversion, which takes place in the will. Therefore God begins the good work in us by exciting in our hearts a love, desire, and ardent pursuit of righteousness, or, to speak more properly, by bending, forming, and directing our hearts toward righteousness, but he completes it, by confirming us to perseverance. That no one may cavil, that the good work is begun by the Lord, inasmuch as the will, which is weak of itself, is assisted by him, the Spirit declares in another place how far the ability of the will reaches, when left to itself. 'a new heart also,' says he, 'will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.' Who will assert that the infirmity of the human will is only strengthened by assistance, to enable it efficaciously to aspire to the choice of that which is good, when it actually needs a total transformation and renovation?" - John Calvin, Insistutes, 2. 3. 6.

Turn to God does not mean we by our own will turn to Him

"Our more subtle adversaries cavil at all these testimonies, because there is no impediment, they say, that prevents our exerting our own ability, and God assisting our weak efforts. They adduce also passages from the Prophets, where the accomplishment of our conversion seems to be divided equally between God and us. 'Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you' What assistance we receive from the Lord has already been shown, and needs not to be repeated here. I wish only this single point to be conceded to me, that it is in vain to infer our possession of ability to fulfill the law from God's command to us to obey it; since it is evident, that for the performance of all the Divine precepts, the grace of the Legislator is both necessary for us, and promised to us; and hence it follows that at least more is required of us than we are capable of performing. Nor is it possible for any cavils to explain away that passage of Jeremiah, which assures us, that the covenant of God, made with his ancient people, was frustrated because it was merely a literal one, and that it can only be confirmed by the influence of the Spirit, who forms the heart to obedience. Nor does their error derive any support from this passage: 'Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you' For this denotes, not that turning of God in which he renovates our hearts to repentance, but that in which he declares his benevolence and kindness by external prosperity; as by adversity he sometimes manifests his displeasure. When the people of Israel, therefore, after having been harassed with miseries and calamites under various forms, complained that God was departed from them, he replies that his benignity will not fail them if they return to rectitude of life, and to himself, who is the standard of righteousness. The passage, then is miserably perverted, when it is made to represent the work of conversion as divided between God and men. We have observed the greater brevity on these points, because it will be a more suitable place for this argument when we treat of the Law." John Calvin, Institutes. 2. 5. 9.

What we should say?

"He [Latomus] says that I lack the evangelical modesty which I enjoin, and that this is especially true of the book in which I replied to the sophists of Louvain when they condemned my teachings. Now I have never insisted that anyone consider me modest or holy, but only that everyone recognize what the gospel is. If they do this, I give anyone freedom to attack my life to his heart's content. My boast is that I have injured no one's life or reputation, but only sharply reproached, as godless and sacrilegious, those assertions, inventions, and doctrines which are against the Word of God. I do not apologize for this, for I have good precedents. John the Baptist [Luke 3:7] and Christ after him [Matt. 23:33] called the Pharisees the 'offspring of vipers.' So excessive and outrageous was this abuse of such learned, holy, powerful, and honored men that they said in reply that He had a demon [John 7:20]. If in this instance Latomus had been judge, I wonder what the verdict would have been! Elsewhere Christ calls them 'blind' [Matt. 23:16], 'crooked,' 'liars,' 'sons of the devil' [John 8:44, 55]. Good God, even Paul lacked evangelical modesty when he anathematized the teachers of the Galatians [Gal. 1:8] who were, I suppose, great men. Others he calls 'dogs' [Phil. 3:2], 'empty talkers' [Tit. 1:10], 'deceivers' [Col. 2:4, 8]. Further, he accused to his face the magician Elymas with being a 'son of the devil, full of all deceit and villainy' [Acts 13:10].
I hold that the sophists have no right to judge me, for they themselves see that my work does not disagree with the apostles, Christ, and the prophets. But according to such teachers as Latomus, in our day we show evangelical modesty when we kneel before godless and blasphemous bishops and sophists, and say: 'Gracious Lord, your Grace does well; distinguished Master, your Excellency speaks well.' If you tell them what they are - ignorant, stupid, godless blasphemers against God's Word, doing incalculable damage to the service of God and souls - then you are called one who offends against the whole gospel." - Martin Luther, Against Latomus