God's hardening of individuals is not always retributive

"The third account or cause why we are in error, according to our worthy friend Georgius, is because though the Scripture does indeed make mention of men being 'blinded' and hardened,' yet we do not bear in mind that such greater punishments are inflicted on sins of greater magnitude. We, however, on our part, do not deny that which is clearly confirmed by numberless testimonies of the Scripture, that God punishes with blindness, and with many other modes of judgment, contempt of His grace, pride, obstinacy, and many other kindred sins. And, indeed, all those conspicuous punishments, of which mention is made throughout the Scriptures, ought to be referred to that general view of the righteous judgment of God in the display of which we ever see, that those who have not duly feared God, after they had known Him, nor have reverenced Him as they ought, have been 'given over to a reprobate mind,' and left to wallow in every kind of uncleanness and lust. but on this deep subject we shall dwell more fully hereafter.
Although, therefore, the Lord doth thus strike the wicked with vindictive madness and consternation, and doth thus repay them with the punishment they deserve; yet this does not at all alter the fact that there is, in all the reprobate generally, a blindness and an obstinate hardness of heart. So, when Pharaoh is said to have been 'hardened' of God, he was already, in himself, worthy of being delivered over unto Satan by the Most High. Moses, however, also testifies that Pharaoh had been before blinded of God 'for this very purpose' (Exod. 9.16). Nor does Paul add any other cause for this, than Pharaoh was one of the reprobate (Rom. 9.17). In this same manner also does the apostle demonstrate that the Jews, when God had deprived them of the light of understanding, and had permitted them to fall into horrible darkness, suffered thereby the righteous punishments of their wicked contempt of grace of God. And yet the apostle plainly intimates that this same blindness is justly inflicted of God upon all reprobates generally. For he testifies that the 'remnant' were saved 'according to the election of grace,' but that all 'the rest were blinded.' If, then, all 'the rest,' in the salvation of whom the election of God does not reign, are 'blinded,' it is doubtlessly and undeniably manifest that those same persons who, by their rebellion and provocation of the wrath of God, procured to themselves this additional blindness, were themselves from the beginning ordained to blindness." - John Calvin, The Eternal Predestination of God, Pg.162

Arthur W. Pink also says the same thing in the Sovereignty of God. He says God's hardness is not just retributive justice but, he does hardens those whom he pleases.

Love is a volition and not an emotion

"Palmer (pp. 77, 78) stresses man's need of regeneration because of total depravity. Well and good. But to substantiate man's sinfulness, after speaking of man's intellect and will, he adds, 'And as far as his emotions are concerned, he cannot love God, 'because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God' (Romans 8:7).' That an unregenerate man cannot love God is indubitably true, but the 'mind of the flesh' is not the emotions. The history of orthodox theology, at least from Augustine on, teaches that Biblical love is a volition, not an emotion. Paul himself has small respect for the emotions. In Colossians 3:5 he says, 'Mortify therefore your members which are upon earth, fornication, uncleanness, pathos, inordinate affections. . . .' The New American Standard translates the last two words as 'evil desire.' Desire may or may not be an emotion; fornication and uncleanness seem to be emotions; and pathos surely is.  The New American Standard translates it 'passion' - the English cognate. Arndt and Gingrich give 'suffering' which makes no sense in this verse, and then add 'passion, especially of a sexual nature,' and also 'anger.' The supreme of all lexicons, Liddell and Scott, has accident, experience, misfortune, death. None of these make sense in this verse. But the continuation is, emotion, passion, sensation, and in literature, emotional style. Paul therefore instructs us to suppress our emotions; and if so, love is not an emotion. It is a volition. Palmer himself escapes nearly all the religious deterioration this misinterpretation has so widely caused in recent years. But the congregations subjected to semi-Christian psychologies need constant warnings." - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 32 -33

Regeneration presuppose Total Depravity

"The idea of regeneration presupposes that men are sinners. This does not mean simply - ah, yes, even the statement that men are sinners requires explanation, for Protestants and Catholics, Calvinists and Arminians, differ as to what sin is - so this does not mean simply that men, even all men, occasionally do something wrong. It means that they were born in sin and in sin did their mothers conceive them. It means that all human beings are totally depraved, i.e., sin affects their total personality, and that therefore they cannot save themselves, or even help to save themselves from that condition." -Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 31-32

The Spirit's work in Regeneration to Glorify God

"Inspiration was an act of the Spirit on a special group of people, enabling them to perform a task no others were permitted to do. There is another act of the Spirit which applies to a large group irrespective of their individual personalities. In fact, there are two. As such they can be discussed before itemizing more particular examples. The first of these is regeneration. At the beginning of Kuyper's gigantic volume, he takes pains to say that the chief purpose of the Spirit is not to regenerate sinners, but to glorify God. 'The chief thing is not that the elect be fully saved, but that God be justified in all His works . . .' (p. 9). Undoubtedly this is so; but anyone whether the Spirit or a human being, or even an animal, can glorify God in several ways. For that matter the inanimate planets and the sands of the sea glorify God. Hence what attracts our attention now is not so much the Spirit's ultimate purpose as it is one chosen activity for accomplishing it." - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 31

The Devil will attempt to use the heresy of Arminianism or Hyper-Calvinism

"Where the truth is and where, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the truth is being developed, there the devil will also be found working. He is subtle. If he cannot prevent the recovery of the gospel of grace, he will try to turn grace into license. If he fails to destroy the Reformed faith with the doctrine of universal grace, dependent upon the will of man - the well-meant offer - he will endeavor to prevent this faith by a denial of the serious call of the gospel to all hearers and by a questioning of the church's duty and right to bring this command to all nations and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction." - David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, Pg. 184-185

Those who hold to the Truth of God's free and sovereign grace found in the Gospel must not back down

"This temptation, of course, must be decisively rejected. Error cannot be fought with error but only with the truth. The Reformation faith has always been characterized by a refusal to become reactionary. It has never allowed heresy to drive it into the opposite error. It will not engage in theology or preach out of fear. Steadfastly, it insists on being biblical.
The outstanding example of this is the Synod of Dordt. The Reformed churches were confronted with the false doctrine of man's salvation of himself by his free will. Basic to this error was the teaching that the preaching of the gospel is God's gracious effort to save every man. The Reformed fathers viewed this error as a perversion of the gospel, the destruction of the Reformed churches, and the robbery of the glory of God in his greatest work, the work of salvation.
The vehemence of their opposition to the Arminian heresy might have led the fathers to react by slighting the importance of the preaching of the gospel and by denying the serious call of God to everyone to whom the gospel comes. But such was not at all the case." - David J. Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, Pg. 181-182

The Law's promises are made on condition, whereas the Gospel promises are made without the condition

"Law and Gospel differ, in the third place, by reason of their promises. What the Law promises is just as great a boon as what the Gospel promises, namely, everlasting life and salvation. But at this point we are confronted with a mighty difference: All promises of the Law are made on certain conditions, namely, on the condition that we fulfill the Law perfectly. Accordingly, the promises of the Law are the more disheartening, the greater they are. The Law offers us food, but does not hand it down to use where we can reach it. It offers us salvation in about the same manner as refreshments were offered to Tantalus in the hell of the pagan Greeks. It says to us indeed: 'I will quench the thirst of your soul and appease your hunger.' But it is not able to accomplish this because it always adds: 'All this you shall have if you do what I command.'
Over and against this note the lovely, sweet, and comforting language of the Gospel. It promises us the grace of God and salvation without any condition whatsoever. It is a promise of free grace. It asks nothing of us but this, 'Take what I give, and you have it.' That is not a condition, but a kind invitation." - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, Pg. 10

The Law demands, but the Gospel gives

"Gal. 3, 12 we read: The Law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. This is an exceedingly important passage. The Law has nothing to say about forgiveness, about grace. The Law does not say: 'If you are contrite, if you begin to make amends, the remainder of your trespasses will be forgiven.' Not a word of this found in the Law. The Law issues only commands and demands. The Gospel, on the other hand, only makes offers. It means, not to take anything, but only to give.
Accordingly we read, John 1, 17: The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. What a momentous statement this is: the Gospel contains nothing but grace and truth! When reading the Law, pondering it, and measuring our conduct against its teaching, we are terrified by the multitude of demands which it makes upon us. If nothing else were told us, we should be hurled into despair - we should be lost. God be praised! there is still another doctrine, the Gospel. To that we cling." - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, Pg. 9

The Proper distinction of Law and Gospel helps removes riddles; a.k.a paradoxes

"Comparing Holy Scripture with other writings, we observe that no book is apparently so full of contradictions as the Bible, and that, not only in minor points, but in the principal matter, in the doctrine how we may come to God and be saved. In one place the Bible offers forgiveness to all sinners: in another place forgiveness of sins is withheld from all sinners. In one passage a free offer of life everlasting is made to all men; in another, men are directed to do something themselves towards being saved. This riddle is solved when we reflect that there are in the Scriptures two entirely different doctrines, the doctrine of the Law and the doctrine of the Gospel." - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel, Pg. 6

Aside from justification, the law and gospel distinction must be understood

"Now, of all doctrines the foremost and most important is the doctrine of justification. However, immediately following upon it, as second in importance, is this, how Law and Gospel are to be divided. The distinction between the Law and the Gospel shall now claim our attention and form the subject of our earnest study." -C. F. W. Walther, The Proper distinction between Law and Gospel, Pg. 5

Only the Bible is the source of truth

"As we have seen, for Gordon Clark, there is no other source of divine, special revelation: The Bible alone is God's Word. Full authority is vested only in the Scriptures. As with the Westminster Assembly, Dr. Clark ruled out any other source of truth. The Apocryphal writings, the traditions of men (as per Rome), spiritual mysticism (as per Emanuel Swedenborg [1688 - 1772] and Mary Baker Eddy [1821 - 1910], existential experiences (as per Friedrich Schleiermacher [1768 - 1834] and Albrecht Ritschl [1822 - 1889]), and religious encounter theology (as per neo-orthodoxy), are all denied as a source of divine revelation. Not even councils and synods of orthodox churches hold sway over the sole source of truth: Holy Scripture." - W. Gary Crampton, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 72

The Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son

"As for Romans 8:26, 27 we see that the Spirit helps us by teaching us how to pray. He himself also prays for us, and this indicates the address of one person to another. The Spirit is not  the Father: He speaks to the Father. The point is important because someone, willing to grant that the Spirit is personal, may wish to identify the Spirit with the Father so as to have only one person. This verse, along with others, keeps the two persons distinct." - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 18

The Holy Spirit speaks

"A group of only two verses, however explicit they may be, will strike many readers as insufficient. Therefore a larger group, though not really required, will contribute corroboration. Then too, the aim is not rigidly restricted to the proof of the Spirit's personality, but expands to a general view of what the New Testament has to say. As will become clear later on, we want to know, not merely that the Spirit is a person; we also want to know what sort of person he is. Now, one thing that two persons can do. which non-persons cannot, except in poetic fancy, is to talk to each other. The delirious Keats once addressed a Grecian urn, but the urn never replied. Contrariwise, the Holy Spirit speaks and is spoken to. Consider these verses. In each there is an example of the Spirit's speaking. No one verse exhausts the range of his conversation, but each is sufficient to show that he speaks." - Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 17-18

(John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13, 14; Acts 13:2, 21:11; Romans 8:26, 27; Galatians 4:6; 1 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 2:7)

Gordon H. Clark on theologians who spout meaningless verbage on top of encouragement not to understand

"It is true that systematic theologies say very little. But are there not special works on the Spirit? W. H. Griffith-Thomas is rather pessimistic. 'The probable explanation of some modern [distorted] views on the subject [of Christ, salvation, and the Scriptures] is the absence of any true doctrine of the Holy Spirit. It is significant that amid the multitude of theological works of high value which have proceeded from able writers in Germany, England, Scotland, and America during the last century, very few have treated with anything like proper fulness and emphasis the Scripture revelation of the Holy Spirit' (the Holy Spirit of God, The Bible Institute Colportage Association, 1913, p. 162).
This judgment seems a bit harsh, even if restricted to the nineteenth century. Perhaps Robert Phillip's Love of the Spirit (1832) and C.R. Vaughn's The Gift of the Holy Spirit (1894) do not qualify as 'works of high value . . . from able writers . . . with the proper fullness.' Many volumes on the Holy Spirit are distressingly vague. Their devotional language may stir the emotions of some people, but they disappoint all who wish to understand what God teaches. The book last mentioned, since it was reprinted in 1975, serves as a good example. Strangely enough it does not get to the personality of the Spirit until the fourteenth chapter of Part Two, the final chapter in the book, although one would expect this subject to come in the first or at least in the second chapter. regeneration precedes personality in chapters six to nine of Part One. The negations in these chapters are for the most part true. He speaks of the necessity of regeneration; he denies that it is merely a 'change in the external relations effected by a visible rite' (p. 136); and 'all attempts to identify this change with the ordinance of baptism . . . are useless. But the positive statements convey little meaning. For example, 'The new birth also involves the creation and the grant of a new nature . . . gaining a new nature, making a new man . . . introducing this new nature into a new life . . . new views, new feelings . . . new action determined by this great change' (p. 135).
Now these sentences are not so much false as meaningless. Literally they are true, but they do not distinguish feelings and actions resulting from regeneration by the Holy Spirit from feelings and actions resulting from other sources. Various people have various feelings and various views. Stalin, or was it Lenin? was once a seminary student; he then experienced a great change so that he had other views, new feelings, and different actions.
Furthermore, though regeneration may give one a new nature, the theologian quoted does not tell us what is meant by nature. This criticism is not simply a conclusion which a reader might infer. It is explicitly stated: 'It is obvious from these positive and most peculiar statements that all attempts to construe the Christian doctrine of regeneration out of all its high mysterious and spiritual significance must be altogether incompetent interpretations of the language used to describe it in the sacred record.' In other words, we should not try to understand the Bible." -Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit, Pg. 2-3

Faith makes the reception of the 'sacrament' worthy; and this Faith gives us assurance

"In our discussion of the chief thing we have come to the reception of the sacrament, which we have not yet finished. Today we shall see how we must conduct ourselves here, and also who is worthy to receive the sacrament and who belongs there.
It is very necessary here that your hearts and consciences be well instructed and that you make a big distinction between outward reception and inner and spiritual reception. Bodily and outward reception is that in which a man receives with his mouth the body of Christ and his blood, and doubtless any man can receive the sacrament in this way, without faith and love. But this does not make a man a Christian, for if it did, even a mouse would be a Christian, for it, too, can eat the bread and perchance even drink out of the cup.
I would say in the first place that this reception occurs in faith and is inward and will have Christ. There is no external sign by which we Christians may be distinguished from others except this sacrament and baptism, but without faith outward reception is nothing. There must be faith to make the reception worthy and acceptable before God, otherwise it is nothing but sham and a mere external show, which is not Christianity at all. Christianity consists solely in faith, and no outward work must be attached to it.
But faith (which we all must have, if we wish to go to the sacrament worthily) is a firm trust that Christ, the Son of God, stands in our place and has taken all our sins upon his shoulders and that he is the eternal satisfaction for our sin and reconciles us with the God the Father. he who has this faith is the very one who takes his rightful place at this sacrament, and neither devil nor hell nor sin can harm him. Why? because God is his protector and defender. And when I have this faith, then I am certain God is fighting for me; I can defy the devil, death, hell, and sin, and all the harm with which they threaten me. This is the great, inestimable treasure given us in Christ, which no man can describe or grasp in words. Only faith can take hold of the heart, and not every one has such faith [II Thess. 3:2]." - Martin Luther, Eight Sermons at Wittenberg, Pg. 256-257

But in Faith

"If you want to show that you are good Christians by handling the sacrament and boast of it before the world, then Herod and Pilate are the chief and best Christians, since it seems to me that they really handled the body of Christ when they had him nailed to the cross and put to death. No, my dear friends, the kingdom of God does not consist in outward things, which can be touched or perceived, but in faith [Luke 17:20; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20]." - Martin Luther, Eight Sermons at Wittenberg, Pg. 253

Preaching no more than what the Bible says

"The second text is Matthew 23:2-3, where the Lord says, 'The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you.'
'Here, here,' they say, 'we have authority to teach what we think to be right.'
I reply: if that is what Christ means, then we are in a sorry plight. Then every pope might create more new laws, until the world could no longer contain them all. But they treat this text just like the previous one. What does it mean to sit in Moses' seat? Let us ask, what did Moses teach? And if he were still sitting in his seat today, what would he be teaching? Beyond a doubt, nothing but what he taught of old, namely, the commandments and word of God. He has never yet uttered any doctrine of men. Rather as almost every chapter shows, he spoke what God commanded him to speak.
It follows, then, that he who teaches something different from Moses does not sit in Moses' seat. For the Lord calls it Moses' seat, because from it the doctrine of Moses should be spoken and taught. The same meaning is contained in the words which follow, where the Lord says, 'But do not do what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger' [Matt. 23:3-4].
See, here he takes their works to task, because they lay many laws beyond the doctrines of Moses on men's shoulders, laws which they themselves will not touch. And afterward he says, 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! who say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if anyone sears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools. For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred?' [Matt. 23:16-17]. Is it not clear enough here that Christ condemns their man-made doctrines? He can, therefore, not have sanctioned them by speaking of sitting in Moses' seat; else he would have  contradicted himself. Therefore Moses' seat must mean no more than the law of Moses, and the sitting in it no more than the preaching of the law of Moses." - Martin Luther, Avoiding the Doctrines of Men, Pg. 224 - 225

To preach the Kingdom is to preach the Gospel and not the doctrines of men

"The first such text Luke 10:16, where Christ says, 'He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me.' He says the same thing in Matthew 10:40 and in Mark 6:11. Here, they claim, Christ demands of us that we accept their man-made laws.
I reply: That is not true. For immediately before speaking these words, Christ says, 'Go your way and say, the kingdom of God is at hand.' With these words Christ stops the mouths of all the teachers of the doctrines of men and instructs the apostles what they are to teach. He himself puts the word into their mouth, saying that they shall preach of the kingdom of God. Now he who does not preach of the kingdom of God is not sent by Christ, and to him these words do not apply. Rather do these words demand of us that we should not listen to the doctrines of men.
Now to preach of the kingdom of God is nothing else than to preach the gospel, in which is taught the faith of Christ by which alone God dwells and rules in us. But the doctrines of men do not preach about faith, but about eating, clothing, times, places, persons, and about purely external matters which are of no profit to the soul.
Now look at the pious shepherds and faithful teachers, how honestly they have dealt with the poor common people. This text, 'Who hears you, hears me,' they have in a masterful fashion torn out of its context and have terrified us with it, until they have subjugated us unto themselves. But what precedes, 'Preach about the kingdom of God,' they have taken good care not to mention. Bravely have they leaped over it, so that by no means should they be compelled to preach only the Gospel. These noble and most excellent teachers! And we are even supposed to thank them in addition!
Again, in Mark, the last chapter [16:15], where Christ was sending out the disciples to preach, let us hear how he gives them commandment, sets a limit to their teaching, and bridles their tongues when he says, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes will be saved,' etc. He does not say, 'God and preach what you like, or what you think to be right.' But he puts his own word into their mouth and bids them preach the gospel.
He says the same thing again in the last chapter of Matthew [28:19], 'God and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.' See, here again he does not say, 'Teach them to observe what you invent,' but what I have commanded you. Therefore it cannot be otherwise: the pope and his bishops and teachers must be wolves and apostles of the devils, for they teach not the commands of Christ, but their own words.
So also in Matthew 25[:14-15], in the parable of the three servants, the Lord points out that the householder instructed the servants to trade not with their own property but with his, and gave the first five talents, the next two, and the third one." - Martin Luther, Avoiding the Doctrines of Men, Pg. 223 - 224

Elected not on the basis of foreseen works

"It is of course true that God knows the future, and it is equally true that history unfolds just as God knows it will. Certainly all things happen according to the foreknowledge of God. But, as the Westminster Confession, Chapter III, section ii, so explicitly states, 'Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed any thing because he forsaw it as future.' In very simple language, 'according to' and 'because of'' do not mean the same thing. Consider a railroad schedule. The trains run according to the timetable (or should), but it is not the timetable that determines their progress. The type of engine, the weight of the load, the traffic, the stability of the roadbed, the purpose of the train - all these determine the schedule. Thus the train runs according to the schedule, and if we know the schedule, they run according to our foreknowledge, but not because of it. Similarly with election. The mere fact that God knows ahead of time that a man will trust Christ is not the causal explanation of election. Election does not depend on God's knowledge of the future.
This popular confusion of phrases like 'according to' and 'because of' is also evident in a current interpretation of the Lord's Prayer. Some modern dispensationalist argue that Christians today should not use the Lord's Prayer because it says, 'Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.' Since we are saved by free grace in this age, we ask forgiveness not on the basis of our forgiving others but on the basis of Christ's righteousness. So far so good. But then dispensationalism says that in the millennium people will be saved by works, and will then pray to be forgiven on the basis of their conduct. In opposition to dispensationalism the Bible knows only one way of salvation, the glorious way of the cross. And the Lord's Prayer does not request forgiveness on the basis of our forgiving spirit, but modestly and in a humbling fashion beseeches forgiveness from God in proportion as we forgive others. A little attention to words, to prepositions, would save a person from such absurd and sinful doctrinal error." - Gordon H. Clark, New Heavens, New Earth, Pg. 88 - 89

It is not by our self-righteous works we are saved but solely the imputed righteousness of Christ alone

"If God promises riches, the way thereto is poverty. Whom he loveth him he chasteneth, whom he exalteth, he casteth down, whom he saveth he damneth first. He bringeth no man to heaven except he send him to hell first. If he promise life he slayeth first, when he buildeth, he casteth all down first. He is no patcher, he cannot build on another man's foundation. He will not work until all be past remedy and brought unto such a case, that men may see how that his hand, his power, his mercy, his goodness and truth hath wrought all together." -William Tyndale, The obedience of a Christian Man

Not Justification by obedience but prayer by obedience

18My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. 19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. 21Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. 22And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. - 1 John 3


"It seems to me that the commentators are not completely honest on this point. Lenski says, 'Scoffers challenge us to ask this or that folly which they propose and feel sure that we shall not get what we ask.' But it is not a question of asking follies. It is not even a matter of personal advantage. We pray for the safety of missionaries, children, and natives. Then Idi Amin shoots down their plane and bludgeons the survivors to death. God has not given what we asked for. How then can A.W. Pink say, 'It is certainly a strong assertion . . . altogether unqualified, absolute and unrestricted.' Of course, Pink can say this much. It is precisely in accord with the text. But then Pink continues, 'We are on such terms with God that he will deny us nothing- that is the plain unequivocal meaning of what John says. And it is not to be modified or explained away by any supposed exceptions or reservations. It must be taken in all its breadth as literally true, in connection with the practice on which it is dependent. That practice is obedience.'
Now, I am willing to admit that I am not so perfectly obedient to God's commands as to receive an affirmative answer to all my prayers, or any of them for that matter. But is there not some more devout Christian in the world who has prayed the same prayers? Were John's Christians in Asia Minor sufficiently obedient? Or did they not pray that persecution would end? Presumably they prayed that John would not be boiled in oil, or that Paul would not be beaten and stoned. But they did not receive what they asked for. To whom, then, does John's promise apply? I wonder if I could twist the Greek and make it read, 'And if we ask, what we receive from him, we receive because we keep his commandments'? But the Greek scholars will shake their heads.
The remainder of the verse, beginning with the word because, is easy to exegete. The only difficulty  is an unwarranted assumption that the doctrine of Justification by faith alone is compromised. These words have to do with answers to prayer, not with justification. Neither our prayers nor our obedience are grounds for justification; but God has made obedience a ground for granting our requests. And the whole has as its background our assurance or boldness before him. Thus, there is no hint here of justification by obedience: it is answer to prayer by obedience." - Gordon H. Clark, First John, Pg. 115-116

Irrationalism denies the possibility of truth

"Irrationalism, fostered by such men as Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), and neo-orthodox theologians, is a form of skepticism. It is antirational and anti-intellectual. Actual truth, say the skeptic, can never be attained; rational attempts to explain the world leave us in despair. Reality cannot be communicated propositionally, it must be grasped 'personally and passionately' (Kierkegaard); truth must be sought in inward experiences, that is, subjectively." - W. Gary Crampton, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 24.

The word of God is alone sufficient

"The Bible, infallibly, and the Westminster Confession, in compliance with the Bible, both teach the sufficiency of Scripture, neither science, nor history, nor philosophy is needed to give knowledge. There is no 'two-source' theory of knowledge taught in the Word of God. As Paul clearly stated in the first two chapters of 1 Corinthians, the wisdom of the world is foolishness, and man is not able to come to the knowledge of the truth apart from the Spirit-revealed propositions of Scripture. The Bible is sufficient for all the truth we need and all the knowledge we can have. Here alone do we find, writes Solomon, 'the certainty of the words of truth' (Proverbs 22:17-21). This is Scripturalism." - W. Gary Crampton, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 16

Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark

"As a Scripturalist, Dr. Clark maintained that Christians should never try to combine secular and Christian notions. Rather, all thoughts are to be brought into captivity to the Word of God (2 Corinthians 10:5), which is (a part of) the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16). Scripturalism teaches that all our knowledge is to be derived from the Bible, which has a systematic monopoly on truth." -W. Gary Crampton, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 15

What is wrong with Macarthur?

"What kind of faith is it that permits a person, having affirmed Jesus Christ as Jehovah God, to continue in an unbroken pattern of sin and rebellion?" - John Macarthur, The Gospel according to Jesus, ed. 2008, pg. 80 The answer to John's question is that a faith that is based on the sole person and work of Christ Jesus' righteousness alone imputed to them who are the elect of God through faith in His blood. Faith that saves is a faith that assents to the gospel proposition. Macarthur is going to say that the gospel does not save (baffling seeing how he is a teacher). Macarthur says, "True faith embraces not only the data of the gospel, but the Person of Christ as well." Pg. 81 But how do we know of the person of Christ unless through the data of the gospel? Macarthur here is making distinctions that should not be made. Now I am having issues with Macarthur embellishing the meaning of words and also even finding him equivocating words throughout this book. As a Calvinist I believe in the sovereignty of God or as he likes to put it in the Lordship of God. But this has nothing to do with me believing that I make Christ Lord of my life in salvation. Christ is sovereign over salvation but this hardly equates that I will obey him (completely or even at all). Salvation is salvation from sin and from it's consequences; i.e. damnation. If Macarthur wants to say that I believe in Christ because of fire insurance then so be it. I will also charge him that he is doing the same.

Those who already died and have been judged to Hell were not redeemed by Christ's blood

"Since the world cannot receive him (Jn 14:17), it cannot for this reason say that it has been redeemed by Christ's blood. For whoever says this says nothing, and for this reason he does not say anything even now, because he does not say this in the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17; 16:13). For what he says is false and for this reason he does not say anything now because what he says is nothing. For if the baptized reprobate were redeemed by the blood of Christ's cross, they were therefore also saved and set free by him. But those who have been quite rightly already judged, already condemned, already predestined to everlasting death by Christ himself and, as has been said, rightly already hurled down into it, were not saved and set free by him. Therefore, they were not redeemed by the blood of his cross. And so let the mute dog ceasing from barking, for Christ is truly the redeemer, savior, and deliverer not of two worlds, but of one, that is, of the elect world alone, namely, his body. Whoever does not see this blind; whoever denies this is slain." - Gottschalk of Orbais, Gottschalk and A Medieval Predestination Controversy

The Cross was only for the elect alone

"Let him hear this, who proudly preferred or perhaps still prefers nature to grace. That antiphon that you sing with due reverence concerning the holy cross: 'O admirable cross, removal of the wound, restoration of health,' overthrows more clearly than daylight and dispels the error that is fabricated as it were concerning the baptized reprobate having been redeemed by it. For since it is certain that this cross neither ever was nor ever is a 'removal of the wound' or 'restoration of health' for any of them, it is certainly clear that the redemption of none of them was brought about on it, but only of the elect who alone are believed and recognized ot be the world redeemed by Christ's passion, that is, as they as suppliants say to their redeemer: 'We adore you, O Christ, and bless you, for by your cross you have redeemed the world,' and they alone say: 'But we have to boast in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ by which we have been saved and set free.' For no one can say that Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3), that is, as explained by Saint Augustine: 'In heart, in mouth, in deed, in spirit, in words, and in action no one can say that Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).'" - Gottschalk of Orbais, Gottschalk and A Medieval Predestination Controversy, Pg. 108-9

If Christ died for the reprobate then they would be saved

If Christ had suffered for the reprobate, which is truly by no means so, then it would have been most truthfully known, most certainly held, and intrepidly asserted that none of them - I do not mean: Not all of them - would eternally perish, for whom, as it is known, such a high price has been shed. But as it is wholly evident that this is most false, the Lord God will rightly tell them: Depart, you accursed ones, into everlasting fire (Mt 25:41). -Gottschalk of Orbais, Gottschalk and A Medieval Predestination controversy, pg. 152

The elect are sanctified only by the sufferings and death of Christ on the cross

"The Apostle adds for the purpose of more clearly explaining what the will of God referred to in the prophetic oracle meant, - ver. 10- 'By the which will' - according to which benignant good pleasure of God - 'we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.' The will of God was completely fulfilled in Christ's offering His body once for all for the sanctification of His people. The sanctification of Christ's people does not mean exclusively or primarily the making them inherently holy; - it means the expiation of their sins, leading to the remission of their sins, the quieting of the conscience, the purifying of the heart, and thus to the consecrating of them to God as 'a peculiar people.' This was done by the one offering of the body of Christ; i.e., by what He did and suffered in their nature, and in their room. In this way the will of God was accomplished. He was glorified in man's salvation. Justice was satisfied, and mercy had free course. This was the work the law could not do, but which God has done by the incarnation and sacrifice of His Son." - John Brown, Epistle to the Hebrews, pg. 443

Return to me and I will return to you

"The Papists allege this passage in defense of free-will; but it is a most puerile sophistry. They say that the turning of God to men is the same as their turning to him, as though God promised the grace of his Spirit as a help, when men anticipate him. They imagine then that free-will precedes, and then that the help of the Spirit follows. But this is very gross and absurd. The Prophet indeed means that God would return to the Jews; for he shows that God would in every respect be a father to them, when they showed themselves to be dutiful and respectful children. We must therefore remember that God does not here promise the aid of his Spirit to assist free-will, and to help the efforts of man, as these foolish and senseless teachers imagine, but that he promises to return to the Jews to bless them. Hence the return of God here is nothing else than the prosperity which they desired; as though he had said -- 'Fear me from the heart, and ye shall not labor under hunger and thirst; for I shall satisfy you, as neither your fields nor your vines shall hereafter disappoint your hopes. Ye shall find me most bountiful, when ye deal with me in a faithful manner.' This is the meaning.We must further bear in mind, that, according to the common usage of Scripture, whenever God exhorts us to repentance, he does not regard what our capacity is, but demands what is justly his right. Hence the Papists adopt what is absurd when they deduce the power of free-will from the command or exhortation to repent: God, they say, would not have commanded what is not in our power to do. It is a foolish and most puerile mode of reasoning; for if everything which God requires were in our power, the grace of the Holy Spirit would be superfluous; it would not only be as they say a waiting-mind, but it would be wholly unnecessary; but if men need the aid of the Spirit, it follows that they cannot do what God requires of them. But it seems strange that God should bid men to do more than what they can. It seems so indeed, I allow, when we form our judgment according to the common perception of the flesh; but when we understand these truths -- that the law works wrath -- that it increases sin -- that it was given that transgression might be made more evident, then the false notion -- that God requires nothing but what men can perform, comes to nothing. But it is enough for us to know, that God in exhorting us to repentance requires nothing but what nature dictates ought to be done by us. Since it is so, however short we are in the performance, it is not right to charge God with too much strictness, that he demands what is beyond our power." - John Calvin, Commentary on Zechariah


We are God's creatures and God has the right to command whatever he so pleases for us to do though we cannot attain to it.