Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
William

Calvin, Dordt and Westminster on Predestination

Recommended Posts

Staff

by John Murray

 

ON December 4, 1646, the Confession of Faith, prepared by the Assembly of Divines meeting at Westminster, was completed. The date is more than a century later than that of the earlier editions of Calvin’s masterpiece, The Institutes of the Christian Religion and also of the first edition of what is one of his most notable commentaries, the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The century that intervened was one of prodigious theological output and intense controversy. Within the Reformed Churches the gravest issue was that focused in the Arminian Remonstrance of 1610 and it was this issue that gave occasion for the Synod of Dordt in 1618 and 1619. It would be unhistorical and theologically unscientific to overlook or discount the developments in the formulation of Reformed doctrine that a century of thought and particularly of controversy produced. Study even of Calvin’s later works, including his definitive edition of the Institutes (1559), readily discloses that his polemics and formulations were not oriented to the exigencies of debates that were subsequent to the time of his writing. It is appropriate and necessary, therefore, that in dealing with Calvin, Dordt, and Westminster we should be alert to the differing situations existing in the respective dates and to the ways in which thought and language were affected by diverse contexts. In applying this principle, however, caution must be observed. This is particularly necessary in the case of Calvin. Too frequently he is enlisted in support of positions that diverge from those of his successors in the Reformed tradition. It is true that Calvin’s method differs considerably from that of the classic Reformed systematizers of the 17th century. But this difference of method does not of itself afford any warrant for a construction of Calvin that places him in sharp contrast with the more analytically developed formulations of Reformed theology in the century that followed.

 

It would be expected that the vantage point occupied by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, the unsurpassed care exercised in time composition of the documents that were the products of its labours, and the lengthy debates that characterized the Assembly would impart a precision scarcely equalled by earlier creedal formulations. This is conspicuously true in its Confession of Faith and Catechisms. In this essay we are concerned with the subject of predestination. No chapter in the Westminster Confession exhibits more of the qualities we might expect than Chapter III, ‘Of God’s Eternal Decree’. The chapter has eight sections. Sections I and II deal with the decree in its cosmic, all-inclusive reference, Sections III and IV with the decree as it has respect to men and angels in common, and Sections V-VIII with the decree as it applies to men distinctively. This order and the proportions of emphasis evince the competence which marks the Confession throughout.

 

The divines thought it meet to use the terms ‘predestinate’ and ‘predestination’ with reference to those appointed to everlasting life and the term ‘foreordain’ for those appointed to everlasting death. ‘By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death’ (Sect. III). This variation is maintained in subsequent sections (cf. Sects. IV, V, and VIII). It cannot be said that any difference is intrinsic to the terms such as would require this restriction and it cannot be that greater or less efficacy was intended to be expressed by the one term in distinction from the other. What consideration dictated the usage concerned it may not be possible to say. But it cannot be denied that in the structure of the chapter as a whole the interest of differentiating between the elect and non-elect is thereby promoted and the felicity of the expression ‘predestinated unto life’ is made more apparent.

 

The doctrine of the Confession on predestination and foreordination is unequivocal. The differentiation involved and the diversity of destiny arising therefrom are clearly asserted. ‘These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished’ (Sec. IV). It is worthy of note that this statement of the Confession includes both angels and men and is so framed that in respect of the doctrine set forth it has equal relevance to men and angels. This feature goes beyond what we find in the Canons of Dordt. The Canons are concerned solely with the election and ‘reprobation’ of men. The reason for this is obvious. The Remonstrant tenets against which the Canons were directed dealt with the decree of God with reference to mankind and the issue would have been unnecessarily perplexed by introducing the subject of angels. But Dordt enunciates the same position in respect of mankind. ‘And as God himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled nor annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished’ (Cap. I, Art. XI; cf. Art. VI). In the Rejection of Errors, Articles II, III, and V, the reason for this emphasis upon definiteness is given. The opposing position is stated to be that ‘God’s election to eternal life is manifold, the one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite . . . the one election to faith, the other to salvation that the good pleasure and purpose of God, of which Scripture makes mention in the doctrine of election, does not consist in this, that God elected certain men above others, but in this, that God from all possible conditions . . . elected faith, in itself unworthy, and the imperfect obedience of faith as the condition of salvation’, a position pronounced to be pernicious error, prejudicial to the good pleasure of God and the merit of Christ. The Westminster Confession is oriented against the same error but the reference to angels in the same section is a reminder that the scope of its interest in Chapter III is more embracive than that of the Canons.

 

The parallelisms of Sections V-VIII of the Confession with the First Head of Doctrine in the Canons is conspicuous and comparison at various points will disclose not only the agreement of the two documents on what is germane to the doctrine of predestination, but also the debt the Assembly of Divines owed to the deliberations and conclusions of Dordt. There is, of course, the marked contrast in proportions. Compact brevity is a distinguishing feature of the Confession. The four sections of the Confession comprise not more than one eighth of the space occupied by the eighteen affirmative and nine negative articles of the Canons. But the Canons are not to be accused of redundancy, and it should be kept in mind that there is in the text of the Canons copious quotation of Scripture in support of the doctrine asserted and in refutation of the errors rejected, a practice not adhered to in the Confession.

 

In contrast with the Remonstrant teaching, predestination to life and salvation is in both documents construed as unconditional, that is, as constrained by the sovereign good pleasure of God and not by any difference belonging to men themselves. This is expressed in the Confession in these terms: ‘Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love’ (Sect. V). The terms of the Canons are: ‘Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath, out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen, from the whole human race . . . a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ’ (Art. VII); ‘The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election’ (Art. X; cf. also Arts. XV and XVIII). So there is not only an identity of doctrine but also to a large extent of language.2

 

The negative counterpart of the emphasis upon mere free grace and the sovereign pleasure of God is, in contrast likewise with Remonstrant teaching, that election is not determined by any foresight of faith or of perseverance. ‘Without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto’ (Sect. V) says the Confession. ‘This election was not founded upon foreseen faith, and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it depended’ (Art. IX) say the Canons (cf. also Rejection of Errors, Art. V).

 

That redemption by Christ and all the grace necessary to the fruition of God’s electing purpose should flow from election rather than be the determinants of it is a correlate of the positive and negative declarations just noted. Both documents are careful to state this expressly. ‘The elect God hath decreed to give to Christ to be saved by him, and effectually to call and draw them to his communion by his word and Spirit; to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of his Son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of his mercy, and for the praise of the riches of his glorious grace’ (Canons, Art. VII; cf. Art. IX). It can scarcely be denied, however, that the formulation of Westminster excels in not only tying up the fruits with election but also in stating the certainty of effectuation in both redemption and application. ‘As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation’ (Sect. VI).3

 

The section just quoted from the Confession requires comment from another angle. On the question of the order of the divine decrees the Canons of Dordt are infralapsarian. This would appear to be the purport of Article VII when it says that election is that whereby God hath ‘chosen in Christ unto salvation a certain number of men from the whole human race, which had fallen by their own fault from their original integrity into sin and destruction, neither better nor more worthy than others but with them involved in common misery’. But it is clearly set forth in Article X when it is said that God was pleased ‘out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar treasure to himself’. The Confession might seem to have the same intent. ‘Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ.’ This would not be correct. The words, ‘being fallen in Adam’, do not imply that the elect when elected were contemplated as fallen in Adam. The words simply state an historical fact which explains the necessity of redemption by Christ and the other phases of salvation. The Confession is non-committal on the debate between the Supralapsarians and Infralapsarians and intentionally so, as both the terms of the section and the debate in the Assembly clearly show. Surely, this is proper reserve in a creedal document.

 

No paragraph in the whole compass of confessional literature excels for precision of thought, compactness of formulation, and jealousy for the various elements of truth in the doctrine concerned than Section VII of the Confession. ‘The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.’ Several observations should be noted.

 

The section deals with what has often been called the decree of reprobation. In distinction from Dordt (cf. Arts. VI, XV, and XVI)4 the Confession does not use this term. This restraint must be commended. Although the Scripture uses the term that is properly rendered ‘reprobate’ (cf. Rom. 1:28; 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5, 6, 7; 2 Tim. 3:8; Tit. 1:16), yet its use is such that the elements entering into the decree of God respecting the non-elect could not legitimately be injected into it. The presumption is that the Westminster divines hesitated to employ it for this reason. Biblical terms should not be loosely applied.

 

The precision of the formulation is evident in the distinction drawn between the two expressions ‘to pass by’ and ‘to ordain them’. The former is not modified, the latter is. No reason is given for the passing by except the sovereign will of God. If sin had been mentioned as the reason, then all would have been passed by. The differentiation finds its explanation wholly in God’s sovereign will and in respect of this ingredient the only reason is that ‘God was pleased . . . to pass by’. But when ordination to dishonour and wrath is contemplated, then the proper ground of dishonour and wrath demands mention. And this is sin. Hence the addition in this case, ‘to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin’.

 

A third observation, however, is all-important. It might be alleged that the Confession represents judicial infliction and ill-desert as the only factor relevant to the ordaining to dishonour and wrath, that what has been called ‘reprobation’ as distinct from preterition is purely judicial. The Confession is eloquent in its avoidance of this construction and only superficial reading of its terms could yield such an interpretation. The earlier clauses — ‘God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures’ — govern ‘to ordain them to dishonour and wrath’ as well as ‘to pass by’. So the sovereign will of God is operative in ordaining to dishonour and wrath as well as in passing by. And careful analysis will demonstrate the necessity for this construction. Why are some ordained to dishonour and wrath when others equally deserving are not? The only explanation is the sovereign will of God. The ground of dishonour and wrath is sin alone. But the reason why the non-elect are ordained to this dishonour and wrath when others, the elect, are not, is sovereign differentiation on God’s part and there is no other answer to the question.

 

The genius of the fathers of Dordt did not lie in the direction of such compact and yet adequate definition. And the situation confronting them required more expanded treatment. But Dordt was likewise alert to the need for these same distinctions and to the diverse factors entering into what it called the decree of reprobation (decretum reprobationis). ‘What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture, that not all men are elect but certain non-elect are passed by in God’s eternal election, and these God out of his most free, most just, irreprehensible, and immutable good pleasure decreed to leave in the common misery into which they by their own fault have plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion, but, left to their own ways and under just judgment, at length, not only on account of unbelief but also for all other sins, for the declaration of his justice to condemn and punish forever’ (Art. XV; cf. also Art. VI).

 

The Canons are at this point careful to guard against the inference that the decree of reprobation makes God the author of sin. ‘And this is the decree of reprobation which by no means makes God the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous judge and avenger’ (Art. XV). The Confession reiterates the same caution. Although God ordains ‘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’ (Sect. I).

 

On the distinction between the sovereign and judicial elements in foreordination to death Calvin likewise is cognizant. He draws the distinction in terms of the difference between ‘the highest cause’ (suprema causa) and the ‘the proximate cause’ (propinqua causa).5 The highest cause is ‘the secret predestination of God’ and the proximate cause is that ‘we are all cursed in Adam’. ‘But as the secret predestination is above every other cause, so the corruption and wickedness of the ungodly affords a ground and provides the occasion for the judgments of God.’6 Thus for Calvin, as for Dordt and Westminster, the reason for discriminating is ‘the bare and simple good pleasure of God’ (ad Rom. 9:11) and the ground of damnation is the sin of the reprobate, a damnation to which they have been destined by the will of God (cf. ad Rom. 9:20).7

 

It will be admitted that in ‘the decree of reprobation’ the doctrine of God’s absolute predestination comes to sharpest focus and expression. On this crucial issue, therefore, Calvin, Dordt, and Westminster are at one. The terms of expression differ, as we might expect, and the Westminster Confession with inimitable finesse and brevity has given to it the most classic formulation. But the doctrine is the same and this fact demonstrates the undissenting unity of thought on a tenet of faith that is a distinguishing mark of our Reformed heritage and without which the witness to the sovereignty of God and to his revealed counsel suffers eclipse at the point where it must jealously be maintained. For the glory of God is the issue at stake.

 

The abuses of the doctrine of predestination and the alleged conflict thereby instituted with other doctrines of Scripture are matters with which Calvin, Dordt, and ‘Westminster were compelled to deal. The Westminster Confession with characteristic felicity reads: ‘The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed ill His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel’ (Sect. VIII). The situation Dordt encountered demanded much more expansion of these same caveats, exhortations, and assurances pertaining to the doctrine. The first article of the Arminian Remonstrance required that Dordt should give prominence to the universal sin and condemnation of mankind, to the love of God manifest in the giving of Christ, to the proclamation of the gospel, to the summons of men without distinction to repentance and faith, to the guilt and consequence of unbelief as well as to the saving effect of faith, and to the responsibility of men in the rejection of the gospel. It was necessary to show that these truths were not curtailed or negated by the doctrine of predestination and the latter had to be set in proper focus in relation to them. Hence the first five articles of the Canons are devoted to such aspects of the gospel. But, after the pattern followed by the Westminster Confession and in greater fulness, Dordt deals with the proper uses of the doctrine and warns against the distortions to which it is liable to be subjected. The way of attaining to the assurance of election is set forth in Article XII. The elect may attain to this assurance, ‘though in various degrees and in different measure . . . not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God but by observing in themselves with spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election designated in the Word of God’. The consolations of the sense and certainty of election and the corresponding responses in humiliation, adoration, and gratitude are reflected on in Article XIII and the danger of carnal security, rash presumption, remissness in observing the commandments of God receives proportionate emphasis. Of particular and distinctive interest are Articles XIV and XVI, the former in setting forth the obligation to proclaim constantly, in due time and place to the glory of God’s most holy name, the doctrine of election and the latter for the concern that the proper response should be offered to the doctrine of reprobation. Those who do not yet experience living faith in Christ and its accompanying confidences ought not to be alarmed or terrified by the doctrine of reprobation or rank themselves among the reprobate, provided they persevere ill the use of the means of grace and earnestly desire to be turned to God. But it is a terror to those who are forgetful of the claims of Christ and indulge the lusts of the flesh.8

 

In dealing with abuses of the doctrine of foreordination one objection that both Dordt and Westminster found it necessary to controvert is that it makes God the author of sin and exculpates the human agent. No one has exposed the fallacies underlying this objection with greater effect than Calvin. A great deal of his argumentation in Institutes, Book I, Chapters XVI-XVIII is devoted to a refutation. With eloquent reiteration he develops the distinction between the motive, reason, and end by which men are actuated in the commission of sin, on the one hand, and the motive, reason, and end entertained by God, on the other. In Calvin there is no toning down of the fact that the will of God is the first amid ultimate cause of all that comes to pass. But there is total disparity between the will of God and the will of man as these two wills are operative in the same event. When men sin they are not actuated by the design of fulfilling God’s purpose but by evil passions in contravention of his revealed good pleasure. Here is the same principle asserted by both Dordt and Westminster that foreordination is not the rule of our action but the will or commandments of God revealed in his Word. ‘From what source do we learn but from his Word? In such fashion we must in our deeds search out God’s will which he declares through his Word. God requires of us only what he commands. If we contrive anything against his commandment, it is not obedience but obstinacy and transgression.’9

 

In reference to election there is one other aspect that may not be overlooked. It is that election was in Christ. Calvin repeatedly stresses this. There are three lessons derived from it. First, it certifies that ‘the election is free; for if we were chosen in Christ, it is therefore not of ourselves’.10 Second, we cannot find assurance of our own election anywhere else than in Christ. Election is prior to faith but it is learned only by faith. Third, we learn thereby that election is discriminating; not all are members of Christ. It is noteworthy that both Dordt and Westminster introduce this aspect in contexts where the sovereignty and freeness of election are set in the forefront (Confession, Sect. V; Canons, Art. VII). They are thus in accord with the position emphasized by Calvin. But in neither document is there reflection upon the more practical lessons mentioned by Calvin. We could scarcely expect the limits of creedal formulation to permit this. Both Dordt and Westminster also speak of God’s decree to give the elect to Christ to be saved by him (Confession, Chap. VIII, Sect. I; Canons, Art. VII). This decree from eternity must have been conceived of as distinct from and logically subsequent to election in Christ. No index is given, however, in either document as to how the framers conceived of this election in Christ. This is to their credit. The revelatory data do not warrant dogmatism as to the precise character of the ‘in Christ’ although the Scripture makes apparent its manifold consequences.

 

The conclusion constrained by this comparative study is that although Calvin, Dordt, and Westminster exhibit distinguishing features appropriate to their respective contexts and to the demands these contexts exacted, yet on the subject of predestination there is one voice on all essential elements of the doctrine. This is but one example of what is true in respect of the system of doctrine espoused by the Reformed Churches. There is what must be called the consensus of Reformed theology. Our debt is unmeasured. It is also one to humble us. In no doctrine is the soli Deo gloria more demanded of us than in our thought of predestination. Nowhere in the compass of theological formulation is the praise of God’s glory more central than in the work of Calvin, Dordt, and Westminster.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Predestination and prayer

      Those of us who are saved were chosen for salvation before the world was even created.   Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.   Ephesians 1:3-6 ESV   Since God has already decided who will be saved and who won’t there is no point in praying for the salvation of another person.  If he has been predestined for salvation he will be saved; if he hasn’t been predestined he won’t be.  Our prayers will have no effect.  This seems like an unanswerable argument against praying that someone be saved.  But Paul, the author of the above quote, wasn’t persuaded by it.  He prayed for the salvation of his fellow Israelites.   Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.  Romans 10:1-3 ESV   Why would Paul pray for their salvation if God had already determined whether they would be saved?  He understood that God doesn’t experience time the same way we do.  We only experience one point in time.  Some events are in the past and we can do nothing to change them.  Some are in the future and the choices we make now can affect them.  God doesn’t experience time this way.  To him the past, present, and future are all the same.  One of his attributes is omnipresence.  His omnipresence is temporal as well as spatial.  He not only exists everywhere at the same time, he also occupies all of time.   The things we do can only affect the future.  Our prayers can affect the past.  If you know people who are unsaved, pray for them.  God can answer the prayer you make now by selecting that person to be saved before the creation of the world.   Before they call I will answer;
          while they are yet speaking I will hear.  Isaiah 65:24 ESV

      in General Faith

    • John Calvin on Prayer: 6 Reasons Why You Should Pray

      Is it even necessary to pray? This question is sometimes asked today. Apparently, it was also popular over 500 years ago.   In his famous book Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin dedicates extensive time on prayer, and gives plenty of reasons why you and I should pray.   “But someone will say,” Calvin writes, “does God not know even without being reminded, both in what respect we are troubled, and what is expedient for us, so that it seems in a sense that it may be superflous that he should be stirred up by our prayers . . . But they who thus reason do not observe to what end the Lord instructed his people to pray, for he ordained it not so much for his sake but for ours.”   Michael Horton recalls a somewhat common conversation:   “Sometimes people ask me, ‘Why pray if God is sovereign?’ I respond, ‘Why pray if he isn’t?'”   So while there’s more than just six, here’s six reasons why every Christian should pray, as Calvin outlines in his Institutes:   Reason #1: For increased zeal. Calvin starts with zeal. For without communion with the Lord, you can’t expect to be zealous for the Lord. For without communion with the Lord, you can't expect to be zealous for the Lord. - David Qaoud   “First, that our hearts may be fired with a zealous and burning desire ever to seek, love, and serve him, while we become accustomed in every need to flee to him as to a sacred anchor.”   Reason #2: For the right desires. Then, Calvin goes to desires. But not just to any desires, but holy ones.   “Secondly, that there may enter our hearts no desire and no wish at all of which we should be ashamed to make him a witness, while we learn to set all our wishes before his eyes, and even to pour out our whole hearts.”   Reason #3: For increased gratitude. Now, we’re on to gratitude. The world wants to increase our discontentment, but through prayer, we can be a grateful people.   “Thirdly, that we be prepared to receive his benefits with true gratitude of heart and thanksgiving, benefits that our prayer reminds us come from his hand.”   Reason #4: For reflection on God’s answers. We should pray for blessings. But after receiving them, if God wills them, we should spend time reflecting on God’s goodness through prayer.   “Fourthly, moreover, that, having obtained what we were seeking, and being convinced that he has answered our prayers, we should be led to meditate upon his kindness more ardently.”   Reason #5: For greater delight in God. Delight and duty go together. Our duty is prayer, and our delight is God. But only through prayer can we actually delight in him (and the blessings he gives).   “And fifthly, that at the same time we embrace with greater delight those things which we acknowledge to have been obtained by prayers.”   Reason #6: For confirmation of God’s Providence. I love Calvin because he always seems to bring things back to God’s Providence. Nevertheless, he does the same with prayer, and we should end prayer to help us confirm God’s Providence.   “Finally, that use and experience may, according to the measure of our feebleness, confirm his Providence, while we understand not only that he promises never to fail us, and of his own will opens the way to call upon him at the very point of necessity, but also that he ever extends his hand to help his own, no wet-nurising them with words but defending them with present help.”   Calvin adds, “On account of these things, our most merciful Father, although he never sleeps or idles, still very often gives the impression of one sleeping or idling in order that he may thus train us, other wise idle and lazy, to seek, ask, and entreat him to our great good.”   Prayer is not just a suggestion; it’s a command. And, amazingly, God will listen to your prayer and grant your request if it aligns with his will. Your prayers make things happen. As John Piper once said, “Prayer causes things to happen that wouldn’t happen if you didn’t pray.”   Source: http://gospelrelevance.com/2016/07/1...-reasons-pray/

      in Calvinism

    • Absolute Predestination

      We have many good conversations about predestination. But we seldom define the degree to which predestination affects the universe and all. At the least it appears many think God imagined the universe before he created it. Let it run its own course without his intervention. And then created what he saw. Making it unchangeable and therefore predestined to happen just as he foresaw it.   Another view, the most extreme says: God created all, including every thought and act of every creature in the universe when he created the universe. That not a grain of sand on the furthest planet shifts position without God who also created its path and movements in the appointed time.   Both extremes depend on God’s perfect knowledge. If God only energizes but doesn’t control all, he then must watch and learn what might or might not happen. And this would mean he is not all knowing as the bible says.   Other theories emerge but the Westminster Confession (London Baptists Confession) Chapter 3:1; God's Eternal Decree defines biblical predestination this way.   1.     God, from all eternity, did—by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will—freely and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass. Yet he ordered all things in such a way that he is not the author of sin, nor does he force his creatures to act against their wills; neither is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.   So as I understand, we freely choose for the reasons God created along with us. Reasons we would freely base our choices on as we meet up with them at the right time and place in life.    This resolves free will and divine sovereignty.

      in Apologetics and Theology

    • The Second Commandment, Westminster and Images of Jesus

      by Brian Cosby     No, the Westminster divines weren’t intentionally attacking The Jesus Storybook Bible; but they probably would have taken issue with the pictures of Jesus.   I serve on the Theological Examination Committee for the Presbytery in which I minister--which means, among other things, that I help examine candidates who sense a call to the ministry. Over the last couple of years, I’ve noticed an increasing number of candidates taking an “exception” to the Westminster Standards’ interpretation of the Second Commandment, mainly due to the interpretation of the use of “images” in worship.   A good place to start when considering this issue is to look at what the Second Commandment actually says? In Exodus 20, we read,     The Westminster Divines interpreted this by affirming, “The second commandment forbiddeth the worshiping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in his Word” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 51). The Westminster Larger Catechism similarly teaches:     I am finding that an increasing number of pastors and candidates for gospel ministry are rejecting Westminster’s interpretation. Across my denomination—the Presbyterian Church in America (which holds to the Westminster Standards as part of its Constitution)—such a rejection is generally considered a “acceptable exception” (i.e. either it is considered a "semantic difference" with the wording of the Standards or "a difference that is more than semantic but that is not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine” - RAO 16-3). In other words, most presbyteries allow a candidate for ministry to disagree with Westminster on this issue because (they believe) it does not strike at the “fundamentals” of our faith.   Westminster's Rationale   Notwithstanding, I want to give you a brief rationale in favor of the Second Commandment as interpreted by the Westminster Divines—why they argued the way they did.1   By creating an image of Jesus (e.g., in a painting or a stained-glass window), a person is inserting his or her own ideas of what Jesus looked like. Because we do not know what he looked like, this image would not be a true image or representation of Christ. Rather, it would simply be an image of a man from the imagination of the artist that he or she has called “Jesus.”   If these images, then, do not truly represent Christ, then they are put in the place of the true Christ. Evoking any sense of worship of that which is not Christ, but rather inserted in the place of Christ, is--by definition--idolatry. If an observer were to gaze upon that image with the intent to worship, by thoughts or emotions, then that observer would be worshipping a man-made image and not the true God-man, Jesus Christ. The same principle would also apply for images of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.   The Westminster Standards not only identify the physical creation of an image of God (or one of the persons of the Trinity), they also target the thought behind it as a violation of the Second Commandment. Whether the thought is expressed on paper or stays in the mind, the same principle applies: inserting an “invented” Christ in the place of the true revealed Christ in Scripture is idolatry.   In opposition to this, Westminster puts the emphasis on Scripture, God’s self-revelation, and not man-made images of God. Why? Because the Bible is sufficient for directing us on how and by what means we are to worship God. They would argue that we do not need to add to or help the Scriptures along by fashioning an idea of Christ and then calling it “Christ.”   Moreover, God has already given us one visual means by which we both remember and participate in the body and blood of our Lord Jesus. Scripture calls this the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20). We are left to ask ourselves the question, "Do I believe that God’s Word and sacraments are sufficient means of salvation and sanctification for His elect?" The answer we give to this question will reveal how we approach the issue of images of Jesus.   If you haven’t thought through this issue before, I want to encourage you to consider studying it. It shouldn’t scare us to think through the wisdom of our Confessional heritage. Rather, it should--at the very least--cause us to ponder the rationale and explanation for Westminster's interpretation of the second commandment. Wherever you land on this issue, this much we can agree upon: We should all strive to understand the Second Commandment more faithfully, to reaffirm the sufficiency of Scripture in all of life, to avail ourselves to the ordinary means of grace and to strive for undivided worship.

      in Creeds and Confessions

    • Common Objections to the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

      by Loraine Boettner 1. That it is Fatalism 2. That it is Inconsistent with the Free Agency and Moral Responsibility of Man 3. That it Makes God the Author of Sin 4. That it Discourages All Motives to Exertion 5. That it Represents God as a Respecter of Persons or as Unjustly Partial 6. That it is Unfavorable to Good Morality 7. That it Precludes a Sincere Offer of the Gospel to the Non-Elect 8. That it Contradicts the Universalistic Scripture Passages   View the full article

      in Soteriology and Reformation Theology

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.