The reception of that gift is faith: faith means not doing something but receiving something; it means not the earning of a reward but the acceptance of a gift. A man can never be said to obtain a thing for himself if he obtains it by faith; indeed to say that he obtains it by faith is only another way of saying that he does not obtain it for himself but permits another to obtain it for him. Faith, in other words, is not active but passive; and to say that we are saved by faith is to say that we do not save ourselves but are saved only by the one in whom our faith is reposed; the faith of mam presupposes the sovereign grace of God. - J. Gresham Machen, What is Faith, pg. 195
"And so at every mention of mercy we must remember that this requires faith, which accepts the promise of mercy. Similarly, at every mention of faith we are thinking of its object, the promised mercy. For faith does not justify or save because it is a good work in itself, but only because it accepts the promised mercy." - Apology of thr Augsburg Confession, The book of Concord, pg. 114
Wherefore it is necessary to come to this remedy; that believers should conclude that they cannot hope for an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven on any other foundation, but because, being ingrafted into the body of Christ, they are gratuitously accounted righteous. For with respect to justification, faith is a thing merely passive, bringing nothing of our own to conciliate the favour of God, but reserving what we need from Christ. - John Calvin, The Institutes, 3. 13. 5. Pg. 688
"Now faith is called justifying, only as it hath justification for its object, and as it goes out to Christ for justification; so that all that shall be spoken must be confines to this alone, as the intendment of the next." -Thomas Goodwin, Christ the Object of Faith, pg. 13
Archibald Alexander also says our faith is not the righteousness which is the ground of justification and that those who say it is are pure Arminians. He says, "The theory of justification whixh considers the act of believing the ground of our acceptance with God is, perhaps, the most plausible of any of our erroneous schemes of justification, for the single reason that it has the appearance of scriptural support. This is pure Arminianism, as held and inculcated by Arminius himself; also Limborch, and by Whitby." - A Treatise on Justification by Faith, pg. 14
"It is Christ's blood that stamps all virtue upon our faith. No virtue or influence whatever can be added by our faith, to or upon that blood. Observe, how in Rom. 5:9, it is 'justified by his blood,' and faith not at all expressed." - Joseph Hussey, God's Operations of Grace, Pg. 162 - 163
"Faith is the tongue that begs pardon? Faith is the hand that receives it, it is the eye that seeth it; but it is no price to buy it. Faith useth the gospel-plea for pardon; but itself, neither in habit nor act, is the plea itself. That is only Christ's blood. Christ's blood goes for the remission of your sins, if ever they be forgiven; and is the only plea to be heard at the throne of grace." - Robert Traill, Sermons concerning the Throne of Grace, pg. 31, Vol 1
In the same volume work, Traill says, "That faith in Jesus Christ doth justify (although by the way it is to be noted, that it is never written in the word, that faith justifieth actively, but always passively: that a man is justified by faith, and that God justifieth men by, and through faith; yet admitting the phrase) only as a mere instrument receiving that imputed righteousness of Christ, for which we are justified." - Robert Trail, The Doctrine of Justification Vindicated, Pg. 277
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Calvinism. Show all posts
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Praise God that He determines all things
"We thank God almighty that the Bible does not teach the lie that man has free will. We are grateful to God that the Bible reveals to us that Jehovah determines all things, especially the will of man - and that no created being has free will. The Bible says: 'Every man's judgment cometh from the Lord' Proverbs 29:26. This simple and clear declarative verse from the Book of Proverbs teaches Biblical determinism. Notice that this verse does NOT say: 'Although every man has free will, every man's judgment also cometh from the Lord.' No, the Bible will not, and does not contradict itself - despite the claims of Van Tilians and Compatibilist." - Monty L. Collier, A Unique Kind Of Righteousness, pg. 84
Monday, November 5, 2018
God controls all things including the sinfulness of man
"Isaiah 45 is an overpowering assertion of God's sovereignty. It begins with Cyrus, the Lord's anointed, and a statement of what God will do by him and for him. Then comes what is probably the most exalted statement in the Bible about the sovereignty of God. It is utterly destructive of Arminianism. The later verses, clear in themselves, are not to be ignored; but the middle section beggars praise. Verse 5 is only a reminder of the whole: 'I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. I girded you, though you have not known me.'
It is a shame to interrupt even an incomplete quotation, but the present task is to call attention to its meaning. God girded Cyrus, though Cyrus did not know it. One must not suppose, when God girds, guides, and controls someone, that the person is aware of it. Even regeneration, as the Puritans point out, is not a conscious experience; much less God's control of Pharaoh, Absalom, or Cyrus. Their knowledge comes later, if at all. Then the text continues: 'I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.'
The two theses most unacceptable to the Arminians are that God is the cause of sin and that God is the cause of salvation. In both cases the Arminians look to free will. Man is the first cause of his sin, and still independent of God, man is the first cause of his conversation. Isaiah in this verse makes Arminianism Biblically impossible.
The Scofield Bible is a good example of how Arminians try to escape from the plain meaning of the verse. Scofield says, 'Heb. ra, translated 'sorrow,' 'wretchedness,' 'adversity,' 'afflictions,' 'calamities,' but never translated sin. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, ect., to be the sure fruits of sin.'
Now the most remarkable point about Scofield's note is that he told the truth when he said, 'ra... [is] never translated sin.' How could he have made such a statement, knowing it was true? The only answer is that he must have examined every instance of ra in the Hebrew text and then he must have determined that in no case did the King James translate it sin. And this is absolutely true. But if he compared every instance of ra with its translation in every case, he could not have failed to note that ra in Genesis 6:5 and in a number of other places is translated wickedness. In fact ra is translated wickedness some fifty times. Scofield could not have failed to notice this; so he says with just truth, ra is never translated sin. Since Scofield favors the word evil, a partial list of verses in which this translation occurs will be given; and second there will be a partial list where wicked or wickedness is used." - Gordon H. Clark, Predestination, Pg. 131
Gordon H. Clark also says, "It would require too many quotations to list all the verses in which God is declared to be the sole first cause of everything, good or bad. Seeing the end from the beginning and knowing every intermediate event, could God, who created the universe from nothing, be other than the cause of all? But though the proof-texts for omnipotence, omniscience, and creation be omitted, no doubt one more verse that particularly mentions sin will be of help. Isaiah 45:7, in a context extolling the sovereignty of God, quotes him as saying, 'I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.'
Now, a certain edition of the Bible with a lot of heretical notes remarks that the Hebrew word for evil in this verse is never translated sin. Since this seems to be the case, the author of the note probably looked at every verse in which this word occurred. If he did, he must have seen that although the word is never translated sin, it is used in reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; it describes man's depraved imaginations as only evil continually; Jacob says the Angel redeemed him from all evil; Joseph's brothers refer to their treatment of him as evil, and refer to it as trespass and sin - and all this is found in Genesis. Exodus tells us not to follow a multitude to do evil. Deuteronomy 1:35 speaks of an evil, that is, a sinful generation; 4:25 uses the word with reference to idolatry; 19:19 with reference to a false oath; and 22:14 to fornication. So it goes throughout the Old Testament. Hence the attempt to avoid the force of the Lord's statement 'I create evil' is an exegetical and philological blunder. A Christian must on this point too conform his theology to the Word of God." - Volume 7 of the Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark "Clark and His Critics", Pg. 179-180
It is a shame to interrupt even an incomplete quotation, but the present task is to call attention to its meaning. God girded Cyrus, though Cyrus did not know it. One must not suppose, when God girds, guides, and controls someone, that the person is aware of it. Even regeneration, as the Puritans point out, is not a conscious experience; much less God's control of Pharaoh, Absalom, or Cyrus. Their knowledge comes later, if at all. Then the text continues: 'I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things.'
The two theses most unacceptable to the Arminians are that God is the cause of sin and that God is the cause of salvation. In both cases the Arminians look to free will. Man is the first cause of his sin, and still independent of God, man is the first cause of his conversation. Isaiah in this verse makes Arminianism Biblically impossible.
The Scofield Bible is a good example of how Arminians try to escape from the plain meaning of the verse. Scofield says, 'Heb. ra, translated 'sorrow,' 'wretchedness,' 'adversity,' 'afflictions,' 'calamities,' but never translated sin. God created evil only in the sense that he made sorrow, wretchedness, ect., to be the sure fruits of sin.'
Now the most remarkable point about Scofield's note is that he told the truth when he said, 'ra... [is] never translated sin.' How could he have made such a statement, knowing it was true? The only answer is that he must have examined every instance of ra in the Hebrew text and then he must have determined that in no case did the King James translate it sin. And this is absolutely true. But if he compared every instance of ra with its translation in every case, he could not have failed to note that ra in Genesis 6:5 and in a number of other places is translated wickedness. In fact ra is translated wickedness some fifty times. Scofield could not have failed to notice this; so he says with just truth, ra is never translated sin. Since Scofield favors the word evil, a partial list of verses in which this translation occurs will be given; and second there will be a partial list where wicked or wickedness is used." - Gordon H. Clark, Predestination, Pg. 131
Gordon H. Clark also says, "It would require too many quotations to list all the verses in which God is declared to be the sole first cause of everything, good or bad. Seeing the end from the beginning and knowing every intermediate event, could God, who created the universe from nothing, be other than the cause of all? But though the proof-texts for omnipotence, omniscience, and creation be omitted, no doubt one more verse that particularly mentions sin will be of help. Isaiah 45:7, in a context extolling the sovereignty of God, quotes him as saying, 'I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.'
Now, a certain edition of the Bible with a lot of heretical notes remarks that the Hebrew word for evil in this verse is never translated sin. Since this seems to be the case, the author of the note probably looked at every verse in which this word occurred. If he did, he must have seen that although the word is never translated sin, it is used in reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; it describes man's depraved imaginations as only evil continually; Jacob says the Angel redeemed him from all evil; Joseph's brothers refer to their treatment of him as evil, and refer to it as trespass and sin - and all this is found in Genesis. Exodus tells us not to follow a multitude to do evil. Deuteronomy 1:35 speaks of an evil, that is, a sinful generation; 4:25 uses the word with reference to idolatry; 19:19 with reference to a false oath; and 22:14 to fornication. So it goes throughout the Old Testament. Hence the attempt to avoid the force of the Lord's statement 'I create evil' is an exegetical and philological blunder. A Christian must on this point too conform his theology to the Word of God." - Volume 7 of the Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark "Clark and His Critics", Pg. 179-180
Monday, August 20, 2018
The Pagan is in Danger of Hell Fire, the Carnal Christian is not
In response to Thomas Manton who said this, quoted in Gordon H. Clarks - What is Saving Faith, "'A man may be right in opinion and judgment, but of vile affections; and a carnal Christian is in as great danger as a pagan, or idolater, or heretic. . . .'"
Clark responds, "That a carnal Christian is in as great danger as a pagan is unscriptural. No one is to be commended for his carnality. Paul berated the carnal Christians in Corinth. But though their works shall be burned up, yet they themselves shall be saved. The carnal Christian is even somewhat better off than this. Since justification inevitably process sanctification, the most depraved sinner who is born again must improve, perhaps slowly and with much difficulty, or sometimes with the success of John Newton. The pagan is in danger of Hell fire; the carnal Christian is not. To the extent that Manton depends on this false premise, to that extent his argument is vitiated." - What is Saving Faith
Needless to say we must understand the point of 1 Corinthians 3. Joseph Hussey strikes at the point of the passage in his work against Offerings.
Joseph Hussey says, "We must preach Effectual Grace, it being most suited to further God's building. So the words are in 1 Cor. 3:9, 'ye are God's building.' To this purpose, the Holy Ghost delights much to use the word instruction, which signifies a building upon. 'Tis instructing sinners, building up their principles, as grace, life and power upon Christ, which the Holy Ghost hath first laid into their hearts by the preaching of the Gospel. An Operation of the Spirit carries on God's building; but offers of Grace, proposals, or tenders of Salvation, neither instruct nor build up God's elect in the true mysteries of Grace and Salvation. Right preaching is a building of the new-born soul upon God's foundation, Christ. For why do I preach Grace, if God does not work by Grace? Better put on sackcloth and lie in the dust, and cry, Lord, show me thy truth, and let me not go on my own errand." - God's Operation of Grace, Pg. 189
Clark responds, "That a carnal Christian is in as great danger as a pagan is unscriptural. No one is to be commended for his carnality. Paul berated the carnal Christians in Corinth. But though their works shall be burned up, yet they themselves shall be saved. The carnal Christian is even somewhat better off than this. Since justification inevitably process sanctification, the most depraved sinner who is born again must improve, perhaps slowly and with much difficulty, or sometimes with the success of John Newton. The pagan is in danger of Hell fire; the carnal Christian is not. To the extent that Manton depends on this false premise, to that extent his argument is vitiated." - What is Saving Faith
Needless to say we must understand the point of 1 Corinthians 3. Joseph Hussey strikes at the point of the passage in his work against Offerings.
Joseph Hussey says, "We must preach Effectual Grace, it being most suited to further God's building. So the words are in 1 Cor. 3:9, 'ye are God's building.' To this purpose, the Holy Ghost delights much to use the word instruction, which signifies a building upon. 'Tis instructing sinners, building up their principles, as grace, life and power upon Christ, which the Holy Ghost hath first laid into their hearts by the preaching of the Gospel. An Operation of the Spirit carries on God's building; but offers of Grace, proposals, or tenders of Salvation, neither instruct nor build up God's elect in the true mysteries of Grace and Salvation. Right preaching is a building of the new-born soul upon God's foundation, Christ. For why do I preach Grace, if God does not work by Grace? Better put on sackcloth and lie in the dust, and cry, Lord, show me thy truth, and let me not go on my own errand." - God's Operation of Grace, Pg. 189
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Jesuits Theology or Counter-Reformation
There are some who are positing that Molinism would not be against what Gordon H. Clark taught. These men teach that Gordon H. Clark and Molinism both taught that the free will of man and God's sovereignty are both compatible.
First of all, what Clark taught was not compatiblism. But rather what Clark taught was hard determinism. Clark did not hold to the irrational view that man has free will and yet God is sovereign at the same time. Second, Molinism teaches that God's knowledge is so vast that he really doesn't know anything. It is satanism at its worst. Compatibilism is nothing but irratiinalism. Third, Molinism is nothing short of the Jesuits counter reformation. Clark attacks and repudiates this heretical error in his book "Predestination".
Gordon H. Clark says, "The Bible contradicts the notion of free will that is 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." - Predestination, Pg. 81
First of all, what Clark taught was not compatiblism. But rather what Clark taught was hard determinism. Clark did not hold to the irrational view that man has free will and yet God is sovereign at the same time. Second, Molinism teaches that God's knowledge is so vast that he really doesn't know anything. It is satanism at its worst. Compatibilism is nothing but irratiinalism. Third, Molinism is nothing short of the Jesuits counter reformation. Clark attacks and repudiates this heretical error in his book "Predestination".
Gordon H. Clark says, "The Bible contradicts the notion of free will that is 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." - Predestination, Pg. 81
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
To believe one must have knowledge what to believe
"The Kingdom of God is not a Kingdom of ignorance, but of faith and, consequently, of knowledge; for it is beyond the ability of anyone to believe that which he is ignorant of." - Theodore Beza, Preface of Theodore Beza in The Christian Faith, pg. iv
Sunday, January 29, 2017
The Law versus the Gospel
In his Epistle to the Romans, contrasting the law and the gospel, he says, 'Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that a man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' Do you perceive how be thus discriminates between the law and the gospel, that the former attributes righteousness to works, but the latter bestows it freely, without the assistance of works? -John Calvin, The Institutes, 3.11.17. Pg. 669
Monday, December 26, 2016
Is it evil for God to cause a sinner to rape another sinner?
The Arminian says that Calvinist teach that God is evil because he causes a woman or a child to be raped by a perpetrator. Of course this is nothing but an emotional argument that seeks not the truth of the matter. The question is what is rape compared to other acts of God revealed in the Scripture alone? God destroys the whole earth by the flood, He also destroyed a whole nation by fire and brimstone. Whether God uses another sinner to do that which would be reprehensible to us or some other disaster is no different. The Assyrian king was an ax in the hand of the Lord against his people. God in the Scripture commands his people to destroy whole nations; in other words, genocide (1 Samuel 15:3, Numbers 31). They were to destroy the nations in order to blot out the remembrance of them (Deut. 25:19). Jesus says that likewise you will also perish if you do not repent either.
Friday, December 9, 2016
Faith embraces the Gospel alone
Our Apostle speaks of faith. By this you are not to understand that historical faith, by which a man takes all to be true, firm and infallible, which God has revealed in His eternal word. A man can have that by a study of Divine truth which has a certain power of demonstration to the conscience, in convincing him that God alone is the Author of such revelation. The devils themselves believe in this sense and they tremble. Neither are you to understand the faith of miracles; for in the great and universal day shall Christ say unto some, who in His name have cast out devils: 'Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I know you not.' Neither understand here temporary faith; for that has no root, neither can it withstand the heat of adversity and persecution.
But understand with me that precious saving faith which is God's priceless gift; whereby the convinced, burdened and heavy-laden sinner goes out of himself and all his own righteousness, unto Jesus, embracing Him and clinging to Him; this is the faith by which the just do live, and receive a share in all the good things of the covenant, whereby we can be saved. Our Apostle says of this saving faith, that without it men cannot please God; this being the doctrine of God's precious word, that all which is not of faith, is sin; and hence, being displeasing to God, it speaks little comfort to those who rest upon their moral and respectable walk, or upon their profession and knowledge, without ever experiencing the heart-renewing grace of God. What do I say? It points out to them that all they do, since it issues not of faith, displeased God, yes angers Him. -Alexander Comrie, The ABC of Faith, in the introduction, pg. XVII-XVIII
But understand with me that precious saving faith which is God's priceless gift; whereby the convinced, burdened and heavy-laden sinner goes out of himself and all his own righteousness, unto Jesus, embracing Him and clinging to Him; this is the faith by which the just do live, and receive a share in all the good things of the covenant, whereby we can be saved. Our Apostle says of this saving faith, that without it men cannot please God; this being the doctrine of God's precious word, that all which is not of faith, is sin; and hence, being displeasing to God, it speaks little comfort to those who rest upon their moral and respectable walk, or upon their profession and knowledge, without ever experiencing the heart-renewing grace of God. What do I say? It points out to them that all they do, since it issues not of faith, displeased God, yes angers Him. -Alexander Comrie, The ABC of Faith, in the introduction, pg. XVII-XVIII
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
The work of Christ actually accomplishes redemption for His elect alone
The Bible through out presents to us the gospel, no doubt there is law in the Bible as well by which on condition of completing the commands a man may attain the promises, but the testimony of the Bible is that all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God; the gospel, revealed throughout the Bible is presented to us as the accomplished redemption of what Christ in fact got done on the cross for His elect people alone. This is the good news that by Christ's merit and righteousness alone, imputed to the elect sinner received by faith alone are justified and accepted by God. There is no works which God's people do or can do that either makes or breaks this acceptance.
The death of Christ and the His merits imputed to the elect are so intertwined that those whom he represented and died for are the very ones that in time do/will in fact believe. To teach that Christ's death is meant for everyone of Adam's children head for head and that this death is only received by so many of Adam's posterity is to teach basically that Christ's death is not itself what actually saves people but that those who are saved and those who are not saved owe their salvation to something else whether that be by the Spirit's power or ours.
The death of Christ and the His merits imputed to the elect are so intertwined that those whom he represented and died for are the very ones that in time do/will in fact believe. To teach that Christ's death is meant for everyone of Adam's children head for head and that this death is only received by so many of Adam's posterity is to teach basically that Christ's death is not itself what actually saves people but that those who are saved and those who are not saved owe their salvation to something else whether that be by the Spirit's power or ours.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
God is the one who is the determiner of all things
You see the problem with the Arminian interpretation of Genesis 45:4 and Genesis 50:20 is that their interpretation does not deal properly with the text of Scripture. It is one thing to say that these are the ONLY text in which we see that " ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good." But, it is not and the things leading up to this point present to us that God not only was working within this situation but was Himself the cause AND determiner of it all (including the acts of evil men).
God determined them to that which is good
All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 10 section 1
This is really interesting because those whom God predestined unto life at the appointed time they were effectually called by the word and Spirit enlightening their minds taking away their heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh by his almighty power, in which they were determined to that which is good.
Today we have many who profess Calvinism and yet still hold to a theory of free will. But not the WCF. It says that God determined them to that which is good.
The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 10 section 1
This is really interesting because those whom God predestined unto life at the appointed time they were effectually called by the word and Spirit enlightening their minds taking away their heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh by his almighty power, in which they were determined to that which is good.
Today we have many who profess Calvinism and yet still hold to a theory of free will. But not the WCF. It says that God determined them to that which is good.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Isaac Chauncy view of election in predestination is before consideration of the fall
"LV Was not Election out of the fallen corrupted Mass of Mankind foreseen?
A. No, for these Reasons 1st, Is Man was so considered by the same Reason Angels should, but Angels were not considered so. This is most evident, because the elect Angels were never in a corrupted State, and the fallen Angels never elected. 2ndly, Christ was elected 1 Peter 1:20. And the first born of Election Eph 1:4. But Christ was never chosen under the consideration of being Part of the corrupted Mass of Mankind in any Respect; therefore Election could not pass upon the corrupt Mass, because Christ must then be chosen out of it, and if so, the other Elect could not be chosen as such in him Eph 1:4. 3rd, If Men were elected out of the corrupt Mass, Election would be an Act of Mercy, whatever Reprobation is, for if a Person that is looked at as miserable among others be chosen and called out from among them as such and designed to Salvation, this is an Eye of Mercy, Pity, and Commiseration, when others in the same Condemnation or Misery with them are left to perish. When as Election is no Act of Mercy, nor Reprobation of Justice, but both of mere Sovereignty Rom 9:21-22." - Isaac Chauncy, The doctrine, which is according to godliness, grounded upon the Holy Scriptures of truth, Pg. 63
A. No, for these Reasons 1st, Is Man was so considered by the same Reason Angels should, but Angels were not considered so. This is most evident, because the elect Angels were never in a corrupted State, and the fallen Angels never elected. 2ndly, Christ was elected 1 Peter 1:20. And the first born of Election Eph 1:4. But Christ was never chosen under the consideration of being Part of the corrupted Mass of Mankind in any Respect; therefore Election could not pass upon the corrupt Mass, because Christ must then be chosen out of it, and if so, the other Elect could not be chosen as such in him Eph 1:4. 3rd, If Men were elected out of the corrupt Mass, Election would be an Act of Mercy, whatever Reprobation is, for if a Person that is looked at as miserable among others be chosen and called out from among them as such and designed to Salvation, this is an Eye of Mercy, Pity, and Commiseration, when others in the same Condemnation or Misery with them are left to perish. When as Election is no Act of Mercy, nor Reprobation of Justice, but both of mere Sovereignty Rom 9:21-22." - Isaac Chauncy, The doctrine, which is according to godliness, grounded upon the Holy Scriptures of truth, Pg. 63
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Nothing is outside of God's governing control He does as he pleases
Does God Determine Sin?
by
Monty L. Collier
Whenever we discuss God’s absolute predestination of all things, the following question is often raised: Did God determine sin?
The Bible answers this question very clearly.
Let’s begin with the worst sin ever created, then, let’s move on to the rest.
If you have read your Bible, you know the worst sin ever committed was determined by God. The murder of Jesus, which is simultaneously the vicarious sacrifice for God's elect, was determined by God almighty!
"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."
(Acts 4:27-28)
If the worst sin was determined by God, then what of all other sins?—were they also determined by God?
The Bible says: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).
No evil deed is done without God's absolute predestination! Consider the following rhetorical question from Scripture:
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
(Lamentations 3:38)
"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"
(Amos 3:6)
Job knew that God determined both good and evil deeds:
"What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."
(Job 2:10)
Consider false prophets; they are not merely deceived by chance, but rather: God causes them to believe lies!
"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
(Ezekiel 14:9)
"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)
In short, God determines all the events of history, both good and bad, and if you don't like it, too bad. The Bible says:
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"
(Romans 9:19-21)
So, let us remember, when we say the God of the Bible is sovereign, we are claiming the God of the Bible determines all things. From the smallest and seemingly unimportant events to the greatest events in history, God determines them all. Old School Primitive Baptist Gilbert Beebe correctly stated:
“By the term sovereign, as it applies to God, we are not to understand an arbitrary or tyrannical being, but quite the reverse; an all-wise disposer of all events, an independent, self-existent, and omniscient God; one who holds the eternal destiny of his creatures in his own almighty grasp, working all things after the counsel of his own will, even as he has ordained all things for his own glory; and being independent of and superior to all beings in heaven or on earth, has an incontestable right to do his pleasure in heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; having a right to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor; to have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will to harden; to reveal his gospel unto “babes and sucklings,” and to hide the same from the “wise and prudent,” to love Jacob and to hate Esau, to save his people with an everlasting salvation, and to turn the wicked into hell, with all the nations that forget God.”
(Editorials of Gilbert Beebe, Volume 1, pages 13-14)
Consider how God is independent of and superior to all beings. Sinful man may dream of being independent of God, but God alone is self-existent and independent. While commenting on Psalm 50:9-13, John Calvin stops to discuss Isaiah 66:1-2. These two verses from Isaiah read: “Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? And where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made” (Isaiah 66:1-2). Calvin comments:
“In these words God asserts his absolute independence; for while the world had a beginning, he himself was from eternity. From this it follows, that as he subsisted when there was nothing without him which could contribute to his fullness, he must have in himself a glorious all-sufficiency.”
(Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume V, page 269)
Hence, it is impossible for man to ever be independent from God. Man would cease to exist, if he could become free from God. The Bible says:
“For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.”
(Acts 17:28)
Obviously, all of this implies that God has free-will, while man does not. The comprehensive teaching of the Bible is clear: at no point has man’s will ever been free from God’s determination. Martin Luther correctly wrote the following:
“For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself, there can be no “Free-will”—in man, in angel, or in any creature!
“Hence: if we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing—as “Free-will!””
(The Bondage of the Will, Section 167, page 241 [Henry Cole Translation])
But does not God’s absolute predestination of all things imply that men are not responsible for their thoughts and deeds?
No, for the Bible teaches there are two primary things which make men responsible before God:
1) God's sovereign ability to call men to give a response for their thoughts and deeds (see Romans 9:19-21)
2) Man's knowledge of God's moral law, which makes him / her responsible (see Luke 12:47: "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.")
Finally, even our conversational English has been determined to reflect basic Calvinism, for parents tell their children: "You’re going to be punished, for you KNEW not to do that." No parent says: "Now, Johnny, you have free-will, and you will be punished for using your arbitrary-power-of-contrary-choice incorrectly"--LOL!
by
Monty L. Collier
Whenever we discuss God’s absolute predestination of all things, the following question is often raised: Did God determine sin?
The Bible answers this question very clearly.
Let’s begin with the worst sin ever created, then, let’s move on to the rest.
If you have read your Bible, you know the worst sin ever committed was determined by God. The murder of Jesus, which is simultaneously the vicarious sacrifice for God's elect, was determined by God almighty!
"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."
(Acts 4:27-28)
If the worst sin was determined by God, then what of all other sins?—were they also determined by God?
The Bible says: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).
No evil deed is done without God's absolute predestination! Consider the following rhetorical question from Scripture:
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
(Lamentations 3:38)
"Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"
(Amos 3:6)
Job knew that God determined both good and evil deeds:
"What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips."
(Job 2:10)
Consider false prophets; they are not merely deceived by chance, but rather: God causes them to believe lies!
"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."
(Ezekiel 14:9)
"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)
In short, God determines all the events of history, both good and bad, and if you don't like it, too bad. The Bible says:
"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?"
(Romans 9:19-21)
So, let us remember, when we say the God of the Bible is sovereign, we are claiming the God of the Bible determines all things. From the smallest and seemingly unimportant events to the greatest events in history, God determines them all. Old School Primitive Baptist Gilbert Beebe correctly stated:
“By the term sovereign, as it applies to God, we are not to understand an arbitrary or tyrannical being, but quite the reverse; an all-wise disposer of all events, an independent, self-existent, and omniscient God; one who holds the eternal destiny of his creatures in his own almighty grasp, working all things after the counsel of his own will, even as he has ordained all things for his own glory; and being independent of and superior to all beings in heaven or on earth, has an incontestable right to do his pleasure in heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; having a right to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor; to have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will to harden; to reveal his gospel unto “babes and sucklings,” and to hide the same from the “wise and prudent,” to love Jacob and to hate Esau, to save his people with an everlasting salvation, and to turn the wicked into hell, with all the nations that forget God.”
(Editorials of Gilbert Beebe, Volume 1, pages 13-14)
Consider how God is independent of and superior to all beings. Sinful man may dream of being independent of God, but God alone is self-existent and independent. While commenting on Psalm 50:9-13, John Calvin stops to discuss Isaiah 66:1-2. These two verses from Isaiah read: “Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? And where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made” (Isaiah 66:1-2). Calvin comments:
“In these words God asserts his absolute independence; for while the world had a beginning, he himself was from eternity. From this it follows, that as he subsisted when there was nothing without him which could contribute to his fullness, he must have in himself a glorious all-sufficiency.”
(Calvin’s Commentaries, Volume V, page 269)
Hence, it is impossible for man to ever be independent from God. Man would cease to exist, if he could become free from God. The Bible says:
“For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.”
(Acts 17:28)
Obviously, all of this implies that God has free-will, while man does not. The comprehensive teaching of the Bible is clear: at no point has man’s will ever been free from God’s determination. Martin Luther correctly wrote the following:
“For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself, there can be no “Free-will”—in man, in angel, or in any creature!
“Hence: if we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing—as “Free-will!””
(The Bondage of the Will, Section 167, page 241 [Henry Cole Translation])
But does not God’s absolute predestination of all things imply that men are not responsible for their thoughts and deeds?
No, for the Bible teaches there are two primary things which make men responsible before God:
1) God's sovereign ability to call men to give a response for their thoughts and deeds (see Romans 9:19-21)
2) Man's knowledge of God's moral law, which makes him / her responsible (see Luke 12:47: "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.")
Finally, even our conversational English has been determined to reflect basic Calvinism, for parents tell their children: "You’re going to be punished, for you KNEW not to do that." No parent says: "Now, Johnny, you have free-will, and you will be punished for using your arbitrary-power-of-contrary-choice incorrectly"--LOL!
Sunday, November 8, 2015
God who not only knows all that will happen but also causes it to happen by his will
In order not to quote too much of Clark in one little segment, not that it would be bad to quote him fully, I will give a synopsis of what he wrote in the last chapter of Religion, Reason and Revelation - subtitled God and Evil on Pg. 160.
On this page Clark speaks of Omniscience and presents a case of an observer from far off watching two cars about to collide. As far as the observer knows and sees these cars will in fact collide. However, his knowledge of such things does not actually cause the accident. From this view the Arminian-Romanist attempts to explain that God knows the future without causing it to happen.
Clark responds,
In other words God's knowledge of the event from eternity past makes it certain that the event will in fact occur. This is a deathblow to the Arminian and also to the Molinist who want to assert that God does not know for certain whether something would in fact take place. God's knowledge is certain because God's knowledge is perfect.
Clark, continues,
Sorry I don't want to quote too much of Clark. If one is interested in Clark's argument I would suggest that you go and buy the book preferably at the Trinity Foundation. But, Clark's argument thus far has been to show the irrationalism of those who say that God simply knows what will happen without actually causing it to happen. If God was like the observer he certainly could not know what would happen and if God was not the one causing all things to happen then someone else is and hence God could not know exactly what would happen. But, this is exactly what many Calvinist revert back to in their arguments about God's relation to evil.
Clark, says,
Many Calvinist say the very same things that Augustine says with regards to God's relation to evil. R.C. Sproul for instance also speaks to Reprobation being a negative decree and not a positive one. The point that Augustine says is that God merely removes his grace from the situation. In which case the question is properly asked, 'why?' If God was concerned for the greater good then why in fact does evil exist? Could God not have created a world in which there was no evil? This is where the supposedly Christian philosopher tries to respond to the question of God and evil. This is where I will say as a Christian and as Calvinist that God wanted evil to occur and he does so for His own purpose. Yes evil glorifies God. God is equally ultimate what happens in this world.
John Calvin says,
On this page Clark speaks of Omniscience and presents a case of an observer from far off watching two cars about to collide. As far as the observer knows and sees these cars will in fact collide. However, his knowledge of such things does not actually cause the accident. From this view the Arminian-Romanist attempts to explain that God knows the future without causing it to happen.
Clark responds,
The similarity, however, is deceptive on several points. A human observer cannot really know that collision will occur. Though it is unlikely, it is possible for both cars to have blowouts before reaching the intersection and swerve apart. It is also possible that the observer has misjudged the speeds, in which case one car could slow down and the other accelerate, so that they would not collide. The human observer, therefore, does not have infallible foreknowledge.
No such mistakes can be assumed for God. The human observer may make a probable guess that the accident will occur, and this guess does not make the accident unavoidable; but if God knows, there is no possibility of avoiding the accident. A hundred years before the drivers were born, there was no possibility of avoiding the accident. There was no possibility that either one of them could have chosen to stay home that day, to have driven a different route, to have driven a different time, to have driven a different speed. They could not have chosen otherwise than as they did. This means either that they had no free will or that God did not know. [Pg. 160]
In other words God's knowledge of the event from eternity past makes it certain that the event will in fact occur. This is a deathblow to the Arminian and also to the Molinist who want to assert that God does not know for certain whether something would in fact take place. God's knowledge is certain because God's knowledge is perfect.
Clark, continues,
Suppose it be granted, just for the moment, that divine foreknowledge, like human guesses, does not cause the foreknown event. Even so, if there is foreknowledge, in contrast with fallible guesses, free will is impossible. If man has free will, and things can be different, God cannot be omniscient. Some Arminians have admitted this and have denied omniscience, but this puts them obviously at odds with Biblical Christianity. There is also another difficulty. If the Arminian or Romanist wishes to retain divine omniscience and at the same time assert that foreknowledge has no causal efficacy, he is put to it to explain how the collision was made certain a hundred years, an eternity, before the drivers were born. If God did not arrange the universe this way, who did?
If God did not arrange it this way, then there must be an independent factor in the universe. And if there is such, one consequence and perhaps two follows. First, the doctrine of creation must be abandoned. . . . Then, second, if the universe is not God's creation, his knowledge of it - past and future - cannot depend on what he intends to do, but on his observation of how it works. . . . And, finally, on this view God's knowledge would be empirical, rather than an integral part of his essence, and that he would be a dependent knower. [Pg. 160 - 161]
Sorry I don't want to quote too much of Clark. If one is interested in Clark's argument I would suggest that you go and buy the book preferably at the Trinity Foundation. But, Clark's argument thus far has been to show the irrationalism of those who say that God simply knows what will happen without actually causing it to happen. If God was like the observer he certainly could not know what would happen and if God was not the one causing all things to happen then someone else is and hence God could not know exactly what would happen. But, this is exactly what many Calvinist revert back to in their arguments about God's relation to evil.
Clark, says,
Plato in his Republic attempted to account for evil by the assumption that God is not the cause of everything, but only of a few things - few because our evils far outnumber our goods. In the Timaeus he was not quite so pessimistic, but he still held that there is an eternal and chaotic Space which the Demiurge cannot entirely control. To the end, therefore, it must be said, Plato retained an unreconciled dualism.
Aristotle, because his philosophy is so completely irreligious, is somewhat an exception in antiquity. He conceived God in such a way that his relation to evil, or to the moral endeavors of men, hardly mattered. The Unmoved Mover is in a sense the cause of all motion, but instead of being an active cause, he causes motion by being the object of the world's desire. He exercises no voluntary control over history. Though he is constantly thinking, he does not seem to think about the world, or, at most, he knows only a part of the past and nothing whatever of the future.
Naturally, the great Christian philosopher Augustine grappled with the difficulty. Under Neoplatonic influence he taught that all existing things are good; evil, therefore, does not exist - it is metaphysically unreal. Being non-existent, it can have no cause, and God therefore is not the cause of evil. When a man sins, it is a case of his choosing a lowest good instead of a higher good. This choice too has no efficient cause, although Augustine assigns to it a deficient cause. In this way God was supposed to be absolved. Augustine, admittedly, was a great Christian and a great philosopher. Later in the chapter more will be said about him. But here he was at his worst. Deficient causes, if there are such things, do not explain why a good God does not abolish sin and guarantee that men always choose the highest good. [Pg. 145]
Many Calvinist say the very same things that Augustine says with regards to God's relation to evil. R.C. Sproul for instance also speaks to Reprobation being a negative decree and not a positive one. The point that Augustine says is that God merely removes his grace from the situation. In which case the question is properly asked, 'why?' If God was concerned for the greater good then why in fact does evil exist? Could God not have created a world in which there was no evil? This is where the supposedly Christian philosopher tries to respond to the question of God and evil. This is where I will say as a Christian and as Calvinist that God wanted evil to occur and he does so for His own purpose. Yes evil glorifies God. God is equally ultimate what happens in this world.
John Calvin says,
Let us suppose, for example, that a merchant, having entered a wood in the company of honest men, imprudently wanders from his companions and, pursuing a wrong course, falls into the hands of robbers, and is murdered. His death was not only foreseen by God, but also decreed by him. For it is said, not that he has foreseen to what limits the life of every man would extend, but that he 'hath appointed bounds which he cannot pass.' Yet, as far as our minds are capable of comprehending, all these circumstances appear fortuitous. What opinion shall a Christian form on this case? He will consider all the circumstances of such a death as in their nature fortuitous, yet he will not doubt that the providence of God presided, and directed fortune to that end. Institutes. I. XVI. IX.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Those who say emotions should be added give emotions the controlling position
"The quotations the complainants offer in their protest to prove their contention are very unconvincing. In fact, they frankly admit
And again, they admit: 'Calvin, who so clearly gives intellect a control over will, though not by virtue of that a primacy over will,' etc. (9). But they insist that 'the more recent theologians, however, seem to agree in large measure on the threefold distinction of intellect, emotions, and will' (8).
We may note here that the complainants express themselves very carefully: 'the more recent theologians seem to agree in large measure.' But even so the complainants are in error. It is far nearer to the truth to state that Reformed theologians have, generally speaking, been strongly opposed to the threefold distinction of intellect, will, and emotions, and have often expressed their fear of the danger of this distinction. The danger of this distinction, to which they usually pointed, is that the emotions in that case gradually assume a dominating and controlling position in the soul of man, and that, according to this trichotomous psychology, such experiences as love and hatred, sorrow and joy, repentance and remorse, in fact, all religion and morality are relegated to the emotions or feeling. And that would exactly be the deathblow to all true religion. Reformed theologians were, therefore, usually in favor of the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, and ascribed the emotions partly to the intellect, and partly to the will. And again, it may be stated without fear of possible contradiction that Reformed theology usually favored the 'primacy of the intellect.'
I thought, and still think, that this was so well known that I could only be amazed when I discovered that some theologians of Philadelphia took the opposite stand." -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy, Pg. 30 - 31
From the viewpoint of abstract psychology, it is perfectly true that Reformed theologians have not been in complete agreement as to the number and names of the faculties of the human soul. In speaking specifically of the faculties of the human soul, Calvin mentions by name only the intellect and will (Institutes, Bk. I, Chap. XV, Sect. 6). Augustine refers to the perception, understanding, and will [The Text of a Complaint, 8].
And again, they admit: 'Calvin, who so clearly gives intellect a control over will, though not by virtue of that a primacy over will,' etc. (9). But they insist that 'the more recent theologians, however, seem to agree in large measure on the threefold distinction of intellect, emotions, and will' (8).
We may note here that the complainants express themselves very carefully: 'the more recent theologians seem to agree in large measure.' But even so the complainants are in error. It is far nearer to the truth to state that Reformed theologians have, generally speaking, been strongly opposed to the threefold distinction of intellect, will, and emotions, and have often expressed their fear of the danger of this distinction. The danger of this distinction, to which they usually pointed, is that the emotions in that case gradually assume a dominating and controlling position in the soul of man, and that, according to this trichotomous psychology, such experiences as love and hatred, sorrow and joy, repentance and remorse, in fact, all religion and morality are relegated to the emotions or feeling. And that would exactly be the deathblow to all true religion. Reformed theologians were, therefore, usually in favor of the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, and ascribed the emotions partly to the intellect, and partly to the will. And again, it may be stated without fear of possible contradiction that Reformed theology usually favored the 'primacy of the intellect.'
I thought, and still think, that this was so well known that I could only be amazed when I discovered that some theologians of Philadelphia took the opposite stand." -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy, Pg. 30 - 31
There are two faculties in the soul according to Calvin and Clark
"The second main point of the Complaint against Dr. Clark concerns, in the words of the complainants, 'his view of the relation of the faculty of knowledge, the intellectual faculty, to other faculties of the soul.' I have re-read the material the complainants offer on this point, and also its refutation in The Answer. I think that the points of difference between Dr. Clark and his accusers may, in the main, be summarized as follows:
1. The complainants hold to the trichotomous diviation or distinction of the human soul into its faculties, and apply this also to God. In the human soul they distinguish between intellect, emotion, and will. Dr. Clark prefers the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, refuses to speak of emotion as a separate faculty, and considers the emotions as aspects of the intellect and will. And he, too, applies this distinction to God. . . .
The Answer makes plain that Dr. Clark does not dney the reality of emotions in God, but gives them a different connotation from that of the complainants, and assigns to them a position different from that which the latter assign to them, in relation to God's intellect and will. The complainants make of the emotions in God a separate faculty, next to, and on a level with intellect and will. Dr. Clark gives them a subordinate position, and explains them as aspects or functions of God's intellect and will. From The Answer we quote:
Dr. Clark never made any 'forthright denial of anything that might be called emotion in God.' Love or wrath 'might be called an emotion.' Dr. Clark did not deny love and wrath to God. He holds that while some people might call God's love and wrath emotions, it is better to classify them as volitions. In this Dr. Clark is in accord with a large section of theology and of literary usage [27].
It would seem, then, that the chief point of difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark may be stated thus, that the former hold to the trichotomous, the latter to the dichotomous, distinction as applied to human and 'divine psychology.' (I must not be held responsible for the latter term.)" -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controvery, Pg. 24 - 26
John Calvin in his Institutes also says that man has two faculties consisting of intellect and will. There might be some out there who may want to discredit what I teach and say along with what Dr. Clark also taught and said in his writings. So I will quote Calvin himself.
"We are constrained to depart a little from the mode of instruction, because the philosophers, being ignorant of the corruption of nature proceeding from the punishment of the fall, improperly confound two very different states of mankind. Let us, therefore, submit the following division - that the human soul has two faculties which relate to our present design, the understanding and the will. Now, let it be the office of the understanding to discriminate between objects, as they shall respectively appear deserving of approbation or disapprobation; but of the will, to choose and follow what the understanding shall have pronounced to be good; to abhor and avoid what it shall have condemned. Here let us not stay to discuss those subtleties of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of itself, but that it is moved by the choice, which he also calls the appetitive intellect." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XV. VII.
1. The complainants hold to the trichotomous diviation or distinction of the human soul into its faculties, and apply this also to God. In the human soul they distinguish between intellect, emotion, and will. Dr. Clark prefers the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, refuses to speak of emotion as a separate faculty, and considers the emotions as aspects of the intellect and will. And he, too, applies this distinction to God. . . .
The Answer makes plain that Dr. Clark does not dney the reality of emotions in God, but gives them a different connotation from that of the complainants, and assigns to them a position different from that which the latter assign to them, in relation to God's intellect and will. The complainants make of the emotions in God a separate faculty, next to, and on a level with intellect and will. Dr. Clark gives them a subordinate position, and explains them as aspects or functions of God's intellect and will. From The Answer we quote:
Dr. Clark never made any 'forthright denial of anything that might be called emotion in God.' Love or wrath 'might be called an emotion.' Dr. Clark did not deny love and wrath to God. He holds that while some people might call God's love and wrath emotions, it is better to classify them as volitions. In this Dr. Clark is in accord with a large section of theology and of literary usage [27].
It would seem, then, that the chief point of difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark may be stated thus, that the former hold to the trichotomous, the latter to the dichotomous, distinction as applied to human and 'divine psychology.' (I must not be held responsible for the latter term.)" -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controvery, Pg. 24 - 26
John Calvin in his Institutes also says that man has two faculties consisting of intellect and will. There might be some out there who may want to discredit what I teach and say along with what Dr. Clark also taught and said in his writings. So I will quote Calvin himself.
"We are constrained to depart a little from the mode of instruction, because the philosophers, being ignorant of the corruption of nature proceeding from the punishment of the fall, improperly confound two very different states of mankind. Let us, therefore, submit the following division - that the human soul has two faculties which relate to our present design, the understanding and the will. Now, let it be the office of the understanding to discriminate between objects, as they shall respectively appear deserving of approbation or disapprobation; but of the will, to choose and follow what the understanding shall have pronounced to be good; to abhor and avoid what it shall have condemned. Here let us not stay to discuss those subtleties of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of itself, but that it is moved by the choice, which he also calls the appetitive intellect." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XV. VII.
Monday, October 12, 2015
The elect were chosen by the grace and mercy of God alone
19Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? - Romans 9
The argument goes something like this that God cannot be merciful to vessels that are unfallen, because mercy presupposes fallenness. But is this true? When one considers the end to which God chose the elect and the non - elect one ought to see that it was God's grace and mercy to save some and to damn others before they had done anything good or wrong.
Ultimately, God could have chosen to save person a rather than person b. But, He did not. Mercy and Grace are undeserved favors from God because those who are chosen to be saved had nothing in themselves for why God decided to save them.
Unlike, Molinism which says that their god knows all things whether what will happen or what could happen, God in Scripture knows all things before they happened and that he had also predestined those things to happened. For God to know something is for God to predestinated it. Nothing happens outside of His knowledge. Whatever happens in this life happens because God knows it will happen. So those whom He did Predestined, He Called, Justified, and Glorified.
The argument goes something like this that God cannot be merciful to vessels that are unfallen, because mercy presupposes fallenness. But is this true? When one considers the end to which God chose the elect and the non - elect one ought to see that it was God's grace and mercy to save some and to damn others before they had done anything good or wrong.
Ultimately, God could have chosen to save person a rather than person b. But, He did not. Mercy and Grace are undeserved favors from God because those who are chosen to be saved had nothing in themselves for why God decided to save them.
Unlike, Molinism which says that their god knows all things whether what will happen or what could happen, God in Scripture knows all things before they happened and that he had also predestined those things to happened. For God to know something is for God to predestinated it. Nothing happens outside of His knowledge. Whatever happens in this life happens because God knows it will happen. So those whom He did Predestined, He Called, Justified, and Glorified.
Friday, October 9, 2015
No man knows his Creator
"By the knowledge of God, I intend not merely a notion that there is such a Being. But also an acquaintance with whatever we ought to know concerning Him, conducing to his glory and our benefit. For we cannot with propriety say, there is any knowledge of God where there is no religion or piety. I have no reference here to that species of knowledge by which men, lost and condemned in themselves, apprehend God the Redeemer in Christ the Mediator; but only to that first and simple knowledge, to which the genuine order of nature would lead us, if Adam had retained his innocence. For though, in the present ruined state of human nature, no man will ever perceive God to be a Father, or the Author of salvation, or in any respect propitious, but as pacified by the mediation of Christ; yet it is one thing to understand, that God our Maker supports us by his power, governs us by his providence, nourishes us by his goodness, and follows us with blessings of every kind, and another to embrace the grace of reconciliation proposed to us in Christ. Therefore, since God is first manifested, both in the structure of the world and in the general tenor of Scripture, simply as the Creator, and afterwards reveals himself in the person of Christ as a Redeemer, hence arises a two-fold knowledge of him; of which the former is first to be considered, and the other will follow in its proper place." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.2.1
Someone might read this part of the Institutes and be unfamiliar with what Calvin is saying here. When he says 'there is no knowledge of God where there is no religion or piety', he speaks generally. He is proving the point that men are totally depraved and that there is no longer in man true knowledge of God that man believes or accepts. He is not saying that we know whether a Christian is a Christian if they perform good works or perform religious things.
Someone might read this part of the Institutes and be unfamiliar with what Calvin is saying here. When he says 'there is no knowledge of God where there is no religion or piety', he speaks generally. He is proving the point that men are totally depraved and that there is no longer in man true knowledge of God that man believes or accepts. He is not saying that we know whether a Christian is a Christian if they perform good works or perform religious things.
God is the author of sin
When we are tempted and we sin do not say that God is to blame for your sin or evil lust. Although, He is the author thereof, he is so only on the ground that he is the primary cause of your evil lust and action. However, God is not the author in the sense that he is the one who does the evil lust or action. In the WCF God is the primary cause who uses secondary causes chapter 3.
"1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
As for the verses, the Bible says in several places that He sends an evil spirit to some people. Also it says that he caused others to sin so that they would die. He causes kings to go to war. I think he sent a lying spirit to one so that he would be consumed.
The problem with permitting sin is that it does not remove God from responsibility. For instance, Augustine is known to say that Evil is just the absence of good. But if this is the case then why did God remove himself from the situation?
"Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
24And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies.
25He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants.
26He sent Moses his servant; and Aaron whom he had chosen.
27They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham.
28He sent darkness, and made it dark; and they rebelled not against his word.
29He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish."
- Psalm 105
This verse does not say he permitted the Egyptians to hate his people but that he turned their hearts to hate his people.
"1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."
As for the verses, the Bible says in several places that He sends an evil spirit to some people. Also it says that he caused others to sin so that they would die. He causes kings to go to war. I think he sent a lying spirit to one so that he would be consumed.
The problem with permitting sin is that it does not remove God from responsibility. For instance, Augustine is known to say that Evil is just the absence of good. But if this is the case then why did God remove himself from the situation?
"Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
24And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies.
25He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants.
26He sent Moses his servant; and Aaron whom he had chosen.
27They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham.
28He sent darkness, and made it dark; and they rebelled not against his word.
29He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish."
- Psalm 105
This verse does not say he permitted the Egyptians to hate his people but that he turned their hearts to hate his people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)