The

History
And
Theology
Of
Calvinism
Curt Daniel
This material is a collection of the notes that the author used
to teach a class in a church in Texas in the 1980s.
The notes were scanned for this edition, please forgive any
errors since this material has not been closely proof read.

The History
And
Theology Of Calvinism
Curt Daniel
Table of Contents

Chapter 1. What is Calvinism? ................................................................................... 18

1. Introduction to the Question.................................................................................. 18
2. Delineation of the Subject..................................................................................... 18
3. Synonyms of Calvinism. ....................................................................................... 19
4. Varieties of Calvinism. .......................................................................................... 20
5. The Definition of Calvinism. .................................................................................. 22
A General Bibliography On Calvinism........................................................................ 24
Chapter 2. Augustine and Pre-Calvinism. .................................................................. 30
1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................... 30
2. Did Calvinism Come from Stoicism?..................................................................... 30
3. Did Calvinism Come from, Islam?......................................................................... 31
4. The Early Church Fathers..................................................................................... 32
5. Pelagius and Pelagianism. ................................................................................... 32
6. Augustine.............................................................................................................. 33
7. Semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism................................................................. 34
8. Gottschalk............................................................................................................. 35
9. The Medieval Schoolmen. .................................................................................... 36
10. Bibliography on Augustine and Pelagius. ........................................................... 37
Chapter 3. The Reformation....................................................................................... 38
1. Martin Luther......................................................................................................... 38
2. Historic Lutheranism. ............................................................................................ 39
3. The Anabaptists.................................................................................................... 40
4. The Swiss Reformation......................................................................................... 40
5. The German Reformed Reformation. ................................................................... 41
Chapter 4. John Calvin............................................................................................... 45
1. Biography. ............................................................................................................ 45
2. Calvin and Luther.................................................................................................. 46
3. Misconceptions About Calvin................................................................................ 46
4. Calvin and Servetus.............................................................................................. 47
5. Calvins Writings. .................................................................................................. 48
6. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. ................................................................ 49
7. Calvins Theology. ................................................................................................ 49
8. Predestination....................................................................................................... 50
9. Conclusion............................................................................................................ 50
Chapter 5. Chapter The Spread of Calvinism............................................................. 52
1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................... 52
2. Theodore Beza (1519-1605)................................................................................. 52
3. The Palatinate of Southern Germany. .................................................................. 53
4. The French Reformed Church. ............................................................................. 54

5. Holland. ................................................................................................................ 55
6. England. ............................................................................................................... 55
7. Scotland................................................................................................................ 56
8. Elsewhere............................................................................................................. 57
9. Calvin versus the Calvinists. ................................................................................. 57
Chapter 6. The Synod of Dort. ................................................................................... 59
1. Jacob Arminius. .................................................................................................... 59
2. The Arminians....................................................................................................... 60
3. The Remonstrance. .............................................................................................. 60
4. The Calvinists. ...................................................................................................... 61
5. The Political Situation. .......................................................................................... 61
6. The Synod of Dort................................................................................................. 61
7. The Canons of the Synod of Dort. ........................................................................ 62
8. The Aftermath. ...................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 7. The Puritans. ............................................................................................ 65
1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................... 65
2. Origins of English Puritanism................................................................................ 65
3. Cambridge Calvinism............................................................................................ 65
4. Presbyterian Puritanism........................................................................................ 66
5. Congregational Puritanism. .................................................................................. 67
6. The King James Version....................................................................................... 67
7. The Pilgrim Fathers. ............................................................................................. 67
8. English Arminianism and Anglican Anti-Puritanism. ............................................. 68
9. Scottish Calvinism. ............................................................................................... 69
10. The Puritan Revolution. (1640-1660).................................................................. 69
11. The Restoration (1660)....................................................................................... 70
12. Toleration of Restricted Puritanism..................................................................... 70
13. The Final Stage of Puritanism............................................................................. 71
14. Epilogue.............................................................................................................. 71
Chapter 8. The Westminster Assembly. ..................................................................... 73
1. Events Preceding the Assembly. .......................................................................... 73
2. The Westminster Assembly. ................................................................................. 73
3. The Leading Westminster Divines. ....................................................................... 74
4. Major Theological Issues. ..................................................................................... 75
5. The Westminster Documents and Related Documents. ....................................... 75
6. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). ...................................................... 77
7. The Westminster Catechisms (1647).................................................................... 78
8. The Aftermath. ...................................................................................................... 79
Chapter 9. Covenant Theology. ................................................................................. 82
1. Introduction. .......................................................................................................... 82
2. 16th Century Origins.............................................................................................. 82
3. 17th Century Covenant Theology. ......................................................................... 83
4. Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669). ......................................................................... 83
5. Herman Witsius (1636-1708). ............................................................................... 84
6. Later Federalists. .................................................................................................. 84
7. Definition of Covenant......................................................................................... 84

8. The Covenant of Redemption. .............................................................................. 85

9. The Covenant of Works. ....................................................................................... 85
1O. The Covenant of Grace...................................................................................... 87
11. The Later Covenants. ......................................................................................... 87
12. Further Ramifications.......................................................................................... 88
13. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism........................................................ 88
Chapter 10. High Calvinism.......................................................................................... 93
1. What is High Calvinism? ...................................................................................... 93
2. Supralapsarianism. ............................................................................................... 94
3. Assurance of Salvation. ........................................................................................ 96
Chapter 11. Amyraldism............................................................................................... 99
1. Moyse Amyraut..................................................................................................... 99
2. Hypothetical Universalism. ................................................................................. 100
3. Other French Amyraldians.................................................................................. 100
4. The Anti-Amyraldians. ........................................................................................ 100
5. The Formula Consensus Helvetica..................................................................... 101
6. British Parallels of Amyraldianism....................................................................... 101
7. British Limited Atonement................................................................................... 102
8. Later Advocates of Non-Limited Atonement. ...................................................... 103
9. Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement. ............................................................ 103
10. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 104
Chapter 12. Calvinistic Antinomianism. ...................................................................... 106
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 106
2. The Antinomian Controversy of the 1630s......................................................... 106
3. The English Antinomian Controversy of the 1640s. ........................................... 107
4. Neonomianism..................................................................................................... 109
5. The Gospel Standard.......................................................................................... 110
6. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 111
Chapter 13. Hyper-Calvinism. .................................................................................... 112
1. The Origins of Hyper-Calvinism. ......................................................................... 112
2. John Gill (1697-1771). ........................................................................................ 112
3. The Gospel Standard.......................................................................................... 113
4. The Earthen Vessels. ......................................................................................... 113
5. The Primitive Baptists. ........................................................................................ 114
6. Arthur W. Pink..................................................................................................... 115
7. The Protestant Reformed Church. ...................................................................... 115
8. Problems in Defining Hyper-Calvinism. .............................................................. 116
9. Hyper-Calvinism and the Free Offer................................................................. 116
10. The Question of,Duty Faith............................................................................. 117
11. The Debate over Common Grace..................................................................... 118
12. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 118
Chapter 14. Eighteenth-Century Calvinism. ............................................................... 121
1. The Scottish Presbyterians. ................................................................................ 121
2. The English Independents. ................................................................................. 122
3. The Anglican Calvinists. ..................................................................................... 123
4. The Evangelical Awakening................................................................................ 124

5. The Great Missionary Movement........................................................................ 125

6. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 126
Chapter 15. Jonathan Edwards and New England Calvinism. ................................... 127
1. Biography of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). ................................................... 127
2. Edwards as Theological Writer. .......................................................................... 128
3. The Great Awakening. ........................................................................................ 128
4. The Halfway Covenant Controversy. .................................................................. 130
5. The Freedom of the Will. .................................................................................... 130
6. Original Sin. ........................................................................................................ 131
7. Edwards Last Days, ........................................................................................... 132
8. The Further History of New England Theology. .................................................. 132
Chapter 16. The Princeton Theology.......................................................................... 135
1. Origins. ............................................................................................................... 135
2. Charles Hodge (1797-1878). .............................................................................. 136
3. The Hodge Dynasty. ........................................................................................... 137
4. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921). .................................................... 137
5. Miscellaneous Princetonian Theologians............................................................ 138
6. The Two Presbyterian Divisions of the 19th-century............................................ 138
7. The Split at Princeton Seminary. ........................................................................ 139
8. J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937). ...................................................................... 140
9. Other Westminster Faculty. ................................................................................ 140
10. Westminster Today........................................................................................... 141
11. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 141
Chapter 17. Nineteenth-Century Calvinism. ............................................................... 143
1. Southern Presbyterianism. ................................................................................. 143
2. Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898). .................................................................... 143
3. The Revival in the Confederate Army. ................................................................ 144
4. James Henley Thornwell (1812-1862). ............................................................... 144
5. Other Southern Presbyterian Theologians of Note. ............................................ 145
6. The Mercersburg Theology................................................................................. 145
7. William G.T. Shedd (1820-1894). ....................................................................... 146
9. Scottish Low Calvinism, or the New Light. ........................................................ 147
10. The Disruption. ................................................................................................. 148
11. The Free Church of Scotland Theologians. ...................................................... 149
12. Nineteenth-Century English Calvinism. ............................................................ 150
Chapter 18. Calvinistic Baptists.................................................................................. 152
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 152
2. The Anabaptists.................................................................................................. 152
3. 17th Century English Calvinistic Baptists............................................................. 153
4. The Strict and Particular Baptists........................................................................ 154
5. Hyper-Calvinist Baptists...................................................................................... 155
6. Abaptist Hyper-Calvinists.................................................................................... 155
7. Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)............................................................. 155
8. Baptist Calvinism in America. ............................................................................. 156
9. Southern Baptist Calvinism................................................................................. 157
10. Miscellaneous Calvinistic Baptists. ................................................................... 158

11. Conclusion. ........................................................................................................ 158

Chapter 19. Dutch Calvinism...................................................................................... 160
1. Background......................................................................................................... 160
2. Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). ........................................................................... 160
3. Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). ............................................................................ 162
4. G.C. Berkouwer (1903- )..................................................................................... 163
5. Other Contemporary Dutch Calvinists. ............................................................... 165
6. Dutch Calvinism in America................................................................................ 165
7. Louis Berkhof (1873-1957). ................................................................................ 166
8. William Hendriksen (1900-1981)......................................................................... 167
9. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 167
Chapter 20. Calvinistic Philosophy. ............................................................................. 168
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 168
2. Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977). .................................................................... 168
3. Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). ........................................................................... 170
4. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr. (1895-1975)....................................................................... 172
5. Gordon Clark (1902-1985).................................................................................. 172
6. John Gerstner (1914- ). ...................................................................................... 173
7. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984). .......................................................................... 174
8. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 175
Chapter 21. The Theonomy Movement...................................................................... 177
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 177
2. Rousas J. Rushdoony......................................................................................... 177
3. Gary North. ......................................................................................................... 178
4. The Tyler Theonomists. ...................................................................................... 179
5. Greg Bahnsen..................................................................................................... 179
6. Southeastern Theonomists................................................................................. 180
7. Postminenialism.................................................................................................. 180
8. Theonomy and the Reformed Doctrine of the Law. ............................................ 181
9. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 182
Chapter 22. Neo-Orthodoxy. ...................................................................................... 184
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 184
2. Karl Barth (1886-1968). ...................................................................................... 184
3. Barth on Scripture............................................................................................... 185
4. Barth on God. ..................................................................................................... 186
5. Barth on Election. ............................................................................................... 187
6. Barth on Hell. ...................................................................................................... 187
7. Emil Brunner (1889-1966). ................................................................................. 188
8. Brunner on Scripture........................................................................................... 188
9. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 189
Chapter 23. 20th-century British Calvinism. ................................................................ 191
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 191
2. Thomas F. Torrance (1913- ).............................................................................. 191
3. 20th-century Scottish Historic Calvinism.............................................................. 193
4. W.H. Griffith Thomas (1861-1924)...................................................................... 193
5. J.I. Packer (1926- ). ............................................................................................ 194

6. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981).............................................................. 195

7. The Banner of Truth............................................................................................ 197
8. R.T. Kendall (1935- ). ......................................................................................... 198
9. Miscellaneous British Calvinists.......................................................................... 198
Chapter 24. 20th-century American Calvinism. ........................................................... 200
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 200
2. 20th-century American Presbyterianism. ............................................................. 200
3. Calvinist Scholars in the UPCUSA and PCUSA. ................................................ 202
4. Dispensational Calvinists.................................................................................... 202
5. Philadelphian Pre-Millenial Calvinism. ................................................................ 203
6. PCA Calvinists. ................................................................................................... 203
7. Loraine Boettner (1900- ).................................................................................... 204
8. Arthur C. Custance (1919-1986) and Annihilationism......................................... 204
9. Roger Nicole (1915- ) and French Calvinism...................................................... 205
10. Miscellaneous Calvinists................................................................................... 205
11. Miscellaneous Sources and Resources for 20th-century American Calvinism. . 206
Chapter 25. The Sovereignty of God.......................................................................... 208
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 208
2. The Godness of God. ......................................................................................... 208
3. The Self-Existence of God.................................................................................. 209
4. The Perfection of God......................................................................................... 209
5. The Transcendence of God. ............................................................................... 209
6. The Independence of God. ................................................................................. 210
7. The Sovereignty of God...................................................................................... 211
8. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 212
Chapter 26. Predestination......................................................................................... 214
1. Introduction......................................................................................................... 214
2. What is Predestination?...................................................................................... 214
3. The Purpose of God. .......................................................................................... 215
4. The Program of God. .......................................................................................... 217
5. Eternal Predestination. ....................................................................................... 217
6. Absolute Predestination...................................................................................... 217
7. Predestination of All Means and Ends. ............................................................... 218
8. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 219
Chapter 27. Foreknowledge. ...................................................................................... 220
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 220
2. The Omniscience of God. ................................................................................... 220
3. Absolute Foreknowledge. ................................................................................... 220
4. Foreknowledge and Foreordination. ................................................................... 221
5. Eternity. .............................................................................................................. 222
6. Foreknowledge and Prophecy. ........................................................................... 222
7. How Does God Know? ....................................................................................... 223
8. The Theory of Middle Knowledge. ...................................................................... 223
9. Various Theories of Limited Omniscience and Foreknowledge. ......................... 224
10. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 225
Chapter 28. Objections to Predestination................................................................... 227

Introduction.............................................................................................................. 227
1. Absolute predestination is fatalism. .................................................................. 227
2. Things just are.................................................................................................. 228
3. The idea of absolute predestination renders history meaningless.................... 228
4. Predestination is linear, but the universe is a cycle. ......................................... 229
5. God limits His sovereignty. ............................................................................... 229
6. God changes His mind, therefore predestination is not unalterable. ................ 230
7. The universe is a game of cosmic chess between God and Satan. ................. 231
8. History is a battle between God and Satan. ..................................................... 231
9. Predestination leaves no place for chance....................................................... 232
10. Miscellaneous Cheap Objections...................................................................... 233
11. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 234
Chapter 29. The Providence of God........................................................................... 235
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 235
2. God Provides and Sustains the Universe. .......................................................... 235
3. Nature................................................................................................................. 236
4. Causality and Concurrence. ............................................................................... 237
5. Ordinary Providence. .......................................................................................... 238
6. Extraordinary Providence. .................................................................................. 239
7. Providence with a Purpose. ................................................................................ 239
8. Conclusion........................................................................................................... 240
Chapter 30. The Will of God....................................................................................... 242
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 242
2. The Secret Will of God........................................................................................ 242
3. The Secret Will is Unconditional. ........................................................................ 242
4. The Revealed Will of God................................................................................... 243
5. Contrasts Between the Secret Will and the Revealed Will.................................. 244
6. The Paradox of the Two Wills. ............................................................................ 245
7. The Two Words for Will. ................................................................................... 245
8. Problems with the Paradox. ................................................................................ 246
9. The Providential Will of God. .............................................................................. 247
10. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 247
Chapter 31. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. ...................................... 249
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 249
2. What is Human Responsibility? .......................................................................... 249
3. God Intervenes in the Human Will. ..................................................................... 250
4. Four Verses from Proverbs................................................................................. 251
5. God Intervenes in Human Wills for Good Motives. ............................................. 251
6. God Also Works in the Sinful Hearts of Man to Accomplish His Purpose. .......... 252
7. Divine Preservation of Human Responsibility. .................................................... 252
8. The Grand Paradox. ........................................................................................... 252
9. Three False Explanations of the Paradox........................................................... 253
10. The Proper Attitude Towards the Paradox........................................................ 254
Chapter 32. Prayer and the Sovereignty of God. ....................................................... 256
1. The Problem. ...................................................................................................... 256
2. What is Prayer? .................................................................................................. 256

3. Is God Ever Obligated to Answer Our Prayers? ................................................. 257

4. Four Common Misconceptions About Prayer and the Will of God. ..................... 258
5. Does Prayer Change Gods Mind? ..................................................................... 258
6. Prayer and the Secret Will of God, ..................................................................... 259
7. Divine Sovereignty is an Incentive to Prayer. ..................................................... 260
8. Prayer as a Weans of Providence. ..................................................................... 260
9. The Stoic Reaction. ............................................................................................ 261
10. Thy Will Be Done............................................................................................ 261
11. Why Pray? ........................................................................................................ 262
Chapter 33. The Glory of God. ................................................................................... 263
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 263
2. What is Glory? .................................................................................................... 263
3. The Revelation of Gods Glory............................................................................ 263
4. The Reflection of Gods Glory............................................................................. 264
5. The Paradox of Glory.......................................................................................... 264
6. The Inevitability of Glory. .................................................................................... 265
7. Some Objections. ............................................................................................... 266
8. Christ logical Glory.............................................................................................. 267
9. Soli Deo Gloria.................................................................................................... 267
Chapter 34. The Origin of Sin..................................................................................... 269
1. The Problem Stated............................................................................................ 269
2. God is not the Positive Author of Sin. ................................................................. 269
3. Is Satan the Author of Sin?................................................................................. 270
4. Divine Foreordination.......................................................................................... 270
5. Augustines Theory. ............................................................................................ 271
6. God Permitted Sin to Come into Existence......................................................... 271
7. Why Did God Decree to Permit Sin to Exist?...................................................... 272
8. Some False Theories Exploded.......................................................................... 273
9. Some Final Cautions. ......................................................................................... 274
Chapter 35. Providence and the Problem of Evil........................................................ 276
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 276
2. Providence and Temptation. ............................................................................... 276
3. Concurrence with Moral Evil. .............................................................................. 277
4. The Case of Job. ................................................................................................ 278
5. The Problem of Natural Evil. ............................................................................... 278
6. The Problem of Pain. .......................................................................................... 279
7. Theodicy. ............................................................................................................ 280
Chapter 36. Original Sin. ............................................................................................ 282
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 282
2. The Nature of Original Sin. ................................................................................. 282
3. Biblical Proofs for Original Sin. ........................................................................... 283
4. How is Original Sin Transmitted?........................................................................ 284
5. Mediate Imputation. ............................................................................................ 285
6. Immediate Imputation. ........................................................................................ 285
7. The Major Objection. .......................................................................................... 286
8. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 287

Chapter 37. Total Depravity. ...................................................................................... 288

1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 288
2. What Total Depravity is Not. ............................................................................... 288
3. The Total Depravity of Human Nature. ............................................................... 288
4. Sinful Bodies....................................................................................................... 289
5. Depraved Emotions. ........................................................................................... 290
6. Depraved Minds.................................................................................................. 290
7. Depraved Consciences....................................................................................... 290
8. Depraved Wills.................................................................................................... 291
9. Totally Depraved All of the Time......................................................................... 291
10. Is Man as Sinful as He Can Be? ....................................................................... 292
11. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 293
Chapter 38. The Bondage of the Will. ........................................................................ 295
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 295
2. The Bondage of the Will. .................................................................................... 295
3. Spiritual Death and Slavery. ............................................................................... 296
4. The Nature of Inability, or the Inability of Human Nature. ................................... 296
5. Moral Ability and Natural Ability. ......................................................................... 297
6. The Myth of Free Will.......................................................................................... 298
7. The Four Phases of Mans Will. .......................................................................... 298
8. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 299
Chapter 39. Total Depravity and Human Responsibility. ............................................ 300
1. The Objections.................................................................................................... 300
2. The Nature of Human Responsibility. ................................................................. 300
3. The Myth of Moral Neutrality............................................................................... 301
4. Degrees of Responsibility. .................................................................................. 302
5. The Law and Human Inability. ............................................................................ 302
6. Inability Does Not Negate Responsibility. ........................................................... 303
7. Inability Compounds Culpability.......................................................................... 304
8. Addressing the Ungodly...................................................................................... 304
9. Is it Fair?............................................................................................................. 305
Chapter 40. Unconditional Election. ............................................................................ 307
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 307
2. The Biblical Terminology. ................................................................................... 307
3. Election and Salvation. ....................................................................................... 308
4. Election is Eternal. .............................................................................................. 309
5. A Definite Number of Elect. ................................................................................ 309
6. Individual Election............................................................................................... 310
7. Election is Definite and Irrevocable..................................................................... 311
Chapter 41. The Election of Grace. ............................................................................ 313
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 313
2. The Book of Life.................................................................................................. 313
3. Sovereign Election.............................................................................................. 314
4. Election by Grace. .............................................................................................. 315
5. Election by Sovereign Grace in Romans 9. ........................................................ 316
6. Election by Sovereign Grace in Ephesians 1...................................................... 317

10

Chapter 42. Election and Foreknowledge. ................................................................. 318

1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 318
2. Foreknowledge as Foresight. ............................................................................. 318
3. I Peter 1:1-2. ....................................................................................................... 319
4. Romans 8:29-30. ................................................................................................ 319
5. Election is Not by Foreseen Faith. ...................................................................... 320
6. Foreknowledge and the Knowledge of God. ....................................................... 321
7. God Knows His People....................................................................................... 322
8. Foreknowledge is Not Universal. ........................................................................ 323
9. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 323
Chapter 43. Election in Christ..................................................................................... 325
1. The Trinity and Election. ..................................................................................... 325
2. Election in Christ................................................................................................. 326
3. Christ as the Elected One................................................................................... 327
4. The Arminian Misunderstanding of Election in Christ. ........................................ 328
5. The Barthian Theory. .......................................................................................... 329
6. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 329
Chapter 44. Objections to Election............................................................................. 331
1. The Calvinist doctrine of election kills evangelism............................................. 331
2. Whosoever will may come, not merely the elect............................................... 332
3. Calvinism makes God turn away repentant sinners because they are not elect.
................................................................................................................................. 332
4. If election were true, then the non-elect never have a chance of salvation. ..... 332
5. Election is like this: God votes for you, Satan votes against you, and your vote
decides the election................................................................................................ 333
6. Doesnt the Bible say that God is no respecter of persons?............................. 333
7. But the idea of privilege is wrong...................................................................... 334
8. Election is unloving........................................................................................... 334
9. Election is not fair. ............................................................................................ 335
Chapter 45. The Destiny of the Elect.......................................................................... 336
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 336
2. Salvation and Eternal Life................................................................................... 336
3. Holiness.............................................................................................................. 336
4. Conformity to Christs Image. ............................................................................. 338
5. Glorification......................................................................................................... 338
6. The Glory of Gods Grace................................................................................... 339
7. Heaven is a World of Love. .............................................................................. 340
Chapter 46. The Practical Implications of Election. .................................................... 342
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 342
2. Assurance........................................................................................................... 342
3. Humility. .............................................................................................................. 344
4. Holiness.............................................................................................................. 345
5. Praise. ................................................................................................................ 346
6. Love.................................................................................................................... 346
7. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 347
Chapter 47. The Doctrine of Reprobation................................................................... 348

11

1. What is Reprobation? ......................................................................................... 348

2. Reprobation in Romans 9. .................................................................................. 349
3. Other Texts on Reprobation. .............................................................................. 350
4. Objections........................................................................................................... 352
5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 353
Chapter 48. The Hardening of the Reprobate. ........................................................... 355
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 355
2. Isaiah 6:9-10. ...................................................................................................... 355
3. God Blinds the Minds of the Reprobate. ............................................................. 356
4. God Hardens the Hearts of The Reprobate. ....................................................... 357
5. The Case of Pharaoh.......................................................................................... 357
6. God Gives the Reprobate Up. ............................................................................ 359
7. God Withholds Grace. ........................................................................................ 359
8. God Turns Their Hearts. ..................................................................................... 360
9. God Uses Satan and the Demons, ..................................................................... 360
10. The Bottom Line. .............................................................................................. 361
Chapter 49. The Destiny of the Reprobate................................................................. 362
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 362
2. Hell is Eternal...................................................................................................... 362
3. The Reprobate Will Actively Give Glory to God. ................................................. 364
4. The Glory of Gods Wrath. .................................................................................. 365
5. The Echo of Glory in the Elect and the Reprobate.............................................. 366
6. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 366
Chapter 50. The Relation of Election and Reprobation. ............................................. 368
1. Are the Elect and the Reprobate in Any May Related?....................................... 368
2. Could God Have Reversed the Subjects of Election and Reprobation? ............. 369
3. Are There More Elect or Reprobate?.................................................................. 371
4. Are the Elect and the Reprobate Equal? ............................................................ 373
Chapter 51. The Order of the Decrees. ...................................................................... 375
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 375
2. What is the State of the Question? ..................................................................... 377
3. Amyraldianism. ................................................................................................... 378
4. Supralapsarianism. ............................................................................................. 379
5. Infralapsarianism. ............................................................................................... 380
6. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 381
Chapter 52. The Election of Angels............................................................................ 383
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 383
2. The Elect Angels................................................................................................. 383
3. The Reprobate Angels........................................................................................ 384
4. Angelic Supra!apsarianism? ............................................................................... 386
5. The Elect Angels and Christ. .............................................................................. 387
6. The Relation Between Elect and Reprobate Angels and Elect and Reprobate Men.
................................................................................................................................. 387
7. The Predestined Destinies of the Elect and Reprobate Angels. ......................... 389
Chapter 53. The Election of Dying Infants.................................................................. 390
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 390

12

2. Original Sin. ........................................................................................................ 391

3. The Question of Baptism. ................................................................................... 391
4. The Roman Catholic View. ................................................................................. 392
5. Protestant Views Similar to Romanism............................................................... 392
6. The Question of Infant Faith. .............................................................................. 393
7. The Age of Accountability. .................................................................................. 393
8. Dying Infants are Saved. .................................................................................... 395
9. Some Misused Texts. ......................................................................................... 396
9. Problems. ........................................................................................................... 397
10. How Are Dying Infants Saved? ......................................................................... 397
11. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 398
Chapter 54. The Destiny of the Unevangelized.......................................................... 400
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 400
2. All Men Are Already Under Gods Wrath. ........................................................... 401
3. The Answer of Romans 10. ................................................................................ 402
4. Objections........................................................................................................... 403
5. Election............................................................................................................... 405
6. Missions.............................................................................................................. 406
Chapter 55. The Covenant of Redemption................................................................. 407
1. What is the Covenant of Redemption? ............................................................... 407
2. Three Key Scripture Passages. .......................................................................... 408
3. The Fathers Part in the Covenant. ..................................................................... 409
4. The Sons Part in the Covenant. ......................................................................... 409
5. The Spirits Part in the Covenant. ....................................................................... 411
6. The Covenant of Marriage. ................................................................................. 412
7. The Covenant of Glory........................................................................................ 412
Chapter 56. The Active and Passive Obedience of Christ.......................................... 414
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 414
2. What Saith the Scriptures? ................................................................................. 414
3. The Sinlessness of Jesus. .................................................................................. 415
4. The Active Obedience of Christ. ......................................................................... 416
5. Some Unusual Variations on the Reformed Doctrine. ........................................ 417
6. The Dual Obedience and Justification. ............................................................... 418
7. The Passive Obedience of Christ. ...................................................................... 419
Chapter 57. The Extent of the Atonement. ................................................................. 420
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 420
2. History of the Controversy. ................................................................................. 420
3. The Dual Aspects of the Atonement. .................................................................. 422
4. The Balance of the Dual Aspects........................................................................ 424
5. The Infinite Value of the Atonement.................................................................... 424
6. Universal Benefits of the Atonement................................................................... 425
7. Concluding Comments. ...................................................................................... 426
Chapter 58. Limited Atonement.................................................................................. 429
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 429
2. Election and the Atonement................................................................................ 429
3. Special Grace and the Atonement. ..................................................................... 430

13

4. The Shepherd Dying for the Sheep. ................................................................... 431

5. The Atonement and Christs Special People. ..................................................... 431
6. Romans 8:32. ..................................................................................................... 432
7. Miscellaneous Arguments................................................................................... 433
8. The Double Payment Argument.......................................................................... 433
9. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 434
Chapter 59. Objections to Limited Atonement............................................................ 435
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 435
2. The Perishing Passages. ................................................................................. 435
3. 2 Peter 2:1. ......................................................................................................... 435
4. The World Passages. ....................................................................................... 436
5. The All Passages. ............................................................................................ 437
6. The Many Passages......................................................................................... 439
7. The Free Offer. ................................................................................................... 439
8. Faith and Assurance........................................................................................... 440
9. The Objection Based on Majority Opinion. ......................................................... 440
Chapter 60. Irresistible Grace. .................................................................................. 442
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 442
2. Special Calling. ................................................................................................... 442
3. The Drawing Influence of the Holy Spirit............................................................. 443
4. Power Grace....................................................................................................... 444
5. The Wooing of Irresistible Grace. ....................................................................... 445
6. Objections........................................................................................................... 445
7. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 446
Chapter 61. The New Birth........................................................................................ 448
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 448
2. John 3................................................................................................................. 449
3. I John.................................................................................................................. 449
4. Three Parallel Metaphors. .................................................................................. 450
5. Qualities of the New Birth. .................................................................................. 450
6. The Means of Regeneration. .............................................................................. 451
7. God is Active, Man is Passive............................................................................. 452
8. Regeneration Precedes Faith. ............................................................................ 453
Chapter 62. The Gift of Faith...................................................................................... 455
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 455
2. Ephesians 2:8-9.................................................................................................. 455
3. What Saith the Scriptures? . .............................................................................. 456
4. The Gift of Repentance....................................................................................... 458
5. How Faith is Given.............................................................................................. 459
6. Objections........................................................................................................... 459
7. Conclusions. ....................................................................................................... 460
Chapter 63. The Order of Salvation............................................................................ 462
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 462
2. The Roman Catholic Order of Salvation. ............................................................ 463
3. The Lutheran Order of Salvation......................................................................... 464
4. The Arminian Order of Salvation......................................................................... 464

14

5. Preparatory Stages............................................................................................. 465

6. Regeneration and Adoption. ............................................................................... 465
7. Calling and Justification. ..................................................................................... 466
8. Justification and Faith. ........................................................................................ 466
9. Faith and Repentance. ....................................................................................... 467
10. Conclusion. ....................................................................................................... 468
The Order of Salvation ................................................................................................ 471
Chapter 64. Common Grace. .................................................................................... 472
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 472
2. Common Grace in Nature and Providence. ........................................................ 472
3. Restraining Grace............................................................................................... 473
4. Common Grace and Culture............................................................................... 474
5. Common Grace and Salvation............................................................................ 474
6. Prevenient Grace................................................................................................ 476
7. The Rejection of the Doctrine of Common Grace. .............................................. 477
Chapter 65. The Preservation of the Saints. .............................................................. 479
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 479
2. Preservation by God. .......................................................................................... 479
3. Preservation and Predestination......................................................................... 481
4. Preservation and Eternal Life.............................................................................. 482
5. Miscellaneous Proofs for the Preservation of the Saints..................................... 483
Chapter 66. The Perseverance of the Saints. ............................................................ 486
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 486
2. Perseverance in Faith and Repentance.............................................................. 486
3. Perseverance in Holiness. .................................................................................. 487
4. The Inevitability of Perseverance........................................................................ 487
4. Perseverance in I John. ...................................................................................... 488
5. Perseverance in James 2. .................................................................................. 489
6. Mistaken Notions About Perseverance............................................................... 489
7. Perseverance to the End. ................................................................................... 490
8. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 491
Chapter 67. Objections to Eternal Security. ............................................................... 492
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 492
2. Objections from Old Testament Texts. ............................................................... 492
3. Objections from the Gospels............................................................................... 493
4. Objections from Pauls Epistles, ......................................................................... 495
5. Objections from the Book of Hebrews. ............................................................... 496
6. Objections from the Catholic Epistles. ................................................................ 497
7. Objections from Examples.................................................................................. 498
Chapter 68. The Reformed Doctrine of Scripture. ...................................................... 500
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 500
2. The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit............................................................ 500
3. The Perspicuity of Scripture................................................................................ 502
4. The Analogy of Faith and the Analogy of Scripture............................................. 503
5. Providential Preservation of Scripture................................................................. 505
Chapter 69. The Two Natures of Christ...................................................................... 509

15

1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 509

2. Jesus Christ, Very Man and Very God................................................................ 509
3. The History of Christian Theology of the Hypostatic Union................................. 510
4. The Historic Lutheran Theory. ............................................................................ 511
5. The Reformed View of the Incarnation. .............................................................. 512
6. The Extra Calvinisticum.................................................................................... 513
7. The Ascension. ................................................................................................... 514
8. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 515
Chapter 70. The Reformed Doctrine of the Church.................................................... 517
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 517
2. What is the Church? ........................................................................................... 517
3. The Visible and Invisible Church......................................................................... 519
4. The Marks of the Church. ................................................................................... 519
5. The Regulative Principle..................................................................................... 520
6. Church Government. .......................................................................................... 522
7. Church-State Relations....................................................................................... 523
8. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 523
Chapter 71. The Reformed Doctrine of Communion. ................................................. 525
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 525
2. The Four Non-Reformed Views of Communion. ................................................. 525
3. Spiritual Communion with Christ......................................................................... 527
4. Word and Spirit. .................................................................................................. 529
5. The Rightful Participants of the Table................................................................. 530
6. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 532
Chapter 72. Reformed Evangelism. ........................................................................... 534
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 534
2. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God............................................................. 535
3. Evangelism and the Five Points.......................................................................... 536
4. Arminian Abuses Which Calvinism Avoids. ........................................................ 538
5. Special Weaknesses Which Calvinists Face. ..................................................... 539
6. Why Evangelize? ................................................................................................. 540
7. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 541
Chapter 73. The Practical Applications of Calvinism. ................................................. 543
1. Introduction. ........................................................................................................ 543
2. A Reformed Worldview. ...................................................................................... 543
3. Pitfalls Peculiar to Calvinists. .............................................................................. 545
4. The Truly Reformed Attitudes. ............................................................................ 547
Chapter 74. The Future of Calvinism.......................................................................... 550
1. Reformed Eschatology. ...................................................................................... 550
2. Future Calvinist Debates. ................................................................................... 552
3. The Rediscovery of Calvinism. ........................................................................... 554
4. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 555
Heroes of The Reformation ......................................................................................... 557
An Introduction to Calvinism........................................................................................ 567
Introduction.............................................................................................................. 567
The Sovereignty of God........................................................................................... 568

16

Total Depravity ........................................................................................................ 569

Unconditional Election ............................................................................................. 570
Limited Atonement................................................................................................... 571
Irresistible Grace...................................................................................................... 572
Perseverance of the Saints...................................................................................... 573
Conclusion............................................................................................................... 574

17

Chapter 1. What is Calvinism?

1. Introduction to the Question.
A. While the term Calvinism is well known both inside and out of Christianity, there is an
abundance of ignorance of what it means. Some people - including both Christians and nonChristians - reject it outright without knowing what it really is. Others call themselves Calvinists
without knowing what it is, and their explanations are deficient and suspect.
B. This plethora of ignorance is equaled perhaps only by the intense emotions raised when the
subject is brought up. Heated tempers are let loose on both sides. Calvinism is by any definition
a highly controversial topic.
C. Among the popular but incorrect definitions or descriptions of it are these:
(1) It is the teaching that God wont save a man if he isnt one of the elect, even if he
repents and believes the same as one who is elect.
(2) It teaches that Christians should not evangelize the lost (Calvinism is against
missions!).
(3) It teaches that God is an unloving tyrant and the author and approver of sin.
(4) It teaches infant baptism and therefore salvation by water rather than by Christs
blood.
(5) It is a certain form of church government, namely Presbyterianism.
(6) It was the theological excuse for the Puritans witch hunts.
D. There is a definite answer to the question, What is Calvinism? It cannot be answered by
personal opinion, as if everyone who says he is a Calvinist truly is one. Nor is every suggested
definition correct. On the other hand, it is also true that defining it is not as simple as some
persons think.
E. Actually, this introductory lesson only sums up the definition. The chapters that follow fill in
the details. Our pattern will more or less follow the popular 5 Questions of Journalism, viz:
(1) Who? Who was John Calvin and who are the more well known Calvinists?
(2) What? What is Calvinism, its constituent doctrines and varieties?
(3) Where? Where did it come from and where has it prospered the most?
(4) When? When did it begin and what are the stages of its historical development?
(5) Why? Why do we believe in Calvinism?

2. Delineation of the Subject.

A. Mutual Doctrines. Calvinism is a kind of Christianity. Calvinists accept all the fundamental
doctrines of true Christianity. Thus, it shares a mutual faith in the Gospel with non-Calvinistic
Christians, with whom they join in fundamental agreement in opposing the varieties of pseudo-

18

Christianity which reject one or more of the essential Christian truths.

Let it be underscored at the outset that we do not say that a person needs to be a Calvinist to
be a Christian. Only a very few Calvinists have said that. This is true, for example, regarding
Calvinism's chief rival and errant child, Arminianism. On the other hand, Calvinists have differed
regarding another system which claims to be a form of Calvinism, namely Neo-Orthodoxy. The
Calvinists of the 16th and 17th centuries would all agree that those holding to Neo-Orthodoxy
are in fact denying essentials of both Christianity
In general and Calvinism in particular, their protestations notwithstanding. (More will be said
about these two systems later.)
The differences between Calvinists and other true Christians are mainly over secondary
doctrines, not the primary tenets of the faith (cf. I Cor. 15:1-4). On the other hand, this does not
mean that the doctrines of Calvinism are trivial. As a matter of fact, they are quite important and
have significant implications on Christian living, the Christian world-view, and other areas.
Moreover, the differences between Calvinism and, say, Arminianism are far more important than
the differences which Christians have over other secondary doctrines such as speaking in
tongues, the order of the Rapture and the Millennium, church government, and even water
baptism. Unfortunately, the average Christian is more interested in those issues than the issues
of Calvinism.
So, in order to correctly define Calvinism, one must not concentrate on the doctrines which it
shares in common with other Christians.
B. Distinctive Doctrines. Calvinism must be defined, discussed and explained primarily in terms
of its distinctive beliefs - those truths which it alone holds, or which it gives special prominence
to. This is where one must draw the line, by discussing what is in the Calvinist circle rather than
what is outside of it but which it holds in common with others. And that is what a definition is all
about - drawing the lines of distinction.
For example, this is the best way to discuss the cults. One best understands the cults not by
reviewing what they hold in common with true Christians, but by focusing on what they teach in
contradistinction to the others. The same is true regarding Catholicism, Liberalism, other
religions, etc. Thus, our examination of Calvinism focuses on those truths which it alone
believes, but which other forms of Christianity does not hold to.

3. Synonyms of Calvinism.
A. Reformed. In one sense, the term Reformed applies to the doctrines and churches of the
entire Protestant Reformation. Reformed simply means re-forming truth and the churches to
conform to the Bible. But in the technical sense of the term, it refers only to one of the 3 main
branches of the Reformation:
(1) Lutheranism was the earliest branch and was mainly in Germany and Scandinavia.
This branch is also called Evangelische (Evangelical). It is named for its main
proponent, Martin Luther.
(2) Anabaptist was the next earliest branch. It prospered mainly in the Netherlands. Later
it branched into the Baptists and the Mennonites, named for its main proponent, Menno
Simons.

19

(3) Calvinism began slightly later. It began in Switzerland and southern Germany, and
later prospered in the Netherlands, England and Scotland. It is named for its main
proponent, John Calvin. Properly speaking,Reformed refers to this branch.
Though most scholars equate the terms Calvinism and Reformed, some do not.
These usually have strong affinities with the Anabaptist wing. For example, Kenneth
Good (a Baptist) has written two useful books, entitled Are Baptists Calvinists? (he
answers yes) and Are Baptists Reformed? (he says no). This arises from defining
Reformed in terms of subjects such as baptism, church government and church-state
relations. Historically speaking, the Lutherans and Calvinists shared more in common
with each other at the Reformation than either shared with the Anabaptists. Actually,
they ganged up on the Anabaptists. In time, however, most Baptists came to agree with
the Calvinists on the doctrines known as Calvinism. (More on this in a later study.)
In these studies, then, we will use the terms Calvinist and Reformed interchangeably
as synonyms. Reformed theology is Calvinist theology.
B. The Doctrines of Grace. This is a phrase generally used only by Calvinists. It refers
specifically to the Five Points of Calvinism, especially the second and fourth. We will use it
interchangeably with Calvinism, but usually in this narrowed sense.
C. Sovereign Grace is another term more or less synonymous with the above. For example, a
Sovereign Grace Baptist means a Calvinistic Baptist. Occasionally other schools of theology
employ the term for their own ideas of grace, but in most cases it occurs within Reformed
theology. It brings out two of the central distinctives of Calvinism:
Divine sovereignty, especially the emphasis and descriptions given by Calvinists as opposed to
others. This applies to such areas as divine transcendence, predestination, providence, ultimate
glory, etc.
Divine grace, covering such areas as election, regeneration, calling, etc.

4. Varieties of Calvinism.
Just as there are varieties of Christians, so there are varieties of Calvinists. All Christians have
certain things in common and other things distinctive. The same is true with those who are
Calvinists. There are some things that all Calvinists have in common with each other, but there
are also shades of variation between the branches of Calvinism. This sheds much light on the
essential tenets which they all hold to. In systematic and Biblical theology this principle is called
Unity and Diversity (or The One and the Many).
It needs to be added that these differences are ever so slight when compared with differences
all Calvinists have with Lutherans, Arminians, and other true Christians, and even more so with
pseudo-Christian and non-Christian groups. For example: Calvinism is red. High Calvinism is
crimson; Low Calvinism is scarlet. But Lutheranism is orange, Arminianism is yellow, etc.
A. Pre-Calvinism. The truths of Calvinism are explicitly stated in the Bible. But they are usually
only implicit in most of the early Church Fathers (100-600 AD). Some, in fact, completely
rejected them. They were most explicitly re-discovered by Augustine. Thus, Augustinianism is
basically Pre-Calvinism, or conversely, Calvinism is simply a purification of Augustinianism.
After Augustine, the system of truth was developed by Prosper of Aquitaine and Gottschalk,
then lay dormant until Luther. Then Calvin and his associates refined it even further. As we shall
see later, the original Lutherans and Calvinists were in virtual agreement on these doctrines. But

20

they have different emphases - the Lutherans tended to stress Sola Fide (justification by faith
alone), while the Calvinists tended to stress Sola Gratia (by grace alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (to
God alone be the glory). In time these emphases were developed into substantial differences in
their followers.
B. Calvins Calvinism. Linguistically, this is Calvinism in its purest form. Technically, Calvin was
the only Calvinist. But that begs the question that we are attempting to answer. Still, since the
name comes from him, all later variations must be gauged in terms of his theology, whether by
expansion or distortion.
Incidentally, let me lay to rest a popular error. Calvin did not invent Calvinism. He did not make
up these doctrines any more than Augustine. Rather, Calvin discovered them (to be sure, he rediscovered them and thereby re-formed theology and the churches). He found them in
Scripture.
C. Reformed Calvinism. History shows that Calvin did not hold these thingsal1 by himself. He
was no Reformed Pope, and he did not dominate their formed branch as much as Luther did the
Lutheran branch. Thus, true Reformed theology is not just that which Calvin held, but that which
he held in common with other leaders of the Reformed branch (Bucer, Vermigli, Bullinger, etc).
Much of the debate in subsequent years was over which succeeding branch was truest to the
heritage of Reformed Calvinism. Hence, one sometimes hears the phrase Truly Reformed
(TR) in current debates.
D. Confessional Calvinism. One of the best ways to discuss and define true Reformed theology
is by comparing the official Reformed statements of faith. Host were mainly the work of one
theologian, but in most cases they were assisted by others. These joint efforts were concise
formulations and were frequently adopted as creeds within certain Reformed churches. One
sees a common thread in them all, but also national and historical variations at crucial stages.
Anyone interested in a serious study of Calvinism must read them. Among the more important
ones:
(1) The Major Reformed Confessions.
(A) The Belgic Confession (1561) was mainly the work of Guy de Bres, most popular in the
Netherlands. It was revised by the Synod of Dort in 1619.
(B) The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) was written by Caspar Olevianus
and Zacarias Urslnus, in question-and-answer form. Southern Germany.
(C) The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) was mainly from the pen of Heinrich Bullinger of
Switzerland. One of the longest Reformed confessions, it became the major standard in the
Reformed churches of Hungary.
(D) The Canons of Dort (1618-1619). These were composed by many delegates from several
European nations at the Synod of Dort in the Netherlands. It consists of series of positive
affirmations and negative rejections. This was the origin of the TULIP formula.
(E) The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). This was the chief product of the Westminster
Assembly in England and became the main doctrinal standard of Presbyterianism, especially in
Scotland and America.
(F) The Westminster Larger Catechism (1648) Probably the longest Reformed catechism, it.
was abbreviated as the Shorter Catechism for children. It covers all main doctrines, the Lords
Prayer and the Ten Commandments.

21

(2) Minor Reformed Confessions.

(A) The Geneva Catechism (1541). Written by Calvin. Swiss.
(B) The Scots Confession (1560). Written mainly by John Knox. Scottish.
(C) The Thirty-nine Articles (1563)-. Though not consistently Reformed, it shows how most
founders of the Church of England were Reformed.
(D) The First London Confession (1644). This was the first major Baptist confession and
represents a significant turning from the doctrines over which the Anabaptists differed from the
Calvinists regarding the Reformed Faith. Two later Baptist confessions are even more
Calvinistic: the Baptist Confession of 1689 (which reproduced the Westminster Confession
verbatim, with only slight variations on baptism and church government. The same was done
with the Shorter Catechism) and the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 (the former 2
were more popular in Britain, the third in America).
(E) The Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675). The last major Reformed confession. Mainly by
Francis Turretin and J.H. Heidegger forth French and Swiss Reformed churches to counter
Amyraut.
(F) Miscellaneous: The First Helvetic Confession, the Irish Articles,Craigs Catechism, the Sum
of Saving Knowledge, the Practical Use of Saving Knowledge, the Solemn League and
Covenant, and many more.N.B. The Barmen Declaration and the Confession of 1967 purport
tube Reformed, but are Neo-Orthodox counterfeits.
E. Higher Calvinism. These variations began shortly after Calvin. They include High Calvinism,
Supralapsarianism, Calvinistic Antinomianism, and Hyper-Calvinism. They tended to stress
divine sovereignty and weaken human responsibility.
F. Mainstream Calvinism. This continued and more or less correctly expanded on the Reformed
theology of Calvin and the other original Reformers. Variations include Covenant Theology and
Moderate Calvinism.
G. Lower Calvinism. These moderated original Reformed theology somewhat lower than the
original Reformers in certain areas, especially the atonement and the conditionality of election.
Variations include Amyraldianism, Low Calvinism, Neonomianism, and Four-Point-Calvinism.
H. National Variations. Various emphases can be seen in the Calvinism of Switzerland, France,
the Netherlands, Scotland, England and America, especially as the centuries progress.
I. Ecclesiastical Variations. Calvinists can be found among Presbyterians, Congregationalists,
Anglicans and Baptists. The closest thing to Calvinism within Roman Catholicism after the
Reformation was Jansenism (17th century).
J. Calvinistic Heresies. These are those extreme variations which cannot legitimately be called
Reformed, but arose from within Reformed circles. Arminianism is the main one; Neo-Orthodoxy
is more recent and worse.

5. The Definition of Calvinism.

A. Consistent Christianity. Some Reformed writers contend that Calvinism is nothing more and
nothing less than the Gospel, or the essentials of true Christianity. Others say Calvinism is
Paulineism. These assessments are not precisely correct. They insinuate that unless one is a
Calvinist, he is not a Christian. It is better to say that it is Consistent Christianity. This raises
several problems and rejoiners:

22

(1) Some non-Calvinists contend that Calvinism is unbiblical because the terms
Calvinism and Reformed are not found in Scripture. I would remind them that neither
are the terms Rapture and Trinity found in the Bible. The truths of these, however, are
found quite often.
(2) Other critics say, I follow Christ, not Calvin, sometimes appealingto I Cor. 1. They
have a good point. But we would refer them to I Cor.11:1. We follow Calvin only as far as
he follows Christ. We worship Christ, not Calvin. Andrew Fuller said, I do not believe
everything that Calvin taught, nor any thing because he taught it; but I reckon strict
Calvinism to be my own system because it was truest to Scripture.
(3) By the same standard, we need to be careful lest we make the doctrines of Calvinism
more important than the Gospel. Spurgeon noted: Calvinism to some is of more
importance than Scripture.
(4) Still others say, Just study the Bible. This neglects the Biblical teaching that God
raises up teachers (Eph. 4:11) and that Biblical theology has a certain form or system to
it (Rom. 6:17, 2 Tim. 1:13). We study Reformed theology only that we may better
understand Scripture.
B. The Five Points of Calvinism. One of the most popular ways of defining Calvinism is in terms
of the Five Points, viz: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible
Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (= TULIP). Since these were explicitly formulated at Dort
at a critical time in the development of Calvinism, they must be taken into account in any
definition of Reformed theology. However, one problem is with point #3. Many Calvinists have
moderated or rejected limited atonement; whether they are true or inconsistent is debated, but
they are nevertheless Calvinists. The 5 do not stand and fall together, but the 4 certainly do.
(More on this later).
C. Predestination. When one thinks of Calvinism, the word predestinationimmediately comes
to mind - and that is no coincidence [pardon the theological pun], Calvinism certainly gives more
prominence to predestination and election than any other system. But one should not define
Calvinism solely in terms of election or other soteriological truths, vital as they are.
D. Sovereign Grace. This is closer to the truth. Reformed theology has a distinctive doctrine of
the sovereignty of grace, both in its source and its end. One good thumbnail definition would be
the title of the excellent book by Tom Nettles: By His Grace and For His Glory.
E. The Sovereignty of God. This is the root of the TULIP. Understand it and the TULIP grows
logically and naturally out of it; reject it and one cannot accept TULIP or be considered a
Calvinist. It is the final sine qua non. To be precise, it is not sovereignty per se, nor even the
Reformed view of it as a distinct attribute of God that is determinative. Rather, it is the way in
which Calvinists describe it in relationship to the other attributes of God. Other systems either
minimalize or deny this attribute, while Calvinists give it the proper place - both in relation to the
other attributes and Man as creation and sinner.
Key chapters in defining Calvinism are Eph. 1 and 2, Rom. 8 and 9, John 6 and 10. But the key
verse which sums up Calvinism best is Rom. 11:36, For of Him and through Him and to Him
are all things, to Whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Reformed theology alone teaches a
God-centered theology - that God is absolutely sovereign in creation, redemption and
glorification. That in a nutshell is Calvinism. The rest of this series will be merely elaborating on
it as relates to its history, related doctrines and varieties.

23

A General Bibliography On Calvinism

Most of the following are still in print. Older out-of-print books are omitted. Inclusion, of course,
does not imply complete endorsement. These are general, introductions; books on more
detailed areas will be mentioned in relevant chapters to follow.
1. The History Of Calvinism
McNeil] ..John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York: Oxford
University Press. (A standard work, though McNeill tends to Neo-Orthodoxy.)
Sell, Alan. The Great Debate: Calvinism, Aminianism and Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House. (A superb, concise history.)
Dakin, Arthur. Calvinism. New York: Associated Faculty Press.(Concise)
Leith, John H. An Introduction to the Reformed Tradition. Atlanta: John Knox Press. (Mainly
Presbyterianism; Leith definitely tends to Neo-Orthodoxy.)
Wells, David, ed. Reformed Theology in America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (Essays on
Princeton, Westminster, Dutch, Southern and Neo-Orthodox Calvinism.)
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
(History of theology from the Reformed perspective; centers on controversies.)
2. The Five Points Of Calvinism
Boettner, Lorraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Phi Hipsburg: (The standard work;
lengthy; also covers related issues.)
Custance, Arthur C. The Sovereignty of Grace. Phi Hipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. (Also
lengthy and in-depth, more recent than Boettner.)
Gill, John. The Cause of God and Truth. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (A full, scholarly
treatment; old and Hyper-Calvinist, but a standard on TULIP.)
Steele, David; and Thomas, Curtis. The Five Points of Calvinism. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed. (A very popular, short book; good bibliographies.)
Spencer, Duane Edward. TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of
Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker. (A short book hardly bigger than a pamphlet.)
Palmer, Edwin. The Five Points of Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Baker. (Includes a very useful
chapter on reprobation.)
Hanko, Herman; Hoeksema, Homer; and Van Baren, Gise. The Five Points of Calvinism. Grand
Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association. (Hyper-Calvinist.)
Girod, Gordon. The Deeper Faith: An Exposition of the Canons of Dort. Grand Rapids: Baker.
(Concise, sound, but somewhat dry and unoriginal.)
Coles, Elisha. Divine Sovereignty. Grand Rapids: Baker. (Old Puritan work.)

24

3. Miscellaneous Studies On Calvinism.

The Confession of Faith; The Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture Proofs at
Large. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, c/o Banner of Truth. (The best edition of the
Westminster standards and other related documents.)
Pink, Arthur. The Sovereignty of God. Carlisle: Banner of Truth- (Short and nontechnical; used
more than any other to introduce others to Calvinism. Superb.)
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (Discusses the Calvinist
world-view of art, politics, etc. By former Dutch Prime Minister.)
Shedd, William G.T. Calvinism Pure and Mixed. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Christian View of Man. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Belcher, Richard. A Journey in Grace. Columbia: Richbarry Press. (A fascinating semiautobiographical novel tracing how a Baptist student became Calvinist.)
Girardeau, John. Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism.Harrisonburg: Sprinkle. (Lengthy,
detailed study by a major 19th century Southern Presbyterian.)
Coppes, Leonard. Are Five Points Enough? The Ten Points of Calvinism. Denver: Leonard
Coppes. (Expands the definition of Calvinism into ecclesiology.)
Clark, Gordon. Predestination. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Ness, Christopher. An Antidote Against Arminianism. Edmonton: Still Waters Revival.
Bolt, John. Christian and Reformed Today. Jordan Station: Paideia, c/o Baker.
Hesse!ink, I. John. On Being Reformed: Distinctive Characteristics and Common
Misconceptions. Ann Arbor: Servent Books. (Tends slightly to Neo-Orthodoxy.)
Cheeseman, John; Gardner, Philip; Sadgrove, Michael; and Wright, Tom. The Grace of God in
the Gospel. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (4 Oxford student??]
4. Pamphlets On Calvinism.
Seaton, Jack. The Five Points of Calvinism. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Boettner, Lorraine. The
Reformed Faith. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. De Wit, John R. What is the
Reformed Faith? Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Gerstner, John. A Predestination Primer. Winona
Lake: Alpha Publications. Spurgeon C.H. Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace. Pasadena:
Pilgrim Pubns. Spurgeon, C.H. A Defence of Calvinism. Canton, GA: Free Grace Publications.
Martin, Albert. The Practical Implications of Calvinism. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
5. Systematic Theologies.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press. (The theological masterpiece of Calvinism. This is the best edition.
Eerdmans publishes the first edition in one volume, which is a fourth the size of this the last.
This has notes, introduction, indexes.)

25

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (The largest and best
full systematic theology from a truly Reformed perspective.)
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (Best 1-vol theology)
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker. (A large volume on the finer
nuances of theology, mainly in translations from Reformation and post-Reformation sources
otherwise unavailable in English. A must for specialists.)
Gill, John. A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. Paris, AR: Baptist Standard
Bearer. (Large, excellent, Baptist, Hyper-Calvinist._)
Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free. (Hyper-) Dabney,
Robert Lewis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
6. Collected Works Of Major Calvinists.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. 16 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner.
Thornwell, James Henley. Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell. 4 vols. Carlisle:
Banner of Truth.
Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John Murray. 4 vols. Carlisle: Banner.
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. 10 vols. Grand Rapids:
Baker.
Plus Bible commentaries by Calvin, Pink, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, William Hendriksen,
Gill, Hodge, J.C. Ryle and D.M. Lloyd-Jones.

26

The 5 Points Of Calvinism vs The 5 Points Of Arminianism

The Five Points Of Arminianism
1. Free Will or Human Ability

The Five Points Of Calvinism

1. Total Inability or Total Derpravity

Although human nature was seriously affected

by the fall, man has not been left In a state of
total spiritual helplessness. God graciously
enables every sinner to repent and believe,
but He does so in such a manner as not to
interfere with mans freedom. Each sinner
possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny
depends on how he uses it. Mans freedom
consists of his ability to choose good over evil
in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to
his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to
either cooperate with Gods Spirit and be
regenerated or resist Gods grace and perish.
The lost sinner needs the Spirits assistance,
but he does not have to be regenerated by the
Spirit before he can believe, for faith is mans
act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the
sinners gift to God; it is mans contribution to
salvation.
2. Conditional Election

Because of the fall, man Is unable of himself to

savingly, believe the gospel. The sinner is
dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his
heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His
will Is not free, It Is in bondage to his evil
nature, therefore, he will notIndeed he
cannotchoose good over evil In the spiritual
realm. Consequently, It takes much more than
the Spirits assistance to bring a sinner to
Christit takes regeneration by which the Spirit
makes the sinner alive and gives him a new
nature. Faith is not something man contributes
to salvation but Is itself a part of Gods gift of
salvationit Is Gods gift to the sinner, not the
sinners gift to God.

Gods choice of certain Individuals unto

salvation before the foundation of the world
was based upon His foreseeing that they
would respond to His call. He selected only
those whom He knew would of themselves
freely believe the gospel. Election therefore
was determined by or conditioned upon what
man would do. The faith which God foresaw
and upon which He based His choice was not
given to the sinner by God (it was not created
by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit)
but r e s u lte d solely from man's will. It was
left entirely up to man as to who would believe
and therefore as to who would be elected unto
salvation. God chose those whom He knew
would, of their own free will, choose Christ.
Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's
choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of
salvation.

Gods choice of certain individuals unto

salvation before the foundation of the world
rested solely in His own sovereign will. His
choice of particular sinners was not based on
any foreseen response or obedience on their
part such as faith, repentance, etc. On the
contrary, God gives faith and repentance to
each individual whom He selected. These acts
are the result, not the cause of Gods choice.
Election therefore was not determined by or
conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act
foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly
elected He brings through the power of the
Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ Thus
Gods choice of the sinner, not the sinners
choice of Christ, Is the ultimate cause of salvation.

3. Universal Redemption or General

Atonement

3. Particular Redemption or Limited

Atonement

2. Unconditional Election

27

Christs redeeming work made it possible for

everyone to be saved but did not actually
secure the salvation of anyone. Although
Christ died for all men and for every man, only
those who believe in Him are saved. His death
enabled God to pardon sinners on the
condition that they believe, but it did not
actually put away anyones sins. Christs
redemption becomes effective only if man
chooses to accept it.

Christ s redeeming work was intended to save

the elect only and actually secured salvation for
them. His death was a substitutionary
endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of
certain specified sinners. In addition to putting
away the sins of His people, Christs redemption secured everything necessary for
their salvation, including faith which unites
them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied
by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby
guaranteeing their salvation.
4. The Efficaciout Call of the Spirit or
Irresistible Grace

4. The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually

Resisted
The Spirit calls Inwardly all those who are
called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He
does all that He can to bring every sinner to
salvation. But Inasmuch as man is free, he can
successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit
cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes;
faith (which is man's contribution) precedes
and makes possible the new birth. Thus,
man's free will limits the Spirit in the
application of Christ's saving work. The Holy
Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow
Him to have His way with them. Until the
sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life.
God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can
be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by
man.

5. Falling from Grace

In addition to the outward general call to

salvation which is made to everyone who hears
the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect
a special inward call that inevitably brings them
to salvation. The external call (which is made
to. all without distinction) can be, and often is,
rejected; whereas the internal call (which is
made only to the elect) cannot . be rejected; it
always results in conversion. By means of this
special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners
to Christ. He is not limited in His work of
applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success.
The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to
cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely
and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore,
is invincible; it never fails to result In the salvation of those to whom it Is extended.
5. Perseverance of the Saints

Those who believe and are truly saved can

lose their salvation by failing to keep up their
faith, etc. All Armlnians have not been agreed
on this point; some have held that believers
are eternally secure in Christ' that once a
sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost

All who were chosen by God, redeemed by

Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally
saved. They are kept in faith by the power of
Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.

According to Arminianism:

According to Calvinism:

Salvation is accomplished through the

combined efforts of God (who takes the
initiative) and man (who must respond)
man's response being the determining factor.
God has provided salvation for everyone, but
His provision becomes effective only for those
who, of their own free will, choose to

Salvation is accomplished by the almighty

power of the Triune God. The Father chose a
people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit
makes Christ's death effective by bringing the
elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing
them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire
process (election, redemption, regeneration) is

28

cooperate with Him and accept His offer of

grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a
decisive role; thus man, not God, determines
who will be the recipients of the gift of
salvation.

the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus

God, not man, determines who will be the
recipients of the gift of salvation.

Rejected by the Synod of Dort

This was the system of thought contained in
the Remonstrance (though the five points
were not originally arranged in this order). It
was submitted by the Armin-ians to the Church
of Holland in 1610 for adoption but was
rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1619 on the
ground that it was unscriptural.

Reaffirmed by the Synod of Dort

This system of theology was reaffirmed by the
Synod of Dort In 1619 as the doctrine of
salvation contained in the Holy Scriptures. The
system was at that time formulated into five
points (in answer to the five points submitted
by the Armlnians) and has ever since been
known as the five points of Calvinism.

This chart is taken from Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestinatin and David
Steele and Curtis Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism (both published by Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company).

29

Chapter 2. Augustine and Pre-Calvinism.

1. Introduction.
A. We have already said that Calvin did not invent Calvinism and the doctrines of grace, but
rather discovered them. He was not the first. He was merely one who discovered more about
these doctrines and polished and developed them. In this he was greatly influenced by several
who went before him. Since they shared these doctrines in common with him one could also call
Calvinism Purified Augustinianism.
B. The debate over the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is old,
very old. It was debated among the ancient Greek philosophers and among the ancient Eastern
religions. Post-Christian Jewish rabbis discussed the problem. The problem underlies much of
Pauls debates regarding justification by faith without works. His Judaizing opponents put too
much stress on human responsibility, resulting in a salvation by faith and works rather than faith
and grace. The N.T. doctrine of sovereignty is very high, and its doctrine of human responsibility
is that Man is responsible but unable to obey.
C. The question boils down to this: Who initiates salvation? There are varieties of answers, but
all come down basically on 2 sides. One side contends, Man initiates, God responds. The
other side says, God initiates, Man responds.
As we shall see, in the first category belong the Judaizing Galatians, Pelagius, John Cassian
and the Semi-Pelagians, Hincmar, Erasmus and Arminius. In the latter category, Paul,
Augustine, Prosper and the Augustinians, Gottschalk, Luther and Calvin.
D. Remember, the question ultimately gets back to a correct doctrine of God.This applies to the
above question as regards the sovereignty of God. Observe the extremes on both sides of the
correct middle ground:
Atheism

Epicureanism

Pelagianism

Calvinism

Islam

Stoicism Pantheism

God is
Nothing

God is
Chance

Man
Decides, not
God

God
Sovereign,
Man Unable
but
Responsible

God is
Caprice
and Cruel

Fate
and
Apathy

God is All

2. Did Calvinism Come from Stoicism?

A. Some critics suggest that the doctrines of grace actually came from Stoicism, not Scripture.
They sometimes point out that John Calvin studied Stoic philosophy before his conversion and
wrote his only pre-conversion book on Senecas De Ciementia. It is implied that he simply
baptized Stoicism just as Thomas Aquinas borrowed heavily from Aristotle.

30

B. By the time of the N.T., there were 2 main Greek philosophies: Stoicism and Epicureanism.
Both are mentioned in Acts 17:18. The leading Stoics included Seneca, Zeno, Marcus Aurelius
and Epictetus. Stoicism stressed fate, Natural Law, providence, cosmic determinism, virtue - as
opposed to the Epicurean ideas of cosmic chance, indetermimsm, and lifestyles that led to vice.
C. But there are fundamental differences between Stoicism and Calvininistic Christianity.
Stoicism was basically pantheistic. God was basically impersonal and impassible - He had no
emotions of joy or anger, therefore of neither love nor wrath against sin. True, the Stoic God
determined all things, but Stoic fate is not Christian predestination or providence. In early
Stoicism, even God is under fate; later, God is fate, Natural Law and providence. This
eliminated the possibility of miracles (hence the skepticism mentioned in Acts 17). And there
was no special revelation either, such as Scripture. Since God is all, matter is eternal. There are
no second causes
This distorted human responsibility as well. Because divine sovereignty was over-emphasized,
human responsibility simply meant that virtue was attained by resignation to the inevitable. The
Stoics called this APATHEIA (apathy), or passivity of emotions and will. There was no place for
original sin. Man may become perfect by this APATHEIA, but he may also lose it. And there is
no life after death. None of this can be considered Christian or Calvinistic.
D. How, then, do we explain at least a semblance of similarity? Did the Christians borrow from
Stoicism? No. John Gill has suggested that the founder of Stoicism, Zeno, was actually a
Hellenistic Jew - who simply baptized the O.T. into Greek philosophy. That might be correct, but
hard to prove. It would be more precise to explain it like this: Eph. 2:13 says that Gentile
unbelievers were afar off, but some were further off than others. Stoicism simply was one of
the Greek philosophies that were closer to truth than the others. This is not to go as far as Justin
Martyr and Thomas Aquinas, who basically suggested that Plato and Aristotle were more or less
Pre-Christian Christians.
E. Suffice it also to say that the debates between Stoicism and Epicureanism were similar to
the debates between Augustine and Pelagius, Calvin and Arminius, etc. The Bible never
borrowed from Stoicism, but there are strong indications that Pelagius and Arminius
unconsciously borrowed from Epicureanism, Stoicisms rival Gordon Clark has made the astute
observation that Epicureanism and its children tended to produce licentiousness, while Stoicism,
Calvinism and Augustinianism have tended to produce virtue and holiness.

3. Did Calvinism Come from, Islam?

A. Just as there are similarities of a sort between Calvinism and Stoicism in Greek philosophy,
so there are alleged similaries between Calvinism and Islamin Eastern religion. Dr Samuel
Zwemer, often called the apostle to the Mohammedan world*, said, Islam is indeed in many
respects the Calvinism of the Orient. Actually, the very name Islam means submission - to
the overriding fate of Allah. Islamic faith confesses Tis the will of Allah. This is rather similar to
Stoic APATHEIA.
B. How do we explain the apparent similarity regarding a strong doctrine of divine sovereignty?
Well, Islam was one of the closer Eastern religions. Any comparison of religions will indicate that
it is far closer to the truth than, say, Hinduism is. Actually, Islam borrowed some from
Christianity, Judaism and various old Arab sources. Neither Paul nor Augustine could have
borrowed from Mohammad, for he lived well over 100 years after Augustine and over 500 years
after Paul. Calvin never appealed to the Koran, but to Scripture.

31

C Islam is basically a religion of works, not grace. Allah may often be described as the
Almighty, the Merciful, but Allah has no love. He is basically cruel, neither just nor merciful,
more like Satan than Jehovah. The Moslem Allah is more the author of evil than the Christian
God, for Islam tends to blur the essential difference between good and evil, even from their own
perspective. Allah is not Elohim; Allah is a false god.
D. [There is a useful section on Islam in Boettner, pp. 318-323.]

4. The Early Church Fathers.

A. The early church fathers did not discuss the issues of divine sovereignty and human
responsibility at length. They usually wrote on practical matters or on apologetic matters
concerning the Trinity and the deity of Christ. They had more to say about Gnosticism than
Stoicism.
B. Various heresies began to enter the ranks of the churches: baptismal regeneration,
sacramental ism, monastic asceticism, papal ism, etc. This provided fertile soil for the rise of a
new heresy: Pelagianism.
C. [John Gill has a very useful and large section in The Cause of God and Truth, Section 4,
where he collects hundreds of quotations from pre-Augustinian fathers, to show that they
usually accepted the doctrines of grace.]

5. Pelagius and Pelagianism.

A. Pelagius (c.370-c435) was a British monk who traveled and taught in Rome, North Africa
and Palestine. Among his followers: Gelestius (who was more extreme than Pelagius), Rufinius
the Syrian and Julian of Eclanum. Eventually his views were condemned at the synods of
Carthage (418) and Ephesus (431), but Pelagius himself went unpunished.
B. Pelagius was an ascetic; he strove for salvation through the extremes of denial of food,
comfort, etc. This was part of the growth of monasticism, though lesser than the extremes of the
hermits. It was legalistic to the core. It reacted against the popular Antinomianism of the day that
excused sin in ones life.
C. Pelagius said more about Man than about God, but his exalted views of human responsibility
indicates a weakened view of divine sovereignty. His views centered on mans state as regards
sin. Pelagius taught that Adam was created morally neutral - neither good nor evil. And the Fall
did not affect the ability of his will, only changed his destiny.
D. Consequently, Adam sinned only for himself. Pelagius denied all kinds of Original Sin. We
are born in the same morally neutral state as that in which Adam was created. Why, then, do
men sin? Because they follow the examples of other humans. Christ alone never sinned, but we
inherit no more sin, propensity to sin, or guilt than Christ did and He had none. Incidentally,
some of Pelagius opponents asked why it was that Christ did not sin, for He had the same
examples.
E. Theoretically, a man might live his whole life without sin. In some places, Pelagius said
Christ alone never sinned, but in other places he qualified this. No man since Christ was sinless;
there were several men in the O.T. who lived and died sinless. As for infants, they have no sin,
but learn it by example. Some persons go longer in childhood without sin than others, and once

32

men sin some go deeper into it than others. But this does not affect their free wills:
All therefore have a free will to sin and not to sin. It is not free will if it requires the aid of
God; because every one has it within the power of his own will to do anything or not to
do it. Our victory over sin and Satan proceeds not from the help, which God affords but
is owing to our own free will... Whether we will or whether we will not, we have the
capacity of not sinning.
F. One of his favorite maxims was If I ought, I can. God never commands that which is
impossible for us. Man is able because he is responsible. Grace is given only that we may be
able to do more easily that which we are already able to do. Man initiates, God responds.
Christs atonement is simply the moral influence that provides the perfect example; by following
it we will not sin but be saved.
And of course, God chooses man only because He foresaw that man would choose God. All
grace is universal and resistable, and Christians can lose their salvation.

6. Augustine.
A. Aurelius Augustinus (354-430) had a Christian mother and a non-Christian father. He spent
his youth in dissolute licentiousness, and then joined the Manichean cult. After sitting under the
preaching of Ambrose of Milan, he was dramatically converted. He never forgot how deep into
sin he had sunk both externally and internally, contra Peiagius who never indulged in gross
external sin.
B. Augustine was the most important early church father. He was also the most prolific writer:
The Confessions, The City of God, On the Trinity, Enchiridion (a systematic theology),
ftetractationes, many commentaries (especially on John and Psalms), hundreds of theological
letters, and dozens of theological treatises - including several against Pelagius and
Pelagianism.
C. Original Sin. Augustine staunchly defended the Biblical doctrine of Originals in. He taught
that all men, except Christ, have inherited Adams sin, the necessary propensity to sin, and
even the guilt of Adams sin. Because we were physically in Adam, we sinned when he sinned
and therefore share his guilt. This is called Traducianism in theology, and he appealed to Rom.
5:12. Adam had a totally free will before the Fall, but it underwent a fundamental change after
the Fall - it became unable to obey. Adams sin is passed on to all men through the
concupiscence of sexual relations. Thus, Christs Virgin Birth exempted Him from Original Sin.
But all other men are born in the fallen state of Adam, not in his created or redeemed state.
D. Total Depravity. Men add Actual Sin to their inherited Original Sin. We can do no other. Man
is spiritually and morally dead, not alive as Pelagius taught. Moreover, he is dead in both mind
and will. Thus, he cannot initiate a single good motive towards God. Sure, Man can do external
good, but he does so with impure motives. Man can never merit any good whatsoever from
God, even when later assisted by Gods grace. Man can only sin. He can sin more, but he
cannot sin less, nor can he stop from sinning or reverse himself and do good, much less make
up for the sins of a lifetime. To use an old analogy, he is riding a wild horse; he does not hold
the reins, he only holds a whip. To update the analogy, he is at the wheel of a car without
brakes, and he can only accelerate. Augustine further taught that even when man attempts to
will anything, he only makes things worse. Yet for all this hopeless state, Man is still
responsible. He is responsible because God says so, not because he is able to obey.
E. Salvation. Scholars disagree whether Augustine taught limited or universal atonement, but

33

he certainly taught substitutionary atonement and payment. He tended to teach infusion rather
than imputation - Adams sin is infused into us, not imputed to us. Thus, he tended to teach that
Christs righteousness is infused into us in justification, not imputed to us.
F. Salvation and the Church. Here we see Augustines weakest area. The early Augustine
stressed the sacraments. Baptism was essential for salvation, and a saving grace is irresistibly
given through it. Therefore, infants dying in Original Sin without baptism go to Hell. Pagans who
never hear the Gospel also go to Hell. Salvation is through the true Church, namely the Roman
Catholic Church. The later Augustine did not stress all this, and it is likely that he would have
greatly modified these views had he lived longer. Benjamin B. Warfieldobserved that the
Reformation was a battle between Augustines early views ofthe Church versus his later views
of grace.
G. Election. God chose only some sinners to be saved through grace. Election is based solely
on Gods sovereign, gracious will, not on foreseen faith. A man is saved because God chose
him, not because he chose God. He is unable to choose God, and chooses God only because
God does something in his will to do so.
H. Grace. Grace is always totally undeserved. Moreover, it is freely given, not in response to
Man asking for it. The early Augustine taught that Man does his part in asking for it and God
does His part in giving it, but Augustine later retracted this. Man is unable to do his part, so
God does it for him. One of his favorite maxims irritated Pelagius: Give what thou commandest
and command what thou wilt. There are several kinds of grace, such as prevenient, preparatory
and restraining - these may precede actual conversion. Then there are the special and
particular kinds of grace that effect regeneration, enlightenment, etc.
I. Perseverance. Regeneration and perseverance are dependent on God; since God has
immutably promised grace in election, those who receive grace will always persevere to the
end. Justification is irreversible. The elect are not only preserved, but they persevere - God
brings them out of sin in their lives. Perfection in this life is impossible, for redeemed Man still
has the old nature in his body together with the redeemed nature.
J. Predestination. God is absolutely sovereign and predestination is unconditional. It extends to
all things. Augustine was slow to apply this to the origin of sin. Rather, he defined sin as the
absence of good. Good has substance, but evil is a shadow; it has no existence of itself (in later
theology one would say that evil is not a Ding an sich or thing in itself). Still, even the
existence of sin is not outside divine predestination. Augustine was also slow to explore the
predestination of the non-elect, or Reprobation. It is more implicit than explicit in his writings.
And consequently he did not explore the question of the order of the decrees.
K. So, while Pelagius placed the emphasis on Man, Augustine had a Biblical theology that made
God totally sovereign and Man totally sinful, unable but guilty.

7. Semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism.

A. John Cassian (c.360-435) was the leader of the Semi-Pelagians. Others included Vincent of
Leeriness and Faustus of Riez. Semi-Pelagianism developed mainly in Gaul (France). They
contended that Augustine went too far and encouraged the very licentiousness, which Pelagius
opposed. Yet they felt that Pelagius was too extreme in his praises of human ability and lack of
Original Sin.
B. So they taught a modified form of Original Sin: men inherit the tendency to sin, but neither
the necessity nor the guilt of sin. Mans will is not dead, nor is it healthy, but sick and dying. Man

34

is half-good, half-evil. He cannot save himself; he needs grace. But he must ask for it first. It is
necessary to complete what he cannot do by himself. All men have been given
prevenient(preceding) grace whereby their wills are enabled to ask for saving grace. Yet, grace
is not irresistible or particular. Man still initiates, God replies.
C. The Semi-Pelagians claimed to be midway between Pelagius and Augustine. But on careful
examination, they are closer to Pelagius than Augustine. Their idea of the will leaves Man alive sick, but still alive. Man still does not inherit the guilt or hopeless inability of Original Sin.
D. Prosper of Aquitaine (c.390-c.463) was the leader of the Augustinians. In some respects he
modified Augustine, but in others he elaborated them and went further. Semi-Pelagianism was
condemned at the synods of Orange and Valence(529). There were several loopholes, such as
non-acceptance of double predestination. Many took advantage of these loopholes. While
claiming to be Augustinian or Semi-Augustinian, they were in fact really Semi-Pelagians.

8. Gottschalk.
A. Gottschalk (c.804-c.869) was a German monk who traveled extensively preaching the
doctrines of Augustine. He was also a poet. Among his followers and defenders: Ratramnus,
Prudentius and Remigius. Among his opponents: Rabanus, John Scotus Erigena, and
especially Hincmar. He wrote an interesting little book on the Trinity, in which he stressed the
differences between the three Persons more than their unity. But it was especially his
predestinarianism that got him into trouble.
B. His teaching was strict Augustinianism. In retrospect, one could even refer to Calvinists as 5
Point Gottschalkians. His preaching was summarized in the following of his propositions:
Before all worlds and before whatever God did from the beginning, he foreordained to
the Kingdom whom He willed and He foreordained to death whom He willed; that those
whom have been foreordained to death cannot be saved, and those who have been
foreordained to the Kingdom cannot perish; that God does not wish all men to be saved,
but only those who are saved; and that what the apostle says, Who desires all men to
be saved is said of all those only who are saved; that Christ did not come that all might
be saved, nor did he suffer for all, but only for those who are saved by the mystery of his
passion; and that after the first man fell by free will, no one can employ free will for doing
good but only for doing evil.
C. Original Sin. Man not only inherits Original Sin, but total depravity of will and mind. He is
incapable of willing good unless efficaciously enabled by divine grace. He is able only to sin, not
to do good. He is never neutral.
D. Salvation. Like Augustine, Gottschalk taught that baptism was essential for salvation, but he
did not stress its place as means of irresistible grace. Infact, there are indications that he may
have even denied its place as means of saving grace - his opponents certainly accused him of
that. He further agreed with Augustine, that unbaptized dying infants and pagans who never
hear the Gospel go to Hell, and that all believers persevere to the end. He seems to have
agreed with Augustine on infused grace rather than imputed righteousness. But unlike
Augustine, Gottschalk was clear that Christ died only for the elect.
E. Predestination. Gottschalk followed Augustine in teaching that God ordained all that
happens, and this is based on sovereignty nor foresight. He tended to stress divine immutability
and omnipotence. On a fine technical point, he said that foreordination and foreknowledge
(prescience or foresight of future events)are both eternal, but the logical order is that

35

foreordination precedes foreknowledge. Election is particular and not based on foreseen faith.
One can know if he is one of the elect. The true Church consists only of the elect.
F. Double Predestination. As seen in the above quotation, Gottschalk explicitly taught what
Augustine only implicitly taught: reprobation of the non-elect. This necessitates that God does
not will all men to be saved. If He did, then all would be saved; since all are not saved, it is
because God did not will all to be saved. God does not change His mind or His will. He may
have been the first to speak of this as double predestination:
Predestination, whether of the elect to life or of the reprobate to death, twin... There is a
twofold predestination, of the elect to blessedness and of the reprobate to death.
G. One scholar has commented: The doctrine of Gottschalk stands forth, rugged and strong. It
is built upon the one thought: God is supreme, and man in comparison is nothing. Another
added, To Gottschalk, God is just in all His ways, though those ways are past finding out .
Hincmar, on the other hand, says God is just in all his ways; therefore his ways must conform to
our ideas of justice. Thus, Gottschalk had God at the center of his theology.
H. Both his doctrines and Gottschalk himself were condemned at the synods of Mainz (848) and
Quiercy (849). He accused Rabanus of Semi-Pelagianism, and was right in this but
outnumbered. He staunchly refused to recant and was convicted of heresy. He was forced to
throw his writings into a fire and then was severely flogged with a whip, causing an outcry from
all around Europe. His was further condemned to spend the rest of his life locked up in the
dungeon of a Roman Catholic monastery. After 20 years of imprisonment, he apparently had a
nervous breakdown and died soon after, without ever recanting.
Those who love the doctrines of grace taught by Scripture and Augustine have been angered by
the hypocritical judgment on this man of God. His accusers claimed to be following Augustine,
but were blatantly Semi-Pelagian. Their descendants owe an apology to him and his
descendants. Thus, this was the crucial stage at which Roman Catholicism made the break
from Augustine while claiming to follow him. This set the tone for centuries to follow.
I. [Because his writings were burned, few survived. An extensive defence with quotations has
survived and has been translated in part in Early Medieval Theology, Library of Christian
Classics, vol. IX, trans, and ed. by George McCracken, pp. 148-175, Philadelphia: Westminster
Press. Good, extensive discussions may be found in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition,
vol.3, Chicago: University of Chicago Press; and Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
vol. IV, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.]

9. The Medieval Schoolmen.

A. Most medieval schoolmen were Semi-Pelagian. Some higher, some lower. Few admitted it;
most claimed to be some kind of Augustinian. Among the higher ones were Anselm, Bernard,
Duns Scotus and Thomas Bradwardine. John Wycliffe and John Hus were almost pure
Augustinians, but they didnt get off as lightly as Gottschalk: they were convicted by the
Inquisition and burned at the stake.
B. The mainline Catholic doctrine became that of Thomas Aquinas: Mans mind is slightly
tainted by sin, and so also his will; but they are not dead. Election is based on foreseen sight of
faith, works and sacraments, through which grace is given. But just as Augustine rediscovered
Paul on grace and made a quantum leap forward, so an Augustinian monk would make the
same rediscovery. When he coupled that with justification by faith according to imputation rather
than infusion, a radical revolution happened that was more powerful than that of Augustine. That

36

revolution was the Reformation and that monk was Martin Luther.

10. Bibliography on Augustine and Pelagius.

Most of Augustines writings have been translated and are currently in print in the Select Library
of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, 8 volumes, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans. Vol. 5 contains the bulk of his anti-Pelagian writings. Unfortunately - or
perhaps fortunately -virtually none of Pelagius writings have been translated, and only a few
remain in Latin.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Calvin and Augustine. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Marshall, Michael. The Restless Heart: The Life and Influence of St. Augustine. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Smith, W. Thomas. Augustine: His Life and Thought. Philadelphia: Westminster. Ferguson,
John. Pelagius: A Historical and Theological Study. New York: AMS. Rees, B.R. Pelaqius: A
Reluctant Heretic. Wolfeboro: Longwood Pub. Group.
Arthur Custance, Sovereignty of Grace, pp.13-50, has a good survey of Pre-Calvinism for the
laymen. Full discussions of the controversy can be -found in the standard church histories
(Schaff, etc) and historical theologies (e.g., Cunningham, volI).

37

Chapter 3. The Reformation.

1. Martin Luther.
A. Though there were several precursors of the Reformation (John Wycliffe, John Hus,
Savonarola), the Reformation proper began with Martin Luther of Germany(1483-1546). After
becoming a Doctor of Theology and an Augustinian monk, Luther had his Tower Experience
around 1515 through reading Augustine, John Tauler, the Theologia Germanica and especially
the Bible. Rom. 1:17 was the key verse: The just shall live by faith.
B. The Reformation then began on Oct. 31, 1517 when he nailed his 95 Theses to the door of
the Wittenberg Church, thereby publicly challenging the Popes sale of indulgences through one
Johann Tetzel. Other writings followed. Luther would face disputations and trials at Leipzig,
Worms, Augsburg and elsewhere. He knew that he faced death at the hands of the Inquisition if
found guilty. But certain German princes protected him in the Wartburg Castle for 8 months.
Then he was excommunicated on Jan. 3, 1521. Originally Luther felt Roman Catholicism could
be salvaged; in time he and the movement saw this was hopeless and branched out - with
Gods blessings. Later he married his beloved (Catherine(Kitty, my rib) and fathered 6
children.
C. Martin Luther was one of the most prolific writers of all time, and among the top 5 Christian
writers in output. He wrote dozens of theological treatises, hundreds of letters, numerous
commentaries on the Bible, many hymns, and more. His friends copied down his informal
discussions at the dinner table, entitled Table Talk. His translation of the complete Bible from
Greek and Hebrew united and revolutionized the German language forever. He wrote no formal
systematic theology per se, but his views are summed up in his Short and Larger Catechisms.
His commentaries on Romans and Galatians were his expository masterpieces. But most
germane to our study is his theological masterpiece: The Bondage of the Will
D. Luthers theology revolved around the doctrine of justification by faith alone, without works of
the Law. This had been taught by several before him, but Luther stressed one detail: imputation
rather than infusion. That is, God justifies sinners by putting Christs righteousness to their
account, not by infusing righteousness into them and then justifying them. Even Augustine was
weak on this point. This doctrine became known as Sola Fide (only by faith). The cither 4 of the
5 Points of the Reformation were held by the other Reformers as well: Sola Scriptura (only by
Scripture, not by Popes, the Church, reason or feelings), Sola Gratia (only by Gods grace, not
human merit), Solo Christo (only by Christ, not self or priests), and Soli Deo Gloria (to God
alone be the Glory).
E. Luther was greatly influenced by Augustine, as seen in his masterful defence of original sin
and total depravity in The Bondage of the Will. This was written in 1525 to refute Diatribe on the
Freedom of the Will (1524) by Erasmus of Rotterdam. Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536) was the
chief Roman Catholic scholar of the day. He revolutionized Christian publishing, wrote many
important books, and published the first Greek New Testament (1516) - which Luther used. His
wanderings around Europe typified his somewhat skeptical, disenchanted theology. He was, as
it were, the last burnt out medieval scholastic theologian. He doubted Rome before Luther, but
waffled over supporting the Lutheran movement. He was basically a Semi-Pelagian and, in true
Renaissance fashion, taught a Humanism that could not accept Augustines pessimistic view of
Man.

38

F. Erasmus basically taught as follows. Mans salvation comes by education. He needs to

cultivate his mind. Religiously, Man needs to imitate Christ.. The human will is sick, not dead.
Man is responsible, therefore he is able. The imperative You must implies the indicative You
can. If this were not so, Erasmus argued, then Antinomianism is encouraged; men are no more
than stocks and blocks without wills Reserving neither merit nor punishment; and God is unjust.
G. Luther replied with vigor and gusto. Man is responsible but not able; he has squandered
away free will and cannot even begin to pay God back. The bondage of the will is in the will
itself and is absolute. The will is a slave, not free. It is born in Original Sin and, a la Augustines
theory, can never will a single motive towards God unless carried by divine grace. Hence, good
works can never merit good from God, for Man never does a truly good work in whole orin part.
Religious works before conversion have neither merit nor effect on justification. Even after
regeneration, the will is never fully free per se.
H. This implies certain things about God. God is sovereign. Luther accused Erasmus of
Epicureanism and indeterminism regarding God. Semi-Pelagianism is not only heresy, but
blasphemy and atheism. God is ultimately never moved by Mans will, but by His own justice
and mercy. The balance of those 2 attributes is seen in the freedom of God. This was the
Lutheran way of developing the doctrines of predestination and election and divine sovereignty.
So, Man has free will regarding neither morality (sin) or deity (sovereignty).

2. Historic Lutheranism.
A. Philip Meianchthon (1497-1560) was Luthers right-hand man. Though not a Doctor of
Theology, he was Luthers superior in scholarship. He wrote the first systematic theology of the
Reformation, the Loci Communes (Common Places).Less a preacher than Luther, he was also
more moderate and tended to water down Luthers theology. He strove for reunion with Rome
more than Luther; heals strove for unity with the non-Lutheran Reformers, too. His main
weakness was on the human will. He gave it a little more life than Luther did, opening the door
back to a mild form of Semi-Pelagianism called Synergism - Man cooperates with God in faith
and justification. He also was controversial intoning down Luthers views of the Lords Supper,
for which he was accused by the hardliners of Crypto-Calvinism (Calvinism in disguise).
B. Martin Chemnitz (1522-1637) was Melanchthons main advocate; Among-his many writings
was trie massive Loci Theoiogici, an enormous theology based on the Loci of Melanchthon. It
was the major theology of the Golden Age of Lutheran Orthodoxy (c.1550-1600).
C. Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) and John Andrew Quenstedt (1617-1688) also wrote
systematic theologies based on Melanchthon, even larger than Chemnitz- They were the
leading lights in the Silver Age of Orthodoxy (c.1600-1700).
D. Andreas yon Carlstadt (1480-1541) was originally one of Luthers closest allies, but he
diverted in another direction from both Luther and Melanchthon. He later linked up with the
Anabaptists and other Swiss radicals bordering on fanaticism.
E. The major Lutheran Confessions of Faith: The Augsburg Confession (1530),Luthers Short
and Larger Catechisms (both 1529), the Smalkald Articles (1537)and the Formula of Concord
(1577). These remain the doctrinal standards of historic Lutheranism. They were collected in
The Book of Concord (1580).
F. After the Silver Age, a cold orthodoxy set in. Pietism under Phillip Jakob Spener reacted
against this into a more feelings-based religion. In turn, thisled to the Moravianism of Count
Nikolas Ludwig von Zinzendorf, a somewhat mystical movement with ties to Wesleys

39

Methodism. Then 18th-century German Rationalism arose, followed by 19th-century German

Liberalism, and then a form of Ecumenism that leads full-circle back to Rome. Pockets of
historic Lutheranism continue, but they are in the small minority.

3. The Anabaptists.
A. Anabaptism is sometimes called the Radical Reformation or the Third Reformation. It was
part of the Reformation but felt that Luther didnt go far enough from Rome. The Anabaptists
stressed that water baptism is only for believers, not infants. They did not argue over whether it
should be by immersion or sprinkling; most of them favored pouring. Underlying this was their
emphasis on internal spirituality over external ceremony. To them, this was the main doctrine. In
turn, they advocated another doctrine of the Lords Supper, one of a mere memorial (a la
Zwingli). And they also differed on Church-State relations. Since they were persecuted
everywhere they went, they advocated complete separation of the two. Some were militant and
violent, but most were pacifist.
B. Pertinent to our study is their basic Semi-Pelagian theology. Justification by faith and
imputation was accepted but not stressed. They accepted the other Sola doctrines, but did not
develop them. Some were more Semi-Pelagian than others; some even were mildly
Augustinian. Only after 100 years did some of them make major advances -towards
Augustinianism and Calvinism.
C. Thomas Muntzer (1490-1525) and the Zwickau Prophets were revolutionaries in southern
Germany. Muntzer led the Munster Uprising known as the Peasants Revolt. He and it were
strongly condemned by Luther as fanatical.
D. Jacob Hutter and the so-called Hutterites (or Hutterians) formed another branch of
Anabaptism in southern Germany, Moravia and Bohemia. Then there were the Swiss Brethren,
such as Balthazar Hubmeier and Conrad Grebel, who were much influenced by Zwingli. Like
most Anabaptists, they were pacifists and somewhat apolitical. They were similar to the
Anabaptists of Holland, such as Menno Simons. This branch continued as the Mennonites,
whereas the other branches have continued mainly as Baptists.
E. The last major faction was the most dangerous: the Non-Trinitarian_Anabaptists.Two names
rise,to the top of this movement like scum in a swamp. First, Faustus Socinus, founder of
Socinianism. He rabidly opposed the Trinity and deity of Christ. His movement became the
Polish Brethren; their standard was the RacovianConfession. Second, Michael Servetus was an
itinerant Spanish Anabaptist physician. He agreed with Socinus; was persecuted by Roman
Catholics, Swiss and Lutherans alike. Eventually he was executed in Geneva for heresy.

4. The Swiss Reformation.

A. Ulrich Zwingli (1484) was originally the Luther of Switzerland. At one time he tolerated the
Anabaptists, but then drastically opposed them. With John Oecolampadius, he led the Swiss
Reformation along similar lines to Luther and Melanchthon in Germany, but with certain
important differences. First, be taught that the Lords Supper is primarily a memorial. Second,
the State should not have authority over the Church. As expected, these led to a falling out with
Luther at the Colloquy of Marburg (1529). Luther argued that This is my Body was literal. In
typically dramatic fashion, Luther wrote the words in large letters on the floor with chalk, threw
down the chalk and defied Zwingli as a heretic. Zwingli died in 1531 as a chaplain in battle.

40

B. The German Swiss Reformation followed Zwingli closely and was based in Zurich Zwinglis
immediate successor was Heinrich Bullinger (1505-1575). More systematic and scholarly than
Zwingli, Bullinger was also less innovative. But he wrote much, including a large N.T.
commentary, a history of the Swiss Reformation, and 2 systematic theologies, of which The
Decades was the fullest and more important. He is probably to be credited with laying the
foundation for Covenant Theology, a Reformed theology of the history of salvation. Zwingli was
in turn succeeded by Wolfgang Musculus, who developed this theology at Zurich.
C. The French Swiss Reformation was based in Geneva. Its leaders included Guillaume Farel.
More influential for his preaching and organizing than his writing, he was the one who brought
the other main leader to Geneva. This new young preacher quickly was recognized as a
theological genius. His name was John Calvin. However, Calvin did not become the
overwhelming leader of the Swiss Reformation. He didnt lead it like Luther in Germany or even
Zwingli in Switzerland before him. Calvin was not a Reformed Pope. He tended to look at
Bullinger and Fare! as equals, not as subordinates like Luther did Melanchthon. This fact is
absolutely crucial to a proper understanding of the rise of Calvinism.

5. The German Reformed Reformation.

A. Martin Bucer (1491-1551) was the initiator of this movement in southern Germany, mainly
centered in Strassbourg on the French border. Originally brought into the Reformation by his
admiration for Luther, he felt the need to modify Lutherin certain ways similar to, but not
identical, either Melanchthon or Zwingli. Technically, Bucer was not a Lutheran, but Reformed.
He had more in common with Zurich and Geneva than with Wittenberg.
B. Like Melanchthon, Bucer was known for his attempts at conciliation between the German
and Swiss branches of the Reformation. It was he who organized the Colloquy at Marburg that
failed. As with all the other leaders so far named, he was an extremely prolific writer. But unlike
most, he did not write a formal systematic theology, but rather extensive theological
commentaries on Romans and Ephesians. This is the way he thought theology should be done.
C. Bucer developed his theology along the principle of Word and Spirit. Avoiding the merely
symbolic nature of Communion advocated by Zwingli and the Anabaptists,Bucer taught that the
sacrament without the Spirit and the Word is nothing. Even the Word of God itself remains a
dead letter unless the Spirit moves and activates through the gift of faith. Yet the Spirit never
works in salvation or sanctification apart from the Word, and does so especially in joint work
with both Word and Sacrament. This was one of Bucers main contributions. It had great
influence on Calvin. Incidently, Bucer was younger than Luther and Zwingli, but older than
Bullinger and Calvin.
D. His influence was even further a field than Switzerland and southern Germany. Late in life
he moved to England and greatly influenced the English Reformation. He taught for a while at
Cambridge University. Six years after his death, his body was exhumed and publicly burnt in
England by a renewed Catholic crown.
E. Peter Martyr Vermigli (1500-1562) was more or less Bucers successor at Strassbourg. An
Italian by birth, he was forced to leave for safer pastures to the north of the Alps. He worked
awhile in Zurich and Basel, and like Bucer went to Cambridge to teach. And like Bucer, Luther
and many other Reformers, Vermigli was a former Catholic priest. (Interestingly, the Reformers
who were formerly priests usually married ex-nuns, while non-priests like Calvin and Beza
usually did not.)

41

F. Vermiglis importanctis greatly ignored. He was the contemporary with whom Calvin had the
most theological affinity - even more than Bucer and Bullinger. Calvin always spoke highly of
him, probably higher than any other. Vermigli is quoted in Calvins Institutes more than any
other contemporary, and more than any other of any age except Augustine. His Loci Communes
(Common Places) was as large as Calvins Institutes and nearly as influential in its day.
G. His major contribution was a continuation of Bucer.s principle of Word and Spirit. The Lords
Table is a visible Word of God. Also, though the Table is not a sacrifice of Christ by men, it is an
opportunity for a sacrifice to Christ by believers - this was part of the faith that truly receives the
spiritual presence of Christ in the Word of God at Communion.
5. The Major Points of Difference Between the Lutherans and the Reformed.
A. All were in agreement on the 5 Solas. Yet there were differences of emphasis on them. For
example, the Lutherans tended to stress Sola Fide more than the others, while the Reformed of
all kind tended to emphasize Sola Gratia and Soli Deo Gloria more. All Reformed agreed on
depravity, election, grace, etc.
B. The 20 main points of difference may be charted as follows:
Lutheranism

Reformed

(1) The spiritual presence of Christ is really in,

with and under the bread and wine
[Consubstantiation], Unbelievers do partake of
the Real Presence.

(1) The spiritual presence is in the Word of

God and communicated by the Holy Spirit
alone, not in the physical elements.
Unbelievers do not partake of spiritual
presence.

(2) Saving grace may be literally given through

Baptism, which is virtually essential for
salvation.

(2) Though infants may be regenerated, it is

through the Covenant promise. Baptism never
essential for salvation.

(3) Christ is everywhere present in both His

deity and humanity, and physically present in a
form in Communion. [Ubiquitarianism]

(3) Christ is omnipresent only in His deity, for

His humanity and risen body are especially in
Heaven. [The Extra Calvinisticum]

(4) Only what is explicitly stated or forbidden in

Scripture is binding. The rest are Adiaphora
[Things Indifferent].

(4) Implicit principles can be legitimately

inferred from explicit statements and
prohibitions, and are binding. Yet some neutral
things are Adiaphora.

(5) Worship is, primarily via liturgy. Hymns

may be composed and sung.

(5) Worship is non-liturgical per se, but joint

hearing of Word and Sacrament. Most
Reformed allowed only psalms.

(6) The State has authority over the Church.

(6) Church and State are related in some

respects, separate in others, but still equal.

(7) The main use of the Law is to convict of

sin and so lead to Christ. It is It is used in a
lesser way for civil restraint and in the
believers life.

(7) The main use of the Law is to instruct

Christians in the will of God. It is also used in
civil restraint of sin and to lead to Christ by
conviction.

(8) Law and Gospel are fundamentally

contradictory.

(8) Law and Gospel are fundamentally

complementary.

42

(9) Pictures of Christ are allowable as

Adiaphora. (Lutherans also number the 10
Commandments like Rome: 1 against idolatry,
2 against coveting.)

(9) Pictures of Christ are forbidden by the 3rd

Commandment.(Reformed number the 10
differently: 2 against idolatry,1 against
coveting.)

(10) Holy Days such as Christmas are

allowable as Adiaphora. Sabbath is nonbinding Adiaphora (some Lutherans
disagreed).

(10) Holy Days are not allowed, except for

Sunday. (Some Calvinists say it is Sabbath,
others Lords Day.)

(11) Christ died equally for all men.

(11) Some Calvinists teach universal

atonement, others limited, others dual
intention.

(12) The Passive obedience of Christ (death)

is imputed to us.

(12) The Passive and also the Active

obedience (holy life) are imputed.

(13) Predestination is only of good acts.

(13) Predestination includes good and evil.

(14) Reprobation is by foresight and is not

predestined by God per se.

(14) Reprobation is predestined by God,

though not as primarily as election.

(15) Grace is universal and resistable inmost

cases. (Some Lutherans accepted particular
irresistible grace, most did not.)

(15) Some grace is universal and resstable,

but saving grace is particular and irresistible.

(16) There is not necessarily a logical order of

salvation in regeneration and justification.

(16) Regeneration precedes faith and then

justification in logical but not chronological
order.

(17) Man receives Original Sin because he

was organically in Adam [Augustinianism or
Traducianism].

(17) Calvinists teach immediate Creation of

souls of men; or Federal Imputation; or
sometimes Traducianism.

(18) Redeemed Man never fundamentally

changes in sanctification, for grace is more
imputed than infused.

(18) Redeemed Man is regenerated and

grows in sanctification, for grace is both
imputed and infused.

(19) The Church is governed by Bishops.

(19) The Church is governed by Elders.

(20) Following Melanchthonian Synergism,

historic Lutheranism tended to weaken divine
sovereignty and exalt human
responsibility/ability.

(20) Following Bezan High Calvinism,

Reformed Theology often tended to weaken
human responsibility by over-emphasizing
divine sovereignty.

43

Select Bibliography
Cunningham, William. The Reformation and the Theology of the Reformation. Carlisle: Banner
of Truth.
George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville: Broadman Press.
DAubigne, J.H. Merle. History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House.
Bainton, Roland. The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Steinmetz, David. Reformers in the Wings. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Bainton, Roland.
Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Preus, Robert D. The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism. 2 vols. St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House.
Williams, George. The Radical Reformation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Luther, Martin. Luthers Works. 56 vols. St. Louis: Concordia. (vol. 25 is Commentary on:
Romans, vols. 26-27 Commentary on Galatians, vol. 33 is Bondage of the Will.)
Pauck, Wilhelm, ed. Melanchthon and Bucer. (Library of Christian Classics, vol. XIX)
Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Bromiley, G.W., ed. Zwinqli and Bullinger. (Library of Christian Classics, vol. XXIV) Philadelphia:
Westminster Press.
Melanchthon, Phillip. Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine. (Eng. trans, of the Loci Communes.)
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Bucer, Martin. The Common Places of Martin Bucer. Ed. by David Wright. (Translations of
excerpts from commentaries on Romans and Ephesians). Appleford: Sutton Courtney.

44

Chapter 4. John Calvin

1. Biography.
A. When Gerard Calvin and his wife Jeanne became parents of a little boy in northern France in
1509, they could not have known that he was destined -or should we say predestined - to
become one of the truly great men of all time. They named him Jean. In French his name is
Jean Calvin; in the Latinized form, Joannes Calvinus; but we know him as John Calvin.
B. John Calvin was born July 10, 1509 in Noyon in Picardy, 60 miles northeast of Paris. Upon
reaching his teenage years, he began formal studies towards becoming a Roman Catholic
priest. He studied theology at Paris from 1523 to 1528, and did quite well. But he became
increasingly disillusioned with the corrupt Catholicism of the day, and decided to study law
instead. So he transferred to Orleans and Bourges for studies towards becoming a lawyer (1528
to 1532), Soon after finishing formal studies he wrote his first book, -a detailed commentary on
Senecas De Clementia. In effect this was his doctoral dissertation.
C. But his heart was still restless, until at last it found its rest in God through true conversion in
1533. He left Roman Catholicism forever. But these were dangerous days for those who left
Rome. Heavy persecution dogged the French Protestants, and Calvin himself was imprisoned
for a short time from 1534 to 1535. So he decided to leave France.
D. His goal was to move to Basel, Switzerland, and take up a quiet and secluded life of study
and writing. It ---never to be. Passing through Geneva, he met the leader of, the Swiss French
Reformation, Guiilaume Farel, who was immediately so impressed with young Calvin that he
cautioned him with Gods punishment if he did not stay in Geneva to preach and teach. Calvin
stayed.
E. In 1536 Calvin published the first edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. It was
immediately hailed throughout Europe as the finest systematic theology by a Protestant
Reformer. It was to be his literary masterpiece as he later edited and expanded it several times
through his lifetime (see below).
F. Calvin and Farel immediately began the reformation of the church in Geneva. They proposed
a Confession and oath for the city and its citizenry. All citizens were required to take the oath of
faith or leave Geneva. Virtually all Genevans accepted/But when in 1538 Calvin called for the
church to have authority to fence the Lords Table by excommunicating all those living in public
sin, both he and Farel were exiled by the City Council.
G. So Calvin went to Strassbourg in southern Germany near France. There he pastored the
French-speaking congregation and lectured in the theological academy. He became a close
friend of Martin Bucer, who would have a profound influence on Calvins theology. Calvin would
stay in Strassbourg for 3 years until the Geneva City Council changed its mind and agreed that
Calvin and Farel were right after all. Yet it would be nearly 20 years until the church formally had
the right to excommunicate citizens living in known sin.
H. It was in Strassbourg that Calvin met his wife. Actually, Bucer and Farel had twice tried to
match Calvin with a prospective wife, unsuccessfully. A certain Anabaptist had converted to
Reformed thinking under Calvins theology, but he soon caught and died of the Plague. Some
time later, his widow would become Mrs. John Calvin. Her name was Idelette de Bure. She
brought 2 children with her, a teenage boy and a young girl. John and Idelette had only one

45

child themselves, but he died shortly afterwards. Idelette herself was constantly in ill health
herself, and she died in 1549 after only 9 years of marriage. Calvin never remarried. And he too
was in continual ill health.
I. From 1541 Calvin spent almost all of his life in Geneva. In addition to his preaching and
teaching duties he organized a school system for the children of Geneva, a system of charity for
the poor and elderly; Calvin even designed the public sewer system of Geneva when the City
Council couldnt agree on a plan.
J. One of his main goals was a truly godly society. He viewed the Church and State on equal
levels - separate in some areas, related in others. Before Calvin, Geneva was notorious
throughout Europe for its profligacy; after Calvin, it became one of the godliest cities the world
has ever known. Calvins theology of the godly society gave rise to the modern ideas of the
democratic republic, the Free Enterprise economic system popularly called Capitalism, and the
Protestant Work Ethic. They were put into practice in Geneva. The plan worked.
K. In 1555, Geneva became the refuge of Protestant refugees from all around Europe,
particularly Great Britain. These English and Scottish leaders sat under Calvins teaching and
brought that theology back with them when they returned to solidify the English and Scottish
Reformations. Another major milestone in Calvins life was the establishment of the Academy of
Geneva in 1559, which later became the University of Geneva. But for all this, his main calling
was pastor-theologian.

2. Calvin and Luther.

A. Calvin in Switzerland and Luther in Germany were the 2 main forces in the Reformation. If
one were to assembly a Reformation menagerie, Luther would be a bull and Calvin would be an
owl. Luther was forceful and outgoing; Calvin was introverted and pensive. They complemented
each others personalities. Calvins personality was more like that of Phillip Melanchthon.
B. Yet they never met face to face. You must remember, Luther was 25 years older than Calvin
- old enough to be his father. In fact, Calvin was only 8 years old when Luther posted his 95
Theses in 1517. In some respects, Melancthon was the go-between. We know of only one letter
between them. In 1545, the year before Luthers death, Calvin wrote to him and began: To the
very excellent pastor of the Christian Church, Dr. Martin Luther, my much respected father. He
concluded, Adieu, most renowned sir, most distinguished minister of Christ, and my everhonored father.
C. Luther rarely mentions Calvin in his writings. When Calvin refers to Luther, it is almost
always with a high degree of respect. Luther tended to look down on Calvin, suspicious of his
ties with the deceased Zwingli, In a letter to a friend, Calvin wrote that, in spite of his admiration
for Luther, he felt that the German has a certain weakness: You have reason to be offended
that Luther retracts nothing, palliates nothing, but stubbornly maintains all his opinions.

3. Misconceptions About Calvin.

A. One popular misconception is this: Calvin was a dour old Stoic, secluded like Scrooge in an
ivory tower. This is incorrect. True, Calvin preferred solitude (I am by nature timid, mild and
cowardly), but he never found the solitude, which many think he had. Even after Idelette died,
he lived most of his life with relatives and their children. He certainly was no Scrooge, for he had

46

very few possessions and declined raises in pay. And he definitely was not a cold Stoic he
enjoyed a kind of bowling every Sunday afternoon and a certain game involving the throwing of
keys; in a letter he wrote I shall soon come to visit you, and then we can have a good laugh
together; and he confessed to weeping long and hard after the deaths of Idelette, their son, and
several friends.
B. Another misconception: Calvin was a superstitious reactionary and the Pope of Switzerland.
Well, he certainly was not superstitious, for he opposed many of the superstitions of Romanism.
Reactionary? Hardly, Calvin was one of the intellectual giants of his day. A Pope? That
overlooks Calvins estimation of Bucer, Bullinger, Farel and Vermigli as his equals, not inferiors.
Moreover, the Libertine party of Geneva succeeded in having him kicked out of town more than
once, and he never was formally on the City Council. He was so unpopular in some quarters
that some people named their dogs after him to show their contempt. No, Calvin was not a Pope
or folk-hero.

4. Calvin and Servetus.

A. Those who oppose Calvin and his theology are quick to point to the incident of Servetus,
usually without ever reading Calvin and having no facts on the case. Here are the pertinent
facts. Miguel Serveto, or in Latin Michael Servetus (1511-1553), was a Spanish Anabaptist
physician. He taught a host of unorthodox heresies, such as astrology, pantheism, NeoPlatonism, Semi -Pelagianism, and more. But it was especially his vigorous rejection of the
Trinity and deity of Christ that got him into trouble.
B. Servetus had already been denounced to the Inquisition in France. After his conviction but
before sentencing, he managed to escape. Though Calvin had already warned him not to come
to Geneva, Servetus went there in hopes that the Anabaptist Libertine party would rally to his
support and overthrow the Reformed system of a godly Church-State. In effect, this was an act
of revolution against the State.
C. Now the Geneva City Council believed that some of the O.T. civil laws were still in force,
among them Lev. 24:16, He that blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to
death. This was the charge on which Servetus was arrested and tried in Geneva. Calvin was
the main witness for the State - he was not judge, jury and executioner. Moreover, the 2-month
trial was fair and in accordance with accepted legal standards around Europe - not at all like the
Inquisition.Servetus pleaded innocent. He even demanded that Calvin be banished from
Geneva and his property given to Servetus as reparations. Incidently, many of those on the
Council were Libertines at this time, and even they were against Servetus, and of course they
opposed Calvin on many other things.
D. Servetus was convicted. The Council called for him to be burnt at the stake, but Calvin
pleaded for a painless execution by decapitation. On Oct. 27, 1553,Michael Servetus was burnt
at Champel, near Geneva. All the other Reformers and even the Catholics approved. Only some
of the Anabaptists voiced disapproval.
E. There are 3 major opinions among Christians on the case. First, there are a few who give
unqualified support to the Councils actions. Second, there are many who give unqualified
opposition to the execution. In 1903, an expiatory monument was erected on the site of the
execution in apology for the act.
F Third, some voice a qualified reinterpretation as follows. For one thing, even if one disagrees
with the Council, it was they and not Calvin who convicted and executed Servetus. True, Calvin

47

was the main witness for the prosecution, but he would have been convicted anyway. Moreover,
he would have been executed even had Calvin opposed any kind of capital punishment. Also, it
is pointed out that Servetus was not a Genevan citizen. He knew what to expect - he had been
explicitly warned to stay away. Some think Servetus had a death wish in going_ anyway.
Further, even when he got to town, he could have taken the oath of faith or left town. More to
the point is the overlooked fact that Servetus was the only heretic ever executed for blasphemy
in Geneva under Reformed auspices. This needs to be contrasted with the hundreds of
thousands of totally unjust executions without trial under the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which
was still going on. Rather than blame Geneva, say some, one should praise Geneva for
enormous restraint. The tide was turning. Strange, but the liberals who carp at Calvin somehow
manage to be silent on the horrors of the Inquisition. Lastly, some suggest that this was an
isolated case, and thus cannot be used against Geneva, Calvin or Reformed theology They
point out that it was a case of haste and anger that was soon regretted only one toe over the
line and then retracted, as opposed to the Catholic Inquisition that jumped with the whole body
over the line and has never apologized.

5. Calvins Writings.
A. Calvin usually preached in French and wrote in Latin. His literary career lasted only 33
years, but he remains one of the three most prolific Christian writers of all time (with Luther and
Spurgeon). On average, he wrote about 1,000 pages a year. This is astounding when one
considers that he did not write simple religious pabulum but only solid and scholarly theology.
And before the typewriter and word processor were invented, too. He wrote more than we read
in a year.
B. Moreover, only about two-thirds of his writing were ever published. Geneva still has
thousands of unpublished sermon manuscripts. And there are others that have never been
translated into English. Thankfully, there are international teams working to publish the
manuscripts and to translate all that was never translated.
C. His massive Commentary on the Bible was his largest undertaking. In fact, it is one of the
largest Bible commentaries ever written by a single man - 45 large volumes of over 400 pages
each. They were usually based on his lectures. They have been translated and reprinted
several times, and scholars of all stripes consult them. Calvin managed to write commentaries
on every book of the Bible except Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2
Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 2 and 3
John, and Revelation - 75% of the Bible was covered. Romans was first and he never finished
Ezekiel. (He also published sermons on Job and 1 Samuel, but no comments).
D. Calvins first book, as we said, was a commentary on Senecas De Clementia, a Stoic
treatise on civil clemency. He also wrote over 4,000 letters - usually of a theological nature, not
the Wish you were here kind. He wrote these to the other Reformers, kings and dukes, the
Catholic hierarchy, friends, and even to some Protestant women imprisoned in Paris for their
faith. 686 have been translated.
E. Then there were dozens of theological treatises. Some were against the Libertines and
Anabaptists, such as his first one entitled Psychopannychia, refuting the Anabaptist notion of
soul-sleep between death and resurrection. Then there were several important treatises on the
Reformation of the Church: church-state relations, whether Roman Catholicism could be
salvaged, Catholic relics, a refutation of the Council of Trents decrees, etc. Calvin also wrote
several pieces on the Lords Supper and Baptism, avoiding Rome and Lutheranisms excessive

48

literalism on the one hand and the Zwinglian and Anabaptist mere symbolism on the other.
F. He wrote some treatises on predestination as well: A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination
of God (1552) and A Defense of the Secret Providence of 6od~Tl558). These have both been
translated into English in the aptly named volume, Calvins Calvinism. Calvin also authored the
Genevan Catechism, a couple of short confessions of faith, the Gallic Confession (the main
confession for the French Reformed Church), the Consensus TigurinusTwith Bullinger, thus
uniting the 2branches of the Swiss Reformation), and others. But lest one think that he wrote
only advanced theology, one should read the delightful little devotional The Golden Booklet of
the True Christian Life. He also wrote a hymn, a poem, and several paraphrases of the Psalms
to be sung in worship.
G. Thousands-of his sermons were taken down and published. Calvin preached an average of
5 times a week, plus lectures. His sermons are masterpieces of exposition. The sermons of
some preachers are timely; Calvins are timeless. He stayed close to the text, preached
consecutive series in French in a slow voice without notes. Among the many series that have
been translated and are currently in print: Deuteronomy (200 sermons), the Pastoral Epistles
(134), Ephesians (48), the Saving Work of Christ (20 selections).

6. The Institutes of the Christian Religion.

A. The Institutes was Calvins masterpiece. It is the most important book to come out of the
Reformation. It is a sort of systematic theology, though not coldly organized like a dictionary. It
flows. It is personal. The theme is the true knowledge of God through the gracious salvation of
Christ, whereby we now truly know ourselves and glorify God. The overall structure is
Trinitarian, and Calvin expounds the Lords Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Apostles
Creed, and also covers the sacraments, church government and church-state relations.
B. One thing that is especially amazing is that Calvin published the first edition when he was
only 26 years old - meaning he began work on it when only 24! He continued to expand it in 5
other editions, so the last 1559) is five times the size of the first (1536). Both editions have
been translated into English.
No study of Calvin, Calvinism or the Reformation is complete without reading the Institutes.

7. Calvins Theology.
A. Calvins theology was thoroughly orthodox. He accepted the Apostles Creed, the Nicene
Creed, the Atnanasian Creed, the Chalcedonian Formula, and all 5 of the Reformation Solas. It
was also comprehensive: Biblical, exegetical, theological, but also practable in forming a
Christian worldview, and truly spiritual.
B. More than most other theologies, Calvins was emphatically God-centered, specifically in his
emphasis on the glory of God and the restoration of divine sovereignty to its rightful place
among the divine attributes. As to Scripture, Calvin stressed Sola Scriptura, Biblical inerrancy,
and the internal testimony of the Spirit in authenticating the inspiration of Scripture. He thus
warned against Roman papal ism and Tradition on the one hand and Anabaptist mysticism on
the other.
C. As for the doctrines of grace, Calvin stressed the deadening effects of Original Sin more
than even Luther and Augustine had. As for grace, Calvin posited 2 kinds: Common Grace

49

(which is universal, resistable but non-salvific) and Special Grace (which is for the elect alone,
irresistible and salvific). Saving faith, of course, was a gift of God in sovereign regeneration (the
new birth precedes faith, not produces it). One can not only have assurance that he is justified
(as the Lutherans posited), but he can even know he is one of the elect and therefore can know
that he will certainly persevere to the end (on which the Lutherans wavered). This assurance
comes through the internal testimony of the Spirit - not mere subjectivism, but the quality of faith
that matches the authenticating testimony of the Spirit in Scripture. Assurance is an echo.

8. Predestination.
A. It is the advanced doctrine of predestination for which Calvin is most well known. First, he
taught the absolute sovereignty of God. God is first cause and last end of all things, the Creator
and designer of all things. His revealed will in Law and Gospel is our standard, but he also has a
hidden will that always comes to pass. God has foreordained all that comes to pass.
B. Second, all things will bring glory to God in one-way or another. Calvin gave the highest
possible expression of Soli Deo Gloria. Third, God will be glorified in His grace through the
elect, who are chosen by Gods sovereign grace, not by foreseen faith. Fourth, other sinners are
non-elect (reprobate) and, being as guilty as the elect, will glorify Gods wrath in Hell. Lastly,
even the means of election and reprobation are predestined by God: the Incarnation, the
atonement and Resurrection, the gift of faith and perseverance, but also the entrance of sin.

9. Conclusion.
Calvin died on May 27, 1564 at the age of 55 in the arms of his successor, Theodore Beza. As
per his request, there was no gravestone or monument. Though often ill, it is more accurate to
say he worked himself to death and burned out for God. The greatest theologian since the
Apostles was once mocked because he had no children. His reply: God gave me a little son
and took him away; but I have myriads of children in the whole Christian world. How true.

Recommended. Bibliography.
Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion. The short 1536 edition is published by
Eerdmans. The 1559 edition is in print in 2 volumes: one translation by Henry Beveridge
(Eerdmans) and the definitive translation by John T. McNeill and Ford Lewis Battles, with
introduction, notes and indexes (Westminster). Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne have published a
greatly abridged edition (Baker Book House). Battles wrote An Analysis of the Institutes of the
Christian Religion of John Calvin (Baker).
Calvin, John. Calvins Commentaries. 45 volumes bound in 22. (Baker Book House). The N.T.
has been retranslated: Calvins New Testament Commentaries, 12 volumes (Eerdmans). The
O.T. commentaries are currently being retranslated by an international team.
Calvin, John. Selected works of John Calvin. 7 vols. (Baker Book House) 3 volumes are
theological treatises, 4 volumes are letters. Vol. 1 has Bezas biography of Calvin.
Calvin, John. Calvin: Theological Treatises. Ed. by O.K.S. Reid. (Westminster).

50

Calvin, John. Calvins Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Kregel. 2 treatises on predestination, one of
which is also in Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (Attic Press).
Calvin, John. Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines. (Baker).
Calvin, John. Sermons on Deuteronomy. (Carlisle: Banner of Truth). 16 of these were
retranslated and published as John Calvins Sermons on the Ten Commandments (Baker).
Calvin, John. Sermons on Timothy and Titus. (Banner of Truth).
Calvin, John. Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians. (Banner of Truth).
Calvin, John. Sermons on the Saving Work of Christ. (Evangelical Press, c/o Presbyterian and
Reformed Pub. Co.).
Bouwssma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait. NY: Oxford University Press.
(The most recent full biography of Calvin)
Ganoczy, Alexandre. The Young Calvin. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Wendel, Francois. Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. Durham:
Labyrinth Press.
Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin, Geneva and the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Warfield, Benjamin B. Calvin and Augustine. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Murray,
John. Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty. Presbyterian and Reformed. McKim, Donald,
ed. Readings in Calvins Theology. (Baker Book House) A series of essays. Parker, T.H.L. John
Calvin. Batavia: Lion Pub. Co. By worlds leading Calvin scholar.
McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pp. 93-234 covers the life and theology of Calvin.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Vol. 8 covers the
Swiss Reformation; pp. 223-844 cover all aspects of Calvins life and theology.
Calvin Seminary publishes the Calvin Theological Journal semi-annually. Most of the articles
are on topics other than Calvin, but there is usually an article every issue on some aspect of
Calvin. Once a year it has a large update of new books and articles on all facets of Calvin and
Calvinism.
The Meeter Center for Calvin Studies is based at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids.
It is the international center for all studies regarding John Calvin. It publishes a newsletter,
sponsors seminars, and is overseeing the translation of the remainder of Calvins works into
English.

51

Chapter 5. Chapter The Spread of

Calvinism.
1. Introduction.
A. The Reformation was the greatest revival of Biblical Christianity since the days of the
Apostles. Like the N.T. period, it too had its phases and leaders. The first phase of the
Reformation stretched from 1517 to about 1560. The most prominent names of that period were
Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin.
B. The second phase lasted from about 1560 to about 1600. The leading lights of this
generation were Theodore Beza, Jerome Zanchius, Zacarias Ursinus (all Reformed) and Martin
Chemnitz (Lutheran).

2. Theodore Beza (1519-1605).

A. Theodore de Besze, or Beza, was born in Burgundy, France. Like Calvin, whom he knew
briefly in his youth, he studied law. But he left it and wandered for a few years as a
disenchanted poet. Eventually in 1548 he renounced Romanism and joined the Reformed
movement. The next year he became professor of Greek at Lausanne, Switzerland, and later
professor at the Academy of Geneva from 1558 til his death.
B. Though 10 years younger than Calvin, Beza lived much longer - 40 years, in fact. He was
the obvious choice to succeed Calvin, for he was one of his closest friends and associates.
Beza wrote an important biography of Calvin a year after Calvins death in 1564. His central role
as leader of the French Swiss Reformation after Calvin became obvious in his dual role as one
of the pastors of Geneva and as Moderator of the pastors for 16 years (1564-80).
C. Like his predecessor, Theodore Beza was a man of many talents. For one, he was active in
several conferences to unify the German and Swiss Reformations. He aided the French
Reformation. He was involved in politics. Several of his writings were on Christian political
theory, and Beza was probably the first Reformer to say that Christians may resist and even
overthrow tyrannical rulers.
D. It was especially his scholarship that stands out. Like Erasmus, Beza translated the New
Testament into colloquial Latin. He edited and published 9 editions of the Greek New
Testament. As such, he was one of the 3 great textual critics of the 16th-century. His last Greek
N.T. was the one used for the King James Version of 1611. Moreover, he discovered the
famous manuscript that bears his name: -Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, which he later gave to
Cambridge University.
E. He also wrote many important Bible commentaries, writings on church-state relations,
several short confessions and systematic theologies. He also wrote over 100 separate
theological essays on issues in dispute. These Tractationes Theologicae (1570-1583) summed
up his contributions to Reformed theology.
F. Unfortunately, Beza has often been given a bad press by critics for his views on Calvinism.
For one, he was more systematic than Calvin, perhaps due to the influence of Aristotle and
logic. He was also the first Reformer to explicitly teach limited atonement. There is dispute

52

among scholars whether Calvin held to particular or universal redemption, but nobody denies
that Bezanot only taught limited atonement but stressed it in his system.
Beza was also the first to stress, if not actually teach first, the doctrine called
Supralapsarianism. That is, in the logical order of the decrees, God first chose some men and
rejected others before He decreed that they would sin. Similarly, Beza gave more prominence to
the predestination of sin than others had.

3. The Palatinate of Southern Germany.

A. Youll remember that Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli were the 2 leading Reformed
lights, in southern Germany in the period 1530-1560. They were based in Strassbourg on the
French border. Their non-Lutheran branch of the German Reformation prospered after their
deaths mainly to the east in the area called the Palatinate, just south of Frankfort. It reached its
height from 1560 to 1600.
B. The movement centered on the theological school at Heidelberg called The College of
Wisdom. The movement is sometimes called the Second German Reformation, but usually it is
referred to as the Palatinate Theology (or Heidelberg Theology),
C. Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590) was the main teacher at Heidelberg during this time.
Zanchius had been an Italian Augustinian monk who was led into the Reformation especially
through his fellow Italian Vermigli. Upon moving to the Palatinate, he became to Heidelberg
what Beza was to Geneva. He urged a more systematic approach to theology than Bucer and
Vermigli had done. But, again like Beza, it was his emphasis on predestination that he is known
for. He chose to discuss predestination and election under the head of the doctrine of God
rather than under the doctrine of salvation. Calvin had done that in the Institutes until shifting the
discussion to the area of salvation in his last edition. To Beza and Zanchius, predestination is
more cosmic than Christ logical, more deterministic than soteriological. Yet Zanchius shied back
from Bezas high Supralapsarianism and limited atonement.
D. When the aging Vermigli declined the invitation to become professor at Heidelberg, he
recommended a young theologian named Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583} to the post. Ursinus
was younger than Zanchius but made equally significant contributions to Reformed theology.
The third member of the Palatinate triumphirate was another up-and-coming theologian named
Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587). One of his contributions was his emphasis on the development
of the Biblical covenants. He learned much of this from 3ullingerand was an important part of
the foundation of Covenant Theology.
E. But by far the greatest contribution of the Palatinate Theology was the Heidelberg Catechism
(1563). It was written by Ursinus and Olevianus while they were still in their 20s. It was destined
to immediate popularity, and remains one of the most important official statements of Reformed
theology. In fact, it is probably the most influential Reformed catechism, even more than the
Westminster Shorter Catechism. It is a concise presentation of Palatinate Calvinism, but as in
the geography from which it came, it has a moderate and even slightly Lutheran flavor to it. It
became the basis of several large Reformed systematic theologies, such as those by Ursinus
and Herman Hoeksema.
F. One of the beautiful characteristics of the Heidelberg Catechism that has endeared it to so
many is its personal approach to theology. The questionnaire asked from the teacher to the
student, who is addressed as You, and the answers are worded in the first person I, me
and my. This contrasts with other catechisms, which are impersonal and distant. Take, for

53

instance, the well-known first two questions and answers, which form the outline for the whole:
Q.l What is your only comfort, in life and in death?
A. That I belong, body and soul, in life and in death, not to myself but to my faithful
savior, Jesus Christ, who at the cost of his own blood has fully paid for all my sins and
has completely freed, me from the dominion of the Devil; that he protects me so well that
without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; indeed, that
everything must fit his purpose for my salvation. Therefore, by his Holy Spirit, he also
assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on
to live for him.
Q.2 How many things must you know that you may live and die in the blessedness of
this comfort?
A. Three. First, the greatness of my sin and wretchedness. Second, how I am freed
from all my sins and their wretched consequences. Third, what gratitude I owe to God
for such redemption.
G. Two more Palatinate theologians bear brief mention. David Pareus (1548-1622) was the
leading disciple and successor of Ursinus. He is known for his efforts to effect unity of doctrine
with the Lutherans. Then there was Johannes Piscator (1546-1625), who taught for a short
while at Heidelberg. Art extremely prolific theologian and Biblical commentator, his contribution
lay in the relation between Christoiogy and justification. That is, he disagreed with most of his
Calvinistic brethren over the imputation of Christs active obedience in justification. To Piscator,
only Christs passive obedience (that is, His substitutionary death on the Cross) is imputed to
the elect in justification. Host of the others taught that both the active and the passive obedience
of Christ is imputed. Piscator argued that to teach Christs vicarious active obedience ignores
Christs humanity; Christ had to actively obey because He was fully Man as well as God.
H. This movement became known as the German Reformed Church and continued for
centuries. It is still in southern Germany, though much weaker and infected by later German
liberalism. It migrated to America in colonial days, and continues today in the German Reformed
Church and in its amalgamation into the United Church of Christ. Both are far from the original
Palatinate Theology.

4. The French Reformed Church.

A. Jacques Lefevre DEtaples (1455-1536) was to France what Erasmus was to Holland. Both
were disillusioned with Romanism; neither joined the Reformation. Lefevre was an excellent
scholar who wrote important Bible commentaries and called for a measure of re-evaluation
within Rome, for which he was condemned by the Sorbonne and the French government in
1521. So he left for Strassbourg, later returning to France. He stands out mainly for his influence
on those other disillusioned Catholics who did in fact join the Reformation.
B. Peter Ramus (1515-1572), or Pierre de la Ramee, was such a one. Ramus was from
Picardy, very near to Calvins own home. In a way, he picked up where Lefevre left off. He
attacked the prevailing influence of Aristotle in Catholic theology. Ramus offered a muchsimplified logic that fit within Scriptural limits. Two points bear mentioning. First, Ramus stressed
dichotomism - everything can be divided into equal but opposite pairs. This means that in turn
everything can be defined by its opposite: A cannot equal non-A. Second, Ramus retained the
use of the syllogism without Aristotles complicated additions. The syllogism is the basis of all
logic and deduction: a major premise, a minor premise, and a necessary conclusion. Example:

54

All dogs have 4 legs; this animal is a dog; therefore this animal has 4 legs. Ramus had
enormous impact on Reformed theology in the area of method. Eventually he abandoned
Romanism and became a Calvinist in 1562. He was martyred in 1572.
C. The Huguenots were the French Protestants, or French Calvinists. Lutheranism never
caught on in France, but Calvinism did. Yet they never numbered more than5% of the
population; almost all the rest were Catholics. And because Huguenot Calvinism presented a
threat to the decadent lifestyles and political tyranny of 16th-century France, the Huguenots were
severely persecuted.
D. The persecution reached its zenith at the St.Bartholomews Day Massacre (Aug.24,1572).
The Catholic majority had had enough of these Calvinists, and their hatred burst forth in a single
night. There had been mass religious murders before in France (such as the 3000 Waldensian
Protestants martyred in 1545), but within 3 days close to 70,000 Huguenots were slaughtered in
the name of Rome..Of course, Rome downplays the numbers to less than 10,000 and has
never formally apologized. Among the martyrs was Peter Ramus.
E. The Edict of Nantes (1598) gave a measure of religious toleration to the Huguenots, but in
the 17th-century many were forced to leave France. French Calvinism continued, especially in
the southeast sections. This area became the center of the Amyraldian controversy in the mid1600s. But French Calvinism declined after that, so that it is almost non-existent today. One
wonders why there were no major French Reformers, until he realizes that they were all driven
out by persecution. They helped France from Geneva: Farel, Viret, Beza, Calvin.

5. Holland.
A. Holland had always been a haven for out-of-the-mainstream Catholics. For example,
mysticism of the better variety flourished there in the closing stages of the Middle Ages and
Renaissance. Then there was Erasmus of Rotterdam. Many Anabaptists found haven in Hoi
land, among whom Menno Simons was the most well-known. Lutheranism never took off in
Holland, even though Holland bordered on Germany. But in time, Calvinism began to enter and
take root.
B. Calvin tried to assist these Dutch Reformers by his letters and treatises. One of them was
entitled, A Short Treatise Showing What a Faithful Man Knowing the Truth of the Gospel Ought
to Do When He is Among the Papists (1543). It was most appropriate, for Calvinists never
numbered more than 102! there until towards the end of the century.
C. Yet God in His providence worked some interesting things. Persecution was notas intense
as in France. Calvinists were few but tended to be in influential positions in government and
education. The big breakthrough came in 1573.William the Second of Orange (1533-1584) had
been a Catholic, but to protectHolland from Spains fanatical imperialism and Catholicism, he
was moved to embrace Calvinism. There is evidence that his conversion was also spirirual. He
granted toleration to the Calvinists and helped promote it. During this period, Dutch Calvinism
began to formulate its own theology. The Belgic Confession (1561) had been the main standard
and defined Dutch Calvinism until the Arminian controversy at the end of the century.

6. England.
A. John Wyciiffe (1329-1384) and William Tyndale (1494-1536) were early lights in attempts to

55

reform England. They were greatly within the Augustinian tradition, and they concentrated their
efforts on Bible translation.
B. God used an unusual providence to bring reform to the churches of England. In Germany,
several princes and dukes sided with Luther out of spiritual reasons, and thereby helped
promote the Reformation. It was different in England. Henry VIII was certainly no Protestant
Reformer, but he wanted an heir - which his Queen was unable to give him. Nor would the Pope
give him dispensation to divorce her for another. So Henry pulled the churches out from Rome
so he could divorce her, marry another and be head of his own church. It was a ragged affair,
and was not as spiritual as on the Continent. It got bumpy for awhile. But God used it.
C. Hugh Latimer (1485-1555) and Nicholas Ridley (1500-1555) picked up whereTyndale left off
at his martyrdom. They too were martyred together. But they were more or less Calvinistic. At
the beginning, Lutheranism had more impact among English Reformers, but by the 1640s this
was eclipsed by the Reformed wing. This continued so that there have been very, very few
Lutheran churches in England at any time. But Calvinism has prospered.
D. Thomas Cranmer, John Hooper and John Bradford were early English Reformers with a
decidedly Reformed approach, even if it was within the confines of Henrys semi-Roman Church
of England. We have already mentioned how Bucer and Vermigli lived and taught for awhile in
England, and their influence was large. Bullinger also helped out by a series of lengthy
correspondences.
E. Then there were the Genevan exiles. When persecution arose in England, many fled for
refuge in Geneva, There they studied under Calvin and brought Calvinism back with them.
While in Geneva, they translated the Scriptures into English: The Geneva Bible. In the margins
were extensive study notes of a decidedly Calvinistic nature. It was the most important English
Bible until the King James Version of 1611.
F. Reformed thinking can be seen in the Thirty-Nine Article of the Church of England, the
official doctrinal standard of Anglicanism and Episcopalism(though today only nominally so).
The same is true with the Book of Common Prayer. Yet they were obviously less Reformed and
Calvinistic than similar statements in Switzerland, Holland and France, partly due to the nature
of Henrys semi-Roman Church of England. For example, they were more sacramental than
their Reformed counterparts on the Continent. When later English Reformers tried to modify this
situation and purify the Church of England of the remaining vestiges of Romanism, Puritanism
was born. The Puritans were Calvinists.(Much more will be said about Puritan Calvinism later)

7. Scotland.
A. In the 16th-century, England and Scotland were two independent countries sometimes united
by a mutual monarch. They were often at war with each other. Scotland sometimes got aid from
France, and ties with France were always stronger than in England. Religiously, the
Reformation began earlier in England, but the Scottish Reformation was on more spiritual
ground and solidified quicker. Among the Genevan exiles were several from Scotland.
Edinburgh became the Geneva of the British Isles.
B. John Knox (1514-1572) was one of those Genevan exiles in 1555. He stands out among the
Scottish Reformers. He was particularly notable as a fiery, uncompromising preacher against
Romanism. Knox was in regular battles with a series of monarchs named Mary (Mary Tudor,
Mary of Guise, Mary Stuart). Among his writings was a piece entitled, The First Blast of the
Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women - arguing that women monarchs were

56

unnatural and a curse.

This did not endear him to them, nor to Elizabeth I of England. Scotland rallied around the
Calvinist Reformation and the revival was astounding.
C. There were, of course, difficult times over the next century. Occasional Catholic monarchs
brought back intense persecution. The Scottish Covenanters were Calvinists who had to hide in
the mountains for their lives, which many forfeited rather than forfeit their faith and kneel to
Rome.
D. The Scots were influenced by Bezas teachings that Christians may resist and even
overthrow ungodly tyrants. As to ecclesiology, it was in Scotland that Calvinist church
government was finely polished into Presbyterianism. Then there was the Scots Confession
(1560), mainly the work of John Knox. The popular story is that he wrote it in only 4 days. It is a
lovely and powerful confession, full of both beauty and strength. It is second only to the
Westminster standards in influence in Scottish theology. Of all the countries in Europe, except
for possibly Holland, Scotland received Calvinism the most and the longest.

8. Elsewhere.
A. Lutheranism tended to spread north into Scandinavia and, in time, America. Calvinism
spread northwestward into parts of southern Germany, France, Holland, England, Scotland and
eventually America. Neither branches of the Reformation had much impact south of the Alps
(Italy, Spain, Greece, etc).
B. Both branches did, however, have some success in eastern Europe. There were small but
distinct Calvinist movements in Poland, Bohemia (Czechoslovakia)and especially Hungary. But
the problem was competition with Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. The Reformation
spread most where Eastern Orthodoxy was not.
C. And Switzerland? The Swiss Reformation continued to have success for 100 years before
going downhill. A cold, complacent orthodoxy set in, unrelieved by the Pietism that rejuvenated
German Lutheranism in the 17th and 18th-centuries. Today, there is very little Calvinism in
Switzerland. The State Church is non-confessing - it has no confession of faith. That means
that the extremist liberals can fill the pulpits of Calvin, Zwingli and Beza. Even atheists can.

9. Calvin versus the Calvinists.

A. A few words must be said about a certain controversy regarding the post-Calvin
development of Calvinism. As theologians began to multiply, so did the variations of Reformed
theology. Some took national variations, others more by way of emphasis. The question was,
which of them were in the true line of Calvin? Thesis a major issue in the historical study of
Calvinism. To question ones Calvinistic purity is virtually as vital as knowing the purity and
legitimacy of ones ancestry.
B. Which systems were correctly building on Calvins foundation and which were erecting new
foundations? Who were detracting and who were merely expanding? Most claim to be true
Calvinists, merely making explicit what is implicit in Calvin. Charges are leveled from all sides.
By and large, the schools fall down into 2 camps: the High Calvinists who went higher than
Calvin (Bezais usually held responsible) and the Low Calvinists who went lower.

57

C. As we shall see in later chapters, there were certain theological issues in these disputes,
among them: theological method (Ramus, Aristotle, scholasticism, etc), the assurance of
salvation (is it essential to faith or not), the nature of faith (was it active or passive?), the extent
of the atonement, the place of the Covenants, the uses of the Law, the order of the decrees,
and the like.
D. A final comment: though historically Calvinism must be measured in terms of Calvins own
theology, all theology must ultimately be weighed from Scripture alone. We follow Calvin where
he follows Scripture; we must not make him a Pope. Calvin would agree.

Recommended Bibliography
Reid, W. Stanford, ed. John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan. (A series of scholarly articles on Calvinism in individual nations)
Prestwich, Menna, ed. International Calvinism, 1541-1715. Oxford and New York: Oxford
Clarendon Press. (A series of essays like the above, only more historical.)
Muller, Richard. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology
from Calvin to Perkins. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; and Durham: Labyrinth Press.
Muller, Richard. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatic. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (A
projected 3-volume series)
Hope, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatic, Set Out from the Sources. Grand Rapids: Baker. (Copious
quotations from Calvin, Vermigli, Bui linger, Musculus, Beza, Zanchius, Ursinus, Olevianus,
Piscator, others; usually the sources have never been translated.)
Kendall, R.T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. New York: Oxford University Press. Helm,
Paul. Calvin and the Calvinists. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.(a reply to Kendall) Knox, John. The
Reformation in Scotland. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. DAubigne, J. Merle. The Reformation in
England. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Ursinus, Zacharias. Commentary on the Heidelberg
Catechism. Phillipsburg: Pres.& Reformed.
Zanchius, Jerome. Absolute Predestination. Grand Rapids: Baker. Also bound in The
Complete Works of A.M. Toplady, the translator. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications.

58

Chapter 6. The Synod of Dort.

1. Jacob Arminius.
A. Who was this, the father of Arminianism? Friend or foe? Because Arminianism is the chief
rival within Protestantism of Calvinism, it is fitting that we look at Arminius himself and the rise of
the controversy itself.
B. In Dutch, his name is Jacob Hermandx-oon, or Herman. It is usually Latinized as Arminius,
and his first name is sometimes Anglicized as James. He is best known as Jacob Arminius
(1560-1609). Dutch by birth, he studied theology at the University of Leyden, then under Beza at
Geneva, and finally took his doctorate back at Leyden under Francis Gomarus in 1603. He was
professor of theology at Leyden from 1603 till his death in 1609, but those were controversial
years.
C. Arminius was originally a staunch Calvinist. He had no problem with the 5Sola doctrines of
the Reformation. But he began to waver. In a debate with Dirk Coornhert, he found himself
unable to successfully defend his views, so he began to re-evaluate and reform them. This
serves as an example and warning to all who believe in such-and-such a doctrine but are not
able to defend it from Scripture. Those holding unsciptural doctrines should reform their
theology to fit Scripture; those holding to Scriptural doctrines had better be able to substantiate
their views or they will be tossed to and fro by winds of error.
D. First he began with a re-interpretation of Romans 7:14-25. Contra orthodox Calvinism,
Arminius said that Paul was describing his pre-conversional life. Thus, the unconverted man
does sometimes will in the direction of God. If so, then his will is not totally depraved and unable
to seek after God. Further, man inherits the bent to sin from his parents going back to Adam, but
this doesnt mean that he necessarily sins, nor does he inherit Adams guilt.
E. Then Arminius moved on to Romans 8:29-30. He rejected the Calvinist teaching that election
is based on sheer sovereign grace. Instead, he said it was based on our foreseen faith. Then
Arminius went to Romans 9 and rejected the Reformed doctrine of reprobation, or non-election.
He strenuously opposed the Supra-lapsarianism of Theodore Beza and William Perkins of
Cambridge, but he also rejected the more mainstream Reformed doctrine of infralapsarian
election. When one reads his writings, one notices that Arminius is battling more with Beza and
Perkins than with Calvin. But he did not call for a return to Calvin. He was not a Low Calvinist
against the High Calvinists. Rather, Arminius overreacted into something that was not Calvinist
at all. Moreover, since the Dutch Reformed Church used the Belgic Confession and the
Heidelberg Catechism as doctrinal standards, he called for a revision of them to suit his
theology.
F. Of course, Arminius was accused of being a Pelagian. But he was not. He strenuously
denied the charge. To be more precise, his theology was that of Semi-Pelagianism. He also had
much in common with the theologies of Erasmus, Castellio (one of Calvins detractors), certain
Anabaptists (such as Socinus), and the prevailing Roman Catholic theology on the doctrines in
question. But his overall theology was better than theirs. He was still basically within the circle of
orthodoxy, even if somewhat to the side of the circle. Later Calvinists often forget this and make
Arminius a grotesque monster or extreme heretic, when in fact he was closer to Calvinism than
almost all of his later followers. All of his writings have been translated into English; most have
to do with the doctrines in dispute. And then at the height of the controversy, Arminius died.

59

2. The Arminians.
A. Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) was the assumed name of Simon Bischop. In 1612, he
succeeded Gomarus as professor of theology at Leyden. When Arminius died, he became the
leading Arminian. He systematized Arminiuss theology and was more Arminian than Arminius
had been, meaning that he went further than he predecessor. Episcopius began marshalling
others and organized the Remonstrance group of 12 at the Synod of Dort. However, he was
more interested in right living than right doctrine - a touchstone for later Arminians who would
take the signal and depart into Liberalism. Also, Episcopius was somewhat influenced by
Socinus. Socinus had rejected the Reformed and Lutheran doctrines but also denied the deity of
Christ. Episcopius did not deny Christs deity, but taught a form of Subordinationism - Christ was
God, but less so than God the Father.
B. Johannes Uytenbogaert (1557-1644) also studied under Beza at Geneva, where he met
Arminius, Later he became chaplain to Maurice of Orange, who supported the Calvinists.
Eventually he threw in his lot with the Arminians, joined the Remonstrants and drew up the
document known as the Remonstrance.
C. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) had been a precocious child who entered university at12. Even
his opponents recognized that he had one of the greatest genius minds anywhere on the
Continent. He was primarily a jurist - he was a philosopher of civil law. In fact, he is usually
considered The Father of International Law. Among other views, he taught that civil and
international law should be based primarily on natural revelation in Nature rather than on
supernatural revelation in Scripture. Grotius was also a notable theologian and father of the
Governmental Theory of the atonement. This taught that because of the atonement, God is now
justly able to relax the requirements of the Law so that he can forgive sin without unjustly
affecting the laws of the universe or His nature.

3. The Remonstrance.
A. The Arminians rallied around a 5-Point document drawn up by Uytenbogaert, known as the
Remonstrance. Thus, they were also known as Remonstrants, or opponents of the prevailing
theology. These 5 points in turn became known as the 5 Points of Arminianism. Now this
Remonstrance went further than Arminius had, though it is probable that he was moving in this
direction and would have been able to sign it.
B. In sum, these articles taught as follows:
(1) God decreed to save those who would believe in Christ and to leave in sin those who
did not believe. This implied either that election was indefinite or that it is based on
foreseen faith.
(2) Christ died equally for all men, though only believers obtain its efficacy.
(3) Man has free will but is not able of himself to do any spiritual good in himself, but
needs to be born again.
(4) All good Man ever does is ascribed to Gods saving grace, but this grace is resistable
by fallen Man.
(5) Unless Man continues in the faith, he will not ultimately be saved; but it is not yet
certain from Scripture that all who truly believe now will always do so.

60

C. The Calvinists rejected these articles and drew up the Counter-Remonstrance of 1611.
Ironically, the Lutherans tended to support the Arminians, though it was apparent that Calvinism
had far more in common with historic Lutheranism than did Arminianism. However, by this time
Melanchthonian Lutheranism had diluted much of historic Lutheranism.

4. The Calvinists.
A. Francis Gomarus (1563-1641), or Franciscus Gomar, studied at Strassbourg, Oxford,
Cambridge, Neustadt (under Zanchius) and took his doctorate at Heidelberg. Thus, he was well
rooted in historic Reformed theology, especially of the Palantine variety. He taught with
Arminius for 6 controversial years at Leyden.and resigned when Conrad Vorstius (an Arminian)
was chosen to succeed Arminius. Gomarus was the leader of the Contra-Remonstrants and the
dominant theologian at the Synod of Dort. His followers were sometimes called Gomarists.
Gomarus upheld the Reformed interpretation of Romans 7 (that it speaks of a regenerate Man),
Romans 8 (unconditional election based on sovereign grace, not foreseen faith), and Romans 9
(reprobation). However, like Beza and Perkins, he taught Supralapsarianism.
B. William Ames (1576-1633) was a Calvinist Englishman from Cambridge who had been much
influenced by Peter Ramus, Beza and Perkins. He went to Holland for the same desire for
religious toleration that led the Pilgrim Fathers there. Hepastored an English church in Holland
and later became a professor of theology at Franeker. He was not a formal delegate at Dort, but
an observer. However, his influence was second only to that of Gomarus, with whom he
agreed on Supralapsarianism. Ames agreed that Arminianism is an error, but it did not
necessarily contradict the fundamentals of the Gospel. An Arminian is not necessarily a heretic,
but he does open the door for others to go through in apostatizing from the faith.
C. John Davenant (1576-1691) was another Englishman, the Bishop of Salisbury and a
Cambridge Calvinist. He was one of the more moderate delegates to Dort and would be an
important interpreter of the Canons of Dort in later years.
D. Other Calvinists included: John Bogerman (1576-1637, a former student of Bezaand
President of the Synod of Dort), Pierre Du Moulin and Andreas Rivetus (2of the French
delegates not permitted by France to attend), and Johannes Maccovius and Jacobus Triglandus
(both Supralapsarians).

5. The Political Situation.

A. The Remonstrants sided with John van Oldenbarneveldt, the Advocate-General of Holland
and Friesland. He advocated religious toleration and political toleration through decentralization.
B. The Counter-Remonstrants stood with Maurice of Orange, who called for more central
authority and less toleration of religious diversity.

6. The Synod of Dort.

A. There had been several attempts to harmonize the differing factions, all unsuccessful. The
controversy was not confined to the academic ivory towers of the universities. The common
man was interested. There is a story of a blacksmith chasing Episcopius down the street with a

61

red-hot branding iron, literally attempting to brand him as a heretic.

B. The Synod was called by the Estates-General to meet at Dort, or Dordt or Dortrecht. 84
delegates would be present - 58 chosen by the churches of Holland, 18 secular commissioners,
and the rest from England, Switzerland, the Palantinate, etc. It would be the most international
gathering of Calvinist theologians yet. They met for 154 sessions from Nov. 13, 1618 to May 9,
1619. Since delegates were chosen by the churches, the Remonstrants were not selected as
delegates but as defendants of the new theology.
C. The Synod was also given the tasks of compiling a large commentary on the Bible
(commonly known as the Dutch Annotations), overseeing a revision of the Dutch translation of
the Bible, and a revision of the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, if necessary.
But its main purpose was to uphold orcondemn the doctrines of Arminius and the
Remonstrance.
D. The Remonstrants argued that the Synod should alter the confessions to suit their theology,
or at least permit it. The Contra-Remonstrants argued that the confessions were valid; if
anything, they needed strengthening in the very areas touching the topics in question so as to
leave no room for Arminianism in Holland. The many discussions were on Scripture and
ecclesiology.
E. Eventually the Remonstrants were dismissed from the Synod on a point of order. The
delegates condemned the Remonstrance Unanimously and signed the document known as the
Canons of the Synod of Dort. The Remonstrants and any who agreed with them over against
the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons would be exiled or
imprisoned (some 200 were so punished).

7. The Canons of the Synod of Dort.

A. These are perhaps the most precise and detailed official statements on their formed points in
question anytime in Reformed history. No serious study of Calvinism is complete without them.
They are, of course, not exhaustive confessions, but short statements on the issues in dispute
by the Remonstrant Arminians. They are filled with Scripture references. Naturally, they assert
and assume the 5 Sola doctrines of the Reformation.
B. The Canons fall under five heads of doctrine, each answering the five articles of the
Remonstrance. Under each head is a series of positive affirmations and negative rejections.
They frequently accuse Arminianism of either Pelagianism or opening the door to Pelagianism.
One curious thing is that, though these were origin of the Five Points of Calvinism, they were
not in the commonly accepted order of TULIP. And, being in Dutch and Latin, they did not use
the TULIP acrostic.
C. The first head was on election and reprobation. It asserts both doctrines astound in both the
Old and New Testaments, though election has more importance than reprobation. Election is by
sovereign grace, not foreseen faith. The number of the elect and reprobate cannot be increased
nor diminished, nor is there any changeover from-one to the other. One can know if he is a
elect, but this leads to holy living and not licentiousness. Reprobation does not make God the
author of sin. Godly parents ought not to doubt their childrens election and conversion. Though
many of the delegates were Supralapsarian, the Canons tend to be more Infralapsarian, though
phrased so that the Supras could sign them.
D. The second head was on the death of Christ. Christ died a substitutionary death for sinners
and it is to be preached to all. The cross was deliberately planned by God for a specific

62

purpose, not an indefinite purpose. The Governmental Theory is unscriptural. The atonement
has infinite value and is sufficient for all, but is specifically intended for the elect alone, to whom
alone it is applied.
E. The third and fourth heads are combined and deal with Mans sin and Gods grace. They
uphold the Reformed doctrine of Original Sin and total inability of the fallen will. There is no free
will, though a common grace allows men to do the outward acts of religion and social good.
Conscience tells all men there is aged and that there is- a difference between right and wrong.
The Law cannot save. There is an external call of the Gospel to all, but a special call by the
Spirit. only to the elect, and this is irresistible and efficacious. Regeneration precedes faith and
repentance, and God is not obligated to give these to any. But by the election of grace, He gives
them to the elect alone.
F. The fifth head is on the perseverance of the saints. Once one of the elect has-been
regenerated, he will always be so. True, saints sometimes fall into sin, but regeneration does
not allow him to stay in continual sin. Scripture teaches both perseverance and preservation of
the saints, for the Spirit always continues to supply grace and faith. One can know he is elect
and also that he will certainly persevere to the end and make Heaven.

8. The Aftermath.
A. The Arminians felt that they got a raw deal. Most left Holland, but returned under a measure
of toleration when Maurice died in 1625. Immediately after the Synod, Oldenbarneveldt was
executed on a charge of high treason (not heresy).Grotius had been imprisoned before the
Synod, but escaped in a box of books in an ingenious plot organized by his wife. He spent most
of the rest of his life in France. The other leading Arminians continued to preach and teach.
B. Later developments in Arminianism tended to go downhill into Socinianism, Deism and
Liberalism. Few got closer to Calvin than Arminius. Among the later Arminian theologians were
Phillip Limborch, J.J. Wettstein and John Goodwin. Evangelical Arminianism was greatly revived
by John Wesley and John Fletcher. Still later and conservative Arminian theologians have
included Richard Watson, Marvin Pope, John Mi ley, Orton Wiley and Robert Shank.
C. There have been several varieties of Arminianism as there have been of Calvinism. Some
have been Perfection!stic. Some lead into Pent costal ism. Others go downhill into Liberalism.
Currently, the most popular form of Arminianism is akin to Arminius. It accepts the preservation
but not the perseverance of the saints and is otherwise in agreement with the other points of the
Remonstrance and historic Arminianism. Strangely, many of these consider themselves
Calvinists, when they are really 4i point Arminians. But we usually know them by the name of
Fundamentalists.

Bibliography
Hoeksema, Homer. The Voice of Our Fathers. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing
Association. (A massive commentary on the Canons, with a history and introduction.)
Arminius, James. The Writings of James Arminius. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Bangs, Carl. Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Tyacke, Nicholas. Anti-Calvinism: The Rise of English Arminianism, C. 1590-1640. Oxford:

63

Clarendon Press.
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 371-513. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Ames, William. The Marrow of Theology. Durham: Labyrinth Press.
Owen, John. A Display of Arminianism. In Works, vol. 10. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Girod, Gordon. The Deeper Faith: An Exposition of the Canons of Port. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House.

64

Chapter 7. The Puritans.

1. Introduction.
A. Who were the Puritans? To some people, the Puritans were a group of superstitious witchburners, a throwback to medieval anti-intellectual ism. To others, they were revolutionaries
against the throne of England, out for all the political power they could get by any means,
including religion. To still others, the Puritans were legalists who went too far with their
Protestantism.
B. In truth, the Puritans were the leading intellectuals and godliest Christians in England for
several generations. But pertinent to our study is the fact that they were Calvinists. Some were
Anglicans, Presbyterians, Independents, or Baptists.Theologically, some were High Calvinists,
others Low Calvinists; some were Supralapsarian, Antinomian, Neonomian or Covenantal. But
they were still Calvinists,
C. It is well to keep in mind that we will be concentrating on English Puritanism. American and
Scottish Puritanism will be mentioned only briefly. It is also vital to note the phases of
Puritanism. In general, Puritanism lasted from 1570 to 1700.

2. Origins of English Puritanism.

A. We begin by picking up the status of the Church of England in 1553. Queen Mary Tudor
became Queen of England and re-established Catholicism as the official religion of the realm.
This meant stomping out the Protestant leaders of the Church of England, who by this time were
mainly Calvinists. Over 300 of them were slaughtered. 800 more fled for refuge in Geneva.
B. In 1558, Elizabeth I succeeded as Queen and re-established Anglicanism (the Church of
England founded by Henry VIII) as the state church. Her churchmen and Parliament passed the
first Act of Uniformity of 1559, making High Church Anglicanism the only official church in
England; all others were suppressed.
All preachers must subscribe to the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer, etc. It was not
Catholicism, but it was meant to halt a return to the progress of Anglicanism towards the
Calvinism of Geneva and Edinburgh.
C. When the exiles returned from Geneva, they brought back what Calvin and Bezahad taught
them. They feared that Elizabeths reforms were a step back, which could eventually undo the
English Reformation and lead England back to Romanism. They further believed that the
Reformation in England was not progressing as smoothly and rapidly as in Switzerland,
Germany or even Scotland and Holland. This led to the Vestments Controversy - the Low
Church Calvinists objected to High Church clerical vestments, the sign of the cross, etc.

3. Cambridge Calvinism.
A. Cambridge University became the center for the Low Church Calvinist Anglicans. Bucer
and Vermigli had taught there briefly, and Bui linger supported the Cambridge faculty with
dozens of letters. Beza donated the celebrated Codex Bezae to the University. Many of the

65

Genevan exiles settled there. Thus, it was the logical place for the revival of Calvinism.
B. William Perkins (1558-1602) became the Cambridge Calvin. To be more precise, hews the
Beza of Cambridge. Perkins closely modeled his theology after Beza. They were both
Supralapsarian, as seen in Perkins many books, especially The Gold enchain with its famous
chart of the order of the decrees and salvation. Though notas well known today, Perkins
exercised far more influence among the later Puritans than anyone else. His books sold like
theological hotcakes. His closest disciple was William Ames, also Supralapsarian, who became
influential at the Synod of Dort. Amess The Marrow of Theology became the standard
theological textbook.
C. Other Cambridge Calvinists of later years include Richard Sibbes and John Preston. John
Davenant, who would be an official delegate to Dort, was another one, but he attempted to
modify Perkins theology in two areas: he rejected Supralapsarianism and the strict view of
limited atonement (Davenant taught that Christ died for all men, especially the elect).
D. Archbishop James Ussher, though not in or from Cambridge, paralleled Davenant. An
Irishman, he was a top scholar in many fields: theology, church history (he wrote an important
book on Gottschalk), and Bible chronology (his dates are still popular, such as dating Creation
at 4004 B.C.).
E. Cambridge Calvinism can be characterized by two aspects. First, a kind of Scholasticism. It
tended to be very logical and ordered in structure. Much of this was due to the influence of Beza
and Ramus on Perkins. Thus, Cambridge Calvinism explored the details of the order of the
decrees, the order of salvation, whether assurance was of the essence of faith, and similar
technical issues.
F. Secondly, it gave rise to Experimental ism, or the practical application of this high theology.
Experimental preachers and writers were very searching in the thoughts and intents of the
heart. Perkins and Ames both wrote influential books on casuistry, or the application of general
laws to specific cases of ethics. In turn, this produced a whole new outlook on Christian living.
Puritanism is nothing if not a Christian and Calvinist worldview of the family, work, etc.

4. Presbyterian Puritanism.
A. Most of the Cambridge Calvinists simply wanted to purify the Church of England. Thus, they
were ridiculed as Puritans. Others felt that the Reformation in Anglicanism needed to go further
and change the episcopal structure of church government. They wanted something more like
Geneva and Edinburgh. They rejected the idea of church rule by bishops (Episcopalism) and
the notion that the Churches under the authority of the monarchy (Erastianism). And these
objected most offal to liturgical ism and High Church worship.
B. Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603) was the first major English Presbyterian. He was another
Cambridge Calvinist professor, but he was fired for advocating Presbyterianism. From there he
helped organize Presbyterian churches. In later years, the Presbyterians were the major
advocates of Covenant Theology, a slight variation of Cambridge and Bezan Calvinism. John
Ball became one of the early proponents of this within Presbyterianism. It took its roots more
from Bullinger than from Beza.
C. Another important, though much later, Presbyterian was Richard Baxter (1615-1691).He
attempted to harmonize the best of all ecclesiastical systems. Baxter was one of the most
important and influential of all Puritans. For one thing, he wrote far more than any other Puritan:
A Call to the Unconverted, The Reformed Pastor, The Saints Everlasting Rest and his

66

autobiography were best-sellers among his more than 100 books, not counting pamphlets and
sermons. Like Davenant and Ussher, he taught a kind of 44 Point Calvinism.

5. Congregational Puritanism.
A. Still other Puritans felt that Presbyterianism did not go far enough from Rome. The roots for
this movement go back to the Anabaptists church polity, yet the earliest English
Congregationalists (or Independents) were not usually Baptistic. Robert Browne was a
Cambridge Calvinist, but very low in his Calvinism. He taught complete independency of the
churches. These Separationists, or Brownists, fell into 2 later categories.
B. First, the Independents taught congregational government via elders, no liturgy, no
presbyteries, no bishops. Two names stand out in the later development of the Independents:
John Owen and Thomas Goodwin. John Owen (1616-1683) was second only to Perkins in
overall influence, but second to none in scholarship. He both pastored and became ViceChancellor of Oxford University. Among his many writings: Exposition of Hebrews (7 vols), The
Death of Death, and The Holy Spirit. Thomas Goodwin was next to Owen in Congregational
influence. Unlike Owen, he was at the Westminster Assembly, but both were the leading lights
in the Savoy Declaration. Also, Goodwin was Supralapsarian, but Owen was not.
C. Second, the English Baptists were another branch of Congregationalism. John Smyth was a
Cambridge Calvinist who shifted to Independency like Browne. He then was persuaded of the
truth of Believers Baptism as opposed to infant baptism. Naturally, he could not find anyone to
baptize him, so he baptized himself - and became the first Se-Baptist (self-baptizer). He
founded the first English Baptist Church. However, in time he came to reject Calvinism for
Arminianism.
P. Someone has commented that between 1600 and 1700, Anglicanism prospered mainly
among the upper class, Presbyterianism among the middle class, and Independency among the
lower class. The Baptists did not really begin to grow much until the latter stages of Puritanism,
and initially were usually Arminian.

6. The King James Version.

A. In 1603, James I became King of England. The Puritans met with him at the Hampton Court
Conference in 1604 in hopes of gaining his approval for their petitions. However, he did not go
along with them. On the other hand, he felt the need for a new translation of the Bible.
B. Thus, the King James Version was born in 1611. The British call it the Authorized Version.
One of its aims was to replace the Geneva Bible, which was the most popular version at that
time in England. But the Geneva Bible was strongly Calvinistic and gave ammunition to the
Puritans. Host of the KJV translators were Anglican High Churchmen, such as Lancelot
Andrewes. In time, however, it became the standard Bible in English, even among the Puritans.

7. The Pilgrim Fathers.

A. Some of the Separationists at the beginning of the 17th-century became impatient for church
and state Reformation. Moreover, they became severely persecuted. Most fled to pre-Dortian

67

Holland for refuge. Soon they were joined by John Robinson, who became their pastor.
B. They came upon an idea. Rather than settle permanently in Holland or return to England,
why not move to this new continent called America? Before that time, America was little more
than an unexplored continent used only for occasional stops by merchant seamen. So they took
off on the Mayflower and landed in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on Nov. 11, 1620. Robinson,
howev-er, stayed behind to pastor those who chose to stay in Holland.
C. Emigration began to increase. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was established. In time,
other refuges came directly from England. Now it is absolutely important to note that these were
not only Protestants, but also Puritan Calvinists. Initially most were Independents, which is why
Congregationalism became the dominant church polity (and still is) in New England, as it
eventually became known as.
D. Among the leading American Puritan churchmen were the following: John Cotton (who was
already an important theologian and preacher back in England), Thomas Hooker and Thomas
Shepard (both strongly Experimental), Mrs. Anne Hutchinson (whose mystical Antinomianism
caused the first major theological controversy in America), Roger Williams, and Cotton Mather.
Others include Samuel Willard, Increase Mather, William Bradford and John Winthrop. All were
Calvinists, though Williams was somewhat less so than the others because of Anabaptist
influences.

8. English Arminianism and Anglican Anti-Puritanism.

A. Several names stand out in the development of Arminian anti-Puritanism. Henry Hammond
was sympathetic to many Puritan ideals, but opposed its Calvinism. He was a major Arminian
Anglican between 1620 and 1650. Later, Jeremy Taylors semi-Catholic devotional approach
rivaled Puritan Experimental ism, but he went dangerously close to Pelagianism. His influence
on the later history of High Church non-Puritan Anglicanism was enormous. Then there were
the Latitudinarians, who were Anglican Arminians who downplayed the need for doctrinal
allegiance, thus opening the door for the later rise of Deism and Liberalism. And in the last
stage of Puritanism, Daniel Whitby became a leading Anglican Arminian. He wrote an influential
commentary on the whole N.T. and a book defending the Remonstrance articles (which John
Gill later attacked from the Calvinist view). However, Whitby exemplified a dangerous tendency
in Arminianism: he reacted so much against Calvinism that he denied the deity of Christ and
became an Arian.
B. But it was Archbishop William Laud (1573-1645) who had by far the most influence in
attempting to stop Calvinist Puritanism in England. After becoming Archbishop of Canterbury in
1633, he set out to erase all the gains made by previous Puritans both in and out of the Church
of England. He was very High Church, and his Romanizing tendencies were obvious. For
example, he denied that Rome was the only true Church, but he admitted that it was still a_ true
Church on the essential doctrines of the faith. To the Puritans, this was worse than even
Arminianism.
C. Charles I had become King in 1625 and worked together with Laud to stamp out Puritanism
through both ecclesiastical and civil measures. One of them was aimed specifically at the
Puritans. Now Puritan Calvinists at that time were almost all strongly Sabbatarian. The
Declaration on Sports (1637) was a civil measure allowing sporting activities on Sunday. This
outraged the Puritans. They also knew that other measures would follow - undoing civil and
social godliness on the one hand, and strengthening High Church Arminian Anglicanism on the
other. They sensed a Laudian Inquisition in the works. The late 1630s became very tense.

68

9. Scottish Calvinism.
A. To understand more of that situation, we need to back up a little in time and look north of the
border to see how Presbyterian Calvinism had become the established religion of Scotland.
After John Knox and Andrew Melville had successfully brought in Presbyterianism, other leaders
followed, such as Robert Roilock and Alexander Henderson.
B. But Catholicism hammered away at these subscribers to the Scottish Covenant. They were
known as Covenanters. They also received no small discourtesy from the Anglicans. Many were
executed at the Grass market in Edinburgh. These Scots were theologically in agreement with
the English Puritans, but there was also a rivalry between them.
C. Samuel Rutherford was the most important Scottish Calvinist of the Puritan era. Among his
many writings were his Letters (usually devotional) and Lex Rex (which developed the
Reformed idea that Christians may and should work to overthrow ungodly rulers). He was also
Supralapsarian. He is* still dearly loved by Scots. D. Other Scottish Calvinists of the period
include George Gillespie, James Durham, Robert Leighton, David Dickson, Robert Baillie and
George Hutchesoh.

10. The Puritan Revolution. (1640-1660).

A. As the tension built up, Charles I summoned the Long Parliament in 1640. He and Laud
hoped to persuade it to endorse their measures against Puritanism. However, in Gods
providence, the Parliament turned them down on crucial measures.
B. Soon the Civil War broke out as a result. The two main factions were the Cavaliers
supporting Charles I and the Roundheads, who mainly supported the Puritan cause. Of course,
not all Roundheads were Puritans, but they wanted to overthrow the monarchy for other
reasons. And, likewise, not all Puritans supported the Roundheads, though most did. The Scots
provided an awkward ally for either side. The Scots disliked the Royalists, but had mixed
feelings about the Roundheads.
C. The determining factor was an unusually gifted leader whom God raised up at this time:
Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was a Member of Parliament representing Cambridge. He was also
an Independent Puritan. He and the New Model Armyled the way for the defeat of the Cavaliers.
Now Cromwell was a leader rightout of the book of Judges. He was sort of a combination of
Gen. George Patton and Jerry Falwell - a strong military and political leader who could marshal
support and rally the troops, but with a divine call to help establish a godly government and
society. Among his many chaplains were John Owen and Richard Baxter.
D. The Civil War ended in 1646. Laud and Charles were executed for treason. The Crown was
offered to Cromwell by Parliament, but he humbly refused. Instead, he became known as the
Lord Protector - an unelected office, but not royalty.
E. The Westminster Assembly was convened by Parliament in 1643 to advise it ontheological,
social and civil matters. Many Puritans regularly preached before Parliament. Among the many
delegates were 6 Scottish Commissioners, including Rutherford. William Twisse was Prolocutor
of the Assembly. Dozens of famous Puritans were in the Assembly. Although it was dominated
by Presbyterians, there were also Anglicans and Independents among the delegates. The
Assembly produced a number of important documents, such as the Westminster Confession of

69

Faith and the Shorter Catechism. They tended to Presbyterian Covenant Theology.
F. The Commonwealth of non-monarchial England in these years was one of the godliest
societies the world has ever known. It rivaled Calvins Geneva and Knoxs Edinburgh, only on a
much larger scale. Gross sin allowed by the Laudians was stopped, both civilly and religiously.
Puritanism was in full blossom.
G. The Puritans allowed more religious toleration than had their predecessors. While the
established Church of England was no longer the state church, it was still tolerated in a
diminished capacity. Presbyterianism grew enormously. Independency grew perhaps the most,
including certain theologically eccentric varieties. For example, it was during this time that
Calvinistic Antinomianism began to spread through Puritans such as Tobias Crisp, John Eaton
and John Saltmarsh. Also, a host of independent sects arose: the Quakers, the Familists, the
Ranters, the Fifth Monarchy Men, and others of a fanatical nature. One man seems to exemplify
in himself this situation: John Milton. Milton, the famous poet, was originally an Anglican, then a
Presbyterian, then an Independent. Along the same path, he went from being a Calvinist to an
Arminian to an Arian. He remains something of a sad anomaly among the English Puritans of
the period.
H. The Independents met in 1658 and revised the Westminster Confession and Shorter
Catechism. This Savoy Declaration became the doctrinal standard for Independents and
Congregationalists in England and America. It was only a very slightly modified version of the
Westminster documents. Owen and Goodwin were prime movers.

11. The Restoration (1660).

A. After Cromwell died in 1658, the government began to splinter and fall apart. Pro-royalist
groups began to gather momentum fast. Soon they were able tore call the monarchy in the form
of Charles II, who had been in exile in Europe. With the Restoration of the monarchy, the
Puritan Commonwealth ended.
B. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 quickly and strongly re-established High Church Anglicanism
as the official and only church in the realm. It required all ministers to subscribe to the Book of
Common Prayer and such statements. Those who did not (Non-Conformists) could not enter
Cambridge or Oxford universities. A host of other measures aimed at eradicating all vestiges of
Puritanism followed.
C. The Great Ejection followed. More than 2000 Non-Conformist ministers were thrown out of
their churches. These included Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and even some of the
more moderate Anglicans who resented the High Church heresies of the re-established
Church of England.
D. Among those noble Puritans who were ejected was John Bunyan. Bunyan spent some 12
years in jail for refusing to conform. During that time he wrote a number of books, such as
Pilgrims Progress, the second best-selling Christian book of all-time. Bunyan was a 4-point
Calvinist and was influential in leading the Baptist movement into Calvinism. But the Restoration
cooled that for a time.

12. Toleration of Restricted Puritanism.

A. In 1688, William and Mary became King and Queen of England. This Glorious Revolution felt

70

that Puritanism had learned its lesson and could again be allowed within certain limitations.
B. The Act of Toleration of 1688 more or less overturned the Act of Uniformity of1662. The
Church of England was still to be the only official state church,and High Church principles
prevailed. But the Non-Conformists were allowed back into their pulpits and churches with some
limitations. For example, they would be considered second-class citizens and could not hold
civil office. Still, the Puritans rejoiced. Their political hopes were dashed, but they now turned to
rebuilding the churches.
C. Benjamin Keach was the most important Baptist at this stage. Like Owen and Goodwin with
the Savoy Declaration, Keach modified the Westminster Confession and Shorter Catechism in
the areas of baptism and church government. This Baptist Confession of 1689 quickly became
the standard of the Particular Baptists. Keach also was the main proponent of congregational
hymn-singing -an important change within Puritanism, for most before then had only sung
psalms.

13. The Final Stage of Puritanism.

A. In the 1690s one last major theological controversy arose among the Puritans. Richard
Baxter had taught that the Gospel was a new Law, obedience to which was accepted as
righteousness before God together with the work of Christ. This became known as
Neonomianism. Though Baxter taught this in a modified form in his controversial Aphorisms of
Justification, he was an old man by this time and died in the initial stages of the controversy.
The leader became the more extreme Daniel Williams. Opponents of this error included Isaac
Chauncy and Robert Trail! both Supralapsarians. In reply, the Neonomians accused them of
being sympathetic to Crisp and Calvinistic Antinomianism. Soon this High Calvinism would give
rise to an even higher form of Calvinism: Hyper-Calvinism.
B. After the Act of Toleration, the Presbyterians did not prosper much in England. Most filtered
back to Anglicanism or over to Independency. Theologically, post-Restoration English
Presbyterianist tended to slide into Deism, something even worse than Arminianism.
C. The last great Presbyterian Puritan was Matthew Henry. Henry is famous mainly for writing
the best-selling Bible commentary on the whole Bible in history. It is a devotional classic,
combining the best of all aspects of Puritanism.
D. Strangely, English Calvinism was left in the hands of the Independents and Baptists. Often
churches included both groups. It is a very unusual providence that these were the most
persecuted at the beginning and slowest to get started, but they outlasted the Anglican and
Presbyterian Calvinists in popularity and fervency and doctrinal purity. And that was what
Puritanism was all about.

14. Epilogue.
A. There has been a revival of interest in the English Puritans in recent years. The collected
works of Owen, Flavel, Bunyan, Sibbes, Brooks, Trail!, Clarkson, Charnock and others have
been reprinted. Christians, and especially Calvinists, have rediscovered these mines of gold that
were buried by their theological ancestors. Slowly but surely their impact is being felt again.
B. No, the Puritans were not superstitious, witch-burning political zealots. They were spiritual
giants, compared to whom most Evangelicals today are but religious pygmies. 0, for a revival of

71

20th-century Puritanism!

Recommended Reading (in addition to the works of the Puritans themselves)

Ryken, Lei and. Worldly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were. Foreword by O.I.
Packer. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. (The best overall introduction. Hundreds of quotes.)
Adair, John. Founding Fathers: The Puritans, in England and America. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Meal, Daniel. The History of the Puritans. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications. (The
standard reference source on the Puritans.)
Reid, James. Memoirs of the Westminster Divines. 2 vols in 1. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Wallace, Dewey. Puritans and Predestination. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Murray, Iain, ed. The Reformation of the Church: A Collection of Reformed and Puritan
Documents on Church Issues. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Kendall, R.T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Loane, Marcus. Makers of Puritan History. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Kevan, Ernest.
The Grace of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Miller, Perry; and Johnson, Thomas, eds. The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings. 2 vols.
Magnolia: Peter Smith.
Wallace, Dewey. The Spirituality of the Later English Puritans: An Anthology. Macon: Mercer
University Press.
Thomas, I.D.E. A Golden Treasury of Puritan Quotations. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Mather, Cotton. The Great Works of Christ in America. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (The
standard work on American Puritanism, in 2 large volumes.)
Tyacke, Nicholas. Anti-Calvinism: The Rise of English Arminianism C.1590-1640. New York and
Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.
Elniff, Teriill. The Guise of Every Graceless Heart: Human Autonomy in Puritan Thought and
Experience. Vallecito: Ross House Books.
Lewis, Peter. The Genius of Puritanism. Haywards Heath: Carey Publications. (The best short
introduction to Puritanism, fully documented with quotes and pictures)

72

Chapter 8. The Westminster Assembly.

1. Events Preceding the Assembly.
A. In the late 1630s, the religious situation in Scotland and England had grown very tense. In
addition to certain political factors, there were specific religious factors, which arose and
eventually led up to the Westminster Assembly. Some were in England, such as the Book of
Sports controversy. Others were in Scotland.
B. One of these bears mentioning. Archbishop Laud, with the power of Charles Ibehind him,
attempted to enforce the use of the new Book of Common Prayer in the churches of England
and Scotland. This was in 1637. The Scots in particular were incensed by this move back
towards Rome. The dynamite had been laid; it only took a spark to set off the controversy in a
massive explosion.
C. That explosion came on July 23, 1637. The Bishop of Edinburgh, Scotland, brought this
prayer book with him into the pulpit and began to read from it in the liturgy preceding the Lords
Supper. Oenny Geddes, a local vegetable-seller and Calvinist Presbyterian, objected. Throwing
at the bishop the little church stool on which she was sitting, she cried out, Youll nae say Mass
in my lug! (an old Scots word for ear). Something of a riot began. This was in St. Giles
Cathedral, the high kirk of the Church of Scotland. Someone has commented that throwing that
stool eventually led to the collapse of the English throne. Old John Knox would have been proud
of Jenny Geddes.
D. This eventually led to the National Covenant (1638). Scots everywhere signed this pledge to
stand by the true Reformed faith of Scripture against all Romanizing innovations, such as the
new prayer book. It was aimed at Laud and Charles in particular. The Scots claimed Scriptural
support for such national covenants (Josh. 24:25, 2 Kings 11:17, Isa. 44:5). This covenant was
akin to our own Pledge of Allegiance, except more theological in nature.

2. The Westminster Assembly.

A. Within a few years. Civil War broke out and Parliament gained the upper hand. By this time,
Parliament was dominated by Puritans and those sympathetic to Puritan ideals- Then on June
.12, 1643 Parliament passed the following act setting up the Westminster Assembly: An
Ordinance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, for the Calling of an Assembly of Divines
and others, to be Consulted with by the Parliament for the Settling of the Government and
Liturgy of the Church of England, and Clearing of the Doctrine of said Church from False
Aspersions and Interpretations.
B. The Westminster Assembly, then, had no legislative power but was entirely called to advise
Parliament on religious issues, especially concerning the continuing reformation of the churches
in England, particularly the Church of England. It met from July 1, 1643 to Feb. 22, 1648 (5
years, 6 months,22 days) in 1,163 sessions in the, Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey.
Delegates, called divines (churchmen or theologians), were chosen and called from all the
counties. Of the 151 members, 121 were divines and 30were lay assesors (20 from the House
of Commons, 10 from the House of Lords).
C. Most of these delegates were Presbyterians. 5 were Independents. A few dozen were
Anglicans (such as James Ussher), but out of deference to the King they almost never attended.

73

The Church of Scotland sent 5 divines as Commissioners, including Samuel Rutherford,

George Gillespie and Alexander Henderson).
D. Average attendance was about 70. Every member took the following vow, which was read
aloud every Monday morning: I do seriously promise and vow, in terseness of Almighty God,
that in this Assembly whereof I am a member, I will maintain nothing in point of doctrine but
what I believe to be most agreeable to the Word of God; nor in point of discipline, but what may
make most for Gods glory and the peace and good of His church.
E. There were occasional days given wholly over to prayer and fasting. Some of the divines
would pray aloud and extemporaneously for as much as 2 hours. Several of the members would
comment that these times were the highest points of their spiritual lives so far as communion
with God is concerned. Incidently, none of the members were ejected for heresy, though one
was ejected because contrary to the binding agreement of attendance he divulged the
proceedings to someone not there.

3. The Leading Westminster Divines.

A. This was one of the most august bodies of theologians in the history of the Church.
Rutherford, Gillespie, Henderson and Bail lie were the cream of the Scottish churchmen of the
century. Rutherford in particular had a powerful influence at Westminster, and as a team the
Scottish delegation had more influence than any other single group of like size.
B. William Twisse (1575-1646) was the Prolocutor, or moderator of the Assembly. Originally an
Anglican, then Presbyterian, he took an important role in the proceedings, but was by no means
the leader, like Gomarus at Dort orAthana5ius at Nicea. Twisse was of German ancestry and
was by all accounts one of the most respected minds in England. He was also the leading
advocate of Supralapsarianism, a minority reformed view that took its definitive expression in
Twisses The Riches of Gods Love Unto the Vessels of Mercy. He died a little over halfway
through the Assembly, and two other divines alternated as Prolocutor.
C. Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) was another Supralapsarian divine at Westminster. He was
also the leading member of the Independent delegation. Like the Scots, it was only a handful
but had influence beyond its proportions. Even though they were overruled in advocating
Independency, they helped modify the Westminster statements so that the middle course of
Presbyterianism was endorsed rather than something midway between Anglicanism and
Presbyterianism.
D. John Lightfoot (1602-1675) was among the three or four most influential divines. He was
also the most influential of the Erastians (who were basically Anglican but said that the civil
government had authority over the churches, with bishops only in limited ecclesiastical
authority). Lightfoot, who should not be confused with the 19th-century Cambridge Bible scholar
J.B. Lightfoot, reportedly attended every session of the Assembly. Lightfoot was also the
greatest Hebraist of the century, and he often discussed a theological point by referring to the
manners and customs of the ancient Jews.
E. Other important divines include John Arrowsmith, Thomas Gataker, William Gouge, Anthony
Burgess, Jeremiah Burroughes and Edward Reynolds. Also, a number of notable Puritan
theologians were not present at Westminster, either because they were of the same district as
others or because they were otherwise too involved in other matters (such as education at
Oxford or Cambridge). They include John Owen, Richard Baxter, Thomas Watson, Thomas
Brooks, Stephen Charnock, and Thomas Manton (who served briefly as a scribe at

74

Westminster).There were no Baptists, either.

4. Major Theological Issues.

A. There were no Arminians at Westminster, but some of the divines were higher in their
Calvinism than others. Yet the official standards that were issued are noticeably irenic on their
statements on issues that divided Calvinists, such as Supralapsarianism and limited atonement.
This may well have been because there were so many of each party present.
B. This was not quite the same when it came to church government. For example, about of
the divines were Infralapsarian, Supralapsarian. About2/3 were for limited atonement, 1/3 for
either universal atonement or a dual approach. The standards are not strong on these. Yet,
about were Presbyterian, the other being Anglican and Independent- yet the standards are
quite explicitly Presbyterian.
C. The Confession and Catechisms taught the predominant view of Presbyterianism. It avoided
Erastianism and Anglicanism on the one hand and Independency on the other. It avoided
complete separation of church and state on the one hand, and a strict theocracy on the other. It
posited 2 related kingdoms: church and state, with separate but related dominions. The Church
of England was no longer to be the official state church; Presbyterianism was to be encouraged.
D. The place of the Law was another issue, as seen in the lengthy expositions of the 10
Commandments in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Calvinistic Antinomianism was at its
height in those years, and the Assembly specifically rejected it. Still, the Assembly did not deny
toleration to the host of independent churches and cults that arose in the days of the
Commonwealth.

5. The Westminster Documents and Related Documents.

A. The Solemn League and Covenant (1643) was based on the Scottish National Covenant.
Written by Alexander Henderson, this covenant was a joint effort between the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the English Parliament. It is often thought that
Parliament signed it in order to gain Scotland as an ally in the Civil War against Charles I. More
a religious alliance than an international treaty, it agreed that Presbyterianism would be officially
endorsed as the true religion of both countries. When the Westminster Assembly was called on
to swear the Covenant, the Independents began to decline in influence and the proceedings
became emphatically Presbyterian.
B. The Sum of Saving Knowledge was written by David Dickson of Scotland and was basically
a Scottish document based on the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Thus, it had more
effect in Scotland than in England. It is a relatively short summary of the basics of Christian faith
and shorter than the Confession. It teaches the 3 Biblical covenants (Redemption between
Father and Son, Works between God and Adam, and Grace between God and Adam and the
elect in history).The lengthiest section is called The Practical Use of Saving Knowledge and
applies the preceding to the area of evangelism and assurance. It gives 5 Evidences of True
Faith, and also 4 Warrants to Believe (i.e., why sinners should believe the Gospel):
(1) Gods hearty invitation.
(2) The earnest request that God maketh to us to be reconciled to Him in Christ.

75

(3) The strait and awful command of God, charging all the hearers of the Gospel to
approach to Christ in the order set down by Him, and to believe in Him.
(4) Much assurance of life given, in case men shall obey the command of believing, and
a fearful certification of destruction in case they obey not.
C. The Presbyterian Form of Church Government (1645) was based on the Solemn Leagueand
Covenant and provides the constitution for church government. It covers the following: the
Church, officers, pastors, teachers, other offices, deacons, particular congregations,
presbyteries, synods, examination and ordination, etc.
D. The Directory for the Public Worship of God (1645) was the closest to a prayer book within
true Presbyterianism. The Assembly produced this to replace the Anglican Book of Common
Prayer, and it was officially accepted by both the English Parliament and the Church of
Scotland. But it was not forced on the Anglicans and Independents. It covers: the Assembly of
the Congregation, public reading of Scripture, public prayer before and after the sermon,
preaching of the Word, the sacraments, the Lords Day, marriages, funerals, visitation of the
sick, fasting, public days of thanksgiving, the singing of psalms, and whether holy-days are
permitted.
E. The Directory for Family Worship (1647) was a devotional manual for use in private family
devotions rather than public congregational worship. It was produced by the Church of Scotland,
but received unofficial endorsement by many at Westminster.
E. The Westminster Annotations (1651) was an unofficial Bible commentary by many of the
Westminster divines. It was mainly the work of Ley, Gouge, Gatakerand Featley, though the
authors are not named as such. It serves as both a useful commentary from the Puritan
perspective and explication of the texts marshaled by the Westminster Assembly for support in
the Confession and Catechism.
F. The Metrical Psalter of Rouse was endorsed for use in the Presbyterian churches, there
have been many such Psalters, for historic Presbyterians have tended to sing psalms rather
than hymns. These psalters are paraphrases of the 150 Psalms in meter and rhyme. Some
Psalters also paraphrase other portions of Scripture for singing. The most famous is that of the
23rd Psalm:
The Lords my shepherd, Ill not want.
He makes me down to lie
In pastures green, He leadeth me
The quiet waters by.
My soul he doth restore again,
And me to walk doth make
Within the paths of righteousness,
Even for his own names sake.
Yea, though I walk in deaths dark vale,
Yet will I fear none ill;
For thou art with me; and thy rod
And staff me comfort still.
My table thou hast furnished
In presence of my foes.
My head thou dost with oil anoint,
And my cup overflows.
Goodness and mercy all my life

76

Shall surely follow me;

And in Gods house for evermore
My dwelling-place shall be.
G. The National Covenant brings a lump to the throat of every Scot, but the metrical23rd Psalm
brings tears. Yet there are three other documents, which took precedence over all of the above:
The Westminster Confession and its 2 Catechisms.

6. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).

A. The Assembly was originally directed by Parliament simply to revise the Thirty-Nine Articles
so that Romanizing interpretations would be nullified. But after the Solemn League and
Covenant was passed, the Scottish commissioners successfully lobbied to have a completely
new confession of faith drawn up on definite Calvinistic and Presbyterian lines.
B. Most previous Reformed confessions and catechisms were the work of only one or two men.
The Canons of Dort were a notable exception. But like a Bible translation, the best confessions
are the product of committees to ensure ...balance and eliminate personal bias. The
Westminster Confession was written by a committee of 25, of whom Gouge, Gataker, Tuckney,
Goodwin and the Scots were most influential. The Confession is to a large extent based on the
Irish Articles (1615) by James Lfssher.
C. After submitting it to Parliament, the Assembly was handed it back with the stipulation that
Scripture proofs be added. Then it was approved by Parliament, the unanimous Assembly, and
ratified by the Church of Scotland. It contains33 chapters of various lengths. Among its most
important or distinctive:
(1) Chapter 1 - Scripture. The Confession has one of the best sections on Scripture of
any confession of faith ever written. Among other things, it emphasizes the place of the
Internal Testimony of the Spirit in the Bibles inspiration, authentication to readers, the
assurance of faith, and assistance in interpretation. Paragraph 6 is another important
section:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, mans
salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and
necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time
is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
(2) Chapter 3 - Of Gods Eternal Decree. The Confession teaches both election and
reprobation, but does not comment on the order of the decrees (though it tends more to
Infralapsarianism). Paragraph 8 warns that these high doctrines are to be handled with
special care. Paragraph 1 contains what many consider to be the best summary of
Calvinism ever written:
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.
(3) Chapter 7 - Gods Covenant with Man. This chapter is the most explicit statement of
Covenant Theology ever embodied in a major Reformed Confession. It teaches that God
made a conditional covenant with Adam and his posterity(the Covenant of Works); after

77

it was broken, God than made the Covenant of Grace with him and for his elect
posterity, which is gradually revealed in history and culminates in the New Covenant.
(4) Chapter 8 - Christ the Mediator and Redeemer. This is one of the earliest
confessions to specify the threefold offices of Christ (prophet, priest and king). Also, it
does not directly teach limited atonement, though the more limited view of the extent of
redemption may be deduced from para. 8.
(5) Chapter 19 - The Law. The Law was first given as a Covenant of Works to Adam,
then re-issued after the Fall and at Sinai in the 10 Commandments. It has 3 parts: the
Ceremonial Law only for Israel, now abolished; the Civil Law, basically only for Israel,
but its general equity applicable to all societies; and the Moral Law, which continues to
restrain sin and instruct in godliness.
Chapter 21 - The Sabbath. This chapter sums up the predominating Puritan doctrine,
namely, that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath and a continuing part of the 10
Commandments. This was enforced in the English Commonwealth.
Chapter 23 - The Civil Magistrate. God has ordained civil rulers, and Christians may
themselves become such rulers. But the civil magistrate may not execute the offices
reserved only for the Church, such as Word and sacrament or church discipline. Still, he
should promote civil righteousness by civil law.
(8) Chapter 25 - The Church. The Confession explicitly teaches the division of visible
and invisible Church. Moreover, the Papacy is the Antichrist.
(9) Chapters 27-29 - The Sacraments. The Confession teaches infant baptism. However,
it does not teach baptismal regeneration. Churchmen have debated for centuries
whether the 39 Articles taught baptismal regeneration. This is important to note for
Baptists. The Confession is not opening the door to baptismal regeneration, but closing
it. But from the perspective of those who hold to Believers Baptism, it does not actually
shut the door. Still, historic Presbyterians holding to the Confession have not taught
baptismal regeneration, and Baptists should bear that in mind.

7. The Westminster Catechisms (1647).

A. The Catechisms were mainly the work of Antony Tuckney and John Arrowsmith, assisted by
a committee. The Shorter Catechism has 107 questions and answers, the Larger Catechism
has 196. However, the Larger Catechisms answers are much longer and detailed; as such, it is
one of the longest and best catechisms of Reformed theology.
B. Both cover the 10 Commandments, the Lords Prayer and important heads of doctrine. They
are less personal than the Heidelberg Catechism, but are masterpieces of theological precision.
Also, all of the answers embody the question in the answer, making for a useful memory device.
They are eminently quotable. The Larger Catechism in particular, in its lengthy exposition of the
10 Commandments, employs the positive-negative principle, viz: That as, where a duty is
commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is
commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where
a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. (A.99, sect. 4)
C. The Shorter Catechism is more well known. It is an indictment against the shallowness of
modern religious instruction that it appears so weighty. This catechism was an abridgement of
the Larger Catechism for use with children, but it is above the heads of most adult Christians

78

today. Among the more notable questions and answers are the following:
(1) #1. What is the chief end of man? Mans chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him
forever.
This is one of the most famous and oft-quoted theological statements ever written.
Glorifying God is the Reformation principle Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory),
and is the special emphasis of Calvinism. In his recent book, Desiring God: Meditations
of a Christian Hedonist, the Reformed writer John Piper has expounded what it means to
enjoy God.
(2) #4. What is God? God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being,
wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
This is one of the best and concisest definitions of God ever composed. The story goes
that it was written following an extemporaneous prayer by one of the divines, who used
virtually these very words. Notice that it mentions the three incommunicable attributes
and applies each of them to the seven communicable attributes. Thus, God is all 3 in
each 7. So, God is infinite in His power, eternal in His truth, and so forth. Goodness
includes the love, mercy and grace of God.
(3) #14. What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the Law of
God.
This is another famous definition, remarkable for its conciseness. It defines sin in terms
of its object - the Law of God. Notice that it includes both positive and negative
infractions.
(4) #33. What is justification? Justification is an act of Gods free grace, wherein he
pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the
righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. This teaches both
Sola gratia (only by grace) and Sola fide (only by faith). It also teaches the positive
and negative aspect of justification: negatively, our sins are forgiven; positively, the
righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. Reformed theology teaches that these are both
essential and inseparable.

8. The Aftermath.
A. The Westminster Assembly was never formally dissolved or dismissed. Rather,
it continued in a lesser manner in the form of a committee for the examination of prospective
ministers. It used the Confession and Catechisms in particular for this purpose. But though
these and the other documents were emphatically Presbyterian, Presbyterianism never caught
on in the English Commonwealth as expected. One of the main reasons was the rise of
Cromwell, who was an Independent.
B. In 1658, the Independents met and revised the Confession to suit their polity of Independent
government. This Savoy Declaration is virtually word-for-word the same and has continued as
the main doctrinal standard of historic Congregationalists in England and America. John Owen
and Thomas Goodwin were the leaders of the 200 Independents who gathered to approve this
revision.
C.
After the Restoration (1660), the Scottish Covenanters were severely persecuted for
their allegiance to the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. They were

79

hunted and hounded, imprisoned and often martyred. Eventually, William III restored
Presbyterianism as the state religion of Scotland in 1690.
D.
The Restoration drove Presbyterianism and Independency underground for a number of
years. These English Dissenters were also severely persecuted. After the Act of Toleration
(1688), they were allowed a measure of religious freedom. The Baptists took special advantage
of this. Under the leadership of Benjamin Keach, they revised the Westminster Confession
slightly in the areas of church government and sacraments. This Baptist Confession of 1689
(sometimes called The Baptist Westminster) became the most important Baptist confession of
faith. There was also a slight revision of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
E.
Over the centuries, the Confession and Catechisms have undergone other slight
revisions. Some of these revisions were to suit American practicalities. One of them was aimed
at furthering the ecumenical movement - it deleted the section in the Confession that taught that
the Papacy is the Antichrist. Unfortunately, for most Presbyterian denominations, the
Confession and Catechisms remain only as interesting historical documents with no binding
authority. Worse than that, they often serve no more purpose to liberal Presbyterian seminaries
than as examples of what not to believe. They are held up to regular ridicule by those who claim
to be Reformed.
But the revival of interest in Calvinism among Christians of various denominations has brought
with it the desire to read, study and admire these amazing documents. May God use them to
teach us more of the Word of God. And may we be as godly as the men who wrote them.

Recommended Bibliography
The Confession of Faith; The Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture Proofs at
Large. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications. Distributed in America by Banner of Truth.
(The best available edition of the Confession, Catechisms, and most of the documents listed
above. No study of Calvinism is complete without it.)
Paul, Robert S. The Assembly of the Lord. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. (The fullest recent
treatment of the Westminster Assembly.)
Reid, James. Memoirs of the Westminster Divines. 2 vols. in 1. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
(Lengthy, edifying biographies of the Westminster divines.)
Shaw, Robert. An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith. C/0 Banner of Truth.
Williamson, G.I. The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Study Guide. Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Williamson, G.I. The Shorter Catechism: A Study Manual. 2 vols. Presbyterian and Reformed.
Hodge, A.A. The Confession of Faith. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Westminster Assembly and Its Work. Vol. VI of The Works of
Benjamin B. Warfield. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Watson, Thomas. A Body of Divinity. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (An excellent Puritan systematic
theology based on the Westminster Shorter Catechism.)
Shedd, W.G.T. Calvinism Pure and Mixed. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (Defends the Confession
and Catechisms against the calls by liberals for revision.)
Heron, Alisdair I. C, ed. The Westminster Confession in the Church Today. Edinburgh: St.

80

Andrews Press. (Essays for and against revision of the Confession by theologians . in the
Church of Scotland.)
Schaff, Philip. Creeds of Christendom. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (This / set
includes translations of all the major creeds and confessions. Vol. 1, pp. 701-816 has a most
useful history of the Assembly and survey of the Confession and other documents. Vol. 3
contains the Confession and Shorter Catechism.)
Clark, Gordon. What Presbyterians Believe. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. (An
exposition of the Westminster Confession.)

81

Chapter 9. Covenant Theology.

1. Introduction.
A. Covenant Theology is a subset of historic Calvinism. All Covenant Theologians are
Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Covenant Theologians. The system developed within
Calvinism in its most crucial stages (the 16th and 17thcenturies). Hence, it is meet that we
discuss it in our series on Calvinism.
B. We will limit the discussion to Calvinism. In a broad sense, all Christian theologies are
covenantal in that all say something about covenants. Yet in the technical sense of the term,
Covenant Theology-is Calvinistic. The term Federal ism or Federal Theology is synonymous
with Covenant Theology. Both terms come from the Latin word foedus, or covenant.
C. The system goes back in seed-form to the origins of Reformed theology. But it began to
blossom as a rival or modification of the somewhat scholastic High Calvinism of Theodore Beza.
Other strands of Calvinism modified it even further.
D. Federalism attempted to explain Gods progressive plan in history, specifically regarding
salvation. It was less interested in the fine points of the order of the eternal decrees on the one
hand and the order of salvation in the life of the believer. Yet it commented on these in the
course of the system.

2. 16th Century Origins.

A. Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) laid the foundation for Federal Theology, He was the first
Reformer to use the idea of the Covenant to refute the Anabaptists on the question of infant
baptism. His argument: Christian parents baptize their children because they are heirs of the
Covenant. Zwingli taught that God made a covenant . with Adam, but he does not specify
whether this was before or after the Fall (probably the latter). This covenant was then developed
in history.
B. Heinrich BuHinger (1504-1575) built on this foundation in his Of the One and Eternal
Testament or Covenant of God (1534). He polished the doctrine that the covenants of Scripture
are all organically related, especially related to Christ. Thus, the New Covenant was new in the
sense of being the fulfillment of all the others. The idea of covenants was closer to the center of
Bullingers theology than it was in the theologies of Zwingli or Calvin.
C. John Calvin (1509-1564) also taught an organic unity of the covenants. He compared them
to the stages in the day: the first glimmers of light were revealed to Adam, more to Abraham, full
light of the sun through Christ. Calvin also discussed the differences between these stages of
the one Covenant of Grace. Still, scholars debate whether Calvin should be considered
Federalist.
D. Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587), Heidelberg theologian and co-author with Ursinus of the
Heidelberg Catechism, made the next major step in the development. Not only did he teach the
one Covenant of Grace gradually revealed, but he stressed that it was made between God and
Christ. It is made with the elect by Christ being their representative, or Federal Head. It is
entirely of grace to us, for even the condition of faith is a gift of Gods grace. Olevianus was also
the first to posit 2 other important covenants: the eternal inter-Trinitarian Covenant of

82

Redemption and the pre-Fall Covenant of Works with Adam. These 3covenants form the basic
foundation for Covenant Theology. Olevianus views were summed up in his Concerning the
Nature of the Covenant of Grace Between God and the Elect (1585).
E. Robert Rollock (1555-1598) of Edinburgh developed the system further in his Questions and
Answers Respecting the Covenant of God (1596). He taught that all that God does or says to
Man is by way of covenant. Rollock honed down the finer points of the Covenant of Works with
Adam before the Fall. He taught that the conditions of that Covenant was complete obedience
to the Moral Law of God summed up in the Ten Commandments, revealed to Adam implicitly on
his heart. This covenant is developed in later forms in history, such as at Mt. Sinai, when its
conditions are made most explicit. Rollock also developed the relationship between the
covenants and the sacraments.

3. 17th Century Covenant Theology.

A. Cambridge Calvinism was originally more Bezan than Federal, but the two began to merge.
Perkins was more Covenantal than Beza, and then Ames was even more so. Ames paralleled
Federalism on the continent in teaching the stages of the Covenant of Grace: from Adam to
Abraham to Moses to Christ. Ames would have a big influence in New England Federalism.
John Preston discussed the covenants mainly in the Experimental ism of Cambridge Calvinism
in his The New Covenant, or The Saints Portion (1629). In his very influential Treatise on the
Covenant of Grace (1645J John Ball completed the merger of Bezan-Perkins High Calvinism
and Covenant Theology.
B. Back on the Continent, other modifications were being made. Francis Gomarusspoke of the
2 main covenants: the Covenant of Works is natural, the Covenant of Grace is supernatural.
Francis Turretine developed a French version of Federalism to counter the teachings of
Amyraut.
C. James Ussher taught a lower form of the system, but his incorporation of it in the Irish
Articles (1615) and his Body of Divinity greatly influenced the Westminster Assembly.
Consequently, the Westminster Confession and Catechisms were quite explicitly Federalist and
became the first major Reformed confessions to teach Covenant Theology. The related Sum of
Saving Knowledge (1650) was even more explicit and detailed. The last major modification of
Federalism came through the so-called Calvinistic Antinomians. They denied that there are any
conditions to the Covenant of Grace. Faith is a gift and a blessing, therefore not a condition.
Mainstream Federalists strongly disagreed, though they agreed that faith is a condition, which
God meets through us in grace. Moreover, these Antinomians stressed that the Covenant of
Grace was one and the same with the eternal Covenant of Redemption, an equation others
were slow to make.

4. Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669).

A. Johann Koch, Latinized as Johannes Cocceius, is credited with fine-tuning Covenant
Theology to its definitive shape. He is wrongly named by some as the father of Federalism.
Cocceius was born in Bremen, Germany, but studied under and succeeded liliiam Ames at the
University of Franeker, Holland. He also taught at Leyden, where the Arminian controversy
reached fever pitch a generation earlier.
B. Cocceius specialized in Hebrew, rabbinics, philology and typology. He was an extremely

83

prolific writer. Now Cocceius was more interested in developing a Biblical rather than a
systematic theology, and was disgruntled with the predominant Bezan scholasticism he found
in his day. He wished to modify this High Calvinism and saw in Covenant Theology the answer.
His major work on the subject was entitled Doctrine of the Covenant and Testaments of God
(1648).
C. Cocceiuss Federalism became the standard form from then on, except in one muchdebated point. He taught that in the former administrations of the Covenant of Grace, sins were
covered but not forgiven, as they are now. Except for this point, most of what is said below is
an exposition of Cocceian Federalism.

5. Herman Witsius (1636-1708).

A. In Witsiuss The Economy of the Covenants (1677), Covenant Theology reached its high
water mark. He did not substantially change what Cocceius wrote, but he was more systematic.
In fact, the Economy was something of a full systematic theology revolving around the
covenants. Thus, it represents the final harmony between Bezan scholastic High Calvinism and
Federalism.
B. Witsius was Dutch and thus schooled in Cocceian Federalism. However, he had more
influence in Britain and America for one reason: the Economy was translated from Latin into
English, whereas Cocceiuss Doctrine was not. Granted, all the scholars read Latin, but they
preferred English. So did the lay theologians. Moreover, the Economy was reprinted several
times over the next few centuries. It is currently very scarce, but a small American publisher has
announced plans to reprint it.

6. Later Federalists.
A. In America, Federalism took immediate root through John Cotton and Peter Bulkeley. In the
18th century, Jonathan Edwards was basically Covenantal, but made some important
modifications which influenced New England Theology to gradually become increasingly less
Federalists. In the 19th century, Charles Hodges Systematic Theology was explictly Covenantal
according to Westminster andTurretine, and its influence was unmatched. More recently, Louis
Berkhofs Systematic Theology, textbook to thousands of seminarians, has also been very
influential in keeping the Federalist flame burning in America.
B. After the Acts of Toleration (1688), English Particular Baptists became more and more
Federalist, in spite of their differences with mainstream Federalists over baptism. Curiously, this
represented the full circle of the first roots of Covenant Theology - Zwinglis argument against
the Anabaptists. Also, the Hyper-Calvinists were almost all extremely Federalist after the order
of the Antinomians. John Gills massive Body of Divinity is the definitive expression of HyperCalvinist Covenant Theology. In the 20th century, A.W. Pinks The Divine Covenants represents
the most recent lengthy treatment of ^he subject from this perspective.

7. Definition of Covenant.
A. The Hebrew word for covenant is BERITH, a cutting. This is almost always translated in the
Greek Septuagint by the word DIATHEKE, which is used often in the Greek N.T. Some scholars

84

differentiate DIATHEKE and SUNTHEKE, saying that the former is unilateral and the latter is
bilateral. Others say the 2 are basically synonyms, and whether they are unilateral bilateral
depends on use and context.
B. In the literature on the subject these words are translated by 3 main Latin words: FOEDUS
(hence, federal), PACTUM (hence, pact) and TESTAMENTUM(hence, testament). The last
two are clearly somewhat different, but scholars differ as to whether FOEDUS is more a
testament or a pact. Federalists usually say that the ideas of BERITH, DIATHEKE and FOEDUS
are basically that of a contract or pact. Only in a lesser sense is it a TESTAMENTUM, or last
will.
C. Thus, a covenant is a contract between two parties. One stipulates certain conditions, with
promises attached, and the other restipulates in agreement. Thus, it is basically conditional.
When it takes the form of a testament, it is basically unconditional. When it is conditional, it is
bilateral, when unconditional, it is unilateral. This is the basic pattern, though there are slight
variations within the outworking of these terms in Federal Theology.

8. The Covenant of Redemption.

A. This first of the 3 major covenants is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but its essential
element* are here and there, especially in certain Messianic Psalms (e.g., 2:7-9, 40:7-9, 89:3.
Cf. Heb. 10:5-7.). God the Father stipulated certain conditions. He gave the Son a work to do
(John 5:36). Christ is the surety, or the one who fulfils this Covenant (Heb. 7:22). For Christ, it
was something of a Covenant of Works - not for salvation, but for added glory. He was also
made the Federal Head of those whom God had elected.
B. The Covenant of Redemption took place, then, in eternity and is the plan by which election
would be effected. God would give certain persons - the elect -to Christ (John 6:39, 17:2, 4, 6, 9,
24), He agreed to the plan. He would become their representative head, become a man, live a
perfect life, die for them and rise again. In return, the Father would highly exalt the Son (Phil.
2:9-11).The Holy Spirit was also in the Covenant as witness and the one who would apply the
work of the Son to the elect in time.
C. Writes Louis Berkhof: The covenant of redemption may be defined as the agreement
between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son,
voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him.
D. The earliest Calvinists and many later ones did not teach that there was such a Covenant of
Redemption as such. Instead, they said that election was by mere sovereign grace, not an
inter-Trinitarian covenant. However, even they admitted that the Son came and did the will of
the Father for the elect, for which He is highly exalted and the elect redeemed.

9. The Covenant of Works.

A. This is the first covenant. in time. It has been variously termed the Edenic Covenant, the
Covenant of Nature, the Covenant of Life* the Covenant of Creation, etc. Except for one text, it
is not specifically called a covenant in Scripture, but Federalists contend that we can see in
Scripture all the essential elements of a covenant regarding Adam in Eden.
B. The one disputed text is Hosea 6:7, They, like, Adam, have transgressed the covenant.
Non-Federalists contend this should read like men (though it is singular) or at Adam (though

85

the word is a comparison not a location, and no such place as Adam has been located or
mentioned anywhere else).
C. Federalists also a use that Rom. 5 and I Cor. 15 require Adam to be a covenant head just as
Christ was a covenant head. Christ had a covenant; Adam must have had one, else Pauls
argument breaks down. Paul insinuates that Adam did not keep his covenant obligations,
whereas Christ did. Adam was the Federal representative of all men, except for Christ (for
Christ did not have a human father). Those whom Christ represented were the elect in the
Covenant of Redemption.
D. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to
Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience
(Westminster Confession, VII:2). Most Federalists posit that Adam was placed in this covenant
for a probationary period. If he passed, the test would be over, there would be no more
temptation, and he would receive eternal life. Others said it was perpetual, not temporary,
probation.
E. Adam agreed to the covenant imposed on him. That it was imposed brings out the aspect of
Law in it. Some theologians said that there had to be a seal to this covenant; they usually say it
was the Tree of Life, which Adam never partook of because he did not keep the covenant. This
was the first sacrament.
F. Of course, Adam had to fulfill certain conditions of this covenant. Some Federalists say it
was simply obedience to the command not to eat the forbidden fruit. Others say that he was to
follow the Moral Law written on his heart by nature (Rom. 2). Others say this comprehended the
10 Commandments in an implicit though not explicit way. In any case, Adam did not obey.
G. It was a Covenant of Life in that if he had obeyed, he would live. If not, he would die (Gen.
2:16-17). Adam died spiritually at that time and physically later on. Since he was head for all his
posterity, all humans inherit this guilt and penalty. We call this Original Sin (Rom. 5:12, Psa.
51:5, etc).The earliest Calvinists, following Augustine, usually said that we receive Sin and
death because we were physically in Adam (a la Heb. 7:10). But as Federalism grew, so did a
developed doctrine of Original Sin: Immediate Imputation. The theory that we were physically in
Adam and thereby physically inherit his sin and guilt and punishment is called Realism or
Traducianism. This teaches that we receive Original Sin mediate. The Federalist doctrine goes
one step further: Adams sin is imputed to us immediately, even as Christs righteousness is
imputed to us immediately (i.e., we were not literally in Christ nor is He literally in us). Scholars
differ as to whether Calvin taught the one or the other theory. And of course Arminians and
Roman Catholics strongly reject this Federalist doctrine.
H. When Adam sinned, the Covenant was abrogated, at least in certain aspects. Some
Federalists say it continues as a broken covenant for all men. That is, all men are born
covenant-breakers deserving death and are still called on by God as Creator to fulfill the Moral
Law. In this sense, we are to preach the Law as a repetition of the Covenant of Works to remind
men of their need of a Savior.
I. Federalists differ somewhat also on the historic progression of this covenant. Some say it was
repeated at Mt. Sinai in a form for Israel. In any case, it is pure Law as a Covenant of Works,
summed up in the principle Do this and you will live, or conversely, Disobey and you will die
(cf. Luke 10:28, Rom. 10:5, Gal. 3:12, Lev. 18:5, Ezek. 18:4-9, 20:11, 13, 21, etc.). Most
Federalists say it is further summed up in the 2 love commandments (Matt. 22:34-40). All men
have this condition written on their hearts by Nature. But of course, no man except Christ has
ever kept it.

86

1O. The Covenant of Grace.

A. Some Covenant Theologians equate this with the Covenant of Redemption, but the
mainstream view is that it is based on it, not equated with it. Though some Federalists do not
believe in the Covenant of Redemption in eternity, all Federalists by definition believe in the
Covenant of Grace in time.
B. Like the previous two, this covenant is more implicit than explicit in Scripture, at least in its
initial revelation. Just as Adam was head of a people, so Christ was head of a people - the new
humanity, the elect. Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works, but also the Covenant of Redemption
and of Grace for us.
C. Thus, it is primarily a covenant between God and Christ, though He is our Head. The first
revelation of this covenant was soon after Adam sinned - Gen. 3:15.This pointed to the future
sin-bearing Messiah. By faith in that, Adam was forgiven. The slain lamb was both the first
sacrifice and the first sacrament that was partaken of.
D. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant [Works], the Lord was
pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace: whereby he freely offered
unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be
saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make
them willing and able to believe. (Westminster Confession, VII:3).

11. The Later Covenants.

A. Most Federalists believe that both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace are
repeated and developed in various mixtures in the other covenants mentioned in Scripture.
Some were more gracious (such as Abrahams), others more of works (Moses). They usually do
not comment much on the Covenants with Noah and David.
B. Following Calvins analogy, Federalists believe that the Covenant of Grace has-been
repeated and administered throughout history in these later covenants. This is how Covenant
Theology explains Gods purpose in history. The Westminster Confession comments (VII:5-6):
This covenant was differently administered in the time of the Law, and in the time of the
Gospel; under the Law it was administered by promise, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the
paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore
signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the
operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by
whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation... There are not therefore two
covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.
C. The great promise of this Covenant of Grace variously revealed: I will be your God and you
will be my people. Faith was always the condition; it was never by works. Moreover, this faith
was a gift of God by the Spirit. And Covenant Theology is emphatic: O.T. believers came under
the Covenant of Grace by faith in the coming Messiah, specifically one who would be theirs inbearer. This was essential to their saving faith and the revelation of the Covenant of Grace in
their dispensation.
D. The Covenant of Grace received its fullest revelation when the Messiah Himself came and
died for the elect. This fulfilled all previous covenants, and therefore the others are abrogated.
The Covenant of Works continues mainly in the form of the natural state of sin and responsibility
of mankind. Lastly, Christ Himself was the object of all the covenants and prophecies. He was

87

the promised seed to Adam (Gen. 3:15) and to Abraham (Gal. 3:16), the antitype and fulfillment
of the Mosaic Covenant. Thus, for Covenant Theology, the history of salvation is both
covenantal and Christocentric.

12. Further Ramifications.

A. Even from the time of Zwingli, Federalists have tied in covenants with the sacraments.
Hence, the popular argument from Covenantal Calvinists: since in the O.T^ circumcision was
the sacrament of the Covenant of Grace for believers and their children, so in the N.T. baptism
is the sacrament for believers and their children. Most Federalists have therefore been paedobaptists. However, many Calvinistic Baptists (such as John Gill) have been Federalist Baptists.
They contend that in the N.T. era of the Covenant of Grace, it is not baptism but the Holy Spirit
that is the seal of the Covenant (Eph. 1:13). Water baptism is only for those who evidence that
they are in the Covenant by faith.
B. Another issue was church membership and covenants. Originally, some said that
membership in the church covenant was only for those who could give credible evidence of
regeneration and a Biblical profession of faith. In time this was diluted to only the latter - the
Half-Way Covenant. This caused problems in the paedo-baptists churches, for they admitted
that covenant children were to receive the first sacrament (baptism) but not the second
(Communion and membership) until they evidenced regeneration in a, holy life. The debate still
continues today, for example, in those Calvinists advocating infant Communion.

13. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

A. One of the leading rivals of Covenant Theology within Evangelicalism is Dispensationalism.
Space does not allow a detailed discussion. An accompanying chart lists the major differences
between the mainstreams of each (and of course there are variations in both schools).
B. All Federalists have been Calvinists, but not all Dispensationalists have been Calvinists. It is
highly significant that a Dispensationalist may be either Calvinistic or Arminian. This is not
comparing apples and oranges. There are several similarities between Dispensationalism and
the Arminian alternative to Covenant Theology. Many Dispensationalists, however, contend that
their system is simply an alternative to Federalism; both may be Calvinistic. But of course, rare
is the Dispensationalist who would aver that the 16th and 17th century Calvinists were
Dispensational. Most were Federalists.
C. Historically, they are separate systems. One began in the 16th century, the other in the 19th.
Both claim to be Biblical. It is not appropriate here to comment which one is truly Biblical. But we
must say which one is Reformed. Also, the two should be seen as rivals. Almost no theologian
has suggested they are complimentary halves, and no major theologian has claimed to be a
Dispensational Federalist or a Federalist Dispensationalist. It is also significant that most
Calvinists who are not Covenantal still shy away from Dispensationalism. There has always
been suspicion in Reformed Theology that Dispensationalism is not only non-Calvinist, but nonReformational.
D. The differences are not mainly on matters of eschatology. All Dispensationalists have been
Pre-Millennial and usually (if not always) Pre-Tribulation. On the other hand, most Federalists
have been Amillenial, but some have been Post-Millennial (such as Warfield) and others have
been Pre-Millennial (such asHoratius Bonar). But even the Pre-Millennial Covenanters usually

88

are not Pre-Tribulational. These areas do not touch the pith and marrow of the question.
E. Closer to the real issue is whether there is a major difference between literal Israel and the
Church. This is partly a matter of how literal ones hermeneutics are. Dispensationalism
stresses the literal and posits an essential difference between physical Israel and the Church.
Covenant Theology, of course, sees the Church as spiritual Israel. But how does this question
touch the matter of Calvinism? Dispensationalism contends that God has 2 peoples with 2
destinies, while Federalism is consistently Calvinist in going back to election and positing only 1
people of God with 1 destiny (election to salvation and glory).
F. Probably the greatest problem between Dispensationalism and both Federalism and
Calvinism concerns Gods saving purposes in the O.T. Some Dispensationalists have said that
some men were saved by works in the O.T. These may be merely unguarded statements, but to
the Federalist they are the logical conclusion of Dispensational theology. Thus, such an error
would contradict the essential Reformation doctrine of Sola Gratia - salvation is not only now
by grace alone, but has always been by grace alone.
G. More mainstream Dispensationalists have suggested that sinners in the O.T. were saved not
by works but by faith. This sounds like Sola Fide. However, on closer inspection, a deep
problem arises. Dispensationalism almost always says that the content of this O.T. saving faith
was substantially and materially different from the content of saving faith in the N.T. That is,
sinners in the O.T. were not justified by faith in the Gospel of Messiah as sin-bearer (thatis,
Christ crucified). Their faith was in promises peculiar to their individual and separate
dispensations. They may have received the occasional Messianic prophecy, but that was not
essential to their saving faith per se. Logically, then, O.T. saints were not in Christ nor part of
Christs Body or Bride.
H. Now it is precisely at this point where the problem is greatest, it seems to me. Not only
Federalists, but all the Reformers - Lutheran or Calvinist or even Anabaptist - taught something
quite different. They all taught that O.T. believers were justified by faith in the coming Messiah
as their sin-bearer. They heard the Gospel through prophecies and scarifies and types.
Therefore, the essential content of their faith was materially the same in all ages, including the
N.T. No man has ever been justified except by faith in Christ crucified. This was of the essence
of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide . Thus, when Dispensationalism disagrees, it is not
merely differing with Federalism but with the Reformational principle of Sola Fide. In this light, it
is most difficult to harmonize Dispensationalism and Calvinism. Moreover, Calvinism has always
held that saints in both O.T. and N.T. are all in Christ and part of the Body and Bride of Christ
because of election. To Mainstream Calvinism, Dispensationalism threatens the second point of
Calvinism..
I. Is it possible, then, to be a Dispensational Calvinist? Granted, there have been many who
have claimed to be such. But in the unanimous opinion of Federalists and most non-Federal
Calvinists, Dispensational Calvinism is something of a contradiction in terms. In other words, it
might be a form of Calvinism, but only an inconsistent or greatly modified variety.
J. Calvinistic Dispensationalists usually do not see the inconsistency. When they see the
logical conclusions of the problem, they are faced with several options. Some stay in that
modification and claim it is the most Scriptural one. That may be right. Others dispense with
their Dispensationalism and attempt to be more consistently Reformed on the points in question.
Still others jettison their Calvinism for Arminianism or something else. The controversy is not
likely to be resolved in the near future.

89

Recommended Bibliography
Von Rohr, John. The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Murray,
John. The Covenant of Grace. Phi 111psburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Hendrikson,
William. The Covenant of Grace. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Neilands, David. Studies in the Covenant of Grace. Phi Hipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Stoever, William. A Faire and Easie Hay to Heaven: Covenant Theology and Antinomianism . in
Early Massachusetts. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Robertson, 0. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Fuller, Daniel P. Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum? The Hermeneutics of
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Belcher, Richard. A Comparison of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Columbia:
Richbarry Press.
Gerstner, John. A Primer on Dispensationalism. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed. Chafer,
Louis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 2 vols. Wheaton: Victor Books. All is, Oswald. T. Prophecy
and the Church. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed. Campbell, Roderick. Israel and the New
Covenant. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed. Robertson, 0. Palmer. Covenants: Gods
Way. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
The following sections in standard Federalist systematic theologies: Heinrich Heppe, Reformed
Dogmatics, pp. 281-447, 581-589 (contains many large excerpts of previously untranslated
discussions from early continental Federalists); Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, pp. 211218, 262-301; John Gill, A Body of Divinity, pp. 214-250, 345-377 (the standard discussion of
Baptist Federalism).

90

Dispensationalism And Covenant Theology

The following are the major differences between these two systems of theology. They represent
the mainstreams of both systems, though there are variations in each. Representative
systematic theologies are those of L.S. Chafer and Charles Hodge.
Dispensationalism

Covenant Theology

1. May be Arminian or modified Calvinist.

Almost never 5-point Calvinist.

1. Always Calvinist. Usually 5-point.

2. Stresses literal Interpretation of the Bible.

2. Accepts both literal and figurative

interpretation of the Bible.

3. Usually does not accept the idea of the

Analogy of Faith

3. Almost always accepts the idea of the

Analogy of Faith.

4. . Israel always means only the literal,

physical descendants of Jacob

4. Israel may mean either literal, physical

descendants of Jacob or the figurative,
spiritual Israel, depending on context.

5. . Israel of God in Gal. 6:16 means physical

Israel alone.

5. Israel of God in Gal. 6:16 means spiritual

Israel, parallel to Gal.3: 29, Rpm. 2:28-29,
9:6, Phil. 3:3.

6. God has 2 peoples with 2 separate destinies:

Israel (earthly) and the Church (heavenly).

6. God has always had only 1 people, the.

Church gradually developed.

7. The Church was born at Pentecost.

7. The Church began in the O.T. (Acts7:38)

and reached fulfillment in the N.T.

8. The Church was not prophesied as such in

the O.T. but was a hidden mystery until the N.T.

8. There are many O.T. prophecies of the

N.T. Church.

9. All O.T. prophecies for Israel are for literal

Israel, not the Church

9. Some O.T. prophecies are for literal Israel,

others are for spiritual Israel.

10. . Gods main purpose in history is literal

Israel.

10. Gods main purpose in history is Christ

and secondarily the Church.

11. The Church is a parenthesis in Gods

program for the ages.

11. The Church is the culmination of Gods

saving purpose for the ages.

12. The main heir to Abrahams covenant was

Isaac and literal Israel.

12. The main heir to Abrahams covenant

was Christ and spiritual Israel.

13. There was no eternal Covenant of

Redemption within the Trinity.

13. The eternal Covenant of Redemption was

within the Trinity to effect election.

14. There was no Covenant of Works with

Adam in the Garden of Eden.

14. God made a conditional Covenant of

Works with Adam as representative for all his
posterity.

15. There was no Covenant of Grace

concerning Adam.

15. God made a Covenant of Grace with

Christ and His people, including Adam.

16. Israel was rash to accept the Covenant at

16. Israel was right to accept the Covenant at

91

Mt. Sinai.

Mt. Sinai.

17. The New Covenant of Jer. 31:31-34 is only

for literal Israel and is not the New Covenant of
Lk.22:20.

17. The New Covenant of Jer. 31 is the

same as in Lk. 22; both are for spiritual Israel
according to Heb. 8.

18. Gods program in history is mainly through

separate dispensations.

18. Gods program in history is mainly

through related covenants.

19. Some Dispensationalists have said that O.T. 19. No man has ever been saved by works,
sinners were saved by works.
but only by grace.
20. Most Dispensationalists teach that men in
the O.T. were saved by faith in a revelation
peculiar to their Dispensation, but this did not
include faith in the Messiah as their sin-bearer.

20. All men who have ever been saved have

been saved by faith in Christ as their sinbearer, which has been progressively
revealed in every age.

21. The O.T. sacrifices were not recognized as

the Gospel or types of the Messiah as sinbearer, but only seen as such in retrospect.

21. O.T. believers believed in the Gospel of

Messiah as sin-bearer mainly by the
sacrifices as types and prophecies.

22. The Holy Spirit indwells only believers in the

Dispensation of Grace, not O.T. and not after
the Rapture.

22. The Holy Spirit has indwelt believers in all

ages, especially in the present N.T. era, and
will not be withdrawn.

23. Jesus made an offer of the literal Kingdom

to Israel; since Israel rejected it, it is postponed.

23. Jesus made only an offer of the spiritual

Kingdom, which was rejected by literal Israel
but has gradually been accepted by spiritual
Israel.

24. O.T. believers were not in Christ, nor part of

the Body of Bride of Christ.

24. Believers in all ages are all in Christ and

part of the Body and Bride of Christ.

25. The Law has been abolished.

25. The Law has 3 uses: to restrain sin in

society, to lead to Christ, and to instruct
Christians in godliness. The ceremonial laws
have been abolished; the civil laws have
been abolished except for their general
equity; the moral laws continue.

26. O.T. Laws are no longer in effect unless

repeated in the N.T.

26. O.T. laws are still in effect unless

abrogated in the N.T.

27. The Millennium is the Kingdom of God

Dispensationalists are always Pre-Millennial
and usually Pre-Tribulational.

27. The Church is the Kingdom of God.

Covenanters are usually Amillenial,
sometimes Pre-Millennial or Post-Millennial,
rarely Pre-Tribulational.

28. The O.T. animal sacrifices will be restored in 28. The O.T. sacrifices were fulfilled and
the Millennium.
forever abolished in Christ.
29. The Millennium will fulfill the Covenant to
Abraham. Israel has a future.

29. Christ fulfilled the Covenant to Abraham.

Some Covenanters believe in a future for
literal Israel, most dont.

30. David will sit on the Millennial throne in

Jerusalem.

30. Christ alone sits on the throne. Saints

rule under Him.

92

Chapter 10. High Calvinism.

1. What is High Calvinism?
A. The first generation of Reformed theologians were in basic agreement on the issues of
Calvinism. These included Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Vermigli and others. Most of these men died
within a few years of each other, and the leadership fell to their younger assistants.
B. This Second Generation Calvinism began to expand on the doctrines of their
predecessors. Scholars are divided whether they legitimately built on the foundation or not. In
the areas where some of the Second Generation Calvinists went where their predecessors had
not and would not go, variations took place. Scholars often refer to the 2 main variations as
High and Low* Calvinism.
C. The variations were on a variety of subjects, but they generally revolved around the
questions of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The first Calvinists rediscovered this
balance, which had been lost for many years. Medieval theology was basically Semi-Pelagian
and therefore laid greater stress on human responsibility. Calvinism simply reset the proper
balance. But then the later Calvinists argued among themselves over the balance.
D. Basically the situation was this: the High Calvinists tended to over-emphasize divine
sovereignty and the Low Calvinists tended to over-emphasize human responsibility. But this
needs further clarification. For example, none of the Lows taught a view of human
responsibility as low as the Arminians or even the Lutherans.
E. Similarly, the differences between these two tendencies were minor when compared with
their mutual agreement on doctrines where they disagreed with Romanism, Socinianism,
Arminianism and Lutheranism. These were in-house debates. They were the ebbs and flows
and tides in the River of Calvinism.
F. High Calvinism was different from Low Calvinism, however, in one important aspect: it
went in a direction where no man had gone before. The Lows tended to move in the direction of
Lutheranism, and so this was territory between two existing theologies. But the Highs went into
brand new territory, for no theologian had so stressed divine sovereignty as to weaken human
responsibility.
G. One other point merits mention. The proper balance of sovereignty and responsibility is not
that Calvinism has the right view of sovereignty and Arminianism has the right view of human
responsibility. Even the lowest of the lows did not suggest that. However, many of the Highs
thought that the Lows were semi-Arminian. Epithets of Pseudo-Calvinist! were hurled. The
debates were primarily theological; but theologians being human, personality conflicts often
entered the arena.
H. In a related way, this typifies all controversies. The Highs came first. The Lows arose as a
reaction against them, calling for a return to the original balance. Then the Highs reacted
against the Lows and some of them went even higher. And naturally some of the Lows reacted
against that and went even lower. It became a chain of over-reactions. Many of the following
chapters show how these later reactions went far beyond not only the original Calvinists, but
even the original Highs and Lows.
I. This analysis is important to the correct understanding of the development of Reformed
theology. We have often pointed out that though there is a common unifying thread among all
Calvinists, there are many varieties and sub-varieties. These did not all arise at once. Most

93

arose as reactions and counter-reactions and over-reactions against previous varieties. The
major ones can be charted like this:
Hyper-Calvinism
Calvinistic Antinotnianism

High Calvinism

Supralapsarianism
Strict 5-Point Calvinism
Moderate Calvinism

Mainstream Calvinism

Amyraldism
Neonomianism

Low Calvinism

4-Point Calvinism
Late New England Calvinism

J. The question that was often asked in determining in which direction one was moving was
this: Which is more important to maintain, the sovereignty of God or the responsibility of Man?
This was related to other questions: Which is more important, the secret will of God or the
revealed will of God? Which is the more fundamental attribute of God, sovereignty or holiness
[or love]? All Calvinists today should ask themselves these questions.
K. They are trick questions. In a way, they are unfair. The proper answer should be that both
are equal. Divine sovereignty is an attribute of God, but no attribute takes precedence over
another or else there is an imbalance in the Godhead. Human responsibility is based on the
revealed will of God, which in turn is based on the holiness of God. Oust as true beauty consists
in giving proper balance, so true theology (and Calvinism in particular) consists in giving the
proper balance to its doctrines and their ramifications. The further above or below Mainstream
Calvinism one gets, then, the more imbalanced he is on the doctrines in question, in this lesson,
we will examine two of the earliest doctrines developed by the Highs. Next lesson will cover the
initial Low reaction, and so forth.

2. Supralapsarianism.
A. Whenever one discusses the questions of election, reprobation and the origin of sin, the
question naturally arises as to the order of these decrees in the predestination of God. And thus,
Supralapsarianism arose as one answer.
B. Let me at once add that it did not arise early in the Reformation. This was not the theory of
Luther, Melanchthon or any of the Lutherans. Nor was it held by Zwingli, Bucer, Vermigli,
Bullinger or the other First Generation Calvinists. A few scholars have attempted to see it in
Calvin, but I agree with most in saying that it arose in Second Generation Calvinism and was
not held by Calvin. And it need hardly be said that Augustine or Gottschalk did not hold it. The
closest one can find it before the Reformation was in a few unusual theories of Duns Scotus, a
Catholic theologian who reacted against the prevailing theology of Thomas Aquinas, but he did
not move back to Augustine but in a new area.

94

C. Theodore Beza was probably the first Calvinist to hold to Supralapsarianism. No scholar
denies that Beza taught it, though there is debate whether he was the first. Some see it in
Zanchius at Heidelberg, but even that would be concurrent with Beza. In any case, it is difficult
to find it before about 1560.
D. Supralapsarianism prospered mainly where Bezan theology grew, such as at Cambridge.
William Perkins and William Ames were both early English Supralapsarians. About the same
time, Francis Gomarus and Johannes Maccovius accepted and developed the scheme.
Somewhat later, it was taught by Samuel Rutherford, Thomas Goodwin and William Twisse,
who wrote the definitive book on the subject: The Riches of Gods Love unto the Vessels of
Mercy.
E. Still later it was taught by Isaac Chauncey and Robert Traill. More recently,
Supralapsarianism has been advocated by Abraham Kuyper, Herman Hoeksema, Cornelius
Van Till, Gordon Clark and Arthur W. Pink. Two salient point need to be made. First, the theory
was held by every Higher Calvinist on the above chart. That is, all the Calvinistic Antinotnians
and Hyper-Calvinists have accepted Supralapsarianism. For example, John Gill was
Supralapsarian.
F. Second, and this is crucial, this has always been the minority view amongst Calvinists. No
more than about 5^ of Calvinists have been Supralapsarians.The system is not taught in any of
the major Reformed confessions; indeed, several of them imply other theories. Moreover, it is
mainly a variation of the past. Few hold it today, and no major Reformed theologian today is
such.
G. Before defining just what it is, let me say what it is not. It is not the doctrine that God did not
choose some people to be elect. That is the doctrine of Reprobation and is held by virtually all
Calvinists. Secondly, it is not the doctrine of unconditional election, for all Calvinists believe in
that. Third, it is not the doctrine that God predestined the existence of sin, whether by active
fore-ordination or passive permission. All Calvinists accept that.
H. Rather, Supralapsarianism is one of the 2 or 3 theories within Reformed theology on the
question of which of the above three decrees of God came first. Of course, this assumes they
are eternal. Therefore, it is not a matter of chronological order, but of logical order. This only
makes the theories all the more difficult to understand. Even the question itself is deep.
I. The question is this: In the logical order of the eternal decrees, did God ordain election and
reprobation before or after the decree to allow Man to fall into sin? Supralapsarianism says
before. Supra is Latin for above or before, the majority of Calvinists have opted for forms of
the other main theory, called Infralapsarianism. Infra is Latin for after or later.
Infralapsarianism is also sometimes called Sublapsarianism (sub meaning below and thus
basically synonymous with infra).
J. Those holding to this theory usually back into it in reaction to either Arminianism or Low
Calvinism. They think that it gives greater glory to Gods grace and sovereignty. To them, this is
Super-Calvinism or the purest form of the Reformed doctrine of election.
K. One of the major arguments is this: What is first in intention is last in execution. That is,
means precede ends in execution, but ends precede means in the plans. For example, a man
plans to build a house. That is the end. So he then makes plans on the details: I will need walls,
therefore I will need wood. I need wood, therefore I need nails. I need nails, therefore I need
hammers. I need hammers, therefore I need carpenters. Thus, the Supralapsarian says that
the logical order of the decrees is the exact opposite of the historical order of fulfillment. Men
are saved after they fell into sin, therefore the decree to elect to salvation must have logically
preceded the decree to allow men to fall into sin. Q.E.D.

95

L. In a later lesson we will examine the Scriptural data on the order of the decrees. Suffice it
here to point out the 3 main arguments against Supralapsarianism. First, the Infralapsarians say
that the Supras have it all backward. The theory is basically that the end justifies the means,
and that can have terrible implications.
M. Secondly, Supralapsarianism essentially denies that election is of grace. At best it can only
be election by love. But Scripture teaches election by grace (Rom. 11:5, KJV). Grace is Gods
unmerited favor to sinners. Supralapsarianism makes God showing favor to men not seen as
sinners, therefore it can be love but not grace.
N. Thirdly, Supralapsarianism has an unfair doctrine of election that reflects harshly on the true
doctrine of justice. The theory would teach that God planned to reject men without any regard
for their sin. If they were not viewed as sinners in the decree of reprobation, then God is hating
them without a cause. Thus, Supralapsarianism distorts both the grace and the justice of God.

3. Assurance of Salvation.
A. Question: Is assurance of the essence of faith? Just as theologians debated the order the
decrees, they debated the order of what occurs when one of the elect believes. One of the finest
points of this issue is whether a true Christian can believe with all his might but still not know
whether he is saved, elect and will persevere to the end.
B. First lets examine Calvins concept of faith as it relates to assurance. In his famous
definition of saving faith, Calvin wrote: It is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine flavour
toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and
sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit (Institutes, 111:2:7).
C. For Calvin, faith is first of all enlightenment. It is not a blind leap of faith into the fork, but a
step into the light. Moreover, assurance comes through this enlightenment, not through the step
itself. Therefore, Calvin tended to say that assurance was. of the essence of faith. Faith is selfauthenticating.
D. Calvin was one of the first theologians to develop the doctrine called theTestimonium
Internum Spiriti Sancti, or the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Now many previous writers
had commented on this testimony of the Spirit, but most were Catholic mystics. They tended to
make it subjective, a deeper experience for a select few who were well along the mystic path to
perfection. Calvin rejected that concept.
E. Rather, Calvin said that the internal testimony is the echo of the Spirit speaking through
Scripture. Therefore, it was not subjective (arising from self) but objective (arising from
Scripture). The same Spirit that inspired Scripture uses Scripture to give the gift of faith to the
elect. There is neither regeneration nor faith without Scripture, To Calvin, this was the greatest
aspect of faith and assurance. He appealed to Rom. 8:15-17, Gal. 4:6, I John 3:24, 4:13. This
testimony is primarily positive.
F. Of course, there are other contributing things to assurance, such as the evidence of a holy
life, but these are secondary and primarily negative. That is, if one does not have them, he
cannot conclude he is saved. Their presence alone is not enough. Furthermore, faith and
assurance grow. No believer has total assurance any more than he has total faith. He grows.
But even in the original seed there is assurance.
G. Theres more. For Calvin, Christ is the mirror of election and He Himself is the ground of
assurance even as He is of faith. To really believe in Christ is to know that Christ is for you.

96

Calvin agreed with the other Reformers on the importance of Christ pro me, that Christ is for
me. They agreed that this wasnt a later development of faith but the very essence of faith, as
seen in Calvins definition above. Believing Christ was for people in general is not enough (nor
is it true). One must know Christ is for me in particular. But how?
H. Calvin explained that assurance comes through the knowledge that Christ died for me. The
atonement is the core of the Gospel, and the Gospel is that which gives faith and assurance.
Assurance comes something like this: Christ died for me. Christ is for me. If He is for me, who
can be against me? God will give me all things with Christ. This means that God planned it that
way, so I was elected and will persevere. Assurance begins in the present and then moves
backwards and forward.
I. The above should not be confused with the idea that would say: Christ died for me.
Therefore, I must be one of the elect, because He died only for the elect. Calvin points men
straight to Christ crucified, then and only then to the counsels of eternity.
J. The High Calvinists usually modified this way of describing faith and assurance. For example,
the Westminster Confession (XVIII:3): This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the
essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before
he be partaker of it.
K. Of course* the. Highs accepted that the internal testimony of the Spirit was essential 0 true
assurance, together with the external works, which accompany faith. The main difference was of
emphasis. The Highs said less about the internal testimony that did Calvin. They tended to
speak of the external accompanying works as more important. This meant that assurance was
not essential to faith.
L. High Calvinism usually theorizes that assurance is a reflex of faith. And that reflex is not
immediate or necessarily near to faith. One can have faith and not assurance. Calvin preferred
to speak of those lacking assurance as those lacking faith. Rather than encourage men to strive
to do more works to develop assurance, as the Bezans usually did, Calvin pointed men straight
to Christ in order to inculcate faith and its accompanying assurance.
M. The Bezans and other High Calvinists developed the notion called the Practical Syllogism.
The Iogic was this: Only believers have good works; I have good works; therefore I must be a
believer. By examining oneself for the effects, one can deduce that he has the cause.
Consequently, High Calvinism led to Experimental ism of a very introspective nature. The
problem was whether these works had good motives.
N. Moreover, another problem arose. The Highs denied that essential to saving faith was the
knowledge that Christ died for oneself. That was the highest form of assurance, and therefore
not of the pith and marrow of faith. This was mainly because the Highs developed a rather rigid
doctrine of limited atonement. Thus, one does not gain assurance by believing Christ died for
him, for he cannot know that directly by Scripture or the Gospel. He must deduce it from
election. That is, one must reason like this: I have good works. Only believers have good
works. Therefore I am a believer. All believers were elected. Therefore I am elect. Christ died
only for the elect. Therefore Christ died for me.
O. Now the difference is apparent. Calvin pointed men straight to Christ crucified for them as the
object of faith and assurance, and then to election. The. Highs reversed this. They pointed men
first to themselves, then to election, and then to the atonement. Obviously this has great bearing
on the question of the extent of the atonement. The Low Calvinists were quick to see that, and
so they reacted against the High Calvinists. We will explore that controversy in the next lesson.
P. This also raises the controversial question: what did Calvin believe about the extent of the

97

atonement? That too will be discussed in the next lesson. Lastly, is there any relationship
between the question of assurance and the question of the order of the decrees? Yes, there is.
The higher one ascends on the ladder of High Calvinism, the less he sees assurance being of
the essence of salvation. This has implications for the free offer of the Gospel, a subject hotly
debated by the Hyper-Calvinists. Furthermore, if one is not Supralapsarian, does one hold to a
kind of Hypothetical Universal ism in the order of the decrees?

Recommended Reading
Beza, Theodore. A Little Book of Christian Questions and Responses. Allison Park:
Pickwick Publications. (Virtually the only translated writings of Beza in print. This sums up
Bezas whole theology, but is very brief.)
Perkins, William. The Work of William Perkins. Edited with an introduction by Ian Breward.
Appleford, England: Sutton Courtney. (Large selections of the major writings of Perkins,
especially on predestination.)
Kendall, R.T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press;
Muller, Richard. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology
from Calvin to Perkins. Durham: Labyrinth Press; and Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Shepherd, Victor. The Nature and Function of Faith in the Theology of John Calvin. Macon:
Mercer University Press.
Helm, Paul. Calvin and the Calvinists. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Discussions on Supralapsarianism can be found in all the major Reformed systematic
theologies, such as Berkhof, Hodge and Dabney. Heppe gives extensive quotes from the
earliest Supralapsarians, and includes Bezas chart of the order of the decrees. The systematic
theologies of Herman Hoeksema and John Gill defend and present Supralapsarianism from the
Hyper-Calvinist perspective. There is an incisive discussion of the question in Herman Bavineks
The Doctrine of God (Bavinck comes out neither Supra nor Infra). G.C. Berkouwer also has a
discussion in Divine Election, but it has a slightly Barthian flavour.

98

Chapter 11. Amyraldism.

1. Moyse Amyraut.
A. Moyse Amyraut (1596-1664), or in Latin Moses Amyraldus, was not the founder but was the
most influential member of a school of Low Calvinism called Amyraldism (or Amyraldianism).
Others in this school are often referred to as Amyraldians.
B. Amyraut was Professor at the French Protestant Academy at Saumur, France, from 1633 to
1664. During that time he had an enormous influence on the French Reformed Church. He
wrote dozens of books, several having thousands of pages. His largest effort was Christian
Ethics, containing some 4,600pages in 6 large volumes. But his most important and
controversial work was his Treatise on Predestination (1634).
C. Amyraut had switched from law to theology through reading Calvins Institutes. Throughout
his life he was one of the major Calvin scholars of the century. This is apparent in all his
writings. Amyraut was displeased with the prevailing High Calvinism of his day. He felt it was
becoming too cold and scholastic, losing the warmth of Calvin. Amyraut began to develop a
system, which he considered to be in the pure line of Augustine and Calvin, and compatible with
the Synod of Dort. He urged a return to Calvins Calvinism. For example, he said that
predestination should be discussed under the head of salvation (as it had been in the last
edition of Calvins Institutes), not under the doctrines of God or Creation, as it usually was in
High Calvinism.
D. Amyraut also wanted a kind of reunion of Calvinists and Lutherans. He felt that the Calvinists
were becoming too High and the Lutherans too Low, and so he urged a return to true
Reformation balance. Amyraut also wanted to protect the Huguenot church from the continuous
assaults of Romanism, and felt that High Calvinism made the situation worse. Mind you,
Amyraut was not an Arminian. He explicitly believed in the Reformed view of the points of the
Synod of Dort.
E. Still, he had reservations and called for modifications in certain areas. For one, Amyraut and
the Amyraldians usually taught that Adams sin was mediately transferred to Mankind through
the physical unity of the race, as opposed to the increasingly popular theory of immediate
imputation by Adams Federal headship. As for human depravity, Amyraut developed a view
that differentiated natural and moral inability. Man was morally unable to will good, but not
naturally so. Even so, God must sovereignly give specialgrace and faith.
F. Amyraut also proposed a variation to Federalism. He taught there were three covenants.
First, the Covenant of Nature with Adam, demanding obedience to the Law revealed in Nature.
Second, the Covenant of Law with Israel, demanding obedience to the written Law. Third, the
Covenant of Grace. This has two parts: a conditional part between God and all Mankind based
on universal grace, and an unconditional part between God and the elect based on
specialgrace. He taught little about an eternal Covenant of Redemption or the historical
unfolding of the Covenant of Grace after Eden.
G. Amyraut then posited that Christ died for all men because of universal grace. Christ died
equally for all in order to provide a basis for the universal part of the Covenant of Grace. This
provision was universal, but the application was particular and limited to the elect. Amyraut felt
that this was the view of Calvin and the early Reformers. He also knew that this was at variance
with the prevailing High Calvinism of the day.

99

2. Hypothetical Universalism.
A. If the above were not controversial enough, Amyrauts Hypothetical Universal ism blew the
controversy wide open. The theory basically is as follows. There are two kinds of grace:
universal grace for all men and special grace only for the elect. Because of universal grace and
the universal aspect of the Covenant of Grace, it is hypothetically possible for the heathen to be
saved without hearing the Gospel. However, Amyrautadded, in fact none of these have ever
been saved because it is only through the Gospel that saving faith is given. He developed these
views in several writings, such as A Treatise on Religion (1631).
B. Further, God is said to have two wills: a universal conditional will and a particular
unconditional will. The former desires the salvation of all men on condition of faith. This is
revealed in Nature only partially, but fully in the Gospel.
C. Amyraut also developed this division into two kinds of grace. Objective grace is universal
and offers salvation to all on condition of faith and repentance. Subjective grace is for the elect
only and alone is saving.
D. These theories necessitated a corresponding view of the decrees of God in eternity. Hence,
one decree is that God ordained universal salvation on condition of faith. This idea of a
conditional decree troubled most Calvinists. Moreover, Amyraut said that the order of the
decrees is like this: universal grace, universal atonement for all, particular election, particular
and efficacious grace to apply the atonement to the elect alone. Sometimes he spoke of the
decrees as one simple decree, not as subordinate decrees that follow a logical order (as in
prevailing Reformed theology).
E. Thus, said Amyraut, the provision for salvation was universal but the application was
particular. He considered this the true meaning of the old formula, Christ died sufficiently for all
but efficiently only for the elect. Amyraldianism taught an ideal universalism and a real
particularism. This universal ism was only hypothetical, not actual. Only the elect will be saved,
because election is particular and not based on foreseen faith. Amyraut also taught the doctrine
of reprobation.

3. Other French Amyraldians.

A. John Cameron (1579-1625) was a Scotsman who taught at Saumur for three years and laid
much of the foundation on which Amyraut built his theories. Jean Dai He (1594-1670) was an
extremely prolific writer and excelled especially in collecting a mass of quotations from the
church fathers, medieval theologians, and especially the 16th-century Reformers to show that
Amyraldianism was not a new theology but had a good ancestry.
B. David Blondel, Paul Testard and Josue de la Place were also at the center of the movement.
Slightly later, Claude Pajon would develop the theology even further into a form of universalism.
Louis Cappel was another major Amyraldian, a Hebrew scholar who taught the thencontroversial view that only the Hebrew consonants were inspired, not the later Massoretic
vowels.

4. The Anti-Amyraldians.

100

A. Francis Turretine (1623-1687), also spelled Turretin or Turretini, was an Italian theologian
teaching at Geneva. He sounded the alarm against Amyraldianism and was its leading
opponent. He is usually considered the best representative of 17th-century Reformed
scholasticism, as seen in his massive and precise Institutio Theoloqicae Elenchthicae (3 vols.),
a very important Reformed systematic theology. Turretine more or less was a strict particularism
denying Hypothetical Universalism and teaching a strictly limited atonement.
B. Four other names stand out: Pierre du Moulin (who accused Amyraut of Romanizing
tendencies ), Andre Rivet, Friedrich Spanheim, and Johann Heuirich Heidegger. All wrote
massive books against all aspects of Amyraldianism.

5. The Formula Consensus Helvetica.

A. At the National Synod of Alencon (1637), Amyraut was admonished but not condemned. The
same occurred at the Synod of Charenton (1645). Later at the Synod of Loudun (1659), they
were cleared. To some, this meant that Amyraldianism had gained the upper hand in the French
Reformed Church.
B. The French Calvinists just over the border in Switzerland were not pleased. So there
appeared the Formula Consensus Helvetica in 1675 to explicitly condemn the distinctives of
Amyraldianism. This was the last major Reformed confession of faith of the formative years of
Reformed theology. It was written by Turretine, Heidegger and Louis Gernler*
C. The Formula taught that Adams sin is transmitted to all men both mediately through physical
lineage but especially immediately because he was our covenantal representative. Natural
revelation is universal but is only partial and does not reveal salvation, only condemnation.
Therefore, it is incorrect to speak of a hypothetical salvation of the heathen who never hear the
Gospel.
D. The atonement is limited to the elect alone. True, it is infinite in value and sufficiency, but its
intent is particular and limited to the elect alone. The decree of election logically precedes the
decree of atonement. Christ is not the mediator of all men, but only of the elect. Moreover,
Christ is the chief elect one. Even further, at the Cross Christ merited both salvation and the
means of salvation for the elect, namely regeneration and the gift of faith.
E. The Formula is explicitly Infralapsarian on the order of the decrees. It rejected the notion of a
hypothetical universal grace for salvation and the Amyraldian idea of a universal will of God to
save all men on condition of faith.
F. The Formula is not an exhaustive confession like the Westminster Confession. Rather, like
the Canons of Dort, it was drawn up to address specific problems. For example, it condemned
Cappels view that only the Hebrew consonants were inspired. Later, of course, Cappels view
became accepted everywhere, even among High Calvinists. On the other hand, Calvinism of all
stripes began to disintegrate in Switzerland and France in the 18th and 19th centuries. Oddly,
one of the main opponents of the Formula was Turretines own son.

6. British Parallels of Amyraldianism.

A. John Davenant (1576-1641) was an Anglican Bishop and a delegate to the Synodef Dort. He
was troubled by the High Calvinism that was developing and sought a return to the Reformers
theology. After the Synod, he taught that the Canons did not teach a strictly limited atonement,

101

but a dualist kind. Davenant wrote A Dissertation on the Death of Christ on the subject. Like
Davenant would do in later years, Davenant collected dozens of quotations to show that his
views were those of the fathers and Reformers, especially Calvin.
B. Davenant argued that the formula sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect is meaningless
unless there was some sense in which Christ died for all. On the other hand, unlike Amyraut,
Davenant posited that the atonement still reflected a particular intent for the elect alone. Christ
died for all, but especially for the elect. It is applied to all but not to all with the gift of saving faith.
Only non-saving benefits are applied to the non-elect. No man is saved until he believes, and
faith is a gift only for the elect. To Davenant, a strictly limited atonement would save the elect
before they believed.
C. Ussher (1581-1656) was another Anglican Bishop who cautioned against High Calvinism..
He was a Westminster divine who never attended the actual Assembly itself. Ussher taught a
view similar to Davenant: In one respect he may be said to have died for all, and in another
respect not to have died for all. This theory is sometimes called the Double Reference Theory
of the atonement, or simply Dualism as opposed to strict Particularism fa la Turretine and the
High Calvinists} or Universal ism (a la the Amyraldians). But neither Ussher not Davenant - nor
any other British theologian - went for the theory of Hypothetical Universal ism, at least not as
per Amyraut.
D. Richard Baxter (1615-1691) was another of this school. He taught that Christ therefore died
for all, but not for all equally, or with the same intent, design or purpose. Baxter claimed that
half the theologians in Britain agreed with this. Baxter did not get into Hypothetical Universal
ism, but spearheaded another variation of Low Calvinism called Neonomianism, which we will
examine later,
E. John Bunyan (1628-1688) tended towards a more universal atonement. In his Reprobation
Asserted, he argued that the atonement underlies the Gospel offer. Therefore, we preach to all
because Christ died for all. If the atonement was limited to the elect alone, then the reprobate
who hear and reject the Gospel deserve no extra punishment. Furthermore, if the atonement
were limited, then no man could know that Christ had died for him and, consequently, saving
faith could not contain the essential assurance that Christ died for me.

7. British Limited Atonement.

A. John Owen (1616-1683) wrote the definitive Puritan treatise defending the strict view of
limited atonement, entitled The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. This was meant to
counter the Arminian view of universal atonement, bat it also said some things to refute the
Dualism of Davenant et al i
B. Owen marshalls dozens of arguments, but the two most important are these. First, he
argued that is the atonement were universal and some for whom Christ died went to Hell, then
God would be demanding double payment. This would be unjust. Turretine also relied heavily
on this argument.
C. Secondly, there is Owens famous Triple Choice, viz:

102

Triple Choice

Christ died either for:

(1) all the sins of all men.

But if so, why are not all men saved?

Does God demand more?

(2) some sins of all men.

But if so, then some sins, are not atoned

for, and these will damn all men.

(3) all sins of some men.

This is the correct view, says Owen.

Christ died only for the elect.

D. Owen allowed virtually nothing in the atonement for the non-elect. And likeTurretine his
continental counterpart, he argued that election preceded atonement in the order of the decrees
and Christ purchased both salvation and the means of salvation at the Cross. Lastly, Owen
argued that it is not of the essence of saving faith to believe Christ died for me.

8. Later Advocates of Non-Limited Atonement.

A. Many important 18th-century English Independents denied limited atonement, such as Isaac
Watts and Phillip Doddridge. In America, most New England theologians after Jonathan
Edwards also taught forms of universal atonement. Among them were Joseph Bellamy, Timothy
Dwight, Samuel Hopkins and, indirectly, Albert Barnes.
B. Thomas Scott and J.C. Ryle were major 19th-century Anglican Low Calvinists. A movement
began in early 19th-century Scotland along similar lines, including James Morison, Ralph
Wardlaw and John MacLeod Campbell. More recently, there, have been variations of Low
(sometimes extremely Low) Calvinism on the extent of the atonement, as for instance, the
systematic theologies of A.H. Strong, H.C. Thiessen and Millard Erickson. Several important
Dispensationalists have been 4 Point Calvinists, such as Lewis Sperry Chafer and Robert
Lightner.
C. Even more recently, Norman Douty has represented the Dualism of Davenant and Ussher
almost point for point in his The Death of Christ. R.T Kendall has espoused a Calvinistic
universal atonement in his writings in England. Kendall has also opened up the old discussion:
Did John Calvin teach universal, limited or dualist atonement?

9. Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement.

A. Luther and all the Lutherans believed in universal atonement. There is no real disagreement
on this. Also, all of the first-generation Reformed theologians taught universal atonement- this
includes Zwingli, Bullinger, and the others. Universal atonement is explicitly taught in many of
the earliest Calvinist confessions, such as the Heidelberg Catechism and the Thirty-nine
Articles.
B. Some scholars say Calvin did not address the question. Most say he did but notas directly
as did his successors. Scholars are just about equally divided over whether Calvin was
particularist or universal on the atonement. Those whose he was particularist (limited) are
usually particularist themselves. Sometimes it appears they are trying to have Calvin on their

103

side for support. Those who say Calvin taught universal atonement also tend to appeal to his
great name for support. There are, however, a few variations. A few Arminians claim Calvin as
universal, others make him limited (perhaps so they can throw theological rocks at him). Then
there are a few Dualists who say Calvin was universal and therefore not quite high enough on
the particular aspect. My own view is similar. The evidence shows that Calvin taught universal
atonement. I have yet to find a single explicit quote from Calvin that explicitly teaches a
limitation in the atonement.
C. There are dozens of places where Calvin speaks of the atonement as being universal by the
sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated. He bore all the wickedness
of all the iniquities of the world. the blood of that sovereign redeemer, shed for the sins of the
human race. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness
of God without distinction to all, yet not all receive him. to the places where Christ died for
many, Calvin says that Many means some (as the limited advocates contend). Some for
whom Christ died do in fact perish. Why? Not because Christ did not die for them, but because
they were not elected and consequently they did not believe. Moreover, Calvin often says that
saving faith necessarily contains the assurance that Christ died for me, which necessitates a
universal atonement. If there is a contradiction with Calvins strong view of election, perhaps
Calvin did not see it.
Others did see a contradiction. It has been debated just who was the first Calvinist to teach
limited atonement, but those who say that Calvin did not usually contend that Beza was the first.
In any case, the debate still goes on. Some suggest re- interpretations of quotations such as
those above. Others point out that strictly limited men such as Owen could not have written
such words.
F. Be that as it may, nobody seriously suggests that Calvin held to Amyrauts Hypothetical
Universal ism. Though Amyraut held to election and reprobation, his over-reaction to High
Calvinism and strict limited atonement forced him lower than Calvin himself.

10. Conclusion.
A. In subsequent centuries, the debates continued. There have been representatives of all
these variations. One of the main ones has been slightly Tower than Owen (High) and slightly
higher than Davenant (Low). Respecting the extent of the atonement, this moderate school
would agree that there are benefits in the atonement for the non-elect, such as common grace.
This universal aspect is said by some to underlie the universal offer of the Gospel. Still, there
are benefits of the atonement only for the elect, namely salvation and faith. This is basically the
position of Charles Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd and R.B. Kuiper. It probably does best justice to the
Reformed view of election and those Biblical passages pointing to the special intent of the
atonement.
B. Amyraldians and other Low Calvinists are still Calvinists. Highs might printout that they are
inconsistent Calvinists. Perhaps that is so, especially when they toy with Hypothetical Universal
ism. On the other hand, there are many who consider themselves Four Point Calvinists who
are not even that high. Many who say they are 4-Point are 3-point or less. In the final tally, what
matters is, What saith the Scriptures?

Recommended Reading

104

Armstrong, Brian. Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
(The fullest available treatment of the subject in English, with copious quotations in English
translation.)
Nicole, Roger. Moyse Amyraut: A Bibliography. New York: Garland Publishing Co.
Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Also contained in vol.10 of The Works
of John Owen. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Beardslee, John, ed. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (Contains over
100 pages translated from Turretine on predestination.)
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 323-370. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Douty,
Norman. The Death of Christ. Irving; Williams and Watrous.
An English translation of the Formula Consensus Helvetica can be found in A.A. Hodge,
Outlines of Theology, pp. 656-653 (Carlisle: Banner of Truth). Most of the literature on Amyraut
is in French and Latin. Only a few of his writings have been translated, all long out of print and
rare. His Treatise on Predestination is currently being translated for publication, as is Turretines
Institutio.

105

Chapter 12. Calvinistic Antinomianism.

1. Introduction.
A. To use the words Calvinist and Antinomian in the same sentence is, to many, offensive or
at the least contradictory. Has not Calvinism stood fast against the tide of licentiousness and
misuse of Christian liberty? Does it not stress the holiness of God? Yes, these are true. But in
the 17th-century,an unusual variety of Calvinism arose which has been termed Calvinistic
Antinomianism. But what is it?
B. The word Antinomian simply means against Law . It is the view that says that Christians
are not bound by the Moral Law of God in their Christian life. This may be only theoretical or it
may be practical. When it becomes practical, it is known as licentiousness - misuse of Christian
liberty.
C. The Calvinistic Antinomians reacted against the standard Reformed teaching that Christians
are to obey the Moral Law of God. They moved in this direction because they thought they were
exalting the grace of God, In particular, they were over-emphasizing divine sovereignty and
weakening human responsibility. Since all heresies get back to a wrong view of God, it can be
further said that they placed more emphasis on divine sovereignty than on divine holiness.
Likewise, they stressed the 7,ecret will of God over the revealed will of God.
D. This movement began as a reaction against Low Calvinism, which threatened the balance in
the opposite direction. In turn, these produced yet further over-reactions on each side. In this
study we will examine the three major controversies of Calvinistic Antinomianism and its main
opponent from Low Calvinism, namely, Neonomianism.

2. The Antinomian Controversy of the 1630s.

A. This was the first major theological controversy in the American colonies. Within 20 years of
the first Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock, the churches of the Massachusetts Bay Colony
were in an uproar. Remember, almost all of the Pilgrim churches were Puritan and Calvinistic.
B. At the center of the controversy was Mrs. Anne Hutchinson (1591-1643), an English pilgrim
to America. Not a preacher per se, she was a midwife who held weekly meetings for women in
her home, at which she taught her views of grace and salvation. She wrote no books; her views
are recorded in the official writings of the day and quoted in the works of her opponents.
C. First, Mrs. Hutchinson taught that not only does regeneration precede faith in the order of
salvation, but also real union with Christ preceded faith. Faith was in no sense a condition of
justification. To make faith a condition would turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of
Works, for faith is a work. Therefore, in the order of salvation, justification precedes faith.
D. She also taught a different view of assurance. The standard Reformed view was that there
are at least two essential elements: the internal witness of the Spirit and the external witness of
sanctification. Calvin placed more stress on the first, and the Puritans increasingly placed more
emphasis on the second. But both accepted each as necessary. Not Anne Hutchinson. She
Totally rejected what was known as the Practical Syllogism, viz: He that is truly sanctified is
justified. But I am truly sanctified. Ergo, I am justified.
E. Instead, she posited that assurance was gained only through the internal testimony of the

106

Spirit. However, in this she departed from the Reformed view again. She made this testimony
entirely subjective. Reformed theology said the testimony comes to the elect through Scripture
alone; thus it is objective in its source. Mrs. Hutchinson did not include Scripture as the means.
F. This reflects other aspects of her mysticism. She claimed, for instance, that God had given
her the ability to distinguish true Gospel ministers from false ones, who were of the spirit of
Antichrist. She even claimed the ability to predict certain events. These were extra-Scriptural
and direct revelations.
G. Similarly, she argued, Christians do not need the Law. They only need to be led by the Holy
Spirit. A Christian is not bound to the Law as a rule of his Christian walking. To say that
Christians are bound by the Law as a rule is to put them back under the Covenant of Works.
They needed only Spirit, not Law.
H. John Cotton (1584-1652) was the next important figure in the controversy. He had already
been a notable Puritan preacher and theologian back in England before immigrating to America
in 1633. He fled England to avoid arrest for not kneeling before the Sacrament of the Lords
Supper, which he considered Romanistic. Cotton immediately became the most popular
preacher in the colonies. Something of a revival broke out in his Boston church. He wrote many
important theological books and treatises. Thus, John Cotton became the first major American
preacher and theologian.
I. Now, Mrs. Hutchinson knew Cotton back in England. It is probable that she moved to Boston
to follow her favorite preacher. When she held her home meetings, she would expound Cottons
sermons to her ladies, with her extra revelations and comments. Cotton wasnt at first aware of
these added messages, so he defended her when the churches became alarmed at her
teachings. When she was brought in to church court on charges of heresy, Cotton saw the real
nature of her mystical Antinomianism and became one of her opponents.
J. Two other opponents should be mentioned. Thomas Hooker (1656-1647) was, like Cotton, a
major theologian. Both would later be invited as delegates to the Westminster Assembly (both
declined). He would later help found Connecticut. Hooker served as one of the Moderators at
Mrs. Hutchinsons trial. Among his several books were the influential The Poor Doubting
Christian Drawn to Christ and The Souls Preparation for Christ.
K. Then there was Thomas Shepard (1604-1649), who helped found Harvard College. Among
his writings was the popular The Parable of the Ten Virgins. Hooker and Shepard were the
major exponents of an American variety of the Experimental ism of Cambridge Calvinism. It
became known as Preparationism. This theology taught the Practical Syllogism whereby one
could ascertain his justification by the marks of sanctification. It also taught the detailed steps of
experience which one undergoes before justification. These did not include just saving faith, but
mourning for sin, repentance, and so on. Preparationism went just a bit further than the
mainstream Reformed view, and it was partially against it that Mrs. Hutchinson reacted.
L. The controversy lasted from 1636 to 1638. Mrs.- Hutchinson was condemned and rebuked at
her trial, and exiled from the colony. She left for Rhode Island and later New York. She and
most of her children were killed by Indians in 1643. The controversy ended, for she did not have
enough supporters to carry on her views, and none of them were theologically able to refute
Cotton, Hooker and Shepard

3. The English Antinomian Controversy of the 1640s.

A. This controversy may have actually preceded and influenced the one in America, but it did

107

not come to a head until the time of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. Being a
Congregationalist (Independent), Cromwell allowed considerable religious toleration in England.
This led to the rise of many groups and theologies, many of a divergent or heretical nature.
B. Certain of these groups were Enthusiastic, an old word for fanatical or mystical.
Enthusiasm was a sort of super-spirituality. Several of these sects were both theoretical and
practical Antinomians. Among them were:
(1) The Familists (or The Family of Love). This sect was started in Holland by Hendrik Nicholas
(1501-1580). It was the largest of the Antinomian groups, but was mainly underground until the
Commonwealth. Nicholas claimed to have received visions. He taught a kind of mystic
pantheism that virtually denied the transcendence of God. God was so united to men that they
were incapable of sin. Whatever they did was good.
(2) The Fifth Monarch Men were more like political anarchists. They believed the Millennium
was near and could be brought in by political means, generally of a violent nature. They claimed
to be prophets and said that Christs Fifth Kingdom of Daniel 2:44 was near. At first they
supported Cromwell, but forsook and opposed him when they realized he wasnt the fulfillment
of their prophecies. Many of them were arrested and executed by both Cromwell and King
Charles II.
(3) The Ranters were probably the most licentious of all. Like the Familists, they believed in the
Inner Light* and a form of pantheism. Some said Christians were perfect and could not sin.
Others said that we should-sin more in order to glorify Gods grace. Others still were virtually
atheists. Their licentiousness included sexual immorality, drunkenness, open blasphemy, and
other degradations. They said that prayer and preaching were unnecessary. They did, however,
engage in an emotional nonsensical shouting calling ranting.
(4) Others groups include the Levellers (who were basically political socialists), the Loists, and
the Seekers. The Quakers also began out of this milieu and, though they were theologically
similar to the pantheistic mysticism of the above, they were not usually considered Antinomian.
C. None of these groups were Calvinistic by any means. However, they were often lumped
together with certain extreme Calvinists who taught doctrines similar to those of Mrs. Anne
Hutchinson. Tobias Crisp (1600-1643) was the most well known of them. Originally a legalistic
Arminian, Crisp swung to another extreme. Like the other Antinomians, he was a
Congregationalist Independent. He was one of the few Puritans to earn a Doctor of Divinity
degree (Oxford). He was independently wealthy and propagated his views mainly in sermons,
which were collected and published as Christ Alone Exalted,
D. John Eaton (1575-1642) was much older and was perhaps founder of the loosely associated
movement. His main work was The Honeycomb of Free Justification. Then there was John
Saltmarsh (d.1647), who at one time served as Chaplain in Cromwells New Model Army.
Saltmarsh was more eccentric than Crisp and Eaton, but none of the Calvinistic Antinomians
were ever accused of licentiousness, nor did they approve of it. His main work on the subject at
hand was Free Grace.
E. Now these Calvinistic Antinomians were all Supralapsarians. Thus, they were the highest
Calvinists up to that time. But they made several significant alterations. First, they equated the
eternal Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace in time. The Gospel was basically
just a transcript of this one Covenant. Hence, it was totally unconditional upon man. Faith was
not a condition of the Covenant; it was a blessing of the Covenant.
F. This led to their doctrine of eternal justification before faith. Mrs. Hutchinson only touched on
this slightly, but the English Antinomians went further, especially Eaton. They taught that

108

justification is as eternal selection. There are three stages of justification: eternal justification in
the Covenant of Redemption, virtual justification when Christ rose again, and actual justification
when the Spirit applies it to the elect.
G. When it is applied, they argued, it is before faith. Faith is a work; justification is without
works; therefore justification is without faith. Works and conditions belong only to the Covenant
of Works. Further, Scripture says that God justifies the ungodly; one who has faith is godly;
therefore God justifies a man before he has faith. Crisp explained:
He is first justified before he believes, then he believes that he is justified. We do not believe
that we may be justified; but we believe when and because we are justified.
H. Faith, then, is simply the realization that one has already been justified freely by God. But
though justification precedes faith (at which stage it is without faith), faith always follows as the
result. One cannot be justified and not believe it. Though this does not follow immediately.
I. When one comes to that realization, he gains assurance. Like Mrs. Hutchinson, the English
Antinomians taught that assurance was by the Holy Spirit, not by looking at external marks of
sanctification. However, they allowed a larger place for Scripture in this than did Mrs.
Hutchinson. In any case, examining oneself is important - not examing ones sanctification, for
that leads to deception, but ones heart to listen to the voice of the Spirit.
J. As to the question of the Law in the life of the Christian, they tended to use bold language
which could mean blatant heresy when taken out of context. However, in context they were
basically orthodox but imbalanced and injudicious in language. Among their extreme formulas
would be the following:
God sees no sin in a believer. (God knows it is there but does not annul justification because
of it. To forgive is to overlook.)
God never punishes a believer for sin. (God chastens believers from sin, but because of
justification He will not punish them in Hell.)
Sin can do a believer no harm. (It cannot damn his soul, for he is justified. But it can affect his
fellowship with God.)
Christians need not fear sin. (Sin cannot damn you. You are justified.)
K. Their safeguard was that the Holy Spirit keeps a Christian from perpetual sin. His inner
workings work holiness in ones life. Yet the Antinomians gave a very small place to the use of
the Law in the hand of the Spirit. Sanctification was more mystical than objective. To Crisp, the
greatest incentive to holiness is not the Law, but the Gospel. The Law only makes one sin more.
The real incentive to holiness is the realization that one is already forgiven.

4. Neonomianism.
A. As one would expect, the Puritans were in an uproar over these views. They contended that
the Calvinistic Antinomians were opening the door to the Antinomianism of the Familists and
others. Samuel Rutherford wrote a large volume entitled The Spiritual Antichrist against them, in
which he lumped all varieties together. Thomas Gataker wrote against them too.
B. The Westminster Assembly proposed to burn the writings of these Calvinistic Antinomians,
especially those of Crisp. Yet some Puritans saw that the problem was more semantic than
substantial. William Twisse, Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, argued that Crisps
writings were basically orthodox, but unwise in choice of language.

109

C. The major opponent to Calvinistic Antinomianism was a theology called Neonomianism. This
was the brainchild of Richard Baxter. Baxter was a Low Calvinist. Though higher than Amyraut
on the extent of the atonement, Baxters Calvinism was so low that many do not consider it
Reformed at all. Baxter himself sometimes argued for a middle course between Calvinism and
Arminianism. His major work on the subject was Aphorisms of Justification. (His practical
writings, we may add, were not so tinged with these errors and basically remain in the
mainstream of Puritan thought.) However, Baxter died in 1691 when the controversy was
reaching fever pitch.
D. Baxter was succeeded by Daniel Williams (1643-1716), an independently wealthy
Welshman. His book entitle Gospel Truth became the main text on Neonomianism. Among the
opponents of Neonomianism were several Puritans who could not legitimately be considered
Antinomian. Yet they were usually Supralapsarians. Isaac Chauncey (1632-1712) was the
leader of these Anti-Neonomians . Others included Robert Trail! And Samuel Crisp, son of
Tobias. Among the more moderate Calvinists who moderated in the dispute were Herman
Witsius and John Howe. The controversy lasted only about ten years (1690-1700), but it left
repercussions throughout English Calvinism. It has resurfaced only here and there since then.
E. Neonomianism was similar to Preparationism, but more extreme and with significant
deviations from mainstream Calvinism. Basically its theology is as follows. God can change the
conditions of salvation, for salvation is based on His moral government (the divine will) rather
than directly on His nature. And God has changed the standard of acceptance.
F. In the Covenant of Works, God required complete obedience. Adam failed, as have all his
posterity. So God has instituted a New Law, the Gospel. In this Covenant, Christ died for our
salvation to make it possible for God to accept a lessened form of obedience. This lesser form
of perfect obedience is faith. But this faith must be accompanied by repentance and good
works. Sometimes the Neonomians spoke of justification being conditional and progressive,
contingent upon the good works that followed. In sum, the theory appeared to make faith,
repentance and works part of the essence of justifying righteousness.
G. The Anti-Neonomians rejected all this. The Gospel is not a new or lesser Law. Rather, it is
the Covenant of Grace. Faith is a condition, but it is a gift of God. Works are only important as
evidence, not as essence, of justification. God never accepts less than perfection; we are
accepted only because of the perfect work of Christ.

5. The Gospel Standard.

A. The third major controversy of Calvinistic Antinomianism was the Gospel Standard
Movement. This went a little further than the English Antinomians of the 1640s. This movement
can be traced back to William Huntington (1744-1813). Huntington was an Independent
paedobaptist minister in London. He wrote far more than any previous Calvinistic Antinomian.
He was also somewhat eccentric in behavior. He gathered many followers and rivals, so the
movement did not die with him by any means.
B. William Gadsby (1773-1844) merged Huntingtons views with his own brand of HyperCalvinist Baptist theology. He was the moving force behind the Gospel Standard branch of the
Strict and Particular Baptists. Other notable leaders in the movement include J.C. Phil pot, John
Warburton, J.K. Pophamand S.F. Paul.
C. This was the first denomination espousing Calvinistic Antinomianism. It continues to this
day, mainly in England, and devolves around the magazine founded by Gatsbys son William,

110

entitled The Gospel Standard.

D. The Gospel Standard theology is as follows. The Gospel, not the Law, is the rule and
standard for the Christian. The Law was both a Covenant of Works and rule until the Covenant
of Grace was instituted. Therefore, when one believes in Christ, he is under the Covenant of
Grace and not the Covenant of Works. Hence, the Law is not binding on Christians.
E. This theology is based on one fundamental disagreement with orthodox Reformed theology.
Orthodox Calvinism says that the Law has been abolished as a Covenant of Works for
believers, but it continues as a rule of practice. It no longer condemns, but it still instructs
Christians in the will of God. Of course, this pertains only to the Moral Law; the Ceremonial Law
has been abolished and replaced by new ceremonies, namely the 2 ordinances of baptism and
Communion.
F. The Gospel Standard doctrine rejects what is called the Third Use of the Law. This use is
for instruction in righteousness to the believer. If there were no such, instruction, then one is left
to flounder in sheer mystical subjectivism. Gadsby and the others do not advocate practical
Antinomianism. Nor do they exclude Scripture from the Spirits leading. But they eliminate the
Law as normative in the life of the believer. This stems from their inability to distinguish the Law
as a rule of instruction and a Covenant of Works.
G. The Gospel Standard Baptists follow earlier Antinomians in teaching justification before faith
and in insisting on the inner testimony alone for assurance. Yet they admit that one cannot be
perpetually sinful. The principle of grace does something in a believer that forbids that.

6. Conclusion.
A. None of the branches of Calvinistic Antinomianism have been accused of practical
Antinomianism. Their critics, however, have charged them with several errors. First, theoretical
Antinomianism opens the door to practical Antinomianism. Second, it inculcates an unhealthy
introspection and feelings-based mysticism. It gives more place to internal leadings than to
Scripture. This in turn produces a lethargic passivity in ones Christian life. And lastly, historically
it leads to Hyper-Calvinism, which is the subject of the next study.

Recommended Reading
Kevan, Ernest. The Grace of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (The best work on the
Puritan-Reformed doctrine of Law contra Antinomianism and Neonomianism.)
Stoever, William. A Faire and Easie Way to Heaven: Covenant Theology and Antinomianism in
Early Massachusetts. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Adams, Charles. The Antinomian Controversy. Jersey City: Da Capo Press. Ramsbottom, B.A.
The History of the Gospel Standard Magazine, 1835-1985. Carshalton: Gospel Standard
Societies.

111

Chapter 13. Hyper-Calvinism.

1. The Origins of Hyper-Calvinism.
A. What is Hyper-Calvinism, anyway? The term has been used and abused for years. In this
study, we will define the term by examining the who what, where, when and why. The first half
will look at the historical development (who, where, when); the second half will delve into the
exact nature of it (what and why).
B. The origins can be traced indirectly back to High Calvinism. We saw earlier that Calvinists
such as Beza and Perkins went further than Calvin in certain areas, most notably
Supralapsarianism. This began a trend that culminated in Hyper-Calvinism.
C. The next stage was Calvinistic Antinomianism, which served as the bridge between High
and Hyper-Calvinism. This extra-High Calvinism went even further. Crisp was higher than
Beza. In late 17th-century England, the Antinomian-Neonomian controversy caused reactions
and over-reactions. Some of the Neonomians over-reacted into Arminianism, Arianism and even
Deism. On the other hand, some of the anti-Neonomians went in the opposite direction. They
became Hyper-Calvinists.
D. The leading anti-Neonomian was Isaac Chauncey. He himself did not move into Hyperism,
even though he was Supralapsarian and moderately Antinomian. When the controversy moved
into Northamptonshire, England, it took on anew color. Richard Davis, a Congregationalist
evangelist, began developingCrisps views in a new way. Davis eventually so stressed the
sovereignty of God that he felt that true evangelism meant that one cannot Biblically give a free
offer of the Gospel to all. Thus, Davis was probably the first Hyper-Calvinist.
E. Joseph Hussey was another Congregationalist evangelist to move to then on-offer position.
He was also the first one to go into print with this view, first in The Glory, of Christ Unveiled
(1706) and then in the definitive book on the subject, Gods Operations of Grace, But No Offers
of Grace (1707).
F. John Skepp was one of Husseys disciples. He further explained the special work of the Holy
Spirit that precludes our giving a free offer in his book Divine Energy. Skepp was an important
figure at this stage for two reasons. First, he assumed the pastorate of a church in London,
moving the center of Hyper-Calvinism from Northamptonshire to London. It would continue as
the hub of Hyperism well into the 20th-century. Second, he was the first Baptist Hyper-Calvinist.
As we shall see, most Hyper-Calvinists have been Baptists. Less than a third have been
paedobaptist Anglicans, Presbyterians or Congregationalists. Hyperism has especially
prospered among the Strict and Particular Baptists, the major Calvinistic Baptist association of
England. Skepp was succeeded by John Brine, another important 18th-century Hyper. But the
towering figure in the movement was another Northamptonshire Baptist who pastored in
London: John Gill.

2. John Gill (1697-1771).

A. Dr. John Gill was the archetypal Hyper-Calvinist. Throughout his 51-year pastorate in
London, he reigned as the undisputed leader among both the Baptists and the Hyper-Calvinists.
No study of Hyper-Calvinism is complete without a look at Gill. Hyper-Calvinism was sometimes
called Gillism.

112

B. With the exception of Jonathan Edwards, Gill was the most important Calvinist theologian of
the 18th-century. Of all the Hyper-Calvinists who have ever lived, Gill was certainly the most
scholarly. He was also their most prolific writer. Among his more important works, all of which
have been reprinted many times (including recently), are the following:
(1) The Cause of God and Truth was one of his first books. It is a careful and complete
discussion of all the texts adduced by both sides in the Calvinist-Arminian debate over
the five points of the Synod of Dort. It remains one of the best books ever written on the
subject.
(2) An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments is probably the longest commentary
on every book of the Bible written by a single author. It fills 9 massive volumes (reprinted
in 6). Gill especially excelled in using quotations from the ancient Jewish rabbis to
illustrate the Biblical text, for which he was awarded a Doctor of Divinity degree. Even
today it is consulted as one of the best of Calvinist commentaries.
(3) A Body of Practical and Doctrinal Divinity was Gills last effort. It was a complete
systematic theology - the largest by both a Hyper and a Baptist ever written. It is still one
of the best by a Calvinist.

3. The Gospel Standard.

A. William Huntingdon, a late-18th century London Congregationalist, became the next major
leader. As we saw in the last study, Huntington was an unabashed Calvinistic Antinomian as
well as something of an eccentric. He started a movement, which branched into two parallel
directions.
B. The first was the Gospel Standard Baptists. William Gadsby began this branch within the
Strict and Particular Baptists. It especially grew under the leadership of Joseph Charles Phil pot.
Other important figures in this group include John Warburton, John Gadsby, J.K. Popham and
B.A. Ramsbottom. It continues unto today as one of the few Hyper-Calvinist denominations. It is
also one of the few Calvinistic Antinomian denominations.
C. The other branch that can be traced back to Huntington is a loosely associate group of
paedobaptist Hyper-Calvinists. Joseph Irons of the Grove Chapel, London, was the first leader
in this faction. Most would be Congregationalists, but a few would be Anglicans. Others of this
group include Robert Hawker and William Parks. Early in the 20th-century, this faction got a shot
in the arm under the leadership of Henry Atherton, another pastor of the Grove Chapel, who
founded the Sovereign Grace Union. The SGU was originally predominantly Hyper-Calvinist, but
today it is somewhat more moderate. Incidently, this faction became decreasingly Antinomian in
its Calvinism.

4. The Earthen Vessels.

A. John Stevens was an early 19th-century Hyper-Calvinist pastor (London) who was
emphatically non-Antinomian. He started a rival group to Gatsbys, centered around The
Earthen Vessel magazine. Among the issues in dispute between these two groups was the
eternal sonship of Christ. Gadsbys Gospel Standard Baptists held to the orthodox view that
Christ was the eternally begotten Son of God the Father. He was thus Son of God and God the
Son from eternity. Stevens did not deny Christs deity, but differed on Christs sonship. He

113

argued that Christ was not begotten by the Father until the Incarnation. On the other hand,
Stevens taught that Christ had both an eternal deity and an eternal humanity.
B. James Wells pastored the enormous Surrey Tabernacle not far from the Metropolitan
Tabernacle pastored by C.H. Sturgeon (which had previously been pastored by Gill).
Sometimes Spurgeon humorously referred to him as King James. Wells was an extremely
popular preacher, but he had a knack for controversy. While rejecting the Gospel Standard form
of Calvinistic Antinomianism, he developed another form in the midst of the Rahab
Controversy of the 1860s. Wells argued that Rahab was right to lie to the Canaanite pagans in
order to protect the Israelite spies. Most Calvinists disagree. But Wells went further and stated
that this was part of her justifying faith. Behind this lay Wells contention that Gods will somehow
takes a certain precedence over His nature. Orthodox Reformed teaching is that Gods nature
underlies His will.
C. Later Earthen Vessels included W.J. Styles and John Hazelton. Only a few broken
potsherds remain of the Earthen Vessel today.

5. The Primitive Baptists.

A. One of the factors unifying all British Hyper-Calvinists was their opposition to the Great
Missionary Movement led by Andrew Fuller and William Carey. This opposition crossed the
Atlantic early in the 19th-century to start the first major branch of American Hyper-Calvinism.
B. This movement can be traced indirectly back to John Leland, an influential Baptist of the
period. Soon some ultra-Calvinists in Kentucky joined the opposition td the Missionary
Movement and became known as Primitive Baptists. In some ways they are the American
counterpart to the Strict and Particular Baptists of England, including the Gospel Standard
Baptists.
C. Only a few of its leaders bear mentioning. Gushing Hassell wrote a large History of the
Church of God, an unusual history of tithe Church since the New Testament from the
perspective of Baptist Calvinists. It has recently been reprinted. Hassell takes many
opportunities in this work to state and defend the views of the Primitive Baptists. Other
influential leaders include R.H. Pittman and W.J. Berry.
D. Virtually all Primitive Baptists have been Hyper-Calvinists. They not only reject the idea of
free offers but also the need for foreign mission societies; among the more extreme are the
Absolutists (also called Necessitarians). Some of these teach that God can save His elect
without the Gospel. Thus, they teach immediate regeneration. Orthodox Calvinism, however,
has always taught mediate regeneration - God gives regeneration through the Word of God,
especially the Gospel.
E. Another obscure wing was the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Primitive Baptists. This is traced back
to Daniel Parker in the 1820s, who taught a perversion of Supralapsarianism that said that the
elect are born with the seed of election in them biologically. Similarly, the reprobate are born
with the seed of reprobation in them. The elect will blossom without the need for evangelism,
for they were never under wrath. Parker based this on a strange interpretation of Gen. 3:15.
Virtually no Two-Seeders remain, but therere tens of thousands of Primitive Baptists in
America, mainly in the South. Incidently, this group is sometimes referred to as Hardshell
Baptists, a name which they dislike. Because of their anti-missions stance, they also oppose
Sunday Schools

114

6. Arthur W. Pink.
A. A.W. Pink is one of the most well known of the Hyper-Calvinists, but he doesnt fall into any
one of the preceding categories. Pink was born in England, but ministered in America, Australia,
England and finally Scotland. At first he was a semi-Arminian Dispensationalist, then a
Calvinistic Dispensationalist, then he dropped Dispensationalism completely. He was a Baptist,
but never a Calvinistic Antinomian.
B. In the second half of his ministry, he was in and out of the Strict and Particular Baptists.
Though a prolific writer, it is not so well known that he wrote few of these books during his
lifetime. Most of those under his name were posthumous collections of articles he had written in
his monthly Studies in the Scriptures magazine.
C. Pink has enjoyed far more popularity after his death in 1952 than before. His many books
sell very well. His most important book is entitled The Sovereignty of God, a medium-sized book
which has been twice abridged. This was one of his first undertakings, and we see his
ambivalence towards Hyper-Calvinism in its pages. Throughout his ministry, Pink was an onand-off Hyperist. In some places, he castigates the Gospel Standard Baptists for denying free
offers. Often he defends free offers. Yet in other places, Pink agrees with them that free
offers are unbiblical and incompatible with Calvinist theology. He used many of the most
popular Hyper-Calvinist arguments. So, though he was sometimes a Hyper, Pink was a mild
one. Most of his writings are extremely readable masterpieces of deep theology compressed
into a few words which anybody can understand and enjoy. His books, especially The
Sovereignty of God, have done much to revive Calvinism in the 20th-century.

7. The Protestant Reformed Church.

A. In the early 1920s, the Christian Reformed Church was in the midst of a major controversy.
It surrounded common grace. The CRC had just issued an official statement endorsing
common grace as a Reformed doctrine. A small contingent disagreed with considerable force.
B. They were led by Herman Hoeksema, a popular but scholarly young Grand Rapids
preacher. Hoeksema was thrown out of the CRC, but he led the others in forming the Protestant
Reformed Church. The PRC and the CRC looked to their Dutch Calvinist heritage for
inspiration. While the CRC is one of the largest Presbyterian denominations in America, the
PRC has only a couple of dozen churches.
C. Hoeksema was an apt scholar and writer. His magnum opus was his Reformed Dogmatics,
a thick systematic theology that defends his strict Dutch form of Hyper-Calvinism. He also wrote
an important exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, The Triple Knowledge in 3 large volumes,
plus several other works.
D. Hoeksemas son Homer picked up his mantle after his death in 1966, but hasnt equaled him
in influence. He did, however, write a large commentary on the Articles of the Synod of Dort,
The Voice of Our Fathers. David Engelsma is another Protestant Reformed pastor and writer
who has addressed these subjects. In his Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel,
Engelsma has argued that Hoeksema and the PRC are not Hyper-Calvinist like Gill.
E. Engelsma, however, is incorrect. Hoeksema and the PRC reject free offers for almost the
exact same reasons, as did all other Hyper-Calvinists. In some ways, they are the highest of all
Hypers, for unlike most they reject all notions of common grace.

115

8. Problems in Defining Hyper-Calvinism.

A. There are many misconceptions about Hyper-Calvinism that fog a correct definition. On the
one hand, there are those such as John R. Rice and Norman Geisler who would say that all 5
Point Calvinists are Hyper-Calvinists. This is not true. On the other hand, few would ever admit
to being Hyper-Calvinist, for the term is rather odious. Still others deny that there even is such
a thing as Hyper-Calvinism.
B. Then there is the popular jingle that says, A Hyper-Calvinist is just someone who is more
Calvinist than you are. That too is incorrect. Others say, Hyper-Calvinism is Calvinism carried
to its logical conclusions. That too is incorrect, for Hyper-Calvinism is rather Calvinism carried
to illogical conclusions. It arrives at its extreme position by bad logic and by adducing certain
premises which most Calvinists reject.
C. Sometimes we find synonyms used: Ultra, extreme, high, etc. These to-do not define the
term in question. Still, they point to one obvious fact: Hyper-Calvinism is the most extreme form
of Calvinism around.
D. As we said at the beginning of this study, Hyper-Calvinism is the extension of a trend that
can be traced back to Theodore Beza. All Hyperists have been more than High Calvinists, but
they share something in common: Supralapsarianism. However, it is important to make a
distinction. While all Hyper-Calvinists have been Supralapsarians, not all Supralapsarians have
been Hyper-Calvinists. For example, Beza and Perkins were High, not Hyper-Calvinists. The
difference is small but important.
E. Then also there is a relationship between Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinistic Antinomianism.
All Hyper-Calvinists have held to some form of justification before faith some more than others.
On the other hand, only about half have taught that Christians are bound only to the Gospel and
not to the Law. And yet, almost all Hyper-Calvinists have appreciated Crisp and the other
Calvinistic Antinomians, Gill, for example, had Crisps works reprinted with notes exonerating
him of heresy and giving orthodox Reformed interpretations.
F. All this does not get at the heart of the question. Hyperism goes further than the above in
one specific area, which shows them to be highest of all.

9. Hyper-Calvinism and the Free Offer.

A. All Calvinists before 1700 believed in the free offer of the Gospel. The word offer and its
cognates can be found in Calvin, the Reformers, the Reformers, and even in the
Supralapsarians (like Beza) and the Calvinistic Antinomians (like Crisp). There were no HyperCalvinists before 1700,except possibly Davis and Hussey in the last couple of years of the
1690s.
B. It is specifically the rejection of the idea of free offers that defines Hyper-Calvinism. There
is just something about the word offer that sticks in the craw of the Hypers. It just sounds too
Arminian. It just wont do to offer the Gospel, grace, Christ or anything else that only God can
give. Likewise, the word free sounds like Arminian free will. Hypers usually reject the idea of
offers that are free, serious, sincere, serious or well meant. To some extent, the controversy is
semantic. But not entirely.
C. With the exception of a few extreme Primitive Baptists, all Hyper-Calvinists have believed

116

that we are to preach the Gospel to all, but offer it to none. Preach, explain, command -yes.
Offer - no. Some have also quibbled over the word invite, arguing that we can only invite
sensible [convicted] sinners, not sinners in general. All this is related to anti-missionism.
D. The following are the main Hyper-Calvinist arguments against free offers, with the historic
Calvinist reply:
(1) We never find the word offer used in Scripture concerning the Gospel. But: This is
true of the King James Version, but several modern versions employ offer together with
the Gospel, such as the NASB of I Cor.9: 18, What then is my reward? That, when I
preach the Gospel, I may offer the Gospel without charge. One might even argue that
without charge could be translated free - thus, a free offer.
(2) We do not offer what is not ours to give. God gives, not offers. But: God gives
through the offer of the Gospel. Moreover, God offered David three choices in I Chiron.
21:10 (KJV). God gives faith through the Word of God and the preaching of Christ (Rom.
10:17).
(3) Free offers imply universal supply, but the atonement is limited. But: Most Reformed
theologians argue that there is a universal aspect of the atonement which underlies the
universal offer of the atonement. Others say it is a paradox, and still others say that the
extent of the atonement has nothing to do with the question.
(4) Free offers imply that God wishes all men to be saved. This contradicts the doctrine
of election. It also implies that grace is universal. But: The Reformed doctrine of the
revealed will of God is that there is a sense in which God certainly does will the salvation
of all who hear the Gospel, just as He wills all who hear the Law to obey. He has no
pleasure in the death of the one who rejects either Law or Gospel. True Reformed
theology keeps the balance between the secret will (election) and the revealed will
(Gospel), but Hyperism over-emphasizes the secret will. Similarly, special grace reflects
election and the secret will, but there is also common grace for all men, as creatures in
the revealed will.

10. The Question of,Duty Faith.

A. Hyper-Calvinism also rejects the idea of Duty Faith. In the mid-18thcentury, there was a
controversy called The Modern Question, viz, Is it the duty of all who hear the Gospel to believe
savingly in Christ? All mainstream Calvinists answer Yes, while virtually all Hypers answer
No. This is because Duty Faith corresponds to free offers in theology.
B. Their arguments and the orthodox Reformed replies are as follows:
(1) The idea of Duty Faith implies that sinners have the ability to believe. Free offers also imply
that sinners are able to accept the offer. But sinners are totally depraved and unable.
Responsibility and duty implies ability; they are not able; therefore they have no duty to believe.
But: True Reformed theology argues that inability does not negate responsibility. Sinners cannot
obey Gods Law, but they are still duty-bound and responsible to do so. The same is true when
they hear the Gospel. Otherwise, there would be no additional penalty for not believing the
Gospel (some Hypers such as Styles said that very thing).
(2) Faith is a gift. Therefore, faith cannot be a duty, for duty is works. But: True Reformed
theology argues that it is not inconsistent for the same thing to be both a duty and a gift. As
Augustine said, Demand what thou whilst, 0 Lord, and give what thou demandest. And He

117

does.
(3) Salvation is unconditional. A duty is a condition. If faith were a duty, (it would be a condition
of salvation. But faith is a blessing, not a condition. But: It is not inconsistent for faith to be both
a duty and a blessing. This does not mean salvation by works. There is a sense in which faith is
a condition, but it is a condition which God meets with the gift of faith.

11. The Debate over Common Grace.

A. Most Hyper-Calvinists admit that there is a small remnant of mercy for the non-elect, called
Common Grace. This pertains to them as creatures, not as elect or non-elect. Some say it
postpones their judgment. Most say it has to do with the bounties of Providence. This is in
agreement with the best of truly Reformed theology.
B. However, they greatly de-emphasize it. It sounds too Arminian. Herman Hoeksema and the
Protestant Reformed Church completely reject all notions of Common Grace. Hoeksemas logic
is an extreme based on a distorted kind of Supralapsarianism. He argues that because of the
double-decree of election and reprobation before the decree of the Fall, God has only love for
the elect and only hatred for the reprobate.
C. This necessitates two corollaries, argues Hoeksema. First, the elect have never been under
the wrath of God, for that means hatred. Second, the non-elect have never been under the love
of God. Never the twain meet.
D. Mainstream Calvinists have great difficulty with this. First, Eph. 2:3explicitly says that
believers were once under the wrath of God even as the rest. Second, Scripture often speaks
of Gods general love to all men as creatures (Psa. 145:9, Matt. 5:43-48, etc.). God commands
us to love all men; does He command us to do what He Himself does not do? Mind you, this
does not mean that Common Grace is saving - saving grace is special and particular.
E. Hoeksema had great difficulty with Calvins formula. Calvin said that it is not true that God
had only love for some and only hatred for others. Rather, God had love and hatred for all men,
but in differing ways. God hated all men because of sin, but had Common Grace on all because
they were His creatures. Yet God had a special love for His elect, leaving the reprobate in the
hatred their sins deserved. The real mystery, said Calvin, is that God could both love and hate
the elect. But He did.

12. Conclusion.
A. Why do men become Hyper-Calvinists? The answer takes several forms. Many turn Hyper
because they have over-reacted against Arminianism. Many were once Arminians themselves.
Then they became Reformed. They soon looked askance at Arminianism and Arminians. Most
Hyper-Calvinists do not think that Arminians are true Christians at all (Gadsby felt Wesley died
unsaved). Therefore they have backed into Hyper-Calvinism out of over-reaction. But most
mainstream Calvinists accept Evangelical Arminians as brothers - weak brothers, but still
brothers.
B. Together with this, in their love for the doctrines of grace some young Calvinists get the
notion that the higher one goes in Calvinism, the better. To them, Hyper-Calvinism is SuperCalvinism, the best there is. Actually, hyper and super are related in etymology they fail to
heed the warnings of more mature Calvinists, such as the Puritans, who warned against being

118

too high. To change the metaphor, Hyper-Calvinists are high on their excesses; they are
intoxicated on an imbalance and consider it the pinnacle of spirituality/But their critics know
better. It is obvious that the Hyper-Calvinists spirituality is dry and moribund. As someone said,
They go down deep, stay down long, come up dry. But they never go out to bring anyone in to
the Kingdom of God. Most Hypers are evangelistically dead.
C. This is related to what I call the spirit of Hyper-Calvinism. One can be a Hyper-Calvinist in
spirit though not in letter. One can believe in free offers, but if he does not give them, he has the
spirit of Hyper-Calvinism. This crops -up in an overly passive approach to evangelism and
prayer. Like the lazy man who says, Let George do it, the Christian bitten by the Hyper bug
offers this excuse: Let God do it. But God commands us to preach the Gospel to every
creature. If we do not, we are practical Antinomians with the Great Commission. Worse than
that, we have the blood of sinners on our hands and invite Gods chastening.
D. At root, Hyperists over-emphasize the sovereignty of God over the responsibility of Man.
Since our responsibility is based oh divine holiness, this means that they have an imbalanced
doctrine of God - sovereignty is more important than holiness. They likewise exalt sovereignty
over divine love, as when Hoeksema denies all Common Grace to men as creatures. Further,
they exalt the secret will over the revealed will, which they virtually abolish.
E. But Hyper-Calvinism is a distinct minority. No more than 1% of Calvinists have been HyperCalvinists. They are not the cream of Calvinism. The best Calvinists are those who keep the
beautiful balance within the Godhead and the divine attributes. They balance the revealed and
the secret wills. And they live true Christian lives in that balance. Hyper-Calvinism is not as bad
as Arminianism, true. But it has stupefying effects which stunt the growth. Keep the Scriptural
balance, brethren, and thereby render more glory to God.

Recommended Reading
Gill, John. A Body of Divinity. Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer.
Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Assoc.
Hoeksema, Herman. The Triple Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Pub. Assoc.
Engelsma, David. Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free
Publishing Association.
Brine, John. A Treatise on Various Subjects. Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer. Philpot, J.C.
Letters and Memoir of Joseph Charles Philpot. Grand Rapids: Baker. Philpot, J.C. Sermons. 10
vols. Harpenden, Eng: Gospel Standard Trust. Hassell, Cushing. History of the Church of God.
Ellenwood: Old School Hymnal Co.
Pink, Arthur W. The Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids: Baker (unabridged edition). Carlisle:
Banner of Truth (abridged edition).
Pink, Arthur W. The Atonement. Swengel: Reiner. (Has Pinks non-offer views)
Murray, Iain. The Life of A.M. Pink. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Belcher, Richard. Arthur W. Pink: Predestination. Columbia: Richbarry Press.
Ramsbbttom, B.A. The History of the Gospel Standard Magazine, 1835-1985. Carshalton, Eng:
Gospel Standard Societies.
Ross, Bob. The Killing Effects of Calvinism. Pasadena: Pilgrim Publications. (A Calvinist rebuttal

119

of Hardshell Primitive Baptist Hyper-Calvinism)

Nettles, Tom. By His Grace and For His Glory. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace and the Gospel. Phi Hipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. I, pp. 59-85. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
(Contains Murrays excellent article on the free offer)

120

Chapter 14. Eighteenth-Century

Calvinism.
1. The Scottish Presbyterians.
A. Throughout the eighteenth-century, Calvinism prospered in Scotland. There were, however*
a few controversies which illustrate how the Reformed faith had to deal with specific issues,
B. The first of these controversies concerned the great Thomas Boston (1677-1732). Boston
was a leading scholar and popular preacher. Among his many important writings are his Human
Nature in Its Fourfold State and a systematic theology based on the Westminster Shorter
Catechism. His theology was in the mainstream of the best of Puritan Calvinism.
C. The controversy began when Boston discovered an old copy, of a little book entitled The
Marrow of Modern Divinity. This curious book had been written in 1645 by one E.F., evidently
Edward Fisher. The book presented Puritan Covenant Theology in an unusual way. The Marrow
collected dozens of quotations from the leading Reformers and Puritans, and strung them
together in a series of imaginary dialogues between several characters, mainly Evangelists,
Nomologista and Antinomista. It often employed theological paradoxes.
D. Boston arranged for the book to be republished. This began what is known as the Marrow
Controversy. As the book sold well, the flames of controversy rose higher. Eventually Boston
wrote explanatory notes to the Marrow to show that its teachings were orthodox. Other Scottish
Calvinists defended the Marrow, and so came to be called the Marrow men. There were 12
main defenders, so they were also called the 12 Apostles by some detractors. Among their
number were James Hog and the brothers Ralph and Ebenezer rskine. The controversy lasted
mainly from 1718 to 1723.
E. On the other side were the anti-Marrow men, lad by Principal James Hadow. They
suspected the Marrow of both Arminianism and Calvinistic Antinomianism. This faction was also
quite orthodox in their Calvinism, but it had degenerated into a cold, dry orthodoxy. More than
that, it had backed into an odd combination of a kind of Neonomianism and something akin to
Hyper-Calvinism. This dry orthodoxy was reluctant to give a full free offer of the Gospel, but
strenuously emphasized repentance and Preparationism.
F. The main issues were these. First, was the Covenant of Grace the same as the Covenant of
Redemption? The Marrow men said yes, the others no. Also, was faith a condition of the
Covenant of Grace? The Marrow men preferred to speak of faith as a blessing, but accepted it
as something of a condition. Their opponents stressed that it was a condition together with
repentance (and sometimes this stress reeked of Neonomianism). Next, was the atonement
universal or particular? The Marrow as accused of teaching universal atonement. Lastly, was
assurance of the essence of faith? The Marrow men tended to say that it was, the others denied
this.
G. The Marrow was condemned by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland Members
were warned not to read it. Boston and the others left or were picked out and formed the
Secession Church, which continued for quite sometime as a minority Calvinist denomination in
Scotland.
H. The other major controversy concerned Sandemanianism. This heresy was the dual product
of John Glas (1695-1773) and his son-in-law Robert Sandeman (1718-1771). Glas was expelled

121

from the Church of Scotland and started a movement of semi-associated Independent

churches. Sandeman took the movement to England and then to America. Hence, some
adherents became known as Giassites, others as Sandemanians. But they taught the same
thing.
I. Glas and Sandeman were basically orthodox in their Calvinism, except in one vital area: the
nature of faith. What they did was simply carry to logical conclusions the dry orthodoxy of antiMarrow Calvinism. Sandemanianism, then, is basically this: saving faith is nothing more than
mental assent to the truths of the Gospel. Perhaps later it produces personal trust and hearty
repentance. This notion was arrived at by reacting against the doctrine that assurance is of the
essence of faith. Sandemanianism produced a dry lifeless faith that had no assurance and
therefore was only mental and not really personal. Fortunately, the movement later died out, but
vestiges of the heresy still linger here and there.

2. The English Independents.

A. After the Puritan era (c. 1570-1700), Calvinism among Presbyterians took a nosedive- Host
drifted into Socinianism, Arianism, Deism or Arminianism. There were few English Presbyterians
in the 18th-century, and fewer still who were true to the (mainly Presbyterian) Westminster
Confession of Faith.
B. On the other hand, Calvinism continued to prosper among the Baptists and the
Independents. Sometimes a congregation would include both groups. These Independents, also
called Congregationalists, were paedo-baptists but this was not the main issue at stake.
Calvinism and Evangelicalism were the issues.
C. Two names stand out among the Independent leaders of the 18th-century. The first was
Isaac Watts (1674-1748). Watts was the assistant and then successor of Isaac Chauncey, the
leading Anti-Neonomian. This church had previously been pastured by Joseph Caryl and John
Owen. It was a bastion of Calvinism.
D. Poor Watts was in constant ill health. This produced a pale pallor in his countenance that
made him rather unattractive. Once he was matched to marry a certain young lady who had
never seen him. When she first saw him, she cancelled the engagement. Watts remained a
bachelor.
E. Yet Watts was more than blessed in another area: hymnology. He collected hymns and
published them in an immensely popular hymnbook. Once in a battle in the field, a British army
needed paper to stuff their muskets with gunpowder. They ran out. So the general commanded
them to requisition the hymnbooks from the nearby church, with the battle cry Giveem Watts,
men! Watts hymnbooks were in churches all over England.
F. Watts also wrote many of the most beloved hymns of all time, such as When I Survey the
Wondrous Cross, Our God, Our Help in Ages Past, I Sing the Mighty Power of God, Alas!
And Did My Savior Bleed?, Jesus Shall Reign, Come Ye That Love the Lord, Were
Marching to Zion, There is a Land of Pure Delight, and the Christmas favorite Joy to the
World.
G. Before the 18th-century, most Calvinist churches sung only psalms set to music. Watts did
not abolish them, - but added hymns and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19). The 18th-century was a
veritable revival of Evangelical hymnody. Not only were there the Arminians John and Charles
Wesley, but Calvinists such as Watts and others we will discuss below,

122

H. Watts, however, was a very Low Calvinist, and increasingly lower. For one thing, he thought
that one need not believe in the Trinity in order to be a Christian. This led to serious
modifications of the orthodox doctrine. Some have said he was Arian or Sabellian, but he really
moved in another area. He taught a form of the odd and rare doctrine known as PreExisterianism. This strange doctrine taught that Christ had a human soul and a divine nature
before the Incarnation. Some taught that Christ was eternally the God-Man; others, that Christ
took on a human soul in the eternal Covenant of Redemption. In either case, Witts felt that
Christ only took on a human body at the Incarnation, for he already had a human soul. Several
later Hyper-Calvinists held to this view, such as John Stevens and some of the Earthen
Vessels. It is, of course, nowhere taught in the Bible.
I. The other leading Calvinist Independent was Philip Doddridqe (1702-1751), who paralleled
Watts in many ways. He too taught a kind of Pre-Existerianism. He too wrote many popular
hymns, such as 0, Happy Day and Grace! Tis a Charming Sound. And like Watts, he was
often in ill health, mainly going back to infancy (he was the twentieth child of his parents and
was first thought to be still-born, but barely survived).
J. Doddridge pastored in Northampton England. While there, he wrote many best-selling books,
such as his semi-autobiographical spiritual classic The Rise and Progress of Religion in the
Soul. He also wrote The Family Expositor, a combination paraphrase and commentary of the
New Testament for use in family devotions. It top was a best seller for over 100 years.
K. But it was mainly his work as Principal at the Northampton Academy that Doddridge is most
well known. Non-Anglicans could not study at the English universities, so they went to private
academies (seminaries). The one at Northampton became the leading Independent and
Calvinistic one, with an average of 200 students; Academic standards were high. For example,
Doddridge required all students to learn shorthand so that they could copy down the classroom
lectures entire and verbatim.
L. Doddridge strived for harmony between the churches This was good, but it became his
weakness. Eventually he downplayed dogmatic theology. This affected his teaching style.
Rather than saying, This is the truth and that is error, he tended to simply explain all the
different theories and let the students discover for themselves which was true. It didnt work. It
never has. Most of his students became liberals, Arians and Deists, even though they entered
as Evangelical Calvinists. Twentieth-century seminaries should learn a lesson from this
bad/example,

3. The Anglican Calvinists.

A. Calvinism was originally popular in, the English Reformation, Many of the leading Puritans
were members of the Church of England. But then it went downhill in the 18th-century. Still,
there were a few notable exceptions.
B. Augustus Montague Toplady (1740-1778) was originally an Arminian, then became a
staunch Calvinist. Like Watts and Doddridge, he wrote many great hymns, such as Rock of
Ages, A Debtor to Mercy Alone, and A Sovereign Protector I Have.
C. Toplady went in the opposite direction of Watts and Doddridge. .That is, Toplady went
higher and higher, even verging on Hyper-Calvinism (he was Supralapsarian and a close friend
of John Gill). Like Gill; he had a running controversy with John Wesley, writing and exchanging
increasingly bitter tracts and treatises. At one point, Wesley wrote, Your God is my Devil. And
Toplady replied in like manner. It was a poor example of how to defend the truth. Still, Toplady

123

did much to revive Anglican Calvinism.

D. Toplady wrote two influential works on the matter: The Historic Proof of the Doctrinal
Calvinism of the Church of England and The Church of England Vindicated from the Charge of
Arminianism. Toplady may have been correct that the English Reformers were Calvinists. So
were the Thirty-nine Articles. But by this time, the Articles were not truly used to measure
doctrine any more, and Anglican Calvinism suffered greatly after the. Puritan era. After all,
Puritanism led to the overthrow of the monarchy and took away the Church of Englands
privileged status as State Church. Toplady died, at the young age of 38..
E. John Newton (1725-1807) was another leading Anglican Calvinist. Newton was the son of a
shipmaster. When he came of age, he entered the English Navy, then became a merchant
seaman, then a slave-trader. Because of debt and other circumstances, he himself became
virtually a slave himself to the wife of another slave-trader. And then he was dramatically
converted during a storm at sea.
F. Newton was an Anglican pastor with a wide ministry of letters. They were not simply the
usual correspondence ( Wish you were here), but a unique combination of devotions and
theological exhortation. Many of these we recollected and published in the volume entitled
Cardophonia (voice of the heart). They make excellent reading.
H. Newton also wrote several popular hymns, such as Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken,
How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds, and what became probably the most popular hymn o
all time, Amazing Grace. The grace of which Newton wrote and sung was particular, electing,
irresistible grace.
I. Newton was also friend and pastor to William Cowper (1731-1800). Poor William Cowper was
a sad case of chronic depression. He was in and out of mental hospitals and sometimes
attempted suicide. He was sometimes a Calvinist, which gave an odd twist to his melancholy.
Often he thought he was elect; then he thought he was surely one of the non-elect. Cowper
penned yet more of the great hymns: There is a Fountain Filled with Blood, 0 For a Closer
Walk with God, God Moves in a Mysterious Way, and others. Newton was one of the few who
could console this poor man who was half-mad and half-genius.

4. The Evangelical Awakening.

A. Above all the names above stands a preacher who was the greatest preacher of the century
and certainly one of the two or three greatest preachers since the days of the Apostles. His
name was George Whitefield (1714-1770). He was an Anglican. But most germane to this
study is that he was a Calvinist.
B. Whitefield met John and Charles Wesley while studying at Oxford. The three of them formed
the Holy Club, which in some respects was the beginnings of Methodism. But none of them
were as yet truly converted. Within a. few years, all three were converted. But the Wesleys
became Arminians - John was the most important Arminian since Arminius himself.
C. Whitefield never was an Anglican priest in a local church. Instead, he mainly traveled as an
evangelist. He saw true, Biblical revival virtually everywhere he preached - not the phony sort of
revival which others speak of. At first he spoke in churches, but then the crowds became too
large. So he took to open-air preaching. Crowds numbered as many as 60,000. And this was
before the days of public address systems. Whitefield had an exceedingly strong voice.
Benjamin Franklin measured that Whitefield could be heard distinctly a mile away! His favorite
text: You must be born again (John 3:7).

124

D. Whitefields preaching was unparalleled. His sermons usually lasted about 2 hours in length.
Unlike many Calvinist preachers, he threw his whole self into it, usually weeping in every
sermon. He preached at least once a day, often 6 times daily, with an estimated total of 18,000
sermons. And then there were the usual hecklers in the open-air. Whitefield once wrote in his
famous Journals, Today while preaching I was honored by rocks, mud, filth and pieces of a
dead cat.
E. He traveled several times to preach in the American colonies. In Britain, it was known as the
Evangelical Awakening and in America as the Great Awakening. Whitefield became fast
friends of the great Jonathan Edwards. On one famous occasion Whitefield preached at
Edwards church while Edwards sat there listening - and weeping.
F. Now Whitefield was a Calvinist. Naturally this led to a falling out with Wesley, Eventually
they parted ways. In time they became friends again, but they would not work as closely
together as in the peak of the Evangelical Awakening (1739-1742). This in turn led Whitefield to
associate with some other great Calvinist preachers, such as Howell Harris, Daniel Rowland
and William Williams. Together they organized Calvinistic Methodism. To some today, that
sounds like a contradiction in terms, but only because of the propaganda that the Evangelical
Awakening and the first Methodists were all Arminian. Not so. Half was Arminian (the Wesleys,
John Fletcher, etc), the other half was Calvinistic. Calvinistic Methodism was organized at a
meeting in 1743 at which Whitefield presided. The movement was predominantly Welsh and
eventually split from the Church of England and continued as the Welsh Presbyterians (such as
Lloyd-Jones). Whitefield himself stayed in the Church of England. In time, the Arminian branch
split from the Church of England and became the more well known Methodist Church.
G. The point needs to be underscored that true Calvinism is not adverse to evangelism.
Whitefield and Edwards were staunch Calvinists. So was Spurgeon. In fact, theirs was a truer
evangelism than the Arminian variety. Also remember that the Evangelical Awakening took
place in the heyday of Hyper-Calvinism. But as much as Edwards and Whitefield did to stress
evangelism, it took a later Calvinist movement to counter-balance the deadening effects of
Hyper-Calvinism.

5. The Great Missionary Movement.

A. Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) pastored the little Baptist Church in Kettering, England, which
had produced John GIII 50 years earlier. Fuller was raised under Hyper-Calvinism and was
originally a Hyper-Calvinist himself, through the influence of Edwards and Whitefield, Fuller
discovered the importance of the Great Commission and rejected Hyperism forever. In fact, it
was probably Fuller who first coined the term Hyper-Calvinism.
B. In 1785 Fuller published The-Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation specifically to counter HyperCalvinism. But it did more. It was the inspiration for what became known as the Great
Missionary Movement. True, there were foreign missions before then, but they were few and
far between. They were but a trickle; Fuller produced a flood (or to use a Baptist pun, what was
once but a sprinkling now became an immersion). These first great missionaries were not
merely Baptists. They were all Calvinists. They included Fuller, John Rippon (Gills immediate
successor), John Ryland and Samuel Pearce. They organized missions. But who actually
went?
C. William Carey (1761-1834) was the first missionary sent out by the newly formed Baptist
Missionary Society, founded in 1792. Carey was a plain old shoe repairman, but he had three
important character traits: he had an uncanny ability to learn languages (eventually he

125

mastered dozens), head a fervent desire to evangelize the lost, and he was a Calvinist who
believed that the sovereign God of election uses evangelism to call in His elect. Carey used to
say to Fuller, Ill go into the mine if you hold the rope. Fuller stayed in England and spread the
vision.
D. Carey had written An Enquiry Into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the
Conversion of the Heathen (1792). With Fullers Gospel Worthy it became the theological
manifesto for the Great Missionary Movement. Carey then went to India where he preached,
taught, translatedand furthered foreign missions of all sorts. His motto: Expect greatthings from
God. Attempt great things for God, This reflected his Reformed theology of the balance of
divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

6. Conclusion.
The 18th-century was not the Dark Ages of Calvinism that some think it was. If nothing else, it
showed indubidible truth and unforgetable illustrations that historic Calvinism has contributed to
the front ranks of theological literature, spiritual hymnology and evangelistic zeal. May 20thcentury Calvinists emulate their examples in these areas and thereby put to silence the slanders
and misrepresentations of Arminians and liberals.

Recommended Reading
Boston, Thomas. Human Nature in Its Fourfold State. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Boston, Thomas. Memoirs of Thomas Boston. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Lachman, David. The Marrow Controversy, 1718-1723. Edinburgh: Rutherford House.
Toplady, A.M. The Complete Works of Augustus Toplady. Harrisanburg: Sprinkle Publications.
Lawton, George. Within the Rock of. Ages: The Life and Work of Augustus Montague Toplady.
Cambridge: James Clarke.
Newton, John. The Works of John Newton. 6 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Whitefield, George.
George Minefields Journals. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Dallimore, Arnold. George Whitefield. 2
vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Fuller, Andrew. The Works of Andrew Fuller. 3 vols.
Harrisonburg: Sprinkle. Ryle, O.C. Christian Leaders of the Eighteenth Century. Carlisle:
Banner of Truth;

126

Chapter 15. Jonathan Edwards and New

England Calvinism.
1. Biography of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758).
A. The popular image of Jonathan Edwards is that of a witch-burning fanatical preacher who
sadistically enjoyed roasting his congregation over the flames of Hell. Though the popular image
remains, among scholars there is a vastly different appreciation, even among those who
strenuously disagree with him. Among those who have read his writings, there is an almost
universally held estimation that Jonathan Edwards was both the greatest theologian and the
greatest philosopher that has graced the American scene. Others would say he was also the
greatest preacher as well. And still others would rank him among the half-dozen greatest
theologians of any country in any era. Among students of the history of Calvinism, there is no
doubt that he ranks among the first class Reformed theologians. He deserves to be studied well.
B. Edwards was born in 1703 in Connecticut, the only son of 11 children. He came from a
Christian family; both his father and his grandfather were pastors. Young Jonathan showed
himself something of a prodigy at a young age. By the age of 13 he had learned Latin, Greek
and Hebrew and had written several insightful essays on philosophy, metaphysics and biology
(including his famous Of Insects about spiders). He thus entered Yale College at age 13and
graduated at 17. About this time he underwent a marvelous conversion, followed by 3 more
years of theological study at Yale.
C. Most of his ministry was spent as pastor of a Congregational church in Northampton,
Massachusetts. As such, he believed in paedo-baptism, Biblical inerrancy, infralapsarianism,
and Post-Millennialism. If Edwards was anything, he was a staunch Calvinist. Yet he had some
distinctive perspectives. He discussed a subject in new ways. Though in substantial agreement
with, say, the Puritans, Edwards was an original thinker with new insights; He did more than
repeat the Puritan theology of the Colonial Calvinists. He founded what is known as New
England Theology (or New England Calvinism).
D. Some scholars accredit these new perspectives to Edwards appreciation of John Locke, an
early Deist. Though Edwards liked Locke, there were notable differences. Locke was a Deist
and influential in the Enlightenment, which stressed the ability of human reason for solving the
problems Man faced. Edwards, however, stressed divine revelation over reason. Still, he
accepted the view that revelation does not contradict right reason. He tended to seek
reasonable explanations for things revealed in Scripture, where most previous Calvinists
admitted paradox or mystery.
E. Of the many stories which could be told about Edwards the Christian, perhaps most
illustrative would be his Resolutions. Within the first three years of his conversion, Edwards
composed some 70 private resolutions concerning private religion. These were something
along the lines of a vow to keep his heart pure and dedicated to Christ. He would read each of
them aloud once a week for the rest of his life. Among them are the following:
Resolved, never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do, if it. Were the last hour of my
life.
Resolved, when I feel pain, to think of the pains of martyrdom and of Hell.
Resolved, that I will live so, as I shall wish I had done when I come to die.

127

Resolved, to examine carefully and constantly, what that one thing in me is, which causes me
in the least to doubt of the love of God; and to direct all my forces against it.
F. Edwards came from a large family and in turn produced a large family - 12 children (9
daughters, 3 sons). Someone once did a survey of his descendants and compared them with
one of his opponents. While his opponent produced numerous and notorious thieves, traitors,
murderers and such, the Edwards line became famous for hundreds of preachers, statesmen,
educators and such. One unusual twist was that one of his daughters married Rev. Aaron Burr,
Sr., co-founder of the College of New Jersey and its second president. His son Aaron Burr, or,
became the notorious Revolutionary politician who fled into exile after killing Alexander Hamilton
in a duel. One story is that it was the house of Burr that produced the line of disreputable
persons.

2. Edwards as Theological Writer.

A. Jonathan Edwards spent virtually his entire ministry as a pastor, or to be precise, a pastortheologian. He never formally taught at a seminary or academy, except for a few friends in his
home and for a few days at the end of his life.
B. And so he became a prolific writer. His writings covered many areas of theology, especially
the sinfulness of the human will [which well look at below]. His first publication was entitled God
Glorified in the work of Redemption, By the Greatness of Mans Dependence Upon Him in the
whole of It. This would be the keynote to his literary career. Another work showed how, in the
best Reformed tradition, he always ascribed the glory to God: Dissertation Concerning the End
for Which God Created the World, namely, that God would reveal His glory.
C. He wrote many books on the subject of human affections, or the desires of the heart and
will, such as A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. In Edwards theology, the deepest part
of man can be discerned by his affections, or what he loves the most. Whether these were godly
or not was discussed in great depth in his The Nature of True Virtue.
D. Then there was A History of the Work of Redemption. This was originally a series of sermons
on Gods progressive work of redemption in history. At the end of his life, Edwards had plans to
use this as the basis for his magnum opus, a complete systematic theology. In this he would
break from the usual fashion of formulating theology in a system according to topics. Rather, he
would discuss all that needed to be discussed in the order in which it was revealed in the history
of redemption according to Scripture.
E. Though he published much in his lifetime, yet more came after his death. He left behind
many unpublished works, many of which were brought into print by his son. Then there were his
Miscellanies, the large notebooks filled with notes, which he planned to develop into books for
publication. And there were scores of written sermons, letters, an annotated Bible, and more.
There remains as much unpublished as published. Fortunately, Yale University Press is bringing
most of this material into print. AIT in all, Edwards deserves to be read. The reader, however,
should bear in mind that though he is often quoted, Edwards is not the easiest writer to read.
His style is so precise it is usually difficult to follow. Moreover, he is so penetrating that the
reader instantly senses that his own heart is being examined.

3. The Great Awakening.

128

A. The start of the Great Awakening can be traced to a series of sermons on justification by
faith, which Edwards preached to his Northampton church in1734-35. Revival broke out. At first
dozens were converted, then hundreds. Some of it spread to other churches.
B. This had a big influence on Edwards for the rest of his life. The idea of revival is always
associated with everything he wrote. Now, what do we -and Edwards - mean by revival? We do
not mean an evangelistic campaign, much less the attempts of modern revivalists to stir up
emotions without true doctrinal content. Instead, true revival is but the acceleration of the normal
work of God in the church and in the conversion of sinners. God always follows this pattern, but
in revival it is sped up drastically. Christians repent of their backsliding and the elect are
converted. Though this sometimes becomes emotional, Edwards stressed that emotions
themselves are not a true sign of revival or conversion. Rather, one must examine whether the
affections have been transformed according to Scripture.
C. Remember, this was before either Wesley or Whitefield were even converted yet. If the
Evangelical Awakening in Britain was half-Arminian and half-Calvinist, the Great Awakening in
America was 100% Calvinistic.
D. The next wave of the Awakening came in 1740 when Whitefield, by then quite converted,
came to New England to preach. He immediately befriended Edwards, who took him aside and
instructed him in Reformed teachings. At this point in the Awakening, the fire began to spread
rapidly through the colonies. And it was not only Edwards and Whitefield. There were, for
example, theTennents - William (1673-1746) and his four preacher sons: Gilbert (1703-1764),
William, Jr. (1705-1777), John (1706-1732) and Charles (1711-1771). The Tennents were
Presbyterians and would be very influential in the spread of Presbyterian Calvinism at this time.
For example, Gilbert founded the Log College, which would later become the College of New
Jersey, a center of Presbyterian Calvinism.
E. As the Awakening spread, it affected Edwards eschatology. He was a Post-Millennialism; he
believed in a great end-time revival which would spread worldwide and usher in a long period of
the display of the Kingdom of God on Earth before the return of Christ. Edwards thought that the
Great Awakening would be the torch that would ignite the fires that would spread worldwide. He
deeply felt that the Millennium was at hand.
F. Then there was the famous revival when Edwards preached his Sinners in the Hands of An
Angry God sermon. Curiously, this was not in his own church, nor was he the scheduled
substitute preacher when he preached at Enfield, Connecticut that Sunday of July 8, 1741. His
text was Deut. 32:25, Their foot shall slide in due season. This is one of the most famous
sermons ever preached and is probably the most-reprinted. Edwards had preached the very
same sermon only a short time before in his own church, but when he delivered it in Enfield, an
intensely powerful revival broke out in the middle of the message. People began moaning and
screaming for mercy as Edwards read his manuscript. They were under deep conviction for their
sins and saw that they deserved Hell. This was no example of a cheap preacher playing on
mens emotions - this was the work of God! Reading the accounts of it stirs the heart, and
reading the sermon convicts the heart. All Calvinists, indeed all Christians and non-Christians,
should read it and heed it.
G. Revival and evangelism usually go together with missions. And sure enough, there were a
few missionaries who came out of the Great Awakening, one in particular. David Brainerd
(1718-1747) was engaged to marry one of Edwards daughters. He went as missionary to
several tribes of American Indians in New England. This eventually took its toll on his health,
and he contracted consumption. He was taken to live in the Edwards home, where he died at
the young age of 30. His great godliness and missionary vision had a -powerful impact on
Jonathan Edwards, who published Brainerds Journal and wrote An Account of the Life of the

129

Rev. David Brainerd (1749). In a very short time this would have an even more powerful impact
on churches in Britain - the Calvinists who started the Great Missionary Movement.
H. Edwards wrote several works on revival: A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God
(on the 1730s revival); Some Thoughts on the Revival of Religion in New England; The
Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God (to discern whether revival was genuine in
the hearts of those who claimed it in themselves); and An Humble Attempt to Promote Visible
Union of Gods People in Extraordinary Prayer for the Revival of Religion (with special attention
to foreign missions).

4. The Halfway Covenant Controversy.

A. As the Great Awakening began to dissipate, Edwards began to work on further implications
of revival and church life. He wrote An Inquiry Concerning Qualifications for Communion to air
his views on which persons should be church members and eligible for Communion and which
should not. The heated controversy which followed was reminiscent of the one between John
Calvin and the Geneva elders and city council, which led to Calvins expulsion from Geneva
(only at the end of his life did Calvin win the issue).
B. Edwards rejected the theory made popular by his own grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. This
view said that all persons not in open sin are eligible for admittance to the Lords Table, even
those who do not make a profession of faith. Some said that Communion was a converting
sacrament; others said that we cannot judge who are true Christians, so admit anyone who
wants to partake - it is between them and the Lord. Edwards strongly disagreed with this HalfWay Covenant. It only bred false assurance.
C. Edwards argued that Communion was only for true Christians, and the visible Church had
the duty to screen false Christians from the Table for their own good. Thus, he contended,
Communion was open only to those who made a valid profession of faith and displayed the
marks of true conversion, such as a godly lifestyle of submission to the Bible. In this he was only
being consistent with his theology of revival and affections and conversion. But he was accused
of going too far.
D. This reached a head in 1750 when the church dismissed him by popular vote. Imagine, the
very church that was used of God to start the Great Awakening now dismissed the man whom
God used most in that Awakening for teaching the necessary conclusions of the revival! In
effect, they were disowning the revival and the Awakening. Students of revival know that this
has often happened - as the fires cool, those who were once warmed in it pour on coldwater.
Edwards filled the pulpit until a replacement could be found.
E. From there, the great Jonathan Edwards became pastor of a small church in Stockbridge,
Massachusetts. There he also served as missionary to the nearby Indians, just as Brainerd had.
The winds of providence blow where they will. It would appear that locked in obscurity; the
name of Jonathan Edwards would be lost. But instead, the solitude of the location afforded him
the opportunity to write even more. There were two books in particular that were written in this
period, 1751-1758.

5. The Freedom of the Will.

A. While at Stockbridge, Edwards wrote his most important book: A Careful and Strict Enquiry

130

into the Prevailing Notions of Freedom of the Mill, Which is Supposed to Be Essential to Moral
Agency, Virtue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (1754).
B. Edwards exalted divine sovereignty more than most, but he also brought down human
depravity more than most. This did not minimize human responsibility (as in Hyper-Calvinism)
rather, it compounded it. Edwards expounded as follows.
C. First, before the Fall, Adam had the ability to ask for grace which would sustain him. He
chose not to ask for it, and so fell. This sin is passed onto all of Adams family, but also his fallen
nature. Fallen men are like fallen Adam - they no longer have the ability to ask for sustaining
grace. Consequently, from their perspective, they are not given it and so are not sustained.
They live in constant sin. In conversion, God imparts saving grace, which makes them able to
ask for sustaining gace, and they do just so.
D. Edwards made much of the differences between natural and moral inability. Men have the
natural ability to believe and obey; they have the constitutional parts and faculties. But they lack
the nature and life to do so. This is moral ability, the desire and nature to will properly.
E. The will (or affections) is not in a neutral state, as argued by Arminians. That would be a
state of indeterminism. But the universe acts on the principle of determinism - for every effect,
there was a cause. This means that the immediate cause for acts of the will is to be found in the
nature of a man. The order is this: fallen man has a sinful nature; therefore he always sees
things from a sinful perspective; therefore he always wills according to the way he sees things sinfully.
F. This underlay Edwards' idea of regeneration of the will. First, God imparts a new nature,
which results in spiritual enlightenment and then the will to believe. When he believes, he is
justified.

6. Original Sin.
A. Edwards took this further in his last major book, also written at Stockbridge but published
posthumously: The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended (1758). He wrote this as a
reply to John Taylor, an Arminian.
B. In this masterful work, Edwards gave many proofs for original sin. One main one was that all
men are sinners. They act according to their nature. Thus, they have a common nature that
necessitates sins. If the Arminian or Pelagian theories were correct, we could expect to find at
least one person who did not ever follow the bad examples of others. But there are none.
C. Then the fact that many infants die in infancy proves original sin. Death is the effect of sin;
some infants die even in the womb; therefore sin is as early as one is an infant. Moreover, the
fact that God commanded the Israelites to kill the Canaanite infants proves that these infants
were guilty, for the righteous God does not kill the innocent.
D. The root of original sin can be detected from its fruit. Men consciously sin as soon as they
are able to realize it, and they continue to progress in sin from then on. Men actively hate God
by nature. Since Gods nature is holy, He hates them also - it is a mutual loathing. Men get
worse unless converted, even if they hear Scripture. The civilized persons were worse than the
Indians they conquered. Lastly, Edwards preferred to speak of mediate imputation of Adams
sin. We inherit it because we were, really and literally in Adam. In this he differed from most
other Federalists.

131

7. Edwards Last Days,

A. After several years at Stockbridge, he was invited to be the next President of the College of
New Jersey. At first he declined, then accepted. He began in January 1758. But within a short
time he had a reaction to smallpox vaccination. He died after serving only 5 weeks as President
of what would later be renamed as Princeton University.
B. His legacy lives on through his writings. His immediate impact continued through the New
England Theology which he founded.

8. The Further History of New England Theology.

A. New England Theology continued for well over 100 years after Edwards. It especially
prospered in the Congregationalism of New England, even when the colonies became the
United States and spread westward. Most of it centered at Yale, but the seminaries at Andover
and Hartford also were influential.
B. The movement, sometimes known as Consistent Calvinism or The New Divinity, claimed
organic affiliation with Edwards. However, within a generation, noticeable differences arose
which Edwards would have opposed. This movement became Low Calvinist and went lower and
lower until it wasnt Calvinist at all.
C. The main point of departure was the freedom of the will. It has been suggested that they
exploited certain logical weaknesses in Edwards arguments. In any case, inability of the will
and original sin were eventually watered down and rejected. The movement developed in the
face of several rival (and heretical) theologies of the era. First, there was Unitarianism, the
extreme form of Socinianism that rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Like Deism, it denied
miracles, supernatural revelation, etc. Second, there was Universalism. Some strands of this
All will be saved heresy were an extremely aberrant form of Calvinism. They argued: If Christ
died for all and his atonement is applied to all and grace is efficacious and irresistible, then all
men will be saved. Oddly, towards the end of the 19th century, these two heresies came to
dominate Congregationalism in the form of Liberalism. Today, what is left of the movement is
mainly the extremely liberal United Church of Christ.
D. Joseph Bellamy (1719-1790) was Edwards closest protg and heir apparent. His main
book was True Religion Delineated (1750). Bellamy taught an explicitly universal atonement, as
did all subsequent New England Theologians (Edwards taught limited atonement). Bellamy had
been a popular preacher in the Awakening and, like Edwards, preached to mens responsibility
to believe. Bellamy developed this to downplay moral inability and emphasize natural ability.
This set the tune for the downgrade in what followed. Still, Bellamy agreed with Edwards over
the Half-Way Covenant. His emphatic Calvinism is seen in his Wisdom of God in the Permission
of Sin (1758) - God allowed sin to come into existence, because it would be overruled to
produce a happier universe.
E. Samuel Hopkins (1721-1803) was another protg of Edwards who modified things in a
similar direction. His theology became known as Hqpkinsianism. In his large System of
Doctrines and other works, Hopkins weakened original sin and allowed vestiges of moral ability
to the will, for the will has to choose. Hopkins also taught that repentance precedes faith.
F. Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745-1801), sometimes referred to as Jonathan Edwards the
Younger or Dr. Edwards (his father was President but never Doctor) taught much the same
doctrines as Bellamy and Hopkins where they differed, from his father. For example, he

132

emphasized the universality of the atonements much that it became the old Arminian
Governmental Theory of the Atonement taught by Hugo Grotius. He also modified divine
sovereignty. The pattern of New England Theology was set in this generation: lower divine
sovereignty and raise human responsibility, specifically human ability.
G. Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) was a grandson of Jonathan Edwards. He was a notable
preacher but was especially influential as President of Yale College for 22years. During his time
there and as a result of his preaching, a revival broke out known as the Second Great
Awakening. One-third of the student body were converted. As a result of his preaching to the
responsible wills of the students, Dwight followed the pattern of ascribing more ability to fallen
wills than had Edwards in the first Great Awakening. His repeated series of sermons were
collected and reprinted as Theology, Defined and Defended, one of the largest systematic
theologies of New England Theology.
H. Nathaniel William Taylor (1786-1858) studied under Dwight and with Dwight formed the New
Haven Theology, the new variety of New England Theology based at Yale. Yale now started a
seminary, the Yale Divinity School, and Taylor was its first professor of theology. Among his
teachings was the notion that responsibility implies ability. This in turn implies power to the
contrary. If a sinner is condemned for sin, he must have been able to the contrary, which is
faith. Moreover, Taylor turned sin and sins around. Sinfulness comes from acts of sin. Man is a
sinner because he sins, not (as most Calvinists had taught) Man sins because he is born a
sinner.
I. A host of others followed. Edwards Amasa Park (1808-1900) propagated similar views at
Andover, Semi nary and co-founded the popular Bibliotheca Sacra theological journal. Nathaniel
Emmons (1745-1840) rejected the inability of the will even further. For Emmon5, man is active
in regeneration, not passive. This is another way of saying that faith precedes regeneration.
J. Lyman Beecher (1775-1863) was a Presbyterian in the New England Theology and a
popular preacher in the Second Great Awakening. Since much of New theology applied their
views of human responsibility to the field of ethics, many such as Beecher applied this to certain
social evils, such as slavery and drunkenness. Then there was Asahel Nettieton (1783-1844),
another popular preacher in the Second Great Awakening. Nettleton was more conservative
than the rest of the New England theologians. In some regards, he called for a return to the true
theology of Edwards for a proper understanding of human nature and revival. Otherwise, revival
is subject to the worst abuses.
K. Some of the worst abuses did in fact materialize at this time within an offshoot of New
England Theology, known as the Oberlin Theology. This was based at Oberlin College and was
the child of Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875). Finney was a lawyer before a dramatic
conversion. He used some of those legal arguments to stress the moral nature of the universe.
Man must be able to respond, argued Finney. Whats more, a true evangelist is able to help him
respond. Finney developed the idea of the Anxious Bench, a chair at the front of the church. At
the close of a sermon, Finney invited sinners to sit in the chair while he and others prayed over
them for conversion. This was the origin of the altar call (going forward). In his popular
Lectures on Systematic Theology and Lectures on Revival, Finney wasnt even a Calvinist
anymore. He was downright Pelagian in most areas.
L. From the middle of the 19th-century on, New England Theology rapidly gave way to
Liberalism. For example, Horace Bushneil (1802-1876) stressed morals over dogma, morality
over conversion. His theories of the atonement tended to water-down substitutionary atonement
and propitiation of divine wrath. He made atonement more an illustration of divine love in
forgiveness. And since Man wasnt that bad, by education he could gradually be converted, not
suddenly through regeneration. About this time, New England Theology died.

133

M. Still, Christians are rediscovering Jonathan Edwards and true revival. The discerning
Christian will observe those weaknesses in Edwards theology that were exploited by his
followers in the downgrade that went into Arminianism and Liberalism. By a correct appreciation
of the theology of Jonathan Edwards, we come to a deeper knowledge of true Calvinism and
Biblical Calvinism.

Recommended Reading
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. This
edition contains most of his writings and is the fullest edition in print. However, the print is small
and makes difficult reading.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven: Yale University Press. 9
volumes have appeared in this edition, which plans to publish most of his unpublished
manuscripts and all of his previously published books. The print is larger, but each volume costs
as much as the complete 2 volume edition above. Moreover, it is a long-term project.
Gerstner, John. Jonathan Edwards: A Mini-Theology. Wheaton: Tyndale House. (An excellent
summary of Edwards theology, with many quotations on all main areas of theology. Gerstner, a
leading Edwards scholar, is presently at work on a massive muti-volume Theology of Jonathan
Edwards, planned for publication in the early 1990s.)
Storms, C. Samuel. Tragedy in Eden: Original Sin in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards.
Lanham: University Press of America. (Storms doctoral dissertation.)
Murray, Iain H. Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (The fullest
biography in print and one of the few that is sympathetic.)
Jenson, Robert W. Americas Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Pope, Earl. New England Calvinism and the Disruption of the Presbyterian Church. New York:
Garland Publishing Co.
Bellamy, Joseph. The Works of Joseph Bellamy. 2 vols. New York: Garland Pub. Co. Hopkins,
Samuel. The Works of Samuel Hopkins. 3 vols. New York: Garland Pub. Co.

134

Chapter 16. The Princeton Theology.

1. Origins.
A. The origins of both Princeton University and Princeton Seminary can be traced back to the
year 1735. In that year, William Tennent (1673-1746) built a log cabin for the purpose of
instructing three of his sons tube preachers. Soon several more aspiring preachers wanted
theological instruction, so the work grew. It was called The Log College. In time, other courses
of study were added.
B. This little college moved twice until it settled in Princeton, New Jersey, and assumed the
name The College of New Jersey. Jonathan Dickinson, Aaron Burr, Sr., and Jonathan Edwards
were the first three presidents - all preachers. Though it moved to Princeton in 1756, it would
not be renamed Princeton University until 1896.
C. Another early president bears mentioning. John Witherspoon (1723-1794) was president
from 1768 to 1794, important years during which the American colonies became the United
States of America. This put Witherspoon in a curious dilemma. He was a Scotsman by birth.
Would he rebel against Great Britain? He chose to align himself with the Revolutionary forces
and was very influential in the founding of the new nation. For example, he was the only
clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. He was a delegate to the Continental
Congress. He also personally taught hundreds of the first congressmen, senators, governors,
educators, doctors and preachers. And, of course, Witherspoon was a Calvinist. He was a good
example of a Christian influencing society for the good.
D. As the College of New Jersey grew, it became less a preachers college anymore a general
university. So the need was felt for a college specially for preachers, that is, a seminary along
the lines of the old Log College. In 1812, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
voted in favor of establishing such an institution to work closely with the College of New Jersey.
Thus was established Princeton Theological Seminary,
E. Archibald Alexander (1772-1851) was chosen to be the first professor. He was one of the
most popular preachers of the day, but he is most known for teaching at Princeton Seminary for
the next 39 years. During that time, he started The Biblical Repertory theological journal and
wrote a number of excellent books, mainly on Scripture and apologetics.
F. Alexander stressed that learning and piety must go together. There is no place in the
ministry for dry scholarship or unlearned religion. This was a keynote at Princeton Seminary
from the beginning, as seen in Alexanders influential Thoughts on Religious Experience.
Alexander should also be credited with founding what is called the Princeton Theology. As New
England Theology was declining in Calvinistic orthodoxy, so God raised up the Princeton
Theology to carry the banner. For more than 100 years, it would be the bellwether for Calvinism
in America. Someone has commented that the Princeton Calvinism was Calvinism with an
American accent.
G. Two of Alexanders sons also taught there: James W. Alexander (1804-1859) and Joseph
Addison Alexander (1809-1860). The latter became one of the best scholars in the world,
proficient in 20 languages, and wrote important commentaries on Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew,
Mark and Acts. Samuel Miller (1769- Was the second teacher at the seminary? He taught
church history and church government and ministry. He wrote several books on these subjects
which are still consulted, some of which have been reprinted.

135

2. Charles Hodge (1797-1878).

A. Charles Hodge studied under Alexander and was the obvious choice to be one of the next
professors. His influence would tower over Princeton Seminary or the next 56 years, during
which he instructed some 3,000 students. He was a Mr. Princeton of sorts. He edited the
Biblical Repertory and combined it with a new organ, the Princeton Review. He edited them for
some 50 years.
B. If Jonathan Edwards was the most brilliant and original American theologian, Charles Hodge
was the greatest systematizer and anchor of Calvinistic orthodoxy. His scholarship was
unequalled and covered all areas of theology. In a word, he epitomized the Princeton Theology:
Covenant Theology, Biblical inerrancy, unquestioned orthodoxy, appreciation of the historic
Reformed confessions (especially, the Westminster Confession), and reference to thereat 16th
and 17th-century Reformed theologians (especially Turretine). Hodge sometimes confessed that
he was proud that he never had an original thought. Historical orthodoxy is more important than
new theories, most of which are erroneous. However, this did not mean that he lived in the past.
C. Hodge was somewhat influenced by the Philosophy of Common Sense, which was mainly of
Scottish origin. This philosophy was generally associated with Thomas Reid (1710-1796). It was
formulated against the inroads of philosophic skepticism and Deism. In essence, it taught
common sense -all men basically think alike and can normally interpret the information that
their senses receive. This philosophy was indirectly influenced by Sir Isaac Newton s theories of
science. It was reasonable without being rationalistic. Hodge fitted it into the framework of
Calvinism.
D. This great theologian - certainly one of the greatest half-dozen Calvinist theologians of all
time - was also very involved in the affairs of Presbyterian church government and its various
controversies. Hodge was an anchor against the New Haven Theology and the inroads of
Liberalism. For example, he wrote What is Darwinism? To counter the growing agnostic effects
of Darwinian Evolution. He wrote much against Finneys approach to revival. If an important
issue arose, Hodge tackled it and wrote on it.
E. In addition to all this, he wrote thousands of pages in books. Some were ecclesiastical (The
Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the united States and Discussions in
Church Polity, both massive tomes). Others were Bible commentaries. His commentaries on
Romans, Ephesians, First and Second Corinthians are still in print and are among the best ever
written on these epistles.
F. But his magnum opus was his Systematic Theology in three large volumes By common
consent among Calvinists, this is the best all-round systematic theology ever written. Because it
was more systematic, it excels Calvins Institutes as a workable theological reference work, and
as such has been the basic textbook to thousands of seminarians. Recently an abridgement in
one volume has been published under the same title. Hodge would not have approved, else he
would have written one. He did, however, write The Way of Life, a small book on the basic
doctrines of Christianity to be used in teaching little children (most adults today could profit from
it).
G. Hodge was a theologian to the end. His last words were: To be absent from the body is to
be present with the Lord. To be with the Lord is to see Him. To seethe Lord is to be like Him.

136

3. The Hodge Dynasty.

A. Two of Charles Hodges sons and a grandson later taught at Princeton Seminary. His oldest
son, Archibald Alexander Hodge (1823-1886), was named after the seminarys eminent founder.
A.A. Hodge was at first a missionary to India for 3 years, but returned stateside due to ill health.
Eventually he succeeded his father to the chair of systematic theology (1877-1886). The
younger Hodge wrote a number of excellent books, such as his one-volume Outlines of
Theology (a systematic theology in the form of questions and answers), The Atonement (one of
the best on the subject), a biography of his father, and others.
B. Caspar Wistar Hodge (1830-1891) was another son who taught at Princeton (1860-1891), as
did his son Caspar Mi star Hodge, Jr. (1870-1937), who was the successor of the successor of
A.A. Hodge. That successor was equalled in genius only by Charles Hodge himself. His name:
B.B. Warfield.

4. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921).

A. B.B. Warfield was professor of systematic theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to
1921. Unlike his two predecessors of the House of Hodge, he never wrote a systematic
theology, at least not a major one. He felt that he could not surpass the large one of Charles
Hodge. He did, however, write many books and hundreds of articles which brought Hodges
work up to date.
B. Warfield is especially remembered for his heroic defence of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
German Liberalism was chipping away at this great truth on many fronts, and Warfield
answered their arguments masterfully and successfully and Calvinistically. In 1881 he coauthored Inspiration with A.A. Hodge. Many of his other articles on the subject have been
collected in the volume entitled The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. This book remains,
one of the best expositions and defenses of Biblical inerrancy.
C. B.B. Warfield wrote on other controversies, such as his 1,000 pages on Perfectionism (the
current edition is an abridgement). In this he countered the Wesleyan Perfectionist error, the
Keswick Higher Life movement, and the orgins of the Pentecostal-Holiness movement.
Warfield also wrote Counterfeit Miracles to disprove the claims of Roman Catholicism,
Pentecostal ism and others to their alleged miraculous powers. It is still in print, as are many of
his books.
D. Then theres the little book, The Plan of Salvation, one of the best, concisest books on
soteriology. Other articles on soteriology and Christology were collected and published in the
volume entitled, The Person and Work of Christ (in print). Then there were books and articles on
Augustine, Calvin, the Westminster Assembly, and other aspects of the historical theology of
Calvinism. Thus, Warfield had depth and breadth on a host of subjects. Most theological writers
have either quality or quantity; few have both. Warfield and Charles Hodge had both.
E. Two other points should be made about Warfield. First, he was an emphatic Post-Mi
11enialist and wrote much on the subject. In all discussions of Post-Millennialism, the name of
B.B. Warfield is sure to occur. Actually, quite a few Calvinists have been of this persuasion, and
though I myself do not adhere to it, Warfield illustrates that not all Post-Millenialists are Liberals.
F. On the other hand, Warfield did not follow Charles Hodge in fighting Darwinian Evolution.
Warfield joined a number of leading scholars who argued that Evolution per se did not contradict
the Bible. This opened the door to Theistic Evolution. Few Evangelicals, and still fewer historic

137

Calvinists, have accepted that theory. But sadly, Warfield was one who did.

5. Miscellaneous Princetonian Theologians.

A. James McCosh (1811-1894) was president of Princeton University (1868-1888) and was the
major American proponent of the Scottish Philosophy of Commonsense. William Henry Green
(1825-1900) was one of the greatest Old Testament scholars in history. Francis L. Patton (18431937) was the last one to be President of both Princeton University and Princeton Seminary. He
wrote Fundamental Christianity, as the Fundamentalist-Madernist controversy was raging
across America in the early 20th-century.
B. Gerhards Vos (1862-1949) was one of the earlist Dutch theologians to teach at Princeton
Seminary. Among his many books still in print are The Pauline Eschatology and Biblical
Theology. William Park Armstrong (1874-1944) And especially Charles Erdman (1866-1960)
taught more practical theology at the seminary. Erdman was one of the most popular preachers
of the day, but taught for 30 years. He served as Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in 1925
and was a leading modifier of the Old Princeton Theology. He was something of a forerunner of
the later Neo-Evangelicalism that would not force liberals out of the church nor leave churches
dominated by Liberalism. This was crucial to the demise of Prince in the 1920s. Erdman wrote
dozens of books, mainly his many expositions of the New Testament.

6. The Two Presbyterian Divisions of the 19th-century.

A. The two major Presbyterian divisions indirectly affected Princeton Seminary. The first one
concerned New School Presbyterianism (or New School Calvinism). This was more or less the
counterpart to the New England Theology of the Congregationalists of the 1820s and 30s. This
movement was active in the Second Great Awakening and weakened its Calvinism to further
revival and unite with other revivalist groups. Moreover, it called for more social action (such as
anti-slavery abolitionism) than the Old School, such as Princeton. This was related to its
emphasis on political democracy, which naturally affected its weakened views of divine
sovereignty.
B. Among the leaders of the New School were Albert Barnes (1798-1870), a 4-point Calvinist
wrote an extremely popular Bible Commentary that still sells well today; Henry B. Smith (18151877); and Lyman Beecher (1775-1863), who was especially active in the Second Great
Awakening. Barnes and several others were dismissed from the Presbyterian Church when the
controversy reached its height in 1837. Many others left and formed anew School denomination.
In 1869, the New and Old Schools were reunited.
C. Scholars differ over the nature of the New School with reference to the controversial
theologies that later arose. Some see it as a tendency towards Liberalism. In a way, this was
true. Some New Scholars did in fact turn liberal. Others see it as the precursor of 20th-century
Fundamentalism. This has some truth to it as well, such as parallels between the Second Great
Awakening (especially Finneyism) and the Fundamentalist approach to evangelism. However,
early Fundamentalism was not as socially active as the New School. In any case, the correct
analysis is that both Liberalism and most Fundamentalism share something in common: a
dislike of historic Calvinism. And it was against historic Calvinism that the New School was
reacting and departing.
D. The second and greater division was between Presbyterian churches in the north and those

138

in the south. With the exception of the New-Old School division, Presbyterianism in America had
been relatively united in one denomination. Then the issue of slavery arose. The Old School
tolerated it (even Charles Hodge argued that the Bible doesnt explicitly condemn it, so it can be
permitted if used wisely and mercifully). The New School opposed slavery, and in time this had
repercussions even in the Old School.
E. In 1861, the General Assembly pledged support for the Union. The Presbyterian churches in
the south, which almost all supported slavery, pledged their support to the Confederacy. Thus
came the major split in the history of American Presbyterianism. This Southern Presbyterian
Church (as it is popularly known) took the name Presbyterian Church in the United States
(PCUS). Though smaller than the Northern Presbyterians, it stayed more historically Calvinist
longer. The two groups reunited in 1982. [More will be said about Southern Presbyterianism in
the next study.]

7. The Split at Princeton Seminary.

A. Princeton University and Princeton Seminary enjoyed a long and close association. Then
they began to drift apart. Francis Patton was the last man to be President of both. Woodrow
Wilson was President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, and later President of the
United States. While he was Princeton President, he wanted a broader scope than the narrower
Calvinistic orthodoxy afforded. This had serious repercussions.
B. Then in 1914, J. Ross Stewenson succeeded Patton as President of the seminary. Like
Wilson, he wanted a breader religious base. Mind you, he was not aliberal nor did he initially
allow Liberalism. But in time he did allow the first steps towards Liberalism at Princeton
Seminary.
C. Two names stand out in the 1920s at the seminary: Charles Erdman and J. Gresham
Machen. Erdman was the leader of the moderates who called for toleration of those faculty
members tending towards Liberalism. Machen was the leader calling for their dismissal.
Obviously, Machen was in the pure line of Alexander, the Hodges and Warfield (who died in
1921). Another leading moderate was Clarence MaCattney (1879-1957). Though he did not
teach at Princeton, he was a leader in the denomination and Moderator in the critical year 1924.
D. The slowdown came in 1929. The Board of Directors was re-arranged, as was the
curriculum and philosophy of education. The moderates had won and Liberalism was officially
tolerated with the approval of the General Assembly. Four faculty members resigned: Machen,
Oswald T. All is, Robert Dick Wilson and Cornelius Van Til. On Sept. 25, 1929 they opened the
doors to a new seminary that was in the pure line of descent from the Old Princeton Seminary. It
took the name Westminster Theological Seminary and had 50 students (apostate Princeton
Seminary had 177). Erdman, Vos, Armstrong and C.W. Hodge, Jr. stayed at Princeton. A year
later, John Murray joined Westminster.
E. Since then, Princeton Seminary has continued to go downhill. It is an apt illustration of the
fact that institutions, Tike water, go downhill. Almost no seminary, denomination or local, church
stays doctrinally orthodox beyond100 years. Most last considerably less. Today, Princeton
Seminary is academically one of the best in the world, with recent scholars such as Bruce
Metzger and James Charlesworth. But doctrinally it has gone the way of all heresy. Since World
War II, only a handful of its faculty have been even broadly Evangelical; none to my knowledge
have been Reformed. The closest to Calvinism at Princeton since the split of 29 has been
Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy, which is no Calvinism at all. Princeton Seminary has been one of the
centers of American Neo-Orthodoxy and Liberalism. It has also been extremely influential in the

139

ecumenical movement. All of the great 19th-centuryPnncetonians would abominate the current
Princeton Seminary, but would hail Westminster Seminary.

8. J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937).

A. Machen taught at Princeton from 1906 till the split in 1929. He was an intellectual giant and a
staunch defender of Reformed orthodoxy. There is no doubt that he carried on the mantle of
Alexander, the Hodges and Warfield. Though his life was embroiled in controversy, he was not
so by nature. He was a thorough gentleman and in one sense somewhat quiet by nature. He
was also a lifelong bachelor.
B. Many of his books are still in print. Christianity and Liberalism proves that Liberalism is not
Christianity at all but a separate and false religion. The Virgin Birth of Christ is probably the
fullest and best book ever penned on the subject. His New Testament Greek for Beginners has
been the most popular introductory textbook in America this century. There were yet other
books, some of which are compilations of articles or sermons, including some delivered over the
radio in the early days of Christian radio.
C. Even after the demise of Old Princeton, Machen continued to stand for the truth. Sadly, the
tide had turned in the Presbyterian Church. Things came to a head in 1935. Machen had argued
that Presbyterian missionaries were going liberal and watering down the distinctives of
Christianity. So he promoted the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. His
liberal opponents used this as an excuse to have him charged with insubordination. Machen
was dismissed from the Presbyterian Church.
D. The next year, 1936, Machen and others helped to found what has been known as the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church. This denomination stays very much in the tradition of Old
Princeton and historic Calvinism. Though small, it has much influence in Reformed things and
has a close relationship with Westminster Seminary.

9. Other Westminster Faculty.

A. John Murray (1898-1975), born and died in Scotland, taught at Westminster for 36 years and
was the probable heir to Machens mantle. His main book was his magisterial Commentary on
Romans. Smaller but important books include Redemption Accomplished and Applied,
Principles of - Conduct, and The Imputation of Adams Sin. Many of his articles were collected in
The Writings of John Murray (4 volumes). Murray was a bachelor theologian until he retired,
then was married at 69. Within 4 years, he and his wife had two children. John Murray was a
remarkable man, indeed.
B. Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) shared Machens mantle with Murray as the leading
theologian at Westminster. The great Dutchman specialized in apologetics from a distinctively
Reformed perspective. For example, he rejected the Philosophy of Common Sense approach
and stressed what is called Presupposition Apologetics. That is, the Christians fundamental
presuppositions are the truths of Scripture, not the so-called facts discerned by autonomous
reason. The self-attesting Scripture is all we need to defend the faith. Van Til was one of the
greatest apologists in church history, if not the greatest. He was also one of the few
Supralapsarian Calvinists of recent years and also one of the greatest opponents of Karl Barth
and Neo-Orthodoxy. Among his dozens of books, his main work was The Defence of the Faith.
Others include Apologetics, Survey of Christian Epistemology and An Introduction to Systematic

140

Theology.
C. Robert Dick Wilson (1856-1930) taught at Westminster only a year after he helped found it.
He was a linguistic genius. By the age of 25, he could read the New Testament in 9 different
languages and by the time he died he is said to have been able to read 45 languages. Then
there was Oswald T. All is (1878-1973), also an Old Testament teacher for a short time. All is
best known for his battles with Dispensationalism, such as in his epochal Prophecy and the
Church. E.J. Young (1907-1968) also taught Old Testament and was a leading scholar for a
generation, as seen in his masterful commentaries on Daniel and Isaiah (3 vols.).
D. R.B. Kuiper taught at both Westminster and Calvin Seminary. John Skilton, Paul Woolley
and Ned B. Stonehouse were other notable scholars who taught at Westminster.

10. Westminster Today.

A. More recently, Westminster has had a host of leading scholars in their fields: Bruce Waltke,
Richard Gaffin, Jr., Moise Silva, Vern Poythress and Sinclair Ferguson. Meredith Kline and
Philip Edgcombe Hughes taught for decades as visiting professors. There was a brief but
intense controversy Westminster in the 1970s over the teachings of Norman Shepherd, who
was accused of teaching something akin to Neonomianism. The Westminster Theological
Journal is a major scholarly journal published by the seminary.
B. In the 1970s, Westminster started a branch in California which in some ways may be even
more in keeping with its tradition than its parent backing Philadelphia. John Frame is carrying on
the tradition of Van Til, as in his large The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (the first of four
volumes has appeared). Robert Godfrey teaches and promotes historic Reformed orthodoxy in
lectures and writings. Jay Adams has taught at both campuses and revolutionized Christian
counseling by his insistence that Christians can be competent to counsel by using the Bible
alone. Among his many books are Competent to Counsel and The Christian Counselors
Manual.
C. Covenant Theological Seminary (St. Louis) and Biblical Seminary (Hatfield, PA) are indirect
offshoots of Westminster. They maintain the Old Princeton approach to education and
Calvinism, though with less influence than Westminster.

11. Conclusion.
A. Westminster Seminary continues to be something like what the Old Princeton Seminary once
was - the center for American Calvinism. But in recent years it has had to relearn the lessons of
the past, which all of us would do well to learn also. We can take a warning from the demise of
Princeton. No church, denomination or seminary is immune to the dangers which infected
Princeton. If it happened there, it can happen anywhere. Calvinist churches need to be ever
vigilant lest the leaven of Liberalism enters and undoes the much good of previous generations.
If any man think he stands, let him take heed lest he fall (I Cor. 10:12).

Recommended Reading
Noll, Mark. The Princeton Theology, 1812-1921: An Anthology. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and

141

Reformed. (Selections from Alexander, Charles Hodge and Warfield, with a useful introduction.)
Hoffecker, W. Andrew. Piety and the Princeton Theologians. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed.
Wells, David F. Reformed Theology in America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (Section One is on
Princeton, Section Two is on Westminster.)
Kerr, Hugh, ed. Sons of the Prophets: Leaders in Protestantism from Princeton Seminary.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Alexander, Archibald. Thoughts on Religious Experience. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hodge, Charles. Princeton Sermons. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Hodge, Charles. Commentary on Romans. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Hodge, A.A. Outlines of Theology. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Warfield, B.B. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Warfield, B.B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed.
Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Machen, J.
Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Stonehouse, Ned B. J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Murray, Iain. The Life of John Murray. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Murray, John. The Writings of John Murray. 4 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (Vol. 3 contains
Iain Murrays biography of John Murray).
Wooley, Paul, ed. The Infallible Word. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. (Contains
scholarly articles on Biblical inerrancy by Westminster professors)
Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Van Til, Cornelius. The Defence of the Faith. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.

142

Chapter 17. Nineteenth-Century

Calvinism.
1. Southern Presbyterianism.
A. By the time of the nineteenth-century, Calvinism was almost dead in Switzerland, Germany
and France. On the other hand, it was alive and thriving in Scotland, the United States and
Holland. It was fighting for its life in England. In this study, we will examine some of the
developments in Scotland and America, reserving comments on Dutch Calvinism to a later
study.
B. The mainstream Presbyterian Church split in 1861. The Princeton Theology dominated the
North before and after the split. The theology of Southern Presbyterianism needs examination at
this juncture.
C. Much of Southern Presbyterian theology was centered in three colleges and seminaries:
Union Theological Seminary (Richmond, VA), Columbia Theological Seminary, and HampdenSydney College. Someone has labeled Union tne Princeton of the South.
D. Southern culture was somewhat different than in the North, which is reflected in the
churches and the theologians. E, Brooks Hoiifield well describes these theologians as
Gentlemen Theologians - a mint julip in one hand and a Bible in the other. They were of the
middle and upper classes with a desire to maintain the old ways against the influx of new
liberalism. Most tended to be of the Scotch-Irish ancestry predominant in the Carolinas and
Virginia, the heart of Southern Presbyterianism.

2. Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898).

A. Dabney was the major gentleman theologian of the period, the Southern counterpart to
Hodge of the North. He taught at Union for 30 years andlater helped to found Austin
Presbyterian Theological Seminary as hetaught briefly at the newly established University of
Texas.
B. Dabney wrote much excellent theology, such as his Lectures in SystematicTheology, a huge
volume that served as textbook to thousands and is stillin print. In addition to several other
books, dozens of his essays and articles, usually of a controversial nature, were collected in 4
volumes under the title Discussions (again, still in print).
C. One of Dabneys special areas of interest was in the field of true religious feelings. As
Edwards and Alexander had done, so Dabney probed the nature of feelings and emotions, such
as in his book The Practical Philosophy. He sough? to answer questions such as, What are
feelings, how can one discern if his religious feelings are genuine or not, what is the relation
between faith and feelings! and so forth.
D. Dabney posited that feelings evidence the disposition of the heart. In other words! They are
the fruit of the will. The fallen will, however, is deceitful, thus, feelings in themselves cannot be
trusted but must be tested by Scripture. Now Dabney did not say that a Christian must be Stoic.

143

Not at all. True religious feelings are to be cultivated. But he also issued warnings. For example,
he warned against reading emotional novels too much, for they affect the emotions in a bad way
and reduce them to mere sentimental ism, which in turn weaken the Christians resolve and
moral ability to properly confront a fallen world.

3. The Revival in the Confederate Army.

A. In 1861, Dabney joined the Confederate Army. As a youth, he initially urged the gradual
emancipation of slaves, but then reversed himself. Like many other gentlemen theologians, he
defended slavery - and even owned several slaves himself. This was a regrettable weakness
(great men have great weaknesses). Even after the Civil War, Dabney protested allowing blacks
to be equal church officers in Presbyterian churches.
B. However, that was not the only reason why he and many others joined the Confederacy.
Some of the reasons were cultural, but others were religious. For example, the South was
generally more Christianized than the North, where Liberalism, Unitarianism and Deism were
growing at a furious pace. This was reflected in their respective armies. Many of the generals
and officers in the Confederate Army were very godly. They did not tolerate rank unbelief,
blasphemy or licentious behavior, in their ranks. On the other hand, few of the Union Army
officers were known for Christian godliness, and many at the top, such as U.S. Grant, were
blatantly ungodly and profligate.
C. Take, for example, the revival in the Confederate Army. This true revival spread mainly in
1862. Prayer meetings were everywhere. Repentance and conversions were the order of the
day among many of the troops. Much of this revival came about. Through the gentlemen
theologians who were now gentlemen chaplains, such as Dabney. They had a Bible in one
hand and a musket in the other.
D. Then there was Gen. Stonewall Jackson. Dabney served as an officer and chaplain under
Jackson, who praised Dabney as the most efficient officer ever knew. In turn, Dabney wrote a
stirring biography of Jackson portraying him as perhaps the godliest general he ever knew.
Dabney also served as Jacksons Chief of Staff. [Much of this is chronicled in
J. William Jones Christ in the Camp and Dabneys biography of Jackson.]
E. Of course, this isnt to agree with their assessment of slavery or even the rights or wrongs of
the Civil War. The point is simply that God used these Calvinist chaplains to usher in a heavensent revival in one of the lowest points in American history.

4. James Henley Thornwell (1812-1862).

A. Thornwell is the other major Southern Presbyterian theologian. He taught at South Carolina
College and Columbia Seminary and became the youngest ever Moderator of the Presbyterian
Church (before the North-South split) at age 35. He published only a few short books, but his
many essays and papers were collected and published as The Collected Writings of James
Henley Thornwell in 4 volumes. They are still in print.
B. Thornwell is especially known for his Calvinist ecclesiology. He fine-tuned Presbyterian polity
during years of major controversy. For example, he defended slavery as follows: the Bible
doesnt condemn it, so neither can any Church, nor can the State. This was related to an
important principle in Presbyterian polity, sometimes called the Regulative Principle This says

144

that so far as church polity and worship is concerned, only what is expressly commanded in
Scripture may be practiced. If it not commanded, it lacks warrant and is forbidden. Thus,
parachurch organizations are forbidden. Thornwell even disagreed with Charles Hodge over
whether there should be official missionary boards or only committees. Hodge said boards,
Thornwell said committees.
C. Thornwell also argued for the complete equality among church elders: Presbyterian polity
differentiates Ruling and Teaching elders, the latter alone being the proper pastor and the
one who gives more time and labor to the work of the church, for which he is remunerated.
Some Presbyterians argue that these Teaching elders alone constitute the local presbytery
and alone can lay hands on new elders. Thornwell replied that this would establish a clergy
leading back to Roman prelacy.

5. Other Southern Presbyterian Theologians of Note.

A. John Lafayette Girardeau (1825-1898) was another Confederate chaplain. Hetaught at
Columbia from 1875 till 1895. Among his several books, two are of special note: Calvinism and
Evangelical Arminianism (which deals mainly with election and reprobation) and Discussions of
Theological Questions (mainly on theological method and Scripture). Girardeau was proslavery, but was by no means a racist. He pastored a black church for 8 years and ardently
worked for more evangelization of the blacks, both before and after the Civil War.
B. Benjamin Morgan Palmer (1818-1902) was the first Moderator of the Southern Presbyterian
denomination formed in 1861. He spent most of his ministry as pastor of First Presbyterian
Church, New Orleans, LA. In addition to a large biography of Thornwell, he wrote several
excellent books of practical theology, such as The Theology of Prayer and The Family.
C. Robert Alexander Webb (1856-?) was another notable Southern theologian. He wrote
Christian Sa1vation, Its Doctrine and Experience, but is perhaps more noted for writing The
Theology of Infant Salvation. In this important book, Webb dealt at length on a much-discussed
but little written-about topic, namely, whether infants may be saved and if so, how.
D. William S. Plumer (1802-1880) was actually a transplanted Yankee who ministered in the
South. His major contribution was his three large synoptical commentaries on Psalms,
Hebrews and Romans. In these, he not only gives his own comments, but also collects and
presents the major views of the major commentators throughout history.
E. Thomas Cary Johnson (1859-1936) was the last great Southern theologian. He was the
biographer of both Dabney and Palmer and stood for the Old School Calvinism in the crucial
days when the Southern Presbyterians were gradually losing their theological bearings, before
almost losing them completely after World War II.

6. The Mercersburg Theology.

A. Back up North, another unusual deviation from historic Calvinism came to the fore in the
1840s and 50s. This was centered at Mercersburg Theological Seminary, a small seminary of
the German Reformed Church (descended from the Palatinate Calvinists of southern Germany
in the Reformation).
B. This theology reacted against both Princetonian orthodoxy and Finneyian revivalism. Its
alternative? Sacramental ism. Mercersburg Theology de-emphasized Calvinism and dogma and

145

argued that they lead only to dry spirituality. True spirituality was only through the Lords
Supper. The Supper was more than a mere remembrance and even more than Calvin had
taught. It contained the Real Presence of Christ in a way reminiscent of High Church
Episcopalianism and Lutheranism. Moreover, this theology strove for ecumenical unity with all
Protestants and even Catholics.
C. John William Nevin (1803-1886) was the originator of this theology. He had studied under
Hodge at Princeton, and then changed to the German Reformed Church. He was joined by
Philip Schaff (1819-1893), who was born in Switzerland and educated in Germany. Schaff came
to Mercersburg in 1844. He was one of the all-time great church historians. His literary output
has been equaled by only a few. He wrote dozens of books, such as ^ History of the Christian
Church (8 volumes). He also edited many more, such as Creeds of Christendom (3 vols), the
Schaff-Hertzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (4 vols, later expanded to 12), plus
supervised the translations of most of the Church Fathers and many important German Bible
commentaries. Later, Schaff would teach at Union Theological Seminary in New York from 1870
to 1893, where yet another battle over Calvinism would take place.

7. William G.T. Shedd (1820-1894).

A. There were and are two Union Theological Seminaries, one in Richmond and one in New
York City. The one in New York was affiliated with the Northern Presbyterians and its leading
Calvinist theologian was the great William G.T. Shedd.
B. Shedd was very similar to Charles Hodge. His Dogmatic Theology in three large volumes is
second only to Hodges, and in some respects is its equal. Shedd also spilt much ink on other
theological topics: History of Christian Doctrine (2 vols.), The Doctrine of Endless Punishment, a
commentary on Romans, and several more.
C. Shedd also wrote Calvinism: Pure and Mixed to defend the Westminster Confessionas the
doctrinal standard of the Presbyterian Church. Certain Northern Presbyterians were arguing that
Westminster was outdated and needed serious revision. Shedd cogently argued that this was a
ruse. They really were attacking Calvinism and Evangelicalism.
D. Take, for example, the case of Charles A. Briggs (1841-1913). Briggs also taught at Union
and was a leading Hebrew scholar. He was co-editor of the definitive Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew lexicon and of the International Critical Commentary series. Now Briggs was growing
increasingly Liberal. He denied Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He said that Scripture
contained errors. He employed the Historical-Critical Method of hermeneutics.
E. Briggs was opposed by Shedd at Union and Warfield and A.A. Hodge at Princeton. The
result was unusual: Briggs lost the battle but won the war. He was put on trial for heresy and
exonerated by his presbytery, but this verdict was overthrown by the General Assembly. Briggs
was dismissed from the Presbyterian Church, so he became an Episcopalian. Because of the
verdict, Union Seminary pulled out of the Presbyterian church and became independent and
inter-denominational. It then quickly became ultra-liberal, Shedds influence notwithstanding.
Today, both Union Seminaries are by-words for extreme Liberalism. Shedd is either forgotten or
mocked at the one and Dabney at the other. They have gone the way of Princeton.
8. Scottish Calvinism of the 19th-century.
A. Meanwhile, Calvinism back in Scotland was undergoing growing pains as well. In the 19thcentury, we find some of the greatest Calvinists who ever lived. There was, for example, Robert
Murray MCheyne (1813-1843), a Church of Scotland pastor who was a model pastor in all

146

respects. Though he was in ill health most of the time, his fervent preaching and exemplary
prayer life showed how true revival can come to a local church. He died at 30, accomplishing
more in those few years than most men do in a longer lifetime. Andrew Bonars Memoir and
Remains of Robert Murray MCheyne is a classic.
B. Then there was John Dick (1764-1833). Dick was in the Secession Church, the Presbyterian
denomination that split from the Church of Scotland at the time of the Marrow Controversy. Dick
wrote a large systematic theology (Lectures in Theology) that was used on both sides of the
Atlantic. Among the several controversies in which he was involved, Dick argued that a church
should have a stated confession of faith. In Scotland, this was the Westminster Confession.
Though these confessions are not inspired, yet they should be employed to give objective
statements of faith and, as such, are essential to the proper governing and teaching of the
Church.

9. Scottish Low Calvinism, or the New Light.

A. In the first half of the 19th-century, a series of theological battles arose in the Church of
Scotland. They had several doctrines in common against the prevailing High Calvinism. They all
taught universal atonement and that assurance was of the essence of saving faith. But from
there the different factions of this Low Calvinism went into different and sometimes strange
directions.
B. Edward Irving (1792-1834) was a Church of Scotland pastor. He started offs Assistant
Pastor to the eminent Thomas Chalmers at the Tron Church in Glasgow. Then he assumed the
pastorate of a Church of Scotland church in London. During that time he became close friends
of several famous writers and poets, such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Henry Drummond and
Thomas Carlyle, whom he had known from his youth.
C. Immediately Irving was a sensation as an extremely popular preacher. Some of this had to
do with his tall, dark and handsome appearance. But most of't had to do with his extraordinary
preaching style and flair for theological eccentricity. Three of these eccentricities bear
mentioning.
D. First, Irving taught the heretical notion that Christ had a sinful flesh but never sinned. At the
Incarnation, Christ took on the nature, which Adam had after the Fall, not the innocent nature
before the Fall. Thus, Christ would be tempted internally as well as externally and thereby would
be able to sympathize with men. Yet Irving insisted that Christ never actually sinned. He
developed these views in The Doctrine of the Incarnation Opened and The Orthodox and
Catholic Doctrine of Our Lords Human Nature. Of course, Irving was wrong. Christ did not
inherit original sin and therefore had neither sinful flesh nor nature, for original sin is passed on
through the father but Christ was born of a virgin (Luke 1:35).
E. Secondly, Irving felt that Christs return was very near. Unlike most Calvinists, Irving was
Pre-Millennial. But that wasnt the problem. Rather, he interpreted events such as the French
Revolution and the rise of Napoleon as fulfillments of prophecy, and concluded that Christ must
return within a very short time. Now most of this was not new. But he added a twist.
F. In 1827, Irving translated a book from Spanish entitled, The Coming Messiah. This book was
purported to be written by one Ben Ezra, a converted Jew, but was in fact written by Diaz Y
Lacunza, a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest. Lacunza in turn derived most of his distinctive
eschatology from Francisco Ribera, a counter-Reformation Jesuit of the 16th-century. Irving
wrote a200 page preface to the book. With a few interesting modifications, he accepted its

147

distinctive teaching, namely, that Christ would rapture the Church out of the Earth before the
future Great Tribulation, not after. Ribera and Lacunza taught this to refute the Reformed view
that the Papacy is the Antichrist, But, they argued, if the Church will be taken out before the
Antichrist arrives, then obviously the Papacy isnt the Antichrist. Irving, then, was the first to
promote the doctrine of the Pre-Tribulational Rapture within Protestantism. Whether this
doctrine is Scriptural is not our point of discussion. In turn, Irving passed on this doctrine to John
Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren.
G. Third, this overlapped with Irvings Pentecostalism. Since the return of Christ was imminent,
Irving argued, there must be a latter-day pouring out of the Spirit and his miraculous gifts as at
Pentecost. The Church Era will end as it began. Soon Irvings church was practicing speaking in
tongues, prophesying and healings. In one famous incident, a young Scottish lassie named
Margaret MacDonald prophesied an imminent Pre-Tribulational Rapture. To be precise, she
also predicted a Partial Rapture. She spoke in a trance.
H. In 1833, Edward Irving was defrocked from the Church of Scotland for his views, mainly over
Christs nature and the charismatic gifts. Some 800 of his church members left with him and
started a new church, later to be affiliated with the so-called Catholic Apostolic Church. But this
new congregation would not have its pastor for long. Irving suffered serious health problems. A
prophecy was given that he would be miraculously healed. Instead, Irving died.
I. Another strange case was that of John MacLeod Campbell (1800-1872). Campbell taught
universal atonement that virtually eliminated penal satisfaction. In its place he taught something
akin to the Moral Influence Theory. His Gospel is that Christ displays the love of God and
completed forgiveness, thus: God loves you. You are already forgiven. This was the
predecessor of the modern Scottish Neo-Orthodoxy of Thomas and James Torrance.
J. Campbell also taught something new: vicarious repentance. Christ not only died for us, but
He also repented for us as the perfect High Priest. This had some things in common with
Irvings ideas, but Campbell insisted that Christ never sinned - He only confessed and repented
of the sins that were imputed to Him. The ChurchF Scotland disagreed and threw Campbell
out in 1831. From 1833 to 1859 Campbell would pastor an Independent church in Glasgow. His
views are summed up in The Nature of the Atonement. Needless to say, this heresy is not even
hinted at in Scripture.
K. James Mori son (1816-1893) was another Low Calvinist. He didnt imbibe the views of Irving
or Campbell, but he did reject limited atonement. With only a few modifications, his theology
gradually degenerated into a high Arminianism. For this he was ejected from the United
Secession Church, and then formed the Evangelical Union (1843), or Horisonianism. When he
was in more Calvinistic moods, he wrote several excellent commentaries on Matthew, Mark,
and portions of Romans.
L. Lastly, Ralph Wardlaw (1779-1853) was the highest of these Low Calvinists. That is, he
deviated the least from historic Calvinism. His Systematic Theology in 3 volumes is the fullest
from a Low Calvinist and has had much influence on later Low Calvinists, such as Lewis Sperry
Chafer. Lesser Low Calvinists of the period include W. Lindsay Alexander and John Brown.

10. The Disruption.

A. The preceding controversies were relatively minor. But during the so-called Ten Years
Conflict (1834-1843), the most major controversy and division in the history of the Church of
Scotland was coming to a head. The Evangelical party opposed the Moderates on three main

148

issues:
A. Evangelicalism. A dry orthodoxy had set in, producing a nominalism akin to
Sandemanianism of the 18th-century. The Moderates approved, * the Evangelicals called for
living faith and spirituality, even revival.
B. Patronage. The Moderates accepted the system whereby the wealthy landed gentry and
aristocracy had the deciding vote and veto on the selection of local Presbyterian ministers. The
Evangelicals disagreed.
C. Erastianism. This goes back to John Lightfoot at the Westminster Assembly. Gradually, the
Scottish government had more and more power over and in Church of Scotland ecclesiastical
affairs. For example, the State supported the idea of patronage. Moderates approved of this,
Evangelicals disapproved.
B. It came to a head on May 18, 1843. Thomas Chalmers led some 200 ministers (out of 1,203)
in a walkout of the General Assembly. They then formed the Free Church of Scotland with
Chalmers as the first Moderator. A total of474 ministers would leave or be ejected, who joined
the Free Kirk. A few Evangelical Calvinists stayed in the Church of Scotland, but most left.
C. Eventually, even the Church of Scotland abolished patronage, but its orthodoxy went
downhill. Today, no more than about 5% of the Church of Scotland is Evangelical, let alone
Calvinist in the historic sense of the term. The Free Church had a couple of divisions later on.
Some went back to the Church of Scotland, others formed the Free Presbyterian Church of
Scotland, or the Wee Frees. Both the Free Kirk and the Wee Frees are solidly Reformed to
this day, small as they are. They hold to the Westminster Confession. They also sing only
psalms and without instrumental accompaniment. Another Tasting monument of the Disruption
is the founding of New College, with Chalmers as the first Principal. For years this was a bastion
of Calvinism a la Princeton. In time, however, the Church of Scotland managed to have the
courts turn over New College to them when some Free Churchers returned. As expected, even
New College has apostatized. I studied there for 7 years in the 1970s and 80s. I was 100 years
too late. New College is now part of Edinburgh University.

11. The Free Church of Scotland Theologians.

A. Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847) pastored at the influential Tron Church, Glasgow, then
taught-at St. Andrews and Edinburgh Universities. He was a powerful preacher, a resourceful
organizer, a model pastor and the leader of the Disruption. He authored some 34 volumes of
books and sermons, such as The Institutes of Theology. But even Chalmers had his
eccentricities: he was the originator of the Gap Theory (i.e., there was a long time period and
geological catastrophe between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2).
B. William Cunningham (1805-1861) was another leader of the Disruption and the second
Principal of New College. He was the Charles Hodge of Scotland so far as scholarship goes.
Among his important writings: Historical Theology (2 vols.) and The Reformers and the
Theology of the Reformation.
C. Robert S. Candlish (1806-1873), another Disruption leader, was the third Principal of New
College. He wrote expositions of Genesis, I John, Ephesians, others, plus several books on the
atonement.
D. James Buchanan (1804-1870) became Minister of the High Kirk, which is St. Giles
Cathedral, the most important church in the Church of Scotland.But he followed Gods call and

149

left in the Disruption. He succeeded Chalmers as Professor of Systematic Theology and wrote
several important works, such as The Office and Work of the Holy Spirit and The Doctrine of
Justification. Both are considered among the best in their fields.
E. Patrick Fairbairn (1806-1874) wrote the definitive work on typology (The Typology of
Scripture) and a large work on eschatology (The Interpretation of Prophecy), plus edited a Bible
encyclopedia, wrote on hermeneutics, etc.
F. Time evades us to tell of John Rabbi Duncan (1796-1870), a converted Jew; David Brown
(1803-1897), a major Post-Millenialists; James and Douglas Bannerman; George Smeaton, and
others. Though not at New College, Andrew and Horatius Bonar (1810-1892, 1808-1889) were
influential hymnists and writers.

12. Nineteenth-Century English Calvinism.

A. South of the British border, Calvinism was in decline in most quarters. There were some
important Calvinists in the Church of England, such as J.C. Ryle (1816-1900). Ryle became
Bishop of Liverpool and the leader of the Evangelicals in the Church of England. A four-point
Calvinist, he wrote many books, which are still in print. Among them are his Expository
Thoughts on the Gospels (7 vols.), Knots Untied and Holiness. Ryle is practical and
experimental Calvinism at its best. His pen was a knife which opened the heart, exposed sin
and poured in grace.
B. But by this century, there was almost no English Presbyterianism left and even the
Calvinistic Independents were in decline. The real promoters of Calvinists were the Baptists,
such as the great Charles Haddon Spurgeon. In the next study, we will examine Baptist
Calvinism.

Recommended Reading
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Discussions. Banner of Truth publishes the first 2 volumes and
selections from vols. 3 and 4 in a third volume. Sprinkle Publications publishes all 4 unabridged
volumes from time to time.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Life and Campaigns of Lieu.-Gen. Thomas J. Stonewall Jackson.
Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications.
Jones, J. William. Christ in the Camp. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle. (Fullest on the revival in the
Confederate Army ever written)
Jones, J. William. The Life and Times of Gen. Robert E. Lee. Harrisonburg:
Sprinkle. (Shows how Lee was a fine Christian and involved in the revival)
Thornwell, James Henley. The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell. 4 vols. Carlisle:
Banner of Truth.
Johnson, Thomas Cary. The Life and Letters of Robert Lewis Dabney. Banner of Truth. Palmer,
Benjamin Morgan. The Life and Letters of James Henley Thornwell. Banner. Palmer, B.M.; and
Alexander, J.W. The Family. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle. Johnson, Thomas Gary. The Life and
Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer. Banner. Girardeau, John L. Calvinism and Evangelical

150

Arminianism. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle. Girardeau, John L. Discussions of Theological Questions.

Harrisonburg: Sprinkle. Smith, Morton. Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology. Carlisle:
Banner of Truth. Holifield, E. Brooks. Gentlemen Theologians. Durham: duke University Press.
Wells, David, ed. Reformed Theology in America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (ch.4)
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Cunningham,
William. The Reformation and the Theology of the Reformers. Banner. Buchanan, James. The
Doctrine of Justification. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Daliimore, Arnold. The Life of Edward Irving.
Carlisle: Banner of Truth. MacLeod, John. Scottish Theology. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Bonar,
Andrew. Memoir and Remains of Robert Murray MCheyne. Carlisle: Banner. Ryle, J.C.
Holiness. Old Tappan: Fleming Revel 1. Shedd, William G.T. Calvinism: Pure and Mixed.
Carlisle: Banner of Truth.

151

Chapter 18. Calvinistic Baptists.

1. Introduction.
A. Calvinistic Baptists, Baptist Calvinism, Reformed Baptist and such terms are often
considered self-contradictory to both Calvinists and Baptists. Most Calvinists have been paedobaptists; they baptize infants. They sometimes contend that infant baptism is essential to true
Calvinism and, therefore, so-called Calvinistic Baptists are inconsistent or partial Calvinists.
Some even say they are not Calvinistic at all.
B. On the other hand, many Baptists today would agree. They say that Calvinism implies infant
baptism, and therefore to be a historical Baptist one cannot be Calvinistic. One sometimes
hears the slogan, Baptists are neither Calvinist nor Arminian, but Baptist- Then there are those
Baptists who sincerely think they are Calvinist because they believe in eternal security but reject
the other four points of Calvinism.
C. The truth of the matter is that a large number of Calvinists - perhaps as many as a third have been Baptists. Similarly, when one studies Baptist history one learns that up until the
present century, most Baptists have indeed been Calvinistic (and that means far more than
simply accepting eternal security). In this study, we will discuss these issues.

2. The Anabaptists.
A. The Anabaptists arose as a movement early in the Reformation of the 16th century. In a way,
the# preceded the Calvinist movement. The first Anabaptists came from Zurich, Switzerland,
around the year 1521 as an offshoot of the Swiss Reformation of Ulrich Zwingli. The Zwinglian
movement would later produce Calvinism, but not properly until the 1530s.
B. From Switzerland, the movement spread to southern Germany, east to Austria and Poland,
and north to Holland and eventually England. For the record, the leading Anabaptists were the
following: Conrad Grebe, Balthasar Hubmaier, Hans Denck, Menno Simons, Melchior
Hoffmann, Thomas Munzer, Pilgram Marpeck, Jacob Hutter and Kaspar Schwenkfeld. The
movement had several branches. The most extreme branch included heretics like Michael
Servetus and Faustus Socinus and the Zwickau Prophets. The more moderate branches later
produced the Mennonites and what are termed Baptists.
C. Some were visionary mystics; most were not. Some were pre-millennial, others radical postmillenialists. Some were communalists. Most accepted Zwinglis view of the Lords Supper as
opposed to the Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Calvinistic views. But these issues do not touch
the heart of the movement. Rather, there were four main issues, which characterized
Anabaptism:
(1) Believers Baptism. The Anabaptists argued that water baptism was meant only for
believers. Infants cannot believe, therefore infants are not to be baptized, Incidently, the
question of immersion or sprinkling did not yet arise. Most Anabaptists sprinkled or
poured.
(2)Believers Church Membership. Water baptism as a believer was usually considered
essential for church membership. Unbelievers and infants were to be excluded from
church membership and barred from the Lords Table.

152

(3) Low Church Ecclesiology. Anabaptism usually advocated the autonomy of the local
church in varying degrees. Even the highest Anabaptists disliked the denominational
structures of Romanism, Lutheranism and Calvinism.
(4) Separation of Church and State. Most Anabaptists were pacifists and did not think
Christians should be involved in civil government. Most did not swear oaths. At root, they
pushed for individual conscience and denied the idea of a State Church.
D. Consequently, the Anabaptists were severely persecuted by the Catholics and mainstream
Protestants alike. Many were put to death, sometimes by drowning. Thus, ever since the
beginning, those advocating Believers Baptism have been held in suspicion by Lutherans and
paedo-baptist Calvinists.
E. Pertinent to our study is their theology of grace. The earliest Anabaptists accepted the 5
Sola doctrines of the Reformation. However, when it came to what would later be termed the
5 points of Calvinism, most Anabaptists were very low down on the scale. Some were what
would later be termed Low Calvinists, while others would be Pre-Arminians. One of the
reasons is that they were not usually theologically oriented. Their Christianity was more practical
and spiritual, and much of their writings and activities concerned, ecclesiastical matters rather
than the issues of the doctrines of grace.

3. 17th Century English Calvinistic Baptists.

A. This state of affairs continued until the middle of the 17th century. It was in England that the
Baptists would grow the most. By the 1640s, half were Arminian, half were Calvinist. Then the
balance began to shift, after which the greater part were clearly Calvinistic.
B. The First London Confession of 1644 was the occasion for this shift. It is quite clearly
Calvinistic. For example, on the extent of the atonement it is more explicit than even the
Westminster Confession: Christ Jesus by His death did bring forth salvation and reconciliation
only for the elect. Yet the Confession took pains to add that the Gospel should be preached to
all men. However, unlike mainstream Calvinism, the London Confession said that the preaching
of the Gospel does not have to be preceded by the preaching of the Law to work conviction of
sin. The Confession clearly teaches unconditional election (Infralapsarianism) and the other
points of Calvinism. Lastly, this was the first major Baptist confession to state that immersion is
the only proper mode of baptism.
C. The Second London Confession, also known as the Baptist Confession of 1689,was a
revision of the Westminster Confession on the articles of baptism, church government and
Church-State relationships. Otherwise, the two are virtually verbatim and identical. It is even
more explicitly Calvinistic than the First London Confession. It is also much longer, more
extensive and more detailed.
D. Now, the main point to realize here is this: the Second London Confession has historically
been by far the most important Baptist confession of faith. It has been used by more Baptists
than any other. It has been more influential than any other. Therefore, if any contemporary
Baptist says to you Baptists have not been Calvinists, then you need to give him a copy of this
Confession. Its Calvinism is explicit throughout, as in the following excerpts:
God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own
will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever comes to pass... Although God knoweth
whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed
anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such

153

conditions... By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are
predestinated, or foreordained to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious
grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious
justice. (3:1-3)
E. Four 17th century English Calvinist Baptists stand out. First, Benjamin Keach (1640-1704)
was the leading London Baptist responsible for the Second London Confession. He also revised
the Westminster Shorter Catechism for the Baptists (1693). Keach was also the first major
English hymnologist. Before the 1690s, virtually all Calvinistic and Baptist churches sung only
psalms. Keach collected and wrote many hymns and published an extremely popular
hymnbook, which would pave the way for the Wesleys, Watts, Doddridge and Newton. Then
there were William Kiffin (1616-1701), Hanserd Knollys (1598-1691) and the immortal John
Bunyan T1628-1688). All were emphatic Calvinists. Bunyan was the most read of the four, but
the 3 Ks were most influential in organizing the Calvinistic Baptists.

4. The Strict and Particular Baptists.

A. From the latter 17th century on, Calvinistic Baptists were generally known as Particular
Baptists to differentiate them from the General Baptists who were Arminian (e.g., John Smyth,
Thomas Helwys, Dan Taylor). The term Particular refers to particular or limited election,
redemption and grace -the second, third and fourth points of Calvinism.
B. In the 18th and early 19th century England, the leading Particular Baptists included Abraham
Booth (1734-1806, author of The Reign of Grace), Robert Hall, Sr (1728-1791) and Jr (17641831), the four leaders of the Great Missionary Movement which have been mentioned earlier
(Andrew Fuller, William Carey, John Ryland, and John Rippon), and John Fawcette. In
Scotland, Robert and James Haldane were the most influential Particular Baptists of the period.
And then there were the Hyper-Calvinist Baptists (see below).
C. Now the Particular Baptists were divided into 2 further camps. First, there were the Strict
Baptists. Strict here does not mean strict discipline or legalism. Rather, it means that
Communion is to be restricted to those who have been baptized as believers. It is synonymous
with the term Close (or Closed) Communion, which is used more in America than in Britain.
Some General Baptists have been Strict; most have not been. Most, but not all, Particular
Baptists have been Strict. John Bunyan and Robert Hall, Sr, for example, were Open Baptists
on Communion. Strict Communion is more than forbidding the Table to unbelievers; almost all
paedo-baptist Calvinists would agree on that. Rather, Strict Communion means that only
believers who have been baptized after conversion (which usually means by immersion) are
eligible for Communion. Some would make this essential for church membership also. This
makes relations with paedo-baptist Calvinists difficult, for while most paedo Calvinists would
admit Baptist Calvinists to the Table, a Strict Calvinist would bar most paedo Calvinists, even
Calvin himself.
D. The Strict and Particular Baptists (Strict Baptists, for short) continue till today as the largest
group of Calvinistic Baptists in Britain. John Rippon was the great organizer of the Particular
Baptists. He succeeded John Gill as pastor, compiled an important hymnbook, and helped
found the Particular Baptist Union. In time, the term Particular was omitted and General
Baptists were admitted into the present Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland since 1832.
But since around 1880, it has not even been predominantly Evangelical. Today, it is mainly
liberal. When General Baptists were admitted, most Strict Baptists withdrew and formed several
other associations, some of which became Hyper-Calvinist.

154

5. Hyper-Calvinist Baptists.
A. John Gill (1697-1771) was the definitive Hyper-Calvinist. He was also the most important
Calvinistic Baptist theologian of all time. Now Gill defended Believers Baptism from a decidedly
Calvinistic Covenant Theology. He argued as follows. Water Baptism is a sign of the Covenant,
but indirectly. Spirit-baptism, not water baptism, is the seal of the Covenant. This occurs at
conversion. Water baptism is the external sign of internal Spirit-baptism. The sign is to be
administered only to those who evidence that they have the internal seal. In other words, water
baptism is only for believers.
B. Gill and other Calvinistic Baptists have used the other major arguments. One is this: all N.T.
commands and examples of water baptism are for believers, while there are no commands or
examples of baptizing infants or known unbelievers. Moreover, infant baptism opens the door to
the heresy of baptismal regeneration. As concerns election, Calvinistic Believers Baptism is
predicated on the presupposition that ones election can be discerned by certain marks, both to
the individual and to the Church. One can discern if he has been converted, and if converted
then elected. The Church is to withhold baptism from those who have not yet evidenced that
they are both converted and elected. Of course, one might be elected but not yet converted, but
the Church has no way of knowing this. Infant baptism does not guarantee either conversion or
election; rather it breeds false assurance.
C. Curiously, most Hyper-Calvinists have been Baptists. Probably three-fourths of all Hypers
have been Baptists, mainly in three groups. The largest has been the Gospel Standard Baptists
(William Gadsby, J.C. Philpot, etc). This is a faction of the existing Strict and Particular Baptists.
All Gospel Standard Baptists are Strict and Particular, but not all Strict and Particular Baptists
are Gospel Standard. Then there are the Earthen Vessels, today mainly defunct. In America,
the largest group of Hypers have been the Primitive Baptists.

6. Abaptist Hyper-Calvinists.
A. Another group, though extremely small, bears brief mention because they have sometimes
been associated with the Calvinistic Baptists. A few Hyper-Calvinists, mainly going back to
William Huntington, have been Abaptist (or Non-Baptist). Of course, not all baptists have been
Calvinist. For example, the Quakers, Salvation Army and Ultra-Dispensationalists (E.W.
Bullinger and others) have been Abaptist but certainly not Calvinistic.
B. The Abaptists argue that water baptism was only for the first century, either only until about
70 AD or only for Jewish Christians. The key verse is Eph. 4:5, There is... one baptism. Of
course, the refutation is simple. Water baptism is in the Great Commission of Matt. 28 and Mark
16. It is not just for Jewish believers until 70 AD, but for Gentile believers as well and until the
end of the age. Now as to the Hyper-Calvinist Abaptists, they are usually of a very mystical,
Experimental variety and often of the same stripe as the early Anabaptists who worried the
Reformers. Fortunately, they are very few and far between.

7. Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892).

A. If John Calvin was the greatest Calvinist theologian, Jonathan Edwards the greatest Calvinist

155

philosopher, and George Whitefield the greatest Calvinist evangelist, then by common consent
Charles Haddon Spurgeon was the greatest Calvinist preacher. And Spurgeon was a Calvinistic
Baptist. Anyone who says that Baptist Calvinism is a contradiction or non-entity must deal with
Spurgeon. Many Baptists admire Spurgeon without realizing that he was an emphatic Calvinist.
Actually, anyone who says he likes to read Spurgeon and does not know he was a Calvinist has
not really read much of the man.
B. Spug was converted as a boy when a snowstorm led him into a Methodist church rather
than his usual Baptist church. The text of the sermon, Look unto me, all the ends of the earth,
and be saved (Isa. 45:22) wrought salvation in the young man forever. He was baptized and
began preaching while still a teenager. At the age of 19, he became pastor of the church
formerly pastored by John Gill and John Rippon, what came to be renamed as the Metropolitan
Tabernacle. It immediately grew from a few hundred to several thousand. For the next 34 years,
Spurgeon would preach regularly to 5,000 church members. This is remarkable for two reasons.
First, he had no public address system of amplification, and second, a church of that size was
virtually unprecedented in the history of the Church, anywhere.
C. Spurgeon published thousands of sermons, more than any before or since. His Metropolitan
Tabernacle Pulpit series fills 63 large volumes of small print. Then there was his Treasury of
David, his masterpiece commentary on the Psalms in 7 large volumes. Dozens of other books
also came from his prolific pen: Lectures to My Students, All of Grace, a massive
Autobiography, and others. It has been calculated that Spurgeon wrote and published more
words than any other Christian who wrote in English.
D. Theres more. He started an orphanage, a Pastors College and a Col portage Association
for the distribution of Christian literature, plus other endeavours. Spurgeon was regularly
afflicted with gout, which balanced his famous sense of humor and big black cigars.
E. There were two major controversies at which he was the center. First, in1864 Spurgeon
preached a famous sermon (later published) exposing baptismal regeneration. He argued that
the Church of England taught baptismal regeneration in the Thirty-Nine Articles* Spurgeon then
called on Evangelicals to withdraw from the Church of England. Few did, but the controversy
was intense.
F. Second, there was the Downgrade Controversy. The Metropolitan Tabernacle had once
been the center of Hyper-Calvinism, then under John Rippon the center of the Baptist Union.
This Union was originally Calvinist, then just Evangelical, and by 1887 hardly even Evangelical
any more. Blatant liberals occupied many Baptist Union churches. Spurgeon preached and
wrote against this. But few heeded his call. So he pulled out of the Union. Spurgeon believed in
Open Communion and so could not join the Strict Baptists, so he stayed an independent
Particular Baptist.
G. Most of Spurgeons books and sermons are still in print. They deserve a wide readership.
Baptists love them. So do Calvinists. They are especially loved by those who are both
Calvinistic and Baptistic

8. Baptist Calvinism in America.

A. The growth of Baptist Calvinism moved along similar lines in America as in Britain. The early
Baptists, such as Roger Wi11 Jams (1603-1684), were sometimes Calvinist but that was not
their major concern. Religious liberty and the validity of Believers Baptism were the major
issues. In time, it became clear that most were Calvinists, such as the great Isaac Backus

156

(1724-1806).
B. The Philadelphia Confession of 1742 was a minor revision of the Second London
Confession by Benjamin Keachs son Elias. It was printed by Benjamin Franklin. It was the first
American Baptist confession and was emphatically Calvinistic. Then there was the New
Hampshire Confession (1833), a completely new and shorter Baptist Confession. It too was
Calvinistic, but somewhat more moderate in order to balance the spread of the Hyper-Calvinist
Primitive Baptists.

9. Southern Baptist Calvinism.

A. Like the Presbyterians, most American Baptists were affiliated with one denomination until
the issue of slavery and states rights caused them to split north and south. The division came
in 1845. The northern branch today is mainly represented by the American Baptist Convention.
As with the Presbyterians, the northern Baptists slipped into forms of Arminianism and liberalism
before the century was over. But the Southern Baptist Convention lasted much longer in its
Calvinistic Evangelicalism.
B. It comes as a great shock to most Southern Baptists today that all of the founders and
leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention were, to a man, all emphatic and explicit five-point
Calvinists. Such included the following:
(1) W. B. Johnson (1782-1862). First President of the SBC.
(2) Patrick H. Hell (1814-1888). President of the SBC for 17 years.
(3) John L. Dago, (1794-1884). The first major SBC theologian. His Manual of Theology was the
standard textbook of theology in all SBC seminaries.
(4) Basil Manly, Sr (1798-1868) and Jr (1825-1892). Leading founders and theologians in the
SBC in its formative years.
(5) John Broadus (1827-1895). The official SBC publisher, Broadman Press, gets its name from
Broadus and Manly.
(6) James Pettigru Boyce (1827-1888). SBC President, founder and first President of Southern
Baptist Seminary. His Abstract of Systematic Theology rivalled Daggs as the leading SBC
official textbook on theology.
(7) B.H. Carroll (1843-1914). Founder of Southwestern Baptist Seminary.
C. These are giants among Southern Baptists. And they were all emphatic Calvinists. They had
no time or patience for Arminianism of any stripe. But what happened? The change happened in
the early 1900s when E.Y. Hull ins (1860-1928) began to disseminate Arminian theology at
Southwestern Seminary and in his The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression, which
eventually eclipsed Dagg and Boyces textbooks in the seminaries. With the FundamentalistModernist Controversy of the 1920s, Arminian Fundamentalism gained the upper hand. Some
of them implied that Calvinism opened the door to Modernism. In any case, Calvinism has been
in retreat in the SBC ever since.
D. Today, there is only a small Calvinist wing in the SBC, mainly through the leadership of
Ernest Riesinger and Tom Nettles. Calvinism and Arminianism are no longer the issues being
fought. Biblical inerrancy is the main issue. If the SBC liberals (Moderates) win the current
battle, there would be no hope of returning to the Baptist Calvinism of its founders. On the other
hand, if the Fundamentalists - almost all of Whom are Arminians - win, then there is a glimmer

157

of hope that they will re-examine their roots and rediscover the vibrant, Biblical Calvinism of
their founders. On the other hand, some SBC Calvinists fear that if the Arminian
Fundamentalists win the current battle and drive out the liberals, then they will turn their guns on
the Calvinists and drive them out next. If the history of British Baptists and American
Presbyterians and Congregationalists is repeated, then neither Fundamentalists nor Calvinists
will win. Water runs downhill.

10. Miscellaneous Calvinistic Baptists.

A. The Landmark Baptists, starting from J.R. Graves (1820-1893), were at one time quite
Calvinistic. Landmarkism teaches that there has been an unbroken organic lineage (the trail of
blood) of true Baptist Churches from the time of the N.T. All others are not churches but
societies. Landmarkism. also denies that there is such a thing as a Universal Church. Today,
most Landmarkers are Low Calvinist at best and often quite Arminian.
B. The Regular Baptist Heritage Fellowship was begun by Kenneth Good to bring the General
Association of Regular Baptists Convention back to its Calvinist roots. Good has authored two
very useful books in the debate. In Are Baptists Calvinists? He proves that mainstream Baptists
have always been Calvinists. But in Are Baptists Reformed? he answers in the negative. Good
makes the distinction between Calvinist and Reformed. Baptists are Calvinist in theology and
soteriology, Good argues, but not Reformed in ecclesiology.
C. The Sovereign Grace Baptists can indirectly be traced back to the influence of Arthur W.
Pink during the years he ministered in Kentucky early in the 1900s.Since World War II, the nondenominational movement has grown slowly through the leadership of Henry Mahan, B.B.
Caldwell, L.R. Shelton, E.W. Jones, Ferrell Griswold and especially the fiery Calvinistic
evangelist Rolfe Barnard (1904-1969).
D. The Reformed Baptists started in Britain and have grown in America as well. In Britain, the
leading name is Enroll Hulse, editor of Reformation Today, the unofficial organ of the Reformed
Baptists, and organizer of the Carey Conference. Hulse once worked for the Banner of Truth
and travels around the world assisting and organizing Reformed Baptist Churches. Other
leading British Reformed Baptists include Peter Masters (pastor of Metropolitan Tabernacle,
London), Geoffrey Thomas (Aberystwyth, Wales), and Peter Lewis (Nottingham, the leading
Reformed Baptist semi-charismatic). The Reformed Baptists in Britain overlap to some extent
with the Strict Baptists, but are not always Strict. Some of them have formed the Grace Baptist
Assembly.
E. In America, the two leading Reformed Baptists are Al Martin (New Jersey) and Walter
Chantry (Pennsylvania). Most Reformed Baptists are in the northeast United States. Down
south, the leading names are Don McKinney (Louisiana), Gary Long and Drew Garner (Texas).
McKinney and his son Ron were key movers in the formation of the Continental Baptist
Convention in the early 1980s. The southern Reformed Baptists have disagreed with the
northern Reformed Baptists over such issues as the Law (the northerners have been closer to
the historically Reformed position, while the southerners have modified it).

11. Conclusion.
A. It is my contention that history abundantly shows that it is possible to be both Calvinistic and
Baptistic. While the paedo-baptist Calvinist and Arminian Baptists agree that Calvinistic Baptist

158

is a self-contradiction, history shows otherwise. Those who are both Calvinist and Baptist argue
that a large number of Calvinists have been Baptists and most Baptists before 1900 were
Calvinists. But more importantly, they contend that theirs is the position most true to the
Scriptures. They reformed the Reformation in the right direction.

Recommended Reading
Nettles, Tom. By His Grace and For His Glory. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (An
exhaustive study of the history and theology of Calvinistic Baptists.)
Good, Kenneth. Are Baptists Calvinists? and Are Baptists Reformed? Loraine: Regular Baptist
Heritage Fellowship.
Spurgeon, C.H. The Autobiography of Charles Haddon Spurgeon. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner.
Spurgeon, C.H. A Defence of Calvinism. Canton, GA: Free Grace Publications
Spurgeon, C.H. Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace. Pasadena: Pilgrim Publications.
Selphe, Robert. Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle.
Balke, Willem. Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Riesinger, Ernest. A Southern Baptist Looks at the Biblical Doctrine of Election. Cape Coral: By
the Author.

159

Chapter 19. Dutch Calvinism.

1. Background.
A. Thus far in this series we have concentrated on Calvinism in Switzerland, Britain and
America. To set the balance we must examine the growth of the theology of Calvinism in
another land where Calvinism has prospered as mochas anywhere else: Holland.
B. As we saw earlier, Holland came into Reformed thinking early on. It hosted the Synod of
Dort. It produced many of the most important 17th-centuryReformed theologians, such as
Gomarus, Cocceius, Voetius and Witsius. From the start, it has adhered to traditional Calvinism
in its official confessions: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of
Dort. After the Peace of Westphalia (1648), the Reformed faith became the official State religion
of Holland, with the Reformed Church as the State-Church.
C. There were no major theological controversies for 200 years. There were, however, several
tendencies. For example, Milhelmus Brake (1635-1711) accepted the idea of a State-church but
warned against the possibility of State control in the Church, such as in the ordination and
approval of ministers. Brakel combined orthodox Calvinism with warm spirituality in his
Reasonable Service of God, which became the most used theological textbook for generations.
Brakel argued that the seat of faith is in the will, not the intellect.
D. A few years later, Brakels tendency was balanced by Alexander Xomrie (1706-1774), a
Scotsman who ministered in Holland. Comrie represented the higher tendency in Dutch
Calvinism, For example, unlike Brakel, he was a Supralapsarians.The taught eternal justification
before faith, rather similar to the 17th-centuryEnglish Calvinistic Antinomians. And against
Brakel, Comrie argued that the seat of faith is in the intellect as illumined by the Spirit who then
gives the gift of faith. His most popular book was the delightful little ABC of Faith.
E. Now at that time these differences were small and confined mainly to the borders of Holland.
But the pattern was set for later generations. Most Dutch theology would be conservative
Calvinism. Only here and there would small holes in the dike appear, such as in the much-used
Christian Dogmatics of Jan Jakob Van Oosterzee (1817-1882). Van Oosterzee was weak on the
doctrine of Hell. He allowed the possibility of a second chance at faith for the heathen who
never heard the Gospel.
F. On the political side, there were problems in the very area that Brakel warned against. A cold
bureaucracy had set in which gradually gave more power to the State than the Church. This,
together with the question of whether the 3 confessions were authoritative because or in so far
as they agree with Scripture, led to the first major division in the (Dutch) Reformed Church since
the Arminians. In 1834, the Christian Reformed Church was founded by the most conservative
faction.

2. Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920).

A. The name of Abraham Kuyper towers above all other Dutch Calvinists before or since. He
was the Calvin of the Netherlands. By any estimation he was one of the 5 or 10 greatest and
most influential Calvinist theologians of all time. God raised him up at the critical juncture in
Dutch theology when the State was taking control over the Church on the one hand and the
threat of German Liberalism was lurking about on the other.

160

B. Kuyper was a preachers kid, a. son of the manse. Like others of that cut, he early rebelled
into liberalism, but then was converted and brought back to the orthodox fold. Initially he served
11 years as a pastor, but then it began to be obvious that this was no ordinary minister. God
gave him extra-ordinary gifts in many areas. For example, he became editor of two of the most
important newspapers in Holland, both very widely read: The Standard (a daily general and
political paper) and The Herald (a weekly religious paper). He contributed regular articles and
editorials in both. Soon it was apparent that Kuyper had by far the most religious influence in all
of Holland.
C. Kuyper was also involved in educational matters. He strongly favored Christian schools.
Moreover, he called for State support of them, but not State control. (This is similar to the
current move for tuition tax credits for private Christian schools). In 1880, Kuyper founded the
Free University of Amsterdam, free of control of both State and Reformed Church. He taught
there as Professor of Theology until 1902. The Free University is still one of the most important
theological schools in the world.
D. Moreover, Kuyper became a leader within established Reformed Church circles. In 1880, he
led the Doleantie or Dutch Disruption. Some 100,000 Dutch followed Kuyper out of the
established Reformed Church and formed an opposition Reformed Church on doctrinally and
politically purer lines. In1892 this merged with the old Christian Reformed Church founded in
1834, to form the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. And, of course, Kuyper led them for the
rest of his life.
E. Theres more. In 1867, he had become the leader of the Anti-Revolutionary Party and was
elected to the Dutch Estates-General (Parliament) in 1874. In 1878, this party formed a
Monstrous Alliance with the Roman Catholic party in opposition to the rather staid majority
party. In 1900, the Coalition became the majority party. This made Abraham Kuyper the Prime
Minister of Holland (1900-1905). The implications of this are astounding. In America, this would
be comparable to Charles Hodge or B.B. Warfield being elected President of the United States.
Or, more recently, Martyn Lloyd-Jones becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In other
words, imagine the nations most popular preacher, theologian and Calvinist becoming the head
of the government. The closest analogy v would be Oliver Cromwell.
F. Now lets turn to Kuyper the Calvinist theologian. He tended to follow Gomarus and Comrie,
not Brakel or Van Oosterzee. For example, while he admitted that neither the Infralapsarian nor
Supralapsarian positions were perfect, the Supralapsarian view comes closer to the truth.
Further, like Comrie he accepted the theory of eternal justification by faith. And he placed the
seat of faith in the mind, not the will, though he said much about how faith affects the will.
G. Kuyper became the leading representative of a rather extreme and dangerous theory known
as Presumptive Regeneration. This arose in part from his doctrine of justification before faith.
Kuyper did more than teach infant baptism. He taught that God can and often does regenerate
his elect as infants. Because of his extreme view of the Covenant, Kuyper taught that covenant
parents are to presume that their covenant children are regenerate until they give prolonged and
conscious evidence in their mature years that they are unregenerate. Now this is not baptismal
regeneration per se, and thus is still basically within the circle of evangelical orthodoxy. But it
opens the door to baptismal regeneration and definitely breeds false assurance in covenant
children whom, Kuyper insisted, should be treated as little Christians and not as sinners in
need of evangelization.
H, One is amazed how such a man could accomplish so much and still have time to write. One
is even more amazed at the enormous literary output of this genius. Kuyper was one of the most
prolific writers (Christian or not) of all time, certainly one of the 3 or 4 most prolific theological
writers, and definitely the most published of any Dutch theologian of any era. Mind you, this was

161

not mindless pult of quantity, but high quality as well. To Kuyper, anything worth writing was
worth covering exhaustively and encyclopedically.
I. For instance, he wrote a commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism in four large volumes.
Then there was his massive The Work of the Holy Spirit, which was translated into English. His
magnum opus was probably his Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology in three massive volumes,
only a third of which was translated into English. In this work of genius, we see the
transcendental Kuyper, the speculative and deductive mind of a master theologian. This
Encyclopedia was not arranged topically like, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is not an
alphabetical dictionary of theology. Rather, it is Kuypers detailed discussion of theological
method - theological science. He lays down the Biblical and Calvinistic principles of formulating
theology, then examines the history of theological method, and finally treats the main subjects.
J. In 1898 Kuyper was invited to deliver the prestigious Stone Lectures at Princeton Seminary,
which were published as Lectures on Calvinism. This little book is still in print after almost 100
years. In a way, it is the best concise summary of all Kuyper thought, wrote and did. He
discusses Calvinism as pure Biblical theology and as the only godly life-and-world view. He
examines Calvinism as a religion, as a political force, the Calvinist view of science and art, and
Calvinisms view of the future.
K. His other major theological enterprise was his Common Grace, again in three massive
volumes (unfortunately never translated into English). Kuypers major contribution to Calvinist
theology was his fine-tuning of the Reformed doctrine of common grace. God has special
electing grace for the elect alone, but He also has a lesser and qualitatively different kind of
grace for all men, elect and non-elect. This was displayed in initial form at Creation, but
especially after the Flood, It is the basis for restraint of sin and the development of culture. This
gave valuable insights into the Calvinist view of society, the sciences, and so forth. Common
grace deals mainly with general revelation, but must be subservient to special revelation in
Scripture.

3. Herman Bavinck (1854-1921).

A. Like Kuyper, Bavinck was a preachers son. He was the only contemporary who came close
to equaling Kuyper as a theologian. Bavinck was Professor of Theology at the University of
Kampen (1882-1902) and then succeeded Kuyper to the chair of theology at the Free University
of Amsterdam (1902-1920) when Kuyper became Prime Minister.
B. Like his older contemporary, Bavinck was a master theologian who wrote in many fields,
especially theology. But his claim to fame rests mainly upon his Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (or,
in English, Reformed Dogmatics), a complete Calvinistic systematic theology in 4 large
volumes. Only part of this has-been translated into English, entitled The Doctrine of God.
Calvinist scholars consider this one of the 3 or 4 best and fullest systematic theologies
overwritten. It is to Dutch theology what Charles Hodges is to American theology and Turretin is
to Continental Calvinism. It is the best there is.
C. Kuyper was the genius, Bavinck was the man of careful talent. His Dogmatics is filled with
Scripture references (more than Kuyper) and interactions with previous theologians (especially
16th and 17th century Reformed theologians). Bavinck was particularly known for his sense of
balance. For example, he often gave both sides of a question and tended to accept the best in
both (as in his discussion of Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism). Thus, he is less
speculative than Kuyper. Kuyper tended to be original and deductive; Bavinck tended to be
more traditional and inductive. Kuyper was more analytical and idealistic; Bavinck was more

162

synthetical and realistic.

D. Incidently, Bavinck wrote a condensed version of his Dogmatics, which has-been translated
into English as Our Reasonable Faith. It is one of the best one-volume systematic theologies
ever written, filled with Scripture.
E. Like Kuyper, Bavinck served in the Dutch Parliament. As Kuyper was aging, Bavinck
became the leading theological advisor in the political sphere. His deathbed words sum up his
approach to the place of theology: Now my scholarship avails me nothing, nor my Dogmatics. It
is only my faith can save me. He wasnt recanting anything, nor downplaying the place of
scholarly theology. He was asserting to the end what he preached for decades: truth is
important, but without personal faith in it and in the Lord of truth, we are lost.

4. G.C. Berkouwer (1903- ).

A. Bavinck was succeeded at Amsterdam by Valentine Hepp from 1922 to 1945. Hepp wrote
much and like Kuyper and Bavinck delivered the Stone Lectures at Princeton. Hepp did not
make any major contributions to Dutch Calvinism. But he may be compared to A.A. Hodge who
succeeded Charles Hodge - he steered safe and steady course in tumultuous days. Hepp has
often been accused of being scholastic and non-original. To his critics, that is a negative
criticism, but to the truly orthodox that is praise, for the true theologian should be scholarly
without having to be original.
B. He was succeeded in 1945 by the great Gerrit Cornelius Berkouwer. For the next30 years
Berkouwer was the dominant voice in Dutch theology, at least in Holland itself. He wrote many
books and articles, which were often translated into English, and they received high acclaim.
There is no doubt that at the beginning Berkouwer was in the clear line of traditional Dutch
Reformed orthodoxy. In time some differences arose, which we will examine below.
C. Berkouwers main literary effort was his 14-volume Studies in Dogmatics. Some volumes
were partially abridged, but it remains one of the largest such series in print today. It is,
however, not a complete systematic theology like, say, Hodges or Bavinck *. Rather, like
Warfield said of Hodges Systematic Theology, Berkouwer said that Bavincks Reformed
Dogmatics could not be rivaled in his lifetime, but only supplemented by new studies in
dogmatics. The reader will notice, for example, that Berkouwer does not have a volume on God.
Moreover, these studies are not as structured and encyclopedic as Bavinck.
D. There have been several useful studies on Berkouwers method. For one, he rejects all
scholasticism and tends to downplay the use of logic as such. Then Berkouwer stresses that
dogmatics must be preachable. This sounds nice, but in practice it is indicative of his general
trend away from Reformed orthodoxy. For example, he is not as explicit as most dogmatics,
which he labels as scholastic. One can read whole pages and chapters and still not know what
Berkouwer believes. His method is analytical without coming to clear conclusions. He is too
busy inter-acting with everyone else to state thus saith the Scriptures. His trumpet has an
unclear sound. And, of course, this contrasts with Bavinck and the scholastics, and is by no
means preachable.
E. The first three volumes deal with faith in relation to justification, sanctification and
perseverance. Like all his studies, they are challenging. They more or less represent historic
Dutch Calvinist orthodoxy. But in the mid-1950s, certain signs appeared in the Studies and
elsewhere that Berkouwer was drifting.
F. At that time he wrote Divine Election. Variations from orthodoxy were evident. Like Bavinck

163

and Kuyper, he wavered on the Supralapsarian/Infralapsarian issue, but unlike those two there
is little indication that he came down on either side but rather somewhere else (just where has
been debated). Back of this is his rejection of the Reformed doctrine of a fixed decree and
causal-determinism.
G. In other words, he evidently rejected the basic tenet of Calvinism, namely, that God is the
first cause and last end of all things and has eternally and unchangeably foreordained all that
comes to pass. Such is too arbitrary for him. G. Then he redefines the eternal aspect of election.
Berkouwer downplayed, if not outright rejected, the before of eternal election. Berkouwer held
that that view devalues election. Eternal election simply means its depth-aspect, not its
eternally before absolute definiteness. Berkouwer often reacts against the stress on eternal
fixity and says it detracts from historical reality.
H. Berkouwer also had serious problems with the historic Reformed doctrine of the secret and
revealed wills of God. First he warns against prying into the secret will, suggesting that
scholastic Calvinism does just that. This in turn leads Berkouwer to virtually, if not actually,
reject the notion of the secret-revealed dichotomy. He clearly reacts against the Reformed
doctrine of Deus Absconditus (the hiddenness of God). Like Karl Barth, Berkouwer denies that
election is a hidden decree. How can it be hidden if it is revealed in the Gospel? There is no will
of God other than that which is revealed in Gospel.
I. Turning to reprobation, Berkouwer has even stronger reactions. He rejects the historic
doctrine of reprobation, whether Supra or Infra. God elects men; He reprobates none. The only
reprobation is that which they do to themselves. He further rejects the Reformed idea of equal
ultimacy, that is, that reprobation is the necessary corrolary of election. As to divine wrath, he
has some semi-Barthian notions that wrath is really concealed grace. Lastly, as expected at this
point, Berkouwer denies that God in any sense is the cause of sin. Historic Calvinists have said
that God is the first cause of all things and therefore of sin, though not the actual approver of it.
Berkouwer rejects this. The whole question of the origin of sin is invalid, he says, because Man
is the sinner and all attempts to find its origin are attempts to shift the blame.
J. Such changes in Berkouwer's theology caused no small controversy in the Reformed
community in the 1950s. By his own admission, Berkouwer was influenced by two main writers.
Negatively, he admits reacting against Herman Hoeksema. However, it was not just
Hoeksemas Supralapsarianism and Hyper-Calvinism that he rejected. It was basically his
historic Reformed scholasticism regarding the fixed double decree. Secondly, he admits being
positively influenced by Karl Barth, father of modern Neo-Orthodoxy. While almost all historic
Calvinists of the day were warning against Earths pseudo-Calvinism, Berkouwer was voting for
his inclusion in the ranks of basically Reformed theologians. True, he had several important
disagreements with Barth, but the drift was apparent, as in his large book The Triumph of Grace
in the Theology of Karl Barth. Berkouwer opened the door to Neo-Orthodoxy, just as NeoOrthodoxy had opened the door to Liberalism. Whether either actually walked through those
doors is another question. But history confirms that more have gone through those doors away
from historic Evangelical and Reformed orthodoxy than towards it. In effect, this produced the
first rival to Arminianism. Arminianism opens the door to Liberalism, and some Calvinists have
gone that course. This Neo-Dutch Calvinism opens a non-Arminian door that leads to the same
tragic end.
K. Then there were Berkouwers growing ecumenical views. His last Studies were on the
Church. Originally he was very non-ecumenical and anti-Rome, then more ecumenical and nonRakish and eventually pro-Romish. This decline can be seen in his four books on Rome.
Berkouwer would admit to no substantial change; the change occurred at the Vatican II Council,
at which Berkouwer was an official observer- In the end, it almost appears that he has higher

164

praise for recent Romish theologians than for historically Reformed theologians,
L. Lastly, there is his view of Scripture. Holy Scripture was his second to last in the Studies.
This came out at the height of the controversy over Biblical inerrancy in the mid-1970s and it
was evident that Berkouwer did not believe in Biblical inerrancy, unlike Kuyper and Bavinck. He
argued that we cannot dictate to God the means by which He speaks. God can and does speak
through fallen humanity, that is, errors in Scripture. He stresses that we must protect the
humanness of Scripture. Scripture can still be a light to us even though it contains factual errors
due to human limitations and sinful ness and historical limitations.
M. Of the idea of inerrancy, he said In the end it will damage reverence for Scripture more than
it will further it. He rejected the idea of inerrancy as being scholastic, rationalistic and
Aristotelean. Moreover, Berkouwer himself began to dabble in the results and methods of the
historic-critical method, a staple of Liberalism. In the end, it appears that Berkouwer even
rejected the notion of verbal inspiration.
N. All this is sad in the light of other contributions he made. These serious errors outweigh and
undo whatever other good he may have written. G.C. Berkouwer, more than anyone else, has
been responsible for leading post-World War II Calvinists into forms of Neo-Orthodoxy. Should
the serious Calvinist read him? By all means! He is challenging at many points. But let the
Calvinist be cautioned to read Berkouwer with a box of salt in one hand and a Bible in the other.

5. Other Contemporary Dutch Calvinists.

A. In passing we mention Klaus Schilder and Herman Ridderbos. Their influence is waning and
it appears that the leading voice in Dutch Calvinism since Berkouwer is that of Hendrikus
Berkhof (1914- ). In a nutshell, Berkhof picks up where Berkouwer left off. He marshalls no
return to historic Reformed orthodoxy. For example, he seems to reject the doctrine of Hell: For
Gods sake we hope that Hell will be a form of purification. His main work is The Christian Faith
(1973).

6. Dutch Calvinism in America.

A. Early in colonial America, the Reformed Church of America was the center of the Dutch
Reformed community, tiny as it was. This denomination continues today with some 350,000
members, but has long since cast away its Reformed heritage. This is the denomination of
Norman Vincent Peale and Robert Schuller.
B. The real center of Dutch Calvinism in America has been the Christian Reformed Church.
The CRC was founded in Holland by Evangelicals in the 1830s. It was more or less the
American counterpart of Kuyper's Reformed Church of the Netherlands. It grew in America
because of the great immigration of the late1800s. Most immigrated to Michigan, where the
CRC is headquartered in Grand Rapids. This accounts for the fact that so many of the major
Christian publishers have Dutch roots in the Christian Reformed Church (e.g., Eerdmans,
Baker, Kregel, Zondervan).
C. The Crys theological education revolves around Calvin College and Seminary, both in
Grand Rapids. For years the CRC and the Calvin school* used the Dutch language, which
helped preserve its Reformed heritage. Now Dutch is known by many, but obviously English is
the language of both denomination and schooling. Calvin Seminary also houses the Meeter

165

Center for Calvin Studies, the international center of all serious research into John Calvin.
D. The Christian Reformed Church has undergone 3 main controversies this century. First,
there was the question of Harry Bultema, a CRC preacher who taught Dispensationalism early
in the century. The CRC Synod ruled that Dispensationalism was incompatible with Reformed
theology, and so Bultema was ousted.
E. The second controversy was in the 1920s. Herman Hoeksema objected to the 3 Points of
common grace that appeared in various official CRC documents, traceable back to Abraham
Kuyper. Hoeksema rejected the idea of common grace as Arminian. Hoeksema was eventually
ousted from the CRC and founded the small Protestant Reformed Church denomination, one of
the few Hyper-Calvinist denominations anywhere.
F. The third major controversy was the Dekker case of the 1960s. Robert Dekker was
Professor of Missions at Calvin Seminary. He not only taught common grace, but also universal
atonement. This in turn led him and others to follow the Berkouwer tendency and downplay
special grace. Doctrinally, this was the rise of the slightly Neo-Orthodox wing of the CRC,
including James Daane and Lewis Smedes. Dekker may have lost the battle, but so far as
Calvin Seminary goes, his side is gradually winning the war.
G. Time will not permit catalog all the other big names of the CRC, such as Henry C. Meeter,
Anthony Hoekema, D.H. and John Kromminga, R.B. and B.K. Kuiper, Geerhardus Vos and Jan
Karel Van Baalen. But we would be amiss to omit two last names, both of whom stood against
the decline of Reformed orthodoxy and whose names are revered by all those who love the
doctrines of grace. They are Louis Berkhof and William Hendriksen.

7. Louis Berkhof (1873-1957).

A. Born in Holland, Berkhof immigrated to America at age 8. He taught at Calvin Seminary for
38 years, culminating in being President of the college. Both at Calvin and in the CRC in
general, for a whole generation Louis Berkhof waste chief theologian.
B. Berkhof closely followed Kuyper and Bavinck, especially the latter. Like Bavinck, Berkhof is
balanced and synthetic, Biblical and historical. One does not go to Berkhof for innovations or
originality. Rather, one goes and finds Biblical and Reformed orthodoxy. Berkhof appreciated
the old paths and freely quoted Calvinists on both sides of the Atlantic. Berkhof also resisted the
temptation for innovation: he was a major opponent of various heresies and deviations,
including both Bultema and Hoeksema. Had he lived longer, he would certainly have resisted
G.C. Berkouwer and the Dekker group.
C. The name of Louis Berkhof will live on for one main reason, his magnum opus, his
magnificent Systematic Theology. This large volume is without doubt the best one-volume
statement of historic Reformed theology. It has been used as the basic theological textbook by
thousands of seminarians and has been translated into several languages. It has been abridged
several times and itself is something of an abridgement of Bavineks Reformed Dogmatics.
D. I have heard it said that one cannot be a Calvinist if he does not own Berkhofs Systematic
Theology. That is wrong, but it is not far wrong. Originally it formed part of a trilogy. The other
two volumes have subsequently been enlarged and published separately as Introductory
Volume to Systematic Theology (mainly on Scripture and theological method) and History of
Christian Doctrines.
E. In summary, Berkhofs theology was 5-point Calvinism, Covenant Theology, paedo-baptism,

166

Biblical inerrancy, anti-Evolution, amillenial and Evangelical. It is as close as you can find to
pure Reformed orthodoxy.

8. William Hendriksen (1900-1981).

A. William Hendriksen also pastored in the CRC and taught at Calvin Seminary. He was the
one who translated The Doctrine of God, the only portion of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics to
be done into English. Over the decades he would write many books of his own, such as the
popular Survey of the Bible, which has been a popular textbook at Christian colleges. Then
there was his More Than Conquerors, a perennial best-selling exposition of the book of
Revelation.
B. But his masterpiece was his large New Testament Commentary. Hendriksen was to Bible
commenting what Berkhof was to systematic theology: solid, Reformed, clear, the right
combination of theory and practice and of scholarship and devotion. He interacts with the
Liberals, but one always knows where he stands in the fight. One does not find Hendriksen
employing Liberal criticism of the Bible.
C. Dr. Hendriksen died before completing the set. He covered approximately of the New
Testament, viz, the four Gospels, Romans, Galatians to Titus. The series is being completed by
Simon Kistemaker of Reformed Theological Seminary from the same Biblical and theological
foundation. If Berkhof is the best one-volume Systematic theology, then Hendriksen/Kistemaker
is the best set of New Testament commentaries.

9. Conclusion.
The lesson we can learn from this study is this: orthodoxy must be maintained in every
generation, for like water it tends to run down hill. Nevertheless, we can rejoice that God raises
up His men in key places in every generation to keep the lamp burning. May all of us be vigilant
landholders in our generation and pass it on to the next.

Recommended Reading
Bratt, James D. Dutch Calvinism in Modern America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wells, James, ed. Reformed Theology in America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (Section 3 is on
Dutch-American Calvinism)
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bavinck, Herman. The
Doctrine of God. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Bavinck, Herman. Our Reasonable Faith. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House.
Berkouwer, G.C. Studies in Dogmatics. 14 volumes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (All 14 volumes
are available separately as wel1.)
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hendriksen, William; and Kistemaker, Simon. New Testament Commentary. 12 volumes to date
(1989) Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

167

Chapter 20. Calvinistic Philosophy.

1. Introduction.
A. In the late 1800s, certain Calvinists felt the need for a distinctively Caivinistic philosophy and
apologetic. They said that the Reformation had not gone far enough from Rome in this area.
Roman Catholicisms philosophy was officially that of Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), and
Thomism was still evident in much of Protestant philosophy. And Aquinas was based on
Aristotle.
B. These Calvinists argued that it was not enough to be Protestant or even Evangelical in
philosophy. We needed a philosophy that was in agreement with the Reformed distinctives. At
this time, the prevailing philosophy among Calvinists was Scottish Realism, or Common Sense
Philosophy. This was traced back to Thomas Reid and popularized by Charles Hodge.
However, there was little in it that could be called distinctively Calvinistic. Some Arminians held
to forms of it, and in turn it had much in common with Thomism.
C. The major voice calling for a truly Calvinistic philosophy was Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper said
that Christians - and Calvinists in particular - needed a Biblical Weltanschauung (a world-andlife view). In other words, it was not sufficient to defend Christianity; we must have an overarching philosophy that provided a positive foundation for epistemology (the philosophy of
knowledge). Kuyper argued that this must rest upon God alone, specifically the sovereignty of
God. This is illustrated in his famous words in his inaugural address at the founding of the Free
University of Amsterdam: There is not an inch in the whole of temporal life of which Christ, as
Lord of all men, does not say, Mine. All thought must be subject to Christ, but also all culture,
D. In this study, we will examine the various attempts to construct a truly Calvinistic philosophy.
We will not discuss non-Reformed attempts. Special attention will be given to those whose roots
go back to Abraham Kuyper.

2. Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977).

A. The first school we will look at is that associated with Herman Dooyeweerd. Historically this
was one of the first to build on Kuyper's foundation. As such, it has been variously labeled:
Calvinistic Philosophy, Neo-Calvinism, The Amsterdam Philosophy, Kuyperism, KuyperCalvinism, Hyper-Covenantism and the rather imposing title, The Philosophy of the
Costnonomic Idea. All of these speak more of Dooyeweerd than of Kuyper.
B. Dooyeweerd was director of the Abraham Kuyper Foundation in Amsterdam from1922 till
1926, when he then became professor of law and jurisprudence (the philosophy of law) at the
Free University of Amsterdam. He taught there until1965. During those decades he founded the
Association for Calvinistic Philosophy and was editor of Phiiosophia Reformata, the journal of
the movement.
C. In 1935-36, Dooyweerd wrote the definitive text on this movement, A New Critique of
Theoretical Thought in four large volumes totaling approximately 2,000 pages. It was translated
into English in the 1950s and is still in print. Dooyeweerd was primarily attacking the
philosophical teachings of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), whose philosophy underlay most of
European and Western non-Christian philosophy. The New Critique is extremely technical and
difficult to understand. Only a brief summary can be given here.

168

D. The New Critique is described as a transcendental critique. It examines metaphysics and

thought from Gods perspective. Theoretical thought does not refer only to Kantian and postKantian philosophy, but to all human thought, which formulates ideas and theories and science.
Dooyeweerd challenges Kants basis premise, namely, that human thought is objective and
autonomous (i.e., able to objectively reach valid conclusions about the universe). Dooyeweerd
smashes this foundation. For him, no man has ever had a truly autonomous or objective
thought in his life. The greatest myth of philosophy is that of the pretended autonomy of
human thought.
E. Dooyweerd argued that all thought is inherently religious. Moreover, all men are religious,
but sinfully so. That means two things. First, men are always biased in their thoughts; second,
they are always biased against God. And consequently, they live what they think. To cure
culture, we must cure the way men think the wrong religious thoughts. It is not merely the
content that is wrong; the very way in which they think (pretended objectivity) is wrong.
F. Dooyweerd was also a major proponent of the philosophy of Sphere-sovereignty. Rejecting
Kants categories of thought and existence, Dooyeweerd postulated14 spheres of human
existence, thought and life. They are: the numerical, spatial, physical, organic, psychical
(psychological), analytical, historical, lingual (symbolical signification), social, economic,
aesthetic (beauty), juridical (justice), ethical, and faith, which is the highest and most important.
Each of these spheres is separate but inter-related.
G. Sometimes these spheres are called modalities or modal aspects of existence. Because
each has its own laws, they are sometimes called law spheres. All function properly only when
submitted to God. Since they are part of Creation (the cosmos), this philosophy is called The
Philosophy of the Cosmonomic Idea (cosmos= world, nomos = law).
H. Mind you, these spheres are not the same as Platos ideas. Platonic ideas are eternal and
more or less correspond to the attributes of God. Rather, said Dooyeweerd, these spheres are
part of Creation. Further, each; sphere has two sides: the objective and the subjective. This
corresponds to the entirety of Creation, which is subjective to God, who is objective.
I. Christianity alone fits this scheme of things. Therefore, when we encounter non-Christian
systems, we must challenge their basic views of existence in each of these spheres. It is a
battle of presuppositions.
J. Dooyweerd has been joined in this movement by other scholars. In Holland, he worked
closely with his brother-in-law Dirk Hendrik Th. Vollenhoven, professor of philosophy at the Free
University. His cosmonomic views were seen at the outset in his doctoral dissertation entitled,
The Philosophy of Mathematics from a Theistic Point of View. Then there were H. Van Riessen,
J.P.A. Mekkes and J.M. Spier.
K. Hendrik G. Stoker was the leading Dooyeweerdian in South Africa, where the school has
grown. In North America it has especially caught on in certain Reformed circles in Canada,
mainly through the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, which Dooyeweerd helped found.
The two leading Canadian Dooyeweerdians have been Hendrik Hart and C.T. Mclntire, son of
Carl Mclntire (former associate of J. Gresham Machen and founder of the Bible Presbyterian
Church). In the US, the movement has been known through the writings of William Young,
David Hugh Freeman, H. Evan Runner and H.L. Hebden Taylor (an Englishman). Young and
Freeman, however, have greatly modified the school. L. Dooyeweerdians (as they are often
called) have their weaknesses. They tend to be too speculative and idealistic, definitely more
philosophical than theological, and personally somewhat proud and aloof. Religiously, they often
drift into forms of Antinomianism; they over-react against simple devotional Christianity (which
they oppose as mysticism) and Puritanism (which is classed as legalism). They have a

169

weakened doctrine of Biblical inspiration. Their transcendental critique often leads them to a
doctrine of an impersonal God. Finally, they have often propagated Kuypers major error presumptive regeneration.

3. Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987).

A. Cornelius Van Til was originally a member of the Cosmonomic school, but increasingly took
issue with it. Without doubt he is one of the greatest Calvinistic theologians America has
produced. And he developed one of the purest varieties of Calvinistic Philosophy yet known.
B. Born in Holland, he was brought to America by his parents and raised in Indiana. He was
one of the teachers at Princeton Seminary who left with Machen to found Westminster
Seminary, where he taught for 56 years. At firs the belonged to the Christian Reformed Church,
then switched to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
C. Van Til wrote dozens of books: Christian Apologetics, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, and
his most important volume, The Defence of the Faith. Several of his books opposed the drift into
pseudo-Calvinism (Barth, Berkouwer, Daane, and others). His writings were heavy and strongly
worded in their dogmatism. His criticism could be exceptionally sharp. But like the apostle Paul,
Ms letters were weighty but his presence was weak (2 Cor. 10:10). Even his opponents
admitted that he was personally one of the humblest men on earth.
D. Now Van Til was more clearly Calvinistic than Dooyeweerd. He also referred to more
Scripture and was less speculative. Dooyeweerd was more philosophical; VanTil was more
theological, if mainly specializing in apologetics. And what was his starting point? The selfattesting Christ of Scripture has always been my starting point for everything I have said.
E. His theology purifies the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Scripture and Scripture alone
is the source and standard for all truth and knowledge. The Bible, of course, is totally inerrant in
all it says. We cannot prove its inspiration as such, nor need we. The Holy Spirit does this
Himself. This is the Reformed doctrine of the Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit (testimonium
internum Spiritu Sancti). Therefore, the only ultimate answer to the question How do you
know? is God says so. It is written.
F. Van Til also is known for purifying what Kuyper and Dooyeweerd taught about basic
assumptions. Hence Van Tils system is known as Presuppositionaiism, the philosophy of
presuppositions. These are basic axioms, the starting points of knowledge and thought, and the
basic assumptions, which all men make. Men always have a foundation for what they think;
they do not challenge these self-evident facts. However, not everyone agrees on them.
Therefore, Van Til challenges non-Christian presuppositions with Christian presuppositions.
G. Only Christian presuppositions are true. All non-Christian presuppositions are false. Van Til
tied this in with what has been called the Analogy of Faith. This refers to the basic message of
Christianity, the Gospel, the form of sound words (see Rom. 12:6, Titus 1:4). This is useful in
interpreting the Bible, for no correct interpretation can contradict the Gospel.
H. Another aspect of the basic Christian presupposition is the existence of God. All true thought
must be based on belief that God j^. Truth is what God says it is. A statement or fact is not true
in itself; nothing is self-existent except God. One of Van Tils colorful maxims was Theres no
such thing as a brute fact. Kantian philosophy says some facts just are/, they are brute facts.
Van Til says no. They exist and are true only because God says so. Moreover, no facts are
neutral. And only God knows all the true facts.

170

I. Certain Scriptures appear in Van Tils writings quite frequently. Romans 1:16-32 (esp. vss.
19-22) and Acts 17:22-34 are favorites. 2 Cor. 10:5 is perhaps most central to his system:
casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of
God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.
J. Van Til agreed with Calvins opening words in the Institutes that true knowledge of God must
precede true knowledge of ourselves. Human knowledge> therefore, cannot prove the
existence of God. Nor do we need to do so - all men already know that God exists (Rom. 1), but
they suppress this knowledge in sin. Van Til has no place for Thomas Aquinas proofs for the
existence of God. They are useful only as later explanations, not as foundational evidences. If
Gods existence could be proved, He wouldnt be the infinite God that He is. He should not be
proved but proclaimed. This proclamation is the Gospel and it destroys all alleged proofs of
the non-existence of God.
K. Obviously, he has great difficulty accepting the Traditional Method of proving Gods
existence, the inspiration of Scripture, and so on. This method goes back to Aquinas and
Aristotle, Unfortunately it permeates most of todays Evangelicalism and even much of
contemporary Calvinism. Van Til says it is based on evidences rather than the Word of God, on
human reason rather than on the work of the Holy Spirit. At best it can only lead to probability,
not certainty, and then it leads into skepticism and eventually atheism. Why do Calvinists use
such an Arminian, Man-centered system? This false system denies the doctrine of total
depravity, for it assumes that Mans mind is able to grasp spiritual truth and correctly assess
even what is revealed in natural revelation. No, Man is sinful in his mind. Thus, if these
evidences were true, then Christianity itself would not be true. Ones apologetic method cannot
deny in practice what it attempts to defend or prove.
L. Is there, then a common ground with unbelievers? Yes, but not in the way posited by the
Traditional Method. The real point of contact is what God says it is: His existence revealed to
them in the image of God. Man bears the image of God - he has a moral capacity and the
capacity to know God. But this image of God does not mean that we exist in the same way as
God. Gods existence is necessary; ours will always be contingent. Van Til rejects Aquinas
theory of the Analogy of Being (by faith we ascend the ladder to a higher existence).
M. Van Til argues that there is no neutrality regarding God. All claims to neutrality are anti-God
pretensions. All non-Christian philosophies are built on chance, not God. Pagans know in a
functional way only by borrowed capital, stolen from Christianity. Still, they never truly know
anything/Christian knowledge, however, is true - partial, yes, but true and definite. Because it is
not exhaustive, we know by analogy and paradox. Nor do we know as God does. God
necessarily knows all things. Paradoxes are only seeming contradictions; they are not
paradoxes to God, for He knows how to reconcile them. Moreover, we will never know God in
His totality, for He ever remains infinite and we ever remain finite. This is the incomprehensibility
of God.
N. Van Til has been accused of arguing in a circle. He replied that all men argue in a circle of
presuppositions, only his are Biblical ones. Then he has been accused of irrational ism akin to
Karl Earths Neo-orthodoxy. This overlooks Van Tils scathing opposition to Barth. Van Til
rejected both rationalism and 7rrationalism. He did not advocate Fideism - religion that is based
on blind faith rather than reason or evidence. Instead, he said, that true faith is a step of faith
into the light of true knowledge.
O. For Van Til, Calvinistic Philosophy is both offensive and defensive. The best defence is a
good offense. Van Til calls for a confrontational apologetic: The Reformed apologist throws
down the gauntlet and challenges his opponent to a duel of life and death from the start. Van
Tils system is virile and aggressive. Christians should not use human methods against human

171

arguments; we are to fight fire with water, not with fire (cf. 2 Cor. 10:4). In this he likes to follow
Tertuliians approach: What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Or the Academy with the
Church? Why resort to Aristotle when we have the Word of God? If there is a weakness in Van
Tillianism, it is only that he does not appeal to Scripture enough.
P. Presuppositionalism in the Van Tillian sense has been advocated by many subsequent
Calvinist writers. John Frame is a major Van Tillian presuppositionalist apologist, and his The
Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (planned for 4 volumes) purifies and simplifies Van Til.
Richard Pratt wrote Every Thought Captive as a handy and readable summary of
Presuppositionalism. The system has also been accepted by the Theonomy Movement
(Rushdoony, Bahnsen, North and others). There have been, on the other hand, several
alternatives suggested by 20th-century Calvinists, which will be examined below.

4. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr. (1895-1975).

A. Buswell was president of Wheaton College and later taught at Covenant Seminary. He was
seriously considered to become successor of Lewis Sperry Chafer as president of Dallas
Seminary. He was a leading theologian in the Reformed Presbyterian/Evangelical Synod
denomination. He wrote a large 2-volume Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion and a
book on apologetics, A Christian View of Being and Knowing. He rejected Presuppositionalism.
B. Buswell denied that Man is born with any innate ideas. His mind is a blank tablet (tabula
rasa). By experience, observation and inference he learns facts. In philosophy this is known as
Empiricism. Buswell attempted to construct a Calvinistic Empiricism. He borrowed heavily from
Aristotle, Aquinas and especially John Locke. In sum, Man learns by experience, mainly via the
senses.
C. Through experience Man learns the basic laws of logic, such as the crucial Law of NonContradiction (A cannot equal non=A). By inference from what he experiences and observes,
Man can know the existence of God. With few modifications, Buswell accepts Thomas Aquinas
proofs for God. Still, he admits, Man cannot know definitely, only probably. But that is sufficient,
for the Holy Spirit uses this probability of knowledge to work regeneration. Lastly, Buswells
system is strong on the use of evidences for God, the Bible, Christs deity and so forth.
Empiricism and evidential ism go hand in hand.
D. The Presuppositionalists reply that there is nothing distinctively Reformed about Buswells
approach. It can be found almost entirely in Arminians (such as Josh McDowell and Norman
Geisler) and Roman Catholics. A few writers try to combine Presuppositionalism and Evidential
ism,, such as Ronald B. Mayer sin Both/And: A Reformed Apologetic. The Presuppositionalists
say such an approach is unbiblical, un-Reformed, untrue, not to mention self-contradictory.
Buswell and Mayers Calvinistic Empiricism is more popular with very Low Calvinists, whereas
Van Tils is more popular with High Calvinists.

5. Gordon Clark (1902-1985).

A. Gordon Clark also taught for a while at Wheaton College and for 28 years at Butler
University in Indianapolis. He was somewhat purer in his Calvinism than was Buswell, also
higher (like Van Til, Clark was Supralapsarian). He wrote several books espousing explicit
Calvinism: Predestination, What Presbyterians Be1ieve, and others. But he was primarily an
apologist. His major book was A Christian View of Men and Things. His views were also

172

elaborated in Religion, Reason and Revelation and the short Logic. His Thales to Dewey is a
major work on the history of philosophy.
B. At times Clark sounded very much like Van Til, such as accepting a form of presupposition
about God: Instead of beginning with facts and later discovering God, unless a thinker begins
with God, he can never end with God, or get the facts either. All men innately know that God
exists.
C. But then difference! materialize. Clark accused Van Til of irrational ism and Neo-Orthodoxy.
But unlike BuswelI, Clark put forth a non-Empiricist Calvinistic Rationalism. All Empiricism is
wrong, he argued. Our senses cannot always be trusted. For example, you can smell something
and think it is a rose, when it is in reality a bottle of perfume. This being so, even science is not
perfect. He used to say, All the laws of science are false. They are false in their methodology,
not necessarily in their conclusions. But that methodology betrays their underlying infallible antiGod presuppositions. Still, said Clark, our senses are necessary to some extent. After all, we
need our eyes and ears to receive the Word of God.
D. Clark was the major proponent of what can be called Calvinistic Rationalism,
as opposed to what he considered Calvinistic Irrational ism in Van Til and Barth. One of his
favorite texts is I Peter 3:15, Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a
reason of the hope that is in you. Reason and logic are not above God but are expressions of
the way in which God Himself thinks. Moreover, we find most of the laws of logic in the Bible,
either directly or indirectly. He paraphrases John 1:1, In the beginning was Logic (or Reason),
and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. Van Tillians shudder.
E. Unlike Van Til, Clark greatly downplays the validity of paradox. Rather than simply accepting
them, we should attempt to understand them. This can usually be done through logic. Clark
accepted almost all the laws of logic, including the Law of Contradiction. In fact, these laws are
one of the major parts of common ground we have with which to argue with unbelievers. Clark
proposed another aggressive apologetic: destroy your opponents position by showing that it is
inconsistent with itself (in philosophy this is known as Reductio ad Absurdum, or reducing to
absurdity). Christianity alone is self-consistent. The Presuppositionalists reply that Clark is
inconsistent with his own system, for he did not fully examine all non-Christian systems in order
to prove them wrong.
F. Van Til and Gordon Clark were both in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church until a major
controversy arose (1943-48). Van Til and his associates charged that Clark essentially denied
the incomprehensibility of God. Clark argued that there is no qualitative difference between the
knowledge which Man has and which God has. Van Til argued that there is both a qualitative
and not merely a quantitative difference, for we are of separate essences. Clarks ordination in
the OPC was denied. He then joined Buswells Reformed Presbyterian Church/Evangelical
Synod denomination, which later merged with the Presbyterian Church in America (which in turn
is on the verge of merging with the OPC).
G. Clark had a great influence on Edward John Camel!, a major Christian apologist but not
particularly Reformed. Today his major successor is John Robbins, who through the Trinity
Foundation is reprinting and propagating Clarks books and apologetics.

6. John Gerstner (1914- ).

A. John Gerstner has proposed yet another Calvinistic apologetic. Gerstner is a leading
Reformed theologian and perhaps the leading scholar on Jonathan Edwards, who has greatly

173

influenced Gerstners own theology, and apologetics. He has published many short books on
the cults and Catholicism, plus a series of primers on predestination, freewill, Christs deity, the
atonement, inerrancy and Dispensationalism. In 1960 he wrote Reasons for Faith. More recently
he co-authored with R.C. Sproul and Arthur Lindsley a large book entitled Classical Apologetics:
A Rational Defence of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositionalism. He is the father
of the arguments in the book. Sproul, director of Ligonier Ministries and author of many popular
books of doctrine (such as Chosen by God), studied under Gerstner and repeats most of his
mentors system. In fact, he wrote a book entitled Reason to Believe, which is similar to
Gerstners Reasons for Faith.
B. Gerstner follows neither Van Til nor Clark, but is slightly higher than Buswell. One could
say that he calls for a return to Scottish Common Sense Philosophy and a slightly modified form
of the Traditional Method. Like Clark, he accuses Van Til of Fideism.
C. Gerstners system is basically as follows: First we begin with the Bible as a good history
book. This can be verified by secular history and archeology. From its historical data we can
prove that Jesus was a good man, as all men admit. Good men do not lie. Jesus claimed to be
the Son of God. Therefore Jesus must have been telling the truth. Moreover, Jesus also said
that the Bible was the Word of God. Since He was telling the truth, the Bible must be inspired.
From that point, we learn about salvation and other truths.
D. Again, Presuppositionalists reply in a variety of ways: it is unbiblical, not distinctively
Reformed, forgets fallen Mans mental opposition to truth and God, and the fact that not all
men admit Jesus was a good man.

7. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984).

A. The last Calvinist to propose a major apologetic is Francis Schaeffer. With his goatee,
knickerbocker short trousers, short stature and high-pitched voice, Schaeffer was more
flamboyant than any of the above. He served in Carl Mclntires Bible Presbyterian Church until it
split, when he linked up with Buswells Reformed Presbyterians. Unlike all of the above,
Schaeffer was not as explicitly Calvinistic, though he professed the Westminster Confession.
B. He never considered himself a theologian or an apologist, but an evangelist. In 1947 he
began work as a missionary to Switzerland, eventually establishing the LAbri (French for The
Shelter) community and study center in Huemoz, near Geneva. During the late 1960s and
throughout the 1970s, Schaeffer was the pop apologist, especially among the more intellectual
Jesus Freaks . He has sold more books than any of the preceding apologists mentioned above,
even though they are less scholarly and were meant for laymen.
C. Certain books stand out among his 22 books, which have been gathered in The Complete
Works of Francis Schaeffer (5 volumes). His whole approach is best summed up in How Should
We Then Live? This was also the basis for a popular film series. For more depth, his apologetic
system is elaborated in his trilogy: The God Who Is There, Escape From Reason, and He Is
There and He Is Not Silent.
D. Schaeffer studied for a while under Van Til and popularized the idea of Presuppositionalism.
In fact, many have been introduced to Van Til s pure Presuppositionalism through first reading
Schaeffer. But there are distinct differences. In a way, Schaeffer amalgamates all of the above
systems, and somehow comes out less Calvinistic than any of them.
E. First he stresses pre-evangelism by friendship and discussion. He accepts the common
ground ideas of Buswell, Clark and Gerstner. Like Clark, he says we must demolish an

174

unbelievers beliefs, not just by logic, but by showing that they lead to despair, absurdity and
possibly suicide. Schaeffer emphasizes the Law of Contradiction. Unlike Van Til, he said that
presuppositions are not self-authenticating; like Buswell, he denied that men innately know God
per se. He proves Christianity by showing that it alone offers hope and meaning.
F. Schaeffer was especially critical of all forms of Existentialism, the predominant European
philosophy during the years he ministered there. He traces most of it back to Soren Kierkegaard
and sees it appearing in art, music and other forms of culture. In theology it appears in NeoOrthodoxy. Schaeffer rejects this blind leap of faith irrational ism. But he never accuses Van Til
of it.
G. As Existentialism was waning, Schaeffer turned his guns increasingly on its successor,
Secular Humanism. Unlike the preceding apologists, Schaeffer was more in tune with
contemporary culture and its philosophical presuppositions. In his formula Ideas have
consequences he warned against the inhuman and anti-God cultural consequences of
Humanism, such as abortion. In 1979 he co-authored Whatever Happened to the Human Race?
with Dr. C. Everett Koop, later U.S. Surgeon General. Later, in A Christian Manifesto he
discussed the question of Christian civil disobedience against cultural Humanism. His last book
was The Great Evangelical Disaster, where he chides Evangelicals for complacency,
ecumenism, retreat from Biblical inerrancy and lack of Biblical social action.
H. The Schaeffer School includes his wife Edith (who has written many popular books on a
practical level) and his son Franky (who has written several angry books which pick up where
his father left off, such as A Time for Anger). Hans Rookmaaker of Holland was another major
Schaefferite (Modern Art and the Death of a Culture). Os Guiness wrote The Dust of Death as a
Schaeffer associate in the 1970s, and has more or less continued in that vein in other works.
Much of the Schaeffer legacy continues through John Whitehead (The Death of Man and other
works) and his Rutherford Institute, which brings Christian principles to the legal sphere in
America against Humanism.

8. Conclusion.
All of the above were Calvinists who attempted to formulate a Christian philosophy and
apologetic based on Calvinistic foundations. Dooyeweerd and the Dooyeweerdians were the
farthest out and most abstruse. Their Calvinism is decreasing daily. Buswells approach can
hardly be considered distinctively Reformed. Clark and Gerstner are more Reformed, and their
systems find adherents among Calvinists of various stripes. In my judgment, however, the
Presuppositional system of Cornelius Van Til comes closest to a philosophy and theology that is
most Reformed. With its several problems and weaknesses, it is still the best around.

Recommended Reading
Dooyeweerd, Herman. A New Critique of Theoretical Thought. 4 volumes in 2. Jordan
Station, Ontario: Paideia Press (distributed in the US by Presbyterian and Reformed)
Hart, Hendrik; et al. Rationality in the Calvinian Tradition. Lanham: Univ. Press of Am.
Van Til, Cornelius. The Defence of the Faith and Christian Apologetics and A Christian Theory
of Knowledge! Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.

175

Geehan, E.R., ed. Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics
of Cornelius Van Til. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
North, Gary, ed. Foundations of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Perspective.
Vallecito: Ross House Books.
Frame, John. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. Presbyterian and Reformed. Pratt,
Richard. Every Thought Captive. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Buswell, J. Oliver,
Jr. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Zondervan. Clark, Gordon. A Christian View
of Men and Things. Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation. Sproul, R.C.; Gerstner, John; and
Lindsley, Arthur. Classical Apologetics. Zondervan. Schaeffer, Francis. The Complete Works of
Francis Schaeffer. Westchester: Good News.

176

Chapter 21. The Theonomy Movement.

1. Introduction.
A. What is Theonomy? Who is Gary North and what is he up to? Is Christian Reconstruction
truly Reformed and Evangelical, or is it a sinister anti-Semitic legalistic plot to take over
America? Is it a cult, or what?
B. Christian Reconstruction is the general term for a movement of Reformed Christians in
recent years to reconstruct America back to its Puritan roots and the Biblical ideal for society.
One of its distinctive aspects is Theonomy, which gets its name from the Greek words THEOS
(God) and NOMOS (Law), hence, Gods Law. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the
movement is that of Dominion. These three key terms are closely related.
C. The Theonomy movement is one of the most controversial subjects in contemporary
Calvinism. All of the major Theonomists are strong Calvinists. They all avow historic, 5 Point
Calvinism and are usually emphatic in their Covenant Theology and Supralapsarianism.
D. Most of the movement has been in Presbyterian churches, especially the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church of America. In 1979,the latter denomination
ruled that Theonomy can be taught within their churches without disciplinary action, though it did
not actually formally endorse it either. The movement is not a cult or a sect. There was only one
brief attempt to form a denomination (Gary Norths Association of Reformation Churches). More
recently, the movement has found adherents among some Episcopalians, Bap-tists and
Pentecostals.
E. The movement is growing. This is mainly due to the growth of the Reformed movement in
general, disillusionment among Christians over Antinomianism, and the growing Christian
involvement in social, educational and political issues in the 1980s (the Reagan Revolution
and Moral Majority).
F. Yet this is not a brand-new movement by any means. Its roots go far back, at least to
Calvins attempt for a Christian society in Geneva. Theodore Bezabuilt on that foundation with
his views of the civil magistrate. The Reformed doctrine of the Law and its civil ramifications was
further developed by Samuel Rutherford in Lex Rex and George Gillespie in Aarons rod
Blossoming. These 2 books were especially important during, the Puritan Commonwealth. Then
the Puritan Fathers in America attempted to construct a Christian nation, as seen in The
Mayflower Compact and other early documents.
G. The next major stage was the work and writings of Abraham Kuyper in Holland. In a way,
Kuyper gave a quantum leap in the field of the application of Gods Law to society. Cornelius
Van Til further developed Kuypers doctrine of Common Grace pertaining to society, but was not
himself a Theonomist per se (Van Til was Amillenial and had reservations about the movement).
On the other hand, his strong Presuppostionalism laid the apologetic foundation for
Theonomism. Greg Bahnsen quotes Van Til: There is no alternative but that of Theonomy and
autonomy. Theonomists are virtually all Van Tillian Presuppositionalists in apologetics.

2. Rousas J. Rushdoony.
A. The first glimmerings of the modern Theonomy movement were in the late 1950s and early

177

1960s. T. Robert Ingram, an Episcopalian in Houston, wrote several books on the Law and
crime and society. But the real grandfather (or, say some, the godfather) of the modern
movement was Rousas J. Rushdoony. The son of Armenian immigrants, Rushdoony often
mentions that he is the latest in a line of Armenian priests and preachers in his family - all the
way back to the 4th-century. He may be Armenian, but he is no Arminian. He began his ministry
as a Presbyterian (OPC) missionary to Shoshone Indians. He wrote his first book, By What
Standard?, on the apologetics of Van Til.
B. Rushdoony spearheaded the modern Theonomy movement in the I960s when he founded
the Chalcedon Foundation in 1965, based in Vallecito, California. Chalcedpn continues to be a
major think tank in the movement. It publishes books, organizes conferences, and produces the
Journal of Christian Reconstruction. Rushdoony has also been very influential in the growing
Christian school movement. In addition to several books on the subject of Christian education,
he often appears in civil courts as an expert witness.
C. Rush has authored over 30 books, most of them still in print. By far his most significant is
The Institutes of Biblical Law (1973), a massive 890-pagetheology of Biblical Law and
exposition of the Ten Commandments from a Reformed perspective. Outside the Bible, it has
had more influence in the Theonomy movement than any other book.
D. Other names associated with Rushdoony and Chalcedon are his son Mark, Otto Scott
(historian), John Lofton (columnist for the Washington Times) and R.E. McMaster, Jr
(economist).

3. Gary North.
A. North is Rushdoonys son-in-law (and a true son of the law, indeed). North has never been a
pastor, but rather an economist-cum-theologian. At one time he served as aide and advisor to a
Texas Congressman and was the first editor of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction. Based
in Tyler, Texas, Gary North is the undisputed leader of the Tyler Theonomists. He began
several related ministries, such as the ill-fated Geneva Divinity School.
B. Norths main ministry is the Institute for Christian Economics, another Reconstructionist think
tank similar to Chalcedon. The ICE puts out several different newsletters, including several
along strictly economic and fiscal lines for investment purposes. The ICE is not another
proponent of the philosophy of Buy gold, guns and dried food, and head for the hills! North is a
strong supporter of the gold standard and investing in precious metals, but his ministry is much
more.
C. North teaches that the Bible gives us Gods inspired philosophy of economics. It includes
tithing and gleaning, and warns of usury and going surety. To some, it sound like baptized
capitalism, but Norths Theonomic economics is a far cry from Humanistic laissez-faire. In turn,
his economics is related to the Biblical ideal of a decentralized but righteous civil government.
D. More than most Reconstructionists, Norths economic views have bordered on the
Prosperity Gospel of certain Pentecostal movements. The prosperity or Positive Confession
movement of Robert Tilton and others has been labelled Name it, Claim It. The differences are
many. Tilton, for example, mainly makes prosperity reliant on faith and claiming blessings, while
North teaches that it is more a matter of obedience to Gods economic laws. Both agree that it is
not Gods will for His people to be poor. Still, Norths views probably have more in common with
the old Protestant Work Ethic than Pentecostal prosperity. On the other hand, North has spoken
at Prosperity conferences (Robert Tilton, Earl Pauck, etc) and defends them from those such

178

as Dave Hunt.
E. North has authored more than 20 books and produces at least 3 a year. He is^/very
readable and clear, and has a certain flair and wit. However, he also tends to shoot from the hip
and exaggerate. He uses his pen like a sword and sometimes borders on caustic and
ungentlemanly conduct. In this and in his Theonomic views, he is probably the most extreme
and controversial Reconstructionists on the scene. He has fallen out with several of the other
leaders, and is not on speaking terms with Rushdoony. North supports Randall Terrys
Operation Rescue, Rushdoony does not. Gary North will be on the scene for many more years.

4. The Tyler Theonomists.

A. James Jordan was once part of Norths Association of Reformation Churches, but has fallen
out with him and now pastors a PCA church in Tyler. He has written several books (dont they
all?), including the seminal The Law and the Covenant and other books on civil law in the
Pentateuch and Judges.
B. Ray Sutton is Gary Norths pastor. At first their church was named Westminster Presbyterian
Church (the center of the Association of Reformation Churches).But then Sutton and North
became attracted to sacramental ism. The church is now an independent Episcopalian church
named Good Shepherd Episcopal Church. They are into liturgy, clerical collars and such.
Incidently, Sutton and North are among the main proponents and practioners of infant
communion (if covenant infants can receive the first sacrament, why not the second?). Sutton
has written several books espousing his 5-point covenantal structure. He applies this to
economic prosperity, marriage and divorce, and other issues.
C. David Chi 1 ton is no longer in Tyler, having fallen out with North. He now pastors in
California. His first major book was a lengthy refutation of theEvangelical Liberation Theology
and Socialism of Ron Sider (Rich Christians in An Age of Hunger). Chilton named his book
Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators. Chi 1 ton is also the main
Reconstructionists expert in eschatology. His first book in the field was Paradise Restored: An
Eschatology of Dominion, followed by a large commentary on Revelation, The Days of
Vengeance. His The Great Tribulation is a short summary.
D. Michael Gilstrap and Robert Thoburn are others associated with the Tyler theology.
Dominion Press in Fort Worth is also associated with it.

5. Greg Bahnsen.
A. While still a student and tutor at Westminster Seminary, Greg Bahnsen was pegged by Van
Til as the next great Presuppositional apologist, possibly the next Van Til. Later Bahnsen taught
at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi, but had to leave because of his
Theonomic views. He now pastors an OPC church in California and works with a local school.
B. Bahnsen is not quite in the forefront of the movement as he once was, yet his influence is
still there. Few in the movement wish to disagree with him, for he is acknowledged to be
perhaps the most skilled debater and has probably the greatest theological genius in the
movement. His writings are carefully written and documented, more cautious than North. He has
written several short books and many articles, but his vast influence is through his 619-page
Theonomy in Christian Ethics (1977). This thorough volume is the definitive work on the Biblical

179

basis for Theonomy. It is almost as important to the movement as Rushdoonys Institutes. No

serious study of the Theonomy movement is complete without it. If the reader finds it too lengthy
and detailed, he can consult By This Standard, Bahnsen*s short summary of Theonomy
theology.

6. Southeastern Theonomists.
A. Gary DeMar founded American Vision, another Theonomic think tank, in Atlanta in 1979 and
is rapidly becoming a leader in the movement. Among his many books is his 3-volumed God
and Government, the fullest Reconstructions theology of politics. In April 1988, Gary DeMar
and Gary North debated the two major opponents of Theonomism, Dave Hunt and Tommy Ice,
in Dallas. The debate was later published as The Debate over Reconstruction. DeMar and his
associate also co-wrote a refutation of Dave Hunts contention in The Seduction of Christianity
and Whatever Happened to Heaven? that Reconstructions is unbiblical and borrows concepts
from the New Age Movement. About the same time, Tommy Ice teamed up with Wayne House
of Dallas Seminary to write the fullest attack on Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology:
Blessing or Curse? More recently, Hal Lindsey has written The Road to Holocaust, more or less
based on Ice and Houses research. DeMar then replied to Lindseys charges with The Legacy
of Hatred Continues.
B. George Grant pastored Believers Fellowship in Humble, a suburb of Houston, for 10 years.
Currently he ministers with D. James Kennedy in Coral Gables, Florida. He has applied
Reconstructionism to two fields: ministering to the poor and homeless (Bringing in the Sheaves:
Transforming Poverty into Productivity) and opposing Planned Parenthood s pro-abortion
propaganda(Planned Deception).
C. Other Reconstructionists in the Southeast corner of the US include Joseph Morecraft III
(Atlanta), Kenneth Gentry (South Carolina), Robert Metcalf(Memphis) and Joe Kickasola (who
teaches at CBN University in Virginia).Francis Nigel Lee is a South African who has ministered
and taught in these circles for 20 years, such as at the Christian Studies Center in Memphis.
D. There are a number of others who are often classed incorrectly as Theonomists or
Reconstructionists. It would probably be better to call them friends of Christian Reconstruction.
Among them are John Whitehead (The Rutherford Institute), Rus Walton (Plymouth Rock
Foundation), Herbert Schlossberg (Idols for Destruction), D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge
Presbyterian [PCA]Church and Evangelism Explosion), Pat Robertson (Christian Broadcasting
Network), John Frame (Westminster Seminary in California), and the late Francis Schaeffer.

7. Postminenialism.
A. Though there are a few Pre-Millenialists who are friendly to the movement, the heart of the
movement is Post-Millenial. This is the view that there will be a golden age of the Church
around the world before Christ returns. In away, it is simply optimistic Amillenialism. This golden
age will come about gradually over a long-term (Bahnsen says we are still probably in the
infancy of the Church era). It may not come for thousands of years. Most Reconstructionists say
it will be characterized by Christian influence in all societies to the extent that the leaven of the
Church has permeated all aspects of human culture. Some say it will be a grass-roots
movement from below, others that it will be forced from above,
B. Chilton has described this as paradise restored - the restoration of what Adam lost in Eden.

180

Adam was given the Cultural Mandate (Gen. 1:28) to subdue the Earth for God. This mandate
still continues and will be gradually fulfilled in the Church era, culminating in the kingdom of God
on Earth. Reconstructionists generally tie in the Cultural Mandate with the Great Commission
(Matt. 28:18-20). Evangelism is not enough; all nations must be discipled and be submitted to
the authority of Christ. This in essence is what is known as Dominion Theology.
C. Chilton and others argue that this is the only eschatology that is consistent with true
Calvinism. Is he right? Is there a Reformed Eschatology? Regarding the Millennium, about half
of Calvinists have been Amillenial, about a third Post-Millenial, the rest Pre-Millenial. Personally,
it is my view that millenial views and Calvinist distinctives are not directly related.
D. Earlier in this series we noted the difficulties between Calvinism and Dispensationalism.
Those differences are very pronounced in the Theonomy debate, and not just on eschatology.
Some non-Reconstructionists (Ice, House, Lindsey) give too much attention to Reconstructionist
eschatology. Reformed non-Theonomists are more concerned with the question of Theonomic
law.
E. Reconstructionists Post-Millennialism grants little place for national Israel in Gods prophetic
program. It does not deny them salvation, but ties salvation of the Jews in with the New
Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant. National Israel has no more privileged place now than
any other nation. Because of this approach, Reconstructionists are sometimes falsely accused
of being anti-Semitic. Hal Lindsey, for example, is quoted as saying This is one of the most
anti-Semitic movements Ive seen since Adolph Hitler. In The Road to Holocaust, Lindsey
clearly implies that Christian Reconstruction is anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi and is on the road to
exterminating Jews. Others link Reconstruction with the Identity Movement. It just is not true.
For example, Steve Schlissel is a converted Jew who is also a Christian Reconstructionists and
pal of Gary North. Such would be unthinkable in any form of organized anti-Semitism. AntiSemitism puts Israel at the bottom of the heap of humanity, Dispensationalism puts it on the top.
Reconstructionism follows the majority of Christians in history and puts national Israel on the
same level as all other nations. Further, anti-Zionism is not always the same as anti-Semitism
(some Jews themselves are anti-Zionist). The whole charge is unfounded slander.
Unfortunately, like undeserved mud, it often sticks.

8. Theonomy and the Reformed Doctrine of the Law.

A. To understand whether Theonomy is the historical Reformed view, we must take a quick
look at the historic Reformed theology of the Law. First, mainstream Calvinism has taught that
there are three uses of the Law:
(1) Usus Politicus (political use). The civil magistrate is ordained by God to restrain sin
and promote righteousness according to Gods Law (Rom. 13). This is explained in
chapter XXIII of the Westminster Confession.
(2) Usus Pedagogicus (pedagogical use). The Law defines sin for us (Rom. 3:20,7:8, I
John 3:4). we are to prtich the Law to work conviction of sin, and then the Gospel as the
cure for sin (Mark 10:19, Luke 10:25-28). In this way, the Law is a schoolmaster that
leads to Christ (Gal. 3:23). The Westminster Larger Catechism expounds this use in
questions 95 and 96.
(3) Usus Didacticus (didactical use). The Law instructs us in the will of our Heavenly
Father. It does not save, but those who are saved will obey and therefore need
instruction in what to obey. This use is expounded in the Westminster Confession, XIX:6.

181

Cf. John 14:15, 21-24, I John 5:3, etc.

B. Then there are the three divisions of the Law:
(1) The Moral Law. Most Calvinists say this is summed up in the Ten Commandments,
though some omit the fourth from this division. Hundreds of other laws are also in this
category. This division is international and eternal, and thus continues today for the three
uses above. It is the heart of the Law and constitutes the conditions of the Covenant of
Works, and is summed up in the two great love commandments. For exposition, see
Larger Catechism #93.
(2) The Ceremonial Law. This category includes temporary laws only for the Jews until
Messiah arrived (Col. 2:16-17), such as circumcision and sacrifices. N.T. ceremonies
replace them (Baptism and Communion). They were types of the work of Christ and was
the O.T. Gospel. All are abolished. For exposition, see Westminster Confession XIX:3.
(3) The Civil Law. This is mainly in Ex. 21-23 and is usually case law.
C. The Theonomic distinctive has to do with the relation between the first use and the third
division of the Law. Reformed theology has taught that those civil laws based on the ceremonial
law have clearly been abolished. Civil laws based on the moral law continue (e.g., capital
punishment for murderers). Yet Reformed orthodoxy further stated that some civil laws were
temporary due to Israels special status as a theocracy: To them also, as a body politic, He
gave sundry juridicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any
other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require. (XIX:4)
D. What is this general equity? Theonomists take it to mean that Israel was a special
theocracy but also an example to all other nations to imitate, even today, excepting for the
distinctives of the ceremonial law. Hence, Theonomists contend that the civil law division
continues. Non-Theonomic Calvinists say it ceases, but the first use of the Law continues
through the wise and judicious application of the moral law and the general equity (principles,
thought not always the exact precepts). Even Theonomists often allow for cultural variations and
adaptations and do not call for a theocracy exactly like ancient Israel.

9. Conclusion.
A. There is much good in the Theonomy Movement, such as its warnings against
Antinomianism. They do not retreat from being salt and light in sinful society. Moreover, they are
very productive and know how to get things done, at least in their own circles. Is it heretical? No,
I do not think so. Like the PCA decision, I would agree that Theonomy falls within the general
bounds of Evangelical and Reformed orthodoxy. One need not be a thorough-going
Reconstructionists to be Reformed, while it is difficult to be a consistent Reconstructionists
without being Reformed. The major problem it has with Reformed orthodoxy is its distinctive
union of the first use and third division of the Law. Some Theonomists are allowing clarifications
and adaptations which approach the more mainstream view, while others are increasingly
opening those Reformed borders to non-Reformed views (e.g., Gary North and the
Pentecostals, who are not at all Reformed).
B. There are certain weaknesses in the movement which need rectifying. First, it is becoming
less and less Calvinistic. One reads some Reconstructionist books with no hint that the author
or his theology is Calvinistic - a far cry from Van Til or Kuyper! Secondly, some Theonomists
pour scorn on simple devotional Christianity in a cold manner remnicient of the
Dooyeweerdians. They need to rekindle their spirituality. This weakness is further seen in their

182

sometimes cavalier and arrogant swashbuckling manner and proclivity to division even in their
own numbers.
C. Further, they need more evangelism and Biblical exposition (such as commentaries). Its
Post-Millenialism goes too far for even mainstream Calvinistic Post-Millenial-ism. A PerMi11enialism need not fear of going to these extremes and therefore can never be a full-blown
Reconstructionist. Neither Dispensationalism nor Reconstructionism are as dangerous as their
respective counterparts contend. Lastly, the Theonomists need to scrutinize themselves, lest in
opposing Antinomianism they back into legalism (such as the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of
the Law). After all, one of the five Solas of the Reformation is Sola Gratia.

Recommended Reading
Rushdoony, Rousas J. The Institutes of Biblical Law. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Bahnsen, Greg. Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Bahnsen, Greg. By This Standard. Tyler: Institute, for Christian Economics (ICE). North, Gary.
Unconditional Surrender. Tyler: ICE. (An introduction to Reconstructionism) DeMar, Gary. God
and Government. 3 vols. Atlanta: American Vision. Ice, Tommy; and House, Wayne. Dominion
Theology. Portland: Multnomah.

183

Chapter 22. Neo-Orthodoxy.

1. Introduction.
A. Whatever happened to Calvinism in the land of its birth - Switzerland? For the most part, it
died out. But in the early part of this century, there arose a theological movement which claimed
to rediscover Calvinism. The movement grew and diversified, but ardently claims to be
Reformed.
B. Sooner or later, the young Calvinist will be approached by advocates of this new system that
claims to have discovered and purified Calvinism. He will be told, This is true Calvinism, not
that old stodgy scholastic kind. Is it what they claim it to be? Some suggest that it is a variety
of Low Calvinism. Just what is it?
C. It goes by the name of Neo-Orthodoxy. The word simply means a new orthodoxy. However,
it is not a homogenous movement by any means, but a general tendency. Some in the
movement do not claim to be Reformed, others do. We will only be concerned with those who
say they are Reformed. The movement began as a reaction against classical German
Liberalism as advocated by Schleiermacher, Ritschl and Harnack. However, some opponents
contend that it is really just another form of Liberalism, such as Neo-Liberalism. Van Til calls it
the new modernism.
D. Much of the movement can be traced back to Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), the Danish
theologian. Technically, however, it was born during World War I when that terrible war
destroyed the Liberal myth that Man is basically good. Kierkegaard opposed dry orthodoxy;
Neo-Orthodoxy opposed both Liberalism and dry orthodoxy.
E. Of whom are we speaking? We will not discuss the self-confessed non-Reformed exponents
(Rudolph Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Friedrich Gogarten, Reinhold Niebuhr, etc.). Nor will we
specifically dwell on lesser lights on the Reformed side of Neo-Orthodoxy (Oscar Cullman,
Thomas F. Torrance, J.K.S. Reid, Otto Weber, Eduard Thisrneysen, etc). Instead, we will
concentrate on the two main leaders: Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. Obviously we cannot give a
full report, so we will concentrate on their distinctives and their differences with historic
Reformed orthodoxy.

2. Karl Barth (1886-1968).

A. Both the son and the father of theologians, Karl Barth was born in Basel, Switzerland in
1886. He pastored for a few years early in life, but spent most of his ministry as a theological
professor. Initially he taught in Germany, but was expelled by Hitler in 1935. Barth, it seems,
was the main author of the Barmen Declaration of 1934 which opposed Nazism on religious
grounds. Barth then taught at the University of Basel from 1935 till 1962.
B. In the 1950s, Barth changed his mind on paedo-baptism and actually rejected it in favor of a
form of Believers Baptism. Some Baptists welcomed this, while others cried, We dont want
him either! In 1962 Barth came to America in a celebrated lecture tour of selected seminaries.
His picture was on the cover of Time magazine shortly thereafter.
C. There is no doubt that Barth has been one of the most influential theologians in history, and
probably the most influential this century, for good or ill. I can still remember a Sunday School

184

textbook which I had to read as a child in the old PCUS, in which Barth was classed with Paul,
Augustine, Luther and Calvin
D. While still a pastor, Barth wrote his first book, Commentary on Romans (1919,re-written in
1922). It has been said that this book fell like a bombshell on the playground of theological
Liberalism. Actually, it is not an exegetical commentary at all. It is more a commentary on Barth
than on Paul. Barth wrote many other books, such as The Word of God and the Word of Man
(1924) and The Humanity of God (I960), and several short summaries of his theology:
Credo(1935), The Knowledge of God and the Service of God (1938), Dogmatics in Outline
(1949) and Evangelical Theology (1962).
E. But his masterpiece was his massive Church Dogmatics in 13 enormous volumes of small
print. Begun in 1932 to replace his unfinished and abandoned Christian Dogmatics (1927), this
series was his preoccupation for the rest of his life. In fact, he never lived to complete it. The CD
is the largest SystematicTheology ever written in any language and from any theological
perspective. It is also one of the most difficult to understand. It reflects Barths disdain for the
systematic approach to theology. There is a story that, because it is so hard to read in German
because of interminable sentences, many of his students chose to read the English translation
instead. In any case, it is filled with theology, church history, exegesis, and various religious
meanderings. Barth interacts with all sorts of theologians, but very rarely quotes or refers to
those who wrote in English. He virtually ignores all the great English, Scottish and American
Calvinists.
F. Now in many respects Barth is closer to truth than were the old Liberals. Barth accepted the
Virgin Birth, deity, atonement and resurrection of Christ. In practice he was quite conservative
(he was, for example, a strong opponent of abortion). On the other hand, there are serious
problems. He seems not to have believed in personal angels, demons or Satan, but considered
them useful myths. There are stronger differences than these which need examination.

3. Barth on Scripture.
A. The early Barth advocated Dialectical Theology, which stressed paradox and downplayed if
not rejected prepositional revelation. God speaks in moments of crises; hence, this is also
known as The Theology of Crisis. Truth then is not absolute or static, but developing. True
Calvinists viewed this approach with suspicion. To them, Barth was simply using the dialectics
of G.F. Hegel (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). Hence, orthodoxy was the thesis, Liberalism was
the antithesis, and Neo-Orthodoxy was the synthesis of the two. Later Barth claimed to change
on dialectics, but the change was really cosmetic. Barths theology was always in flux, but in its
main points it remained the same throughout.
B. Barth said that Gods revelation to Man is on three levels: Christ is the Logos and full
revelation, the Bible points to Christ, and preaching points to both. He compared these three to
the Trinity. Barth stringently rejected revelation through Nature. There is neither Natural
Revelation nor Natural Theology. The only true revelation is the Creator Himself, not the
Creation.
C. What about the Bible? Barth wrote: The Bible is Gods Word so far as God lets it be His
Word, so far as God speaks through it. Of itself, the Bible is not divine revelation. It can point to
or contain or become the Word of God, but we should not identify the Bible as the Word of God.
The Bible is basically a human book which God uses to act on men. Human language is
incapable of serving as a means of divine revelation; human language is incapable of
comprehending God. Opponents then query, Then how can eyebath himself use words to

185

discuss God?
D. Barth clearly rejected verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture. The Bible, he said, is not
an infallible revelation but a fallible witness to revelation. In a way, it must and should be in
error. To say it is inerrant is to worship it and make it a paper pope. The writers could and did
err: The prophets and apostles as such, even in their office... were real historical men as we
are, and ...actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word. Also: There are obvious
overlappings and contradictions - e.g., between the Law and the prophets, between Paul and
James... Within certain limits and therefore relativity they are all vulnerable and therefore
capable of error, even in respect of religion and theology. To say the Bible is inerrant is to make
it divine and not human, which, Barth says, is Docetism and Gnosticism.
E. Barth also rejected the historicity of certain portions of Scripture, such as Genesis 1-11.
There were not two historic individuals named Adam and Eve. There was no historic Fall. When
asked if he believed the serpent literally spoke to Adam and Eve, Barth evaded the issue with
the trite remark, It is more important to ask what the serpent said. All this was simply primal
history. Barth said there is a difference between Historie (which historians study) and
Geschichte (special kind of history, not like what historians can study). God does not speak or
act in Historie but only in Geschichte.
F. So, the Biblical writers generally wrote about this Geschichte in the form of Saga: Like all
ancient literature, the Old and New Testaments know nothing of the distinction of fact and value
which is so important to us, between history, on the one hand, and saga and legend, on the
other. Saga is not entirely myth (like Aesops myths and fables). Saga is more like legends. A
Saga has some basis in history, but that really doesnt make much difference. God uses
Geschichte and Saga.
G. When in Chicago in 1962, Barth was asked what he thought was the most profound thing in
theology. He replied, Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. Theologians,
Evangelicals and Sunday School teachers have cheered that remark. But to Barth it meant
something entirely different. He stressed that Jesus loves all men equally and that this love will
triumph in the end. The Bible points to this revelation. Reformed Evangelicals argue that Barth
has such a low view of Scripture that he couldnt know that Jesus loved anyone.
H. Gordon Clark has commented that Barths doctrine of Scripture is Doctrine without facts. It
is pure Fideism - a leap of faith into the unknown, as taught by Kierkegaard. Because God and
Man know differently, it is irrational. What, then, is Barths doctrine of God?

4. Barth on God.
A. To Barth, God is not the object of our inquiry; He can only be the subject. Against
Liberalisms stress on the immanence (nearness) of God, Barth stressed the transcendence of
God (God is above and beyond Man). God is wholly other. Moreover, God has total freedom.
Barth even said that this freedom means that God is free to become His opposite. Reformed
Evangelicals strongly disagree. We ask Barth, Can the holy God become the unholy Devil?
Can God lie? Can the self-existent God chose to non-exist? God is free only according to His
existence and attributes allow.
B. At the heart of Barthianism is the doctrine that God is known only in Christ. Christ, not God,
is the correct starting point in theology. God does not exist in Himself, but only as He is in
Christ. In Christ, God is wholly revealed but also wholly hidden. Evangelical Calvinists reply
that this is not Biblical. For example, the Bible itself does not begin with Christ but with God

186

(Gen. 1:1). Some have charged Barth with Christomonism - a form of non-Trinitarianism where
the first and third persons of the Trinity are simply amalgamations of the second person. Also, it
is a contradiction and not a paradox to say God is both wholly revealed and hidden. The Bible
rather says that in Christ, God is partly revealed but still remains partly hidden.
C. Also, for Barth, God basically has two attributes: love and freedom. These triumph over
holiness and wrath. And it is this imbalanced idea of the divine attributes that lies behind his
errorneous doctrine of election.

5. Barth on Election.
A. Barth wrote, The doctrine of election is the sum of the Gospel. But he denied the
fundamental distinctive of Calvinism: There is no decretum absolutum [absolute decree]. There
is no will of God distinct from the will of Jesus Christ. Bart labels the historic Reformed doctrine
of the absolute decree unchristian and anti-Christian. Therefore, we ask, how can anybody
consider Barth a Calvinist?
B. He further rejected Covenant Theology and the doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption and
the Covenant of Works, which he calls mythology and tri-theistic. There is only one covenant
and one decree - the election of Jesus Christ. In its simplest and most comprehensive form, the
dogma of predestination... consists in the assertion that the divine predestination is the election
of Jesus Christ. Also, Jesus Christ is the electing God and He is also the elected Man.
C. Then Barth taught what he called a Purified Supralapsarianism. Christ was elected for all
men, but He was also reprobated for all men. The only truly rejected man is His Own Son... He
is the Rejected... With Jesus Christ the rejected can only have been rejected. He cannot be_
rejected any more. Therefore, all men are both elect and reprobate, but the election of grace
wins out. [God] wills that the rejected man should believe, and as a believer should become an
elected reprobate. There is no equal ultimacy of eternal election and reprobation, nor is it
arbitrary. Nor, in a sense, is it even eternal, for that would make it static, not living.
D. For some reason, Barth still claimed to be Reformed. Opponents denied this and pointed to
Barths own words: I would have preferred to follow Calvins doctrine of predestination more
closely, instead of departing from it so radically.

6. Barth on Hell.
A. Because of his notions of universal election, the triumph of grace, and universal atonement,
Barth clearly and logically implies universal salvation. Sinners (reprobate)are already forgiven.
Divine wrath is overshadowed by divine grace. Barth even said that wrath is actually a form of
grace. It certainly is not what we say it is.
B. Yet Barth was ambivalent (dialectical?) on admitting his incipient Universal ism. He waffled
on the doctrine of Hell. Sometimes he admitted that Scripture does not teach universal
salvation, but then said that some verses imply or allow it. Someone once quipped that if Barth
were consistent, he would say that If there is a Hell, theres nobody in it. For Barth, the fear of
Hell is a part of faith, even if there is no Hell after all. What about the Last Judgment? Barth said
that Christ is judge not to condemn, but rather a judge to restore order.
C. Evangelical and Reformed believers oppose all this. If there were not a Hell, why did Christ
say there was one and that some will go there? Scripture explicitly teaches particular election of

187

some sinners to salvation and Heaven, but also a particular reprobation of the other sinners to
damnation and Hell. Personally, I dont trust a man (let alone a theologian) who waffles on such
an important matter and wont tell you in no uncertain terms what he believes and means.

7. Emil Brunner (1889-1966).

A. The second important Neo-Orthodox theologian who claimed to be Reformed was Emil
Brunner, who taught at Zurich from 1924 till 1953 and then at the International Christian
University at Tokyo from 1953 till 1956.
B. Like his rival, Brunner wrote many books: The Mediator (1927), The Divine
Imperative(1932), The Pi vine-Human Encounter (1938), The Theology of Crisis (1929), Man in
Revolt (1937), Revelation and Reason (1941), and many more. His theology is briefly summed
up in his little Our Faith (1935) and fully developed in his 3-volumedDogmatics (1946-1960).
Like Barths, most of his works have been translated.
C. Again like Barth, he accepted the deity, atonement and resurrection of Christ, but unlike
Barth he denied the Virgin Birth. He is more liberal than Barth, as when he commented:
Orthodoxy has become impossible for anyone who knows anything of science. This I would call
fortunate. Paul King Jewett said that Brunner came from the grave of Liberalism but still has the
Liberal grave clothes on.
D. Often, as in Eternal Hope (1955), Brunner seems to teach that unrepentant sinners are
annihilated into oblivion. But usually Brunner taught universal salvation, and that more explicitly
than Barth. Like the Arminians, Brunner taught that there is really only one will in God. Since
that will is efficacious and sovereign, it will come to pass. Yet that will is also that all men be
saved. Therefore, all will be saved. All are already forgiven though they do not yet know it.
Brunner wrote, The main thing is that they are saved. They are like people who seem perishing
in a stormy sea. But in reality they are not in a sea where one can drown, but in shallow water,
where it is impossible to drown. Only they do not know it.

8. Brunner on Scripture.
A. In 1934, Brunner wrote Nature and Grace: A Discussion with Karl Barth. In it, he defended
the doctrine of natural revelation (that God says some things to Man through Creation). Barth
replied with the angry Nein! Brunner taught that natural revelation is imperfect and unclear, but
reminds men of the image of God. It needs further clarification through Scripture and Christ.
B. Like Barth, Brunner taught that God is subject, not object. We cannot think of God; God must
speak. Much of this sounds orthodox. But then Brunner makes a drastic verge away from
orthodoxy. The Bible is not revelation. The worst error in the history of the Church is equating
the Bible with the Word of God, especially in the theory of verbal inspiration and inerrancy. The
orthodox theory is simply a Protestant form of legalistic Judaism.. Verbal inspiration is the letter
that kills (Brunner has the gall to. appeal to 2 Cor. 3:6 on this!). Even the Biblical writers
themselves wrongly held to verbal inspiration when they mixed it with the letter that makes alive
(the Holy Spirits inner witness).
C. Brunner was much influenced by Martin Buber (1878-1965), the Jewish theologian. Both
taught that propositional revelation is impossible. Revelation only occurs between persons on a
one-to-one basis called the I-Thou. This crisis encounter between God and-Man alone is

188

revelational. The Bible, therefore, is not this revelation but only points to it. It is received by faith
alone in encounter.
D. But what about verses such as 2 Tim. 3:16? Brunner said that the Pastoral Epistles were not
written by Paul, but by an anonymous person 100 years later who claimed to be Paul. They are
pseudepigrapha, not revelation. 2 Tim. 3:16 teaches a paper pope. Nor is the Bible inerrant: It
is equally indisputable that the statements of the Bible concerning the future are not only to
some extent contradictory, but are laden with mythological ideas which have become alien and
partly even meaningless to us.The Bible needs to be de-mythologized [editing the myths out].
E. Brunner basically accepted the old Historical-Critical approach. For example, like Barth he
denied the historicity of Adam and Eve. Like Wellhausen, he said that the prophets wrote before
the Pentateuch, which was not written by Moses at all. Isaiah had 2 authors, not one. The
Gospels contain myths, such as Lukes record of a Roman census and Matthews record of the
Magi at Bethlehem. Moreover, even the Gospel accounts of Resurrection appearances conflict
with each other.

9. Conclusion.
A. Over the years, Evangelicals and even Calvinists have succumbed to the seductive theory
that Barth and Brunner were really right after all. G.C. Berkouwer was one,more recently,
Bernard Ramm, Geoffrey Bromiley (who translated most of Barths Church Dogmatics), and
Donald Bloesch have confessed that Barth was basically Evangelical. Paul King Jewett has
changed his mind and admitted the same for Brunner. They have thus changed their views on
both Neo-Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy itself.
B. Defenders of Barth sometimes say that we cannot criticize him unless we, have read all his
books. I strongly disagree. Few have ever read them all (it would take months of hard daily work
to do so, anyway). As Alexander Solzenitsyn said,- you dont have to drink the whole ocean to
know it is salty - one mouthful will suffice. Also, the question is not, Which was right, Barth or
Brunner?, for both were wrong. They have both been weighed in the balances and been found
wanting. On some things Barth may have been closer to the truth than Brunner, such as the
Virgin Birth. On other things, Brunner was closer, such as natural revelation. But in their
respective theologies, they are basically in agreement. And they agree in rejecting historic
orthodoxy. They are condemned out of their own mouths.
C. Cornelius Van Til wrote over 1,000 pages exposing Barth and Brunners theology. His
conclusion can be summed up in the following quotations:
Nothing could be more untrue to history than to say that the theology of Barth and Brunner is
basically similar to that of Luther and Calvin. Dialecticism is a basic reconstruction of the whole
of Reformation theology along critical lines. A Calvinist should not object to the Lutheranism in
Barth; there is no Lutheranism there. A Lutheran should not object to the Calvinism in Barth;
there is no Calvinism there. An Arminian should not object to the Calvinism of Barths doctrine of
election; there is no Calvinism in it. A Calvinist should not object to the Arminianism in Barths
universal ism; there is no Arminianism in it... There is no more Christianity and no more theism
in Brunner than there is in Barth... If evangelical Christianity in general ought to recognize in the
Theology of Crisis a mortal enemy, this is doubly true with respect to those who hold the
Reformed faith... The Theology of Crisis is a friend of modernism and a foe of historic
Christianity. (The New Modernism, pp. 366, 376, 378).
D. Van Til entitled one of his books Christianity and Barthianism in intentional similarity to

189

Machens Christianity and Liberalism. Machen argued that Liberalism is not a strange variety of
Christianity,- it is not Christianity at all! Van Til said the same of Barthianism, which is simply a
new Liberalism.
E. Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy both attack orthodoxy - especially Reformed orthodoxy -with
a vengeance. They accuse it of being dry orthodoxy. They seize on this and seek to import
serious heresies. As Van Til has shown, Barth and Brunner may sometimes sound orthodox,
but that is only because they use orthodox language tot each unorthodox theology. They are
Liberal wolves in orthodox sheeps clothing.
F. Neo-Orthodoxy opens the door to blatant Liberalism. Very few Liberals have gone through
that door to orthodoxy, but more than a few gullible Evangelicals have gone through it into
Liberalism. True Evangelicals do not need Neo-Orthodoxy to fight Liberalism, for the latter is
simply a co-belligerent of the former.
G. Barthianism is not as deep at it seems to be. It is pretended profundity, and appeals mainly
to those who play the game of It must be true, for I dont understand it. Some, on the other
hand,, claim to understand it and say that their opponents do not. We reply that we understand
its basic tenets and therefore disagree with them. But most of the rest is theological nonsense,
ambiguous irrationality, doctrine without facts. Barthianism does not teach paradoxes; it teaches
contradictions. Neo-Orthodoxy is theological fiction. It does not match the facts of Scripture.
H. Perhaps Neo-Orthodoxy is a new orthodoxy, but it is not the old and true orthodoxy. What is
particularly disturbing is its claim to be Reformed and Calvinistic. Can anyone honestly agree
that Barthianism is in agreement with the basics of Calvins theology? Would Calvin accept
Barth as a fellow theologian or as a heretic? Neo-Orthodoxy is not Reformed. More importantly,
it is not Evangelical. It is unbiblical in its foundations. If it is not Evangelical, it certainly is not
Reformed, for Calvinism is simply a mature variety of Evangelicalism, Charles C. Ryrie rightly
observed that In reality, then, it is pseudo-orthodoxy... It is a deceivingly false orthodoxy...
Neoorthodoxy is a theological hoax. It is well to be warned.

Recommended Reading
Barths Church Dogmatics, Romans and Dogmatics in Outline, and Brunners Dogmatics and
Our Faith are all in print in English editions. These are their basic works.
Van Til, Cornelius. Christianity and Barthianism. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed. Ryrie,
Charles C. Neoorthodoxy. Kansas City: Walterick Publishers.

190

Chapter 23. 20th-century British Calvinism.

1. Introduction.
A. Of all the nations on Earth, Great Britain has enjoyed as much success in the acceptance of
Calvinism as any other. Unfortunately, most of that success is a thing of the past. Gone are the
golden days of the Puritans in England and the Covenanters in Scotland. Today, Calvinists are
a distinct minority.
B. Still, they are still to be found in Britain to this day. In previous studies we have mentioned
some Reformed groups which are still around, such as the Strict Baptists, and so we will not
add to what we said there. In this study, we will give brief cameos of the leading voices in 20thcentury British Calvinism, for good or ill, especially since World War II.

2. Thomas F. Torrance (1913- ).

A. Around the turn of the century, certain Scottish Calvinists were breaking new ground in the
area of Low Calvinism. They were in effect becoming lower and lower, and it is debatable
whether they remained Calvinists at all. They included A.B. Bruce, P.T. Forsyth,. James Orr and
James Denney. They laid the foundation for their successors after World War I, who went
further from historic Calvinism, yet waved the banner of a New Reformation . These included
H.R. Macintosh, John Baillie and Harold Knight.
B. After World War II, the leader of this New Reformation became undisputed: Thomas
Forsyth Torrance. Born in China of missionary parents, Torrance was to be Professor of
Christian Dogmatics at New College, the graduate school of theology at Edinburgh University,
from 1952 until 1979. With J.K.S. Reid of Aberdeen, he founded the prestigious Scottish Journal
of Theology in 1948,which is the unofficial organ of the movement.
C. Torrance served as Moderator of the Church of Scotland in 1976-77 and was awarded the
coveted Templeton Prize for Religious Progress in 1978 [it is the religious equivalent of the
Nobel Prize]. TFT has also been made a Fellow of the British Academy, the highest academic
honor in the United Kingdom. For a generation, he has been the dean of British Systematic
Theology. However, when he retired to spend his years in writing and elucidating his theology,
New College did not select someone of his ilk. Most of the faculty were considerably more
liberal and, for whatever reasons, were intent on erasing the vestiges of Torrances theology.
His was basically Neo-Orthodox, which to the Liberals was almost Fundamentalism [someone
said that Torrance may have believed the wrong things, but at least he believed something,
while the Liberals did not believe anything]. So the choice for his replacement to the Thomas
Chalmers Chair of Theology was James MacKay. Not only was he not Neo-Orthodox, he was
not even Scottish or Protestant.
D. Still, T.F. Torrances influence has been imminence. He speaks and writes much about
Calvin. He was co-editor of the re-translation of Calvins New Testament commentaries. On the
other hand, he was also co-editor of Barths Church Dogmatics English translation. To
understand this New Reformation, one needs to see it as a synthesis of Calvin and Barth, or
Calvin read through Barthian spectacles.
E. Torrance has been a prolific writer of more than 20 books and many articles. Currently he is
working on a large systematic theology. Several deal with the theme, of theology in relation to

191

space and time (Space, Time and Incarnation and Space, Time and Resurrection, among
others). Others deal with his love for the doctrine of the Trinity (such as The Trinitarian Faith), in
which he is heavily influenced by the early church councils, creeds and Fathers, especially
Athanasius and Cyril.
F. Like others in the movement, Torrance resurrects much from John MacLeod Campbell, such
as the theory of the vicarious humanity of Christ. They tie this in with the Incarnation and it is
indirectly related to Piscators insistence that in justification it is both the active as well as the
passive obedience of Christ that is imputed to us. That is, not only His death, but His life.
Torrance develops this into the idea of vicarious faith - the faith of Christ (he appeals to the
genitive in the Greek of Gal. 2:16, 20). This is what from faith to faith in Rom, 1:17 means.
G. But Torrances main contribution has been in the area of theological method. By far his most
important book is Theological Science (1969). He has developed the theme in most of the rest
of his books, such as God and Rationality, The Ground and Grammar of Theology, The
Christian Frame of Mind, Christian Theology and Scientific Culture, and Transformation and
Convergence in the Frame of Knowledge. They are highly technical treatises and not meant for
beginners. I have by no means mastered his thought, and can only give the briefest summary of
the leading themes in his approach to theological science.
H. According to T.F. Torrance, theology is a science. It was once considered the Queen of the
Sciences. Theology has both similarities and differences with the other sciences. Hence, much
of Torrances writings are theological interactions with other sciences, especially physics. He
has been much influenced by Albert Einstein and Michael Pol anyi.
I. Torrance wants to bridge the long-standing gap between theological science and the other
sciences, usually classed together as the natural sciences as distinct from the supernatural
science called theology. If theology is a science, then science is also to be a theology. Natural
science has a philosophy behind and in it, and this philosophy needs to interact with theology,
and vice-versa. Science and theology are complementary - as in quantum physics, they
constitute a dynamic of related but distinct fields which are not identical nor are complete
opposites. They need each other in order for either to function properly. This motif shows
Torrances predeliction for paradox and dialectics, but he admits to more rationality than, say,
Karl Barth.
J. Nevertheless, Torrance has a basically Barthian view of truth and revelation, especially
regarding Scripture. One difference worth noting, however, is his acceptance of a form of
natural revelation, which would be anathema to Barth. For Torrance, natural and special
revelation are integrally related. Natural needs special to complete and fully explain it. And it is
precisely this area of natural revelation that the natural sciences deal with. Then Torrance adds
that natural science has shown that certain modes of thought are inadequate and obsolete,
specifically ^scholasticism, which to the New Reformation includes Reformed Orthodoxy (a la
the Westminster Confession).
K. Torrance also notes that all knowledge depends upon a mode of knowing that is appropriate
to that which is known. For example, the ear for music and the eye for art. Thus, theology for
metaphysics and natural science for Nature. Moreover, Torrance rejects abstraction and
speculation. Abstract Newtonian Laws are too static; knowledge and truth and reality must be
living and dynamic. He further rejects the dichotomy of subject and object. Nobody can be
truly objective in the sense that he is removed from the object he studies. So, he rejects
pretended objectivism, but also its opposite, namely, subjectivism. Rather, one learns
progressively as new data is received, and this in turn affects how one thinks (content and
method are related). Truth is more apprehended than comprehended.

192

L. Torrance also says that redeemed Man is to be the priest of the Universe. By true science
and theology, Man represents voiceless Nature by worshipping God in expressing the wonder of
Creation, especially in what he does with it. (Some wonder if this is indirectly related to the
Theonomic Cultural Mandate.)
M. What are we to make of all this? There is some good in it. Sometimes Torrance even
sounds Presuppositional (There is no way to demonstrate this Truth [God] outside of the Truth;
the only way for the ultimate Truth to prove Himself is to be the Truth). In the end, however,
Torrance undermines his own claims to true Reformed theology by his acceptance of Barthian
Neo-Orthodoxy and the rejection of Biblical inerrancy. He quotes very little Scripture, perhaps
because he subjects it to the judgment of the natural sciences.
N. Thomas Torrance is the senior member of the Torrance Dynasty. His brothers James and
David are also important to the movement, and also his son Iain. James B. Torrance in
particular has taken up the cudgels against historic Calvinism, especially Covenant Theology.
He has been the major voice in the Church of Scotland to throw out the Westminster
Confession. J.B. has written many articles on the subject, all saying basically the same thing,
namely, that Christ is the head of all men (not simply the elect) and covenant means
unconditional promise not conditional contract. Federal Theology says God acts by way of
conditional contract, but fulfills the conditions Himself for His people. J.B. Torrance further says
Covenant Theology wrongly subjects Grace to Nature and makes justice more important to
Gods essence than love. Curiously, J.B. is closer to Evangelicalism than older brother T.F.
O. Others in this New Reformation include Alaisdair I.C. Heron, Alan Lewis, Ronald S. Wallace
and, to some extent, Ray Anderson (Fuller Theological Seminary).

3. 20th-century Scottish Historic Calvinism.

A. Competing with this Scottish variety of Neo-Orthodoxy have been a steady stream of historic
Calvinists in Scotland. Some have been in the Free Church of Scotland (John MacLeod, R.A.
Finlayson, Donald MacLeod, Douglas MacMillan).
B. Others have been within the Church of Scotland itself, notably William Still, James Philip and
the Crieff Fellowship. David Wright at New College is basically in this group. As the Torrance
faction was making serious gains against the Westminster Confession, the old school
established several fronts of offence. One was the establishing of Rutherford House in 1982, an
historically Reformed study center in Edinburgh under the direction of Nigel Cameron. Among
their many projects to return the Church of Scotland to historic Reformed orthodoxy is a
complete retranslate on of Calvins Old Testament commentaries.

4. W.H. Griffith Thomas (1861-1924).

A. South of the border in England, historic Calvinism was rarer at the turn of the century than in
Scotland, at least if one compared the Church of England with the Church of Scotland. Still,
there were several stalwarts who carried the flame. They included J.C. Ryle, H.C.G. Moule and
E.A. Litton, whose Introduction to Dogmatic Theology became the standard Reformed
SystematicTheology from the perspective of Anglicanism.
B. Then came W.H. Griffith Thomas, more explicitly Reformed than they and every bit as
scholarly, not to mention a popular preacher. He pastored in Oxford for a while, but made his

193

mark on Anglican Calvinism while teaching in Toronto.

C. Griffith Thomas shared the vision of others for the need of a new seminary that would be
fundamental, Reformed, scholarly and non-denominational. He helped found that institution and
planned to become its first professor of theology. So together with Lewis Sperry Chafer, he
founded Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924. However, in Gods providence, he died that very
year. Chafer became the undisputed leader of the seminary. Curiously, both were Low
Calvinists and paedo-baptists. However, Chafer was considerably more Dispensational than
Griffith Thomas. Had Chafer died and Griffith Thomas lived, the seminary would doubtlessly
have taken a different course. (More on Chafer later.)
D. Much of his influence in Anglican Calvinism came through his many popular expositions
(Romans, Acts, Ephesians, Genesis, John, Luke, Colossians, Hebrews, Matthew, and other
more topical studies). His The Catholic Faith was a very popular textbook for Anglican priests.
The Sacrament of Our Redemption was an important scholarly treatise on the Lords Supper. In
it he took a position somewhat higher than Calvin but lower than Luther.
E. But by far his most important and lasting book was his large The Principles of Theology, a
large systematic theology from a decidedly Calvinistic and Anglican perspective. Any who doubt
that it is possible to be both an Episcopalian and a Calvinist need to consult this volume. It is a
first-class effort. In it, he picks up the argument of those such as A.M. Toplady that the ThirtyNine Articles of Religion are basically Reformed in theology. Griffith Thomass Principles, like
almost every other Anglican systematic theology, is a theological commentary on the ThirtyNine Articles, but he uses the Articles as the occasion to further elaborate theology in general.

5. J.I. Packer (1926- ).

A. The next major Anglican Calvinist has been James I. Packer. Packer ministered at Tyndale
Hall (1955-61, 70-72) and was Warden of Latimer House, the Evangelical Anglican study center
at Oxford (1961-69). He later taught at Trinity College, Bristol (1972-78), and has since taught
theology at Regents College, Vancouver, Canada, since 1978. He has been visiting professor at
several American Evangelical seminaries, and is a frequent speaker at Evangelical
conferences. He is a captivating speaker with a likeable personality. He is also an enthusiastic
fan of jazz and reputably plays a mean jazz clarinet.
B. Packer has spent a lot of time behind the typewriter as well. Currently he is working on his
masterpiece, a large multi-volumed systematic theology(which non-Anglicans hope is not based
on the Thirty-Nine Articles, as Anglican systematics are wont to be!). Among his many popular
books is a little paperback ostensibly meant for evangelistic purposes, entitled I Want to Be a
Christian. A more appropriate title would have been, I Want to Be
An Anglican. Non-Anglicans are troubled with his over-emphasis on baptism.
C. Having done his doctorate at Oxford 00 the theology of Richard Baxter, Packer is well
versed in Reformed theology, especially the Puritans. Among his more popular essays is his
Introductory Essay to John Owens The Death of Death. This originally appeared in the first
reprint of Owens volume expounding limited atonement, but has been reprinted separately
more than once. It sums up Owens large and detailed book and leaves the reader assured
where Packer stands.
D. For some 30 years, J.I. Packer has been one of the leading defenders of Biblical inerrancy.
He has written innumerable articles on the subject, as well as several books: Fundamentalism
and the Word of God, God Has Spoken, Beyond the Battle for the Bible, etc. Unlike those in the

194

Scottish New Reformation, this Anglican theologian lays the only right foundation for a true
Reformation that is historically Reformed and solidly Biblical. That foundation is an unswerving
commitment to total Biblical verbal inspiration and inerrancy. The sovereign God cannot lie, and
we know Him as God of truth.
E. In 1961, Packer wrote a little book entitled Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God,
predestined to be very influential in the growing Reformed movement. He has two main theses.
First, divine sovereignty and human responsibility
are both equally taught in Scripture. They are not totally harmonized by the mind of Man, and
thus constitute one of the great paradoxes or antinomies of theology. We cannot reject either.
Second, the doctrine of the sovereignty of God and unconditional election is not a hindrance to
true evangelism. Instead, it is a spur to evangelism, for it guarantees that some people will
believe.
F. But by far the most popular of his books has been Knowing God (1973). This is truly a
modern classic and will be read for decades to come. It has brought hundreds of thousands of
readers to know God and know about God deeper.
It has been appropriate reading for both the lost and the saved. And it is emphatically
Calvinistic, even though it is not a treatise on Calvinism per .se (and Im not sure if the word
Calvinism even occurs in its pages.). Much of it follows Calvins Institutes, especially 1:1:1,
where Calvin begins with the proposition that there is no true knowledge of self unless there is
first knowledge of God.
G. Two themes are developed: knowing of God (the heart) and knowing about God(the
mind).Because of who G6d:i$,no man would ever know of or about God unless God made it
possible. He has done that; we call it revelation. No man can know God unless he also knows
something about God. We cannot know all about God, but we can know some things definitely.
Similarly, we cannot know all of God personally (for we are finite and He is infinite), but we can
still know Him definitely and personally. God makes some things about Himself known in
Nature, but personal knowledge of God is possible only through special revelation - Scripture
and Christ. Personal knowledge of God in Christ is one of the chief blessings of salvation (John
17:3 is his favorite text).
H. Further, one can know many things about God but not know God personally. How do we
turn knowledge about God into knowledge of God? The answer is simple: It is that we turn
each truth that we learn about God into matter for meditation before God, leading to prayer and
praise to God. Packer also develops the idea of what it means to be known by_ God, which in
fact precedes our knowing Him. We know because He first knew us. And that is election.
I. Much of the book deals with topics like the attributes of God and miscellaneous observations
on the being and Trinity of God. In a chapter on idolatry, Packer makes two salient points true to
the best of Reformed theology. First, not just physical images but also mental images and
theological self-conceptions of God are idols. We receive knowledge of God, not conceive it.
Second, all pictures of Christ are forbidden. Though He is the visible image of God, He is
temporarily invisible to us. To make a picture of Christ is to employ the fallen imagination of
sinful Man. Instead, we*are to receive revelation of Christ through Scripture, not pictures.

6. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981).

A. There can be no doubt that by far the most influential proponent of historic Calvinism in
Britain in the 20th-century was D.M. Lloyd-Jones. He was a Puritan born too late. Through books

195

and tapes, his influence continues to grow and grow. What made him so special?
B. Lloyd-Jones was born in Wales and remained true to the best of his Welsh Calvinistic
Methodism heritage for his entire Christian life. The Doctor was educated in medicine and even
began to practice it. But Gods call led him to spiritual medicine - the ministry of preaching. Only
occasionally would he overlap the two, as in his best-selling book Spiritual Depression.
Hepastored for 11 years in Wales, but is more renowned for his ministry at the famous
Westminster Chapel, only a few hundred yards from Buckingham Palace
in London. He began as assistant to G. Campbell Morgan, then his co-pastor, then his
successor. All told, he was there from 193* until 1968, after which he continued an itinerant
ministry of preaching and writing till his death in 1981.
C. Actually, The Doctor wrote only a few of the many books that came out. Most were simply
transcripts of his sermons, which were not usually pre-written. Now it is pre-eminently as a
preacher that he is known. Some have said he was a preachers preacher, the best there is, a
prince of preachers, and a master of the divine art of preaching. Most Calvinists who had the
privilege of hearing him consider him the best they ever heard. He had an extraordinary gift,
indeed.
D. The Doctor stressed the importance of expository preaching. Hence, most of his books are
lengthy series of consecutive expository sermons. He has a large volume of sermons on the
Sermon on the Mount and another on Second Peter.
His sermons on Romans 1 to 8 fill 7 volumes, and Ephesians has 8 volumes. Each of these two
series took him several years of weekly expositions. His lectures on preaching at Westminster
Seminary were published as the excellent Preaching and Preachers. It is the best there is on
the subject.
E. Now Lloyd-Jones differentiated preaching and teaching. Campbell Morgan was a teacher,
not a preacher, he would say, whereas Lloyd-Jones was a preacher and not so much a teacher.
The difference is not just of approach or content, but of purpose. Teaching educates, preaching
proclaims and gives transforming grace. It includes doctrine gleaned by exposition, but also
application.
But the middle stage is often absent from most preaching, he argued. That is the experimental
(or existential) stage, when the Spirit supernaturally energizes the message (to the extent that it
is Biblical! and does what only He can do. Consciences are wounded, the heart is opened,
grace is poured in, the soul is drawn to Christ in faith, God is glorified.
F. Related to his view of preaching was his view of true God-sent revival, a subject he often
spoke and wrote on. He immediately discarded current notions. Revival is not emotionalism. It is
not an evangelistic campaign, though such are not of themselves wrong (though he disregarded
most of mass evangelism).Nor is revival self-induced. It is sovereignly given by God. Here we
see his Calvinism in practice. True revival is the acceleration of the normal work of the Holy
Spirit, through the Word and preaching, first to His people and then to the lost. The effects are
the manifest presence of God and the display of His glory. Lloyd-Jones, more than any other,
brought about the rediscovery of the great revivals of the past - such as those with Edwards and
Whitefield - and caused the prayers of Calvinists to beg for true revival.
G. Perhaps because of the somewhat mystical strain of his Welsh Calvinism, the Doctor was
the main proponent of an unusual doctrine. He did not invent it; it was taught by a minority of
Calvinists before him, such as Thomas Goodwin the Puritan. The doctrine said that the sealing
of the Spirit of Eph. 1:13 and .4:30 is a second work of grace after conversion. It was not the
Pentecostal doctrine, nor the Wesleyan Perfectionist error, nor even the Keswick idea.

196

H. Lloyd-Jones said that the sealing brings full assurance of salvation. Before then, one only
has faith, not certainty. When sealed in his conscience, the believer knows he has been saved.
He argued from the KJV of Eph. 1:13 and Acts 19:2 that it is a second blessing. If he had
seriously looked at the Greek, he would have known better. Since his death, some have implied
that this doctrine really meant that Lloyd-Jones was a closet Charismatic. Granted, he accepted
that the gifts are occasionally present today, but he defined the sealing differently, and besides,
he opposed the Charismatic movement.
I. Lloyd-Jones also opposed ecumenism and Neo-Evangelicalism. He refused to co-operate
with the Billy Graham Crusade when it came to London. His strong ecclesiastical separatism
(not isolationism) is evident in the famous 1968 incident with John R.W. Stott. Stott and LloydJones were the leading names in the non-denominational Evangelical Alliance. At the 1968
conference, Lloyd-Jones publicly called on true believers to leave all denominations that are
apostate or that tolerate apostates. This included the Church of England, of which Stott was a
leading minister. After the Doctor was seated, Stott (who was on the platform as Chairman) rose
and rebuked the Doctor. Only a few actually followed the Doctors call (such as Herbert Carson),
but the main result was a split between the Anglicans and the others, including Independents,
Baptists and Presbyterians. This led to the formation of the rival British Evangelical Council. It
also led to a partial split with Packer, who was co-host with Lloyd-Jones of the annual Puritan
Conference. This would be re-organized and renamed the Westminster Conference, without
Packer.
J. His legacy lives on in the lives he touched. This is especially true in the Evangelical
Movement of Wales, the vestiges of the old Calvinistic Methodism of George Whitefield and
Daniel Rowland. Current leaders in this fine movement include Geoffrey Thomas (actually a
Reformed Baptist), Hywel Jones, David Jones, and Graham Harrison. The Doctor also had a
strong influence in the establishment of the Evangelical Library (London), the London
Theological Seminary, and another organization that has been most responsible for the rebirth
of the modern Reformed movement of historic Calvinism: the Banner of Truth.

7. The Banner of Truth.

A. The Banner of Truth began first as a magazine edited by Iain Murray (1931- },who started it
while studying at Oxford in 1955. As providence would have it, Iain Murray and the Doctor
shared the same dream - a publishing company that would publish and promote truly Reformed
books, mainly the Puritans. That same providence brought the same vision to a wealthy friend
of Lloyd-Jones, named Jack Cull urn. Cull urn provided an extremely generous sum to establish
the Banner of Truth Trust (1957).
B. The Banner is probably the major publisher of distinctively Reformed literature in the world
today. Most of their titles are reprints of old Reformed classics, especially Puritans. Many, in
fact, are large sets (Owen in 16 volumes, Sibbesin 7, Brooks and Flavel in 6, etc). Then there
are reprints of the works of, Edwards, Calvin, Whitefield; and others, plus the occasional new
title. Murray abridged Pinks The Sovereignty of God as a popular best-seller introduction to
Calvinism. Banner also sponsors annual conferences in England and America.
C. Iain Murray was assistant to Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel (1956-61), then pastor of
Grove Chapel, London (1961-69), later pastored in Australia for much of the 1980s, all the while
editing for the Banner. Currently he is pasturing a Presbyterian church in Cambridge and
helping to organize a new English Presbyterian denomination. Most of the books he has written
have been biographies of Calvinists (Edwards, Pink, Spurgeon, John Murray, Lloyd-Jones). The

197

Puritan Hope is a major work defending Calvinistic Post-Millennialism.

8. R.T. Kendall (1935- ).

A. One of Lloyd-Joness successors at Westminster Chapel, the most influential Reformed
church in Britain, is R.T. Kendall. Actually, Kendall is an American who began as a Nazarene
pastor turned Southern Baptist. He has pastored at Westminster Chapel since 1977, shortly
after receiving his doctorate at Oxford for a dissertation on Calvin and the Puritans.
B. Kendall has stirred up considerable and continual controversy. Like the Doctor he believes in
the sealing of the Spirit post-conversional experience. He teaches that the inner witness of the
Spirit is an immediate witness (Reformed orthodoxy says it is mediate through Scripture). Like
Torrance he teaches the vicarious faith of Christ and even Christs vicarious baptism for us. He
caused no small controversy when he published his dissertation, Calvin and English Calvinism
to 1649 in 1979, saying that the Puritans were not the real heirs of Calvins theology on the
atonement and assurance of faith. Paul Helm answered him in Calvin and the Calvinists (1982),
published by Banner of Truth.
C. Then in 1982 Kendall had Arthur Beset speak at Westminster Chapel for 6 weeks. Blessit
gave the first altar calls there and Kendall himself began the practice. The Doctor and almost all
Calvinists had strongly opposed the practice. Kendall defended it in Stand Up and Be Counted.
He later worked with the Graham Crusades.
D. The next controversy came in 1985 with his Once Saved, Always Saved, which took the
non-Reformed view that sanctification need not follow justification: The person who is saved...
will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work (or lack of work) may accompany such
faith. Good works are optional and are for rewards only. Following Zane Hodges, he radically
reinterprets James 2 and Hebrews and passages such as I Cor. 6:9-11. Sanctification has no
bearing on assurance, he says. Half of Kendalls deacons objected and were dismissed; two
were excommunicated. One of them, Richard Alderson, replied with No Holiness, No Heaven!
published by Banner of Truth. The whole episode has cast a shadow on British Calvinism.

9. Miscellaneous British Calvinists.

A. The Sovereign Grace Union, begun in 1914 by Henry Atherton (pastor of Grove Chapel),was
a major organization for the propagation of Calvinism early in the century through conferences
and publications. It is still in operation but is not nearly as influential as the Banner of Truth.
Unlike Banner, many members are Hypers.
B. T.H.L. Parker is probably the worlds leading authority on John Calvin. He has written
several important and careful books on his life and theology. Here and there he shows some
affinity with the Torrance variety of Calvinism, which casts scorn on what it calls the Banner of
Truth mentality of Calvinism. Peter Toon is another Calvinist scholar. Reared a Strict Baptist,
he changed to Anglicanism and has authored numerous books on .
C. Since about 1975 there has developed a small movement within Reformed circles which is
semi-Charismatic. Most others are emphatically non-Charismatic. Among these semiCharismatics are Peter Lewis and Herbert Carson,
D. John Blanchard is a Reformed Baptist evangelist who declined the invitation to succeed
Lloyd-Jones at Westminster Chapel. Both in practice and in print he shows the truly Reformed

198

approach to evangelism - straight preaching, no gimmicks or altar calls. His excellent book for
unbelievers, Right With God, is the Banner of Truths all-time bestseller. He later wrote a shorter
version with pictures, Ultimate Questions, published by Evangelical Press, an indirect spin-off of
Banner.

Recommended Reading
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Exposition of Romans. 7 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Exposition of Ephesians. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (All
volumes in the Romans and Ephesians series are available separately as well.)
Murray, Iain. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Catherwood, Christopher. Five Evangelical Leaders. Wheaton: Harold Shaw. (Contains
biographies of Lloyd-Jones, Packer, Francis Schaeffer, John Stott and Billy Graham)
Torrance, Thomas F. Theological Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press.
Packer, J.I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press.
Kendall, R.T. Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. New York: Oxford University Press. .
Helm, Paul. Calvin and the Calvinists. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Blanchard, John. Right With God. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.

199

Chapter 24. 20th-century American

Calvinism.
1. Introduction.
A. In previous studies we have surveyed several branches of Calvinism, which continue into the
present century. Such include the Princeton-Westminster group, the Christian Reformed Church
and its spin offs, the Reformed Baptists, and others. We will not repeat here what we said there.
Instead, in this the last of our studies on the historical side of Calvinism, we will briefly survey
the leading names not previously mentioned.
B. 20th-century American Calvinists have been involved in a number of doctrinal controversies.
Some pertain directly to Calvinism, others more directly to Evangelicalism in general. The main
ones include Biblical inerrancy, Hell, Barthianism, denominational purity, the Millennium, the
extent of the atonement, and the debate of Calvin vs. Calvinism.
C. Since a great many of contemporary Calvinists have been Presbyterians, it is fitting that we
give a brief survey of the growth, divisions and amalgamations of Presbyterian denominations in
the 20th-century.

2. 20th-century American Presbyterianism.

A. Up until the 1930s, there were two main Presbyterian denominations: the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America (PCUSA, or the Northern Presbyterians) and the
Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS, or the Southern Presbyterians). These two
accounted for over 95% of all Presbyterians.
B. 1936. Within a-few years after J. Gresham Machen and others founded Westminster
Theological Seminary, many of them (including Machen) were expelled from the PCUSA.
Others left in protest to the tacit approval of Liberalism. A few stalwarts stayed in. Most of those
who left formed the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) in 1936. It was committed to the
historic Reformed faith.
C. 1937. After Machen died (1/1/37), two factions formed. On one side were most of the
Westminster faculty and those closest in theology to Machen. On the other side were those
more Fundamentalist in doctrine and practice. Among their leaders were Carl Mclntire (1906- ),
Allen A. MacRae (1902- ), J. Oliver Buswell, Jr. and Charles Woodbridge, Jr.
D. The issues were mainly two: the use of alcohol and Dispensationalism. The Fundamentalist
group wanted total abstinence to be mandatory of students, pastors and members, while the
other group permitted moderate use of alcohol. This group was also Dispensational in theology,
though many were quite moderate and were more what is called Historic Premillenialists. They
tended to be somewhat less emphatic in their Calvinism, rejected Covenant Theology, and
bordered on a Finneyian type of revivalism. Hence, the two sides closely paralleled the Old
School/New School controversy of 1837.
E. So, in 1937 the PCA was divided. The Fundamentalist minority withdrew and formed the
Bible Presbyterian Church (BPC). They also left Westminster Seminary and organized Faith
Theological Seminary in Collingswood, New Jersey. The BPC has always been dominated by

200

Carl Mclntire. In 1941, he founded the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) to rival
the National Council of Churches, and in 1948 formed the International Council of Christian
Churches to counter the World Council of Churches. Francis Schaeffer was a young student
who left Westminster to study at Faith, and stayed with the BPC for years. Westminster
Seminary, incidently, is not officially affiliated with any group.
F. 1939. A civil court rules that the PCA cannot use its chosen name. The General Assembly
approves the new name: the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). This group continues to the
present day as the purest form of historic Calvinism and Princeton theology.
F. 1956. A majority of the Bible Presbyterians pull out in protest to Mclntires domineering of the
denomination. They form the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) and organize Covenant
Theological Seminary in St. Louis. Schaeffer was part of this group, as were Buswell, Gordon
Clark, R. Laird Harris and others.
G. 1958. The PCUSA merges with the smaller United Presbyterian Church of North America,
forming the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (UPCUSA, sometimes
also called the UPUSA). While the more truly Reformed Presbyterians are dividing, the liberal
Presbyterians are amalgamating and increasing. However, they are also going more and more
Liberal and Neo-Orthodox.
H. 1965. The EPC unites with the smaller General Synod Reformed Presbyterian Church to
form the Reformed Presbyterian, Evangelical Synod (RPES).
I. 1967. The UPCUSA produces the Confession of 1967, mainly the work of Edward A. Dowey.
This slowly begins to eclipse the Westminster Confession as the authoritative doctrinal standard
in the UPCUSA. Much of it is sound theology, but a decidedly Neo-Orthodox tone and left-wing
political agenda can be detected, as in the following excerpts:
Against all who oppose him, God expresses his love in wrath. [In Christ, sinners:] They accept
themselves... The Christian finds parallels between other religions and his own and must
approach all religions with openness and respect. Repeatedly God has used the insight of nonChristians to challenge the Church to renewal. But the reconciling word of the gospel is Gods
judgment upon all forms of religion; including the Christian...God has created the peoples of the
earth to be one universal family... This search requires that the nations pursue fresh and
responsible relations across every line of conflict, even at risk to national security, to reduce
areas of strife and to broaden international understanding.
J. 1973. A minority of the PCUS (Southern Presbyterians) withdraw and form the Presbyterian
Church in America. They foresaw an eventual union with the more liberal UPCUSA, which had
recently given $10,000 to the defence fund of Angela Davis (a self-confessed Communist
teacher at UCLA). The UPUSA was also caving in to the Womens Liberation movement and
making moves toward the ordination of women. The PCA continues today as a very
conservative Presbyterian denomination, led by men like James Montgomery Boice, D. James
Kennedy, Ben Haden and R.C. Sproul. Most of its students come from Reformed Theological
Seminary (Jackson, MS), but also from Westminster, Covenant, and the newly formed
Greenville Theological Seminary (Greenville, SC). The PCA has 3 main groups: the emphatic
Calvinists on one side, the semi-charismatics on the other, and the moderate mainstream in the
middle.
K. 1982. The RPES merges with the PCA.
L. 1983. The UPCUSA and the PCUS merge, thus forming by far the largest American
Presbyterian denomination. It takes the name Presbyterian Church, United States of America
(PCUSA). It has over 3,000,000 members. Its largest congregation is Highland Park

201

Presbyterian Church, Dallas. Of the few solid Calvinist theologians left in it, John Gerstner is
most prominent. It is very active in both the National and World Councils of Churches. It not only
allows the ordination of women elders, it makes them mandatory in every congregationism
which is less
M. The PCA and OPC are on the verge of merger. But a few more years will be needed for the
Bible Presbyterians to modify their fundamentalism which is less Reformed than the others.

3. Calvinist Scholars in the UPCUSA and PCUSA.

A. John T. McNeill (1885-1975) taught at the liberal Union Theological Seminary(New York
City) and elsewhere, and was considered the Dean of scholarship onCalvin and early Calvinism.
He edited the definitive English translation of Calvins Institutes. He also wrote what is
considered the fullest history in English, The History and Character of Calvinism (1954). This
useful history is somewhat slanted. For example, it tends to downplay those truest to Calvins
theological heritage, such as the English Puritans, Edwards, and Hodge.
B. Ford Lewis Battles (1915-1979) taught at Pittsburg Theological Seminary and was the
translator for the McNeill edition of Calvins Institutes. He also translated several other works by
Calvin, including the first (1536) edition of the Institutes. He wrote An Analysis of the Institutes of
the Christian Religion and an unpublished commentary on the Institutes, plus produced
^Computerized Concordance to the Institutes.
C. John Leith teaches at Union Theological Seminary (Richmond, VA) and has written An
Introduction to the Reformed Tradition; Assembly at Westminster and The Reformed Imperative.
Like others of this mold, Leiths Calvinism is more Barthian and Liberal Presbyterian than
historically Reformed.
D. Others in this general group include: John A. MaKay (1889-1981, President of Princeton
Seminary and a leading Barthian and ecumenist); James 1. McCord (McKays successor at
Princeton in all respects); Holmes Rolston III (John Calvin Versus the Westminster Confession);
and Robert C. Paul (The Assembly of the Lord).

4. Dispensational Calvinists.
A. Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) ministered for years in the PCUS before being expelled for
Dispensationalism. With W.H. Griffith Thomas, he founded Dallas Theological Seminary in
1924. His major work is also the fullest work on Dispensationalism: Systematic Theology in 8
volumes. Chafer also edited the Bibliotheca Sacra theological journal and authored several
books. He That Is Spiritual caused some controversy in Reformed circles and still does. It lays
much of the foundation for the modern theory that there are two types of Christians (the spiritual
and the carnal, who is perpetually backslidden). It was opposed, for example, by B.B. Warfield.
Chafer was also a four-point Calvinist who taught universal atonement.
B. For a generation, most of the teachers at Dallas Seminary continued in Chafers theological
mold, such as John Walvoord and Charles C. Ryrie. Since the 1970s, however, the Seminary
has become decreasingly Calvinistic and even four-point teachers are in the minority. Some
have even been emphatically anti-Calvinist, such as Norman Geisler.
C. S. Lewis Johnson (1915- ) taught at Dallas Seminary for several decades and was very
close to Chafers theology. In time, he made several important modifications in the areas of

202

Dispensationalism. He also is one of the few Dispensationalists who are also five-point
Calvinists. Johnson made other important theological contributions in the area of ecclesiology,
as seen in Believers Chapel of Dallas (which he co-founded in 1962). For example, he teaches
believers baptism, complete autonomy of the local church, multiple eldership (none of which
usurp the unique role of Christ as the Head of the local church), and the main meeting of the
church similar to that practiced by the so-called Plymouth Brethren. At present he is at work on
a large systematic theology.

5. Philadelphian Pre-Millenial Calvinism.

A. Donald Grey Barnhouse (1895-1960) pastored the important Tenth Presbyterian Church of
Philadelphia for 33 years (1927-1960). He began his ministry as a missionary to France. The
author of more than 30 books, Barnhouse main work is his exposition of Romans in 4 large
volumes. He was also one of the early radio preachers - he was heard on the Bible Study Hour
for 31 years. Two interesting points stand out regarding Barnhouse. First, he disagreed with
Hachen and Mclntire and decided to stay in the liberal PCUSA. Second, he was Dispensational,
but at times was more moderate than Chafer and bordered on Historic Premillenialism. Unlike
Chafer, he accepted limited atonement.
B. James Montgomery Boice (1938) has pastored at Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia
since 1968 and has been the featured speaker on the Bible Study Hour since 1969. Boice has
been one of the leading Evangelical defenders of Biblical inerrancy and was the moving force
behind the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (1978-1988). When it became apparent
that staying in the UPCUSA would mean compromise on the ordination of women, Boice led
Tenth Presbyterian out of the UPCUSA and into the PCA, where he is a leading figure. Boice is
also the author of over 30 books, mainly collections of expository sermons on John, Genesis,
Philippians, the Minor Prophets, etc. More a preacher than a scholar, his Foundations of the
Christian Faith is a large and popular systematic theology in non-technical language. Like
Barnhouse, he is Premillenialism and possibly Dispensational, howbeit moderately so.

6. PCA Calvinists.
A. R.C. Sproul (1939- ) is another leading Calvinist in the PCA. He might be called a Pittsburg
Presbyterian, since he studied under John Gerstnerat Pittsburg Seminary and reflects his
Calvinism in many ways. Sproul is Director of Ligonier Ministries, which used to be the Ligonier
Valley Study Center (Ligonier Valley, PA). Currently it is based in Orlando, Florida, where
Sproul is involved in the extension of Reformed Theological Seminary. Sproul is one of the most
popular preachers in America today. Most of his books are based on sermons, and so are nontechnical in nature. Among them is his Chosen By God, a straightforward presentation of
Calvinism. He even teaches reprobation in his chapter entitled Double, Double, Toil and
Trouble: Is Predestination Double? Like Boice, he is a leading inerrantist.
B. C. Gregg Singer (1910- } is another PCA Calvinist. Several of his books are theological
perspectives on American and Western history, such as A Theological Interpretation of
American History and From Rationalism to Irrationality.
C. Other influential PCA Calvinists include Simon Kistemaker, Morton Smith and Douglas Kelly,
all associated with the non-denominational Reformed Seminary.

203

7. Loraine Boettner (1900- ).

A. Boettner was a student who graduated in the last class at Princeton Seminary before the
split with Machen. It comes as a great surprise to readers of his books that he has never been a
pastor or theologian (though he did teach religion briefly at a Christian college). In other words,
Loraine Boettner has been a lay theologian. And yet his Calvinistic influence has been great.
B. His first book was based on his Masters thesis, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. It
has been in continual publication since 1932. Sooner or later every budding Calvinist gets
around to reading this excellent volume. It is large but not ponderous, for Boettner writes in a
remarkably lucid manner. It covers each of the five points, objections, a brief history of
Calvinism, and related issues like the free offer, assurance and practicalities.
C. Boettner's best-selling book, however, has been Roman Catholicism. It is oneof the few
books published by a major publisher since 1960 that has taken the old-fashioned approach of
the Reformation. Like all his other books, it is more popular than scholarly, and thereby reveals
several weaknesses.
D. The Millennium is almost single-handedly responsible for the current revival of Post-Mi
11enialism. It is certainly the most influential. In this large volume, Boettner presents the three
main millennial views and defends his own. Lastly, among several other volumes, Immortality is
a timely presentation and defence of the historical Reformed view of death, life after death,
Heaven and Hell.

8. Arthur C. Custance (1919-1986) and Annihilationism.

A. Born in England, Custance studied and lived most of his life in Canada. Like Loraine
Boettner, he was never a pastor or professional theologian. Actually, he worked for the
Canadian Defence Research Board. He specialized in anthropology d also held several
scientific patents.
B. His large book The Sovereignty of Grace is similar to Boettners Predestination. Both are
large but not too technical; both are published by the same publisher. Much of it deals with the
five points, but also includes discussion of reprobation and other related issues.
C. In the 1970s, Zondervan Publishing House published Custances The Doorway Papers in
10 volumes. They make scintillating reading. Custance discusses all sorts of unusual and
difficult issues involving theology and science, especially anthropology. Most of the essays
concern the early chapters of Genesis. He often refutes evolution and is a major proponent of
the Gap Theory, which he discusses at length in another book, Without Form and Void. Among
the topics he tackles are: who taught Adam to speak and what language did he speak; what
was the curse on Canaan; what if Adam had never sinned or sinned but never died; who was
Cains wife; what is the meaning of sweat as part of the curse given Adam; and the Virgin Birth.
D. In a large volume of 600 pages entitled The Seed of the Woman, Custance explores Christ
as the promised Seed of the Woman (Gen. 3:15) and of Abraham v (Gal. 3:16) who had to die
to bring us life (John 12:24). He discusses Christs, perfect body, the definition of death, how
Christs body died, how Christ could suffer eternal wrath in only 3 hours, and similar questions
E. Then in Two Men Called Adam Custance refutes Evolution by a comparison of Adam and
Jesus. Adam was not nor could be an animal; else the analogy of Romans 5 breaks down.
Evolution destroys the plan of redemption.

204

F. Custances genius is in originally tackling difficult issues, which others avoid. But this genius
shows its weakness in one area. In a section on the eternal future of the reprobate in The
Sovereignty of Grace and in a book entitled Journey Out of Time, Custance gradually departs
from the Reformed doctrine of eternal Hell. Rejecting Universal Salvation, he toys with an
unusual form of Annihilationsm. Custance develops the truth that Jesus suffered eternal wrath in
a temporally limited period of time. By analogy, he argues, is it not possible for the non-elect to
suffer eternal wrath in a short period of time and then become non-existent? The problem with
Custances argument is that it is not taught in the Bible. For instance, it goes counter to Rev.
14:10-11, 20:10, and Matt. 25:41, 46.
G. Philip E. Hughes (1915- ) is another leading Calvinist to come out in favor of Annihilationism
(In His Image). Born in Sydney, Australia, Hughes taught in Australia, England and America,
where he was Visiting Professor at Westminster Seminary for many years. Several of his books
dealt with French and English Calvinism. He has also authored several scholarly commentaries
(Hebrews and 2 Cor.)
H. Robert Morey is a young scholar whose Death and the Afterlife is a first-class scholarly
presentation of the Biblical position on death, Heaven and Hell. He has written several other
books on the cults and apologetics, plus The Saving Work of Christ (which espouses limited
atonement). And he is Reformed.

9. Roger Nicole (1915- ) and French Calvinism.

A. Nicole was born in France and still speaks with a strong French accent. Hetaught for
decades at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He owns a personal theological library of
over 25,000 volumes. In addition to being a leading Calvinist and defender of Biblical inerrancy,
Nicole is also the premier scholar on the history and theology of Amyraldism. Disagreeing with
Brian Armstrong (Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy), Nicole strongly denies that Moise
Amyraut was in the pure theological lineage of Calvin on the questions of the extent of the
atonement and hypothetical universalism.
B. You may wonder whatever became of Calvinism in the land of Calvins birth? Unfortunately,
France has virtually exterminated Calvinism in its midst. Only two Calvinist scholars bear
mention. First, Emile Doumergue (1844-1937) wrote the largest and definitive biography of
Calvin: Jean Calvin: Les Hommes et les Choses de Son Temps (1899-1917 in 7 massive
volumes). Reportedly, this is currently being translated into English. Second, Auguste LeCerf
(1872-1943) incorporated Kuypers theories into An Introduction to Reformed Dogmatics. This
was meant to be the first volume of a large systematic theology.

10. Miscellaneous Calvinists.

A. Richard Muller teaches at Fuller Theological Seminary. His doctoral dissertation has been
published as the excellent Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed
Theology from Calvin to Perkins. He is also completing his extremely useful Post-Reformation
Reformed Dogmatics in 3 volumes. His Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms is
primarily drawn from post-Reformation Reformed theology. Muller argues for basic continuity
between Calvin and the Calvinists.
B. Perry Miller (1905-1963) was a skeptical Harvard professor who authored several large
volumes- on early American Calvinism. Unfriendly to both Calvinists and Calvinism, he tended

205

to portray them as legalists who departed from Calvin. His major works were The New England
Mind: The Seventeenth Century; The New England Mind: From Colony to Province; and
Jonathan Edwards.
C. Gary Long wrote one of the few books completely on limited atonement, entitled Definite
Atonement. Long also argues for the supremacy of the First London Confession over the
Second London Confession. Both are major Baptist confessions, but Long prefers the First to
the Second, though the Second is basically a Baptist version of the Westminster Confession.
The reason is because Long differs with the Puritans on the continuance of the Law. Another
Calvinistic Baptist is Richard Belcher, who has written in defence of the Second London
Confession, plus books on Arthur W. Pink and A Journey in Grace.
D. David Steele and Curtis Thomas co-authored the best-selling The Five Points of Calvinism
while co-patoring a Baptist church in Arkansas. Duane Edward Spencer wrote another short but
useful introduction to Calvinism: TULIP: The Five Points of Calvinism in the Light of Scripture.
Edwin Palmer wrote yet another on the same topic: The Five Points of Calvinism. Palmer was
one of the main editors of the New International Version. Several of the NIVs translators were
noted Calvinists (William Hendricksen, S, Lewis Johnson, etc), but it is not specifically a
Reformed translation.
E. Millard Erickson (1932- ) is a leading four-point Calvinist of sorts. His Christian Theology is
the largest up-to-date systematic theology in recent years. He espouses historic Premillenialism
and believers baptism.
F. W. Stanford Reid is a Canadian who has written several articles and edited at least one book
on the history of Calvinism. C. Samuel Storms is a young up-and-coming Calvinist pastor and
writer, as in his Tragedy in Eden; The Grandeur of God and Chosen for Life. David Stenmetz of
Duke University is a major scholar of the Reformation, especially Calvins associates and
successors. D.A. Carson of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School has not written anything
specifically on Calvinism, but his Reformed Baptist theology can be seen in Ms several excellent
commentaries. He is one of the leading New Testament scholars in America and also a strong
defender of Biblical inerrancy.
G. Al Martin of New Jersey is the pre-eminent Reformed Baptist in America. Though he is
consulting editor of the Banner of Truth, he has written very little. His influence in the Reformed
movement, though, is great. He is considered one of the best Calvinist preachers in the world
today. One of his major themes is Biblical repentance, against popular misconceptions. This is
also a major theme in the writings of a close friend of Martins, Walter Chantry of Carlisle, PA. In
Todays Gospel: Authentic or Synthetic? He exposes and opposes easy-believism and the error
that one can have Christ as Savior but not as Lord. Lest one think he is backing into
Theonomism, Chantrys Gods Righteous Kingdom sets the mainstream middle between
Theonomic and Antinomian deviations.

11. Miscellaneous Sources and Resources for 20th-century American Calvinism.

A. Publishers. Banner of Truth has an office in Carlisle, PA for American distribution.
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company is the largest American-based publisher of
Reformed books. It is closely associated with Westminster Seminary. Reiner Publications began
as the Bible Truth Depot of I.C. Herendeen. For years, its mainstay was the books of A.W. Pink.
In recent decades, it has published many titles by John Bunyan and Philip Mauro, and more
recently has been sold to Grace Abounding Ministries (Robert Whitelaw), which espouses
Annihilationism. Sprinkle Publications mainly reprints old Southern Presbyterian theological

206

classics, though Bob Sprinkle is a Reformed Baptist (even with a name like Sprinkle!).
Eerdmans and Baker Book House used to be major Reformed publishers, but the former has
gone Neo-Orthodox and the latter is broad-based Evangelical (but both still publish several
Reformed titles). Gospel Mission publishes some titles in conjunction with Baker. Westminster
Press/John Knox Press is the official PCUSA publisher, mainly Neo-Orthodox pseudoCalvinism, but also the McNeill edition of the Institutes. Great Commission Publications is the
publishing arm of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church; it specializes in Calvinistic Sunday School
materials.
B. Booksellers. Several leading discount Christian booksellers are Reformed and carry all the
main Reformed books. They have helped much in the spread of Calvinism. They include Great
Christian Books [formerly Puritan-Reformed Discount Books], Trinity Book Service [associated
with Al Martin], Cumberland Valley Discount Christian Books [associated with Walter Chantry],
and Gospel Mission.
C. Conferences. Several conferences are distinctively Reformed: Banner of Truth, the
Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology [J.M. Boice], the Pensacola Theological
Institute, the Founders Conference (Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention), the
Sovereign Grace Fellowship Weekend Doctrinal Conference (Salado, TX, Gary Long), and
others.
D. Seminaries. Westminster, Reformed, Covenant, Calvin, Greenville, Biblical, and Whitefield
Theological Seminaries are all Reformed.
E. The Henry C. Meeter Center for Calvin Studies is based at Calvin Seminary in Grand
Rapids, MI. It is named for Henry C. Meeter (1886-1963), who taught at Calvin Seminary and
wrote much in defence of Calvinism, such as his important Calvinism: An Interpretation of Its
Basic Ideas. Richard Gamble is the Director of the Meeter Center, which is the international
coordinating center for all scholarship on the life and theology of John Calvin. Lester De Koster
and Peter De Klerk publish an annually updated bibliography of all Calvinist writings in the
Calvin Theological Journal (Calvin Seminary).

207

Chapter 25. The Sovereignty of God.

1. Introduction.
A. God is God. He has always been and always will be exactly that God. He is.
B. This begins the theological part of our series on Calvinism. Since we believe that all true
theology must be Biblical, each study from now on will be Biblical. Hence, we will make constant
reference to the Bible and give Scripture references for all assertions.
C. Obviously the scope of the series is limited. We cannot be exhaustive on every topic, and
there are many related topics which can only be mentioned in passing. Still, we trust that they
will be adequate for the purpose of the series, namely, to elucidate the theology of Calvinism.
Further, we will concentrate on those topics most germane to the overall purpose of the series,
especially those which may be called Reformed distinctives. And finally, the studies will be
theological in nature, not practical.

2. The Godness of God.

A. Our starting point must always be God Himself. All theology must begin and end with God. In
fact, the degree to which a theology is true or false is indirect proportion to which it begins and
ends with God. Biblical theology is first and foremost God-centered theology, not Man-centered
or even Mans need-centered. So, then, we begin with what Arthur W. Pink calls the Godness
of God.
B. Obviously this will not be a complete survey of the attributes of God, much less a discussion
of the Trinity, the being of God and other related topics. And we certainly will not mock God by
attempting to prove His existence. He has already done that Himself (Rom. 1, Psa. 19:1).
C. Rather, in this initial study we will discuss certain attributes of God which are directly
pertinent to the question of the doctrines of Calvinism. As we said in an earlier lesson, we will be
restoring certain attributes to their proper place in God. These are the high attributes, the ones
often ignored or minimized or, in some cases, even denied. Remember, all heresy can be
traced back to ones imbalanced view of the divine attributes, leading to a denial of one or more
of them, resulting in a deficient theology of God and unless corrected, eventually atheism.
D. Our source of data is God Himself in His self-revelation in the Bible. Any god fashioned from
your own imagination or conception is a false god. Any god other than the true God, the God of
the Bible, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a blasphemous idol.
E. Now this lesson is specifically on the sovereignty of God. This may be considered a single
attribute or a combination of attributes. In either case, the Bible describes several related
qualities of God which are His by nature and which are fundamental to any discussion of the
issues of Reformed theology.
F. The great doctrine of the sovereignty of God is the only right starting point of these issues.
We do not begin with whether Man has free will, or whether we can lose our salvation. Those
are concerned with the five points of Calvinism. But we need to get back of those truths first.
The five points constitute the TULIP; the sovereignty of God is the root of the TULIP. The
reason men reject any or all five points is because they have not dome to grips with the
sovereignty of God. Accept it, and all else follows.

208

3. The Self-Existence of God.

A. Go back, way back, through the corridors of eternity to when God alone existed. In the
beginning, God (Gen. 1:1). He was all there was. There were as yet no men, animals, devils or
angels, no galaxies or planets or even the smallest atoms. There was only the self-existent
Trinity. God ice who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty (Rev. 1:8). This, of
course, implies His eternity. The eternal God (Deut. 33:27) was all alone inhabiting eternity
(Isa. 57:15).
B. Since He has always existed, it follows that He is uncreated. He is Creator of all and created
by none. He simply is. He said to Moses, I AM THAT I AM(Ex. 3:14). Therefore, God is selfexistent. He depends on nobody and nothing for the origin of His existence, the sustaining of
His being, or the future of His essence. By analogy, He is the ultimate perpetual motion being He depends on nothing external, for all He needs is provided by Himself.
C. This is true also in time. God does not need us in any way whatsoever. Instead, we need
God for everything. Even when we obey God, we add nothing to His essential being: neither is
He served by human hands, as though He needed anything (Acts 17:25). The Greek and
heathen gods were dependent on the offerings of their worshippers in order to live and exist.
But the true God has always been self-existent.

4. The Perfection of God.

A. Jesus said, Your heavenly Father is perfect (Matt. 5:48). He is perfectly perfect. He is
complete in all respects. He lacks nothing whatsoever.
B. It is also true that He is perfection itself. God is the standard by which all created things are
to be measured. There is not a higher standard than God by which perfection is idealized. He
is perfect in Himself. He is not perfect because He meets a certain standard; rather, He is the
standard.
C. Now this can be applied to all the attributes of God. God is perfectly holy, true, wise, and so
on. But lets get specific. God is perfectly happy. The eternal self-existent God is and has
always been completely happy in Himself. That means that He can never be happier than He
already is. Nor does He do anything in time to gain happiness, as if He were at some time lonely
or sad. Away with such nonsense! The perfect God is perfectly happy. He had full joy within
Himself. How? He enjoyed Himself. He loves Himself. The Father, Son and Spirit enjoy a full
relationship of love and joy.

5. The Transcendence of God.

A. Before all things existed (God is not a thing), God filled what was, for He was all that was.
That is hard to grasp. But when He created things, a differentiation was made. It too is hard to
grasp, and it is this: the nearness (immanence) and farness (transcendence) of God. God is the
lofty God (Isa. 57:15) who is infinitely above His creation.
B. This is crucial in several respects. As creatures we are prone to think of God in terms of
ourselves. Though it is correct that we bear the image of God, and therefore have some
similarities with Him, it is also true that God is fundamentally different from us. In theology we
say that He is wholly other. He is different in essence. The difference between God and us is a

209

difference of quality, not merely quantity. God is not a big Man, or even an infinitely big Man, or
the biggest Man. He is not a Man at all.
C. This leads to the infinity of God. He is far above us because of the infinite distance between
our natures. Scripture says that, compared with God, we area drop in the bucket (Isa, 40:15), as
small as grasshoppers (Isa. 40:22), and less than nothing in His sight (Isa- 40:17). In a word, we
are puny.
D. God, then, is infinitely above and beyond and higher and greater than Man. This is essential
to any true theology of God. J.B. Phillips wrote a book entitled Your God is Too Small. Similarly,
Luther said to Erasmus, Your thoughts of God are too human. Psa. 50:21, You thought that I
was just like you. All theologies that differ from the doctrines of grace are based on the
mistaken presupposition that God is like Man.
E. Moreover, since God is infinitely above Man, He is also described as the hidden God (Deus
absconditus). Thou art a God that hidest thyself (Isa.45: 15). Though it is true that in time God
has revealed Himself, this is not a complete revelation. Furthermore, it is not direct revelation.
There is far more of God to be revealed to us.
F. The otherness and transcendence of God relate to our subject in at least one vital way.
Since God is the highest, He is not to be measured by anything else. There is no higher law of
truth, fairness or morality to which God is subject. He does not do something because it is right;
it is right because He does it.

6. The Independence of God.

A. Again, lets go back to the eternity in which God was all alone. Before all things were, there
was only God. The question arises, Why does God do what He does? Later we will investigate
this question as it relates to the ultimate purpose for which He does what He does. But now the
question concerns what moved Him. To answer this, we need to understand the independence
of God.
B. God is totally free. His will is the only one in the universe that is totally free. That means that
God does what He wants to do simply because He so chooses. Consider the following great
passages from the Word of God:
I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods. Whatever the Lord
pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all depths. (Psa. 135:5-6)
He is unique and who can turn Him? And what His soul desires, that He does. (Job
23:13)
who works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11).
He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the
earth (Dan. 4:35).
My purpose will be established and I will accomplish all My good pleasure
(Isa. 46:10).
Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases (Psa. 115:3).
C. Why does God do anything? Simply because He pleases to do it. There is no reason outside
of God why He does anything. This is the mere pleasure of God. Thus it was well-pleasing in
thy sight (Matt. 11:26). A.VI. Pink commented, God does as He pleases, only as He pleases,
always as He pleases.

210

D. Now this is true in time because it was true in eternity past. God does not change in this
principle simply because He now deals with creatures. Creation is His lump of clay to fashion in
whichever way He so chooses (Rom. 9). Mark this: God does what He does because He was
pleased to do so, and if it does not please us it is because we are creatures who are trying to be
God. Resistance to the Bible doctrine of the freedom of God is anti-God blasphemy and
rebellion. Let God be God! He can do whatever He wants - and He always does so with or
without our permission. God needs no permission or approval to do what He does.
E. Nor does God need advice. Who has been His counselor? (Isa. 40:13-14, Rom.11: 34).
Back in eternity, there was no other counselor for God to consult with. He is His own counselor,
for He does all that He does solely on the basis of His own counsel (Eph. 1:11).
F. But does this mean, as Karl Barth suggested, that God is free to become His opposite? No,
not at all. God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2). God cannot not exist, for He is self-existent. He cannot
choose to become imperfect. These are not weaknesses in God, but perfections. They are not
external limitations to His freedom, but manifestations of His glory.
G. Again, let it be stressed, that in the ultimate sense, only God has a totally free will. There
cannot be two completely free wills in the universe. Therefore, so far as ultimate decisions are
concerned, Man cannot have free will. Man sins, yes, but that does not determine what God will
choose to do. God does as He pleases. This is a disturbing truth to us. Why? Because we want
to be God. We are envious of that which we cannot have, so like a spoiled child we make fun of
it. Those who deny or minimize the sovereignty of God do so out of immature and sinful spite.
H. It might be stated that there is a certain holy capriciousness in God. Lets clarify that. He
does whatever He wants to - that is caprice. But it is always holy - He always acts in accordance
with His nature. This does not make Him a stagnant God (as some unorthodox theologians
suggest). Quite the opposite. He does whatever He wants, but whatever He wants is always
and necessarily holy. The independence of God does not contradict the holiness of God, but
works together with it in truth and glory. All the divine attributes are in balance.

7. The Sovereignty of God.

A. The sovereignty of God is rooted in His Godness. Simply put, God is King. He was King
when He was all alone and He is still King of whatever exists. He is king of kings and lord of
lords. Among the many Scriptures which could be adduced to support and elucidate this grand
truth are the following:
The Lord has established His throne in the heavens; and His sovereignty rules over all
(Psa. 103:19).
Thine, 0 Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the
majesty, indeed everything that is in the heavens and the earth; Thine is the dominion, 0
Lord, and Thou dost exalt Thyself as head over all (I Chron. 29:11),
Art thou not ruler over all the kingdoms of the nations? (2 Chron.20: 6).
The Lord reigns, He is clothed with majesty (Psa. 93:1).
The Lord reigns, let the peoples tremble; He is enthroned above the cherubim, let the
earth shake! (Psa. 99:1).
Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns! (Rev. 19:6).
B. There are still a few monarchies left on earth, such as in Great Britain. However, there is a

211

great difference. The Queen of England reigns, but she doesnt rule. She has authority but no
power. She is really just a titular monarch, one in name only. But the Lord is king of kings and
the only potentate. He both reigns and rules. He rules over all, for He created all and governs
all. Some kings have men as slaves, but God is a King who has kings as slaves.
C. The Calvinist believes that God is an absolute monarch. He has total authority. Moreover,
He has always had this authority, for He has always been just whether is now. He is a
benevolent dictator. The universe is not a democracy. Gods authority is not based on a majority
vote. Nor is it an oligarchy, or shared authority, much less anarchy. No, God is the undisputed
King of all. In fact, the Greek New Testament uses the very word from which we get the English
word despot (Despotes, Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, 2 Pet. 2:1, Rev. 6:10, 2 Tim. 2:21). God is a
totalitarian despot, but a holy one.
D. Now, to the non-Reformed ear, these words sound severe and unbecoming of God. What,
is God a cruel despot like Adolf Hitler? Is He a totalitarian dictator like Idi Amin? Is he an
unquestioned potentate like Stalin? No, God is not like them. Remember, Gods sovereignty is
a holy sovereignty. Nevertheless, He is still a king with unlimited authority in Himself over all
people and things.
E. This all sounds harsh to our Western ears, we who are so accustomed to democracy. But
lets go deeper. Why do men resist this great truth? It is this: it strikes them to their very being
that God is God, not them. And men want to be little gods (Gen. 3:5). There is, therefore,
something about the sovereignty of God that sticks in the craw of sinful man. Note that I said
sinful man, for the holy angels and redeemed men in heaven have no trouble with this truth
whatsoever. On the contrary, they rejoice in it daily. But sinful worms called men here below
rebel against it. C.H. Spurgeon noted:
There is no doctrine more hated by world lings, no truth of which they have made such
a football, as the great, stupendous, but yet most certain doctrine of the Sovereignty of
the infinite Jehovah. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on His throne. They
will allow Him to be in His workshop to fashion worlds and make stars. They will allow
Him to be in His almonry to dispense His alms and bestow His bounties. They will allow
Him to sustain the earth and bear up the pillars thereof, or light the lamps of heaven, or
rule the waves of the ever-moving ocean; but when God ascends His throne, His
creatures then gnash their teeth, and we proclaim an enthroned God, and His right to do
as He wills with His own, to dispose of His creatures as He thinks well, without
consulting them in the matter; then it is that we are hissed and execrated, and then it is
that men turn a deaf ear to us, for God on His throne is not the God they love.
F. Of course, not all admit this. Others are more subtle. They plead that it does damage to
human responsibility. Now we do not deny human responsibility; it is taught in the Word of God
and corresponds to Gods revealed will of holiness. But divine sovereignty does not negate
human responsibility; rather, human responsibility could not even exist unless God were
sovereign. Many think they are defending human responsibility when, in fact, they are really
destroying divine sovereignty.
G. Lastly, God is sovereign now. Most Christians admit that God was sovereign in eternity past
and will be sovereign in eternity future. But they recoil at God being sovereign now, for that is
where they live (no man lives in the past or the future, only in the now). Hence, there are
practical applications and theological implications for this awesome doctrine.

8. Conclusion.

212

A. This is only the tip of an infinite iceberg labeled the sovereignty of God. In future lessons
we will explore the implications. But this is where it must start.
B. The slightest compromise on this doctrine will have enormous implications on other
doctrines and practices. It is the root of the TULIP. Only Calvinists consistently accept this
wonderful doctrine. But not even the most mature and skilled Calvinist has ever totally mastered
it. It is awesome. If it were not, it would not be true. A grasp of the sovereignty of the selfexistent God who does whatever He pleases produces a holy awe. It produces rebellion in
sinners and praise in saints. One of the best gauges of ones spirituality is in terms of how He
responds to this truth. In the end, the sovereignty of God is the Godness of God.

Recommended Reading
Pink, Arthur W. The Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Banner of Truth
also publishes a slightly abridged version.
Pink, Arthur W. The Attributes of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Moody Press
publishes Gleanings in the Godhead, from which Attributes is taken. Attributes, like Sovereignty,
is a modern Reformed classic.
Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press.
Packer, J.I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity.
Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. 2 volumes. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House. (The fullest Reformed book on God. By a leading Puritan.)
Bavinck, Herman. The Doctrine of God. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (A large book taken from his
large systematic theology. A leading Dutch Calvinist.)
Machen, J. Gresham. God Transcendent. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Storms, C. Samuel. The Grandeur of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Rice, N.L. God Sovereign and Man Free. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications.

213

Chapter 26. Predestination.

1. Introduction
A. Whenever one discusses or even quickly comes to mind. In fact, it is true that Calvinists give
school of theology. Critics say are merely giving it the proper As we shall see, the Bible says
thinks of Calvinism, the word predestination the two words are often used as synonyms, more
place to the subject than any other they over-emphasize it; we reply that we Biblical place,
which is denied by others, much about predestination.
B. The word heed not frighten us. We need to understand that the Bible itself uses words like
predestine and predestinate. Nor should we ignore distort or deny what the Bible says on the
matter. As we shall see, by its very nature, predestination is an extremely important subject.

2. What is Predestination?
A. Simply put, predestination is the teaching that God is the source of all things. From Him are
all things (Rom. 11:36). The best and most well known explanation is found in the Westminster
Confession (111:1):
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.
B. Several words are used as synonyms. One is foreordination. Scripture speaks of Gods
ordinance and ordinances concerning what He planned (e.g., Psa.119: 91). Since He does
nothing in time that He did not plan in eternity, it is proper to speak of pre-ordination or
foreordination.
C. Then there is the term appointment (Heb. 9:27, Acts 13:28, I Pet. 2:8, Acts17: 24-26). If
something is appointed, then it follows that it was previously appointed sometime in the past.
Predestination is the doctrine that God has appointed everything that happens.
D. Predetermination is another related word. This is part of Determinism. This is the doctrine
that says that all things operate on the law of cause and effect. Science, for example, accepts
this principle. In philosophy, there is a school of thought known as Determinism that is similar to
the Reformed theology of predestination, but there is a difference. In philosophy, Determinism
says that all is fate and there is no free choice in any sense; free choice is an illusion. Calvinism
teaches that men have responsibility and in that sense are free. But there are similarities
between the two ideas.
E. The truth is that God has determined in advance exactly what will happen in time. He is the
First Cause of all things. Philosophically, only two options are open. First, there could be an
infinite regress of causes. Or, secondly, there could be one unique First Cause that is itself
uncaused. Philosophy can only go that far, but theology goes further and establishes God as
the eternal uncaused First Cause. Everything else is caused. Everything in the Universe is an
effect caused by a previous cause. In turn, everything affects everything else. So, the Universe
is a vast network of second, third and fourth causes and effects. But behind them all, God is
First Cause.

214

F. Now lets look closely at the word predestination. In English, it .is the combination of pre
and destination. The very idea of time and the future tells us that there is a destiny for things.
All things are rolling along the road to their destination. So, the destination is settled. But when?
In time? Only indirectly. The ultimate destination of all things has been determined by God from
before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4-5). If, then, the destination of all things has been
settled beforehand, it is proper to speak of pre-destination. Predestination is the map which all
things follow.
G. Next lets look at the Greek word used in the New Testament for predestine. The verb is
PROORIZO .It comes from two Greek words, PRO (before) and ORAO (I see beforehand). But
it does not mean merely foresight, but foreordination. It is used 6 times in the New Testament,
each as cause and not as effect.
(1) Acts 4:27-28. There were gathered together... to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy purpose
predestined to occur. Notice that Gods purpose and predestination are associated. This also
tells us that divine predestination is behind the actual occurrence of events.
(2) Rom. 8:29-30. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the
image of His Son... and whom He predestined, these He also called. Observe that Paul is here
elaborating on verse 28, where he spoke of Gods "purpose. Now in theology the term
predestine has several uses. One of them is found here, namely, to set out on a decided
course. This logically assumes that something has already been decided. Here, what has been
decided is election. The word foreknow here means pre-love, as in election, not simply divine
omniscience. [More on this in the next study and on election.]
(3) I Cor. 2:7. But we speak Gods wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God
predestined before the ages to our glory. This verse tells us two interesting things. First, like in
Acts 4:28, things and not just people are predestined (as in Rom. 8:29-30). Second, this
predestination is eternal.
(4) Eph. 1:5. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according
to the kind intention of His will. Paul here says that our adoption in salvation has been
predestined. Paul is building on vs. 4,where he said that we were chosen from before the
foundation of the world. Also, he says that this predestination is according to the kind, intention
of His will, or more precisely, His good pleasure. He predestines whatever He chooses to
predestine, for He does whatever He pleases (Psa.115: 3).
(5) Eph. 1:11. we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His
purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will. Again Paul associates predestination
with Gods purpose and the counsel of His will. God does not predestine things according to our
wills, but His will.

3. The Purpose of God.

A. Before all things existed, God established a purpose for them. Predestination is according to
Gods purpose. The universe is not like a car careening down the road without a driver. God is
the driver, and He has a map. He has a purpose.
B. Isa. 46:10-11, My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure.
The two ideas are parallel. God always and only does what pleases Him, and His pleasure is
linked to His purpose. Though God does all things freely, He does not act in merely arbitrary
fashion. God acts on purpose. The next verse continues, Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it
to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.

215

C. Gods purpose, then, is His plan: Therefore hear the plan of the Lord which He has planned
against Edom, and His purpose which He has purposed against the inhabitants of Teman (Jer.
49:20. Cf. 50:45). Sometimes His purpose is spoken of in the plural as plans: The counsel of
the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart from generation to generation (Psa. 33:11).
D. In the New Testament, the word most used in this context is BOULE, meaning counsel or
purpose. The idea is the wise counsel upon which a decision is made. Sometimes it speaks of
human plans based on deliberation. But regarding God, it is used several times of His
predestination of all things or of specific things in particular. Four passages are especially
pertinent:
(1) Acts 2:23. this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.
The crucifixion of Christ was part of Gods plan. It was not accidental; it had been predestined. It
happened according to Gods purpose. Literally, the words mean previously determined
counsel.
(2) Acts 4:28. to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur. As we saw
earlier, predestination follows Gods purpose.
(3) Rom. 9:19. You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?
In a later study we will examine the context (reprobation). As for now, notice that the objection is
based on a valid truth, namely, that God has an over-arching purpose even for the non-elect.
Paul does not answer the objection by denying that God has a definite purpose.
(4) Eph. 1:11. having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the
counsel of His own will.
E. The last passage cited above (Eph. 1:11) includes two words which are more or less
synonymous. One is BOULE, the other is PROTHESIN. We have been predestined according
to His purpose [PROTHESIN]. It is used later in 3:11, This was inaccordance with the eternal.
purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord. Note that it is eternal and that it is
carried out in time. The verb form is used in 1:9, according to His kind intention which He
purposed in Him.
F. PROTHESIN is also used in two important passages in Romans. First, Rom. 8:28, God
causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called
according to His purpose. This beloved verse contains an explicit proof of absolute
predestination, and yet it is the favorite verse of many who explicitly and vehemently oppose the
doctrine. But look closely at it. How do we know all things will work out for our good? Because
God is working them that way. And why does He work that way? Because He decided to do so.
And that decision is His purpose. If God could change His mind, then all assurance is
undermined and we would do well to erase Rom. 8:28 from our Bibles. But the text is inspired
and proves that God has a purpose for all things, including the good of His saints. You will also
notice that this verse precedes the Golden Chain of verses 29-30. The predestination and
foreknowledge of vss.29-20 are but aspects of His purpose.
G. PROTHESIN occurs in the next chapter as Paul discusses the non-elect. Notice vs.11,in
order that Gods purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but
because of Him who calls. The whole argument of the chapter is that God elects and rejects
solely on the basis of His own will and purpose. His eternal purpose, therefore, is not in any way
based on Mans will but on Gods.
H. The word also appears in 2 Tim. 1:9, who has saved us, and called us with a holy calling,
not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us
in Christ Jesus from all eternity.

216

I. In theology, we speak of this ultimate purpose as Gods decree. Sometimes this is mentioned
in Scripture (e.g., Psa. 2:7). Because it has several aspects to it, we also speak of the decrees
of God. But basically it is one decree. Just as Gods essence is one but is spoken of as
attributes so we can begin to understand, so with the decree and decrees of God.

4. The Program of God.

A. In modern technological language, the universe has been pre-programmed. Gods
predestination and purpose is His program.
B. Scripture teaches that God created all things (Gen. 1:1, John 1:3, Col. 1:16,Heb. 1:2, I Cor.
8:6, etc.). But God did not create in a happenstance manner. He created according to a
previously determined blueprint - predestination. In Luke 14:28-30, Jesus said that a wise
builder first counts the cost in his plans before building. God did just that.
C. Luke 14:31-32 continues Christs words. A general first has a battle plan, a strategy for
winning. Prepare plans by consultation, and make war by wise guidance (Pro. 20:18. Cf. 24:6).
Gods strategy is wise. He will win.

5. Eternal Predestination.
A. Several of the verses we have quoted tell us that Gods predestination is eternal. It is
predestination, not postdestination. The destiny of all things in Creation and in time have
already been settled in eternity past.
B. Now, Gods purpose is eternal (2 Tim. 1:9). But, technically, it is not eternal in the exact
sense that God is eternal. We do not deify the decree of God. Only God and His essence is
eternal in the ultimate sense. Still, the purpose of God goes back into the depths of the
everlasting past in a sense in which we cannot comprehend it. It would help if we could first
understand just what eternity is; but then, we are finite and temporal creatures and as such
cannot comprehend the infinity of eternity. But God does.
C. Further, eternal predestination covers all things in time. Job 14:5, Since his days are
determined, the number of his months is with thee, and his limits thou hast set so that he cannot
pass. Our birthdays and deaths days are appointed unto us (Heb. 9:27). What occurs in time
was determined in eternity, from the largest to the smallest detail, seconds to centuries.
Furthermore, predestination of eternity past covers all things into eternity future: The counsel of
the Lord stands forever (Psa. 33:11).

6. Absolute Predestination.
A. Predestination is absolute and definite, not contingent or merely possible. Note:
predestination is not to be confused with Gods commandments in time. Gods commandments
can be broken (in fact, they usually are), but Gods decrees cannot be broken. They will be
fulfilled, for they have the force of omnipotent power behind them.
B. Gods plan is unchangeable. God wont change it and men cannot. Predestination is
irreversible, like the laws of the Medes and Persians (Esther 1:19, 8:8,Dan. 6:8, 12, 15). Psa.
148:3, He has made a decree which will not pass away. In Heb. 6:17, we are told that God

217

confirmed the unchangeableness of His purpose with an oath. And God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2).
C. Jer. 23:20 says that God will not turn back until He has accomplished the purposes of His
heart (so also 30:24). God does not decide to change the decree simply because it is now in
operation. Isa. 14:24, The Lord of hosts has sworn saying, Surely, just as I have intended, so it
has happened; and just as I have planned, so it will stand.
D. Pro. 19:21, Many are the plans in a mans heart, but the counsel of the Lord, it will stand.
Man changes his mind, but God never. I Sam. 15:29, The Glory of Israel will not lie or change
His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind (cf. Num. 23:19). Jer. 4:28
repeats this: Because Have spoken, I have purposed, and I will not change my mind, nor will I
turn from it.
E. Arminians have great difficulty accepting all this. They think that God forms his decrees, but
we can change them by our sins. This is to confuse the decrees with the commandments of
God. No mere man can thwart Gods predestination Job 42:1, No purpose of thine can be
thwarted. Isa. 14:27, The Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? No man on
earth or demon in hell can.
F. Predestination is absolute and unconditional. The acts of men in time are not conditions for
the fulfillments of the decrees, as if men could fail to meet the conditions and thus hinder what
was predestined. Rather, the very acts and thoughts of men have been unconditionally
predestined.

7. Predestination of All Means and Ends.

A. As we saw earlier, God is the First Cause of all things. From Him are all things (Rom.
11:36). Predestination is universal, God Himself being excepted (as in I Cor. 15:28). Nothing
happens that was not foreordained to happen.
B. However, here is where we differ with Stoicism and Islam. God is the First Cause of all
things, but not always the immediate cause of all things. What does that mean? Just this: God
sometimes causes things mediately rather than immediately. In fact, this is His usual way of
doing things. That is to say, the First Cause uses Second Causes, which He has caused.
Anyone who has played pocket billiards knows what this means. Moreover, the whole of
Creation is a vast network of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th causes, and so forth. For example, good works
have been predestined: For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God prepared beforehand, that we should (will) walk in them (Eph. 2:10).
C. God has foreordained all things, large and. small, seen and unseen. He has predestined all
means to all ends. He is the First Cause and the Last End of all things (Rom. 11:36). Later we
will discuss how all the details of what He has predestined work back to Him.
D. Lastly, though God predestined all that is, God did not predestine all that He could have
predestined. Like in Creation, He did not create all that He could have created. With God, all
things are possible (Matt. 19:26), but not all things are definite. God decides what will be
definite. In fact, if you can grasp it, God even determines what is possible. God created the
realm of potentiality, even those potential and possible things which will never be realized. And
to further dazzle our minds, try grasping this concept: God did not have to predestine anything,
nor did He have to predestine it exactly as He did predestine it. He could have done some
things differently or not at all.

218

8. Conclusion.
1. Two concluding comments need to be made. First, though this great truth is revealed in
Scripture, it is not exhaustively revealed to us. The secret things belong to the Lord our God
(Deut. 29:29). We cannot pry into the unrevealed secrets of predestination beyond that which
has been revealed. In subsequent studies, we will go into further areas of predestination - some
directly revealed, others legitimately deduced from what has been revealed. But we need to
heed the wise caution of the Westminster Confession: The doctrine of this high mystery of
predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care... (111:8). Properly handled; it
humbles men and causes them to worship God in thankful awe and loving praise. Improperly
handled, men become proud or bitter against the sovereign God. Be careful.
2. Second, we are obliged to believe in predestination because it is in the Bible. It is true
whether we understand it or not (and nobody fully understands it). It is true whether we want it
to be true or not. He who rejects it tampers with divine truth and imperils himself, while the one
who accepts it wins many blessings. Believe it, and give God the glory.

Recqmmended Reading
Clark, Gordon. Predestination. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Phi 11ipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed.
Zanchius, Jerome. Absolute Predestination. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (This short work
by the 16th-century theologian was translated and edited by A.M. Toplady, who added
comments of his own. It can be found in The Works of Augustus Montague Toplady,
Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications.)
Packer, J.I. The Plan of God. Choteau: Gospel Mission.
Gerstner, John. A Predestination Primer. Winona Lake: Alpha Publications.
Calvin, John. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. Greenwood: Attic Press. (Calvins
major treatment of the subject)
Calvin, John. Calvins Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications. (Contains 2 treatises by
Calvin: The Eternal Predestination of God [above] and The Secret Providence of God)
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and
Philadelphia: Westminster Press. (Book III, chapters xxi-xxiv cover predestination)
Basinger, David and Randall, eds. Predestination and Free Will. Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity Press. (A symposium of 4 viewpoints. 3 are variations of Arminianism, and the one
by a Calvinist (John Feinberg) is somewhat modified.)
Machen, J. Gresham. The Christian View of Man. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Warfield, Benjamin. Predestination, in Biblical and Theological Studies, pp. 270-333.
Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Pink, A.W. The Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, and Carlisle: Banner of
Truth (abridged).

219

Chapter 27. Foreknowledge.

1. Introduction.
A. Does something happen because God foreordained it to happen, or did God foreordain it to
happen because He foresaw that it would happen? What is the relationship between
foreordination, foreknowledge and actual events?
B. In this study we will examine the subject of divine foreknowledge. In the last study we looked
at predestination (foreordination), and noted that the word is used in two ways (predetermination
of all things, and then the arrangement of details after God makes a choice, specifically in
election). The same is true with foreknowledge. It has two uses: pre-love election and
omniscience of the future. In this study we will examine the latter.

2. The Omniscience of God.

A. The Bible expressly and repeated teaches the omniscience of God. It may be defined as
that perfection of God whereby He, in an entirely unique manner, knows Himself and all things
possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act (Louis Berkhof). Observe what the Bible
itself says. The Lord is a God of knowledge (I Sam. 2:3). Job describes Him as perfect in
knowledge (Job 37:16). I John 3:20 says, God...knows all things. Christs disciples confessed
to Him, You know all things (John 16:30, 21:17). .
B. In John 2:24-25, we are told that Jesus knows all men and knows what is in all men. God
knows all the thoughts (I Chron. 28:9, Jer. 17:10, Heb. 4:13) and secrets (Psa. 90:8) of men. I
know the things that come into your mind, every one of them (Ezek. 11:5). What could be more
secret than human thoughts? If God knows them all, then He knows everything. David realized
this in Psa. 139:1-6 and confessed, Such knowledge is too wonderful for me.
C. But the best text is Psa. 147:5, Great is the Lord and abundant strength. His understanding
is infinite. Literally, the Hebrew means without number. God knows everything.
D. Theres more. Several texts tells us that God not only knows everything about everything
that is, but He also knows everything that could be but is not. He knows all possibilities, most of
which will never be actualized. Jesus told what would have happened had Sodom and
Gomorrah had heard the Gospel and seen His miracles (Matt. 11:21-23). Isa. 48:18, 2 Kings
13:19 and other texts, also say that God knows what could have happened had certain circumstances been different. Therefore, God knows all that could be but wont be.
E. God knows all details. God knows all things exactly as they are. He knows them in all their
relationships. And He knows them immediately, or intuitively. He does not have to do research,
nor does He require proof. God knows.

3. Absolute Foreknowledge.
A. Now God never changes. If, then, He now knows all things, then He has always known all
things. It is wonderful to say that God knows everything now; it is even more wonderful to say
that He knew everything before they existed; it iswonderful to the point of awesomeness to say

220

that He has always known everything.

B. This, in essence, is what we mean by the term foreknowledge. Sometimes scholars use the
terms prescience and foresight as synonyms for foreknowledge. They all mean that God has
absolute knowledge of all things before they exist. Again, hear what the Scriptures say. God
knows our needs before we pray (Matt. 6:8).
Jesus knew from the beginning (eternity - John 1:1) who would not believe in Him and who
would betray Him (John 6:64). Even Christs own crucifixion was eternally foreknown by God (I
Pet. 1:20).
C. God knows all things with total certainty. He cannot doubt, nor be ignorant. God cannot but
know all things as certain, otherwise He would not be perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16).
Gordon Clark comments, If Gods foreknowledge were not eternal, then he must have learned
something at some time. And if he learned it, he must have previously been ignorant of it. And if
he had been ignorant and learned something, why could he not forget some things after awhile?
However, God neither learns nor forgets.
D. The crux of the matter is certainty. Absolute foreknowledge implies inevitability, and
inevitability implies certainty. Certain knowledge requires certain facts. Certain foreknowledge
requires that the things foreknown will certainly occur.
E. Look at Isa. 46:10. The Lord points out that He is unique, declaring the end from the
beginning.. He declares because He knows. Since He declares all things from the beginning
(eternity), then it follows that He foreknows all things from eternity. Acts 15:18 teaches this as
well. It can be translated Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world
(KJV) or says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old(NASB). Either way, it tells
us that God knew things from eternity.

4. Foreknowledge and Foreordination.

A. But back to our original question. Does God foreordain something because He foresees that
it will happen, or does He foresee it happening because He has foreordained it to happen?
What is the logical relationship between divine foreordination and foreknowledge? Having
established that (1) God has foreordained all things from eternity, and (2) God has foreknown all
things from eternity, the question is which logically precedes which.
B. The answer is that foreordination logically precedes foreknowledge. Notice the order of Acts
2:23, this Man, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. The
Westminster Confession gives the Reformed explanation: Although God knows whatsoever
may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed any thing
because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions
(111:2).
C. Omniscience of the future is definite, not contingent. It is unconditional, not conditional, for
God is sovereign. As we said, absolute foreknowledge requires that a things shall certainly
occur. But what gives it that absolute certainty of existence? Itself? If that were the case, then it
would be uncaused by God. But God is the ultimate cause of all things. Therefore, it must be
caused by God to be absolutely foreseen. If God foreordained on the basis of foresight of that
which He did not foreordain, then God foreordains on the basis of the counsel of another. But
Scripture says He foreordains on the basis of His own counsel, not anothers.
D. We are often told that we must submit all our plans of the future to God. We must says such-

221

and-such will happen if the Lord wills (James 4:13-15). But God does not have to submit His
plans to another. He foresees things because He foreordains them, and He foreordains them
according to His own will.
E. Now if foreknowledge of a certain event preceded foreordination, then we have the
unthinkable situation of the creation dictating to the Creator. If God merely foresaw something
as definite and certain, could He do anything but foreordain it?
F. You will note that I have often said that this is a logical order. This is said after the manner
of men. It is a logical order, not a chronological order, for we are dealing with eternity. God
knows all things at once, in an instant. Even so, there is a relation between foreordination and
foreknowledge Both are absolute and eternal. But there is a sense in which foreordination
logically precedes foreknowledge. He foreknows because He foreordains, not vice-versa. This is
the whole crux of the matter.

5. Eternity.
A. Obviously, much of the difficulty arises from our inability to grasp the concept of eternity.
Now we cannot do a full study of eternity here, but a few salient points are in order.
B. First, there is a sense in which it is correct to deny that God knows something before it
happens. What is that sense? Simply this: God is not before something in time in the way in
which we are. He is before all-time itself, through all time, and even above it. God inhabits
eternity(Isa. 57:17, KJV). He is the great I AM who lives at once in the past, present and
future. Jesus said, Before Abraham was, I AM (John 8:58). Note that He did not say I was,
but I AM.
C. God fills all time, but is not limited to it. God fills all space, but is also infinitely outside of
space. The same is true with time. God fills all time at once, but also is eternally outside of time,
this is like a submerged cup - the water completely fills the cup, but the water also completely
surrounds the cup. It gets back to the fact that space and time themselves are created by God.
D. So, then, when Scripture says that God knew something before it happened, that is true. It
is said after the manner of men to make a point and so that we can begin to grasp it. Calvin
explained foreknowledge in this way: When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that
all things were, and perpetually remain, under his eyes, so that to his knowledge there is
nothing future or past, but all things are present.

6. Foreknowledge and Prophecy.

A. Absolute foreknowledge is further illustrated in the area of prophecy. Now there are two
types of prophecy in Scripture. First, there are conditional prophecies, as it were. Generally the
conditions are mentioned by way of warning. For example, God through Jonah said that
Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. The implied condition is repentance. When they
repented, God forestalled the punishment (it later came). But then, back of this is Gods
foreordination and providential gift of repentance.
B. The second type is more prevalent. It is absolute prophecy. Phrases like The thing shall
surely come to pass (I Kings 13:32) are often found in this context. And after the prophesied
event, we sometimes find expressions such as And it came to pass according to the Word of
the Lord. Matthew especially records that such-and-such a thing came to pass in fulfillment of

222

prophecy.
C. God is neither a weatherman nor a gambler. He doesnt predict on a percentage basis of
probability, but prophesies on the basis of certain foreknowledge. Prophecy implies certainty of
occurrence and inevitability. This all gets back to divine foreordination and the Godness of
God. For example, Scripture frequently attaches a certain phrase to an absolute prophecy,
namely And then you shall know that I am the Lord. Fulfilled prophecy proves absolute
foreknowledge. This is a major theme of Isa.41-48. For example, Isa. 48:3, I declared the
former things long ago. That He prophesied perfectly proves He is God. See 41:22-23, 26;
42:9; 43:12-13; 44:7-8; 45:21; 46:10; 48:5-6.
D. Incidently, this tells us at once that Satan has neither omniscience nor absolute
foreknowledge. At best, he knows more than we do, and he knows his days are numbered (Rev.
12:12). He knows because it has been prophesied.
And if Satan does not have absolute foreknowledge of himself, neither can we. That is why we
must say, if the Lord wills, except in those areas where God has revealed in Scripture that
certain things will occur, such as the Second Coming. But He has not disclosed to us the exact
time.
E. In John 13:19, Jesus said, I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does
occur, you may believe that I am he. (So also in 14:19) The Greek reads, that I AM. Thus,
fulfillment of prophecy proves His deity. This demands faith. Therefore, those who deny that
God has absolute foreknowledge reveal their lack of faith in the real God. To deny absolute
foreknowledge is to say that God is not God. Those who make such denials would do well to
read Isaiah.

7. How Does God Know?

A. Both Reformed and Catholic theology that follows Aquinas accept that there are two kinds of
knowledge in God. First, there is Necessary Knowledge. This has two parts to it. In the first part,
God knows everything about Himself (2 Cor.2: 11). He is perfectly and infinitely self-conscious.
He knows Himself uniquely and primarily.
B. In the second part, which some think is a second division of knowledge in God, God knows
all possibilities of things outside of Himself. He has perfect knowledge of all theoretical
possibilities. He knows them directly from His own perfect mind. These possibilities are, as
such, still possibilities and He necessarily knows them all.
C. The second kind of knowledge in God is Free Knowledge. Out of the vast storehouse of
possibilities, God has foreordained that some will become actual. Only God can actualize a
thing; nothing actualizes itself anymore than something can come out of nothing, by itself. So,
then, God knows all that can happen, then foreordains some of them to occur, then foreknows
them as certainly occurring. Charles Hodge put it like this: Being the cause of all things, God
knows everything by knowing himself; all things possible, by the knowledge of his power; and all
things actual, but the knowledge of his own purpose.

8. The Theory of Middle Knowledge.

A. Now it is precisely at this point that sinful men begin to carp loudest. So they have invented
several theories to escape the Bible teaching that absolute foreordination precedes absolute

223

foreknowledge. Perhaps the most popular is the theory of Middle Knowledge (Scientia Media),
or Mediate Knowledge. Its roots go back to ancient Greek philosophy, but it was more precisely
formulated in the 16th-century by certain Jesuit theologians, especially Luis Molina. They came
up with theory to oppose the prevalent theory of the Dominicans (such as Aquinas), whom they
envied; and to counter the Reformation, which taught absolute foreordination and
foreknowledge. Later, the theory became accepted-by many Lutherans and almost all
Arminians.
B. The theory says that Middle Knowledge is between Necessary Knowledge and Free
Knowledge. Basically, it says that God foreknows because He foresees the free and unimpeded
acts of men. This assumes that for men to be moral and responsible beings, there can be no
divine interference. Richard Muller gives the following definition: Middle knowledge is a
conditional and consequent knowledge of future contingents by which God knows of an event
because of its occurrence... Such events are outside of the divine willing.
C. The theory has been rejected by all orthodox Calvinists. Louis Berkhof wrote, It is
objectionable, because it makes the divine knowledge dependent on the choice of man, virtually
annuls the certainly of the knowledge of future events, and thus implicitly denies the
omniscience of God. Middle Knowledge contradicts both absolute foreordination and absolute
foreknowledge.

9. Various Theories of Limited Omniscience and Foreknowledge.

A. Jerome said that it was absurd to lower the divine majesty by asserting that God knows how
many mosquitoes are born each single moment and how many die; how many bugs, fleas and
flies there are in the world; how many fishes swim in the water, and how many of the smaller
ones should constitute a meal for the bigger ones. But Jerome sounds too much like worldly
skeptics and drunken atheists. Scripture often says that God knows all about and cares for all
the animals (Psa. 36:6, 50:11, 104:27, Matt. 6:26, 10:29, etc.).
B. Aristotle, Cicero, Marcion, Origen and others denied omniscient foreknowledge because
they could not harmonize it with free will. They assumed that human responsibility means that
God cannot interfere. Later, the Socinianism said that God knows all that is knowable, but
human acts are not knowable in advance because they are by nature neutrally decided and
totally free. The decision of free will cannot be predicted with total accuracy by anyone,
including God. But, as we showed earlier, Scripture expressly and repeatedly says that God
knows with perfect knowledge all things that will ever come to pass.
C. Then there is Process Theology. This heretical theology more or less began with the
philosopher Alfred North Whitehead and has been developed by the pseudo-theologian Charles
Hartshorne. Process Theology denies absolute foreknowledge because it denies absolute
omniscience. This theory says that God is in the process of growing and developing. He is
ever learning. Otherwise, He would be stagnant. Absolute omniscience would be cosmic
stagnation. And who knows what will happen next? This silly theory hardly requires refutation.
The truth is that God is perfect in knowledge, perfectly perfect in all He is. And being perfect, He
does not change - no process.
D. Then there are several varieties of Arminian theories which deny absolute foreknowledge,
Most of them are but variations of Middle Knowledge. One of them is semi-Socinian. It posits
that God knows all things. But the future is not a thing. Therefore God does not know it. He can,
however, make increasingly accurate predictions because new things are happening everyday
to add information, which increases probability. The more moderate exponents of this nonsense

224

say that God foreknows the future with virtual but not actual certainty. In other words, very good
foreknowledge, but not perfect and absolute. There is still a sliver of a chance that something
else will happen. The more extreme exponents revel in the supposed adventure of blind foreignorance.
E. A more popular Arminian theory is growing in Evangelical ranks, namely the theory of an
Open God. A Seventh-Day Adventist named Richard Rice has published a little book entitled
The Openness of God; in the second edition, it has been retiteld as Gods Foreknowledge and
Mans Free will. 8 of the .9 chapters have the terms open or openness in their titles. Rice and
his followers capitalize on the unsavory connotations of the term closed. And we certainly dont
want a God that has a closed mind! No, he says, God has an open mind. In fact, this leads
directly into Process Theology, for it implies that God also has an open nature. This in turn is
related to the Barthian heresy which distorts the independence of God, so that God is free to
become His opposite. But can. The Lord ever become imperfect in knowledge?
F. And then there is yet another heresy of limited foreknowledge. An example is a chapter by
Clark Pinnock in the volume of 4 essays entitled Predestination and Free Hill. The title of
Pinnock's essay tells it all: God Limits His Knowledge. There is supposedly something
wonderful and glorious about the idea of God playing cosmic peek-a-boo, sometimes choosing
not to know some things and sometimes choosing to know other things. Pinnock slightly differs
from the theory of Middle Knowledge by suggesting that Gods foreknowledge is
Limited by Himself, not by anything external to Himself. But Pinnock betrays frequent similarities
to Process Theology, even by his own admission. But no heresy is really new. There was a
philosophic form of this theory long ago. Charles Hodge dismissed it with a cogent rebuttal: But
this is to suppose that God wills not to be God; that the Infinite wills to be finite.
G. Lastly* there is a Barthian theory that runs like this. Jesus didnt know the day of His return
(Matt. 24:36). Therefore He was not omniscient nor did He have absolute foreknowledge.
Moreover, God is exactly what Jesus is. Therefore, God Himself does not know the future as
such. Now this theory totally contradicts itself, as well as the very Scripture it quotes. Matt.
24:36 says that only the Father knows. Therefore the Father has absolute omniscience and
foreknowledge. What about the Son? In His humanity - which by nature is finite - Jesus was not
omniscient. He had to grow in knowledge and wisdom (Luke 2:40, 52). Yet in His divine nature,
Jesus knew all things (John 2:24-25, 6:64, 16:30, 21:17, etc.).

10. Conclusion.
A. Does it matter? Isnt the whole question rather irrelevant? Arent we being nitpicking to even
consider the question? Isnt it like the old medieval debate about how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin? The Calvinist answer is blunt and emphatic: No! It is not an irrelevant
matter. It is not a trivial question which lazy theologians discuss. It does matter. Whether God
foreordains on the basis of foreknowledge or foreknows on the basis of foreordination is of great
importance The slightest variation from the truth has great ramifications on other areas of
theology, and eventually enormous implications on man and life.
B. The conclusion: If this is not true, then God is not God. But it is true, for the Lord is God.

Recommended Reading

225

Bavinek, Herman. The Doctrine of God. Pp. 183-199. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. 2 vols. Chapters on the eternity and
knowledge of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Clark, Gordon. Predestination. Pp. 31-46. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Morey, Robert. Battle of the Gods. Southbridge: Crown Publishing co. (Excellent refutation of
Process Theology, Pinnock, Rice and other pseudo-Evangelical denials of absolute
foreknowledge. By a strong 5-point Calvinist.)
Helm, Paul. Eternal God: A Study of God Without Time. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Helm
teaches philosophy at the University of Liverpool and is contributing editor to the Banner of
Truth. This is a philosophic study with good conclusions. Several chapters discuss the question
of foreknowledge and foreordination.)
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Pp. 42-46. Phi Hipsburg:
Presbyterian &. Reformed. (A brief summary of the issue.)
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Foresight of Jesus. Biblical and Theological Studies, pp. 169-195.
Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Basinger, David and Randall, eds. Predestination and Free Will. 4 essays: God
Ordains All Things (John Feinberg, Reformed), God Knows All Things (Norman
Geisler), God Limits His Power (Bruce Reichenbach), and God Limits His Knowledge (Clark
Pinnock). Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press.
Craig, William Lane. The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from
Aristotle to Suarez. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Craig elsewhere accepts Molinas Middle Knowledge in
The Only Wise God, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

226

Chapter 28. Objections to Predestination.

Introduction
Over the centuries, there have been many objections to the Reformed doctrine of absolute
predestination. Some concentrate on human responsibility, others on election. We will look at
those later. At this juncture, however, it is appropriate that we briefly mention several of the
objections to the doctrine of absolute foreordination as such. The main alternative theories will
also be mentioned.

1. Absolute predestination is fatalism.

A. This objection has come from two quarters. First, there are those who agree that the Bible
teaches predestination. The trouble is, they do not believe the Bible. To them, Christianity is
fatalism. Second, there are those Christians who deny that predestination is taught in the Bible.
Since they equate predestination with fatalism, and reject fatalism, they naturally deny
predestination. There are few who equate the two concepts and accept them on the basis of the
word of God.
B. Now we contend that Calvinism is Christianity. The Calvinist doctrine is the Christian
doctrine. The Bible teaches absolute predestination, but it does not teach Fatalism.
Predestination is not Fate or Kismet. We sing the glories of foreordination, not the apathetic
refrain: Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. Tomorrows not ours to see. Que sera, sera.
C. But, someone asks, is not the word fate found in the Bible (e.g., Eccl.2: 14-15, 3:19; 9:2-3,
NASB)? Yes, it is. But the word there is not blind fate. The word simply means something that
happens, an event, specifically an event in the future, destiny, destination. Note that Solomon
was speaking of death. Death is a fate which awaits all men. That is not philosophical
Fatalism. It is merely facing reality. Death itself has been foreordained (Heb.9: 27).
D. Philosophical Fatalism is the theory of materialistic absolutism. In other words, Fate is
something impersonal because the universe is impersonal material. All there is is the set pattern
of atoms in motion. One of the more well known forms of is astrology. Stoicism also taught
philosophical Fatalism. In that system, God gradually became identified with Nature
(pantheism), Natural Law, Providence and Fate. But, as we saw in the second in this series,
Calvinism is not Stoicism. Calvin was a scholar of Stoicism, but he was no Stoic. He himself
comments on the matter:
Fate is a term given by the Stoics to their doctrine of necessity, which they had formed out of a
labyrinth of contradictory reasoning; a doctrine calculated to call God Himself to order, and to
set Him laws whereby to work. Predestination I define to be, according to the Holy Scriptures,
that free and unfettered counsel of God by which He rules all mankind, and all men and things,
and also all parts and particles of the world by His infinite wisdom and incomprehensible
justice... Had you but been willing to look into my books, you would have been convinced at
once how offensive to me is the profane term fate. (Calvins Calvinism, pp. 261-262).
E. Fatalism, then, omits God. It either equates Him with the universe (pantheism) or denies Him
altogether (atheism). It certainly does not allow for an infinite-personal God. One hears the term
blind fate. But predestination is not blind; God sees. He foresees and foreordains. Loraine
Boettner gives this observation: There is, in reality, only one point of agreement between the

227

two, which is, that both assume the absolute certainty of all future events. The essential
difference between them is that Fatalism has no place for a personal God.
F. Boettner goes on to specify other differences. Fatalism is unintelligent and non-moral, no
different from physical necessity. Predestination, however, is the work of the only wise God and
implies morality. Fatalism denies final causes - only an infinite regress of causes. Predestination
says God is the First Cause. Fatalism denies human responsibility; predestination provides it.
Fatalism leads to skepticism, predestination leads to hope.
G. The very word fatalism implies gloom, doom and despair. The Stoics said that the proper
response is APATHEIA (apathy). Fatalism is fatalistic and fatal. It can only be pessimistic.
Predestination, rightly understood, is the opposite. It alone gives hope and optimism, knowing
that God is not only the First Cause but the Last End. Only when a Christian mistakes the two
does he become apathetic. Predestination is invigorating.
H. Lastly, philosophical Fatalism says that this is the only universe that could exist. We
disagree. God could have created things differently. Out of the vast realm of possibilities, God
chose some to become actual. This is not due to a higher law of Fate or Necessity, for there is
nothing higher than God. Nor did anything outside of God force Him to ordain things like this.
God simply consulted with Himself and did as He pleased. Foreordination is not Fate, and
Calvinism is not Fatalism. Fate is not God, God is God.

2. Things just are.

A. This second objection says: God did not foreordain things to be like this. Man did not selfordain things. Things just are. The 18th-century Deists often argued like this. Some of them
gave it a name: The Moral Nature and Fitness of Things. In other words, even God Himself is
under this higher law. God did not absolutely foreordain whatever He pleased; He simply went
along with what would and must happen anyway.
B. But this too is wrong. It doesnt properly answer the question, Why are things the way they
are? To say Things just are is to deify these things. By things, they usually mean the
components of the universe. In that case, they have deified the creation and placed it over the
Creator (cf. Romans 1). Things are not self-existent, as this objection necessarily implies.
They are the way they are because God made them that way. It is no surprise that Deists
usually degenerated into atheism.
C. We need to keep reminding ourselves of the fundamental question, Why? The only Biblical
answer is, God. Why are things like this? Because God foreordained them to be this way. Why
did He so foreordain? Because He chose to. Why did He so choose? Because He is God. End
of argument. God is God.

3. The idea of absolute predestination renders history meaningless.

A. This argument suggests that predestination makes history just a shadow or dream; eternity
is the true reality. These critics often add that the Reformed view is too Greek, not Hebrew, It is
Platonism, not Christianity. Calvinism borrows Platos eternal Ideas and calls them decrees.
B. Clark Pinnock is one who argues in this way. He sums up his position:
What we detect in this story [Genesis] is not some dark predestinarian decree operating behind

228

the scenes making sure everything works out right. What we do encounter is the freedom of
God to respond, positively and negatively to mans freedom. God weaves into his plan for
history the significant choices that we make. History is not a computer printout of programmed
decisions set long before by an all-determing Deity. It is much more like a dialogue between the
Father and his human respondents..
C. Pinnock bases all this on human intuition, not Scripture. He explicitly says that men have an
innate sense that their acts are free. But, he adds, predestination would nullify this freedom. So
instead of re-evaluating this innate sense, he jettisons predestination. Pinnock so stresses the
freedom of man to change history that he actually calls him a godlike creature.
D. Now, we Calvinists take a different approach - the Biblical approach. We appeal to the Word
of God, not a supposed innate sense in Man. Man can sin and in sin wishes to overthrow
divine sovereignty. First, we deny that predestination renders history meaningless. Quite the
opposite! Without absolute and eternal predestination, history would be meaningless. Pinnocks
idea of history more resembles a car with neither driver nor map. But we say God is the driver
(not Man) and predestination is His map. There can be no meaning in history if there was not
meaning before history. Predestination gives history meaning, for history is Gods working out of
predestination.
E. Further, we did not get this idea from the Greeks, but from the Bible. Actually, Pinnocks
notion of history more closely resembles the Epicurean idea of chance history than it does the
Biblical teaching. Moreover, he mentions the wrong book in his argument. Genesis itself
teaches the absolute sovereignty of God in history (e.g., 1:1, 20:6, 45:5, 7, 50:20).
F. Predestination alone gives history meaning. It guarantees that it had a definite start and will
have a definite end - both the source and goal of history is God, not man. Pinnock reveals his
underlying presupposition, namely, his godlike man. We grant that Man is made in Gods
image, but in raising Man to semi-divinity, Pinnock thereby lowers God to being merely a big
Man. But Man is Man, and God is God. The problem is not of rendering history meaningless, but
of rendering eternity meaningless.

4. Predestination is linear, but the universe is a cycle.

A. This unusual objection denies predestination by appealing to Eastern cosmology. The same
idea is found in Buddhism and the New Age Movement. It says that all that is now has always
been at some time in the past. Nothing is new. We live in an ever reincarnating recycled
universe. Occasionally we become aware of this through Deja Vu.
B. But this is pagan, not Biblical. It misunderstands both history and eternity. Eternity to God is
an eternal now. History may, repeat itself in certain general patterns (e.g., Eccl. 1:4-11), but the
Bible does not teach personal reincarnation nor cosmological recycling. History is a line, not a
circle. And God is both outside and inside the line of history. In the end, this argument is based
on the error that God Himself is the universe (pantheism).

5. God limits His sovereignty.

A. An example of this argument is Bruce Reichenbachs essay God Limits His Power in the
volume entitled Predestination and Free Will. Reichenbach says absolute predestination makes
God a novelist and history a novel. He denies that God is a novelist at all. Moreover, he denies

229

that God is omniscient: Though he knows all truths, including truths about what free persons
choose, he does not know what free persons would choose were conditions different from what
they are or about the choice which would be made by possible but never-existing individuals.
B. Then he rejects absolute omnipotence as well: He does not purpose or dispose everything
that happens,.. This means, of course, that at times his plans and purposes are thwarted... Even
Gods ultimate purpose that all persons will acknowledge him as Lord seems to be unrealized.
C. At root, his presupposition is that God cannot be totally sovereign and create a totally free
being. Sovereignty and responsibility are not compatible, so sovereignty must be limited for Man
to be free.
D. We disagree. The theory has only a grain of truth in it. We agree that God does not do all
that He can do. He does not actualize all possibilities. But lets not call that self-limiting
sovereignty, for it is still God that chooses what to do and what not to do. God must remain
Lord over all or He is not Lord at all.
E. Further, someone rightly said that history is simply His story. God is something of a
novelist, as it were. He knows the end from the beginning. He knows how history will end,
something which Reichenbach denies. Moreover, Scripture teaches that God knows j-11
possible variations - He knows what would have happened in all possible settings, contrary to
Reichenbachs theory (see Matt. 11:21, 23). As for limited omnipotence, the objector needs to
read Job 42:2, I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of Thine can be
thwarted - the polar opposite of Reichenbachs own words. And as for his notion that Gods
plan to be acknowledged as Lord by all creatures will be foiled, Scripture says that every knee
will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord - and this includes unrepentant sinners
in Hell (Phil. 2:10-11, Rom. 14:11, Isa. 45:23).
F. The presupposition of the objection is faulty. It assumes that God cannot be sovereign and
create a responsible creature. Rather than accepting the glorious paradox of sovereignty and
responsibility, or seeing that men can only be responsible because God is sovereign,
Reichenbach denies Gods sovereignty. Like Pinnock, he does this to lift Man higher. But the
result is another demi-god, a god-dog on the leash of Mans free will. It denies that God is
God. But notwithstanding such nonsense, God is God.

6. God changes His mind, therefore predestination is not unalterable.

A. This objection points to the Bible passages where God is said to repent(Gen. 6:6-7, Ex.
32:14,Judges 2:18, I Sam. 15:11, 35, 2 Sam. 24:16, I Chron.21:15, Psa, 106:45, Jer. .26:19,
Joel 2:13, Amos 7:3, 6, Jonah 3:9-10, 4:2).Thus, if God changes His mind, then His mind has
not been eternally settled.
B. We answer as follows. In some places, repent means to grieve for. Gen.6:6-7 means
God was grieved because of Mans sin. In other places, the words are spoken after the
manner of Man. It appears that God changes His mind, but this only has to do with the
conditional outworking of the plan. In fact, the change in time was foreordained in eternity.
C. Scripture explicitly says that God is not a man that He should repent (e.g.,Num. 23:19, I
Sam. 15:29, Heb. 7:21). If God could, in fact, change His mind, then we have no assurance
whatsoever that He will not change it again. Would anyone want to suggest that God will
change His mind and throw Christians out of heaven, or reverse the terms of the Gospel so that
believers go to Hell and unbelievers go to Heaven, or that He will decide to put Christ back in
the tomb? Why not go all the way - why couldnt God decide to not exist? But all this is

230

blasphemy. It gets back to confusing God with Man. God is not a man that He should change
His decree of predestination one iota. Why? God is God.

7. The universe is a game of cosmic chess between God and Satan.

A. This objection to absolute foreordination was popularized by Winkie Pratney in the early
1970 s in a little booklet on Cosmic Chess. Variations of it still float around in ultra-Arminian
groups, especially charismatic youth ministries like Youth With A Mission (YWAM). It runs like
this: History was not eternally foreordained. Rather, it is being ordained through a game of
cosmic chess between God and Satan. We men are the pawns, rooks, and other pieces. Now
the game has not ended, so our destiny isnt finalized yet. But rest assured, God will win, for He
is a better chess player than Satan. He knows more strategies and therefore can predict how it
will end. Satan will eventually make a mistake. Besides, God made the first move, and any
chess player knows that you can guarantee a win if you make the first move. (One version of
the theory says that it is not men but rather the things in the universe that are the pieces on
the board.) Pratney relies much on Job 1 and 2.
B. This is a dangerous theory as well as an unsuccessful objection to predestination. It more
resembles the Greek gods on Mt. Olympus, such as the Fates who play whimsical tricks on
Man. Worse, it closely resembles Cosmic Dualism, such as in Zoroastrianism, the Buddhist YinYang Mandala, and certain strains of Gnosticism. These all posit that there are two equal but
opposite forces in the universe, and this dynamic accounts for history. Pratneys Cosmic
Chess is close to Dualism or Bitheism. It is also a form of cosmic indeterminism, for neither
God nor Satan is said to have foreordained anything. Who knows but that God may make the
mistake and lose the game?
C. Furthermore, since when has God given Satan an equal say in the running of the universe?
Satan is still Gods Devil; he can only do what God allows him to do. Satan himself is a created
being subject to foreordination. Arthur W. Pink gets to the heart of the matter:
Who is regulating affairs on this earth today - God, or the Devil? ... That Satan is to be blamed
for much of the evil which is in the world, is freely affirmed by those who, though having much to
say about the responsibility of man, often deny their own responsibility, by attributing to the
Devil what, in fact, proceeds from their own hearts,
D. Those who like this theory are the same sort of person who says, The Devil made me do it.
But Satan cannot make us sin. Nor does God force us to sin. We can only blame ourselves. Job
1 and 2 does not deal with the eternal decrees, but with the providential outworking of them. If
other theories reduce God to Mans level and raise Man to Gods, this absurd theory would raise
Satan to Gods level and reduce God to Satans. But God is not a big Devil, God is God.

8. History is a battle between God and Satan.

A. This theory is a milder version of Cosmic Chess. It was popularized in the early 1970s by
Roger T. Forster and V. Paul Marston in their best-selling and very influential Gods Strategy in
Human History. The authors are two English charismatics who ministered at the time in south
London. Needless to say, the theory is extremely Arminian.
B. Instead of a chessboard, they propose a battlefield, which, after all, is amore Biblical picture.
God and Satan are at war for the souls of men. God will win because He is stronger and wiser.

231

Satan will be overthrown) Gods people will be glorified. Unlike Cosmic Chess, Forster and
Marston say that humans are participants in the battle. When they weaken due to sin, God
strengthens them (even Pharaoh).
C. The end is not settled yet. The authors especially criticize Calvinism here: there are
Christians whose views amount to a belief that everything happens is Gods direct will and the
whole conflict is therefore a fake. Now they admit, somehow, that God already knows the
future. Oddly, they even admit that God is above time. But then they expectedly say that
foreknowledge precedes foreordination - God will win because He sees that He will win.
D. We reply that God has eternally foreordained all things in time, including the battle between
good and evil. We readily admit that Scripture speaks of a warlike this (Eph. 6, Rev. 12, etc.).
But it is a war whose outcome is settled. It was settled in eternity by the Lamb slain from before
the foundation of the world; this was confirmed in time when Christ died and disarmed
Satan(Col. 2, Rev. 12). This does not make history a fake. That suggests that God is a cheat.
That is blasphemy. God fights however He wishes to fight. He determined history for His own
pleasure.
E. Moreover, the theory even contradicts itself. If some sinners perish - as Forster and Marston
admit - then Satan has at least won a few battles in the war. He has taken a few of Gods
soldiers down with him (or in Cosmic Chess, he has won a few pawns). How then can it be said,
by their rules that God has won all the pieces? Predestination, on the other hand, says that
even those soldiers who end up in Hell were foreordained that way. Gods strategy will not be
thwarted in the least, for God is God.

9. Predestination leaves no place for chance.

A. The main rival to Stoicism was Epicureanism. One said all was fate, the other said all was
chance. See Acts 17:18. There are Epicureans with us still, who answer the great question
Why? with the answer, Chance. This underlies the theory of Evolution, for example. Chance
cosmology says that all is random. The universe is but a cacophony of atoms in motion.
Existentialists see the implications - if all is chance, there is no meaning, no morality, no hope.
This objection, then, would kill predestination and replace it with fortune, accidents,
coincidences, luck, and chance.
B. There are pseudo-Christian forms of this as well. They point to verses in the Bible that
mention chance and the like (I Sam. 6:9, Luke 10:31, Eccl. 9:11,
I Kings 22:34, 2 Sam. 1:6). They do not say that God foreordained chance, but rather God
Himself is under this higher law. But whether the objection is Epicurean or pseudo-Christian, it
says that predestination does not allow chance and therefore cannot be true.
C. In an odd way, we accept one of the premises, namely, that predestination and chance are
irreconcilable. Thats the whole point! There is no such thing as chance. There are no cosmic
accidents. All has been predetermined. Therefore, the Bible teaches Creation, not Evolution.
D. Nor is there even probability. Actually, even the strictest chance philosophers deny that
there can even be probability. Some, like Heisenberg, have attempted to prove that probability
is only an illusion. We go further. We might say Something will probably happen, because we
are not omniscient. But God never speaks of probabilities, only of certainties. They are certain
because of predestination.
E. As for the alleged occurrences of chance in Scripture, a careful study will reveal that these

232

passages teach that such-and-such happened without human planning or foresight. They do not
teach cosmic chance. Actually, quite the opposite - in each case, we see the providential hand
of God working out His purpose.
F. Chance inevitably becomes superstition. Men believe in luck. But there is no such thing as
good luck or bad luck. There is no such person as Lady Luck. Nobody is naturally lucky (Mr.
Lucky, Lucky Luciano, etc.), nor do others have a perpetual case of bad luck. That is all
superstition. A Christian should not wish someone good luck. Better to pray for him or
encourage him in grace.
G. Read Pro. 16:33, The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord. God
has even predestined the throwing of dice. He controls all such games of chance, the flipping
of coins, the roulette table, card games, the wheel of fortune. In Jonah 1:7 and Acts 1:24-26 we
see how God controlled the throwing of dice to accomplish His pre-ordained purpose. J. Vernon
McGee used to say, Dont shoot craps with God. He plays with loaded dice. This does not
make Him a cheat. It makes Him sovereign.
H. Furthermore, this means that there is no such thing as a coincidence. What appears
coincidental to us is simply Gods temporal outworking of predestination. He foreordains all
means and ends, and He sees their relations even if we do not. Next time you see what appears
to be a chance coincidence, stop and. praise God for predestination and providence. And it is
no coincidence that you are reading these very words. God foreordained even that.
I. God does not allow chance a chance. As William Palmer, a 19th-century English Calvinist,
said: Nothing comes to pass by chance, for what is chance with man is choice with God.
Chance is not God. God is God.

10. Miscellaneous Cheap Objections.

A. Its not democratic. Who says it has to be? God is a king, not a president.
B. But my church doesnt teach predestination. Then your church needs to.
C. All the best preachers I know dont believe in predestination. Then they are not the best
preachers, for a good preacher will preach the Bible.
D. It wont preach. If it is in the Bible, then it can and must be preached. Read Acts 20:27.
E. Its not practical enough. The question should rather be, Is it true?, not Is it practical It is
true, and therefore has enormous practical implications.
F. Its too irrelevant. Then you need to re-order your priorities according. to the Bible. Rather
than being a trivial issue, it is a major one.
G. Its too dour and serious. Quite the opposite. Without predestination, we have no hope;
without hope, no joy. Predestination alone can bring true joy.
H. It sounds too deep and complicated. Then you need to study it more. It is too deep for
anyone to fully understand, but obvious enough for anyone to grasp. Its depth should inspire
awe, not abhorrence.
I. Well, nobody really knows the truth of these things. We can only guess. No, for the Bible is
Gods Word. God knows the truth and has told it to us.

233

11. Conclusion.
A. These are only a few of the objections raised against absolute predestination. In later studies
we will interact with others that specifically deal with human responsibility and election.
B. The bottom line: there are many false theories, but only one truth. The truth is that God has
eternally, unconditionally and unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time.
Against all the puny efforts of Man to exalt himself and dethrone the Sovereign of the Universe,
Gods truth stands. Why? Because God is God.

234

Chapter 29. The Providence of God.

1. Introduction.
A. Whos in charge? Who is directing the universe, or does it even have a direction at all?
Granted, God predestined the universe, but who is guiding it to the predestined goal? Once
started, does it direct itself?
B. Shortly after President Reagan was shot in 1981, there was confusion at the White House
over who was actually in charge. Vice President Bush was not there, nor had anyone been
sworn in. Secretary of State Alexander Hag, formerly the military leader of NATO, became
famous for his statement, As of this moment, I am in charge here. The point was, he was not
in charge, at least officially. Now that confusion occurs in the minds of many when considering
the subject of providence. When the sovereignty of God is minimized, there is a power grab
between men and men, and, between men and devils. But not to fear. The real ruler of the
universe has not been shot, nor has he abdicated. God reigns still.
C. Our text again is Rom. 11:36, From Him and through Him and to Him are all things. As with
all the studies in this series, this will not be exhaustive. Rather, it is a brief overview with
emphasis on the Reformed distinctives.

2. God Provides and Sustains the Universe.

A. Since God alone created the entire universe (Gen. 1:1), He alone sustains the entire
universe. The Creator takes care of His Creation. He provides what
it needs to keep going, and this providing is His providence. Heb. 1:3, He upholds all things by
the word of His power. One important aspect of His providence is His preservation. He provides
and preserves.
B. Now the universe is not self-sustaining. It certainly did not create itself. But there are those,
such as the Deists, who say that God is not now involved in His creation. They say that God is
an absent landlord. They like to use the analogy of a clock - God created the universe, wound it
up and doesnt interfere. Thats not what the Bible teaches. One Calvinist replied that every
clock needs periodic winding. God sustains the universe.
C. Now this sustenance even reaches to the very existence of things. Without Gods hand of
providence, things would cease to exist. He sustains and preserves all things by feeding their
existence. Some theologians suggest that this is continuous creation, but most Reformed
theologians say that creation is the first step, providence is the second, and still, the two are
inseparable.
D. Moreover, God keeps order in the universe. Col. 1:17, And in Him all things hold together.
Without divine providence, there would be no laws of physics. All would be helter skelter. Even
the atoms would burst, the electrons would cease to spin. God keeps the material universe
going. And He does it well.
E. He has a special interest in the animate universe. Acts 17:25, He Himself gives to all life
and breath and all things. Remember that Paul spoke those words to Epicureans (who said all
was chance) and Stoics (who said all was Fate). In Psa. 36:6, David prayed, 0 Lord, Thou
preservest Man and beast. And in Neh. 9:6, Thou dost give life to all of them. The key thing to

235

note in these verses is that the verbs are in the present tense. Providence is now. God does
these things now in time. He feeds tne animals for the animal kingdom is Gods zoo, His
menagerie of pets (Matt.6:26, Psa.104:27, 147:9, Job 39).
F. There are several beautiful chapters in the Bible that extol Gods providence. Everyone
interested in the doctrine of providence should read Psa.. 104 and147. In those lovely psalms
we are told how God governs the waters, the animals, the mountains, the plants, the sun, the
moon, the stars, and even the weather.
G. Take the subject of weather. The Bible says that God sends rain (Matt. 5:45,Job 38:26-38).
He rains because He reigns. Too bad the weathermen dont acknowledge God. They would
rather say Mother Nature, who doesnt exist except in the idolatrous minds of Man. The old
Puritans would never say It is raining; they would say, God is sending rain. Even more
wonderful, God designed and operates the marvelous system known as evaporation, whereby
the waters of the earth rotate between land* sky and sea (Job 37:27-29, 37:11, Ecc. 1:7). God
even withholds rain (James 5:17-18).
H. Then take lightning and thunder. God controls those as well (Job 36:30-37:5, 11, 15). Now
parents often calm frightened children by telling them that the clouds are only talking to one
another, that the angels are bowling, or other such nonsense. Others give the simple scientific
explanation that there is an electric buildup that needs release. But the truly Christian parent will
go to the heart of the matter and explain that in the thunder God is speaking of His great power:
Its noise declares His presence... Listen closely to the thunder of His voice and the rumbling
that goes out from His mouth... He thunders with His majestic voice (Job 36:33, 37:2, 4). Is this
mere superstition? Quite the opposite. It is the great doctrine that Nature tells of the glory of
God (Rom. 1, Psa. 19).
I. And then we are told that God governs the clouds (Job 37:12-13) and sends ice and snow
(Job 37:6-10, 38:22, 29-30). Havent you ever wondered who sets the thermostat in Nature?
God does, thats who! He also sets the time and manner of the rising, and setting of the sun
(Matt. 5:45, Psa. 104:22, Job 38:12). There is nothing fortuitous whatsoever about the course of
Creation.

3. Nature.
A. God created Nature . Nature is simply the visible universe, the natural universe as opposed
to the supernatural universe. There is no Mother Nature, for that concept is the same as
Mother Earth and gets back to the pantheistic notion that all is God and God is female. But
God is not Nature, nor is God a female goddess. Christian parents should never speak of
Mother Nature except to ridicule the idea.
B. Now God created Nature and the Laws of Nature., He created mathematics, physics,
chemistry and all the laws involved in them. He created gravity, thermodynamics, quantum
physics, and all the rest. They do not exist as laws in and of themselves any more than the
things of the universe are self-existent. They exist only because God created them.
C. But that God created these Laws is profound. Creation has order. Why? Because things just
are? No. Creation has order because God is a God of order (I Cor.14:33, 40). In fact, the case
can be made that it was precisely this truth that gave rise to modern science from Isaac Newton
onwards. Before then, Nature was seen as chance or fate, or lack of second causes. That is
why the Greeks and Moslems and Hindus have not made the great scientific advances. The
Calvinistic doctrine of science teaches that there is a fixed order (Jer. 31:35) to things. God

236

sets the limits and boundaries (Psa. 104:9, Acts 17:26). Only on this basis can the scientific
method truly work. Therefore, when scientists deny God, they end up worshipping chance, fate
or the Creation.

4. Causality and Concurrence.

A. God is the First Cause of all things in the universe. That is the doctrine of divine
foreordination. God is the Creator of all things in time. But in governing His universe, God uses
means. The First Cause uses Second Causes, and Third Causes, and so forth. The universe is
a vast network of means and ends, which in turn cause other things. Behind them all is God.
B. The Synod of Dort commented on this: The almighty operation of God, whereby he prolongs
and supports our natural life, does not exclude, but requires, the use of means, by which God of
his infinite mercy and goodness hath chosen to exert his influence. The Westminster
Confession, in its grand statement of foreordination, said, nor is the liberty or contingency of
second causes taken away, but rather established (111:1). But how?
C. God predestined and created things with a certain nature and order. God simply uses
these things according to the nature and order with which He endowed them. In other words,
He uses Second Causes according to their nature. What are these Second Causes? Simply the
things of Creation, the stuff of the universe - moral arid non-moral beings; animal, mineral and
vegetable; from the largest to the smallest.
D. Technically, they are not causes per se, but effects of the one Cause. But God has so
ordered things that everything affects everything else. This is the order of Nature. The Second
Causes are merely effects which in turn affect something else. They are means and
instruments. If you have ever played billiards or pool, you will see the point.
E. But this does not mean that God is simply a contributing cause. He is not co-cause, or cause
among other causes. This is why Herman Hoeksema did not like to speak of God as a cause,
for it implied that He was one of several. He is not even the greatest cause. God is First Cause
in a qualitatively different way than these Second Causes. Being First, He is the Uncaused
Cause; Second Causes are all caused by the First Cause.
F. Further, God is First Cause in predestination, but also in providence. This is where the
illustration of billiards needs clarification. In that illustration, the cue ball hits another ball, but
then it stops or moves elsewhere. The cue ball does not move through the other ball. However,
with God, something does keep moving. What is it? It is His power, comparable to the invisible
force or momentum that passes from ball to ball.
G. This is a difficult point to adequately convey. The Jesuits, Socinians and Arminians miss it
(or see it but reject it). They posit that God gives power to Man, who carries it on like a track
runners baton. Man carries on the government of the universe without divine intervention or cooperation, though some would go so far as to say God does in fact co-operate. This theory says
God provides (providence) but doesnt continue. Thus they would save the doctrine of
providence from determinism.
H Then there is the error of Islam. Islam has a strong doctrine of foreordination and creation, but
a perverted doctrine of providence. Islam virtually (if not actually) eliminates Second Causes.
Tis the will of Allah is comparable to the Stoic Whatever will be, will be. This in turn leads to
pantheism and Stoicisms perverted doctrine of providence. They eliminate Second Causes, for
if God is everything then there are no Second Causes. But the truth is that God is not the
universe. Technically, it is incorrect to say that God is in the universe - better to say that the

237

universe is in God (Acts 17:28).

I. The great Calvinist theologians provide the correct explanation of how God the First Cause
governs things through Second Causes without becoming His creation or without becoming
separate from His creation. The solution is the doctrine of concurrence. Louis Berkhof wrote:
Concurrence may be defined as the cooperation of the divine power with all subordinate
powers, according to the pre-established laws of operation, causing them to act and to act
precisely as they do. He acts in, with and under the things of Nature.
J. But concurrence does not mean that God is acted upon. God acts, Man reacts. Though after
the manner of Man it can be said that God reacts to Man, ultimately God first acts. Even in
providence, God acts. Even when He cooperates and concurs, He is the one who acts. When
we say He concurs, we do not at all mean that He simply goes along with things. Lastly, this
concurrence is simultaneous. There is no gap of time between God and providence and what
occurs. The difference is not of time but of logical priority. Providence logically precedes the
acts of created beings.

5. Ordinary Providence.
A. When we study Scripture, we learn that Gods providence falls into two categories: Ordinary
and Extraordinary. Ordinary Providence is simply Gods usual manner of governing the world.
This specifically has to do with the Laws of Nature.
B. God governs the universe. He is at work (Rom. 8:28). Eph. 1:11 says, who works all things
after the counsel of His own will. Note again the present tense. In John 5:17, Jesus said, My
Father is working until now, and I am working. God rested on the seventh day, not to stop
working but to stop creating. From then on He continued working as governor of the universe.
C. Now I want you to see how providence involves several of the divine attributes in an
amazing way. First, God is omnipotent. He can do whatever He wants to do. But He is also
panourgic (Greek PAN = all, ERGOS = work). God does not do all He is capable of doing, but
whatever occurs is because God is working. God works in all things.
D. Second, God is omniscient. God knows all things possible and actual. But He is not a mere
omniscient spectator - He is an omniscient participant. Earlier we showed that God foreknows
because He foreordains, so far as eternity goes. In time, the same principle occurs - God knows
all things because He works all things.
E. Third, God is omnipresent. God is everywhere. He is high above creation (thats what we call
the transcendence of God), but He is also near to creation (thats what we call the immanence
of God). Acts 17:27, He is not far from each one of us. Again, that was spoken to the Stoics
and Epicureans. Paul corrected the Stoics whose idea of providence was that God is everything
and the Epicurean error that God was somehow apart from everything and separated through
the medium of chance. God is near, and being near He works. He is near to everything and He
works in everything.
F. So, God governs in the universe. Psa. 147:15, He sends forth His command to the earth and the earth always obeys. Psa. 103:19, His sovereignty rules over all. Again, note the
present tense. He governs in the small things as well as the large things, from the revolving of
galaxies to the revolving of electrons around the nuclei of the atoms. There are no coincidences
in Nature, for God even controls the roll of dice (Pro. 16:33).
G. Again we can divide providence into General and Special. In general providence, God

238

governs all things and people. God says that He governs all the nations (Job 12:23, Psa. 22:28,
66:7). But He has a special providential care for His people (Psa. 121:3, Rom. 8:28). And it is
God who decides who will be in which of these categories. God providentially raises one up and
brings another down (Psa. 75:7, I Sam. 2:7, Dan. 2:2.1, Luke 1:52).
H. Though all this is within the realm of Ordinary Providence, this does not mean that all
ordinary providences are equally common. Some are more frequent than others. There are
others which are rare but still quite natural; no real miracle is involved. We sometimes will say of
such-and-such an event that it was providential. Actually, all things are providential. What we
mean is that it was an unusual providence. The world calls these miracles. For example, one
might say, It was a miracle that my brother went to church. No, thats not a miracle. It was
simply an infrequent providence. It would be a miracle if your brother flew to church using his
arms as wings.

6. Extraordinary Providence.
A. This brings us to the subject of miracles. We can only make a few brief comments. First,
Extraordinary Providence is the realm of miracles. It is the Supernatural, not the Natural. But it is
still providence. Extraordinary Providence is simply the unusual way in which God governs the
universe. By their very nature, miracles must be rare. It will not do, as sentimentalists do, to say
that everything is a miracle. If everything is extraordinary, then nothing is extraordinary.
B. In Extraordinary Providence, God suspends the Laws of Nature and does what only He can
do. Again, miracles are not just unlikely, they are impossible -to Man. Nor are miracles simply
the undiscovered rules of Nature as we know it. Rather, they contradict the Laws of Nature.
More precisely, they suspend Natural Laws.
C. Now this relates to our study of providence like this: in Extraordinary Providence, God does
not use Second Causes. He acts immediately, not mediately. A natural phenomenon may
accompany the miracle, but it is not the means. In a way, a miracle is a new creation. In
Extraordinary Providence, God interrupts the flow of Nature, He intervenes in the order of
things.
D. The Deists objected to this. They said it would make God an outlaw to break the Laws of
Nature. But then, these were usually the same Deists who said that God Himself is under, the
Moral Nature and Fitness of Things. No, this is not right. God made the Laws of Nature as his
Ordinary Providence, and it is His sovereign prerogative to act with or without them.
E. In the end, God expends no more effort or energy in Extraordinary Providence than He does
in Ordinary. God is no more tired after raising someone front the dead than He was giving Him
natural birth. But note this and note it well: only the Calvinist can logically and consistently
believe in miracles. For if Man governs providence, then Man can prevent miracles. But the
Calvinist recognizes that God governs in providence, and therefore in miracles.

7. Providence with a Purpose.

A. Providence has a purpose. Divine government has a divine goal. God has ordained
everything to occur at the right time for a purpose: There is an appointed time for everything,
and there is a time for every purpose under heaven(Ecc. 3:1, 17). This includes even death
(Heb. 9:27, Matt. 10:29). When men die, it simply brings them to their destiny.

239

B. Through providence, Gods purpose is carried Out. Sometimes He does this by overruling
the sinful deeds of men (Gen. 41:32, 45:8, 50:20). Providence is simply the sovereignty of God
in the present tense, sovereignty in history. But providence always follows the blueprint of
predestination. Eph. 1:11, who works all things [providence] after the counsel of His own will
[predestination]. Note especially Rom. 8:28, God causes all things to work together for good to
those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. A nineteenth-century
Calvinist named William Tucker noted that predestination and providence imply each other. God
carries out predestination through providence, and providence is according to predestination.
Those that deny or weaken the one must deny or weaken the other. Rom. 8:28 is a comfort only
for the Calvinist, for only the Calvinist truly believes in the predestination and providence of
Gods purpose.

8. Conclusion.
A. Rom. 8:28 is but one of the practical applications and comforts of the doctrine of providence.
Another is what some of the old Puritans called reading providence. Whenever something
happens to you, try to read the providence. Why did it happen? Why didnt something else
happen? Is God closing a door? How should one react? This is especially useful in unusual but
non-miraculous providences. John Flavel wrote an excellent book entitled The Mystery of
Providence in which he discusses this and other uses of providence. One caution: Gods acts of
providences can only properly be read through the spectacles of Scripture. Dont interpret
providence by feelings or opinion, but by the principles and truths of the word of God.
B. Lastly, the Heidelberg Catechism (Q.28) gives a good summary of the benefits of holding to
a strong doctrine of providence:
What does it profit us to know that God has created and by His providence still upholds all
things? That we may be patient in adversity, thankful in prosperity, and for what is future have
good confidence in our faithful God and Father that no creature shall separate us from His love,
since all creatures are so in His hand that without His will they can not so much as move.
C. May each of us recognize in providence the loving hand of our sovereign Lord.

Recommended Reading
Flavel, John. The Mystery of Providence. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Also reprinted in
The Works of John Flavel, vol. 4; Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Calvin, John. The Secret Providence of God, part 2 of Calvins Calvinism. Grand Rapids:
Kregel Publications.
Farley, Benjamin Wirt. The Providence of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Zwingli,
Ulrich. On Providence and Other Essays. Durham: Labyrinth Press. Berkouwer, G.C. The
Providence of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Spurgeon, C.H. Gods Providence. Sterling:
Reiner Publications/GAM. (pamphlet)
Reisinger, John. The Sovereignty of God in Providence. Southbridge: Crowne Publications,
(pamphlet)
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, I:XVI-XVII. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 251-280. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Gill,

240

John. Body of Divinity, pp. 277-304. Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer. Morris, Henry M. The
Biblical Basis for Modern Science. Grand Rapids: Baker.

241

Chapter 30. The Will of God.

1. Introduction.
A. In discussing the doctrines of grace (Calvinism), we need at this juncture to study a very fine
point of Reformed theology. It is so fine that many miss it, but so crucial that denying it has
enormous implications. Unless one grasps this point, he has only the shallowest understanding
of what Calvinism is all about.
B. The subject is the will, or wills, of God. How does the will of God relate to what we have said
so far regarding divine sovereignty? What does the Bible teach?

2. The Secret Will of God.

A. Deut. 29:29 is the key verse for our study: The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but
the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of
this Law. Under divine inspiration, Moses states that there are some things, which God has not
revealed but are a secret within God. In systematic theology we call this the Secret Will of God.
It is Gods eternal purpose, His foreordination of whatsoever comes to pass, His unconditional
predestination. It includes election and reprobation and all the decrees of God.
B. This secret will is secret in that God has not revealed to us all its details. He has not
explained to us everything of what and why He does what He does. This does not mean that it
is a total secret, for Moses tells us that there are secrets, and throughout Scripture we are told
briefly what some of them are. But we are not told all about them, nor are we told fully how they
relate to each other or to the things of time. For example, we are told that God unconditionally
chose certain people for Himself, but we are not told their names.
C. The great 17th-century theologian Francois Turretine explains: It is called a secret will, not
because always concealed from us and never revealed; for frequently God in His Word
manifests to men certain secrets of His counsel, and lays them bare by the event; but because
they remain hidden in God, until He reveals them by some sign, as by a prophecy, or by the
event.
D. It is of the greatest import that we understand that this Secret Will is always effectual. It is
never frustrated. Why? Because it has the force of divine omnipotence behind it. It is not The
Four Spiritual Laws plan that can be frustrated.

3. The Secret Will is Unconditional.

A. The reason why it cannot be frustrated is that it is unconditional on anything outside of God.
God Himself fulfills the conditions, though in various ways. The decrees of God are, in this
sense, unconditional. Now, it is granted that God foreordains means and ends which are
conditional so far as time is concerned, but in the eternal will of God the decrees are
unconditional.
B. If Gods decrees were conditional on anything outside of God, then to that extent those
external things would have control over God. But God is sovereign. Further, conditional

242

decrees imply contingency, the possibility that the conditions may not be met. But Sods Secret
Will is certain and definite. Also, conditional decrees would depend on something in time, but
God is eternal - and nothing intimae can be the cause of anything in eternity. No, the whole idea
of conditional decrees is wrong. It confuses the Secret Will with something else, that which we
call The Revealed Will of God.

4. The Revealed Will of God.

A. Notice that the second half of Deut. 29:29 speaks of things that are revealed these tell us
what our duty is to God. The Revealed Will of God tells us what to do to be in conformity with
Gods holiness. I Thess. 4:3, For this is the will of God, your sanctification. Elsewhere Paul told
the Romans to prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
(Rom.12: 2). He is not listing 3 wills of God, as some think, but giving three qualities of the
Revealed Will of God.
B. The Lord Jesus called it the will of My Father (Matt. 7:21, 12:50, John 6:40),the will of Himwho sent Me (John 4:34, 6:39), and His will (John 7:17). In Gethsemane He submitted His
human will to the will of His Father when He cried, Not My will, but thy will be done (Matt.
26:39, 42).
C. Now the Revealed Will of God has two parts: the Law and the Gospel. The Law has two
main parts to it: the Moral Law for all men and the Ceremonial Law only for Israel. The Moral
Law is founded directly on divine holiness - Be ye holy, as I the Lord am holy (I Pet. 1:16). All
men have this Moral Law revealed to them in Nature and conscience (Rom. 1-2). It has been
verbally inscribed in the Bible, which is special revelation.
D. Question: Does God necessarily will things to be right or wrong, or does He will them freely?
Or, in other words, could God have willed things otherwise? Could He have forbidden what He
commands, or command what He forbids? This is an old question and it concerns the Revealed
Will of God.
E. First, all agree that some laws were temporary, such as the many ceremonies given to
Israel, which were valid only until Messiah came. The trouble was that most Israelites thought
these were eternally binding, and so persecuted Christ and His, Apostles, especially Paul. Now
there was certain arbitrariness to the ceremonial laws. God could have made beef, not pork, an
unclean food. He could have required ears to be pierced instead of circumcision. In the new
dispensation, God could have commanded something different than water baptism. That these
are only temporary tell us that they are founded on divine holiness in an indirect way. They
were, therefore, willed freely.
F. The other laws were more directly founded on divine holiness. In that sense, God could not
have commanded lying instead of forbidding it. Why? Because God Himself cannot lie (Tit. 1:2),
and therefore cannot command something contrary to His perfect nature.
G. Then there are some laws that are somewhere in between. Charles Hodge mentions laws
governing certain relationships, such as marriage. For example, God could not have
commanded immorality (for God is never immoral), but God did not have to create Man a sexual
being. But, like the ceremonial laws, these institutions derive much of their significance from
their being types. The ceremonial laws were done away with in Christ but marriage continues
until the consummation of the marriage between Messiah and His Church.
H. Furthermore, there was nothing external to God which dictated what any of these laws would
be. The Revealed Will of God is determined solely by God. He commands something because it

243

reflects His nature, not because it conforms to a higher standard of holiness. And what is right
and wrong is certainly not determined by Man. God is sovereign in laying down what is right and
wrong. .
I. The second part of the Revealed Will follows the first, namely, the Gospel. Logically the Law
must precede the Gospel. The Gospel offers forgiveness for all who have broken the Law. All
men have the Law instinctively, but not all men have the Gospel. The Gospel states that God is
willing, to forgive all who repent and believe. In this sense, He wills all to be saved (I Tim. 2) and
takes no pleasure in the death of those who reject Him (Ezek. 33).

5. Contrasts Between the Secret Will and the Revealed Will.

A. Obviously, there are a number of differences between these two wills. They may be charted
as follows:
The Secret Will

The Revealed Will

1. The Decretive Will of God -contained in

decrees

1. The Preceptive Will of God -contained in

precepts

2. Purpose and counsel

2. Precept and command

3. Will of Intention - what God intends to do

3. Will of Approval - what God approves

4. Foreordination and foreknowledge

4. Faith and practice

5. Gods rule - what God will do

5. Mans rule - what Man should do

6. Internal to God

6. External to God

7. Eternal

7. Temporal

8. Unconditional

8. Conditional

9. Always accomplished

9. Usually rejected

10. Means and ends prepared

10. Law and Gospel presented

11. Positive - what shall happen

Negative - what shall not happen

11. Positive - promises of the Gospel

Negative - warnings of punishment

12. Positive - active foreordination

Negative - passive permission

12. Positive commandments

Negative - prohibitions

13. Nothing higher than God to compel Him to

make decrees

13. Nothing higher than God to make Him

decide Law and Gospel

14. Universal for all beings, whether moral or

non-moral beings

14. For moral beings only

15. Not all possible things are foreordained to

become actual

15. Moral Law is universal

ceremonial law is not;
Gospel to be preached to all

16. Permits the existence of sin

16. Prohibits men from sinning

17. Election - wills only some to be saved

17. Evangelism - wills all to be saved

244

6. The Paradox of the Two Wills.

A. Deut. 29:29 is but one of many paradoxes in Scripture (the Trinity, the two natures of Christ,
time and eternity, etc.). This twofold will of God is one of the greatest of theological paradoxes.
Both can be established from Scripture, but we are not told how they fully harmonize. They are
apparently irreconcilable. They are an apparent contradiction. They are like two ends of a rope
sticking out of a lake - but the middle where they touch lies submerged under the lake. Calvin
pointed out that the answer is secret, not revealed, and Ties deep in the depths of Gods
wisdom a la Rom. 11:33. We are finite and could not handle it all even were God to reveal it to
us, which He has not done anyway. It is enough to know they are both true. Calvin further
explained how the two are related:
If anyone objects that it is absurd to split Gods will, I answer that this is exactly our belief, that
His will is one and undivided; but because our minds cannot plumb the profound depths of His
secret election to suit our infirmity, the will of God is set before us as double.., Yet Gods will is
not therefore at war with itself, nor does it change, nor does it pretend not to will what He wills.
But even though His will is one and simple in Him, it appears manifold to us because, on
account of our mental incapacity, we do not grasp how in divers ways it wills and does not will
something to take place... when we do not grasp how God wills to take place what He forbids to
be done, let us recall our mental incapacity, and at the same time consider that the light in which
God dwells is not without reason called unapproachable... Although to our perception Gods will
is manifold, He does not will this and that in Himself, but according to His diversely manifold
wisdom, as Paul calls it [Eph. 3:10], He strikes down our senses until it is given to us to
recognize how wonderfully He wills what at the same moment seems to be against His will
(Commentary on Matt. 23:37, Institutes 1:18:3, 111:24:17).
B. It is a paradox without parallel. Some theologians suggest that the closest parallel would be
the two wills of Christ (Matt. 26:39, John 5:30, 6:38, Luke 22:42). Thus, Christ had a divine will
and a human will. But that is an imperfect formula and parallel. No paradox has a perfect
parallel. We can take comfort that both truths are Biblical and that we will be told the answer
when we get to Heaven.

7. The Two Words for Will.

A. One popular explanation of the paradox deals with the main Greek words for will. The first
is BQULOMAI (verb) and its two noun forms, BOULE and BOULEMA. The verb is used some
37 times in the N.T., the nouns some 47 times. They are used of both Man and God. Of Man: I.
Tim. 2:8, 5:14, 6:9, Tit. 3:8, Mark 15:15, Acts 12:4, 25:22, and so forth. Most occurrences
concern Man. Others deal with Christs will (Matt. 11:27, Luke 10:22), the Holy Spirit (I Cor.
12:11), and even of God and Man-(Acts 5:38-39). However, when it is used of God, it usually
speaks of what we call the Secret Will, or foreordination (see especially Acts 2:23, 4:28, Rom.
9:19, Eph. 1:11, Heb. 6:17). The word of itself does not mean unconditional or absolute
purpose. Man wills with these words. The difference is that Man changes his purposes and
cannot always fulfill what he intends, for God may intervene in a special way. On the other
hand, Gods purposes are absolute and He never changes His ultimate purpose.
B. The other word is THELO (verb) and its two nouns THELEEMA and THELEESIS. The verb

245

is used some 207 times, the nouns some 63 times, both more than BOULOMAI. Some scholars
suggest that this may be a weaker word than BOULOMAI, or that the first has to do with
consultation and the second with desire. In any case,THELO and its nouns are used of both
Man and God. When used of God, it usually refers to what we call the Revealed Will of God,
demanding a response from Man. So, while it would be imprecise to say that these occurrences
and etymology prove that there are two wills per se, they do at least suggest a certain
difference. But our reasons are more theological than linguistic.BOULOMAI usually refers to the
Secret, THELO usually refers to the Revealed.

8. Problems with the Paradox.

A. Whenever there is a paradox, there are problems. Most have to do with seeing only one side
of the paradox. Consequently, a major problem with the Reformed doctrine of the twofold will of
God is that some persons deny that there are two wills at all. How can God have two wills?,
asks the Arminian. Arminians almost invariably weaken or outright deny the Secret Will. Since
they see an apparent contradiction, they vote to reject the Secret Will. They do this to protect
the contents of the Revealed Will. But there are serious consequences. They end up with a
frustrated deity.
B. Many Barthians also have trouble with this dichotomy. Since they take the person of Christ
as their final analogy for God, they deny that Christ had any other will than what we call the
Revealed Will. Unfortunately for them, Christ Himself spoke of the secret purpose of God (John
6, Matt. 11, etc.).
C. On the other hand, virtually nobody denies that there is a Revealed Will. The closest would
be the Hyper-Calvinists. While not outright denying it, they often weaken it because of their
over-emphasis on the Secret Will, It was against such that Andrew Fuller commented, When
the revealed will of God is disregarded as a rule of life, it is common for the mind to be much
occupied about His secret will, or His decrees, as a substitute for it.
D. Fuller was right. There are too many who are obsessed with prying into the Secret Will. They
go beyond what is revealed in Scripture. Consequently, they are imbalanced when it comes to
the Revealed Will. This is the case, for example, with some who deny the Law as a rule of
practice for the believer. The Gospel Standard Baptists, are such. They thus take the Secret Will
as our rule, not the Law. Further, they tend to equate the Gospel and the Secret Will, as if
preaching the Gospel simply meant describing the order of the decrees of election and so forth.
They are wrong.
E. Then there is the problem of confusing the two wills. These persons accept the dichotomy,
but misapply certain passages. For example, in the Lords Prayer are the words, Thy will be
done. To which will does this refer? Some say it refers to the Secret Will, others say it means
that we are to pray according to the Revealed Will. [We will comment more on this in a later
study on prayer and the sovereignty of God.] Also, some disagree over which will was in Christs
mind when He prayed, Thy will be done.
F. Yet another problem facing Calvinists is the nature of the universal saving will in the
Revealed Will. Much of it revolves around the exegesis of I Tim. 2:4. Some say that salvation
belongs only to the Secret Will; the Revealed has only to do with the Law. If that were so, then
the Gospels a secret - how could we preach it? The truth is that the call of the Gospel
commands faith in all who hear it - God wills for them to believe the Gospel, in the Revealed
Will. In that sense, He wills all to be saved. But remember, the Revealed Will is conditional. He
wills for them to be saved by believing the Gospel. But He has not intended to give them all

246

faith. This too is a paradox which we will examine more closely later.

9. The Providential Will of God.

A. There is another ingredient in the paradox, namely, the place of divine providence. In a way,
one can speak of a third will of God - the Providential Will of God. Earlier we showed how
Providence is simply the outworking of predestination. But Providence is in time. It actualizes
what was decreed. In that sense, as John Gill said, Gods secret will becomes revealed by
events in providence.
B. Yet Providence cannot be predicted with certainty except by God Himself through prophecy.
So far as we are concerned, we have to wait for it to happen and then interpret it. John Flavel
the Puritan wrote, Gods providence, like Hebrew words, is best read in reverse. That is,
afterwards.
C. How then does Providence touch on the Revealed Will? For one, through Providence God
opens doors of opportunities to obey His Revealed Will. He also closes doors. We are not held
accountable by the Revealed Will for walking through doors which God Himself has manifestly
closed.
D. By the same standard, we need to submit all our plans to Providence and the Secret Will.
James 4:13-15 is the key passage here. We do not know what God has ordained for the future,
so we must follow the Revealed Will in submission to the Secret Will as developed in
Providence. This means we should say we will do something God willing, that is, God willing
improvidence. See I Cor. 4:19, Acts 18:21, Rom. 1:10, 15:32, etc. In olden days, Calvinists
would write the letters D.V. on their plans, meaning Deo volente (God willing). They
understood Gods sovereignty.
E. On the other hand, some Christians do not keep the balance on the place of Providence
respecting the two wills. They are always looking for little signs in Providence, too similar to
pagans looking for omens. Others put fleeces before God, thinking this is spiritual when in fact
they are tempting God. Still others tempt Providence by taking unnecessary risks, saying If I
die, then it was Gods Secret Will for me to die then. Such would be the Secret Will, but the
Revealed Will tells us not to harm ourselves needlessly and never to tempt Gods Providence.
F. Lastly, too many Christians misunderstand the wills of God and Providence regarding the
matter of guidance and decision-making. Some Christians follow Providence alone to make
decisions. (Well, there was the opportunity, and I saw it as Gods Providential purpose. Would
God have opened a door if He didnt want me to go through it?) Others wait for direct
revelations to discern Gods will for their lives. Still others try prying into what has not been
revealed. The answer to their dilemma is simple. We are not to rely on the Secret Will of God,
even as revealed in Providence, in making decisions. We are to rely on the Revealed Will. In
other words, instead of looking for omens or feelings or doors, we should believe and obey the
Revealed Will. Instead of lazily being passive or super-spiritual, we should actively obey what
Gods Law and Gospel tells us to do.

10. Conclusion.
A. There are several applications of the doctrine of the twofold will of God. First, dont pry into
the Secret Will. Believe what the Bible says about it. Stand in awe of the paradox. Next, receive

247

comfort from the fact that the Secret Will is definite. If you are a believer, it is for you. Third,
believe and obey the Revealed Will. The things that are revealed belong to us and our sons
forever, that we may observe all the words of this Law.
Recommended Reading
Bavinck, Herman. The Doctrine of God, pp. 223-241. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Heppe, Heinrich.
Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 81-92. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Hodge, Charles.
Systematic Theology, vol. I, pp. 402-406. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Gill, John. A Body of
Divinity, pp. 70-78. Paris: Baptist Standard Bearer. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 7679. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

248

Chapter 31. Divine Sovereignty and

Human Responsibility.
1. Introduction.
A. One of the greatest puzzles in theology is the problem of harmonizing divine sovereignty and
human responsibility. Because of this, some people deny one or the other (or in some unusual
cases, both). This tension keeps them from becoming Calvinists.
B. Calvinists themselves have trouble with the problem. In a few instances, someone comes to
see the truth of the doctrines of grace without having to wrestle with the sovereigntyresponsibility problem, but he will not go long before the problem confronts him. He can be
assured that it will be thrown at him by those whom he seeks to introduce to the Reformed faith.
C. In this study we will briefly look at the problem. Thus far we have established the doctrine of
sovereignty from the Bible. Now we look at human responsibility and its relationship to divine
sovereignty.

2. What is Human Responsibility?

A. Lets limit the discussion to human responsibility. Angels also have it but not animals and
lower beings. Specifically we are examining that part of human personality called the will. It is
the capacity to say, I will and I wont. God created our first parents with this capacity before
the Fall, and though sin severely affected their wills it did not abolish them. Now all humans
since then have had wills, and all of us (except the Lord Jesus) have had sinful wills. But before
we can discuss sinful wills, we have to define the responsibility of the will irrespective of sin.
B. There are a number of words, which are more or less synonymous with the word
responsibility. One of the best is accountability. This means that men will have to give an
account of themselves: Every one of us shall give an account of himself to God (Rom. 14:12).
This implies that we must give an answer. We are answerable to God. But to what question do
we give the answer? The question is, Why did you do what you did? (It can also be phrased,
Did you obey God?) Man is a steward of time and opportunity, and must give ah account to
the one who entrusted this stewardship to him.
C. Responsibility means duty. Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole
duty of Man (Eccl. 12:13). Man is under Gods commandments. Being accountable to divine
Law, we are liable to reward or punishment. Another synonym is obligation. We owe obedience
to God; we are responsible to Him.
D. Human responsibility implies morality. Man has been given a conscience and a sense of
right and wrong. He has the ethical capacity of virtue and vice. When God made Adam and
Eve, He gave them the constitutional ability to make moral decisions. He did not give this to
animals - they are non-moral. Morality in turn implies oughtness. To say that humans are
responsible to God is to say that they ought to obey Him.
E. God not only gave this responsibility but also the standard by which it is to be measured. He
would have been unfair otherwise. The standard is His Revealed Will. Not all men have it
equally; some have more light than others. Hence, some are more responsible than others.

249

From everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted
much, of him they will ask all the more (Luke 12:48).
F. Responsibility implies a choice between two or more options. It demands a reply. We can
say yes or no. But now we are faced with the crucial issue. Human responsibility does not
require neutrality of the will in order for the person to be morally accountable. Here is exactly
where Calvinists and Arminians differ Arminians argue that moral responsibility necessitates
that the person is at a crossroads and can equally choose either option. We disagree.
G. The classic Reformed discussion of the point is Jonathan Edwards The Freedom of the Will.
Edwards slew the neutral will theory hip and thigh. Among his many Biblical proofs are the
following. First, no man is neutral towards Christ, who said, He who is not with me is against
me (Matt. 12:20. Cf. the logical converse, He that is not against us is for us, Mark 9:40). In
turn, this means No man can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24). A person cannot serve two and
he cannot serve none. At any given moment, his will serves God or sin. Moral neutrality is
impossible. As Bob Dylan sang a few years ago, You gotta serve somebody. It might be the
Devil and it might be the Lord. But you gotta serve somebody.
H. Second, the very nature, of moral responsibility requires non-neutrality. Not to be for a certain
moral law is to be against it. Therefore, the pretense that one can be morally neutral is an
escape and a cover up of enmity to God. Van Til applied this to the realm of innate knowledge
of God. All men know that God exists and by nature are opposed to Him. They are not neutral,
they are guilty. Moral responsibility in Man, then, is synonymous with moral culpability. We are
able to be guilty., and we are guilty.
I. Third, it is a mistake to suppose that the will is self-determining. The will is no more
independent than it is neutral. It may in turn affect other things, but it is not itself selfdetermining. God alone is self-determining. Look deeply at the will and this becomes evident. A
man chooses something for a reason, namely, because it seemed like the best thing at the time.
Thus, the will is internally affected by the mind. But the mind is in turn affected by the nature.
Hence, a good nature produces good wills; a bad nature produces bad wills (Matt. 7:17). Man is
born with a nature and he always follows it. If he follows a good nature he is praiseworthy; if a
bad one, blameworthy. This is responsibility.

3. God Intervenes in the Human Will.

A. The Calvinist rejects the popular notion that the human will must be totally free from all
intervention in order to be responsible. Arminians and others say Man must be totally free and
independent. But, we reply, Why? Who says so? Not God. In fact, the very notion of
independent wills is a symptom of sinful wills. Further, when human wills are sinful, the Arminian
theory can be used to defend it from punishment. For example, John was free to choose A or
B. If he is truly free either way, how can he be punished? But we say that Man is not free like
that. God commands Man, and he had better obey.
B. No, the human will is not off-limits to God. It is not a holy of holies where God cannot tread.
God can intervene in the human will. Moreover, He does do just that. Logically, if it can be
shown from the Word of God that God does intervene in the human will, it follows that He can.
And if He can, then He is sovereign and Man is still responsible. Divine intervention does not
destroy responsibility.
C. Earlier we saw that God is First Cause of all things. But He uses second causes. Now the
point is just this: the human will is just a second cause which God uses. He does not destroy it,

250

but He uses it according to its nature.

4. Four Verses from Proverbs.

A. Pro. 16:1 and 9 speaks of human plans and motives. Solomon describes them as plans
and mind. Clearly he is speaking of human responsibility. But he then adds that God overrules
both. Man proposes, God disposes. Then in 19:21, we see that Mans plans do not always
come to pass, because Gods counsel overrules them. Thus, divine sovereignty is not
separate from human responsibility.
B. But 21:1 is the clincher: The kings heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord;
He turns it wherever He wishes. Human wills are compared to rivers. A river is not selfdetermining in its course. It rather follows certain other factors (gravity, the path of least
resistance, climate, etc.). In other words, it is subject to outside influences but is still
responsible.
C. God controls all the outside influences on the human will. He moves them this way and that,
knowing full well that in so doing He is controlling the will to move in such-and-such a direction.
But the will is still responsible. Augustine saw all this in Pro. 21:1 and commented: God works
in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever He wills, whether to good deeds
according to His mercy, or to evil after their own deserts; His own judgment being sometimes
manifest, sometimes secret, but always righteous. Thus, God is sovereign and righteous, Man
is still responsible whether guilty or innocent.

5. God Intervenes in Human Wills for Good Motives.

A. Ezra 6:22 says that God caused them to rejoice. God poured joy into their hearts. They
rejoiced, because God did this in them. Notice also that it says that God had turned the heart of
the king of Assyria toward them. This illustrates Pro. 21:1.This is later repeated in Ezra 7:27,
Blessed be the Lord, the God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this in the kings
heart. Yet the king was personally responsible in this. God did not bypass his will; He used his
will.
B. I Cor. 12:6 is another verse on the subject. God the Spirit works all things in all persons.
Paul is specifically speaking of Christians, but the point is still valid, namely, that God works in
the wills and hearts of people. God not only works in inanimate, non-human things, but in
human hearts as well.
C. 2 Cor. 8:16 is another example. God put earnestness into the heart of Titus.. Titus was
earnest - as well he should have been - because God put it into his heart. Therefore, the human
heart is not off-limits to God.
D. Phil. 2:12-13 is even more explicit. First, Paul exhorts the Philippians to work. Work is the
outcome of willing. This is human responsibility. But second, there is divine sovereignty, namely,
Gods good pleasure. God carries out certain predestined decrees by providentially working in
human wills. But the key is the little word for. It tells us the logical order. We work because
God works in us. Notice the relationship between to will and to work. God gets to the very
heart of the matter, namely, the matter of the heart.
E. This is further shown in Heb. 13:21. God works in us that which is pleasing in His sight so
that we will be equipped in every good thing to do His will. Gods Secret Will is enacted in

251

providence, touching our hearts with the result that we do His Revealed Will.

6. God Also Works in the Sinful Hearts of Man to Accomplish His Purpose.
A. In Gen. 50:20, Joseph comments on divine providence. His brothers meant evil ..(human
responsibility) but God overruled it for good (divine sovereignty). This did not exonerate them
from guilt, but neither did it make God guilty. Yet God providentially worked in their wills so that
they would do this.
B. Luke 22:22 is another case. Judas betrayed Christ - guilty human responsibility. But this was
foreordained by God - divine sovereignty. Similarly, Acts 2:23 and4:27-28 also present both
sides. First, Christ had been foreordained to be slain(I Pet. 1:19-20). But Peter directly charged
the Jews with crucifying. Christ. Just as Judas willed and worked to betray Christ, so the Jews
willed and worked to crucify Him. They were all guilty. But God was sovereign throughout.
C. Rev. 17:13 is another such verse. First, God put it in their hearts to execute His purpose. If
ever there was a Bible verse teaching divine sovereignty, this is it. But, second, what did they
do? They exercised their wills together to worship the Beast. Again, divine sovereignty is in play
even in the sinful responsible deeds of Man.

7. Divine Preservation of Human Responsibility.

A. The Westminster Confession states that God did ordain whatsoever comes to pass. This is
divine sovereignty. But it goes on to add, 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(111:1). Later, it says: God hath endued the will of man with
that natural liberty, that is neither forced nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to
good or evil. (IX:1).
B. The Reformed view is that though God works through human wills, He does not work against
them. He does, not force or coerce unnaturally, but rather works through the very nature of their
wills. God does not put a gun in Mans hand and force him to pull the trigger against his will, all
the while Man is resisting. In this sense, Man is properly said to have liberty. He is not a puppet.
It is in this sense that Augustine and the Reformers spoke of the validity of freewill. They did
not accept free will as moral neutrality or as unaffected by sin, but they did accept that in this
sense (non-coercion), Man has free will.
C. This is difficult to see. When the concurrence of divine providence works through the human
will, Man is not conscious of it. Take the illustration of the billiard balls. The cue ball sends force
through the other balls, but the cue ball does not destroy them. Just so, God works through
Mans will, but does not destroy human responsibility. Rather, God guarantees the responsibility
of the will.

8. The Grand Paradox.

A. It should be obvious that this is a grand paradox. Divine sovereignty and human
responsibility are both true, but we cannot see entirely how. They are like two parallel lines or
two sides of the same coin. They are complimentary, not contradictory. But we dont see entirely

252

how. Nor can we. It shouldnt bother us as much as it does. When asked how he reconciled the
two, C.H. Spurgeon replied, I never try to reconcile friends. In other words, they only appear to
be at loggerheads. In reality, they are the closest of friends.
B. Now this is more than a literary paradox. Sovereignty and responsibility form an antinomy. In
commenting on the subject in question, J.I. Packer observes: It is an apparent incompatibility
between two apparent truths. An antinomy exists when a pair of principles stand side by side,
seemingly irreconcilable, yet both undeniable... You see that each must be true on its own, but
you do not see how they can both be true together.
C. Thus, it is only an apparent contradiction. They are both true. Still, we need not throw up our
hands and avoid the antinomy. We can, for example, make certain observations about how the
two affect each other.
D. Abraham Kuyper once remarked that sovereignty/responsibility is not precisely a paradox,
but rather a hyperdox. What does this mean? Para means alongside, hyper means above.
What he meant was that though both are equally true, there is a logical order in which divine
sovereignty precedes human responsibility. So, Man is responsible because God is sovereign.
Man is responsible because God made him that way. Sovereignty can exist by itself, but human
responsibility cannot. This is not to deny human responsibility, but to place it in its right place.
E. There are, perhaps. three similar paradoxes which may shed some light on this one. First,
Gal. 2:20. Paul says he doesnt live, but Christ lives in him. But then he says, the life which I
now live. He lives but he doesnt live. The life which he does live is dependent on the life of
anothers. Even so, Man is responsible, not of himself, but because divine sovereignty made
him that way.
F. Second, there are the two natures of Christ. Christ was both divine and human. But, as the
Chalcedonian Formula stated, He had the two natures without confusion or change, without
division or separation, the difference of the natures being by no means removed by the union
but rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one person and one
subsistence. Christ was not a third something, but both. Yet He was first God and was not
independent in His humanity.
G. Just so, sovereignty and responsibility are both true and joined together. We must not
confuse the two or concoct a third hybrid. Rather, we need to see them fused together so that
sovereignty concurs with responsibility. But as Christ5deity preceded His humanity, so
sovereignty precedes responsibility.
H. The antinomy has a third parallel, namely, the twofold will of God. God has two wills, as it
were. Both are true. But the Secret Will existed in a certain fashion before the Revealed Will
(which was manifested only after Creation). Now, sovereignty is the same as the Secret Will.
And human responsibility is founded on the Revealed Will. Neither paradox can be fully
understood, but by comparing the two we see insight into both. Ultimately, it is a paradox
between the attributes of God. Packer says it is an antinomy of God as King (sovereignty) and
God as Judge (responsibility). Where they meet is hidden in the depths of God.

9. Three False Explanations of the Paradox.

A. First, the two are not equal but separate spheres. Human responsibility is not totally free
of the intervention and concurrence of divine sovereignty. Neither says to the other, If you wont
intrude into my turf, then I wont intrude into yours.

253

B. Second, there is the theory of synergism. This suggests that God does his part and I do my
part. This is the misapplication of divine concurrence. In away, Man cooperates, but not as an
equal and not as independent. Man cannot bargain with God.
C. Third, some suggest that the paradox is really between Gods command and our obedience.
This too is false.. True, God commands Man. But that has to do with divine authority in the
Revealed Will, not divine sovereignty in the Secret Will and providence. Actually, those who
suggest this is the real paradox are confused. They either do not see the real paradox (meaning
that they do not have any idea what we mean by divine sovereignty), or they see it but reject it.
There is no contradiction - apparent or otherwise - between the Revealed Will and human
responsibility.

10. The Proper Attitude Towards the Paradox.

A. It behooves us to accept both truths and live accordingly. We should not deny either, for
denying either leads to disastrous results. Dont deny either, either in theory or in practice. On
the one hand, do not be like W.J. Styles the Hyper-Calvinist who wrote: Since human
responsibility and divine sovereignty do not simply involve a paradox but are destructive to each
other, one must be untrue. Styles thus denied human responsibility, though he did accept that
Man is accountable. One outcome was that Styles said that lack of faith is not a sin.
B. Then we should also avoid the error of denying divine sovereignty. Many books have been
written by Arminians claiming to believe in the paradox. Divine Sovereignty and Human
Freedom by Samuel Fisk is such a one. But read carefully, such books show that the authors
actually reject divine sovereignty. There are far more who err on this side than on the other.
C. We must not deny either, but neither should we over-emphasize either. Nor must we underemphasize either. Both need to be stressed properly and in relation to each other. It is not easy,
but God calls on us to believe both and live-in the light of both. J.I. Packer notes: Our wisdom is
to maintain with equal emphasis both the apparently conflicting truths in each case, to hold them
together in the relation in which the Bible itself sets them, and to recognize that here is a
mystery which we cannot expect to solve in this world.
D. How do we handle other Biblical paradoxes? We should be intellectually humbled. They
should move us to trust God more. Moreover, they should drive us to worship Gods glorious
wisdom more, for He alone truly knows the paradox.
E. What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Recommended Reading
Edwards, Jonathan. The Freedom of the Will. New Haven: Yale University Press. [The definitive
edition, with full introduction, notes and index]. This can also be found in The Works of Jonathan
Edwards, vol. I, pp. 1-93; Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Carson, D.A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Atlanta: John Knox Press. Packer,
J.I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press.
Clark, Gordon. Predestination, pp. 110-144 (chapter entitled Free Will). Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Pink, A.W. The Sovereignty of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Rice, N.L. God Sovereign and Man Free. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications.

254

Feinberg, John. God Ordains All Things, in David and Randall Basinger, eds., Predestination
and Free Will, pp. 17-43. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press.
Calvin, John. Calvins Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications. Luther, Martin. The
Bondage of the Will. Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell.

255

Chapter 32. Prayer and the Sovereignty of

God.
1. The Problem.
A. The problem that we address in this study may be phrased in several ways: If God is
sovereign, why pray? If God has foreordained everything already, how can we pray in hopes
of changing things? There is a flipside to the question, too, namely: If we are commanded to
pray, then how can it be said that God is sovereign and has ordained all that happens?
B. Obviously this cannot be an exhaustive study. Prayer is a major field in itself, and over 1000
books in English alone have been written in this century on this subject. We will confine
ourselves to this one thorny point.

2. What is Prayer?
A. In its simplest definition, prayer is talking to God, But this is not precise enough, for even the
demons speak to God when they blaspheme and that certainly is not prayer. The Westminster
Shorter Catechism gives a succinct but balanced definition of prayer from the Reformed
perspective: Prayer is an offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in
the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies
(answer 98).
B. Prayer is both a duty and a privilege. First, we are commanded to pray: Pray without
ceasing (I Thess. 5:17. See also Luke 18:1, Phil. 4:6,Matt. 7:7, Heb. 4:16). Therefore, prayer is
part of the revealed will of God; that is, He has revealed that we should pray. Consequently, not
praying is a sin (as in I Sam. 12:23). Furthermore, we are given many fine examples of praying
believers, which we are encouraged to imitate(e.g., Elijah in James 5:16-18).
C. Prayer is also a high privilege. We have been granted entrance and access into Gods very
presence with the opportunity to speak to Him (Heb, 4:16).Now God did not have to grant this to
us. He did not have to foreordain it and in time He did not have to allow it. But it pleased Him to
bestow this privilege on His people. This also I will let the house of Israel ask me to do for
them (Ezek. 36:37). God lets us pray.
D. In Reformed theology, prayer has been divided into four categories. Each has its own
peculiar relationship to the revealed and secret wills of God. First, there is confession. We are
commanded to confess our sins to God and promised forgiveness (I John 1:9). This confession
acknowledges that we have gone against His revealed will. Yet true confession will never offer
the excuse, Forgive me, for after all, you foreordained that I would sin, That is not repentant
confession but blasphemy.
E. Second, there is supplication. This is when we pray for things we need. Third, there is
intercession, when we pray for the needs of others. Most of the rest of this study will
concentrate on these two aspects of prayer. Fourth, there is adoration, which includes worship,
thanksgiving, love and praise. This is the highest form. We are commanded to praise the Lord.
The dilemma is a subtle one, however. It is this: In the secret will, God has foreordained that
He will receive glory from all beings (even the reprobate). Should we just resign ourselves to

256

that in prayer? No, we need to actively give Him glory and praise. (More on this in a later study)

3. Is God Ever Obligated to Answer Our Prayers?

A. Now let us address the problem of supplication and intercession. These are the parts of
prayer with which we are most familiar (would that we were more familiar with the other two!).
God has given us the privilege and duty of asking things from Him for ourselves and others. But
has He made this an unconditional promise? Is prayer filling in a blank check? There are
basically three answers which are possible, and all three have been suggested by Christians:
yes, no, and yes and no.
B. First, there are those who say, Yes, God is always obligated to answer our prayers. They
appeal to verses such as John 14:13, 15:7, 17, 16:23, and Matt.21:22. Their prayers are
remarkably like the one in Mark 10:35, Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of
you. This approach is especially popular in the so-called Name it, claim it movement (which
one wag has nicknamed the Blab it, grab it movement).
C. But this approach is unbiblical. It fails to balance these texts with others that specify certain
conditions. James 1:6, for example, tells us that our prayers must, have faith; verses 7 and 8
explicitly tell us that without faith we will receive nothing. Then James 4:3 tells us not to pray out
of greedy motives. John 9:31 and I John 3:22 tell us that we must also obey God, for if we pray
in a disobedient spirit then we will not receive our requests. By the way, this does not mean that
we earn things in prayer.
D. The very nature of prayer as requests (Phil. 4:6) negates the Name it, claim it idea. We
cannot demand things from God; we can only request them. To demand things from God is to
make Him our servant, when we should rather humbly beseech Him as our sovereign. So this
approach contradicts the revealed will of God.
E. It also contradicts the secret will as follows. The disciples tried the blank check approach in
Mark 10: 35. But notice Christs answer in vs. 40: But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not
Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared. Christ gently rebuffed their
inappropriate prayer by reminding them of the secret will of God. God had already foreordained
who will sit where in the coming Kingdom. It was not a matter for prayer, much less jostling
rivalry among Christians.
F. On the other hand, Scripture indicates that there are some things which God has pledged
Himself to supply when requested in the proper manner. We must be very careful not to overreact against the Name it bunch and contend that we can never know if we will receive what
we request in prayer. The key verses here are I John 5:14-15. These cannot have reference to
the secret will but to the revealed will. The gist of the passage is this: If we pray in faith for
things which God has commanded us to have, then we can be assured that He will give them. It
is a simple principle, but easily overlooked by both sides.
G. Scripture tells us that there are some things which we should have of ourselves. For
instance, wisdom. Be wise as serpents (Matt. 10:16), The problem is, we are born fools in sin.
However, God has promised us wisdom if we ask: If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of
God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him (James
1:5). The principle is simply that of Augustine when he prayed, Give what thou commandest
and command what thou will. Take holiness also. God commands us to be holy (I Pet. 1:16).
We are not holy, but if we ask rightly for it God will give us holiness in His own way.
H. The problem we have in all this is that we are like the disciples, whom the Lord rebuked,

257

You do not know what you are asking for (Mark 10:38). We get our needs and greeds
confused (cf. James 4:3). God will not give us our greeds, except to punish us (Num. 11). He is
not obligated to give us a Mercedes Benz or a color television. On the other hand, He has
pledged to give that which in His revealed will He requires of us, such as wisdom, peace (Phil.
4:6-7), salvation, etc. Rather than being presumption to suppose that God is obligated to give
these things, it is presumption to suppose that God requires us to have them but refuses to give
them to us when only He can give them.
I. So, the question boils down to discerning the revealed will of God. He has not commanded us
to be healthy or wealthy per se, but He has commanded us to be wise. The blank check folks
concentrate on the former two and omit the third. It truly takes wisdom to discern this principle.
But God gives wisdom.

4. Four Common Misconceptions About Prayer and the Will of God.

A. First, God does nothing but in answer to prayer. This is false. In fact, God does almost
everything He does irrespective of prayer. Most of the deeds of providence are not mentioned in
human prayer. Count back logically - did God create the universe in answer to our prayers? Of
course not. And God does many, many things in our lives out of sheer grace irrespective of
prayer.
B. Second, Pray that God saves a person but does not intrude upon his free will. This
misunderstands both the human will and the intervention of Gods grace. We have already
shown that God can and does intervene in human wills (cf. Pro. 21:1). But this even goes
against common experience, for nobody would ever think of praying, Lord, save my dear father,
but leave the choice up to him. Actually, the fact that we pray assumes that we implicitly believe
that God can intervene in mens supposed free wills. The fact that someone prays for the lost
is proof that God is sovereign.
C. Third, We should believe like Calvinists but pray like Arminians. This too is false. It is like
the error that says, Believe like a Calvinist but preach like an Arminian. Why not believe and
pray and preach like Calvinists? Those Calvinists that use this little ditty are unfamiliar with
Reformed prayer.
D. Fourth, Im praying for Gods will. True, we should pray for Gods help in discerning His will,
but this statement is usually an excuse. The one who uses it doesnt understand the relationship
of Scripture to prayer and Gods will. He somehow thinks guidance is given mystically through
prayer, that God speaks to us in prayer. Wrong. We speak in prayer, God speaks in Scripture.
Lets not mix it up. This person may also be praying against the will of the Lord or in great
ignorance. He may know from the Bible what the revealed will of God is, but doesnt like it, so
he prays about it. Instead, the godly Christian will pray for wisdom to know what the Bible says
is Gods will, and then studies the Bible.

5. Does Prayer Change Gods Mind?

A. An even greater misunderstanding exists in the minds of those who think that prayer
changes Gods mind. But let us see why. The popular formula is Prayer changes things.
Sometimes it reads, Prayer changes God and God changes things. But of course this cannot
be true of the secret will of God, for that is unconditional and unchangeable. The decrees are
immutable. Why? Because God is not a man that He should change His mind (Num. 23:19).

258

Moreover, prayer cannot change Gods essence, for God is immutable (Mai. 3:6).
B. Robert Lewis Dabney commented, Prayer is not intended to produce a change in God, but
in us. Calvin commented, It was not so much for His sake as for ours. The truth of prayer is
that in praying we are changing, not God. God is changing us; we are not changing God.
Otherwise, God is our servant, not our sovereign.
C. And yet the dilemma remains. What about the examples of praying men changing Gods
mind? Two examples are commonly given. First, Abraham bargaining with God in Gen. 18:2233 . But look at the text closely. Did Abraham talk God out of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah?
No, God still destroyed those cities. The Lord was simply condescending to His friend Abraham
(James 2:23), showing him thereat privilege of prayer. But the conditions for preservation were
not met, and of course God was under no compulsion to give repentance to the Sodomites.
D. Jonah and Nineveh is the other popular example. The argument runs like this: God
threatened destruction, but the Ninevites talked Him out of it by prayer. This misunderstands
what really happened. First, if God had prophesied that He would unconditionally destroy
Nineveh, then He would have done so. That He did not means that His threat was a conditional
threat. It was as if He said, I will destroy them if they do not repent. As the book unfolds, we
see that they did in fact repent, so God did not destroy them. If they had not repented, He would
have certainly destroyed them. Their prayer did not thwart Gods sovereign will, but rather
showed that they were submitting to His revealed will But go even deeper: who do you think
gave them that repentance in the first place? God, thats who. And such was in keeping with
both the revealed and secret wills. So there is no problem and this disproves that men change
God.

6. Prayer and the Secret Will of God,

A. Once we come to see the truth of Gods sovereign and secret will, we must adjust our
prayers accordingly. For example, we should not think that God ordains something because we
pray. He did not consult our prayers when He foreordained everything - He only consulted
Himself (Rom. 11:33-36).
B. Therefore, we need to pray in a way that does not seek to persuade God to overrule His
decrees. Of course, He wont overrule them anyway and it is impertinence to ask. Lets give
some more specific examples that contain implicit, if not explicit, denials of the secret and
sovereign will of God. First, we are not to pray that everybody be saved. Even the Lord Jesus
did not pray for the whole world (John 17:9). We can pray for anybody but not for everybody.
Why? Because we know from Scripture that though God wills all to be saved in the revealed
will. He does not will for all in the secret will. Such a universal prayer implicitly denies election
and reprobation.
C. Similarly, do not pray that God reverses the decree of reprobation (or non-election). Some
have attempted this. Do not pray that those in Hell will have a second chance, for God has not
so decreed nor is it in His revealed will. Actually, the death of an unrepentant sinner confirms
His reprobation. So prayers for those in Hell are implicitly prayers for a reversal of reprobation.
D. Also, do not claim a certain sinner for Christ. We have no liberty to do so (paedo-baptists
especially are prone to this error). I Cor. 7:16, How do you know, 0 wife, whether you will save
your husband? You cannot know if anyone is elect until it is confirmed in regeneration. We
cannot claim a spouse or a child or a friend with any assurance. That goes against election.
E. What about praying that Christ hasten His return? Some misuse Rev. 22:20. Now we should

259

all hope that He return in our lives, but we simply cannot know if this will be. The date has
already been sovereignly set (Matt. 24:36). Sure, we can preach so that the last of the elect will
be called in, at which point Christ will return (2 Pet. 3:9). But we do not know who they are nor
when they will be saved. We can pray for them, but be careful of attempting to manipulate Christ
into moving forward the day of His return. Those who do so are usually slack in both evangelism
and prayer. See Acts 1.

7. Divine Sovereignty is an Incentive to Prayer.

A. Now at this point someone may be tempted (and temptation is always to sin)to think,
Calvinism kills prayer. The sovereignty of God is a hindrance to our prayers. 0, but the exact
opposite is true. Any Calvinist who does not pray rightly simply doesnt understand this or is in
sin. Let us explain.
B. The fact is, we could not pray unless God were sovereign. Alva McClain, a very moderate
Calvinist, put it like this: The doctrine of divine sovereignty should be an incentive to pray, for
the only kind of a God who can answer prayer is a sovereign God. Look at I Tim. 2:1-2 and Pro.
21:1. In the first, we are exhorted to pray for our civil rulers. But in the second we are told that
the hearts of the kings are in the hand of God, who can turn them this way or that. The same is
true with everyone else. When we pray, we ask that God sovereignly change a persons will. He
can. And He does. And He sometimes does so in answer to prayer. Therefore, pray that God do
what only He can do.
C. A free-will Arminian who prays is inconsistent. Only a Calvinist can pray. But theres more
to it than this. Jonathan Edwards said, When the people of God are stirred up to prayer, it is the
effect of His intention to show mercy. A.W. Pink put it like this: The God who has determined
to grant a blessing also gives a spirit of supplication which first seeks the blessing. The old
Puritan maxim was, Prayer is the forerunner of blessing. If God sovereignly stirs up His people
to pray, it is an indication that He is about to work. So, by reading providence in this light, we
can be encouraged that God hears us.
D. And we can go back even further than this. God not only sovereignly stirs us up now, but
even the fact that we are now praying was foreordained in eternity.

8. Prayer as a Weans of Providence.

A. Simply put, prayer is one of the Second Causes which God the First Cause uses. Earlier we
showed that human responsibility itself is a Second Cause which God sovereignly uses in
providence to carry out His decrees and purposes. Well, men are responsible to pray.
Therefore, prayer is a means of providence. God answers some prayers as a means to carry
out His purposes. He doesnt do such-and-such merely because we prayed, but because He
moved us to pray and then answered that prayer.
B. This may be illustrated in a practical sense with what we call importunate prayer, or prayer
that keeps on praying (Luke 18:1-8, 11:5-13). Our persistent praying does not force Gods
answer. God is still sovereign. But He has ordained some things to come about through
persistent praying. In providence this is carried out in a marvelous way. Lloyd-Jones used to say
it was like God letting down a rope and saying, Start pulling. Our pulling itself does not bring
down the blessing. But if and when God is willing in His sovereignty, He kicks the blessing off
and our prayers bring it down.

260

9. The Stoic Reaction.

A. Unfortunately, some Calvinists have a fatalistic approach to prayer, namely, It will happen
whether I pray or not. This is similar to the Hyper-Calvinist who says, The elect will be
converted whether I preach or not. Charles Hodge commented, A fatalist cannot consistently
pray. Prayer takes faith, not Stoic resignation to the inevitable. Yes, Gods purpose will be
done even if you do not pray. Even your refusal to pray has been foreordained. But if so, then
God has also foreordained that you will forfeit blessings and be chastened for failing to pray as
you should.
B. This is a cheapjack excuse that covers up disobedience to the revealed will of God.
Someone observed, If any believer should say it is futile to pray when all events are decreed,
he is not only disobeying the revealed will of God, but he is probably trying to excuse his neglect
of the privilege of prayer. It is not prayer but the lack of prayer that is presumption.
C. The same goes for the person who complains, Such-and-such did not happen as I prayed,
so it must not have been Gods will that it happen. Sure, it was not foreordained, but this is
usually an excuse for the person who did not pray in faith or obedience or according to the
revealed will of God.

10. Thy Will Be Done.

A. The Stoic misapplies the phrase Thy will be done in two passages. First, it is found in Matt.
6:10, in the Lords Prayer. Some Calvinists say this refers to the secret will, but more say it
speaks of the revealed will (for example, Thomas Watson and William Hendricksen).
Hendricksen comments: It is the ardent desire of the person who sincerely breathes the Lords
Prayer that the Fathers will shall be obeyed as completely, heartily and immediately on earth
as this inconstantly being done by all the inhabitants of heaven.
B. Thus, it is an act of submission to the revealed will, requesting aid to do Gods will. It cannot
mean the secret will, for that is always done anyway. Note the words, in heaven, meaning the
holy angels (the demons accomplish the secret will, but not the revealed will; besides, they are
not in heaven). The Westminster Shorter Catechism explains this petition: ...we pray that God,
by His grace, would make us able and willing to know, obey, and submit to His will in all things,
as the angels do in heaven. This submission is part of the faith (James 1) and obedience (I
John 3:22) that is essential for answered prayer. Without it, prayer is selfish, arrogant and
presumptuous.
C. Then in Matt. 26:39 we find the Lord Jesus use the very words again, Thy will be done.
Note that He was submitting His human will to the will of His Father. Now a few Calvinists, such
as Thomas Manton, take this to refer to the secret will. Thus, Christ submitted to the decree that
He would be crucified (cf. I Pet. 1:19-20, Acts 2:23, 4:27-28). But more Calvinists take it to mean
the revealed will. Some point to Heb. 10:7, Lo, I have come (in the roll of the book it is -written
of me) to do thy will, 0 God. Others point to John 4:34,5:30, 6:38, 17:4 and others to show that
Christ regularly submitted to the Fathers revealed will to come to earth. And He came in
obedience to the agreement in the Covenant of Redemption that He die. Note that He realized
that if He had not obeyed this order, then not only the elect would perish but also He Himself (if
He disobeyed, He too would be a sinner going to Hell). We see in the Gethsemane prayer a
combination of the two wills and of obeying faith.

261

D. However, Thy will be done can easily be a copout for our lack of obeying faith. If we are
praying properly according to the revealed will, then we can say it truly and it will be done. But if
we doubt or hold back, the words become a copout and safety valve (I guess God didnt
foreordain it to occur.)

11. Why Pray?

A. Since God already knows what we need before we pray (Matt. 6:8, Psa. 139:4), we do not
pray to inform Him . Augustine said, God does not ask us to tell him our needs that he may
learn about them, but in order that we may be capable of receiving what he is preparing to give.
So, we should not pray in a way that implies God doesnt know already. This also avoids the
Stoic excuse, God knows anyway, so why pray?
B. Why pray? Because God commands us to. He uses prayers to accomplish His purposes. It
is a high privilege and it is our duty to pray aright-regarding Gods will. As Thomas Manton the
Puritan said, It must be conformable to His revealed will and with submission to His secret will;
not contrary to His Word, nor against His decrees. When all is said and done, there is still much
mystery in it.
But there remains much blessing to be received by us and glory to God.

Recommended Reading
.Kelly, Douglas. If God Already Knows, Why Pray? Bristol: Wolgemuth and Hyatt. Palmer, BM.
The Theology of Prayer. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications.
Pink, A.W. The Sovereignty of God, pp. 203-220. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

262

Chapter 33. The Glory of God.

1. Introduction.
A. What is the ultimate purpose of God? Thus far we have seen that God has foreordained
whatever comes to pass in history. But what is the final goal of history? Whats it all coming to?
God has a blueprint encompassing all things, but what is the bottom line of that plan? Or lets
put it philosophically like this: Why? Why are things like this?
B. The main message of the Bible is simple. It is found in Rom. 11:36, the key verse for these
studies: For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever.
Amen. Gods ultimate purpose is simply the glory of God.

2. What is Glory?
A. The Hebrew word for glory is KABOB, which means weight. Gods glory is His weightiness.
What does that mean? It is a figure of speech for His character, His substance. God is perfect in
being, and the glory of God is the manifestation of His excellence and perfect character.
B. The Greek word for glory is DOXA, which has many meanings. Sometimes it means doctrine
(as in orthodoxy, or right doctrine). But in the N.T. it usually has the idea of brightness or
splendor, something that radiates light. Sometimes it means fame or honor, a good reputation.
C. The glory of-God is the revelation of God Himself. Sometimes the Bible speaks of this as the
glory of God, other times as the name of God, sometimes as both (His glorious name). So,
the ultimate purpose of Gods the revelation of Himself as He is. I John 3:2 says, we shall see
Him as He is. No man has yet to see God perfectly in this way.

3. The Revelation of Gods Glory.

A. When one studies the many references to this glory of God, one sees that they fall into two
categories. Theologians sometimes call them Glory Shown and Glory Given. Throughout
history God has revealed Himself gradually. Thus He has granted us sparkles of His glory. Isa.
44:23, In Israel He shows forth His glory.
B. The Bible tells us that God is transcendent and high above us. He is also the hidden God
(Deus absconditus). This does not mean that God is not near; it means that God has veiled His
full self from us. For example,
I Tim. 1:17 says that God is invisible. But the day is coming when He will be visible to His
creation. That is the day of His glory. Unfortunately, sinful Man often mocks God because they
do not see Him. But one day all men will see God in His glory, and there will be no mocking.
C. Scripture frequently speaks of the glory of God as light. When Jesus was transfigured on the
Mount of Olives, He became brighter than the sun. When Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Paul and John
received visions of God, they were dazzled by the glory of God as light.
D. Lets take this analogy and develop it. First, the glory of God is brighter than the sun. The
light of the Creator is infinitely brighter than the light of creation. None of us can look into the

263

sun for very long; none of us of ourselves can behold the glory of God. Further, even the light of
creation is simply a reflection of the light of Gods glory.
E. Pure light is white light. But light can be refracted in a prism into all the colors of the rainbow.
And each color has its own quality and beauty. The glory of God is like that. Ultimately, God is
one and pure. But He also has attributes, which may be compared to colors. In history God has
shown these attributes, so we can speak of the glory of His love, the glory of His truth, the glory
of His power, the glory of His wrath, and so on.
E. When Gods glory is fully displayed* however, it will be shown even more. We will be shown
all of His attributes in perfect harmony with each other. His glory will sparkle like a diamond. In
these studies we have often stated that the divine attributes are perfectly balanced. Heresy
comes from an imbalanced view of the divine attributes, even to the extent of denying some of
them. But when God is fully revealed, He will be revealed as He is in perfect harmony. His
glory is white light.
G. The idea of balance is important. In art, for instance, beauty is measured to the extent that a
picture or statue properly represents the thing portrayed in balance. Ugliness is simply
imbalance, beauty is balance. Theologically, idolatry. is forbidden because they are ugly and
grotesque misrepresentations of God. True glory is the revelation of God in perfect balance as
He is. The Arabic word for glory means just so, everything exactly where it should be. God will
show Himself as He is.

4. The Reflection of Gods Glory.

A. The second aspect of ultimate glory is this: God will reveal Himself fully to all His creation,
and all creation will reflect it back to Him. Revealed glory produces reflected glory. Glory shown
then becomes glory given back to God.
B. The Bible often speaks of glory in this way. Men are said to give glory to God, like Abraham
(Rom. 4:20). They glorify God. They praise God and worship Him for what He is, has shown
Himself to be, and for what He has done. But it is crucial to see the order. Men glorify God
because they have been granted a glimpse of His glory.
C. God has commanded us to give Him glory (e.g., I Cor. 6:20, 10:31). Psa. 96:8,Ascribe to
the Lord the glory of His name. How? By faith in the glory that He has already revealed. In this
life we already give God glory in faith, obedience, submission to suffering for Christ (I Pet. 4:1216),righteous lives (Phil. 1 11), worship and love.
D. And the day will come when all creation will reflect back to God the full revelation of His
glory. Each and every part of creation will glorify God in their own distinctive way.

5. The Paradox of Glory.

A. There is a great paradox of glory. All creation will render glory to God, but that does not add
anything to God Himself. He created all things to show forth His glory and to receive glory back,
but He had no need to do this. The fact that He does. it is. simply a display of what He already
is, not what He is becoming. God is already perfect, and neither the revelation nor the reflection
of His glory adds anything to God.
B. You see, God is already perfect in glory. He describes Himself in Scriptures the Father of

264

glory (Eph. 1:17), the glorious Lord (Isa. 33:21),the Lord of glory (James 2:1), and the God
of glory (Psa. 29:3). He is of Himself essentially glorious and full of light.
C. And yet, for reasons known only to God, He has chosen to reveal His glory to non-God,
that is, all that is outside of Himself. This is the glory of creation. God created all things to glorify
Himself. In Rev. 4:11 we read of creation reflecting glory to God in fulfillment of their creation:
Worthy art thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for thou didst
create all things, and because of thy will they existed and were created.
D. God created all things for Himself, or as Pro. 16:4 puts it, The Lord has made everything for
Himself, even the wicked for the day of evil. We were created for Gods pleasure and glory, not
for ourselves. We need to remember this at all times. The first question of the Westminster
Shorter Catechism is: What is the chief end of man? Answer: Mans chief end is to glorify
God, and to enjoy Him forever.
E. This goes against our sinful pride and selfish narcissism. We recoil at the fact that we must
glorify another. In fact, it could be argued that the very essence of sin lies here, namely, selfishly
giving glory to self instead of God. In other words, self-idolatry. We need to realize that we are
not our own property; we were created for Gods glory. Whenever someone asks you, Why am
I here? Where did I come from? What is the purpose of life?, then answer him, You were
created to glorify God.
F. Gradually this purpose is being fulfilled. Creation already reflects much of Gods glory. Psa.
19:1, The heavens are telling of the glory of God. Isa.6:3, The whole earth is full of His glory.
We do not all see it, nor do we all see it perfectly. Moreover, this display has been marred by
sin. But the day will come when all creation will reflect Gods glory fully. On that day, God will
show all He is to all else that is, and all that is created will reflect full glory to the Creator.

6. The Inevitability of Glory.

A. This ultimate revelation of glory is as certain as God Himself. He has unconditionally
foreordained all that comes to pass, and all things that happen are but means to one final end:
the glory of God. It will happen.
B. Psa. 145:10, All thy works shall praise thee. Everything in creation will one day. fulfill the
purpose for which they were created. This even applies to the non-human creation. In the new
heavens and the new earth, the universe will be a vast museum of mirrors which reflect the
glory of God. The new sun will shine brighter and will show perfectly the source of its light Gods glory. Even the smallest atoms will radiate divine glory. And if there are animals in the
new creation (over which theologians differ), they too will glorify God.
C. In theology and philosophy we speak of teleology, or the theology of the end. Then there is
the word eschatology, or the doctrines of last things. Central to both is the glory of God. We
have shown that God is the first cause of all things, but has it struck you that He is also the last
end of all things? He created all things for His glory, and all things will certainly fulfill their
purpose and give glory to God.
D. God predestined all things for His own glory. Divine glory, then, is the final destiny of all
things. This final end is as certain as their current existence. All things exist because God willed
them into being, and that was irresistible power. By the same divine force, all things are being
guided by providence to this last end. There is nothing in heaven or earth or hell which can
prevent it. Man cannot and God will not stop it. In fact, it is more certain that God will be fully
glorified than it is that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is the ultimate certainty, for God says so.

265

7. Some Objections.
A. One popular objection runs like this, The ultimate end of man is the happiness of man.
Wrong. It is true that some men will receive eternal happiness in heaven. But others will receive
punishment in hell. If this objection were true, then we have one of two grave problems. If the
ultimate end of man is mans happiness, then why are not all men saved? For this reason, some
people have said that all men will be saved unto happiness. But the Bible does not teach that.
Some people are already in Hell. But, then, if human happiness were the final goal, then the
Arminian would be right in asserting that Gods purposes can be and will be frustrated. But
Gods purposes cannot be frustrated.
B. This objection can be viewed in another way, equally erroneous. Some have suggested that
even in heaven, the ultimate end is human happiness, not divine glory. But that would not be
true either. Even in heaven, divine glory is central. In fact, those in heaven are happy only
because of the glory of God. They shine in happiness because God has shone upon them in
joy. Angels rejoice now when someone is converted (Luke 15:7).Does not God Himself rejoice
also? Yes, most assuredly. In the end, we will rejoice because God reveals to us the glory of His
own joy. But it is vital to see that it is Gods glory that is central, not our happiness.
C. Another related objection concerns human glorification. It is true that believers in heaven will
be glorified. This is one of the links in the Golden Chain of Rom. 8:29-30, them He glorified. In
a later study we will discuss the destiny of the elect relative to glorification. But at this point we
need to mention that even human glorification is not the bottom line or the final end. God
glorifies His people as a means to glorifying Himself.
D. Still another difficulty with this objection relates to history and the Bible. What is the main
purpose of holy history? What is the main message of the Bible? Some think that it is the
salvation of man. No, it is not. The main message of the Bible is the glory of God. And the Bible
tells how God has been working in history to this end. Theologically, we say that the ultimate
end is doxological and not soteriological.
E. Moreover, both the current and the future universe is theocentric, notanthrocentric. Creation
centers around God, not man. Our responsibility is to live lives in conformity to His revealed will,
thereby giving Him glory.
F. Then there is another objection: Only those in heaven will glorify God. This too is built on
the mistaken notion that the universe is man-centered. The truth is, those in hell will also glorify
God. This is hard to see. It is easier to see how those in heaven glorify God than it is to see that
those in hell glorify God also. But the truth is that both give glory to God, but in different ways,
for they are in different places. Much more will be said about this when we discuss the doctrine
of reprobation.
G. And then there is yet another objection. It runs like this: If the ultimate end is the glory of
God, then that makes God selfish. The argument assumes that all selfishness is wrong. In
humans it certainly is wrong, so they conclude that it would be wrong in God. To suggest that
God is selfish
and does all things for Himself is, to them, to suggest that God is the ultimate egomaniac. Some
have even contended that this would make God the devil. Consequently, some Arminians reject
divine glory as the ultimate end, somehow supposing that this makes God humbler and more
respectable. But others chose to reject the very existence of God, for such assumes He is
central.

266

H. But this objection is faulty to the core. It confuses God and man. O.I. Packer gives a good
refutation of this argument:
There is nothing morally dubious about this; if we allow that man can have no higher end than
the glory of God, how can we say anything different about God Himself? The idea that it is
somehow unworthy to represent God as aiming at His own glory in all that He does seems to
reflect a failure to remember that God and man are not on the same level... The reason why it
cannot be. right for man to live for himself, as if he were God, is simply the fact that he is not
God; and the reason why it cannot be wrong for God to seek His own glory is simply the fact
that He is God. Those who would not have God seek His glory in all things are really asking that
He should cease to be God. And there is no greater blasphemy than to will God out of
existence.

8. Christ logical Glory.

A. One last area needs to be mentioned, and it is essential to the bottom line. God will be
glorified through the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus spoke of this several times in the
Gospels, especially in John 13 and 17.
B. First, Jesus already had divine glory before He came to earth. He was already fully God. On
earth, He veiled that glory and showed it only a few times and only to a few of His disciples.
When He returns to heaven, He receives glory from His Father and is a means of giving the
Father glory.
C. Phil. 2:5-11 gives us more insight to this. Christ was God, then became a man. In becoming
man, He did not cease to be God. He simply became the unique God-Man. Moreover, He did
what nobody else had done or could do. He suffered and died for the sins of His people. For
this, the Father raised Him from death and gave Him a special honor - all men will bow to Christ
as Lord of all. Even the damned in Hell will bow to Christs lordship. But notice the bottom line of
this passage, verse 11: to the glory of God the Father.
D. It is on this basis that those in heaven sing praises to Christ, recorded in Rev. 5:12-13:
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and
honor and glory and blessing... To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing
and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.

9. Soli Deo Gloria.

A. The fifth of the 5 sola doctrines of the Reformation is the most important:Soli Deo gloria To God alone be the glory. We sing a popular hymn, Togo be the glory. Ultimately, all
creation will sing glory to God alone.
B. This little word soli is absolutely vital. Notice what is said in Isa. 42:8and 48:11, I am the
Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images... For
My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; for how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will
not give to another.
C. Lastly, as Rom. 11:36 says, this is the eternal end of all things. 2 Peter 3:18,To Him be the
glory, both now and to the day of eternity. 2 Tim. 4:18, To Him be the glory and the dominion
forever and ever. Amen.

267

Recommended Reading
Edwards, Jonathan. Dissertation on the End for Which God Created the World. This may be
found in vol. I of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, pp. 94-121. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (The
fullest and best Reformed discussion of the subject.)
Packer, J. I. The Plan of God. Choteau: Gospel Mission, (pamphlet)

268

Chapter 34. The Origin of Sin.

1. The Problem Stated.
A. Where did sin come from? There can be no doubt that sin exists, but where did it come
from? Deeper still, why does it exist? The question can be . summed up, Whence sin? This
immediately raises a troubling question, Is God the author of sin?
B. The matter of sin is the greatest difficulty in the relationship of divine sovereignty and human
responsibility. Calvinists assert that God is the first cause of all things. Does this include sin?
How could God create what He forbids? How could a holy God foreordain unholiness?
C. The problem can be seen as follows. There are three undeniable Biblical truths. We can
harmonize any two of them. Yet when we try to harmonize all three of them, we are faced with
the problem of the origin of sin. The three truths:
(1) God is holy. (2) God is omnipotent. (3) Sin exists.
D. Combining any two of these logically appears to negate the third. Observe:
(1) If God is holy, then He must desire to prevent sin. If He is omnipotent, He is able to
do what He wants. Logically, it would appear that He prevents sin. Yet, sin still exists.
(2) If God is holy and wants to prevent sin, and sin exists, then logically it would appear
that God could not prevent it. If so, He would not be omnipotent. But God is still
omnipotent.
(3) Sin exists. Nothing exists except according to the omnipotent creation of God. Since
God does what He wants to do, logically it would appear that God wills sin to exist and
therefore would not be holy. But He is still Holy.
E. Gordon Clark summed up the problem like this, assuming the existence of sin: If God is
good and wants to eliminate sin, but cannot, He is not omnipotent; but if God is omnipotent and
can eliminate sin, but does not, He is not good. God cannot be both omnipotent and good.
F. This is one of the greatest problems in both theology and philosophy. There have been all
sorts of answers suggested. Some even say there is no answer. Most answers tend in one of
two equal but opposite directions, both wrong: God had absolutely nothing to do with the origin
of sin; God had absolutely everything to do with the origin of sin because He is an evil God. We
must avoid both extremes and see where the Biblical truth lies between them.
G. The question is a problem for all men, especially Christians. Calvinistic Christians face
special difficulties. Yet when all the theories and facts are investigated, the Reformed answer is
by far the best and alone does justice to the Biblical data. What then is the Reformed answer to
the question, Whence sin?

2. God is not the Positive Author of Sin.

A. To begin with, we must be fully assured that God is not the blameworthy author of sin. All
the Reformed confessions assert this in no uncertain terms. Scripture explicitly asserts the
holiness of God: Far be it from God to do wickedness, and from the Almighty to do wrong (Job
34:10); Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? (Gen. 18:25); All His ways are right

269

(Deut. 32:4); Surely God will not act wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice (Job
34:12). I John 2:16 explicitly says, all that is in the world [lust and pride] is not from the Father,
but is from the world. And James 1:13 says, God cannot be tempted by evil and He Himself
does not tempt anyone.
B To make God the author of sin is as great a blasphemy as can be conceived or uttered. One
atheistic philosopher looked around at the worlds sin and chirped, If God exists, then He is the
Devil. But whatever else is true regarding sins origin, we know it did not arise from within the
holy God.
C. Moreover, it is important to remember that God did not create Man or Satan as sinful beings.
They were created holy and, for whatever reasons, they fell into sin. If God created them sinful,
then God would be blameworthy to some extent. Furthermore, God did not force them to sin.
God did not make Adam sin against his will.
D. One more thing. We must be careful not to picture God as morally indifferent in the matter of
sin. Some do just that. They misuse the text that says, Darkness and light are alike to Thee
(Psa. 139:12). In context, this means that God can see in both day and night. He is light and has
no darkness (I John1: 5). He hates sin. He is positively holy, not morally neutral.

3. Is Satan the Author of Sin?

A. Adam and Eve were the first humans and also the first humans to sin. There is great
difficulty in seeing how sinless beings could sin. But they were not the very first beings to sin.
Satan sinned before they did. This is a logical necessity from the Genesis 3 account. Only a
sinful being could have tempted them. Rom. 5:12 says, By one man sin entered into the world,
and the implication is that sin already existed.
B. But this only pushes the problem back in time. God did not create Satan evil. Satan tempted
Adam and Eve, but who tempted Satan? Satan is not eternal. How did sin arise in Satans
heart? Scripture would teach that Satan was the first being ever to sin. But how? And when?
C. The fall of Satan is taught explicitly and implicitly in several passages (Isa. 14:12-20, Ezek.
28:11-19, Luke 10:18, Rev. 12:7-12, Jude 6, 2 Pet. 2:4,Matt. 25:41). I Tim. 3:6 strongly implies
that pride was the sin that transformed the holy angel Lucifer into the evil devil Satan. We do not
know exactly when this occurred. It was not eternal, for Satan is a temporal creature. I John 3:8
says, the devil has sinned from the beginning, and theologians usually take this to mean from
the beginning of creation. Some say this was early in the first week of Gen. 1, perhaps shortly
before Adam and Eve. Others say Gen. 1-2 deal only with the visible universe, and the creation
and fall of Satan in the invisible universe may have preceded Gen. 1 by a long time. This does
not affect the problem.
D. In any case, Satan sinned first. But how? And why? There is no indication that somebody
else tempted him, for nobody else was sinful. What, then, was Gods part in this? To understand
it properly, we must go back to divine sovereignty.

4. Divine Foreordination.
A. We have already established from many texts that God is the first cause of all things. For
example, Rom. 11:36, From Him and through Him and to Him are all things God has
foreordained all things that come to pass. Sin comes to pass, so there must be a sense in which

270

God foreordained even the existence of sin. Before we ask how God did this, we must see that.
God did this.
B. Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 also show this. Note the following logic God foreordained even the
crucifixion of Christ. The crucifixion was the greatest sin possible -the murder of the Son of God.
Now if He foreordained the worst of all sins, then logically we cannot deny that He foreordained
all other sins, which are lesser in logic we call this the Argument from the Greater to the
Lesser. Paul uses -it in Rom. 8:32. If God gave us Christ the greatest of gifts, will He not with
Him give us all lesser gifts? So, God foreordained sins in some sense.
C. At this point something must be said about Isaiah 45:7. It has been variously translated:
The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am
the Lord who does all these things. The problem is in the translation of the Hebrew word RA
here. It is an extremely common word in Hebrew referring to several basic concepts. In this
verse it has been translated evil (KOV), woe (RSV), disaster (NIV). Interpretations fall into 2
categories: (1) Moral evil, viz, that God somehow is the origin of evil, by creation and
foreordination; and (2) providential calamity, such as tragedy and harmful circumstances. RA
could mean either.
D. In the next study we will examine how God is involved in tragedy through providence. But at
this point it should be observed that this relates to our present problem. If God is involved in
temporal evil circumstances, and Heroes nothing in time that was not planned in eternity, then
Isaiah 45:7does teach that in some sense God created evil. But how? And what is sin?

5. Augustines Theory.
A. Augustine was one of the first Christian theologians to wrestle with the problem. He put forth
a theory that is still popular today. He argued like this: All things are good by virtue of Creation
(Gen. 1:31). Evil is not good. Therefore evil is not a thing. Sin does not have a substance. It is
not a thing-in-itself. Rather, sin is a negation, a shadow, a moral vacuum. Sin is a defect, not
an effect. It cannot exist of itself, but only in beings capable of morality. If God created Satan
and Man moral beings, then this meant the possibility of their choosing the moral nothingness of
evil.
B. Augustine continued. God is the cause of all things. But sin is not a thing. Therefore God is
not the cause of sin. Sin has no cause. Hence, God is not the author of sin. Sin just somehow
is.
C. Calvinists accept that sin is not a thing in the sense that good is. But they disagree on
Augustines insistence that it is a negation without substance. Good doesnt exist by itself either,
but only in moral beings. Augustine almost borders on denying that sin exists, or almost gives it
a self-existence. Still, he is right to assert that it does not come directly from God.

6. God Permitted Sin to Come into Existence.

A. The truth is that nothing exists without divine foreordination, including sin. Does this make
God the author of sin? Jonathan Edwards has some very helpful insights here on the term. If
by author one means promoter or executor of evil according to evil motives and arising from
an evil nature, then obviously God is not the author of evil. But if one means author in the
sense of creator in a way in which it does not arise from either evil motives or evil nature, but

271

only out of sovereign foreordination and creation, then yes, there is a sense in which it could be
true that God is the author of sin. However, Edwards preferred not to use the loaded term
author of sin. Moreover, it boils down to what is meant when Calvinists say In some sense
God foreordained sin. What is this sense?
B. First, there is no dispute that God presently allows sin to exist. He certainly does not approve
of it. He either forgives or condemns sinners, but in neither case does He approve of it. Now, we
need to deduce from this the corresponding eternal decree. If God now permits it without
approving of it, then He certainly decreed to permit it without approving it.
C. This immediately throws us back on the horns of the dilemma of the paradoxical relationship
of the Secret and Revealed Will(s) of God. Clearly He forbids sin in the Revealed Will. But it is
also clear that He permits it in the Secret Will. He is not author of sin in the temporal Revealed
Will, but in some sense is author in the eternal Secret Will.
D. The Reformed answer goes further still. It regards the nature of the Secret Will. It can be
divided into two aspects: the positive and the negative, or the active and the passive, approval
and permission. Some add the terms effective and defective, following Augustine. Now follow
this closely. In the positive, God actively approves and effects good for He Himself is good. But
in the negative, He passively permits that which does not reflect what He is, such as sin. The
positive reflects His nature, whereas the negative is a reverse image, or a defective image.
E. Hence, God actively ordains good, but passively permits sin. Active foreordination reflects
His being. But passive only shows His being in reverse. Some suggest that God created good
out of Himself, but created evil by permissio ex nihilo, or permission out of nothing.
F. The following analogy might be useful. In the Fall, God did not throw Man down. Rather, He
simply withdrew sustaining power and so allowed Man to fall. If God had thrown Man down, He
would be the positive author of evil (God forbid).But God forces no man to sin, nor even Satan.
Man falls under his own weight-God created Man, Mans weight, and even this law of moral
gravity. But God did not throw Man or Satan down. He simply permitted Man to fall. And he fell.
G. William Tucker, an early 19th-century Calvinist, gave another insight to all this: Whatever
was the first cause or occasion of sin, it must be entirely free from the fault or blame; for, if fault
of blame was in the cause, sin must be in, and then this flagrant contradiction must follow, that
sin was before it was. But this was impossible. And, therefore, God may be the first cause or
occasion of sin, and yet be absolutely free from the fault or blame. This fits the Biblical data
with inescapable logic.
H. Hence, Gods permission of sin is not the same as approval of sin. God is holy; He
disapproves of sin. But He is also sovereign; He permits sin. Here we part with others who say
that the holiness of God demands all destruction of sin, and hence, non-creation of it. This is a
presupposition that needs to be challenged. Gordon Clark challenged it: There is no law,
superior to God, which forbids Him to decree sinful acts. John Gill put it like this: We, as
creatures, are bound to hinder all the evil we can; but God is under no such obligation. It is
quite true that because of divine holiness, God must punish sin . But this does not mean He
must prevent it. He can, but as we shall see in the next study, He does not have to do so.
I. Charles Hodge summed it up well: God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what
He forbids. He may, as we see He does, decree to permit what He forbids. He permits men to
sin, although sin is forbidden.

7. Why Did God Decree to Permit Sin to Exist?

272

A. Thus far we have said a little about the that of divine foreordination, and also a little about
the how. Now we need to talk about the why. Why did God foreordain to permit sin to exist?
B. First and foremost we need to recall that whatever God foreordains, He foreordains for His
own glory (Rom. 11:36). Therefore, God foreordained the existence of sin, in some sense, to
show forth His glory. God did not need to do so, but chose to do so to reveal and receive
maximum glory. In other words, somehow God reveals and receives more glory by allowing the
existence of sin than by not allowing it. Its existence glorifies God in a way that its non-existence
could not.
C. Now, remember that the glory of God has to do with the revelation of God as He is. He
foreordains so that He may show Himself to something outside of Himself, namely, the Creation.
William G.T. Shedd commented, The reason for the permission of sin was the manifestation of
certain Divine attributes which could not have been manifested otherwise. He then added, The
position that sin is necessary to the best possible universe is objectionable, unless by the best
possible universe be meant the universe best adapted to manifest the Divine attributes.
D. In a nutshell, this means that without sin there could be no revelation of divine grace or
wrath. Let me explain. Rom. 4:15 says that there is no sin without Law. Similarly, there can be
no grace or wrath without sin. Take grace. God could have love for the elect without the
existence of sin, as He did with the unfallen angels. God can and does love unfallen creatures.
But grace goes further than love. Grace is love for sinful beings. Where sin abounds, grace
much more abounds. So, the existence of sin was necessary for the revelation of the glory of
Gods grace. Eph. 1:6, to the praise of the glory of His grace.
E. The same is true with divine wrath. God is intrinsically holy, and could gloriously reveal that
holiness to Himself and the unfallen angels, even to Adam and Eve before they fell. But divine
wrath is greater. Wrath is Gods angry holiness, or holiness in contact with sin. Hence, the
existence of sin was necessary for this amplification for maximum glory.
F. This is very important for us to grasp to have a fuller understanding of both election and
reprobation, which will be studied in later lessons.

8. Some False Theories Exploded.

A. Evil is an equal but opposite force. This theory goes back to Zoroastrianism and lies behind
most Eastern religions. It is behind the Buddhist idea of Yin and Yang. It is behind the Gnostic
idea of 2 eternal gods, the evil one being the Demiurge. It was taught by Manicheanism, out of
which Augustine was converted. It is popular today in the New Age Movement, as in the two
sides of The Force of Star wars. But it is not Biblical. Evil is not eternal; only God is eternal.
This theory sometimes suggests that Satan is eternal, but he is not. Satan is not an eternal
anti-god.
B. Evil is necessary. Sin just is. This is a curious twist of the old Deist argument against
Calvinistic absolute foreordination, namely, Things just are. One might call it, The immoral
nature and unfitness of things. This theory is fundamentally wrong because it makes evil
necessary. But God alones necessary and self-existent. It further would posit something higher
than God - a law that sin must exist whether God wants it or not. Nonsense. Necessary evil is
a contradiction. If it is necessary, it is not evil; and if it is evil, it is not necessary. This has
practical implications, too.
C Man is the sole author of sin. True, Man is to be blamed. He cannot blame another. But it
fails to answer the question where sin came from before Man. The same applies to Satan being

273

the sole author of sin.

D. Sin itself is a real good. This was the theory of Stoicism. But it is wrong. Sin is of itself, by
definition, not good.
E. God is all. God is good. Therefore, all is good. Sin is not good, therefore sin does not exist.
This is the silly theory of Christian Science and secular humanism in certain strains. But of
course, it is wrong because God is not everything. The Bible does not teach pantheism.
F. Sin exists. Therefore there is no God. This is more blatantly secular humanism of the street
corner variety. But God does exist. So does sin.
G. Nobody knows. The question does not have an answer. This is half right and half wrong.
First, we grant that there is still much mystery to it all. God has not revealed all the answers, nor
even enough data from which we can deduce all the answers. Yet, He has revealed some
things about the question, including some data from which we can deduce other principles. We
may not know it all, but we do know certain things for sure.

9. Some Final Cautions.

1. First, we cannot blame God. Rom. 9 is quite clear on this. Because we are sinners, we have
the irresistible proclivity to try to exonerate ourselves by shifting the blame onto others. Adam
blamed Eve, Eve blamed Satan, and doubtlessly Satan blamed God. We simply cannot blame
God, for that is blasphemy. We have no one to blame except ourselves. Gill remarked, the
same decree which permits sin, provides for the punishment of it. Be careful lest you blame
God and finally discover that you were foreordained to be punished for blaming God for your
sin.
2. G.C. Berkouwer suggests that the very question is inappropriate. He says that the very
question is a subtle attempt to shift the blame. This is often the case. But historic Calvinists
deny his further implications. Berkouwer said this in the context of minimizing the great truth that
God has eternally and unconditionally foreordained all that comes to pass. Finally, Christians especially Calvinistic Christians - can take encouragement in the midst of this deep problem.
First, we can be assured that God knows
3. It is sufficient know also there is the final answer. No doubt He will reveal it to His elect in
Heaven. Second, we know that it will finally redound to the glory of God. And third, God
overrules it for good in His people. As J.C. Philpot said, for us to know that sin is, and that it is a
blessing to a cure for it.
Recommended Reading
Berkouwer, G.C. Sin PP. 1-148. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Augustine. Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil. In The Fathers of the Church, vol. 5, pp.
229-332. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.
Clark, Gordon. Religion, Reason and Revelation. PP. 194-241. Jefferson: Trinity Foundation.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. I, pp. 75-81, 217-220. Carlisle:
Banner of Truth.
Feinberg, John. Theologies and Evil. Lanham: University Press of America: Hughes, Philip
Edgcomb. The True Image, pp. 73-111. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

274

Boettner, Lorraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 228-253. Phillipsburg:

Presbyterian and Reformed.
Lloyd-Jones,. D. Martyn. The Christian Warfare, pp. 66-78. Grand Rapids: Baker. Berkhof,
Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 78, 174-175, 219-226. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

275

Chapter 35. Providence and the Problem

of Evil.
1. Introduction.
A. In the last study we discussed the origin of sin. This logically leads to what is called the
problem of evil. The two questions are related. In throne, we wrestle with how a holy and
omnipotent God could allow sin to come into existence; in the other, how this same God
continues to allow evil and tragedy continue.
B. The first problem dealt with eternity, the second deals with time. The first dealt with
predestination, the second with providence. So, the question is, How does a loving, holy and
omnipotent God deal with evil and tragedy through providence? How do Calvinists answer this
question?
C. Let us deal with this under two categories of evil. The first is moral evil, or sin. The second,
is natural evil, or tragedy. The two are related to each other and, as we shall see, Gods
providence has a hand in both.

2. Providence and Temptation.

A. In the last study, we saw that God cannot be blamed for sin - He is not the author of evil.
But it was equally true that God foreordained the existence of sin in a blameless manner for His
own glory - He permitted sin to exist. Now this is the paradigm for providence and temptation.
Simply put, what God does in time through providence is a reflection of what He did in eternity
through predestination. That is, God now permits sin but He does not tempt us to sin.
B. James 1:12-14 is the crucial passage on Gods involvement in the question of temptation. In
vs. 12, James tells us that there is a blessing for the person who passes the test of his faith.
Thats what trials are for. This is critical to grasp for the context of the question of
temptation.
C. Then in vs. 13 James states two vital truths: (1) God cannot be tempted, (2)God Himself
does not tempt anyone. First, God cannot be tempted to sin. He is impeccable - He cannot sin.
Temptations are ineffectual on God. Men and devils always fail to persuade God to sin. But, we
ask, when do we tempt God? Remember the context! We attempt to tempt God when we are in
a trial. We fail the test because we do not have faith, and being without faith we look for
excuses. One of them is to blame God - God tempted me. The other is to try to get God to
change the rules of the trial. That is tempting God to do something in a less-than-holy way.
D. Then James says that God Himself does not tempt anyone. To some this is a
contradiction, for the words test and tempt are the same in Greek and Hebrew. Did not God
tempt or test Abraham (Gen. 22:1, Heb. 11:17)?How do we answer this problem? The
answer is in the text: God Himself does not tempt anyone. God does not tempt anyone
directly. He never commands sin, solicits iniquity, directs into wickedness. He is holy and cannot
do so.
E. But the sovereign God is in control of providence and all creatures. Hence, He uses Second
Causes or means to carry out His purposes. In other words, God Himself does not tempt; He

276

simply allows others to do the tempting. He sovereignly allows Satan and the world and our
sinful natures do the tempting. That is their nature. God simply uses those natures, while His
nature remains holy. And in this way He tests us to see what is in us (Deut, 8:2). God tests us
by sovereignly permitting us to be tempted.
F. We see this illustrated in two cases in Scripture. First, 2 Sam. 24:1 says, The anger of the
Lord was kindled against Israel and He moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel
and Judah (KJV). The parallel account in I Chron. 21:1 says, And Satan stood up against
Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. Now some translation! render the first, it incited
David, and others suggest that the he is really Satan. Not so, for Satan is not even
mentioned. No, God incited David. But how? Not directly, for God does not tempt to evil. God
was testing David. So God let Satan tempt David to do evil. David lacked faith at this moment
and succumbed to temptation. He failed the test. Our point is that God used Satan to do the
tempting.
G. The second case is more well known. Matt. 4:1 says, Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit
into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil. Mark 1:12 is more direct: the Spirit impelled
Him. The Father and the Spirit were testing Jesus. But neither the Father nor the Spirit tempted
Jesus. They simply allowed Jesus to be tempted by Satan. The Son of David passed the test.
He had faith. The way to pass Gods tests is by faith, which quench Satans temptations (cf.
Eph. 6:16).
H. Shortly after this incident, Jesus taught the disciples a model prayer in which they were to
pray, Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Literally, the term is the evil
one, or Satan. God can sovereignly lead us to be tempted by Satan without being to blame. He
can equally prevent us from succumbing to those temptations.

3. Concurrence with Moral Evil.

A. This logically raises the question of Gods, involvement when we fail the test. How does God
providentially influence the human will so that it sins, yet God does not force it to sin? Let us
recall what was said in our study of providence. You may recall that we stressed that God is the
First Cause of all things. But He also uses Second Causes. Sin is a Second Cause. Satan and
our sinful natures are Second Causes. Hence, God guarantees a certain result, but the cue ball
does not touch the eight ball. Theologically, we say that God is the sufficient cause of sin but
not the efficient cause.
B. Remember that God ordains sin differently than He does good. Similarly, when we do good,
it can be said that God is doing good through us (cf.Phil. 1:6, 2:13). But when we sin, it cannot
be said that God is sinning through us. Actually it is quite the reverse - He is sovereignly
permitting us to fall. He simply leaves us to ourselves.
C. God can restrain from sin. Gen. 20:6, I also kept you from sinning against me. Yet God is
under no compulsion to keep any or all of us from sinning against Him. He was under no
compulsion to prevent sins origin; He is under no compulsion in time to prevent sins
commission. Just as He sovereignly permitted sin to enter, so He sovereignly - and justly permits sin to continue by withdrawing His strong arm that alone can prevent sin. Acts17:16,
And in the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own way. He was
sovereign and holy; they were responsible and guilty.
D. Then there is the incident of Joseph and his brothers. According to Gen. 50:20, Joseph said,
You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good. (cf.45:5-8). God overrules sinful actions

277

as well. God allowed the brothers to do evil in order that He might overrule them.
E. Isa. 10:5-7 is another case. Assyria is called Gods rod. He uses it to carry out His purpose.
Yet the Assyrian has wicked motives. In 2 Sam. 16:10-11,David realizes that God has
sovereignly allowed Shimei to curse him. Surely Shimei had wicked motives, but God permitted
it for other purposes.
F. Then there is the greatest sin of all time - the murder of Jesus Christ. God planned it in
eternity. Through providence, He permitted certain persons to fall into sin in such a way that
they would crucify Christ. Judas betrayed Christ because it had been foreordained, and God
gave Judas over to do this. Yet Judas was guilty, not God (see Luke 22:22). Pilate and the Jews
murdered Christ, yet this was foreordained in eternity and permitted by providence. Yet they, not
God, were guilty. See Acts 2:23, 4:27-28, Isa. 53:10.
G. A last example is Rev. 17:17, God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by
having a common purpose and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God
should be fulfilled. They did evil, but only because it had been foreordained in eternity and
providentially permitted. Yet God did not sin through them. One theological formula explains it
like this: God provides the matter of sin but not the form.

4. The Case of Job.

A. The case of Job illustrates Gods method in both moral evil and natural evil. Job 1 and 2
clearly teach that God was testing Job through Satan. God tested, Satan tempted. God did not
tempt Job, nor did He sin through Job. Rather, God permitted Satan to do the tempting and
sinning. Satan was a second cause which God employed. Augustine commented, God wills
with a good will that which Satan wills with an evil will.
B. For all his wickedness, Satan is still Gods devil. God has him on a leash to lead him or
hinder him. David S. Clark noted, Satan could go no farther with Job than God permitted; but it
is certain that he would go as far as God allowed. Job saw the evil in the tragedies and his
wifes temptations, but he also saw the hand of God in them all (2:10).

5. The Problem of Natural Evil.

A. This logically leads us to the second kind of evil, namely, natural evil. This may be defined
as circumstantial tragedies, harmful situations or events. The problem is this: How can a good
God let them happen?
B. We can immediately disregard the suggestion that God has nothing to do with these events.
There is not a single event that occurs that does not happen through the foreordaination and
providence of God. Amos 3:6, If a calamity occurs in a city, has not the Lord done it?
C. God allows airplanes to crash. He allows earthquakes and hurricanes. He is behind all
natural disasters. Jer. 32:42, I brought all this disaster on this people. He can stop storms
(John 6) or permit them. He can quell earthquakes or allow them to decimate whole cities.
D. Does this mean that the lack of tragedy implies Gods favor? No. Luke 13:1-3is quite clear
on this. God may sovereignly send disasters as partial punishment. When he does, it is a clear
sign of judgment. But then He does not always punish sin through providence. Not all moral evil
is punished by providence with natural evil. Conversely, not all tragedies are due to a specific

278

sin (John 9:3).

6. The Problem of Pain.

A. In 1981, Rabbi Harold Kushner wrote a best-selling book entitled, When Bad Things Happen
to Good People. He advocated the popular view that all men are good and hence nobody
deserves bad things. Since bad things do in fact happen, he concludes that God could not have
prevented them. How do we reply?
B. The Reformed answer takes several stages. First, we do not give the answer of Jobs friends
that all affliction and tragedy is due to sin. In other words, the Bible does not say that all natural
evil is due to specific moral evil. Natural evil results in pain. But pain is not always a specific
punishment. For example, God has created our bodies so that certain pains are warnings of
greater pains. Hence, some pains are really mercies. If we did not have the lesser pains, then
we would certainly have the greater pains.
C. Then there are the afflictions that Gods saints suffer. Some are due to sin, but not all. Some
are blessings in disguise. Any saint who has been truly broken yet still believes in His redeemer
in the midst of it all knows this. Afflictions are frequently the tray on which God delivers some of
His choicest blessings of goodness and love.
D. On the other hand, it is equally true that God sometimes uses providence to chasten His
people through tragedy and pain. These sting and hurt and mince. They are meant to. But they
are also meant to do us good. So, we see the hand of Gods providence in natural evil for His
people for good (Rom.8:28).
E. But what about the rest of mankind? Why do bad things happen to good people? The simple
answer is that There is no one good except God. There are no good people. Even Christians
are not good people. When bad things happen to them, by faith they can recognize that these
are blessings or chastenings.They also know that afflictions may be chastenings, but they are
never punishments. A believer will not, cannot be punished for his sins. Why? Because Christ
has already been punished for those sins.
F. So, what about the problem of pain with the rest of the world? The diagnosis is all wrong. In
reality, there is no problem of pain for Man. Rather, it is a problem of pleasure. Among the
several replies to Rabbi Kushners book was a little essay by John Gerstner, a Calvinist. All
Bible-believers will agree with Gerstner against Kushner. It is entitled, The Problem of Pleasure.
G. First, Gerstner shows that bad things do in fact occur. But then he shows that there are no
good people. All are sinners and, therefore, deserve punishment. Punishment by definition
requires pain, therefore all men deserve pain. Why do bad things happen to bad people?
Because they deserve it. That much is patently obvious.
H. The real problem is, not why is there so much pain in the world of good people, but why is
there so much pleasure in a world filled with evil sinners? God is holy and God is omnipotent.
Why then has not God punished all men with pain? Why do the wicked apparently prosper?
That is the real problem.
I. This is the problem of Hab. 1:13, Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst
not look on wickedness with favor. Why dost thou look with favor on those who deal
treacherously? Why art Thou silent when the wicked swallow up those more righteous than
they? Why has not God punished them? Why do the wicked appear to get off scot free, when
Gods saints suffer? it. just doesnt seem fair.

279

J. But that is not the end of the story. The truth is sinners do not receive all their punishment in
this life. Some receive some punishment, most receive very little. But all moral evil must be
punished, by natural evil in part but in the next life in full.
K. But sinners think they do not deserve pain. That is why they formulate the so-called problem
of pain and write anti-God books like Kushners. Gerstner has an insightful analysis:
What irony that sinners consider the greatest problem they face in this world the
problem of pain.. The ultimate insult against God is that man thinks he has a problem of
pain. Man, who deserves to be plunged into Hell at this moment, and is indescribably
fortunate that he is breathing normally, complains about unhappiness. Instead of falling
on his knees in profoundest possible gratitude that God holds back His wrath and infinite
fury, the sinner shakes his fist in heavens face and complains against what he calls
pain. When he receives his due, he will look back on his present condition as
paradisiacal. What he now calls misery, he will then consider exquisite pleasure. The
most severe torment anyone has ever known in this life will seem like heaven in
comparison with one moment of the full fury of the divine Being. The most foolish thing a
human being ever says is that the only Hell there is, is in this world. The truth of the
matter is that, for that person, the only heaven there is, is in this world.
L. What is the answer to the problem of pleasure for the wicked? Why does God allow them to
seemingly prosper in temporary pleasure? Gerstner gives two reasons. First, unrepentant
sinners are being fattened up for the slaughter. They will receive their full rewards one day in
the next life. God is now providentially filling them with bounties so that they will have less
excuse and more sin. Second, He is providentially blessing them so as to give them further
opportunities to thank Him and believe the Gospel unto salvation (cf. Rom. 2:4). Every day of
pleasure on earth is another day in which they may repent. Gerstner is right, and his answer is
thoroughly Reformed and Biblical. This has great implications for the doctrine of reprobation.

7. Theodicy.
A. In light of natural evil, how do we defend God? Got fried Leibniz, not at all a Calvinist, coined
the term theodicy, that is, an attempt to justify the ways of God to Man regarding things such as
natural evil. His answer is still very popular 200 years later. Basically, Leibniz argued that evil
must exist in a universe to show the glories of the good. If there is good, there must be -bad.
God allows both. Yet Leibniz wavered greatly on the sovereignty of God, and his successors
have gone further and denied that God is sovereign. The way to defend God, they suggest, is to
argue that God cannot stop natural or moral evil. Some defense! Leibniz also said that because
God is perfect, His Creation must be the best one possible. This is the one that exists, therefore
natural evil is a necessity.
B. Calvinists reject this popular theodicy. Its very presuppositions are in error. First, we do not
have to defend God. God defends Himself. We need give only some of the answers of
Scripture. Yet deeper still is the real problem. To defend God assumes that Man is accusing
God. But the sovereign Lord of the universe will not be put on trial. Man is tested and tried by
God, not vice-versa. God tests by allowing men to be tempted. But when Man tests God, he
tempts God and provokes Him to wrath.
C. God does not have to explain His actions. He doesnt need our protection. How does He
respond to the attacks of those who would point to moral and natural evil to accuse God or deny
His existence? God simply assumes the role of Judge, not Defendant. He accuses Man, Who
art thou, 0 Man, that replies against God? (Rom. 9:20. Cf. vs. 14). But He stoops to give the

280

following truths which assert His sovereignty and Mans responsibility:

(1) God is sovereign and omnipotent. He permits moral and natural evil.
(2) God is holy. He cannot be blamed for providentially permitting evil.
(3) Man alone is responsible for his own sin.
(4) God is good. He gives grace to forgive sinners and comfort those in natural evil. Both types
of evil further Gods glory. He will punish all evil and vindicate His people. God will be glorified in
the end.

Recommended Reading
Gerstner, John. The Problem of Pleasure. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Berkouwer,
G.C. The Providence of God, pp. 251-294. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Feinberg, John S.
Theologies and Evil. Lanham: University Press of America. Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain.
New York: MacMillan. Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. Faith Tried and Triumphant. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House.
Augustine. Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil. In The Fathers of the Church, vol. 5, pp.
229-332. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.
Schaeffer, Edith. Affliction. Old Tappan: Fleming Revell.

281

Chapter 36. Original Sin.

1. Introduction.
A. Original sin. The very term is foreboding, and to many it conjures up dark images from
outmoded ideas of sin. There is much confusion over what Original Sin really is, just as there
has been endless controversy over its precise implications. In this study we will give only the
briefest outline of the subject.
B. To be sure, the term is never found in the Bible. But the concept is. In theology, the term
Adamic Sin is sometimes used as a synonym. Now Original sin does not specific all refer to the
origin of sin per se. As we saw in an earlier study, sin did not originate from Man. Nor does the
term refer only to Adams first sin. Actually, it refers to Adams sin as it affects all his
descendants. His first sin is also our first sin.
C. Controversial as it has been throughout church history, the doctrine of Original Sin has been
accepted by the great majority of theologians. The first major challenge came from Pelagius,
who strongly rejected and opposed it. Semi-Pelagians and Arminians accept it with great
modifications. Liberalism usually rejects it. Neo-Orthodoxy greatly re-interprets it. Roman
Catholicism has always taught it. Historic Lutheranism has had a strong doctrine of Original Sin,
and historic Calvinism has had the strongest and most Biblical doctrine of all.
D. Thus far in this series we have touched on Original. Sin a few times, mainly in the historical
section. We discussed at length several aspects of divine sovereignty. Mow as we move deeper
into human responsibility, we examine the depths of human depravity. Total Depravity is the
first of the five points of Calvinism, but one must first understand the Reformed doctrine of
Original Sin before he can grasp what we mean by Total Depravity.

2. The Nature of Original Sin.

A. Eph. 2:3 says that before our conversions we were by nature children of wrath.Vs. 1
described this as being dead in trespasses and sins. This is Original Sin - our fallen humanity.
It refers to what we are by nature, not just what we do by act. It refers to sin, not just sins. This
does not mean, of course, that God created Adam or us this way. No, human nature per se is
not sin. Yet since the Fall, all human nature has been indelibly permeated with Original Sin, like
red dye in water.
B. As we shall see, it affects all aspects of Man. It affects him physically and spiritually.
Basically, it is what Paul means by the term flesh in his letters. It is what Jesus meant when
He said, That which is born of the flesh is flesh. (John 3:6)
C. Roman Catholic theology tends to say that Original Sin is simply a negative absence of
righteousness. This is not to posit the Pelagian theory that Adam and his posterity appear as a
blank tablet, neither righteous nor unrighteous. Calvinism goes still further. We hold that Original
Sin is both the absence of holiness and the active predisposition to sin. It is not neutral.
D. Moreover, we go further than the Catholics, Arminians and Semi-Pelagians on another
crucial point. They posit that Original Sin is a bent to sin, but not the necessity to sin. They do
not say that Man is neutral, but they deny that Original Sin entails all loss of liberty. We,
however, teach that because of its very insidious nature, Original Sin guarantees acts of sin.

282

E. Still further, Reformed theology teaches that Original Sin is not merely inherited sin, but
imputed guilt. We reject the idea as self-contradictory that Man inherits sin but not its guilt, for
where sin is there must necessarily be guilt. And because sin brings death (Rom. 6:23), Original
Sin deserves death. Men are born spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1-3), and because of Original Sin all
men will physically die. In later lessons we will give special attention to two controversial effects
of Original Sin regarding human depravity, namely, spiritual death and moral inability.

3. Biblical Proofs for Original Sin.

A. The first proof is the unity of the human race. This is explicitly stated in Eph. 2:1-3. Acts
17:26 says, and He made from one [Adam], every nation of mankind to live on all the face of
the earth. Incidently, this alone is a deathblow to the theory of Evolution. All men are related to
each other. We may have differences (race, age, sex, intelligence, fingerprints, etc), but we are
all basically the same in nature. That nature is human and it is permeated with Original Sin. If
one has it, all have it.
B. The second proof is inherited nature. We all have the same nature because we all inherit it
from those before us. Eventually this gets back to Adam. Gen. 5:3. says, When Adam had lived
one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to
his image, and named him Seth. In other words, Seth was a little Adam, simply a reproduction
from the same nature. Adam had a sinful nature, and reproduced children with the exact same
sinful nature. Had Adam and Eve had children before the fall, those children would not have
had any sin. But Adam passed his sinful nature onto Seth, Cain and Abel, who in turn passed it
on to their children, their grandchildren, and so on to all of us. Again, Jesus said, That which is
born of the flesh is flesh (John 3:6). Job 14:4, Who can bring the clean out of the unclean? No
one!
C. The third proof is infant sinfulness. We may like to think of little infants as beautiful and
innocent, but Scripture clearly teaches that they are born with sinful natures. Gen. 8:21, the
intent of mans heart is evil from his youth. Psa. 5.8:3, The wicked are estranged from the
womb, these who speak lies go astray from birth. Isa. 48:8, You have been called a rebel from
birth. Pro. 22:15, Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child. Every honest and observant
parent knows this. Now, if all infants have sin, then it is patently obvious that they were all born
that way. And if they have sin, it follows that they have guilt. This is what we mean by Original
Sin.
D. The fourth proof is infant mortality. Jonathan Edwards developed this proof at great length.
Why do infants die? Some die at the hands of abortionists, others through infanticide. Others die
of afflictions and diseases, some through miscarriage, still others through the; mysterious and
medically unexplainable cause known as Crib Death. But they all die. Now follow Edwards
airtight argument closely. Whether by culpable homicide or natural means, infants die ultimately
because of sin. The wages of sin is death (Rom.6: 23). No sin, no death. If Adam had not
sinned, he never would have died. Indeed, he would still be alive today thousands of years later.
Consequently, the existence of death in infants proves that they have sin. [In a later study we
will examine the difficult question of infant salvation.]
E. The fifth proof is similar to the fourth, namely, universal mortality. Not all men die in infancy,
but all men do eventually die. Why? All die because all are sinners. Why are all sinners?
Because they all have sinful natures. Compare Rom. 3:23, 5:12 and 6:23. I Cor. 15:22 traces it
all back to Adam: In Adam all die. To cite the cases of Enoch and Elijah, who went to Heaven
without dying, or those Christians alive at the time of the Rapture (I Thess.4, I Cor. 15) is a futile

283

argument. All these are not sinless; they are simply forgiven sinners. That all men die is no
coincidence.
F. The sixth proof is universal actual sin. Contrary to Pelagius, Scripture clearly teaches that all
men everywhere are sinners (Rom. 3:10-23). But why? All men commit sin because they have
sinful natures. They are not sinful because they sin; they sin because they are sinful. Yet God
did not create us as sinners per se. The only possible explanation is Original Sin. We usually
posit two kinds of sin: Original Sin (nature) and Actual Sin (acts).That all men have the latter
proves the former. Some men have more Actual Sins than others, but all men have the same
amount of Original Sin.

4. How is Original Sin Transmitted?

A. Since it affects us both physically and spiritually, it touches on two very difficult problems.
First, where do human souls come from? Second, exactly how are human bodies formed in
conception? A third problem is also raised: how is Original Sin transmitted through the
production of human souls and bodies? There is much mystery in all this, but a few things can
be said.
B. Psa. 51:5, Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
David is not suggesting that his mother conceived him through an act of immorality. Normal
sexual relations in marriage are good. Rather, David is confessing his own sin and saying that
he has had it since conception. But this doesnt entirely answer the question of How?.
C. The Westminster Larger Catechism commented, Original sin is conveyed from our first
parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way
are conceived and born in sin. Since we inherit Adams sin and not Eves, there might be a clue
to the problem in the theory that Original Sin is transmitted through the father, not the mothers.
51:5, then, would mean that David received it through his mother only indirectly. Some
theologians think that Original Sin is mysteriously and biologically transmitted through the
fathers seed. Some make it mainly biological in nature, but that is a minority opinion.
D. Augustine had a strong doctrine of Original Sin and developed a curious theory at this
juncture. He said that just as Original Sin produces an inordinate desire for sensual pleasure, so
it is transmitted through the means of conception in this way. This is basically the Roman
Catholic viewpoint, with modifications. The precise term here is concupiscence, or inordinate
and selfish sensual pleasure. Augustine posited that all sexual relations (at least after the Fall)
necessarily involve concupiscence.
And concupiscence which produces reproduction necessarily transmits Original Sin. This theory
is not altogether popular with Calvinists. For one, it implies that all sexual relations are ipso facto
sinful, which Scripture does not teach (Heb. 13:4). Incidently, this theory lies behind
Romanisms insistence on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Had she ever had sexual relations
with Joseph, and then she would have become guilty of concupiscence. But Rome says she
had neither Original nor Actual Sin. However, Rome is wrong. Mary was a sinner (cf. Luke 1:47,
Rom. 3:23) and had other children, therefore had sexual relations with Joseph (Matt. 12:46-50).
E. There is another possible key here, namely, the Virgin Birth of Christ. Jesus did not have a
human father; therefore He did not inherit Original Sin (Luke 1:35). Jesus alone was without sin.
Mary had it, but did not transmit it to Jesus. Rome errs here as well. Rome says that Mary had
no Original Sin, or else she would have passed it on to Oesus, Therefore, certain Romanists
have invented the so-called Immaculate Conception. This does not refer to the Virgin Birth of

284

Jesus in Marys womb, which we accept, but the supposed conception of Mary in the womb of
her mother (whom Rome names St. Anne) in such a way that she did not inherit Original Sin.
This conception, we are told, was through human sexuality but in such a way that Original Sin
was not transmitted. But the theory is erroneous. For one, it isnt taught in Scripture. For
another, Mary had Original Sin. Moreover, it would transfer the real miracle of prevention of
Original Sin away from the Virgin Birth to another supposed miracle. Finally, it implies that sin is
transmitted through the mother rather than the father.

5. Mediate Imputation.
A. This leads us to another question. All who hold to Original Sin admit that we inherit Adams
fallen nature. But what about his guilt? If so, how? If not, why not? That is the question. There
are primarily two answers given by Calvinists.
B. The first theory is Mediate Imputation. This was basically the view of Augustine, the
Amyraldians, William G.T. Shedd, and, with some twists, Jonathan Edwards. In sum, it says that
we inherit Adams guilt because we inherit his nature. The tie-in is basically physical.
C. This is related to the theory known as Traducianism, also known as Realism. Where do
human souls come from? Traducianism says souls come from our parents in the same-way that
our bodies do - through reproduction. In other words, we were physically and spiritually in
Adam. When he sinned, we sinned in him.
D. One of Augustines major proofs of this was his acceptance of the Latin Vulgate of Rom.
5:12, which is there rendered, in whom all sinned rather than the Greek because all sinned.
Augustine taught that all men were corporately in Adam when he sinned. His sin was our sin.
E. This theory also makes much of. Heb. 7:9-10, where it says that Levi was in the loins of
Abraham. When Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, Levi was in him doing so as well. The
theory says that we receive both our bodies and souls from our parents, especially our fathers.
This does not mean that they lose something of themselves in the transfer. One illustration is
that of a single candle lighting many others from its one flame.

6. Immediate Imputation.
A. The other major theory on the means of transmission of Adams guilt is known as Immediate
Imputation. It seems to be held only by Calvinists, though not all Calvinists hold to it. It is the
theory of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, Charles Hodge, John Murray and
others.
B. The theory admits that we inherit a fallen nature from our parents and Adam. But the guilt is
transferred in a different manner, in such a way that it rather precedes the transmission of the
nature. The theory centers on the words immediate and imputation. First, immediate means
without mediation. Adams guilt is transmitted to us without the physical means. Second,
imputationmeans accounting as if, and is not to be equated with infusion. The theory of
Mediate Imputation implies guilt by infusion rather than true imputation.
C. Romans 5:12-21 is the key passage for Immediate Imputation. Paul teaches two heads of
peoples: Adam and Christ. Adam was a type of Christ (vs. 14). Thus, there are 3 imputations:
Adams sin is imputed to us, our sins are imputed to Christ, and Christs righteousness is
imputed to us. The Immediate theory stresses that in each case it is by strict imputation.

285

D. Just as we were not physically in Christ, so we were not physically in Adam. Here is where
the theory has problems. The truth is, we do share a certain relationship with Adam that is
physical. Hodge and others stress that we werenot physically in Christ. Granted. But Hodges
opponents pointed out that we were physically in Adam, and even the Westminster standards
admit this.
E. Then the Immediate theory adds that our sins were imputed to Christ; they were not infused
into Him. Only Edward Irving and a few extreme Low Calvinists have suggested that our fallen
nature was infused into Christ at the Cross. And then the immediate theory posits that
justification is by the imputation, not the infusion, of Christs righteousness. Critics reply that we
are justified by imputation and sanctified by infusion, so the idea of infusion is not absent
entirely in the relationship.
F. Those holding to Immediate Imputation usually hold to the so-called Creationist view of the
origin of the soul. This theory is not to be equated with the Ex Nihilo creation of Man in Gen. 1
as opposed to Evolution. In that sense, all Calvinists are Creationists. Specifically, however, the
term means something else here. It means that our souls are created instantaneously at the
point of conception. Hence, we do not inherit souls from our parents or Adam, only our bodies.
G. This theory also stresses Covenant Theology. It teaches that Adam was the Federal Head,
or representative, of his posterity. This was part of the Covenant of Works. When he fell and
incurred guilt, he incurred guilt for all those here presented. Actually, the Bible frequently
teaches that certain men were Federal representatives of their posterity (Canaan, Esau,
Abraham, etc).
H. Calvin added another argument to the question. Pelagius, he said, was wrong to say we
inherit Adams sin merely by imitation. What, asked Calvin, do we inherit Christs righteousness
by imitation? No, said Calvin, referring to Rom. 5. We receive Christs righteousness by
imputation, and therefore we inherit Adams sin and guilt by imputation, not imitation.

7. The Major Objection.

A. Probably the most popular objection to Original Sin is when Arminians appeal to Ezek.
18:20, The son will not bear the punishment for the fathers iniquity. It is high injustice, it is
argued, to punish the innocent for the sins of another, even if that guilty party were ones own
father. The doctrine of. Original Sin is just not fair. Moreover, we are told, those who believe in it
are simply trying to exonerate themselves by shifting the blame onto Adam.
B. Calvinists interpret this passage in various ways, but I follow the following line of
interpretation. The Arminians are doing exactly what the Jews were doing. The Jews wrongly reinterpreted both their ancestors and themselves in an attempt to exonerate themselves. In
Ezekiels day, they were being punished with captivity. So/ they argued, We are not the guilty
ones. Our fathers were. This captivity is not fair on us. But the truth is, the Jews in captivity had
not learned the lesson any more than their fathers had. They inherited their fathers guilt, sin
and same tendency. They were no different and were being rightly punished accordingly. They
were being punished for both their fathers sins and their own. God does not punish innocent
people.
C. Moreover, Calvinists do not believe in Original Sin in order to shift the blame. As a matter of
fact, those who hold to Original Sin have a lower view of themselves than those who do not.
This will be clearly demonstrated in subsequent studies. Conversely, those who weaken or deny
Original Sin invariably do so in order to lessen their own personal guilt and to polish up their

286

own sinful natures.

D. Lastly, Scripture teaches in Ezek. 18 and elsewhere that God does not punish the innocent.
But the same Bible also teaches t hat God visits the iniquity of parents onto their children, and
one way this is done is through the passage of Original Sin. See Ex. 20:5. If God does in fact do
this, then it cannot be unfair. And so the objection fades away.

8. Conclusion.
A. All men have Original Sin. But we can be thankful that there is a solution to it. Rome and
other churches teach that Original Sin is cleansed away and removed in baptism. That is not
what the Bible teaches. Others such as the Nazarenes say that it can be removed in a postconversional experience of entire. Sanctification. That too is wrong (I John 1:9). Calvinism
teaches that Original Sin is totally forgiven at the point of justification. Then Christs personal
principle of sanctification is infused, and through the new nature we have something to counter
the effects of Original Sin. Yet it still remains, and so we slip and fall. It will be with us to the day
we die.
B. But it will not always be with us. It will not be in us after we die and go to Heaven, nor will
Original Sin infect our resurrection bodies. The day will come when all traces of Original Sin will
be removed and banished forever.
Recommended Reading
Edwards, Jonathan. Original Sin. New Haven: Yale University Press. Also printed in The Works
of Jonathan Edwards, vol. I. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. The fullest and definitive Reformed
treatment of the subject.
Murray, John. The Imputation of Adams Sin. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Hodge,
Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. II, pp. 192-256. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Thornwell. James Henley. The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. I, pp. 301351, 515-568. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Berkouwer, G.C. Sin pp. 424-567. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Pink, A.W. Gleanings from the Scriptures, pp. 14-80. -Chicago: Moody Press.
Clark, Gordon. The Biblical Doctrine of Man, pp. 45-71. Jefferson: Trinity Foundation.
Storms, C. Samuel. Tragedy in Eden: Original Sin in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards.
Lanham: University Press of America.
Rigby, Paul. Original Sin in Augustines Confessions. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

287

Chapter 37. Total Depravity.

1. Introduction.
A. In the last study, we examined Original Sin. We inherited both the nature and guilt of Adams
sin, and from Original Sin springs all individual Actual Sins. But just how sinful is this fallen
nature? How much of Man does it affect? Is Man basically good with some weaknesses, evil
with some good, or what?
B. Obviously this is a vast subject, so we will only skim the surface. This we will do in several
lessons. This will cover the first of the Five Points of Calvinism, the T in the TULIP.

2. What Total Depravity is Not.

A. Universal Sinful ness. Among the several mistaken notions of what is meant by the term
total depravity is that of universal sinfulness. Scripture clearly teaches that all men are sinners
(Rom. 3:23), but the Reformed doctrine of total depravity means something further. It speaks of
the condition, not popularity, of sin. All men are sinful, yes, but all of the individual man is sinful
also.
B. Culpable Guilt. Being sinful, men deserve punishment. But that is the effect of depravity, not
the essence of it. Total Depravity means more than that.
C. Extreme Sinfulness. This mistaken notion suggests that only certain extreme sinners are
totally depraved. The rest are only partially depraved. Calvinism grants that some sins are
worse than others (John 19:11), and some sinners are worse than others (I Tim. 3:13). But Total
Depravity means that all men are totally depraved. Even the sinner with the fewest number of
sins is totally depraved.
D. Animalization. Some seem to think that when a person goes too far in sin, then he becomes
a non-moral being like the animals and, thus, is totally depraved. Scripture, however, does not
teach this. Men are still men when they sin. Moreover, even the worst of men still know that God
exists. Their consciences may be seared, but they still know God holds them accountable.
E. Demon Possession. The Bible clearly teaches the existence of demon-possession. But that
is not the same thing as Total Depravity. All men are totally depraved, but only a very few have
been demon-possessed.
F. Incapable of Salvation. Total Depravity means more than that Man cannot save himself.
Some Evangelicals think they believe in Total Depravity because they deny salvation by works.
But Calvinists go several steps further. Also, it does not mean the same thing as reprobation, or
non-election. Lastly, it does not mean utter hopelessness in the sense that a depraved man
cannot be saved. All men are totally depraved and without hope of themselves (Eph.2: 12), but
God has saved some of them. Total Depravity does not mean that even God cannot save them.

3. The Total Depravity of Human Nature.

A. By Total Depravity we mean mainly that the very nature of Man has been so affected by
Original Sin that every part of his being is affected by evil. Depravity totally affects, infects and

288

defects Man. There is not a single part of Man that has not been fatally infected by sin.
B. The Bible teaches that the nature of Man is evil. Jesus said, You who are evil (Matt. 7:11).
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated the question, Is Man basically good
or evil? But the Scriptures give only one answer: Man is basically evil. This nature is described
as evil, bad, corrupt, wicked, guilty, and sinful.
C. Han is worse than he thinks. He is worse than he wants to admit. This why they kick and
scream against the Reformed doctrine of Totally Depravity, because it exposes their sin. Only
God knows just how far this bottomless pit really is. Jer. 17:9, The heart is deceitful above all
things and desperately wicked. Who can know it? When someone denies Total Depravity in
doctrine, it is because he is denying that he himself is totally depraved, and he does this
because he j[s_ totally depraved. He has never plumbed the depths of his own depravity, nor
does he want to.
D. The depravity, which infects men, is the same, which infects Satan and the demons. Adam
got it from Satan and passed it on to us. Hence, Christ said, You are of your father the Devil,
and you want to do the desires of your father (John 8: 44). Men are sons of serpents (Matt.
3:7). Jonathan Edwards said that Man is half-animal and half-devil. Henry Mahan added that
there is enough evil in the heart of even the best of sinners to make another Devil.
E. From this deep cesspool of evil spring forth all deeds of evil. Because our nature is evil, our
deeds are evil. Jesus said that if the root is bad, the fruit would be bad (Matt. 7:16-18, 12:33).
Thus, this sin spreads. It not only boils over into overt words and acts, but it has spread into all
parts of our being. There is not a single part of Man that is untainted by sin. Rom. 3 states that
all men are sinful, but it also gives a close diagnosis of how sin has affected each man. Sin has
invaded our words, thoughts, feelings, bodies, consciences and memories.
F. Is there, then, no good in man at all? No, none at all. Rom. 7:18, I know that nothing good
dwells in me. Sin has spread throughout our beings in such a way that it has forced out all
good. There is not so much as one speck of good in Man, any man, from the greatest to the
least. Granted, some are worse than others, but even those who are less sinful are still totally
depraved. This does not mean they have done some good; it only means they have done less
evil. Calvin once commented that men are not various shades of colors, or even of black and
gray and white. Rather, all men are just very slight shades of a very dark black.

4. Sinful Bodies.
A. First, sin has affected our bodies. We share humanity with Adam and Eve, but none of us
are exactly as they were before they fell. In fact, Adam and Eve underwent a drastic change in
their very bodies after they fell. Before the Fall, they had immortal bodies - bodies, which are not
affected by sin, will never die, for death is the outcome of sin (Rom. 6:23). Physical mortality,
illness, disease, weaknesses and the like can all be traced back ultimately to our fallen nature.
Only Christ had no sin, therefore only Christ had a perfect body.
B. Also, sin affects our bodies so that our bodily desires have become instruments of
wickedness. We sin with our bodies. Our bodies also are stirred to temptation. In one sense, sin
inhabits our very bodies. Paul discusses this in Rom. 7. In vs. 23 he speaks of sin in the
members of my body. In moral theology we use the term concupiscience to refer to the selfish
effects of sin, which causes the senses of our bodies to receive temptation and stir us to sin.

289

5. Depraved Emotions.
A. Sin has also infected our emotions, feelings and affections. We take pleasure in
unrighteousness (2 Thess. 2:12). Emotions can be good - they were in Adam and Eve before
the Fall, and in Christ at all times, and there are ways in which Christians can rightly use their
emotions after regeneration. But in our fallen nature, sin has permeated all our emotions, both
joy and sorrow, anger and relief. That is why Christians should not trust their feelings. Feelings
can be deceitful, for they are depraved.
B. Similarly, Scripture frequently warns against lusts. Some are sexual, but it is not only Mans
sexuality that has been affected by sin. All the desires of Man are sinful, even in the area of
feelings. Scripture describes these as worldly lusts (Titus 2:12), deceitful lusts (Eph. 4:22),
foolish and hurtful lusts (I Tim. 6:9), fleshly lusts (I Pet. 2:11), and ungodly lusts (Jude 18). .

6. Depraved Minds.
A. Titus 1:15 tells us, Even their mind and conscience is defiled. Eph. 4:17-19gives a sordid
catalog of human sin, specifically of the mind: futility of their minds, darkened in their
understanding, ignorance, in contrast to the new mind of Christ. The very thoughts of Man are
controlled by sin. As he is, so he thinks. He has a black nature, therefore he has blind thoughts.
Man is morally blind (2 Cor. 3:14).
B. Paul described this as corrupt minds and depraved minds (I Tim. 6:5, 3:8). This is what
we mean by the noetic effects of sin, how sin affects our minds. It affects our thoughts, but also
the very way in which we think. Mans mind is controlled by his nature. Because that nature is
evil, so are all his thoughts.
C. Consequently, Man is deceived. He has been deceived by Satan, deceives others, deceives
himself, and attempts to deceive God. Jer. 17:9, The heart is deceitful above all things. Man
lies to himself and believes his own lies. Sin by its very nature is deceitful. Heb. 3:13 speaks of
the deceitful ness of sin. Because Mans mind has been dominated by sin, he is susceptible to
believing error and heresy. He is spiritually gullible.
D. Hence, by nature, Man does not and cannot understand spiritual truth. There is none that
understands (Rom. 3:11). He cannot receive spiritual truth (I Cor. 2:14). On the contrary, he
thinks he is in the right: There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the
ways of death (Pro. 14:12). Therefore, they confuse good and evil in their minds: They have
no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge (Jer. 4:22),
Oddly, man is ignorant of spiritual truth, but is wise in sin. Man invents new ways to sin, and is
often quite adept at it. It is an evil science.
E. The most penetrating analysis of the noetic effects of sin is Rom. 1. Men know that God
exists. But they suppress this inborn knowledge and chose to develop sinful knowledge. Thus,
they became futile in their speculations... professing to be wise, they became fools (vss. 2122). Perhaps the most telling aspect of the depraved mind of Man is that he does not know it.
None are so blind.

7. Depraved Consciences.
A. God gave Man an inborn sense of His existence and of right and wrong. But sin has even

290

affected this gift. Both their mind and their conscience are defiled (Titus 1:15). This is an evil
conscience (Heb. 9:14, 10:22). Some men have a weak conscience (I Cor. 8:12) even after
conversion. While all mens consciences are affected by sin, some are worse than others. Paul
describes them as having consciences seared with a hot iron (I Tim. 4:2).
B. Because they have evil consciences, men find it easy to justify their sin. They call evil good
and good evil (Isa.5: 20). Man is a master of making excuses for sin, but before God he is
without excuse (Rom. 2:1). Even though their consciences have been affected by sin, they
have not been obliterated.

8. Depraved Wills.
A. Deep within each man is a will, the faculty of choice. It too has been affected by sin, so much
so that it is no longer capable of making the right choice. The heart of Man is as hard as rock
(Ezek. 11:19, Jer. 23:29, and many times in the Bible). He is stubborn (Psa. 78:8) and stiffnecked (Acts 7:51).
B. It is vital to understand that sin is hot only in what we say or do, but in our motives and
attitudes. Sin begins in the heart (Mark 7:20-23). Many non-Calvinists agree that sin affects
Man, but they deny that sin has affected the will. Scripture says otherwise. Mans will is
dominated by his nature. Since that nature is evil, his will is evil.
C. Thus, Man sins because he wants to sin. The soul of the wicked desires evil(Pro. 21:10).
Man enjoys sin. He loves it. So he chooses it every time.

9. Totally Depraved All of the Time.

A. Does the doctrine of Total Depravity mean that men are always sinful? We have shown that
evil extends to all parts of Mans being, but does it extend to all times of Mans being and
actions? What does the Bible say?
B. The clearest answer is in Gen. 6:5, Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was
great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Non-Calvinists have little trouble accepting that human wickedness is great, but they fail to see
just how great it really is. Gen. 6:5 tells us how great.
C. Notice three key words in this verse. First, every. Every intent of Man is evil. It will not do to
say that most or some of the intents are evil, while the rest are good. No, Moses says every,
and that means every single one. Not only all but each intent is evil.
D. Second, only. This too is an absolute word. Moses did not say, Every intent was usually
or sometimes or occasionally. No, everything in Man is only evil. There are no exceptions.
E. Third, continually. Again, this is an absolute term, which excludes all exceptions. Man is not
evil up unto a certain age, at which he outgrows sin. Rather, the intent of mans heart is evil
from his youth (Gen. 8:21). Nor is Man sinful only at certain times. Continually means at all
times.
F. Please notice that Moses is not just describing external acts of sins. He is describing the
intents (KJV: imaginations) of the heart. That is, the very motives of Mans heart are always
and only evil at all times. All men always have sinful motives in everything they do. Because
they are cunning and because others are also evil, it does not appear that their motives are evil.

291

But they are. Gods Word shows it for what it is.

G. This is a hard pill to swallow, and it is usually at this point that non-Calvinists get angry, even
if they are Christians. They object most strenuously. Do you mean to say that only Christians
ever have a good motive? Are you saying that only Christians ever have love? What about the
non-Christian who gives his life for others? What about Mother Teresa or those holy Buddhist
monks? What about my unbelieving mother? Why, I can remember myself having good
intentions before my own conversion!
H. Calvinists do not want to make neediest enemies, but the truth of the matter is that because
of Total Depravity, no man outside of Christ ever has a single righteous motive. Not one intent
of even one man is ever good. Only those in Christ are capable of producing good motives.
Remember, good is defined by God and in relation to Gods Revealed Will. And God says no
man ever obey a single of His commands internally with the right motive. Note the word
internally. Even when man does that which is externally good, he does so with evil motives
(pride, for example). One of the most deceitful aspects of sin is that a man can do an outwardly
good work out of wicked motives.
I. Total Depravity does not mean that Man is incapable of doing external good. But as we shall
see more in the next study, it means that he is incapable of anything morally good in Gods
sight.

10. Is Man as Sinful as He Can Be?

A. There is some debate and confusion among Calvinists on this last point. On the one hand,
all admit that unregenerate Man is incapable of good, yet capable of external good. Moreover,
all agree that there are gradations of sin and sinners. Some sins are worse than others (Jesus
said that Judas had a greater sin than Pilate - John 19:11). Some sinners are worse than
others. But what are the implications of this for Total Depravity?
B. First, it is true that not all men commit the same number of sins, nor the same sins. Not all
men have been murderers, for example, even if they are murderers in their hearts. The one who
murders in deed as well as in thought has committed a greater sin than the one who only
murders internally. Yet, on the other hand, some commit internal sins, which are worse than
certain external sins. For example, it will be worse on Judgment Day for the proud, unbelieving
Pharisees than for the Sodomite homosexuals (Matt. 11:24).
C. Second, God restrains sinners from sinning as much as they want to (Gen. 20:6). We call
this Common Grace and Restraining Grace. Even so, those whom God restrains are still totally
depraved.
D. Third, there is a sense in which Man is as sinful as he can be. Let me explain. It will not do to
say that there is a remnant of good left in a man that restrains him from going to the full extent
of sin. There is no good in Man. Only God restrains him. Man is rotten and is getting worse all
the time. Some sin worse or more than others simply because God takes the restraints off of
him. If God were to completely take the restraints off of all men, they would immediately kill
each other. So God restrains them.
E. Hence, every man sins as much as he can given the circumstances in which God has placed
him. The reason why some sin more is because of the circumstances, which are the means by
which God controls and restrains. Every man wants to sin more. That they do not is only due to
Gods restraint.

292

F. One last verse is useful. Eccl. 9:3, The hearts of the sons of men are full of evil, and insanity
is in their hearts throughout their lives. The first part of this parallels Gen. 6:5. Total Depravity
means that Man is full of evil. But Solomon adds one more characteristic of depravity: spiritual
insanity. They forfeit all from God to gain nothing. Sin has no sense. By its very nature it is
insanity. It is a spiritual insanity that only God can heal.

11. Conclusion.
A. It behooves all of us to see ourselves as God does. Forsake the worlds diagnosis and
believe Gods. But of course, the unregenerate Man will never see himself like this. Only
regeneration makes it possible to even see how sinful he really is. And even then, we never
know fully - until Heaven.

Recommended Reading (including the next several lessons)

Pink, Arthur W. Gleanings from the Scriptures: Mans Total Depravity. Chicago: Moody Press.
Perhaps the best, fullest exposition of the Calvinist position.
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will. Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Freedom of
vol. I of The Works of Jonathan of the Will. New Haven: Yale University Press. Edwards
(Carlisle: Banner
Also contained in Truth).
and Reformed.
Gerstner, John. A Primer on Free will. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian A short pamphlet.
Augustine. The Free Choice of the Will and Grace and Free Will. Both are contained in The
Fathers of the Church, vol. 59, pp. 63-308. Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America
Press.
Boston, Thomas. Human Nature in Its Fourfold State. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Clark, Gordon^ Predestination, pp. 110-144. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Berkouwer, G.C. Sin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Best, W.E. Free Grace vs. Free Will. Houston: South Belt Grace Church.
Machen, J. Gresham. The Christian View of Man. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology, vol. I, pp. 496-639. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
320-370. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Reformed Dogmatics, pp.
Heppe, Heinrich.
Calvin, John. Institutes, 11:1-6 (vol. I, pp. 241-348).
Thornwell, James Henley. The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. I,

293

pp. 352-441. Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 61-82. Phil
1ipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed.
Custance, Arthur. The Sovereignty of Grace, pp. 91-130. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed.
Sproul, R.C. Chosen by God, pp. 51-76. Wheaton: Tyndale House.

294

Chapter 38. The Bondage of the Will.

1. Introduction.
A. The question to be debated in this study is, Does fallen Man have free will? On the one
side are those who answer in the affirmative. On the other, those who say no. And there have
been many on both sides.
B. The debate is not new. Augustine wrote two books against the Pelagians on the subject:
Grace and Free Will and The Free Choice of the Will. Martin Luthers theological masterpiece
was entitled The Bondage of the Will. This was also the subject of Jonathan Edwards most
important book, which has as its full title A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing
Notions of that Freedom of Will, Which is Supposed to Be Essential to Moral Agency, Virtue and
Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (usually shortened to simply The Freedom of
the Will). All the major Reformed theologians have written on the subject. But what saith the
Scriptures?

2. The Bondage of the Will.

A. The Calvinist position is essentially the same as that of Augustine and Luther. We believe in
the bondage of the will, not free will. The two key words in our discussion are bondage and
will. Basically, we mean that the bondage of the will is in the will itself. Mans will is in bondage
to a sinful nature.
B. It is not a question of whether a man can will but not do. The question is deeper than that.
We are debating whether a man unaided by divine grace can even will a good motive towards
God. Calvinism says that Mans fallen nature is so depraved that he cannot will a right motive.
He cannot, therefore he will not. It is an internal constraint, not an external compulsion.
C. Sin permeates Mans whole being from his head to his toe (Isa. 1:6, From the sole of the
foot even to the head, there is nothing sound in it). And this sin has invaded and conquered
even his nature and will. Therefore, Man always obeys this master.
D. Many accept free will because they fail to see just how sinful Man really is. How sinful is
Man, anyway? Scripture tells us that fallen Man loves sin: men loved the darkness rather than
the light (John 3:19). Job 15:16 describes Man as detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks
iniquity like water! Man is addicted to sin and does not want to kick the habit. He willingly loves
his sin. On the other hand he hates God: everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not
come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed (John 3:20). Jesus said, If the world hates
you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you (John 15:18). He also said, It hates me
because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil (John 7:7).
E. The will of man has a certain perverse kind of freedom. It can sin all it wants to. In fact, it
does. The will of Man can sin more, but it cannot sin less, nor can it cease from sin. It is
precisely because of the intensely addictive nature of Mans love of sin and hatred of God that
he cannot change. Just as Josephs brothers hated him and could not speak to him on friendly
terms(Gen. 37:4), so Man hates God so much that he cannot obey Him.

295

3. Spiritual Death and Slavery.

A. When Paul wrote to the Ephesians, he said that they were once dead in trespasses and
sins (Eph. 2:1, 5. Cf. Col. 2:13). The Bible states in no uncertain terms that Man is spiritually
dead. He is not sick, he is dead. He lacks spiritual life. Adam died spiritually the moment he
sinned, and all men have been born in that same state of spiritual death.
B. When Adam sinned, something else happened. In obeying the temptation of Satan, he came
under the dominion of Satan. Hence, all men have been born slaves of the Devil. Jesus said,
Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin... You are of your father the Devil, and you want
to do the desires of your father(John 8:34, 44). In Rom. 6:20, Paul stated, When you were
slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. This should be readily apparent, so he
asks, Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience,
you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in
righteousness? (6:16) Peter describes Man as slaves of corruption, for by what a man is
overcome, by this he is enslaved (2 Pet. 2:19).
C. Man, then, is the slave of Satan - and a willing slave at that. There is no middle course. Man
is either a slave of Satan and freed from God, or a slave of God and freed from Satan. As Jesus
said, No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he
will hold to the one and despise the other (Matt. 6:24). Man hates God and loves Satan.
D. 2 Tim. 2:26 also tells us this. In vs. 25 Paul states that God may choose to give repentance.
If He does, then they come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, having been
held captive by him to do his will. In his natural fallen state, Man is held captive by Satan. While
in this captivity, he willing follows his leader (Eph. 2:2). The point is just this: he does so
willingly. His will is enslaved by Satan. And if it is an enslaved will, how can we speak of it as
being a free will?

4. The Nature of Inability, or the Inability of Human Nature.

A. The heart of the matter is the matter of the heart. To understand why Calvinists believe in
the bondage of the will, we must first see a vital Biblical principle. It is this: a man always acts
according to his nature. The order is as follows: As a man is by nature, so he sees in his mind;
as a man sees in his mind, so he wills in his heart; and as he wills in his heart, so he feels in his
emotions. Hence: nature - mind - will - emotions.
B. In Matt. 7:18, Christ said, A bad tree cannot produce good fruit. Only good trees bear good
fruit; only bad trees bear bad fruit. The root determines the fruit. Bad fruit means bad root. And
the root is the nature. All this means that fallen Man can only produce bad fruit. Sure,
sometimes it may 1ook like good fruit, but that is only because fallen Man is so deceitful and
clever that he can tie wax fruit on the branches and fool other people.
C. This fallen nature is sometimes called the flesh. Paul describes it in Rom.8:7-8, the mind
set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not
even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Notice several things.
First, natural Man is hostile toward God -. He hates his Creator. Second, natural Man is not
even able to subject itself to the law of God. Third, natural Man cannot please God. The
terms not able and cannot prove the inability of the will. Or as Jer. 10:23 says, I know that a
mans way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.
D. Fallen Man is not only depraved, he is deprived. He lacks something. Rom. 5:8says that

296

fallen Man is without strength. Strength for what? Strength to obey God. Whats more, he
cannot change this state of affairs. Jer. 13:23, Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard
his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to do evil.
E. Man cannot help himself. What's more, he does not want to be helped. He resists all
attempts and ovations of spiritual assistance. This is much more than saying that Man cannot
save himself. What Calvinism says is that fallen Man cannot even want to save himself or be
saved. The Westminster Confession (IX: 3) well describes this appalling disaster: Man, by his
fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying
salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and: dead in sin, is not
able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
F. We appeal to such verses as I Cor. 2:14, A natural man [man in his natural state] does not
accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand
them, because they are spiritually appraised. Notice the order: he does not accept because
he cannot understand.
G. Then there are several passages in John's Gospel where Jesus Himself brings this out. In
5:40, He rebuked unbelievers: You are unwilling to come to me, that you may have life. Why
were they unwilling? Because they had no life. Having no life, they could not understand the
Word of God spoken by Jesus, or as Jesus said, You cannot hear my word (8:43).
H. There are two key verses in John 6, which bear on the inability of the will. In 6:44, Jesus
said, No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. Then in vs. 65, No
one can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father. These verses could
literally be translated, No man is able to come to me. Unaided by divine grace, which draws
and is granted, no man has the spiritual ability to come to Christ. In other words, he cannot
believe.
I. This is a far cry from popular evangelical evangelism. We frequently read little tracts, which
assert that Man is seeking after God; his only problem is that he doesn't know where to find
Him. This is an incorrect diagnosis. It is Man that is lost, not God. What's more, There is none
that seeks for God (Rom. 3:11). Not only is Man not seeking God, he has not even taken the
first step toward God - nor is he even able of himself to take the first step. Rather, he is actively
running from God with all his might as fast as he can.
J. Jesus made another use of the tree analogy in John 15. In vss. 4 and 5, He says that the
branch cannot bear fruit apart from the tree. Bottom line: Apart from Me you can do nothing.
Apart from divine grace in Christ, fallen Man can do no spiritual good whatsoever. He cannot
come to Christ, He cannot believe the Gospel, He cannot obey God. He can do nothing but sin.

5. Moral Ability and Natural Ability.

A. Reformed theologians often make a distinction, which sheds light on the inability of the will,
namely, moral and natural ability. Jonathan Edwards especially used this dichotomy, though his
followers misused it.
B. First, Man as a creature of God has natural ability. I prefer to call this constitutional ability.
That is, he was created with the capacity to obey, believe in and know God. Animals do not
have this. When Adam fell, he did not lose this capacity. In ceasing to be morally good, Man
does not cease to be a creature capable of morality. He is not an animal. He is not morally
neutral, but morally evil. He is not amoral but immoral. To use an illustration, Man is a flashlight
without batteries - he has the container and the light bulb, but no power. And that power is what

297

we call moral ability.

C. All men by birth have natural ability, but no man by birth has moral ability. On the contrary, in
forfeiting moral ability, Man now has the exact opposite. The opposite of moral ability has two
aspects. First, Man has moral inability. He is unable to be morally30od. Second, he has immoral
ability. He has the ability to be wicked, and so he is by nature. He has immoral necessity.

6. The Myth of Free Will.

A. Now many critics of Calvinism deny all this. One of their main objections is this: Is not the
very word freewill in the Bible? How do we reply? First, there is a proper use of the term and
an improper use. Reformed writers will often use the word freewill in the good sense, never in
the bad.
B. The word is found some 26 or so times in the Bible. It is the Hebrew word NEDABAH.
Virtually every time it is used is concerning freewill offerings. These were a special kind of
offering, and different from sin offerings. Sin offerings were required, freewill offerings were not.
Thats the whole point. A freewill offering was a voluntary offering, one that was not specifically
required, and one that was spontaneously given out of gratitude. It was an optional extra, more
like a birthday present than a financial debt.
C. So, these examples cannot prove free will in the commonly accepted use of the term. The
proper sense is that in a sense Man is responsible to obey God and is not externally hindered
from doing so. J. Gresham Machen commented, A mans choices are free in the sense that
they are not just determined by external compulsion. But they are not free if by freedom is
meant freedom from determination by the mans own character. Thus, the will is not externally
forced but internally constrained.
D. Loraine Boettner uses another analogy: As the bird with a broken wing is free to fly but not
able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able. Mans moral freedom is in the
opposite direction - he uses it to sin. The great German Calvinist Heinrich Heppe commented,
The will of man then is only free for evil, which he always does freely and with pleasure. Free
will as popularly understood is a myth. Man is a slave to sin. In the ultimate sense, only God has
free will. He does whatever He wants to do (Psa. 115:3), and even then His will cannot go
against His nature.

7. The Four Phases of Mans Will.

A. Before the Fall. Originally, Man had the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. He was not
morally neutral, but good. He had a good nature. But he fell into sin and ruined himself and all
his posterity of natures, not to sin. not to sin.
B. After the Fall. After sinning, Adam underwent a drastic change Adam now had the ability to
sin, but did not have the ability in theology we use the phrase Non posse non peccare - not
able And that is the state into which all of us are born.
C. After Regeneration. When a man is born again, he undergoes a dramatic change. His will
is now made willing to obey God (Psa. 100:3). He has a new nature. But there is a difference.
He is not entirely like Adam before the Fall, nor entirely like his old self in sin. He now has two
natures, one good and one evil. Hence, he has the ability to sin and the ability not to sin.

298

D. After Glorification. After he is made perfect in Heaven, Man undergoes the final change in
nature. He will not only have the ability not to sin, but will have the inability to sin. In that sense
he will be impeccable - unable to sin. All internal sin will be removed and all external temptation
will be withheld. He will be, in a certain sense, like the angels which never fell and like the Lord
Jesus who never sinned.

8. Conclusion.
A. The Scriptures clearly and repeatedly teach the bondage of the will of fallen Man. Why, then,
do not men believe this? They who teach free will do so because they have not yet seen the
depravity of their own hearts. Moreover, the very assertion of free will proves the bondage of the
will. Dostoyevsky observed, Man commits sin to prove that he is free. Only Christ can set Man
free from the bondage of his own sin (John 8:36).

299

Chapter 39. Total Depravity and Human

Responsibility.
1. The Objections.
A. In the last 2 studies we have shown conclusively that the Bible teaches both total depravity
and the inability of the will. Yet few Evangelicals agree. Most are Arminians, though some like to
think they are Calvinists. They have many objections to Reformed teaching on the first point of
Calvinism.
B. First, they argue that Gods commands are the measure of human responsibility. In order for
Man to be responsible, he must be able to respond. After all, they say, does not the word
responsibility simply mean response-ability? Man is surely responsible; therefore he is
morally able to obey God.
C. Sure, Man is a sinner, but he can stop sinning if he so chooses. Calvinists are wrong to say
that Man cannot help sinning. Granted, sin may indwell parts of his being, but sin does not
totally indwell the will, nor does dominate it. The will must be neutral and free of all intrusions in
order for it to remain accountable to God. God Himself must not interfere irresistibly, and neither
must sin. Man may have a bent towards sin, but he still has power to change. Some nonCalvinists say that Man of himself is unable, but add that God has given Sufficient Grace to all
men to enable them to obey.
D. Moreover, it is argued, if the Reformed doctrines of Total Depravity and Inability were true,
then sinners would be encouraged in their sin. Imagine telling a sinner that he cannot help but
sin! Surely he will use that as an excuse to sin-more. Deep down, it is the Calvinist who uses
these horrid doctrines to excuse his own sin.
E. Besides, if the sinner cannot help sinning, why should he be punished? Dowe punish a man
who was forced by someone else to pull the trigger on a gun? Of course not. The Calvinist
misrepresents God and turns divine justice into cruelty and sadism. It is as if a man tied the legs
of his horse together and then whipped it for not running on command. Total Depravity portrays
God demanding Man to make bricks without straw, and in the end has God mocking Man for
what he could not help doing- This would be like taunting a cripple. It just is not fair.
F. Thus, the Arminian concludes his objection: the Reformed theory does severe damage to
both human responsibility and divine justice.

2. The Nature of Human Responsibility.

A. How do we respond to such charges and objections? We begin with God and the nature of
human responsibility. First, whatever else may be true, God is always just in whatever He does.
God does not pervert justice (Job 8:3, 34:12). The Calvinist, no less than the Arminian,
emphasizes divine justice.
B. The Revealed Will of God is the standard for human responsibility. In an earlier study, we
examined human responsibility in relation to divine sovereignty and concluded that both are
true. We say now that Total Depravity and human responsibility are also both true. Man is
responsible and accountable to God. He has the duty to obey Him and will be punished if he

300

does not. Man is a moral creature with a conscience.

C. This is where the dichotomy of Natural and Moral Ability may be useful. Man is still
responsible, because he still has Natural Ability - the constitutional capacity to obey if he wills to
obey. But he has no Moral Ability and therefore never will exert his will to obey God unless God
does something in his heart.

3. The Myth of Moral Neutrality.

A. Now Arminians contend that the human will must be neutral to be responsible. We
Calvinists, on the other hand, argue that moral neutrality is both impossible and mythological.
No man has ever had a neutral win. not even Adam before he fell. When created, Adam was
morally good (Eccl. 7:29, Gen. 1:31). Since the Fall, Man has been as opposed to God and for
sin as unfallen Adam was for God and against sin. The myth of moral neutrality was exploded
by the Lord Jesus Himself: He that is not with Me is against Me (Matt. 12:20. Cf. Mark 9:40).
B. It is certainly true that responsibility involves a choice, but this does not mean that fallen Man
is neutral when that choice comes to him. God tells Man His Law, and adds, I have set before
you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live (Deut.
30:19). This is heartily granted by the Calvinist. But we hasten to add that fallen Man is always
predisposed to choose death and the curse, for the obvious reason that he is already spiritually
dead. The will always acts in accordance with its nature; Man is spiritually dead; therefore he
always chooses death.
C. The Arminian is incorrect to suppose that Man is at a crossroads, neutral and equally able to
choose either path. We are not at such a crossroads, and no man ever has been. The truth of
the matter is, that before Adam fell he was in the way of truth and holiness, and then he took an
exit off. Since then, every man has-been on an evil highway. He must exit off of it and get on the
right way (cf. Matt. 7:13-14). But fallen Man does hot want off his highway. God sends prophets
to show him the exits, which God has opened up, but Man insists on staying on the road to Hell.
God must get him off. Unaided by grace, Man drives to Hell.
D. Look closer at this theory of the Neutral Will. If the will is totally neutral, then why does it
make either choice at this alleged crossroads? As Jonathan Edwards showed in The Freedom
of the Will, Man always makes the choice according to which power exerts greater force upon
his will. In sin, Man is controlled by sin and therefore is always swayed by sin to choose sin.
E. The Neutral Will theory sometimes suggests that a man can sometimes be equally
disposed to two opposite options. Sometimes they appeal to Phil. 1:21-24. But this too can be
demolished as an illusion. First, Phil. 1 clearly shows that Paul much preferred to be with Christ
which is far better. He also knew that it was Gods will that he stay on Earth a little longer,
which was the greater force. Paul stayed.
F. Moreover, Man is not an animal which can, it seems, be equally disposed to2 options. Some
studies suggest that an animal placed equally between two equally pleasing foods will simply sit
down and eat neither of them. Other experiments say that eventually every animal will make a
choice. Now, Man is not an animal. He always makes a choice. He never sits down between
two moral options. Oh, some pretend to do that, such as feigning neutrality regarding faith in
Christ. But the Bible says otherwise. Once a Man knows it is a moral choice, he always makes
the choice, which suits him, the most. He is not neutral when it comes to him and he certainly is
not neutral or non-committal afterwards.
G. One more important point. The Arminian contends that neutrality is essential to moral

301

choice. But what about God? God is morally good and always chooses the good. He is never,
ever neutral. Therefore, moral neutrality is a myth.

4. Degrees of Responsibility.
A. Here we come to another insurmountable difficulty for the Arminian. The Calvinist not only
says that Man is never morally neutral, he says that responsibility can be increased according to
increased revelation. From everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to
whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more (Luke 12:48). In other words, more
light means more responsibility. The pagan, who hears the Gospel, is more accountable to God
than the pagan who only hears the Law through conscience (Rom. 1 and 2). But both are
responsible.
B. Theres an interesting parallel to Luke 12:48 in Matt. 13:12, For whoever has, to him shall
more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has
shall be taken away from him. How does this pertain to our discussion? Oust this: God reveals
more and gives more responsibility, but He also gives moral ability. The one who does not have
moral ability loses even more when he is faced with increased responsibility.
C. There can be no doubt that sin affects the will of Man. It affects all men totally. But it does
not affect all men absolutely. That is, no man sins in an infinite manner. Some sin more than
others, only because they have more opportunity than others. Several containers are on a table;
all are full (totally depraved); but some are larger than others.
D. My point is quite pertinent to the debate. Greater responsibility means greater inability and
depravity, resulting in greater punishment. Lets take the Arminian view to its logical conclusion.
If lesser ability to obey meant lesser responsibility and culpability, then it would follow that
greater sinners have less responsibility and less culpability, therefore less punishment. The
result is ridiculous: lesser sinners being punished more than greater sinners. Arthur distance
comments on this: If a mans responsibility to obey is to be gauged by his ability to perform,
then as his behavior degenerates and his ability is progressively reduced, he has less duty. The
wholly evil man thus ends up by having no responsibility whatever, and must be accounted
blameless. You recognize this nonsense immediately. But fallen Man argues like this to excuse
himself. Thats why liberal sociologists and criminologists argue for less punishment for the
greater criminal, resulting in punishment for the innocent. Criminals laugh.

5. The Law and Human Inability.

A. The next objection runs like this: The Law of God shows what Man ought to do. Oughtness
implies ability. Therefore the Law tells Man what he can do.
B. The Calvinist disagrees entirely. The great Reformed theologian John Gill summed up the
Calvinist position: The Law only shows what a man ought to do, not what he can do. Francois
Turretine also commented on this point: Gods commands are not the measure of strength, but
a rule of duty; they do not teach what we are now able, but what we are bound to do, and what
we could formerly do, and from how great a height of righteousness we have fallen by Adams
fall.
C. The Law instructs us in our duty to God. It tells Man that he ought to obey. It shows him that
he cannot obey. Furthermore, it tells Man that he ought to be able to obey. In this way it shows

302

him for being the wretched sinner that he is, and thus prepares him for salvation. John Calvin
gave what may be the most incisive analysis on this crucial point:
A long time ago it became the common practice to measure mans capacities by the precepts
of Gods Law, and this has some pretensions of truth. But it arose out of the crassest ignorance
of the Law. For, those who deem it a terrible crime for any to say that it is impossible to observe
the Law press upon us as what is evident by their strongest reason, that otherwise the Law was
given without purpose. Indeed, they speak as if Paul had nowhere spoken of the Law. What
then, I ask, do these assertions mean: The Law was put forward because of transgressions
(Gal. 3:19); Through the Law comes knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20); the Law engenders sin (cf.
Rom. 7:7-8); Law slipped in to increase the trespass (Rom. 5:20)? Was the Law to be limited to
our powers SG as not to be given in vain? Rather, it was put far above us, to show our own
weakness!
D. In this way, the Law is not limited to our ability to obey. We cannot obey. The Law shows us
that even more than conscience. It also shows us what we need and do not have, and what God
alone can give. As Augustine observed, God bids us do what we cannot, that we may know
what we ought to seek from Him... Let God give what He commands, and command what He
will. Luther gave a picturesque illustration that should convince anyone: How often do parents
thus play with their children, bidding them come to them, or do this or that, only in order that it
may appear how unable they are, and that they may be compelled to call for the help of the
parents hand? We see a Biblical example of this when Jesus told the man to stretch forth his
withered hand (Mark 3:5). He couldnt, but Christ healed him and enabled him.

6. Inability Does Not Negate Responsibility.

A. Now we come to another objection, namely the theological formula, Responsibility implies
ability. This means that inability negates responsibility. Pelagius argued like this in Augustines
day: If I ought, I can. Oughtness implies ability. This is perhaps the most basic of all objections
to Total Depravity.
B. The Calvinist response is simple, direct and Biblical: Responsibility does not imply ability.
Inability does not negate responsibility. Moral obligation remains even after moral ability has
departed. Man has fallen into the snare of the Devil (2 Tim. 2:26) and he cannot extricate
himself. That snare has to do with moral inability. Mans will is enslaved to Satan. That means
that he cannot want to be free from sin. He got himself into moral inability, but he cannot get
himself out. Sin has a ratchet effect upon Man - he cannot go back once he has gone forward.
Hes trapped. Unless God intervenes, hes doomed.
C. Lets look at it under another metaphor, this one a financial one. A.W. Pink gives the
Reformed explanation: Inability to pay a debt does not excuse a debtor who has recklessly
squandered his estate; nor does drunkenness excuse the mad or violent actions of a drunkard,
but rather aggravates his crime. God has not lost his right to command, even though man
through his wickedness has lost his power to obey. (Cf. Matt. 18:34)
D. God lent us the ability to obey. But we squandered it on sin. And we still owe God what he
lent us. God has no Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He does not excuse us because we cannot pay
Him back. Remember, all this has to do with the will to obey. Man is more than a borrower who
has reneged on his obligations; he is an embezzler and a thief.
E. The Heidelberg Catechism addresses the point like this: QJ3.. Is not God unjustin requiring
of Man in His Law what he cannot do? A. No, for God so created Man that he could do it. But

303

Man, upon the instigation of the Devil, by deliberate disobedience, has cheated himself and all
his descendants out of these gifts. Louis Berkhof adds: We should not forget that the inability
under consideration is self-imposed, has a moral origin, and is not due to any limitation which
God has put upon mans being.
F. The Bible-believing Calvinist, then, has a ready answer to the Arminian formula,
Responsibility implies ability. Our answer: Who says? Not God, not the Bible.

7. Inability Compounds Culpability.

A. Again, we hear the objection, Diminished ability lessens culpability. Man is culpable,
therefore Man is able. Our reply is the exact opposite, namely, inability compounds culpability.
In 2 Pet. 2:14, Peter rebukes certain sinners as having eyes full of adultery and that never
cease from sin, Does the fact that they never cease from sin because they are slaves of sin (vs. 19) let them off the hook? Quite the contrary!
B. Imagine if you will a murderer pleading innocent because I couldnt help it. It is my nature to
murder. That makes him all the more dangerous and guilty, and all the more deserving of
punishment. Then there is the man who commits a crime while drunk, such as drunk driving.
Should this excuse him? No, for he voluntarily chose to get drunk. Once drunk, he was cruising
for an accident. Theres an old Roman legal maxim: Let him who commits a crime while drunk
be punished while sober. Drunkenness is no excuse, nor temporary insanity. By the same
standard, Man is willfully drunk on sin. This does not excuse him. Rather, it compounds his guilt.
C. Hence, the great doctrine of Total Depravity and Inability leaves fallen Man without any hope
whatsoever in himself. Those who weaken this doctrine give Man a little ability and hope,
thereby guaranteeing that he will never be healed. But theres more. It is usually at this juncture
in the discussion that our critics begin to react emotionally. Some of them, of course, have not
been able to follow our arguments, so they only react with sheer hysteria. Others, blinded by
worldly thinking, react with intense hostility. Still others get our point, and its sharpness pricks
their consciences. They cry, I wish I had never even raised the objection in the first place! That
is precisely what we are aiming at - destroying ungodly arguments and exposing the sinfulness
in the hearts of those who make these objections.

8. Addressing the Ungodly.

A. This raises a very practical question. How do we address sinners, especially with the
Gospel? What do we tell them? Well, the answer is simpler than most Calvinists realize. We
simply tell them the truth. We tell sinners that they are accountable to obey God but are unable
to obey Him. So far as the Gospel is concerned, we tell them the good news and give the
Gospel offer. God commands all who hear the Gospel to repent and believe. We must tell them
that. But we can also tell them that of themselves they cannot repent and believe.
B. For example, there is no doubt that Jesus preached the Gospel offer in John 6:37, the one
who comes to me I will certainly not cast out. But in that very context Jesus told them that no
man can come unless he is drawn by God (6:44) and unless it has been given to him by the
Father (6:65). Jesus told them that they should come but also that they cannot come.
C. Unfortunately, some Calvinists overreact to Arminians on this very point. For example, the
Gospel Standard Baptists of England have in their Articles the following statements: We deny

304

also that there is any capacity in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So we reject the
doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God. Pink
castigated these Hyper-Calvinists correctly as follows: If the ungodly are not pointedly and
authoritatively called unto repentance of their sins and belief of the Gospel, and if on the
contrary they are only told that they are unable so to do, then they are encouraged in their
impenitency and unbelief.
D. So, Christians can and must preach the Gospel to sinners. We must tell them the good news
and the free offer and their responsibility to believe. A hyper-Calvinist may object and say, You
may as well be preaching in a cemetery. Thats the whole point. Ezekiel was commanded to
preach in a valley of dry bones (Ezek. 37). So are we, namely the world (cf. Matt. Z3:27). The
crucial thing that our Hyper friends overlook is that God uses His Gospel to give life to the
spiritually dead, freedom to the spiritually bound and faith to the spiritually impotent.

9. Is it Fair?
A. Those who call themselves Christians and still believe in free will as opposed to the bondage
of the will have a problem. They start with wrong premises and therefore reach false
conclusions. One of their false premises is that moral ability is essential to human responsibility.
They do not get this from the Bible, but from Man. Therefore, they need to completely reexamine their jurisprudence of divine authority and human responsibility, as well as human
depravity.
B. The non-Calvinist has problems with both Man and God. He heightens Mans ability and
lowers Gods authority. But Calvinism refuses to take this worldly way out of a personally
convicting theological situation. For instance, Arthur Custance wrote, That we cannot perform is
our fault, not His; and there is no injustice in His refusal to lower His standard of requirement on
account of our failure.
C. As we have repeatedly said, all theological error gets back to a flawed doctrine of God. In
this case, divine justice, but also divine omnipotence. Rather than confessing that God can do
whatever He wants to do, even intervene in the fallen heart of Man, the objector transfers
omnipotence to Man. Man can do anything: He can believe, obey, love, repent, anything He
wishes with no restraints whatsoever from God or sin. Not so.
D. We end where we began, with two important truths. Man is unable but God is still just to hold
him responsible. If God is just to hold Man accountable even though unable, then it is patently
obvious that moral inability does not negate responsibility. The Arminian begins in the wrong
place. He begins by asking, Is it just? Of course it is just. But the first question should be, Is it
true? Scripture teaches that it is true that Man is totally depraved and-unable. That being true,
then it necessarily follows that it is just. God is always just.
E. Remember, the one who pleads for free will is the very one who is totally depraved. It is
that fallen, depraved, morally unable nature that has formulated the doctrine of free will. It is
his nature sinfully asserting its freedom. It must be crucified.
F. This wicked nature does so because it loves itself but also because it hates God. Hence, the
assertion of free will is basically an attack on the justice of God and God Himself. It subtly
attempts to exonerate itself of culpability by charging God with injustice should He proceed to
say that fallen Man is morally unable but still accountable. But how dare Man accuse God!
G. One last comment. Sin is punishment for sin, as Plato said. God is just and never cruel. But
He frequently uses poetic justice, as we term it. Thus, God allows Man to assert his puny

305

freedom, only that God may laugh at it. The great Puritan William Twisse perceptively observed
that when God requires Man to obey knowing that he is unable to obey, this is a haunting
foreshadowing of that awesome Day in which God will punish Man for the very sin which has
bound him. In other words, God is not mocked. In requiring obedience from him who cannot
obey, God justly mocks his sinful assertion of free will. The Day will prove who is the really free
one.

306

Chapter 40. Unconditional Election.

1. Introduction.
A. If you were to ask the average Christian what he thought of election, you would receive
replies such as; I believe in it, It isnt taught in the Bible, What election are you talking
about? and I always vote Republican. By all accounts it is one of the most controversial
doctrines in the repertory of theology. It is fervently loved by some and hated by others.
B. This is the first of several studies on the second point of Calvinism. We will be examining the
doctrine Biblically, theologically, practically, apologetically and systematically. It deserves a
detailed discussion because so many people do not understand what we mean by
unconditional election. Some know what we mean and reject it. Others do not know and do not
care. Still others would probably believe it if they were to have it explained properly to them. And
then there are those who know a little already and are strangely curious. They want to know
more.
C. A teacher always walks a fine line. He has to instruct those who are new to the subject, and
keep it simple for them. He also has to instruct those who already know much about the same
subject. These notes are for both groups. I trust both will profit from them.
D. Of course, these are not encyclopedic or exhaustive studies. Hence, reading lists are given
for more advanced study. Still, we hope to cover all the main areas of the subject of election:
when it happened, what is election, whom does it include, the subject of non-election, and so
forth.

2. The Biblical Terminology.

A. The concept is taught in the Bible in both testaments. Though it is given more attention in the
New than in the Old, we find it in the Old in such verses as Psa. 65:4, How blessed is the one
whom Thou dost choose and bring near toThee, to dwell in Thy courts. Whatever else it may
be, election is a blessing.
B. In the New Testament, most occurrences of the doctrine involve forms of the Greek word
EKLEGO. The verb form is found 22 times, 6 concern salvation:
Mark 13:20, for the sake of the elect whom He chose, He shortened the days.
I Cor. 1:27-28, God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and
God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and
the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not,
that He might nullify things that are.
Eph. 1:4, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,
James 2:5, Did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the
kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?
C. The noun form of the word is EKLEKTOS, found 22 times in the NT, of which17 concern
election to salvation. Note the following examples:
Matt. 24:22, for the sake of the elect, those days shall be cut short.

307

Matt. 24:31, they will gather together His elect from the four winds.
Luke 18:7, Shall not God bring about justice for His elect? Rom. 8:33, Who will bring a
charge against Gods elect?
Rev. 17:14, those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful.
D. Another form of the word is the noun EKOGE. Of the 7 times, note the following:
Rom. 9:11, in order that Gods purpose according to His choice might stand.
Rom. 11:5, a remnant according to Gods gracious choice.
Thess. 1:4, knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you.
2 Pet. 1:10, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you.
E. There are two other words which are used. PROORIZO is the word translated predestined
in Rom. 8:29-30, Eph. 1:5, 11. HAIREO is found once: As many as had been appointed to
eternal life believed.
F. We will look again at these and many other passages. But first we must realize that the Bible
does in fact speak much about election, predestination, and appointment. In sum, God selects
some people. Election is divine selection.

3. Election and Salvation.

A. There are a few places where election in the Bible refers to something other than salvation.
For example, civil rulers have been chosen by God and appointed (Rom. 13, Isa. 45:1, Dan.
2:21, I Sam. 10:24, Psa. 78:70). Man may in fact vote for some of these in political elections, but
behind that is Gods choice of who will rule the people.
B. Also, the nation of Israel was chosen by God for a certain purpose (Deut. 4:37, 7:6-8, 10:15,
Isa. 45:4, Psa. 33:12, Acts 13:17).
C. Moreover, within Israel, some men were chosen by God to become priests (Deut.18:5) and
prophets (Jer. 1:5), of whom Moses is a good example (Ex. 3).
D. Similarly, in the NT we find the Lord Jesus choosing 12 Apostles (John 6:70,Acts 1:2). This
was a choice for service, and even included Judas. They were chosen to be witnesses of
Christs mighty works (Acts 10:41). After Judas committed suicide, he was replaced by Matthias,
whom God Himself chose (Acts 1:24). Later, God chose Paul also to add to this special list of
Apostles (Acts 9:15).
E. All of these are examples of divine selection, but they are not to be confused with the subject
of these studies. They do not concern election to salvation.
F. That there is also an election that specifically has to do with salvation is clear:
1 Thess. 5:9, God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation.
2 Tim. 2:10, For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen,
that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.
G. The second point of Calvinism, then, specifically deals with election to salvation. Please
observe that this is election to salvation. Election is not salvation itself, but the divine plan that
prepares salvation for those who have been chosen. As such, both the persons to be saved and
the means of salvation are foreordained by God. In other words, He plans both means and

308

ends,
2 Thess. 2:13, God has chosen you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and
faith in the truth.
I Pet. 1:1-2, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the
sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His
blood.
H. Before proceeding further, a brief definition of the Reformed doctrine of election would be in
order. Louis Berkhof, a master Calvinist theologian, gives this excellent and succinct definition:
that eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleasure, and on account of no
foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace
and eternal salvation.

4. Election is Eternal.
A. The first thing to realize is that this election occurred before anything in the universe was
created. Election is eternal, not temporal.
Eph. 1:4, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.
2 Thess. 2:13, God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.
2 Tim. 1:9, according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ
Jesus from all eternity.
Matt. 25:34, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
B. Election was before time and the created universe, back when only God existed. Earlier we
showed that God foreordained all things from eternity. Among those things was His choice of a
people. Election did not occur after He created Adam and Eve. Some have the strange notion
that God created Adam and Eve, and only after they sinned did He initiate Plan B - election for
salvation for some of Adams descendents. No, Scripture does not teach that.
C. Election is simply predestination to salvation and glory. Note the word is predestination, not
postdestination. From all eternity, God predestined who would be saved, and this means that it
preceded their creation. And naturally this means that God chose certain people before they did
anything good or evil (cf. Rom. 9:11). The verbs for elect are in the past tense, not the future
tense.
D. Nor is election in the present tense. What God does in time is simply according to His
eternal plan from before time. History is the outworking of divine foreordination, and election is
the eternal plan to save certain people in time. Hence, election has already occurred. It is
complete.
E. One more interesting point. Though God eternally elected many people for salvation, it is
important to realize that He elected them all at once. He did not elect one person first, then
another and then some more. Eternal election occurred instaneously. Of course, there is also
the necessary sense in which this was not chronological at all. There is a logical order in
election, as we shall see, but even logically the elect were, chosen at once.

5. A Definite Number of Elect.

309

A. The next point to understand is that God elected a certain number of people. It is a certain
and definite number. Moreover, it will not be changed. The Westminster Confession (111:4)
says, their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or decreased.
B. God did not select a vague, foggy number. That exact number may not be known to us, but it
is not unknown to God. Scripture indicates, however, that it is a large number, indeed.
C. Theoretically, there were 3 possibilities. God could have chosen all, none or some. The Bible
tells us that He elected only some. In a later study we will discuss the.3 further options (majority,
minority or exactly half).
D. Now since this number is definite and certain, it cannot be changed by Man. Nor will God
change the number. For example, sometimes we hear that Spurgeon was alleged to have said,
Lord, call in your elect, and then elect some more. I have yet to see documentation for this
quotation. The sentiments are unbiblical. God will not elect any more, regardless of whether we
pray that He elect more. No, we pray that He call in those whom He has already chosen.

6. Individual Election.
A. Election is also personalized. God elected a definite number of specific persons. When God
was writing names in the eternal Book of Life, He wrote specific names in it. He did not write
John Doe or To whom it may concern.
B. For example, in Rom. 16:13, Rufus is called chosen in the Lord. Some translations miss
the point when they render it a choice man in the Lord. He was personally chosen by God.
Paul also addressed the Thessalonians as being personally chosen by God.
C. God always deals with us by name, not by number. Jesus said that He knows His sheep and
calls them all by name (John 10:3). That is not the name by which our friends and family know
us, but the name which He knows us by. Adam named all the animals in the Garden of Eden
(Gen. 2:19-20). God Himself gave names to all the people whom He would create, and this
naming was before they were created. So, when God elected some of them, He elected them
by name.
D. Later we will discuss how we may know that we are elect, but keep in mind that even that is
personal. When we come to know that we were elected, we can know that we were personally
elected by name. He chose me. Person-to-person.
E. There is, on the other hand, a sense in which we were elected together with all the other
elect. This is reflected in time. Each one of us is saved individually. Yet when we are saved, we
are placed into the Body of Christ with other Christians. And we will share this union with other
believers for all eternity. In this sense, election is also corporate.
F. Of course, non-Calvinists seize upon this aspect of election and distort the very essence of
divine election. For example, some Arminians say that election is corporate, not individual. By
this they often mean that God did not choose specific persons. Rather, they say, He selected a
vague, non-descript number in general and leaves the individual choice to us. It would be like
saying that God prepared so many seats at a banquet, but leaves it totally up to us whether we
will be at the banquet or not. That is not what the Bible teaches. Scripture teaches that God has
indeed prepared a banquet table with just so many chairs, but He has also placed nametags at
each seat. Election is divine reservation for us in particular.
G. Furthermore, that we were all elected together means that none of us are more elect than
anyone else. Election does not admit of degrees. A person is either elect or he is not. There is

310

no middle ground. There are not categories of election so far as salvation is concerned, for the
simple reason that salvation itself does not consist of degrees. The same applies to the ultimate
destiny of election - all the elect will be glorified.

7. Election is Definite and Irrevocable.

A. The last point in this study to consider is that election is definite and irrevocable. It is
immutable. God alone could change it and He will not. This is explained beautifully in the
Canons of the Synod of Dort (1:11):
And as God himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient and omnipotent, so the
election made by him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled or annulled;
neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished.
B. All of the decrees of God are irrevocable. Election is one of those decrees. God will not
change His mind, for He is not a man. If He were to alter the decree of election, it would be for
one of two reasons. First, He would change it in order to make it better. Second, He would
change it from better to worse. Either option reflects badly on God, who always does everything
perfectly.
C. Also, God has sealed the decree of election with an oath. He has promised to save certain
persons, and God never breaks a promise. God does not lie. Whats more, Christ confirmed this
decree in His blood. God, then, will not annul election. Sinful men and devils call for a recount;
they disagree with results. Moreover, they disagree with election, period. But even their
disagreements do not annul the perfection of election.
D. Lastly, election was eternally past but points to eternity future. When that eternal destiny is
realized, then the number of the elect will match the number of those in Heaven down to the last
one. Given the billions and billions of persons who have ever lived, it is amazing. Is it a
coincidence? Not at all. It merely displays the sovereignty of God in the business of election;

Recommended Reading (also for the next few studies)

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. II, pp. 313-353. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
Mell, Patrick Hues. A Southern Baptist Looks at Predestination. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle
Publications.
Storms, C. Samuel. Chosen for Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Johns, Kenneth. Election: Love Before Time. Phi 11ipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co.
Boettner, Lorraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 83-149. Phi Hipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed.
Sproul, R.C. Chosen By God. Wheaton: Tyndale House.
Clark, Gordon. Predestination, pp. 66-84. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Girardeau, John. Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, pp. 14-160, 178-393-Harrisonburg:
Sprinkle Publications.
Berkouwer, G.C. Divine Election. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

311

Rice, N.L. God Sovereign and Man Free, pp. 119-211. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle.
Calvin, John. Calvins Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Kregel.
Calvin, John. Institutes, III: 21-24 (vol. II, pp. 920-988). Philadelphia: Westminster.
Thornwell, James Henley. The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. II,pp. 105201. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. :
Custance, Arthur C. The Sovereignty of Grace, pp.131-148. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 163-178. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Palmer, Edwain. The Five Points of Calvinism, pp. 24-40. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. Election. Pasadena: Pilgrim Publications, (pamphlet)

312

Chapter 41. The Election of Grace.

1. Introduction.
A. In the last study, we looked at several aspects of the doctrine of election. Election is unto
salvation. It occurred in eternity past and is final. God has chosen some persons to be saved,
and their number can be neither increased nor diminished.
B. Now we get to the nature of election. How does God elect unto salvation? The answer
revolves around two key doctrines of Calvinism: absolute sovereignty and free grace. In a
nutshell, election is solely by sovereign grace.

2. The Book of Life.

A. Back in the counsels of eternity, God chose a certain number of men to be saved. He
foreordained that Men will live and fall; out of fallen humanity He selected some to be saved.
Having made the choice Himself, He wrote their names in the Book of Life.
B. Jesus said, Rejoice that your names are recorded in Heaven (Luke 10:20). Nothing
rejoices the heart so much as knowledge of ones election. The theme of having ones name
recorded by God in His Book is popular in Scripture. Isa. 4:3 mentions everyone who is
recorded for life. Mai. 3:16 says, A book of remembrance was written before Him for those
who fear the Lord and who esteem His name. Dan. 12:1 also mentions it: Everyone who is
found written in the book will be rescued.
C. Phil. 4:3 mentions those whose names are in the book of life. It is to this that Heb. 12:23 is
evidently referring when the author says that some persons are enrolled in Heaven. But it is
especially in the Book of Revelation that we find this special Book described. Rev. 13:8 and
17:8 both tell of sinners whose names are not in the Lambs Book of Life. Note that these verses
also specify that this absence goes back into eternity past, from the foundation of the world.
And lastly, Rev. 20:12, 15 and 21:27 speaks of the doom of those whose names are not in this
Book. They will go to be tormented eternally in the Lake of fire forever and ever. But those in the
Book will go to Heaven; they are the elect.
D. Now, there are several erroneous ideas regarding this Book of Life as regards the doctrine
of election. The first one is that we our selves write our names in the Book. This notion is
especially popular in certain evangelistic contexts: Christ invites you to come forward and put
your name in the Book of Life. But this has no basis in Scripture. It is God alone that places
names in the Book, not man. Underlying this obvious error is a more subtle and dangerous error
which the doctrine of election by sovereign grace negates and destroys: self-salvation. God
alone, by His sovereign grace, saves a person. God alone has the prerogative to record who is
and is not one of His people.
E. The second popular error is also much heard in evangelistic contexts. It runs like this: Now
that you believe in Christ, God has just written your name in the Book of Life. In other words,
ones name was not written there before the person believed, much less before he was born.
But the verses in Rev. 13:8 and 17-8 demolish this error as well. According to Scripture, names
of the elect were written from the foundation of the world. Conversely, other names were not
written, those who are recorded will be saved; the rest will not be saved. The truth of the matter
is that when one believes, he may then discover that his name was already written in the Book

313

of Life. When he does, he rejoices greatly.

F. The next error is as follows: God has written everybodys names in the Book, but He erases
names from it in time because of sin and unbelief. This is meant to undermine the Reformed
doctrines of election and perseverance. Appeal is made to Rev. 3:5, Ex. 7:14, Deut. 9:14, 29:20,
2 Kings 14:27, Psa. 9:5, 69:28, 109:13, Pro. 10:7, Ezek. 13:9, and especially Ex. 32:32-33.
G. Interpretations widely vary on these difficult verses. Some suggest the writers were speaking
hyperbolically or even rashly. But, then, God is the speaker in some of them. Another
interpretation suggests that some refer to the other books of Rev. 20:12, and not to the Lambs
Book of Life.
H. Still another interpretation by Calvinists is that not all of them refer to a heavenly book at all,
but merely an earthly record of members of the earthly commonwealth of Israel. Some could
indeed be cut off and blotted out by death or extreme sin (involving excommunication). Similar
to this is the view that some references are simply referring to a roll of living persons.
I. One last view is predominant among Calvinists. It suggests that hyperbole and other figures
of speech are employed. In other words, through flagrant sin or whatever, it appears that mens
names are removed. In a sense they are, so far as we can see. But when we arrive at the
judgment, then it is discovered that their names were never written in the Lambs Book of Life at
all. This is where Rev. 13:8 and 17:8 settle the issue.
J. Reformed theology teaches that when God elects someone, He writes his name in the Book.
That happened in eternity and is settled. It will not be changed, for it was written in indelible ink the blood of Christ. If Pilate refused to change what he had written (What I have written, I have
written, John 19:22), then neither will God change what He has written. The decree of election
in the Book of Life is as permanent as the famous laws of the Medes and Persians, which
cannot be changed.

3. Sovereign Election.
A. What the Reformed view boils down to is this: He chose us (Eph. 1:4). Note these three
words well. First, God did the choosing-, not Han. It does not say, We chose God. Man does
not elect himself. He is elected by God. The verb chose in Eph. 1:4 is active, not passive. In
election, God is active and Man is passive. All non-Reformed views reverse this order.
B. Note also the emphasis of Mark 13:20, the elect whom He chose. Christ added the extra
two words He chose to emphasize that election is solely by God. Man has no active role in
election any more than he does in creation or salvation. We are created and we are saved. We
no more elect ourselves than we create or save ourselves. Election is the sole prerogative of
God. All denials of unconditional election, therefore, are subtle attempts to usurp Gods unique
office as Elector.
C. Election is by sheer sovereignty. But, as we have seen in earlier studies, this is hated by
Man. Man wants to be God; Man wants to determine the course of the universe. Man is envious
when God exercises His unique prerogative as sovereign. This is true regarding election. We
would direct our opponents to Matt. 20:15, Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is
my own? Or is your eye envious because I am generous?
D. The key verse on sovereign election is John 15:16, where the Lord Jesus stated in no
uncertain terms, You did not choose Me, but I chose you. Nothing could be more explicit.
Arminians waste their time attempting to make this refer only to Christs choice of the 12

314

Apostles. First, Jesus did not address this to all of the 12; Judas had already left to betray Him
(13:30),
E. Second, 15:16 must be interpreted in the light of 13:18, I do not speak of all of you. I know
the ones I have chosen. Jesus spoke that to all 12 Judas had not yet left. Hence, Jesus makes
a clear differentiation here among the Apostles. Eleven were chosen to salvation, one was not
(cf. 17:12).
F. Third, 15:19 makes another statement, which indicates that Jesus is speaking of election,
not Apostleship, in 15:16. In 15:19 he says, I chose you out of the world. Judas, however, was
always part of the world system, even when traveling among the Apostles and pretending to
truly follow Christ.
G. So, John 15:16 is proof positive that election is solely due to Gods sovereign choice. Yes, in
the end we do choose God, but here is where a vital principle comes in. We choose God only
because He has chosen us. Why do some sinners choose God? Because God chose them and
determined that they would chose Him. Why do not other sinners choose God? Because God
has not chosen them. God initiates, Man responds.
H. There are two perfect parallels to this. Gal. 4:9, But now that you have come to know God,
or rather to be known by God... It is certainly true that believers know God. But why? And how?
A sinner comes to know God because God first knew him. That is why Paul interrupts his
discourse. He wishes to remind the Galatians that their salvation was not due to their searching
for God, resulting in knowing Him. Rather, God knew them, with the result that they knew God
personally. [More on this when we discuss foreknowledge.]
I. The other parallel is I John 4:19, We love, because He first loved us. God initiates, Man
responds. God does not love us because we loved Him and won His love. Quite the opposite!
Notice how I Cor. 8:3 ties in the two ideas of knowing and loving: if anyone loves God, he is
known by Him. We love because we have been loved. Loving and knowing are parallel to each
other, and in both cases God initiates and Man responds. Our point is simply that God
sovereignly chose certain men out of sovereign grace. A poem says if well:
He loved and chose because He would,
Nor did His choice depend,
On creatures works, or bad or good,
But on His sovereign mind.

4. Election by Grace.
A. Before proceeding further, we need to make a fine point. It is this: God has a general love for
all men as creatures (Psa. 145:9, Matt. 5:45). He takes care of them to a certain degree just
because they are his creatures. But here we come to one of the most important truths of
Calvinism: God also has a special love for some men. That special love is due to His
sovereignty, not for anything in them. They are not special in themselves.
B. This teaching is essential to the doctrine of election. Election is by sovereign grace. Deut.
7:7-8 tells us that God chose solely because He decided to choose in love. One of the most
glorious things about divine election is that it shows us sovereign grace. Grace by its very
nature must be undeserved and unmerited. It is Gods free love for His people.
C. This is illustrated in Jer. 31:3, I have loved you with an everlasting love. God has not loved
all men in this way. He has a special love for His people, and this goes back to the ends of

315

eternity.
D. Note how several verses associate special love with election. I Thess. 1:4,knowing,
brethren beloved by God, His choice of you. Election is by grace.
E. Song of Solomon 6:8-9 is another good place to find special love and- election. The man
(Christ) says to the woman (the Church) that there were many others, but she was something
special to Him. Now, this something special could never be something inherent in any mere
human. We are all sinners by nature. What makes any person different than another?
Ultimately, God makes the difference. So, as in the Song of Solomon, Christ could have chosen
another to be His bride, but He chose certain ones and not others. He loves all men as
creatures, but He has a special love for His bride (as all married men should). And this
illustrates the sovereignty of His bestowal of that grace C.H. Spurgeon once remarked, It
always seems inexplicable to me that those whoclaim free will so very boldly for man should not
also allow some free will toGod. Why should not Jesus Christ have the right to choose His own
bride?
F. To properly understand this the second point of Calvinism, it is essential to understand the
first point (total depravity). No man deserved to be chosen. Even though they are creatures
under Gods general love, they forfeit all benefits and privileges because of sin. They deserve
wrath, not grace. Nobody deserved to be elected any more than anyone else. So, the choice is
entirely up to God. Theoretically, He could have elected all. Or He could have elected none.
Had He chosen to elect none, He would have been totally and absolutely just. No man deserves
to be elected.
G. Remember, we also discussed the origin of sin. In some sense, God foreordained that the
human race would fall into sin, starting with Adam. That decree being settled, God then chose
some sinners out of fallen humanity to be saved. What impelled Him to chose some? Simply
sovereign grace, that wonderful union of absolute sovereignty and free grace. Over and over,
the Reformed creeds and confessions state that election was by mere grace.

5. Election by Sovereign Grace in Romans 9.

A. Romans 9 is another passage which shows that election is by sovereign grace. Paul is
beginning to explain why only some Jews are saved, and also why some Gentiles are saved
(vss. 8-10). Then in vs. 11 he tells us why: in order that Gods purpose according to His choice
might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls. He illustrates this from within
the race itself in vs. 13, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. God sovereignly chose to love Jacob
and not Esau.
B. Israel, Jacobs descendents, were chosen to have special privileges, which were not
always in the area of salvation. Within Israel. some were chosen specifically to salvation. These
were chosen solely by grace, not by their works. And they are chosen individually, as Jacob.
C. Verses 15-18 tell us more. God sovereignly chose to show mercy to some sinners. None
deserved mercy; all deserved wrath. God sovereignly decided to be merciful to some. That is
the election of grace.
D. What is the purpose behind this election? Why are they elected, and what to? Verse 23 tells
us the answer: He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon
vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory. Paul uses the picture of a potter
and a lump of clay. God is the potter; Mankind is the lump of sinful clay. Out of this lump, the
potter makes two bowls. One is to hold his wrath. Both bowls deserve wrath; one will receive it.

316

The other receives mercy. In other words, God chose us in order that we might receive His
grace and love. And in this way He is glorified.
E. Rom. 9 is chockfull of the election of grace. An Arminian friend tried to prove Arminianism
from the Bible and appealed to the Book of Romans. Another friend replied, Brother, youve
chosen the wrong book! Another friend wrestled over and over with the question of election and
concluded, I give up. You just cannot get away from Romans 9. Its just too explicit. Again,
Spurgeon commented, As long as that (chapter) remains in the Bible, no man shall be able to
prove Arminianism. So long as that is written there, not the most violent contortions of the
passage will ever be able to exterminate the doctrine of election from the Scriptures.
F. Paul returns later to this glorious theme in Rom. 11:5-6. Why are not all Israelites saved?
Because of Gods sovereign purpose. Why are some at all saved? Because of Gods grace, not
their works. Those who are saved are the remnant according to the election of grace (KJV).

6. Election by Sovereign Grace in Ephesians 1.

A. Our last and most explicit passage is Eph. 1. First, vs. 4 explicitly says He chose us. But
look at the end of the verse. Here the translations and scholars differ on punctuation. Some put
the two words in love with vs. 4,holy and blameless before Him in love (so KJV, ASV, NEB,
JB, LB, etc). Others, however, put a period after Him, so that in love modifies the verb of vs.
5, like this: In love He predestined us to adoption (so NASB, RSV, NIV, TEV, Phillips, etc.). I
agree with the latter punctuation. Thus, predestination is out of love. In other words, the election
of grace.
B. In either case, we find the same grand truth expressed at the end of vs.5,according to the
kind intention of His will. So, predestination to adoption is not according to our wills but
according to Gods kind intention for us.
C. Verse 6 provides the coup de grace, to the praise of the glory of His grace(cf. also vss. 12
and 14). We have already seen in these studies what is explicitly taught in Eph. 1, Rom. 11:36
and elsewhere, namely, that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Furthermore, He
has foreordained all things for one final end: His own glory.
D. Election is the next step in realizing how God will reveal His glory. We earlier showed that
God is glorified when He shows something in Himself to His creation. Now, God is love, and has
a plan whereby He will show the exceeding riches of this love. How? First, He foreordained that
sin would enter the universe. He could have shown love to unfallen creatures, but not the
exceeding riches of that love. So He allowed sin to enter. Then out of that putrid mass of fallen
humanity, He chose to show this special grace to a select few. The bottom line is this: God
glorifies Himself in them by giving them and them alone His special love. This is how the
election of grace is to the praise of Gods glory.
E. So, the elect will certainly receive this grace in time. And this leads to final glory, the glory of
God. The elect will spend all eternity receiving Gods grace and praising God for it. This is the
election of grace to the glory of God. Miss it and you miss what Calvinism is all about. Miss it
and you miss a cornerstone of Gods ultimate plan for the universe.

317

Chapter 42. Election and Foreknowledge.

1. Introduction.
A. In discussing the Second Point of Calvinism, one major point of contention always arises. It
concerns the very nature of election. While Calvinists emphatically and explicitly teach that
election is unconditional and solely by Gods sovereign grace, our opponents beg to differ. They
present one major counter-argument. And to some, it has a semblance of validity.
B. The question gets back to something discussed in a previous lesson, namely, divine
foreknowledge. So, we may phrase the question like this: Did God choose the elect solely by
sovereign grace, or did He choose the elect because He foresaw that they would choose Him?
What is the relationship between divine election and divine foreknowledge?

2. Foreknowledge as Foresight.
A. Scripture clearly teaches that God foresees all that comes to pass. He knows in advance
what will happen. He does not guess, He does not know by probability but by certainty. All
Calvinists teach this, and most of our critics do as well. It is taught in the Bible doctrines of
omniscience and prophecy. God has foreordained all details, means and ends. And since He
has foreordained them in a specific order, He also has definite knowledge of them in this order.
B. Take Gal. 3:8, And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith,
preached the Gospel to Abraham... Because it was certain that God would- justify the Gentiles
in the future, God spoke specific things to Abraham. But, we may ask, on what basis was it
certain that God would justify the Gentiles anyway? Simply because He foresaw that they would
believe? No, it was because God promised that Gentiles would believe. Still, this teaches that
God knows what will definitely occur in .the future regarding salvation.
C. Similarly, there is Acts 2:31, He looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of Christ.
David had the gift of prophecy. God revealed to Him that the Messiah would die and rise again.
On the basis of sure knowledge of the future, David believed in the present.
D. Then there is 2 Peter 3:17, You therefore beloved, knowing this beforehand...On the basis
of sure knowledge of future events, believers are to live holy lives in the present. Our point is
that certain knowledge of future events has strong implications for us in the present.
E. The Greek word PROGNOSIS was in use before Christianity. Some Greek writers, such as
Hippocrates, used it in a medical sense much as doctors of today. On the basis of a diagnosis,
a doctor makes a prognosis. And on the basis of a prognosis, he makes a prescription.
Knowledge of the future, then, has great implications on the present.
F. Now, it is at this juncture that some Christians revise the doctrine of election. They argue that
God made a prescription, as it were, on the basis of His prognosis. In other words, because
God had certain knowledge of what would happen, He foreordained things. Because He
foresaw that some men would believe, He chose them to be saved. He chose them because He
foresaw that they would choose Him

318

3. I Peter 1:1-2.
A. There are three places in Scripture where the doctrines of election and foreknowledge are
associated. I Peter 1:1-2 is one of them. Peter tells us that he is writing to those who are
chosen [elect] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Peter uses the noun
foreknowledge. But it is difficult from these two verses alone to decide exactly what he means
by chosen according to foreknowledge. Some, therefore, take them to mean that the elect
were chosen because God foreknew that they would believe. But that is no what Peter says.
Peter does not mention faith. He does not say foreknowledge of their faith, or anything like
that.
B. One clue as to Peters meaning might be found in vs. 20, For He [Christ] was foreknown
before the foundation of the world. Clearly this cannot be a reference to mere knowledge about
the future. What would Peters point be in that case? Rather, he seems to be saying what he
said publicly in Acts 2:28and 4:28. There he preached that the crucifixion was no accident or
coincidence. It had been deliberately foreordained by God. Christ was not crucified simply
because God foresaw that evil men would nail His Son to the cross. Rather, they crucified Christ
because it had been foreordained by God. In that wicked deed we see both the sovereignty of
God and the responsibility of Man. But logically, divine sovereignty preceded human
responsibility.
C. One last observation on the verses in I Peter 1. Peter says that Christ was foreknown
before the foundation of the world. Whatever this foreknowledge is, it long antedated the act.
By the same standard, Gods foreknowledge of the elect (vss. 1-2) predated their salvation.
Eternity precedes time.

4. Romans 8:29-30.
A. These two verses are more explicit and give us more information on the subject. Anyone
familiar with the debate about election will know that there has been much discussion and
disagreement over them. So it is meet that we discuss them, too.
B. William Perkins, the great Puritan from Cambridge, was probably the first to call this the
Golden Chain of salvation. Paul sets forth salvation with 5 links: foreknowledge,
predestination, calling, justification and glorification. There is obviously a logical as well as a
chronological order here. The chain begins in eternity past, dips into time and history, and ends
in eternity future. Paul does not mention all links in the chain (for example, he says nothing here
about the atonement, regeneration or sanctification).
C. Now, the popular Arminian interpretation of these verses may best be exemplified in the
paraphrase of the Living Bible: For from the very beginning God decided that those who come
to Him - and all along He knew who would - should become like His Son, so that His Son would
be the first, with many brothers. And having chosen us, He called us to come to Him...
D. This interpretation interprets foreknowledge to mean foresight of faith. In other words,
God foresaw that some would believe, and on that basis chose them. In this way, it is
suggested; both divine omniscience and human free will are protected. God chooses because
He foresees that some men will choose Him.
E. There is a variation of this view. Some insert the word some in each link, because, after all,
Mans free will can break the chain at any time. This would render the words like this: Some of
those He foreknew, He also predestined. Some of those He predestined, He called. Some of

319

those He called, He justified. Some of those He justified, He glorified. The chain gets smaller
and smaller, because men can lose their salvation. Only a few ever make it.
F. Calvinists reject all of this. We begin by pointing to the context. Note that vs. 29 begins with
the word for. Paul is giving the proof for the great promise of vs. 28 that everything works for
good for those whom God has called according to His purpose. Gods purpose will certainly
stand; therefore Gods people are safe. Now, if vss. 29-30 teach that the burden is on us and
not God, then it is possible that Gods purpose will fail and we will be lost. If so, then it is not true
that all things work together for good for us.
G. Moreover, the Arminian interpretation fails at one more critical point. The Arminian
interpretation mistakenly thinks Paul says that God foreknows faith. Paul says nothing of the
kind. Faith is not even mentioned. It is not a matter of what but of whom. God foreknows
people, not their faith. Note that Paul uses the word whom with each link in the chain.
H. Also, the clear implication is that whom also implies all of whom and not some of whom.
If some were meant, then hardly anyone would make it to Heaven. In fact, nobody could even
be sure that he himself would make it. That would contradict the context. So, Paul means All
those whom God personally foreknew, He predestined.
I. It is obvious, then, that Paul has something else in mind than mere foresight of the future. If
he simply meant foresight, we ask, does not God foresee all men? No, he uses the word
foreknew in a different way than the Arminians think.
J. Paul later uses the word foreknew in 11:2, God has not rejected His people whom He
foreknew. That this refers to election is clear from vss. 5-6.

5. Election is Not by Foreseen Faith.

A. Reformed theology has always denied that God elects men on the basis of foreseen faith or
any other thing in them. The Canons of Dort (I: 9) put it like this: 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; but men are
chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc., therefore election is the foundation
of every saving good: from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and
finally eternal life itself.
B. Paul says nothing about free will faith in Rom. 8:29-30. If it were so important, as the
Arminians contend, then why does not Paul even mention inhere? Francis Turretine
commented, If election is on the basis of foreseen faith, then God does not chose men, but
man chooses God, and predestination ought to be called postdestination. He is echoing the
famous words of Augustine: The elect of God are chosen by Him to be His children, in order
that they might be made to believe, not because He foresaw that they would believe...We are
not chosen because we believe, but that we may believe, lest we should be said to have first
chosen Him.
C. Though it be granted by the Arminians that foreknowledge chronologically precedes faith,
they are forced to argue that logically the reverse is true. According to their theory, the logic is
that God chooses because He saw that we choose Him. Now if that is so, then our faith is the
cause of our election. Since election is the cause of salvation, faith would be the cause of
salvation. Man then is his own savior.
D. This is the crux of the matter. Calvinists contend most strenuously that just as salvation is

320

not based on anything in Man, so election is not based on anything in Man. Rather, both
election in eternity and salvation in time are based solely on Gods sovereign grace, and
sovereign grace alone.
E. We would also ask the following question: Did God foresee faith as certain or as uncertain?
If as uncertain, then surely the infinitely wise God would not have elected them, would He? So
He must have foreseen certain faith. But then we ask, Whence comes the certainty of that
faith? Or, where did that faith come from? Not from Man, for Man is totally depraved and of
himself incapable of faith. It could only come from God, for faith is the gift of God.
F. But we would not even say that God eternally elected men on the basis of the faith which He
Himself would give to them in time. That would be to reverse theological order. Look at Acts
13:48, As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed, The logical order is: They were
appointed to eternal life, therefore they believed. Commenting on Rom. 8:29, Robert Haldane
the Baptist Calvinist commented: Faith cannot be the cause of foreknowledge, because
foreknowledge is before predestination, and faith is the effect of predestination. The effect
cannot precede the cause; therefore neither election, predestination nor foreknowledge was on
the basis of faith (even the foreseen gift of faith).
G. Incidently, we can easily dismiss any other suggestion that it is not foreseen faith but rather
foreseen holiness or good works that is in view in Rom. 8.Eph. 1:4 and 2:10 make it quite clear
that good works were predestinated and therefore cannot be the basis or cause of
predestination.
H. So, it gets back to what we previously established in this series. God knows with absolute
certainty all that will come to pass in time, because He has foreordained all that will come to
pass. And that includes salvation, as well as the gift of faith.

6. Foreknowledge and the Knowledge of God.

A. The problem with the Arminian is that he cannot grasp that Scripture uses the word
foreknow in more than one sense. Sometimes it means foresight (or what we call
prescience, omniscience of future events). But in other places it means something else. Before
we explain, let us first examine the Bibles teaching about knowing God.
B. In his excellent book Knowing God, Dr. J.I. Packer teaches that there is difference between
knowing about God and knowing God personally. All men already know something about God
by nature (Rom. 1:19-21). Some men know a great deal about God through reflection on Nature
and Scripture. But most men do not know God personally. At His return, Christ will punish those
who do not know God(2 Thess. 1:8).
C. On the other hand, there are those who not only know about God, but know God personally.
Jesus said to His Father, And this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent (John 17:3). I John 2:3 mentions two kinds of
knowledge in the same verse: By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His
commandments (cf. 3:6,4:7-8). Knowing God is a personal relationship, person-to-person. It is
possible only through Christ, for to know Christ is to know God (John 8:19, .55, 14:7, 9),
D. Now we come to the crunch. How is it that men know God through Christ? It is because God
took the initiative. We know God because He first knew us (see Gal. 4:8-9). When by nature we
did not know God, He knew us and thereby introduced Himself to us - personally. I Cor. 2:11
teaches that nobody would know anothers thoughts or person unless he granted an
introduction. God did just that. We would not know God personally unless He first knew us.

321

E. This is illustrated in John 10:14, I am the Good Shepherd, and I know my own and my own
know me (see also vs. 27). The Good Shepherd calls His sheep by name and then they come.
The logical order is I know my own and then My own know me. We know Him because He
first knew us.
F. And this is even more explicitly taught in Matt. 11:27, where Jesus praises His Father and
says, No one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the
Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. By nature, we know neither the Father
nor the Son. Jesus takes the initiative and knows some people. Then they know Jesus and the
Father. But this is a sovereign act of God. Jesus must choose to reveal Himself.
G. Again, we stress that this knowledge is personal knowledge. In Scripture, the Hebrew word
YADA and the Greek word GINOSKO means know. Frequently they clearly mean personal,
intimate knowledge. In fact, in some places they even means sexual knowledge (Gen. 4:1,
Luke 1:34), which is a personal thing.
H. But this intimate knowledge implies something more: a loving relationship. If anyone loves
God, he is known by Him (I Cor. 8:3). Like the old song said, To know him is to love him.
Knowing God means loving God. Therefore, being known by God means being loved by God in
a personal way.

7. God Knows His People.

A. The Lord knows those who are His (2 Tim. 2:19). This means far more than simply, The
Lord knows who His people are. God knows His people personally. We speak of our knowing
God, but what about God knowing us personally? Just as there is a difference between our
knowing about God and knowing Him personally, so there is a difference between God knowing
about us and knowing us personally. He already knows about all men, for He is omniscient. But
the wonderful thing is that God knows His people personally and intimately. Earlier in this letter
Paul said that he knew whom he had believed (2 Tim. 1:12). Why? Because The Lord knows
those who are His.
B. Hosea 13:5 also teaches this. I cared for you [literally, I knew you] in the wilderness. This
means that God cared for His people in the wilderness, not merely that He knew they were
there.
C. Then there is Ex. 33:12, I have known you by name and you have found favor [grace] in my
sight. God knew Moses personally and gave him grace. Moses did not earn this. When did
Moses come to know God? Ex. 3 tells us.
D. David also spoke about this in Psa. 139. Vs. 16 says that God knew David before he existed
and wrote Davids name in His book and ordained what would happen to him. Now this
introduces us to something extra about Gods knowing His people. He not only knows them
personally in time, but He personally knew them before they existed. He knew them beforehand.
He foreknew them.
E. This is especially explicit in Jer. 1:5, Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. This
verse is frequently cited to prove that human life begins at conception and the baby in the womb
is a human person. Well, that certainly is a truth and is taught in Luke 1, Psa. 139 and
elsewhere. But that is not what Jer. 1:5 is talking about. Rather, it says this: Before you were
even conceived, I knew you personally. Now notice the parallelism with what follows. Forming
in the womb is parallel to born, and I knew you is the same as I consecrated you and I
appointed you. This consecration is more than simply to the office of prophet. It is election.

322

Election is foreknowledge.
F. The point is just this: Just as there is a difference in time between our knowing about God
and knowing God personally, and also between God knowing about all men and knowing His
people personally, so there is a difference between God knowing about all men in advance and
knowing His people personally in advance. When we say that God personally knew His people
in advance, we are saying that He foreknew them. And this is just what we have said all
along. In eternity past, God chose to bestow His love on a select few. When He made that
choice, He foreknew them and set them on a course to salvation. That is what Rom. 8:29
means, Whom He foreknew, those He also predestined.
G. An objection will be raised at this point: How can God love those who did not yet exist?
The answer is this: It was not necessary that we exist in order for God to set His love on us. It
was only necessary that God Himself exist and that He had previously foreordained that we
would certainly exist. God, of course, has always been. Sometime, somehow, in eternity He
decreed to create people. Then logically He decreed that they would all fall. Then He decided to
set His special love on some of them. This is foreknowledge, or what Paul means in 2 Tim. 1:9
when he writes that grace...was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.

8. Foreknowledge is Not Universal.

A. There is one last point that needs to be made. We know that all men know about God, but
not all men know God personally. Also, God knows about all men, but He does not personally
know all men. There are two necessary ramifications on this - one concerning the past, one
concerning the future.
B. First, Amos 3:2 says, You only have I known among all the families of the earth. NASB and
others render this chosen. God told Israel through Amos that He knew them and them alone.
Of course, we know that God knew about all the other nations, for He is omniscient. He knew
Israel alone by way of sovereign grace election. That tells us that foreknowledge is not
universal.
C. Second, at the Last Judgment, the Lord Jesus will say to all unrepentant sinners, I never
knew you (Matt. 7:23). Notice, if you will, that He will not say You never knew me. Obviously,
I never knew you refers to personal knowledge, for Christ has always known everything about
everybody. Rather, Matt. 7:23 is parallel to Rev. 13:8 and 17:8. In other words, at the Last
Judgment, Christ will condemn those who were not foreknown. When He foreknew His people,
He wrote their names in His Book. At the Judgment, their names will be read out and they will
be ushered into the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world (Matt. 25:34)The elects destiny will be met; the last link of the Golden Chain will be consummated. But to the
rest, He will say that their names are not in His Book (Rev. 13:8, 17:8, 20:12, 15) and that He
never knew them. They will go to eternal Hell, which was prepared for Satan, demons and those
who were never foreknown. Foreknowledge is not universal.

9. Conclusion.
A. Lets summarize what we have said. First, God does not chose men on the basis of foreseen
faith. Rather, He chooses by sovereign grace. Secondly, though God has omniscience in
advance about all men, He has personal knowledge in advance for only a few. This special
knowledge is active, not passive. It is personal and concerns a living relationship of love.

323

B. This is foreknowledge. One could also translate it pre-love or fore-love. But Calvinists
usually just call it the eternal election of sovereign grace.

324

Chapter 43. Election in Christ.

1. The Trinity and Election.
A. Thus far we have established from Scripture that the elect were chosen before the
foundation of the world unconditionally by mere grace. The number of the elect is settled and
cannot be increased or diminished. And this election is unto salvation. It is the privilege of every
believer to know that he is elect.
B. Now another question arises, namely, Who does the electing? Man does not elect himself,
nor do the angels have a say in predestination. The question almost seems nit picking to some.
God elects, of course. Who else is there? Well, it certainly is true that God does the electing.
But when we remember that God is a Trinity, that opens new vistas for the Biblical doctrine of
election.
C. Scripture repeatedly says that it was God who did the electing (Mark 13:20, I Thess. 1:4, 2
Thess. 2:13, etc.). Scripture also says that it was the Father who did the electing: Blessed be
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... He chose us in Him (Eph. 1:3-4. See I Peter
1:2). Yet Scripture also says that it was the Son who elected. Jesus said, You did not choose
me, but I chose you (John 15:16). And doubtlessly the Holy Spirit had a say in election, for He
too is God. So, then, how did God as Trinity elect and predestine us?
D. The answer can be found in the nature of God as Trinity. First, a brief recap of the Bibles
teaching on the subject. In addition to the several times in which the Trinity is mentioned in
Scripture (Matt. 29:19, Eph. 5:18, 2 Cor. 13:14, etc.), the following formula can be used to sum
up the doctrine:
(1) There is only one God (Isa. 45:5-6, I Tim. 2:5, James 2:19).
(2) The Father (Eph. 1:3, I Cor. 1:3, 8:6), the Son (John 1:1, 20:28, Heb.l:8), and the
Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4, 2 Cor. 3:17-18) are each God.
(3) Yet the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the
Father. For example, the Son, not the Father nor the Spirit, became a man. The Spirit,
not the Father nor the Son, was sent on the Day of Pentecost. What are the differences
between the Persons of the Trinity?
(a) The Father eternally begets the Son, and with the Son sends the Spirit.
(b) The Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and with the Father sends the
Spirit.
(c) The Spirit neither begets nor is begotten, but proceeds from the Father and
the Son.
Key verses on these distinctives are John 1:18, 3:16, 14:26, 15:26.
E. Now, in election we find the one God in three Persons involved. First, as the one God, God
alone elects - not Man, not angels, and certainly not demons. Election is a prerogative of God
alone as God. It is divine election.
F. Second, the three members of the Trinity were involved in election not only according to their
common essence as God, but also according to their distinctives as different members of the

325

Trinity. Lets see how that lines up.

(1) The Father has a certain priority in eternally begetting the Son. By parallel, the Father
has a certain priority in initiating election. Just as eternal generation is a logical and not
chronological order, so this certain priority in election is logical and not chronological.
(2) The Son is eternally begotten by the Father. He is equal with the Father; the Bible
does not teach Subordinationism. But parallel with the doctrine of eternal generation, the
Son eternally agrees with the Fathers initiative in election. And yet, it is certainly true
that the Son elects, according to John 15:16.
(3) The Spirit logically and eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son. Similarly,
He eternally witnesses and co-operates and ratifies the election of the Father and the
Son.
G. We must be careful in this doctrine. For example, it would be incorrect to posit that the Son
first elected and then did something to persuade the Father to accept the elect. No, the
agreement by Christ to die was not the ground for election, but for salvation. Rather, election
was by mere grace in the Trinity. [More on this when we discuss the Covenant of
Redemption.]

2. Election in Christ.
A. Scripture teaches that there is a sense in which election was in Christ. Rom. 16:13, Greet
Rufus, chosen in the Lord (KJV). Grace was eternally given to the elect in Christ Jesus (2
Tim. 1:9). The key verse is Eph. 1:4.
B. Calvinists differ in their interpretation of this verse. Some, such as Theodore Beza, take it to
mean, He chose us to be in Christ. In Greek, this would be an ellipsis. The words to be are
implied. Another view renders it through Christ. Some who take this view take it to mean that
Christ is the instrument of election. Others suggest that it means Christ co-operated in election.
For example, Francis Gomarus, the leading Calvinist theologian at the Synod of Dort, takes
Eph. 1:4 to mean Christ in accordance with His divine nature also participated in the work of
election.
C. Probably the majority of Reformed theologians take it differently. Francis Turretine sums up
this view: To be elected in Christ is nothing else than to be destined to salvation to be obtained
in Christ or by Him, so that Christ is the cause of salvation, not of election. Turretine means that
Christ as God-Man was cause of salvation, while Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity was
co-cause of election. This view has much to commend it in the context of Eph. 1:3. Note the
words even as in vs. 4. This would mean that the Father blessed us in Christ according to the
election in Christ and Christs place as God-Man savior. See also 2 Thess. 2:13.
D. One variant of this is that the elect were chosen in Christ in that Christ was the Head of His
people. When He was chosen, all His members were chosen as well. John Gill held this
interpretation and added, Election does not find men in Christ, but puts them there; it gives
them a being in Him and union to Him.
E. Incidently, notice that He chose us literally could be translated He chose us for Himself.
The verb is in the middle voice. The ultimate source of election is God alone, and the ultimate
end of election is God alone.
F. Eph. 3:11 adds another insight into election in Christ. Paul speaks of the eternal purpose
which He carried out in Christ Jesus. Rom. 8:29-30 also shed some light. We were foreknown

326

(election of grace) and predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ.

H. Theres one more important ramification of election in Christ. God only elects in Christ.
There is no election which has no reference to Christ. The implication is that all who were
elected were elected in Christ, and consequently, in time are united to Christ so that they are
actually in Christ. This counters, for instance, the view of some Dispensationalists that Old
Testament believers were not in Christ. This lies behind their theory that at the Rapture only
New Testament believers will be resurrected, for only the dead in Christ will be raised (I Thess.
4:16). No, Old Testament believers were elected in Christ, believed in Christ, and. will be
raised in Christ. Otherwise, there would be election and salvation out of Christ, which is
impossible.

3. Christ as the Elected One.

A. A number of Bible verses speak of Christ as the Chosen One. Isaiah 42:1,which is quoted
in Matt. 12:18 in reference to the Lord Oesus, reads: Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My
chosen one in whom My soul delights. This is a prophecy of Jesus as Suffering Servant and
Messiah. Note the parallelism: My Servant is the same as My chosen one.
B. Then there is Psalms 89:3, I have made a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David
My servant. Again, servant and chosen are parallel. This is a Messianic psalm. Frequently,
Messianic prophecies speak of Christ as David, meaning Davids greater son, the Son of
David. Look also at vs. 19,I have given help to one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen
from the people. Christ was chosen by the Father from among all humanity to be the Messiah,
the mighty one.
C. Next, Luke 9:35 reads in a number of manuscripts and English translations, This is My Son,
My Chosen One; listen to Him. This points back to Isaiah 42:1. The parallel accounts in
Matthew and Mark add that this is the beloved Son in whom the Father is well-pleased. Luke
23:35 quotes scoffers at the crucifixion, He saved others; let him save himself if this is the
Christ, His Chosen One! To the Jews, Chosen One meant the Messiah.
D. Lastly, I Peter 2:4 and 6 refers to Christ as a living stone, rejected by men, but chosen and
precious in the sight of the Lord. Peter is alluding to Psa. 118:22 and Isa. 28:16, which are
frequently alluded to in the N.T. inreference to Jesus as Messiah. Note that vs. 9 refers to Gods
people as a chosen race. Our being chosen has some reference to Christ as Chosen One.
E. What does the election of Christ mean? We can immediately dismiss the idea that His
election was the same as ours, for the simple reason that He is not exactly like us. First, He is
and has always been God. Second, election is to salvation (2 Thess. 2:13), but Christ never
sinned and therefore never required salvation.
F. Nor was Christ chosen exactly as great men in Scripture. God chose Moses to lead His
people (Psa. 106:23, Ex. 3). He chose Aaron to be high priest (Num. 16:5, 17:5, Deut. 21:5).
And He chose David to be King (Psa. 78:68-72, 89:3,19, I Sam. 16:7-10). Yet, these offer
precursory types of Christs election. They were chosen to certain offices. Similarly, Christ was
chosen to be the great Prophet, Priest and King of His people.
G. Hence, Christ was chosen to be the Savior and Mediator for His people, those whom God
elected. This has special reference to His humanity. John Gill explains: Out of the vast number
of the individuals of human nature God determined to create, there was a certain number which
He selected for Himself, for His own glory and to be happy with Him; and out of these He
singled out one individual of human nature, to be united to the eternal Word, the Second Person

327

in the Trinity.
H. Other Reformed theologians hold that Christ was elected according to both natures.
Jonathan Edwards gives a masterful presentation of this view in the following excerpt from his
Works (vol. II, p. 538): Christ is the Chosen of God, both as to His divine and human nature. As
to His divine nature, he was chosen of God, though not to any addition to his essential glory or
real happiness, which is infinite, yet to great declarative glory. As he is man, he is chosen of
God to the highest degree of real glory and happiness of all creatures. As to both, he is chosen
of God to the office and glory of the mediator between God and men, and head of all the elect
creation. His election, as it respects his divine nature, was for his worthiness and excellency and
infinite amiableness in the sight of God, and perfect fitness for that which God chose him to, and
his worthiness was the ground of his election. But his election, as it respects his human nature,
was free and sovereign, not being for any worthiness, but his election was the foundation of his
worthiness. His election, as he is God, as a manifestation of Gods infinite wisdom. The wisdom
of any being is discovered by the wise choice he makes; so the infinite wisdom of God is
manifest in the wisdom of his choice when he chose his eternal Son, one so fit, upon all
accounts, for the office of a mediator, when he only was fit, and when he was perfectly and
infinitely fit; and yet his fitness was so difficult to be discerned, that none but one of infinite
wisdom could discover it.
His election, as he was man, was a manifestation of Gods sovereignty and grace. God had
determined to exalt one of the creatures so high, that he should be one person with God, and
should have communion with God, and should have glory in all respects answerable; and so
should be the head of all other elect creatures, that they might be united to God and glorified in
him... It was owing to this election of God, that the man Jesus was not one of the corrupt race of
mankind, so that his freedom from sin and damnation is owing to the free, sovereign, electing
love of God to him, as well as in the rest of elect men...
Christ is, by way of eminency, called THE ELECT OF GOD.... Christ, in his election, is the head
of election, and the pattern of all other election. Christ is the head of all elect creatures; and both
angels and men are chosen in him in some sense, i.e. chosen to be in him... God chose Christ,
and gave his elect people to him; and so, looking on them as his, owned them for his own. But
by predestination, which is consequent on his foreknowledge, we are elected in Christ, as we
are elected in his election. For God having in foreknowledge given us to Christ, he thenceforth
beheld us as members and parts of him; and so ordaining the head to glory, he therein ordained
the members to glory.

4. The Arminian Misunderstanding of Election in Christ.

A. Arminianism, Calvinisms enfant terrible, has another theory of election in Christ. The
theory is this: God elected Christ, not individuals. Christ is the only one who was elected. Men
now have the choice to get in Christ by faith. If they believe the Gospel, they become in
Christ and, as a result, are now in Christ. There are variations of this, but this is the main line.
B. Those who advocate this theory sometimes offer the following illustration. A king chooses a
certain ship to send overseas. He then issues a general proclamation: Hear ye, hear ye!
Anyone desiring free passage abroad may board this ship. Some accept the offer, some do
not. There are no other ships going aboard to this specific destination. Once they are on board,
the ship leaves. Eventually it arrives and they arrive too. They are pleased and the king is
pleased. The king chose the ship but he did not chose the passengers. The people themselves
chose to be passengers on the chosen ship.

328

C. The theory has fatal flaws. For one, Christ is certainly the Chosen One, but we too are
chosen by God. Granted, there are differences, but the elect were particularly chosen by God.
We choose only because God chose us first. God, not ourselves, determines who is to be in
Christ.
D. The illustration of the ship is also a fatal one. The Arminian ship can easily be sunk. For one
thing, we find a ship illustration in Scripture itself. Noahs Ark was a type of Christ. God chose
the Ark. He gave directions to Noah how to prepare it, pointing to Christ being made of a woman
in His birth. But did Noah of himself chose to be in the Ark? No. Rather, Gen. 6:8 says, But
Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, not by his works or even his faith, but solely by Gods
free electing grace. So, God chose Christ as the means of salvation. All are invited to board the
ship of salvation, but only those whom God has sovereignly chosen to be passengers will ever
board it.
E. The Arminian theory can be summed up by the Arminian team of Forster and Marston:
There is no such thing in the NT as personal election of believers. Christ is the Chosen One,
and believers are elect because they are in Him (Gods Strategy, p. 145). By contrast, the Bible
truth is that God legally put us in Christ in eternity through election, and now actually puts us
in Christ in time through conversion. But election precedes, not follows, conversion. Election in
Christ is not a choice between Christs election and ours, but is a combination of Christs
election and ours in Him.

5. The Barthian Theory.

A. The pseudo-Calvinism of Karl Barth is orthodox Calvinisms second errant child, and it too
distorts election in Christ. Barth summed up his views here: The simplest form of the dogma
may be divided at once into the two assertions that Jesus Christ is the electing God and the
elected Man. Sounds good, but is it?
B. Barth was like Arminianism in denying personal election. But he differed on other points and
ended up even further from the truth than our Arminian brethren. First, Barth asserted that all
men are unconditionally elected in Christ. The orthodox Arminians only say that all men are
conditionally elected in Christ; they must ratify it through faith. Barths theology logically
necessitates universal salvation (which he neither admitted nor denied). Arminianism denies it.
C. Moreover, Barth taught that all men are non-elected, or reprobated, in Christ. This is much
more than saying that Christ died for all. And it certainly does not mean than none will be saved.
How can all be both elected and non-elected in Christ? To Barth, this was a paradox. To historic
Calvinists, it is a contradiction.

6. Conclusion.
A. The key to understanding election in Christ and Christ as the Elected One is obvious. The
key is in the contexts in which these truths are taught. And the context is the glory of God in the
pre-eminence of Jesus Christ. The ultimate end of all things is the glory of God - that is the
basic principle of Calvinism. But that glory is Christocentric, as it were. God reveals His glory
only through Christ (John 1:17-18), and likewise receives glory from men only through Christ.
B. So, in the councils of election, it was determined that Christ as the God-Man would have a
special pre-eminency regarding the revelation of glory to Man. Only the Second Person of the

329

Trinity actually became a man; only He suffered and died as a man. He was the One elected to
this special place as Mediator and with it receives a special glory (see Phil. 2:5-11). In brief, all
things that God has done in creation and election are so that He Himself [Christ] might come to
have first place in everything (Col. 1:18).

Recommended Reading
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. II, pp. 538-539. Carlisle:
Banner of Truth. Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 168-172. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House.
Muller, Richard. Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed
Theology. Durham: Labyrinth Press. (Doctoral dissertation on Christ and predestination in early
Reformed theology, from Zwingli to the early Puritans.)
Berkouwer, G.C. Divine Election, pp. 132-171. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Storms, C. Samuel. Chosen for Life, pp. 94-96. Grand Rapids: Baker. (A useful summary)
Gill, John. Body of Divinity, pp. 180-182. Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer.

330

Chapter 44. Objections to Election.

1. The Calvinist doctrine of election kills evangelism.
A. Thus far we have interacted with several objections to the Reformed doctrine of election. In
this lesson, we will concentrate on some of the more blatant objections. The first has to do with
evangelism.
B. Some sum up the objection like this: Election kills evangelism. Others argue, If I believed
like you Calvinists do about election, Id never witness to anyone. After all, if God has chosen
some to salvation, then it really doesnt matter whether I tell them the Gospel or not. Still others
are more pointed: Calvinists do not evangelize. Any doctrine which hinders evangelism cannot
be true. How do we who believe in election respond to these objections?
C. First, it is important to remember the balance of the Revealed and Secret Wills of God.
Election belongs to the Secret Will, not the Revealed Will. Evangelism, on the other hand,
concerns the Revealed Will. Let us not confuse the two wills or deny either. The same Bible
that tells us about evangelism also tells us about election. God has eternally and unconditionally
chosen some sinners for salvation. In time, He has ordained means to bring His elect to
salvation, and one means is evangelism.
D. Christians have a duty to evangelize the lost. We call this the Great Commission. Election
does not negate the Great Commission. Matt. 22:14 says, Many are called, but few are
chosen. Here we find both election and evangelism in the same verse, and neither can be used
to negate the other. Few are chosen, but that does not mean we are not to call many to Christ.
On the other hand, many are called, but that does not mean that God has not chosen who will
receive that call and invitation. This balance is very important.
E. For reasons known to Himself, God has not chosen to label His elect with the word Elect
on their foreheads. We do not know who they are. We do not have to know who they are. God
knows who they are. Our business is to preach the Gospel, and through our evangelism God
brings His elect to Himself.
F. The objection fails to see that election is not a hindrance to evangelism. Rather, election is
an incentive to evangelism. The person who does not believe in evangelism has no guarantee
that anyone will ever be converted by his witnessing or by anybody elses. But look at
Calvinism. We know for certain that God has His elect scattered in the world. We know that He
uses our evangelism to convert them. We know that our efforts are not in vain, and nothing
gives incentive so much as the confidence that your work is not in vain.
G. Yet we grant that there are Calvinists who misunderstand, this and do not witness as they
should. But that is not the fault of Calvinism, but of the individual Calvinist. Those who use
election as a pretext not to witness have not grasped that election and evangelism need to be
balanced and believed.
H. Lastly, the objection is not historically true. Look at the great Calvinist preachers, evangelists
and missionaries of the past: Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, William Carey, Andrew
Fuller, Charles Haddon Spurgeon. They had a firm grasp of election, and it incited them to
evangelism, not hindered them. Calvin himself sent out missionaries. The Great Awakening and
Great Missionary Movement were both led by Calvinists who believed in election.

331

2. Whosoever will may come, not merely the elect.

A. This is another common objection and is also related to the question of evangelism.
Someone says, God opens the door wide and so should we. The idea of election closes the
door. Their favorite verse is Rev. 22:17, And whosoever will, let him take of the water of life
freely. Sometimes John 3:16 is also cited, ...so that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish.
B. We reply that these verses have been misunderstood. They indicate Mans responsibility to
believe, not his ability, and they certainly do not imply that God has left the choice to: Man. John
3:16 literally reads, so that the believing ones may not perish. God commands faith and
welcomes believers. But of himself, Man is incapable of believing. God therefore chooses to
give faith to some men - the elect.
C. It is true that whosoever will may come. But the point is just this: only the elect will to come.
Jesus said, No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father (John
6:65). When the Father grants faith, then a man certainly will come. But He gives faith only to
the elect.

3. Calvinism makes God turn away repentant sinners because they are not
elect.
A. Maybe youve heard this objection with the following scenario: A sinner repents of his sins
and comes to Christ for salvation. Hes begging on his hands and knees, pounding on the door
for Christ to let him in and be saved. But the Calvinist Christ checks the list of the elect and
angrily shouts, Im sorry, youre not one of the elect, and slams the door shut on him.
B. The picture is grossly inaccurate and unbiblical. John 6:37, All that the Father gives Me
shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. Christ never slams
the door on anyone who comes to Him. The free offer of- the Gospel is, Come to Christ and be
saved. He invites all who hear the Gospel. He commands them to come. And He welcomes
with open arms all who come to Him.
C. But again the point is that only the elect will come to Him. Only the elect will knock on
Christs door, as it were. John 6:37 needs to be read in the context of 6:44 and 65, which state
that no man is able to come (which includes wanting to come) unless the Father draws him and
gives him faith. The Father does this only for the elect. Note the first part of vs. 37, All that the
Father gives Me shall come to Me. Thats election. The Father has given some men to Christ;
they are the elect. And in time they will hear the Gospel and accept the free offer.
D. Lets revise that grotesque picture to fit the Biblical picture. Christ stands ready to receive
any who come to Him. But sinners hate Christ and do not come. They slam the door in His face,
not vice-versa. But does this frustrate Gods plan? Not in the least. God has chosen to go one
step further with those whom He has chosen. He not only offers them Christ, but Christ goes
and fetches them. The Good Shepherd calls His sheep and gathers them in Himself.

4. If election were true, then the non-elect never have a chance of salvation.
A. In one sense, this is exactly what we are saying. No man has a chance of salvation for the
simple reason that there is no such thing as chance. God has foreordained whatever will come

332

to pass. There are no coincidences or chance.

B. Moreover, this can be taken in another way. God offers salvation to all who hear the Gospel,
but lets not forget that nobody deserves salvation. Nobody - neither the elect nor the non-elect deserve a second chance, as it were.
C. At root, this objection insinuates that God cheats. He stacks the cards. Again The objector
has a false picture to paint. He pictures an unelected person chiding Christ and excusing
himself at Judgment Day, You cant send me to Hell. I never had a chance. You cheated.
Thats blasphemy. They never wanted to come to Christ, so they will get exactly what they did
want - Hell.

5. Election is like this: God votes for you, Satan votes against you, and your
vote decides the election.
A. This theory has a grain of truth to it - but only a grain. In the Revealed Will, God certainly
does call men to Himself. He wills that sinners believe and repent, and He is pleased if they do
and angry if they do not. In the Gospel He wills to bestow blessings. Satan, however, does not
want anyone to believe the Gospel. And all who hear are obliged to believe the Gospel. All this
is true, but it is not the point in question.
B. The real point regards the Secret Will of God, not the Revealed Will. God doesnt will all men
to be saved in the, Secret Will. He has not elected all men. The Secret Will is the will of
unconditional foreordination. If God willed all men to be saved in the Secret Will, then all men
shall be saved. That all men will not be saved proves that He has not foreordained all men to be
saved. He has foreordained some to salvation, and we call that election.
C. Whats more, since when does Satan have an equal vote with God? Where does Scripture
ever suggest that the Lord of the Universe gives an equal vote to His worst enemy? Or to
sinners who share the same Sinful nature as Satan? No, election is the sole prerogative of God
alone. Look at the theory closer and it will appear blasphemous, namely, can Man and Satan
outvote and outwit God? No! So, instead of there being three votes from God, Satan and Man,
the real three votes are from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - and they always vote
alike.

6. Doesnt the Bible say that God is no respecter of persons?

A. As a matter of fact, the Bible quite frequently asserts that God is no respecter of persons
(see Acts 10:34, Deut. 10:17, Rom. 2:11, Gal. 2:6, Eph. 6:9, Col. 3:25, I Pet. 1:17, 2 Chron.
19:7). Because God is not partial to mens persons, neither should we partial (James 2:1-9).
B. But what does the phrase respecter of persons mean? It certainly cannot mean that God
does not make a choice, for Scripture clearly and repeatedly asserts that God chooses certain
men to salvation. Lets look at the phrase in context, of which Acts 10:34 is probably the best
and gives the largest context.
C. Peter was a Jew. At that time, the Jews thought they had a corner on Gods grace. They
then thought that this was because they were special. The worst Jew was considered better
than the best Gentile. Peter still had this prejudice. God saved the Gentile Cornelius to teach
Peter that He is no respecter of persons. In other words, He can save either Jew or Gentile if
He so chose. His choosing men is not dependent on their persons - their race, age, etc. N.L.

333

Rice, the 19th century Southern Presbyterian, explained it like this:

If God had rejected Cornelius, who was a truly pious man, simply because he was a
Gentile, whilst he would receive a Jew of the same character, he would have been a
respecter of persons. But inasmuch as he accepts all righteous men, of whatever nation,
he is not so. A respecter of persons, then, is one who, acting as a judge, decides not
according to law and testimony, but is governed by sinister motives; who does not treat
those who come before him according to their character; who withholds from some that
to which they have a just claim, in order to give to others what is not their due; or who is
governed in his treatment of men by prejudice, not by a proper estimate of their real
character.
D. Now lets look deeper. Of themselves, Jews and Gentiles are the same- Paul argues this
repeatedly in the book of Romans. What then made Cornelius differ? Why did he come to
believe in Christ at all? Not because he was Gentile, any more than Peter was saved because
he was a Jew. Rather. God chose both Peter and Cornelius to be saved. The basis of the
choice was not race, age, sex, intellect, wealth or any other such thing. God chose him by mere
grace.

7. But the idea of privilege is wrong.

A. All men are created equal in the eyes of God. God has no favorites. All men must have
equal opportunity. Privilege is wrong. Again, here is another picture we are asked to look at. Is it
right for one child to be privileged with wealth while so many others are under-privileged?
The argument suggests that Calvinism portrays God as a greedy father who leaves wealth to
his privileged child and leaves the others to starve. Moreover, it accuses the Calvinist elect
with being spoiled privileged children.
B. The argument is false. No man deserves privileges. Is it wrong for a parent to leave an
inheritance to his child? Is it wrong for God to bestow the free gift of salvation on someone,
when no man deserves it? This objection is not just against election but against grace. It preys
on guilt and sentiment rather than truth. It overlooks the wonderful truth that election and
salvation are privileges. But privileges are free and undeserved gifts.

8. Election is unloving.
A. This objection is hard to comprehend, since unconditional election is the election of grace.
Election is certainly not unloving for the elect. As for the non-elect, we hear of yet another
picture: A farmer comes across some boys swimming in his pond, which he has forbidden to
swimmers. They get caught in seaweed and begin to drown. The farmer could save them all but
elects to save; only a few. Thus, he is unloving towards the other poor drowning boys.
B. The illustration is incorrect. We are not poor drowning boys, but criminals against God,
caught with weapons in our hands. Sinners deserve to be punished, not pitied. God owes
election and salvation to no man. God does indeed love all men as creatures, but He has justly
reserved His special grace for the elect. Is a man unloving towards all men because he has a
special love for his wife? Quite the opposite. He would be unloving if he loved her the same as
all others.

334

9. Election is not fair.

A. Here is the basic objection of all. The kid gloves, (come off and we have a bare-knuckle
fight. The Bible answer is to the point: God is always just in all He does (Gen. 18:25, Deut.
32:4). Rom. 9:14 specifically asserts divine justice in the matter of election. It is essential to
remember that no man has a claim on God. Nobody deserves election, therefore God is
righteous when He gives it to some and withholds it from others.
B. At root, the objection proves our point. It is the objection which comes from heart at enmity
with God. In every election there is a sore loser who demands are count. Gods reply is simply,
Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? (Rom. 9:20) If you insist on getting justice,
then you will receivejustice, but no mercy. Those who believe in election, however, marvel at
Gods grace, thank God for His matchless mercy in choosing them, and glorify Christ.

Recommended Reading
Calvin, John. Calvins Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Kregel. (Most of the book is Calvins answers to
objections on election. See also the Institutes, 111:23 [vol.2, pp.947-964]).
Girardeau, John. Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, pp. 178-412.Harrisonburg: Sprinkle.
Pink, Arthur W. The Sovereignty of God, pp. 237-260. Grand Rapids: Baker. Boettner, Loraine.
The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp.205-296. Phillipsburg Pres. and Reformed.

335

Chapter 45. The Destiny of the Elect.

1. Introduction.
A. Scripture teaches that election is eternal: He chose us in Him before the foundation of the
world (Eph. 1:4). We were predestined from eternity. But what about eternity future? What is
the destination of predestination? What does the Bible teach about the destiny of the elect?
B. The subject of Heaven is exceedingly broad, too vast to cover in a single study. The great
Puritan, Richard Baxter, wrote over 600 pages on just one aspect of Heaven, namely The
Saints Everlasting Rest. In this study we will concentrate on those aspects of Heaven which are
directly associated in Scripture with predestination and election. Also, we will give more
attention to the destiny of the elect as it relates to the elect themselves. Earlier we discussed the
glory of God; now, the glorification of the elect.

2. Salvation and Eternal Life.

A. Scripture frequently associates election and salvation: God has not destined us for wrath,
but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ (I Thess. 5:9); God has chosen you
from the beginning for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13). Election is also to eternal life: As many as
had been appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48).
B. These two blessings are tied together in all their phases. First, they were both planned and
included in eternal election. Second, in time they were both secured by Christ. Third, they are
both legally bestowed on the elect by the Holy Spirit. Sometimes a N.T. writer will say that faith
brings salvation (e.g., Acts 16:31). Elsewhere, faith brings eternal life (e.g., John 6:47). Third,
both are progressively developed in believers. This does not mean that some believers may fail
along the way in either salvation or eternal life. No, all the elect will persevere because they
were predestined to both the end and the means. Yet, both are still not finalized in the elect.
C. So, the elect will one day have the final installments, as it were, of salvation and eternal life.
Note how they complement each other. Salvation is negative - it forgives sin. Eternal life is
positive - it replaces sin. They will be completed concurrently in the elect, to the glory of God.

3. Holiness.
A. Our key verse on election specifies another aspect of the destiny of those who were elected
by God: He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
blameless before Him (Eph. 1:4). This word should does not carry the idea of present
imperative of ethical conduct, as if Paul was saying, He chose us, so act and live holy lives. It
is true that realization of our election is both an incentive and imperative to holiness. But that is
not Pauls point. Rather, he is saying that we were elected to be holy, and we certainly shall be
holy when our destiny is reached.
B. First, we shall be holy. Ultimately, only God is holy in the sense of intrinsic essence. We
will not be holy in and of ourselves. All our holiness is derivative. We can be holy only because
God imputes Christs holiness to us and then infuses it into us by the Holy Spirit. This is
progressive sanctification. But the process will be complete one day. That does not mean that

336

our holiness will no longer be derivative. Rather, it will be permanently derivative. In other
words, we will forever draw upon Gods holiness. But at that Day, there will be no mores sin in
us, only holiness.
C. Second, Paul says that we will be blameless. This is a necessary outcome of holiness. If
we will be sinless, then we cannot be blamed or condemned in the least- Now, of ourselves we
are presently unholy and therefore blameworthy. But when all sin is removed, there will be no
accusing finger pointed at us.
D. Whose finger could possibly accuse and blame us then? Not God or Christ, for they have
justified us and know that all sin has been forgiven and removed. Not the elect angels or other
elect sinners, for they will not see any sin with which to accuse us. Ourselves? No, for we will
know of a certainty that all sin has been removed and that our salvation is complete. What about
Satan, demons or unrepentant sinners in Hell? No, they will not be allowed to accuse us any
more. Since, therefore, there are no others who could conceivably blame us, it stands that we
will be without blame and hence, blameless.
E. There is no sin in Heaven. Since we were predestined to inhabit Heaven, God has
predestined the means whereby our sins will be experientially removed from us lest we bring it
through the Gates of Pearl. Rev. 21:27, And nothing unclean and no one who practices
abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the
Lambs book of life. Election is the writing of our names in this book of life. Now note that John
does not only say no one but also nothing. Not only unrepentant sinners will be excluded, but
all sin itself will be excluded. Why? Because God Himself is thrice holy and cannot permit sin in
His presence. All Original and Actual sin will be left outside. To be precise, it will be left in our
graves.
F. Election also means that Christ chose us to be His bride. Eph. 5:27 says that He died so that
He will present to Himself a bride in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing;
but that she should be holy and blameless. We will be a perfect bride for our perfect husband.
G. The idea of perfection is inherent in this destiny. Heb. 12:23 speaks of those in Heaven as
being the spirits of just men made perfect. Spiritually that is reached the moment a saint dies.
Physically it occurs at our resurrection. So, at the last day, our perfect spirits will be reunited
with perfect bodies. Sin will not dwell in any part of our beings.
H. But theres more to it than this, and it deals with election. Follow the logic: God has
predestined that we will be holy. All His decrees of predestination will come to pass. Therefore,
we will certainly always be holy. In other words, God has foreordained that there will not be a
Fall Number Two. All those in Heaven will therefore be incapable of sinning. We call this
impeccability.
I. Thomas Boston, the 18th century Scottish Calvinist, traces the fall and rise of the elect in his
masterful treatise, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State. Observe the pattern relevant to ability to
sin:
(1) Innocence in Adam: Man able to sin and able not to sin.
(2) Fallen Man: Able to sin, not able not to sin (total inability).
(3) Redeemed Man: Able to sin, able not to sin.
(4) Perfected Man: Able not to sin, not able to sin (impeccability).

337

J. How is it that we will be unable to sin? Ultimately, it is because of Gods decree. We were
elected to be holy, and so we shall be eternally. Experientially, it is because all sin will be
removed. In that sense we will be like Adam before he fell. But we will be one step greater. All
temptation will be removed. All internal temptation (Original Sin) will be removed. All external
temptation will also be removed from our presence. We will not be in touch with sinners in Hell
nor with Satan and his demons. There is no sin without temptation. You could say, We couldnt
sin if we wanted to, but the point is that we cannot want to. That-possibility will be annihilated
K. Unable to sin, we will be unable to die, for death comes only from sin. We have been
predestined to immortality (cf. I Cor. 15:53). In this sense we will be like the unfallen elect
angels. God kept them from falling, and He will keep us from ever falling throughout eternity.
Moreover, they willingly obey God in Heaven (Matt. 6:10); thus, our highest joy will be like theirs,
namely, in willingly obeying our Heavenly Father.
L. This produces two remarkable effects in the Lover and His Beloved. First, our Lord Jesus will
no longer be grieved at sin in His elect bride. As the old spiritual put it, And I aint a gonna
grieve my Lord no more. Second, we will know beyond all doubt that our salvation is complete
and that we will never sin. Imagine the great joy that will rise up in our hearts when we realize
that we will never again commit sin. That joy will be excelled by the realization that we cannot
ever sin. Such joy is also the lot of election.

4. Conformity to Christs Image.

A. Rom. 8:29 says, Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the
image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. This means several
things; First, Christ is perfectly holy. We too will be made holy, and thus will conform to Christ.
The divine Husband will see a resemblance in His bride.
B. Second, it means that the Image of God will be fully restored. The Image was marred in the
Fall, and is partly restored in justification and conversion. When fully restored, we will mirror the
glory of God perfectly. Third, Paul specifies that it will be the image of His Son. Elsewhere
Paul says that Christ is the perfect image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Col. 1:15). This is how another
Apostle put it: We know that when He appears, we shall be like Him (I John 3:2).

5. Glorification.
A. The last link of the Golden Chain of Rom. 8:29-30 is glorification. It began in eternal election
and ends in eternal glorification. Paul referred to it earlier in the chapter (vss. 17 and 21), and in
other epistles. We have already discussed what it means for us to glorify God, but what does it
mean when it says that God will glorify us? Obviously the two are similar, but cannot be
identical. We will worship God, but God will not worship us. He does not give His glory to
anyone or anything else (Isa. 48:11). What, then, is the glorification for which we have been
elected?
B. We need to back up a little first. Isaiah 49:23 predicted the Day when God will display His
glory in His people, and in 49:3 He tells us that He will display this glory in His Messiah. This is
the clue that opens up the mystery for us. We are glorified in Christ. He will be glorified in the
end (Phil. 2:11), and so we will share in this in some sense. But in what sense?
C. In John 17:10 and 22, Jesus said that He displayed Gods glory to His people while on earth.

338

This refers mainly to the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18), but also to His mighty acts (see John
1:14, 2:11). 2 Cor. 3:18 tells us that believers now behold the glory of God in Christ, similar to
Moses. Here we have another clue, Moses received Gods glory and shone with that glory
before the Israelites. We too will behold the glory of God and will shine forth in it.
D. Now God says we are partakers of the glory that is to be revealed (I Pet. 5:1). We will
receive glory, honor, immortality and peace (Rom. 2:7, 10). This will occur when Christ returns (I
Pet. 1:7), when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day (2 Thess. 1:10). On that Day,
He will grant us immortal bodies which are glorified like His resurrection body. Phil. 3:21, who
will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory. This
theme is especially developed in I Cor. 15:40-49. These glorified bodies will be like Christs
body - physical but with new properties. This means more than simply the removal of sin. It
means the infusion of holiness, which radiates the glory of God.
E. Theres another aspect of the glorification to which we were predestined. We were chosen to
be the bride of Christ. The destination of the bride is marriage to Christ. This includes the
necessary preparation of Eph. 5:27, that He might present to Himself the Church in all her
glory. This means several things. First, it refers to holiness, as we have seen. Second, it refers
to the imputed and infused righteousness of Christ. But it means something else. It specifically
refers to the idea of beauty. Gods glory is His beauty. When we are glorified, we will be
beautiful. We will be beautiful in body and in spirit. Our bodies will be perfect, and therefore
beautiful. They will radiate beauty in Heaven. When we see each other, we will marvel at the
wonderful beauty of our resurrection bodies. More than that, we will be made beautiful for Christ
to behold. What groom does not rejoice at the sight of His beautiful bride?
F. This beauty, or glory, will especially be in our spirits. This ties in with our impeccable
holiness. What is more beautiful than holiness? Nothing. So, we will be spiritually beautiful to
our Savior. He bestows this beauty on us so as to please Himself. Our glorification is a means
of bringing glory and pleasure to Him.
G. Theres more. We will radiate the very glory of Christ in Heaven. Moses reflected it in part
when he was on Mt. Sinai. We will reflect it far more. Now this is comparable to the
Transfiguration, but with some differences. Christ shone with glory then out of His intrinsic
essence. We will never shine like that, for we will never be God. But still, His righteousness will
be ours, and we will behold His glory. Hence, we will reflect His glory. Our glory is simply His
glory being revealed to us and in us and from us.
H. This ties in with the theme of our being made conformable to His image. That means that we
will be mirrors of Christ. He displays His glory to us and it necessarily reflects perfectly in the
mirrors. Throughout eternity, then, God will reveal His glory in Christ to us, and in turn we will
reflect it back to God in Christ.

6. The Glory of Gods Grace.

A. Eph. 1:6 tells us the ultimate end of our election: the praise of the glory of His grace (cf.
vss. 12, 14). God chose us out of love to be the recipients of His special love and grace. We
receive it in part now and will continue to receive it in eternity. Now heres a vital point. Gods
grace is infinite, for He is infinite. On the other hand, we are finite and always will be finite. So, it
will take all eternity for God to fulfill this destiny. He will keep revealing His grace to us even in
eternity, even as He supplies us with holiness. It will truly be grace upon grace (John 1:16).
B. This will result in the glory of His grace. This has 2 aspects to it. First, we will be the passive

339

recipients of His glorious grace. Throughout eternity He will reveal and display it to and in us.
Moreover, He will display this grace in us to others. The elect angels will marvel at this display.
They will not envy (for envy is a sin and they are holy). They will praise God for electing and
glorifying us in His sovereign grace. Moreover, God will display this grace in us to Himself. It will
be as if the Father, Son and Spirit will display their respective grace to each other in and
through us. Ultimately, it is for Gods pleasure and glory.
C. Second, there is an active aspect. As this glorious grace is finally revealed to us in
accordance with election, we will be moved to praise God - to the praise of the glory of His
grace. We will spend eternity singing praises of sovereign, electing grace. We will forever be
receiving grace and thanking Him accordingly, as if to say, Thank you, Lord, for choosing to
love me. And, of course, this will be sung in the key of love. There will be an eternal wonder in
all this: Why did you chose unworthy me to be the recipient of your grace? Also, we will go
through eternity thanking Him for election, the atonement, and salvation - all of grace.
D. These truths are also taught in Rom. 9:23, And He did so in order that He might make
known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.
This chapter and especially this verse was the subject of a large treatise by William Twisse,
Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, entitled The Riches of Gods Love Unto the Vessels of
Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath (1653).
E. In Romans 9, Paul teaches that God sovereignly chose some sinners to receive His grace
and others to receive His wrath, both to the eternal glory of God. Verse 23 is the high water
mark of the chapter. Gods purpose of creation is the display of His glory. The elect glorify God
in His grace, the non-elect in His wrath. Vs. 23 says, to make known His grace. To whom,
then, is it made known? Well, it is obviously made known directly to the recipients of grace, the
elect. It is also made known somewhat indirectly to the elect angels, who will marvel at the
display of grace. Before we are redeemed, there was no display of this grace. They therefore
see it and rejoice and worship. In a yet more indirect way, it will be made known to the non-elect
angels and sinners, including Satan. We will behold Gods glorious wrath in them, and they will
behold Gods glorious grace in us. God will be glorified in them as they gnash their teeth,
remembering what they forfeited because of their sin and unbelief. Specifically, Christ will show
off His bride to angels and men: Behold how I love my bride, whom I have chosen!
F. Paul uses the figure of vessels of mercy in regard to the destiny of the elect. We were
chosen out of a fallen lump of clay to be molded into clay pots to receive grace and mercy. Note
that Paul shifts in this chapter from grace to mercy. Eph. l speaks mainly of grace, Rom. 9 of
mercy. We receive both. But there is a slight difference. Grace is forgiving love, mercy is
comforting love. We are presently soothed in our temporal miseries; in eternity we will receive
this more fully. All miseries will cease at the gates of Heaven. Misery is the result of sin. Since
sin will be barred from Heaven, so will misery. Only grace and mercy are there.
G. These vessels of mercy will be filled to overflowing. Whatever God does, He does in a big
way. Is this comparable to pouring a gallon jug of water into a small cup? Lets use a better
analogy. It is more like a great waterfall of grace being poured into the little cup. Best of all, the
little cup is completely submerged in the heavenly ocean of grace, which has neither bottom nor
shore.

7. Heaven is a World of Love.

A. Jonathan Edwards published a series of sermons on I Cor. 13 under the title, Charity and Its
Fruits. [Not included in the Banner of Truth 2-volume edition of his Works, but published

340

separately by the Banner. It is also included in vol. 8 of the Yale edition, in the volume entitled
Ethical Writings.] The last message is on vs. 13,But now abide faith, hope and love, these
three; but the greatest of these is love. Edwards has a classic exposition on the eternality of
love under the title, Heaven is a World of Love.
B. The following excerpt sums up his thesis: Heaven is the palace, or presence-chamber, of
the Supreme Being who is both the cause and source of all holy love... And all this in a garden
of love, the Paradise of God, where everything has a cast of holy love, and everything conspires
to promote and stir up love, and nothing to interrupt its exercises; where everything is fitted by
an all-wise God for the enjoyment of love under the greatest advantages. And all this shall be
without any fading of the beauty of the objects beloved, or any decaying of love in the lover, or
any satiety in the faculty which enjoys love.
C. Heaven is indeed a world of love, for it is the place of the final revelation of the grace of God,
who is love. All the elect will love each other perfectly in Heaven, knowing how their mutual Lord
loves them all and wills that they love each other (we will delight to do His will in this). But Gods
love for His elect surpasses their love for each other, for He is infinite and they are finite.
D. Rev. 21:23-25 and 22:5 describe Heaven as a place of light. This light is the glory of God.
This light is defracted, as it were, into two notable rays: holinessand grace. God is the source of
holiness and love as the sun is the source of light. Hence, God will shine forth in holiness and
love.
E. We have shown that election is by sovereign grace. We choose Him because He first chose
us. Similarly, we love because He first loved us (I John 4:19). This principle continues into
eternity and it the very essence of the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph. 1:6). Since God
will continue to reveal the glory of His grace to us in all eternity, we will reflect it back in the
appropriate manner. Just as He is glorified in the revelation of His holiness to us, resulting in our
impeccability; so He will be glorified in the revelation of His grace to us, resulting in our perfect
state of love.
F. Or, simply put, the destiny of the elect is to spend eternity being loved by God and loving
Him in return. That is the destination of predestination,

Recommended Reading
Edwards, Jonathan. Charity and Its Fruits, pp. 323-368. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Edwards, Jonathan. True Saints, When Absent from the Body, Are Present with the Lord,
Heaven, and The Portion of the Righteous, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. II, pp.
26-36, 617-641, 888-905. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Gerstner, John. Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Baxter, Richard. The Saints Everlasting Rest. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed
(Evangelical Press).
Boston, Thomas. Human Nature in Its Fourfold State. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Boettner,
Lorraine. Immortality. Philiipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Gods Ultimate Purpose, pp. 128-136. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House.
Helm, Paul. The Last Things, pp. 83-107. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.

341

Chapter 46. The Practical Implications of

Election.
1. Introduction.
A. To many Christians, the doctrine of election seems too theoretical and therefore irrelevant. It
appears as useless as counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They are
reluctant to believe in election - or any other doctrine, for that matter - unless they can see its
immediate practical application.
B. This is an incorrect way of studying theology. Whenever we are introduced to theory, our first
question should not be, Is it practical? but Is it Biblical? We can easily be led astray into
error and even heresy by first starting with the practicalities of a theory. And in turn, theological
error will produce practical error. It is a deceptive trap that we need to avoid.
C. But, of course, it certainly is true that all Biblical doctrines are practical. God reveals truths to
us in Scripture so that we may both believe right and live right: All Scripture is inspired by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man
of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Note that teaching
must precede living; right doctrine must go before right doing.
D. By the same standard, right living must follow right doctrine. Theology lays the foundation,
but is not an end in itself. The superstructure of right living must be built on it. We must both
know the truth and do it (see James 1:23-27, John 13:17). In this study, we build upon the
foundation of the doctrine of election. We now look at several of the practical applications of
election.

2. Assurance.
A. 2 Peter 1:10, Be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you. If
nothing else, this verse teaches us that we can know that we were chosen by God. You do not
have to wait until you get to Heaven to know that you were predestined to be saved and
glorified. Not every Christian has this assurance, but it is possible to gain it and it is a high
blessing when received.
B. But how does one go about attaining this assurance? How can one know that his name was
eternally written in the Lambs Book of Life from before the foundation of the world? He waits in
vain if he is waiting for an angel to fly down with a page torn out of the Book of Life with his
name on it, or expects a secret mystical revelation that says, You are one of the elect. It
doesnt happen that way. Rather, we gain this assurance in Gods way according to the Bible.
C. Peter tells us about this way in vs. 10. First, he says that calling precedes election. Now this
is not the chronological order, for we know that election was eternal and calling is in time (Rom.
8:29-30). Rather, when it comes to gaining assurance of election, we must first gain assurance
that we have been called. What is this calling? It is not the general call to salvation that goes out
to everyone who hears the Gospel. Rather it is the special calling given by the Holy Spirit when
He saves a person: who saved us, and called us with a holy calling (2 Tim. 1:9). We describe
this as efficacious calling.

342

D. Nobody can know he is an elect unless he first knows that he has been called. Theres more
to it than this. One cannot know that he is elect unless he first believes in Christ unto salvation.
An unconverted sinner has no way of knowing in this life whether he is one of the elect, until he
first comes to Christ. One practical implication of this is that in our evangelism we direct sinners
to the Cross, not to the eternal decree of election. Heinrich Heppe commented that we can
know our own election not of course a priori, i.e. not by useless poring over the mystery of the
divine counsel of grace, but only a posteriori, i.e. the moment he is converted and born again.
E. God has not chosen to place the word Elect oh the foreheads of the elect, not physically at
least. On the other hand, Reformed theology says that there are certain sure marks of election
that are spiritually evident in believers. The marks do not appear until after conversion, and may
be more evident in some persons, than in others. Moreover, only the elect ever have these
marks. Their presence point assuredly to ones election.
F. So, then, how does one discern that he is a believer in Christ? Scripture gives several steps
to gain assurance. The first is knowledge of and agreement to the truth of the Gospel. Nobody
can be saved without faith in the Gospel (Mark 1:15,16:16). And all those who believe are
saved. Notice that 2 Thess. 2:13 associates faith in the truth with election: God has chosen you
from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
Nobody can know he is elect unless he believes the Gospel. Believing the Gospel brings
salvation and a measure of assurance.
G. Of course, this is inseparable from another aspect of faith, namely, personal faith and trust in
Christ as Lord and Savior. Faith includes both the agreement with the mind to the report of the
Gospel and also trust in the heart in Christ.
H. Second, one may know that he has been saved by recognizing the fruit of spiritual life. This
has two parts; First, there is the internal change of attitudes. Gone, or at least weakened, are
the old attitudes. Now there are the internal fruits of the Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, and
so forth. These are the things of 2 Pet. 1:5-7 which Peter alludes to in vs. 10, for as long as
you practice these things, you will never stumble. The presence of love is especially important:
By this all men will- know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John
13:35). We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He
who does not love abides in death (I John 3:14. Cf. 4:20). When we notice these Christ like
attitudes in us, we can be assured that we are His.
I. The second part of this mark is more external. Our lifestyles have changed. We bear spiritual
fruit that others can see. We now obey Gods commands, at least in part. He who does not obey
at all has not been saved; he, who obeys, especially in love, has the evidence in his very
character that he has been born again (I John 2:2-6).
J. The third mark is the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit: By this we know that we abide in
Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit (I John 4:13. Cf. 3:24; Rom. 8:16, Gal.
4:6). Taken together, these three marks evidence that one has been called, born again and
justified.
K. Now, there is an inseparable link between present salvation and eternal election. Rom. 8:2930 describes the Golden Chain of Salvation. The links are inseparable. All who were foreknown
will be called;. all who are called will be justified; all who are justified will be glorified. Now turn
that around: all who are now justified were called and predestined and foreknown. The point is
that by knowing that you are now justified, you can logically deduce that you were foreknown
and predestined. He who has one link has all links in the chain. Moreover, only the elect ever
have any of these links. This is the simple answer to what appears to be a difficult mystery. First
discern that you have the marks of present salvation, and then deduce from them that you were

343

eternally elected.
L. This automatically brings an increase in assurance and security in Christ. Why? First, we
realize that our salvation wasnt really our doing; we were saved in accordance with Gods
eternal plan-. It was no coincidence. But, second, we see the end of the chain - glorification. If
we know that we are now saved, we can deduce not only that we were eternally elected but also
that we shall certainly be glorified. This, then, is a wonderful practical application of the doctrine
of election. It increases our assurance. Our opponents sometimes suggest that the Calvinist
view of election breeds doubt, but we strongly disagree. Knowledge of election does not weaken
faith and assurance; rather, it compounds and increases assurance and faith.
M. So, we can summarize the Reformed teaching on the subject in the words of the Synod of
Dort (1:12): The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain
the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the
secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy
pleasure, the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God - such as a true faith in
Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.
N. Before we move on, this necessarily raises a related practical application, namely, Can we
know that another person is elect? Some say no, but the Word of God says yes. For example, I
Thess. 1:4 says, knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you (cf. 2 Thess. 2:13; 1
Pet. 1:2). Notice again our key text: He chose us (Eph. 1:4). This verse tells us two things in
the personal plural pronoun us. First, Paul knew that he was elect; second, he knew the
Ephesians were elect.
O. Of course, it is much harder to discern anothers election than it is ones own. And some
believers even say that we should not even try to discern whether anyone else is a true believer,
let alone one of the elect. To them it smacks of legal ism and inquisition. But I disagree. For one
thing, believers are to marry only other believers (2 Cor. 6:14). A believer, then, ought to be able
to discern that his beloved is also a believer before he marries her. Many divorces could be
avoided by the application of this principle. This also applies to counseling, evangelism, church
membership and discipline.
P. So, then, how can we know another is elect? The answer is much the same as for ourselves:
follow the Biblical steps of faith in the truth, the evidence of spiritual fruit, and the testimony of
the Spirit. The last stage, however, presents greatest difficulty. Nevertheless, Christ said that
the world will know we are believers when we love each other (John 13:35), and if the world can
know then certainly believers can know. I John 3:7-10 elaborates this assurance and even says
that these evidences are obvious and manifest. The conclusion: by discerning that someone
is now a true Christian, you can then deduce that he was elected to salvation. Jerome Zanchius,
the 16th century Reformer, observed: The true believer ought not only to be thoroughly
established in the point of his own election, but should likewise believe the election of all his
other fellow believers and brethren in Christ... I cannot see how Christian love can be cultivated,
how we can call one another brethren in the Lord, or how believers can hold religious fellowship
and communion with each other, unless they have some solid and visible reason to conclude
that they are loved with the same everlasting love, were redeemed by the same Savior, are
partakers of like grace, and shall reign in the same glory. Knowing anothers election, then, has
great practical applications.

3. Humility.
A. The Synod of Dort specifies several other practical blessings of election: The sense and

344

certainty of this election afford to the children additional matter for daily humiliation before Him.
Knowledge of our present salvation humbles our pride, for we know that we were not saved by
anything we did but solely by Gods grace (Eph. 2:8-9). Knowledge of ones assurance builds on
this and increases our humility, for it sheds more light on the manifold grace of God. Lets
explore this.
B. The doctrine of unconditional election by sovereign grace pierces our hearts in an unusual
manner. In earlier studies we showed that there is one basic reason why men do not want to
believe in this truth. That reason is not so much in their heads(though sin blinds the mind) as in
their hearts. In other words, the doctrines of absolute divine sovereignty and unconditional
election threaten our pride. Man kicks and squirms and offers petty arguments only to protect
his pride.
C. But God will have no such pride in the hearts of His children. God alone must have the glory.
So He conspired a plan whereby His people will be humbled, and thereby He alone have the
glory. Of course, God has several means by which He humbles us, such as afflictions,
embarrassment, conviction of sin, humiliation, disappointments in life, and so on. But He has
one specific means of humbling us in this area. He has an antidote to our pride that boasts that
we are partly responsible for our salvation and destiny.
D. That antidote is the revelation of the nature of unconditional election. How does He reveal it?
By Holy Scripture and Holy Spirit. The Spirit enlightens us to what Scripture says about God,
ourselves and our election. Gradually we see these glorious truths. At first we rebel, but His
grace woos and breaks us, and then beholding them we are humbled. Our dark pride is
exposed, and we cry, Why me? Why did you choose such a worm as me? How could you? I
am unworthy. If you want to be humbled, study the doctrine of election.

4. Holiness.
A. Eph. 1:4 says that we were elected to be holy, and as we saw in the previous study, we most
certainly shall be holy. But notice two things concerning election. First, we were eternally
predestined to be perfectly holy in eternity future; and second, we were eternally predestined to
be partly holy now. Eph. 2:10, We are His workmanship, created in Christ Oesus for good
works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Notice that we can only
be partly holy in this life. Sinless perfection is ours only in the next life (I John 1:8). Yet in our
election, we were predestined to enjoy a measure of holiness now through the good works that
have been predestined to occur in and through us. (Cf. John 15:16).
B. Now, how does this work itself out in practice? One way is as follows. Personal holiness and
assurance of election combine in an experiential dynamo. We can discern our election through
looking at personal holiness (2 Pet. 1:10). In turn, assurance of election is an incentive to
greater holiness, which in turn increases our assurance, and so on it goes. There is no greater
incentive to holiness than thankful love. When a soul beholds the Cross, he is moved to thankful
love because he sees the love of God (cf. 1 John 4:19). Then that same soul deduces his
election by sovereign grace, and he is humbled and thankful. He wants to obey. And he does.
C. Our Arminian friends have nothing to fear when they suppose that the Calvinist doctrine of
election produces licentiousness. We abominate the notion of sinning because of grace. In fact,
we assert that this great doctrine is the very opposite. Assurance of election produces holiness,
not unholiness.
D. What, then, of the person who claims to be elect but lives a life of flagrant sin? He does not

345

bear the marks of conversion or election. He cannot conclude that he is elect, and neither can
we. Hind you, he might be one of the elect who has not yet been converted, but we cannot know
that. But we can know that he is not yet regenerate. Again, Dort offers this explanation: The
consideration of this doctrine of election is so far from encouraging remissness in the
observance of the divine commands, or from sinking men in carnal security, that these, in the
just judgment of God, are the usual effects of rash presumption, or of idle and wanton trifling
with the grace of election, in those who refuse to walk in the ways of the elect.

5. Praise.
A. We were elected and predestined to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph.1:4-5). Like
holiness, this will be consummated in Heaven but enjoyed partly here now. How does this work?
Assurance of ones election overwhelms one and irresistibly moves him to worship, thank and
glorify the Lord. How? Because this truth is a revelation of Gods glory, specifically, of His
sovereignty and grace.
B. This doctrine opens a bejeweled door to new vistas of the glory of God. When God reveals
His glory, His creatures respond with worship. We glorify Him because He first reveals His glory.
Election reveals news kinds of glory, so we respond with new ways of glorifying God. For
example, we behold His sovereignty and grace in new depths. Earlier we had only contemplated
His sovereignty and grace in time, but when convinced of election we see them in their eternal
aspect. We behold God acting totally alone in His eternal council chamber, for we were not even
created. So, then, when we behold the splendor of His sovereignty in eternal election, what else
can we do but praise Him and worship Him?

6. Love.
A. Lastly, we were chosen out of sovereign love and await a destiny of enjoying divine love for
all eternity (Eph. 1:4-6). In the interim, we enjoy measures of this love, and this moves us to love
Him who first loved us (I John 4:19). Again, Dort included in its list of blessings of assurance of
election: adoring the depth of His mercies who first manifested so great love towards them...
and rendering grateful returns of ardent love to Him.
B. When the Bride hears the assurance from her Beloved, There were many others whom I
could have chosen, but I chose to love you, then warm love wells up in her heart for Him as
never before. Gratitude, humility, praise, and especially love characterize the heart of the
Christian who is assured of his election.
C. Grace produces love in us. How deep is grace? It is as deep as Hell, for Christ took our Hell
for us at the Cross. But how old is grace? Strange question. Grace did not begin at Calvary.
Christ did not make an unwilling God love us (although by His blood He appeased His wrath for
us). Rather, Christ died because God already loved us. Grace, then, preceded Calvary. But
when did it begin? Not at Creation either, but back in the annals of eternity. Its birthday is
recorded in 2 Tim. 1:9, grace... was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity. Or, in other
words, f have loved you with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3).
D. The point is this: Calvarys grace moves us to love God when we are struck with the depth of
that grace. And elections grace moves us to love God when we are struck with the eternality of
that grace. The two combine in a heart of love.

346

7. Conclusion.
A. Two final applications. First, believers should have a love for the Savior because of election,
but they should also have a love for the doctrine of election as well. Some Calvinists almost
seem to believe in election grudgingly rather than joyfully and lovingly. Some almost secretly
wish election were not true. We should rather love this glorious doctrine. Edwin Palmer wrote,
Be very honest now. Do you like the teaching of election? Why? We should like it because we
should like all of Gods truths. But also because it tells us more of our great and glorious and
loving Savior.
B. Second, this applies to non-Christians in an indirect way. Most of this study has been for
believers. When they deduce their election, they open the door of Heaven to new holiness,
humility, praise and love. But the unbeliever has all doors closed. What is his responsibility? He
needs to give all diligence to making his calling and election sure. He needs to do all he can to
discover if he is one of the elect. How? Not by prying into the secret councils of God, but by
coming to Jesus Christ in faith and repentance. For, you see, Christ has in His hands the keys
of salvation, Heaven and election.

347

Chapter 47. The Doctrine of Reprobation.

1. What is Reprobation?
A. In his book Chosen By God, R.C. Sproul has a chapter entitled, Double, Double,Toil and
Trouble. Is Predestination Double? In it he states, It is not enough to talk about Jacob; we
must also consider Esau. Rom. 9:13 says, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Jacob
was elect; Esau was reprobate.
B. The subject of reprobation is one of the hardest doctrines in the Bible to understand. Since
Paul wrote more about the subject than any other Biblical writer, it was perhaps this subject
which Peter had in mind when he wrote concerning Pauls letters, in which are some things
hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16). Because it is so deep and because Man naturally hates this
doctrine, it has been held by relatively few Christians and opposed vigorously by many more.
C. But we cannot study election without studying non-election. Now Scripture says far more
about election than about reprobation. Yet even if the Bible never said anything explicit about it,
we could deduce virtually the whole doctrine from what is taught implicitly about it regarding
election. In this study, we will examine the major portions of Scripture, which touch on
reprobation.
D. Louis Berkhof gives a succinct definition: Reprobation may be defined as that eternal
decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the operation of His
special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice.
E. Another useful definition is that of the Westminster Confession (III:7). Immediately after
discussing election, it says: The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the
unreachable 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 dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
F. In a word, reprobation may be defined as non-election. Reprobation is not the same thing as
total depravity, foreordination of sin, Supralapsarianism, or Hyper-Calvinism (though these are
related to reprobation).
G. Reprobation has two stages in Gods eternal decree. First, there is preterition. This is His
eternal decree to pass some men by. The men, of course, did not yet actually exist, but God first
decree! That they will exist and then that He will permit them to fall and incur His wrath. Then
God chose some to be saved, and left the rest behind. Second, there is predamnation. Having
left some sinners in their sins, He then ordained that they will suffer divine wrath for their sins.
Preterition is a purely sovereign act by God, whereas predamnation is an act of pure divine
justice.
H. Reprobation is thus as unconditional as election. In this decree, God did indeed foresee Han
as sinful, for He had already decreed the entrance of sin. But Mans sin was not the final cause
of reprobation, only the instrumental cause. God is the first and final cause of all things,
including both election and reprobation. If men were reprobated because of their sin, then all
men would be reprobated, for all men are sinners.
I. So, God decreed to withhold salvation from some sinners. Moreover, He foreordained to
withhold from them all the effectual means of salvation. He decreed not to give them faith and
repentance. And He further decreed their final end, namely, punishment for their sins, thereby
glorifying Gods justice, power and wrath.

348

J. Sometimes, as in R.C. Sprouls catchy chapter title, reprobation is termed Double

Predestination. This term indicates that reprobation is the flip side of election on the
predestination coin. In fact, reprobation is the necessary complement of election. For example, I
Sam. 15:8-10 describes how Samuel sought out which son of Jesse God had chosen. Looking
at each of Davids older brothers, he said, Neither has the Lord chosen this one. The Lord has
not chosen these. Choice of some necessarily means rejection of the others. Theoretically,
God could have chosen none, some or all. He chose only some, and that means that He did not
choose the rest.

2. Reprobation in Romans 9.
A. Romans 9 is the clearest, longest and most detailed passage on reprobation in the Bible.
Paul had just described the Golden Chain of Salvation in Rom. 8:29-30, and he continues his
discussion here by contrasting election with reprobation. His argument was summed up in the
lengthy book by William Twisse, Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly: The Riches of Gods
Love Unto the Vessels of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the
Vessels of Wrath. More recently, John Piper has written The Justification of God expounding
Romans 9. Herman Hoeksema wrote Gods Eternal Good Pleasure expounding Romans 9 to
11. The theme in these books is the same: God was thoroughly sovereign and just in choosing
some and rejecting others, all to his glory [all three books are out of print],
B. In Romans 9, Paul is investigating two complementary problems. First, why are not all Jews
saved? Second, why are not all Gentiles lost? Why are some Jews lost and some Gentiles
saved? The final answer is in vs. 11, namely, that this was according to Gods eternal purpose,
specifically regarding the nature of grace and glory.
C. The final answer why some are lost and others saved goes back to eternity and is outside
the persons concerned. For example, take Jacob and Esau. One was chosen, the other was
rejected. But the election and non-election occurred before they were born and therefore was
before either of them had done either good or evil. The point is that the final answer is to be
found in God, not Man.
D. Paul quotes from Mai. 1:2-3 in vs. 13, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. He is not
just speaking of their respective descendents (Israel and Edom). Rather, he uses these
individuals as illustrations of what is true in all the elect and reprobate. And he uses these men
for another important reason: they were twins.
E. What does hated here mean? Sometimes it may mean, loved less (cf. Luke 14:26). In
other places, it means, not loved, meaning the opposite of love. There is a sense in which God
loved Esau even as a creature, for He loves all His creatures. But that is not in view here.
Rather, this love has to do with grace, or Gods undeserved saving love and mercy. God gave it
to Jacob but withheld it from Esau.
F. Now the question that arises at this juncture is, Why did God love one and not the other?
The answer is, for grace to be grace it must be both sovereign and undeserved. Non-Calvinists
may agree that grace is undeserved, but only Calvinists teach that it is sovereign. Verses 15, 16
and 18 teach the sovereignty of grace and mercy. Vs. 15 quotes Ex. 33:19 as a summary: I will
have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. In
other words, it is God, not Man, that determines who will receive mercy. God sovereignly
chooses who will receive mercy. The crucial point regarding reprobation is that it is also God
who determines; who will not receive mercy and its consequents (salvation and glorification),

349

G. Moreover, this can be proved in another way. God is certainly sovereign in the bestowal of
mercy in time. Since God does nothing in time that was not eternally planned in eternal
predestination, the final answer is eternal election and reprobation. Paul illustrates this with two
examples in time. The first is Pharaoh (vs. 17). He is not simply a type of Egypt, but an
individual. God reprobated Pharaoh in eternity and hardened him in time. His hardening in time
proves that he was reprobated.
H. The second illustration is taken from several O.T. passages: the potter and the clay (vss. 1922). God is the potter, mankind is the clay. God sovereignly divides the lump of clay. The
division is not made by Man but by God, for whoever heard of a lump of clay making itself into
pots? Notice that the division is made from the same lump of clay. Some people will argue that
reprobation is like this: The same sun that melts the wax also hardens the clay. Paul does not
mention wax and clay; he says both groups are alike of themselves and come from the same
lump of clay. Though some Calvinists take this lump to refer to unfallen humanity
[Supralapsarianism], by far most Calvinists agree that it means the fallen mass of humanity as
foreordained by God.
I. Out of fallen humanity, God fashions two vessels, or pots. One is honorable, the other is
dishonorable. Paul mentions them also in 2 Tim. 2:20, Now in a large house there are not only
gold and silver vessels, but also vessels of wood and of earthenware, and some to honor and
some to dishonor. (That he there mentions other materials does not affect his argument there
or here.) The first vessel is made for honorable use. It may be a flowerpot or vase for beautiful
flowers, or it may be a jug for precious wine or perfume. These are the elect. They receive
Gods grace, for they are described in vs. 23 as vessels of mercy.
J. The others are vessels of dishonor, such as garbage bins, chamber pots and spittoons.
They receive divine punishment, for they are vessels of wrath (vs. 23). They glorify God by the
revelation of divine power and wrath, even as the elect glorify God by the revelation of divine
mercy and grace and love. But note carefully that both deserve wrath, for all men are sinners
(Rom. 1-3). Furthermore, God alone determines who will receive grace and who will receive
wrath. He is as sovereign in this as a potter is with his clay.
K. Vs. 24 relates all this to the original question of Jews and Gentiles. Some Jews were elected
and others were reprobated; some Gentiles were elected and others were reprobated. Paul
again refers to the arguments of Romans 9 in 11:7, those who were chosen obtained it, but the
rest were hardened.

3. Other Texts on Reprobation.

A. I Thess. 5:9, For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation. Some nonCalvinists appeal to this verse as denying that there is such a thing as reprobation, when in fact
it is a strong verse in favor of it. The logic is inescapable. Paul is not speaking of all men when
he says us, but only of believers. The logic, then, is this: God has not destined believers, to
wrath, but He has indeed destined unbelievers to wrath. The key word is us. Similarly, Eph.
1:4 also implicitly teaches reprobation; for if He chose us (believers) then it follows that He did
not choose them (unbelievers). Throughout 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Paul differentiates
believers and unbelievers (cf. especially 1 Thess. 4:13). Lastly, observe that Paul mentions both
the means and the end in is foreordination. Wrath is the end which is destined, and lack of
salvation is the means.
B. John. 13:16, I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen. This is the same
eternal election of 15:16, You did not choose Me, but I chose you. As in I Thess. 5:9, there is a

350

vital differentiation. Christ did not elect all those who tagged along with him. He knew those
whom He had chosen. Here we see the close association with foreknowledge (eternal prelove) and election. Incidently, Christ has one man in particular in mind when he mentions those
who were neither known nor chosen: Judas. Judas was a reprobate together with Esau and
Pharaoh (cf. John 6:70,17:12). Look also at 15:19, I have chosen you out of the world. The
necessary conclusion is that the rest of the world is reprobated. Only the elect are chosen.
C. 1 Pet. 2:8, to this doom they were also appointed. There is no word doom in the Greek
but has been added by translators. It should read, to this they were appointed. To what? To
disobedience to the Gospel, that is, unbelief in Christ. God foreordained that some men would
believe in Christ, be saved and go to Heaven. He also foreordained that the rest would not
believe, but would thereby disbelieve, be lost and go to Hell.
D. 2 Pet. 2:12, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed. By nature all men are
the same in sin. By purpose, however, God had created us for different purposes. The elect
were created to become Christs sheep and thereby receive His love in Heaven. The non-elect
were created to remain wild beasts and be punished
E. Jude 4, those who were long beforehand marked out far this condemnation. Translators
differ on the Greek word, which literally means, written down in advance. On one side are
those that imply eternal predestination: marked out (NASB), ordained (KJV),and designated
(RSV). On the other, those who imply prophecy: written about (NIV),written of beforehand
(ASV), also the NEB and TEV. If the NASB, KJV and RSV are correct, then this is a clear
reference to eternal reprobation. On the other hand, even the other rendering implicitly teaches
it. How? Lets assume this simply means that certain mens doom was predicted in the O.T. But
how could the prophets predict it with certainty? God told them this doom was sure because He
logically had to have already determined it to be sure. As we saw earlier in these studies,
prophecy is based on eternal foreordination, not foreordination on foresight.
F. Matt. 11:25-26 teach that God was pleased to reveal salvation to some and not too others.
This happens in time because it was foreordained in eternity. And on what basis was this
division made? Yes, Father, for thus it was well-pleasing in Thy sight (vs.. 26). Revelation to
some necessarily implies non-revelation to the rest.
G. Luke 17:34, One will be taken and one will be left. Taking some necessarily means leaving
the rest. Whether this refers to the Rapture or judgment isnt the point. In either case, some are
Gods and the rest are not. Some are saved, the rest are not. But the end can be traced back to
the beginning. In eternal predestination, some were taken and the rest were not.
H. Rom. 8:29-30 is the Golden Chain of Salvation, but by implication we can see the Black
Chain of Damnation. Whom implies all of whom and them only. Thus, by inference, we can
learn that Whom He did not foreknow, He did not predestine, call, justify or glorify. Or work
backwards from the final doom: Those who will not be glorified were not foreknown or
predestined to salvation.
I. Matt, 7:23, I never knew you. If, as we showed earlier, know means love and therefore
elect to salvation, here we read that Christ did not eternally foreknow those who will be damned.
Thus, He eternally fore-hated them. It is more than simply lack of eternal election of love; it is
the presence of reprobation of hatred.
J. Rev. 13:8, 17:8, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the
world in the book of life. Some mens names were written in this Book of Life. They were
elected. But God also rejected others and did not put their names down. Instead, He inscribed
their names in the book of Death unto reprobation and wrath.

351

K. Rom. 11:36, From Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever
and ever, amen. The logic is inescapable. God is the first cause of all things. Punishment of
some men is a thing. Therefore God is the first cause of some men going to Hell. God uses
means in predestination, and the means here is eternal reprobation. Moreover, He is the last
end. He is glorified in their doom.
L. Pro. 16:4, The Lord has made all things for Himself, even the wicked for the day of wrath.
Some versions render this as impersonal things (it in NASB). In either case, the truth is the
same as in Rom. 11:36. All things will glorify God, even the wicked. It is obvious that the elect
will glorify God in the end, but here we see that even the wicked will glorify God. Such will be no
coincidence. It was all foreordained.

4. Objections.
A. Election is by God, but reprobation is by Man. Some believe only in Single
Predestination. Some, such as Arthur Custance, teach that Predestination to reprobation is
based on foreseen unbelief. This is not Calvinism. It is basically the view of Lutheranism,
though not of Luther himself. Berkouwer teaches it as well. But Calvin rightly taught, Election
itself could not stand except as set over against reprobation. George Whitefield said, Without
doubt, the doctrines of election and reprobation must stand or fall together. And Edwin Palmer
wrote, Election without preterition is theological gobbledygook, a mythical inanity of an
uncritical mind, Romans 9 clearly teaches both election and reprobation. Election implies and
necessitates reprobation. And both are ultimately based on Gods sovereign mere good
pleasure.
B. Election is eternal, but reprobation is temporal. This is another attempt to eliminate
reprobation by basing it on Man rather than on God. But Rev. 13:8 and 17:8 teach that the
reprobate did not have their names written down from eternity. Election is eternal (Eph. 1:4, 2
Thess. 2:13), and reprobation is as old as election.
C. All men are elect in Christ and all men are reprobate in Christ. This is Karl Earths theory. It
is a self-contradiction, not a paradox. One is either elected or rejected; one cannot be both (nor
can anyone be neither). One is either saved or lost, in Hell or in Heaven in the end. Barths
theory would suggest that all will be in both Heaven and Hell (but see Luke 16). However, what
Barth is really teaching is that election triumphs over reprobation, and all will ultimately be
saved. This is unbiblical. Not all will be saved. Some will be damned to Hell, for they were
reprobated to that end.
D. Doesnt God will all men to be saved? In the Revealed Will of Law and Gospel, God most
certainly does express the will that all men obey, repent and believe the Gospel. But in the
Secret Will of foreordination, which is eternal and unconditional, God does not will all men to be
saved. If He did, then all would most certainly be saved, for all His foreordained decrees come
to pass.
E. It isnt fair. This is the basic objection to all the others and is the real reason why men reject
the doctrine of reprobation. They fail to see that no man deserved to be elected; we all deserved
to be reprobated. God would have been totally just had He rejected all men. Moreover, what
about the fallen angels, who were not chosen? Was God unjust in not choosing to save Satan?
Of course not. Then He was certainly just in not choosing all men. If it were unjust of God to
reject some, then He would logically have to choose all to maintain His justice. But that would
mean universal salvation, which is patently rejected in Scripture. No, it is as John Bunyan wrote

352

in his excellent book Reprobation Asserted, The least of mercies are not deserved by the best
of sinners. John Wesley may have ridiculed the Reformed doctrine of reprobation as a cloven
foot, but it is taught in the Word of God. Note that Paul himself expected this opposition in
Romans 9. He answers bluntly, Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?(9:20) Oesus
also anticipated these objections, so He said, Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what
is my own? (Matt. 20:15) Let God be sovereign and Man silent.

5. Conclusion.
A. What are some practical applications of this deep doctrine? One of them regards assurance.
In the last study, we showed that Scripture teaches that we can know that we are among the
elect (2 Pet. 1:10). On the other hand, no man can know whether he is among the reprobate as
long as he is still in this world. He may not yet believe in Christ, but he may be among the as yet
unconverted elect. Only death confirms ones reprobation.
B. There is, then, something spiritually disturbing about this doctrine, and so it should be.
Calvin called it the Decretum Horribile, or horrifying decree. He did not mean that the theory is
so horrifying that we ought not to believe in it. No, for Calvin often taught and defended the
doctrine of reprobation. Rather, this term may better be rendered, terrifying decree or
awesome decree. It should cause us deep reflection in the light of Scripture. The Canons of
Dordt give good counsel here:
Those who do not yet experience a lively faith in Christ, an assured confidence of soul, peace
of conscience, an earnest endeavor after filial obedience, and glorying in God through Christ,
efficaciously wrought in them, and do nevertheless persist in the use of the means which God
hath appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of
reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use
of means and with ardent desires, devoutly and humbly to wait for a season of richer grace.
Much less cause have they to be terrified by the doctrine of reprobation, who, though they
seriously desire to be turned to God, to please him only, and to be delivered from the body of
death, cannot yet reach that measure of holiness and faith to which they aspire; since a merciful
God has promised that He will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed. But this
doctrine is justly terrifying to those, who, regardless of God and of the Savior Oesus Christ,
have wholly given themselves up to the cares of the world, and the pleasures of the flesh, so
long as they are not seriously converted to God. (1:16)
C. 2 Cor. 13:5, Examine yourselves to see if you are in the faith. Examine yourselves! Or do
you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you - unless indeed you fail the
test? The old KJV renders this last phrase, except ye be reprobates. Only by faith in Christ
can one know that he is saved and therefore one of the elect. Only by faith in Christ can one
know for sure that he is not one of the reprobate. If, therefore, anyone has serious doubts about
whether he is elect or reprobate, Gods Word to him is plain. He is exhorted to believe in Christ.
For none of the reprobate will ever come to Christ. Those who come to Christ need never fear
that they are among the reprobate, for coming to Christ is a sure mark of ones election.

Recommended Reading (including the next several studies)

Bunyan, John. Reprobation Asserted. Sterling: Reiner Publications.

353

Pink, Arthur W. The Sovereignty of God, pp.99-133. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. (The
edition published by Banner of Truth omits the chapter on reprobation.)
Shedd, William G.T. Calvinism Pure and Mixed, pp. 29-91. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Calvin, John. Institutes, 111:21-24 (vol. 2, pp. 920-987), especially 111:22:11 to 23:3 (vol. 2, pp.
946-951) and 111:24:12-16 (pp. 978-987). Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Calvin also
discusses reprobation continuously with election in Calvins Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 104-126. Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed.
Gill, John. Body of Divinity, pp. 192-198. Paris, AK: Baptist Standard Bearer. Sproul, R.C.
Chosen By God, pp. 139-160. Wheaton: Tyndale House.
Berkouwer, G.C. Divine Election, pp. 172-217. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (Rejects the doctrine
of reprobation but interacts with the issues and gives good historical survey.)
Boer, Harry. The Doctrine of Reprobation the Christian Reformed Church. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans. (Rejects reprobation but is a current example of the controversy.)
Thornwell, James Henley. The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. II, pp. 105201. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Zanchius, Jerome. Absolute Predestination. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Girardeau, John. Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, pp. 161-177. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 178-189. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Luther, Martin. The Bondage of the Will, pp. 190-238. Old Tappan: Fleming Revel 1.
Also consult the commentaries on Romans 9 by John Calvin, William Hendriksen, Martin Luther,
John Murray, Charles Hodge, Robert Haldane, William G.T. Shedd, John Gill, Donald G.
Barnhouse, and Matthew. Henry, Matthew Poole, and David Steele and Curtis Thomas.

354

Chapter 48. The Hardening of the

Reprobate.
1. Introduction.
A. Question #1: Why do some men never believe the Gospel? Answer: Because they were
not elected but were reprobated. Question #2: Are they reprobate because they do not believe
or do they not believe because they were reprobated? Answer: They do not believe because
they were reprobated. Question #3: How does God carry out the eternal decree of reprobation
in time? Answer: God carries out the decree of reprobation by hardening the hearts of the
reprobate.
B. In this study, we will examine these questions and examine how God hardens the hearts of
those whom He has not chosen to salvation. Our opponents argue that men are reprobated
because they do not believe, whereas we argue the contrary. It is a matter of cause and effect which logically preceded the other? In election, God initiated and Man responds. The same is
true with non-election. Moreover, the same is true regarding the hardening of the reprobate God hardens them and they respond with hardening their hearts.
C. As we have said already, in election God chose some sinners out of the sinful mass of fallen
humanity. He left the rest in the sinful mass. This is the backdrop for how God hardens the
reprobate in time. In one sense, He simply leaves the reprobate in their sins. In another sense,
He does something extra which guarantees their hardening in time, thereby confirming their
reprobation.
D. Well not repeat all that we have said regarding the related doctrines of total depravity,
providence and evil, and so forth. The present lesson can only be properly understood once one
has grasped these doctrines as well as the doctrine of reprobation. -Specifically, we will
examine a number of Biblical texts, which teach that in time God hardens those whom He has
eternally reprobated. These verses are from both testaments. Curiously, several of the verses
from the Old Testament are quoted in the New Testament in the context of this very subject.
E. The Westminster Confession (V:6) gives a good summary of Reformed teaching here:
As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous judge, for former sins, doth
blind and harden, from them He not only withholdeth His grace, whereby they might have been
enlightened in their understandings and wrought upon in their hearts, but sometimes also
withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption
makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the
world, and the power of Satan; whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even
those means which God useth for the softening of others.

2. Isaiah 6:9-10.
A. These verses are quoted several times in the N.T., each time shedding new light on the
question at hand. First, in John 12:39-40. First, note that vs. 37 says many did not believe in
Christ, even in the face of miracles. Second, this fulfilled Isa. 53:1, Lord, who has believed our
report? Third, John ties this in with Isa. 6:9-10 with the words, For this cause they could not

355

believe. What is the reason why men do not - indeed, cannot - believe the Gospel? It is
because God has hardened their hearts. Calvin noted, Observe that he directs His voice to
them but in order that they may become even more deaf; He kindles a light but that they may be
made even more blind; He sets forth doctrine but that they may grow even more stupid; He
employs a remedy but so that they may not be healed.
B. These verses teach us that a man can see and hear externally with physical eyes and ears,
but internally is blind and deaf. Moreover, God not only sovereignly gives spiritual sight and
hearing, He sovereignly gives spiritual blindness and deafness. He made the physically blind
and deaf for His purposes (Ex. 4:11), and He also makes the spiritually blind and deaf for His
purposes. He actually prevents the reprobate from spiritually seeing and hearing. Of course,
they are quite pleased to stay that way. They do not want to see and hear.
C. The verses are also quoted in Acts 28:26-27. Note vs. 24, Some were being persuaded by
the things spoken, but others would not believe. Why did some believe and others disbelieve?
Free will? Nobody has free will. No, the reason is that God sovereignly gave sight to some and
withheld sight from others.
D. Next, the verses are quoted in Matt. 13:14-15 (paralleled in Mk. 4:12 and Luke 8:10). In vs.
11, Christ had said that spiritual knowledge had been sovereignly granted to some but withheld
from others. They remain blind. Notice that the means of these two actions are the same,
namely, Christs preaching in parables. Scholars have long differed on the purpose of parables.
Some argue that Christ used parables to shed more light on His teaching so that more would
understand and believe. Others say the opposite, that parables were intentionally enigmatic so
as to cloak the truth from the hearers.
E. The truth is a combination of both. For the elect, God used the parables to grant knowledge
and faith. But for the reprobate, God used them to confuse and harden. Of course, it develops
gradually. Like the disciples, an elect may be confused. But as He reads and hears more, he
gradually understands more and comes to faith. Conversely, a reprobate may at one time have
a certain amount of understanding, but in time gradually lose it (cf. vs. 12).
F. Now note that it is the same means for two distinct groups and purposes. This truth is taught
in two other passages. First, Isa. 55:11 says that Gods Word always accomplishes it purpose. It
either softens the elect or hardens the reprobate. Second, 2 Cor. 2:15-16 says that the Gospel
saves those who are being saved and condemns those who are being lost. The same Gospel
will stink to both elect and reprobate at first, for we are both sinners by nature. In time, the elect
come to smell the sweet fragrance of Christ in the Gospel and are drawn to Him like bees to
honey. They are wooed and won over. The reprobate by contrast, are repelled by the Gospel.
To them, it reeks like old fish. The more they hear it, the more they are disgusted by it. An
example would be the two thieves on the cross with Christ. One smelled sweetness, the other
didnt. But it is the same message that accomplishes these dual ends.
G. Lastly, note that Isa. 6:9-10 contain the two main metaphors for what God does through the
Gospel to the reprobate: He blinds them and He hardens them.

3. God Blinds the Minds of the Reprobate.

A. Rom. 11:8-10 quotes two O.T. verses to illustrate the hardening of the reprobate in vs. 7.
Note first that vs. 7 makes a contrast between the chosen who receive grace and the rest
(the reprobate) who are hardened. Those who were eternally elected out of grace will receive
grace in time. Those who were not eternally elected will not only not receive grace in time but

356

will be hardened.
B. First, Paul quotes Isa. 29:10. In Isa. 29:9, God had said, Blind yourselves and be blind.
This is not a command per se, but a providential permission to be blinded. Note the little word
for in vs. 10. Why are men self-blinded? For the Lord has poured over you a spirit of deep
sleep, He has shut your eyes, the prophets. God lulls the reprobate to sleep. Further, He blinds
the spiritual eyes, specifically their prophets. As a necessary result, they do not see.
C. Second, Paul quotes Psa. 69:22-23. Note several things. First, their table becomes a trap
and a snare. Their security becomes their undoing. Second, their eyes are blinded spiritually.
Third, their loins shake and their backs are bent. God breaks their strength. He is greater than
they are. When He exerts this reprobating power, they are helpless to resist. In fact, they not
only do not resist, they quite willingly go along. They want to be hardened and blinded. It all
leads to judgment.
D. So, the point is this: without sight, they will not believe; without faith, they will be damned;
being damned, they go to judgment, which is the end for which they were reprobated. These are
links in the Black Chain of Reprobation.

4. God Hardens the Hearts of The Reprobate.

A. Rom. 11:7 is not the only verse that teaches that God hardens mens hearts. There are
several others. One is Deut. 2:30. This clearly teaches that God hardened Sihons heart. Note
very closely that it does not say, Because Sihon was not willing, the Lord hardened his spirit
and made his heart obstinate. As we said earlier, it is important to find the cause-and-effect
relationships in these verses. Here we are told that Sihon did such-and-such, for the Lord your
God hardened his spirit. We are also told the larger reason behind this: in order to deliver him
into your hand. This is quite typical of reprobation and hardening. God hardens the hearts of
the reprobate in order to prepare them for judgment.
B. Another similar verse is Joshua 11:20. In the previous verses, we are told how Joshua was
successful. Why was he successful? Because God hardened the hearts of the Canaanites. Note
two other higher purposes in this hardening: that they might receive no mercy and that they
might be destroyed. This also is typical of the reprobate in general. God hardens their hearts so
that they stand helpless before Christ, receiving no mercy at the judgment.

5. The Case of Pharaoh.

A. Rom. 9 is the clearest and most detailed passage on reprobation in the Bible. One of the
examples, which Paul adduces, is Pharaoh (vs. 17). When he immediately after says, He
hardens whom He desires, it is obvious that Paul is appealing to those verses in Exodus that
speak of God hardening Pharaohs heart.
B. Before examining Pharaoh, let us take a survey of what Scripture teaches about hard
hearts. Sometimes we are told in general terms that men were becoming hardened and
disobedient (Acts 19:9. Cf. Isa. 48:4). Some men have a hard spirit (Deut. 2:30). Frequently
Scripture speaks of hardened (or stiff) necks (Ex. 32:9, 33:3, 5; 2 Kings 17:14; Neh. 9:16-17,
29; Jer. 7:26, 17:23, 19:15; Acts 7:51;Pro. 29:1; 2 Chron. 30:8, 36:13; Deut. 10:16, etc.), hard
faces (Jer. 5:3, Ezek.3:8), hard foreheads (Ezek. 3:8), hard minds (2 Cor. 3:14), etc. By
nature, all men have hard hearts (Eph. 4:18; Rom. 2:5; Matt. 19:8; Mark 3:5, 6:52, 10:5, 16:14,

357

etc). We suffer from cardiac sclerosis and our spiritual hearts are as hard as stone, hardened
by the deceitful ness of sin (Heb. 3:13). So, Scripture sometimes associates several of these
metaphors (Ezek. 2:4, 3:7; 2 Chron. 36:13), and God frequently warns us, Do not harden your
hearts (Psa. 95:8; Deut. 15:7; Heb. 3:8, 4:7).
C. Now lets examine Pharaoh. The Bible says that God hardened his heart and that Pharaoh
hardened his heart. Which preceded which? We Calvinists say that God first hardened
Pharaohs heart and then as a logical result he hardened his own heart. Arminians, on the other
hand, say that God did not harden Pharaoh until after Pharaoh had first already hardened his
own heart.
D. One recent variation of the Arminian theory has been proposed by Roger T. Forsterand V.
Paul Marston in their book* Gods Strategy in Human History (Wheaton: Tyndale House). They
argue that the Hebrew words used in the Exodus passages could also be translated
strengthened, as they are in other passages. For instance, in the passage in Josh. 11:20
referred to above, they would explain it like this: The implication is that God gave them courage
to resist when all was lost. And of Pharaoh they say, God emboldened or encouraged
Pharaohs heart so that he had the stubborn courage to stand even in the face of very
frightening miracles. God actually helped Pharaoh, but Pharaoh misused this help against
Israel.
E. This theory is not difficult to refute. First, we grant that sometimes these words could mean,
strengthen, but in many other places they clearly and explicitly mean, harden in the sinful
sense. Second, no major translation renders the Exodus passages as Forster and Marston do.
The closest would be some marginal variations. Third, the same words are used of both God
and Pharaoh. Did Pharaoh strengthen his heart in a good sense? No, repeatedly we are told
that he hardened himself and would not let them go. His hardening was clearly in sin. Lastly, it
would be more appropriate to say that God strengthened Moses and Israel to withstand
Pharaoh rather than the other way around. And what about Rom. 9:18 and 11:7, which explicitly
state that God hardens whomever He wishes to harden in accordance with eternal, sovereign
reprobation?
F. The Calvinist is likely to echo the words of F.F. Bruce in his forward to the book. Confessing
to be an impenitent Augustinian, Bruce write, This is not to say that I am convinced by all their
arguments; perhaps my heart, like Pharaohs, has been strengthened!
G. Now lets look at what the Bible does say. First, we are told that Pharaoh hardened his heart
(Ex. 8:15, 32, 9:34). Second, we are told that God hardened Pharaohs heart (9:12, 10:20, 27,
11:10, 14:8). Third, we are told that God said that He had hardened Pharoahs heart (10:1).
Fourth, we are nowhere told that Pharaoh complained that God had hardened his heart. Quite
the contrary! He repeatedly rebelled against the Lord and delighted in his hard heart.
H. Arminians quickly point out that the first occurrence of Pharoahs hardening his heart (8:15)preceded the first occurrence of God hardening his heart (9:12). How do we answer this
argument? There are several other bits of vital information, which are ignored by the Arminians,
which decidedly end the argument in our favor.
I. One of these is that there are several other places where we are told that his heart was
hardened (7:13, 22, 8:19, 9:7, 35). In 7:4 God says, Pharoahs heart is hardened. Two things
here prove our point. First, the verbs here are passive participles. Theoretically, they could
mean, Pharaohs heart was hardened by himself, but in most cases the passive usually means
that the action was done to oneself by another. In that case, these verses would mean,
Pharaohs heart was hardened by another, viz, the Lord. Second, the first two occurrences of
these instances precede all occurrences where we are told, Pharaoh hardened his heart. So,

358

God first hardened Pharoahs heart, it was hard, and then he hardened his heart by agreement.
J. The other crucial factor is that before Moses even confronted Pharaoh, God said that He
would harden Pharaohs heart. Note Ex. 4:21, I will harden his heart so that he will not let the
people go. This unconditional prophecy of intent is again repeated in 7:3, also before Pharaoh
hardened his heart. (Another such prophecy is later in 14:4. In 14:17, God also promised to
harden the hearts of the rest of the Egyptians. They all along were with Pharaoh in hardening
their hearts, 9:34). So, this settles it. God took the initiative in hardening Pharaohs heart by first
reprobating him in eternity, prophesying hardening according, to His eternal foreordination, then
providentially hardening Pharaohs heart and thereby confirming his reprobation. Then and only
then did Pharaoh accede and confirm his own reprobation.
K. Pharaoh is a type of all the reprobate. In I Sam. 6:6, God asks of Israel, Why then do you
harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts?

6. God Gives the Reprobate Up.

A. In Gen. 20:6, God said, I also kept you from sinning against Me (of. I Sam.25: 26, 34). God
can and does restrain sin, but He is under no compulsion to do so. Sometimes He restrains sin
in the elect and grants them faith; sometimes He does not restrain sin in the reprobate, but
leaves them to fall deeper into it.
B. Several passages speak of God giving over men to sin (Psa. 81:11-12, Acts 7:42,Rom.
1:24, 26, 28). What happens is this. All men are born in sin. God allowed Adam to fall, and in
him all mankind. God permitted this by withholding His restraining grace. In history, God chose
one nation out of this mass, Israel. The rest were left to stew in their sin. In the generations
gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways (Acts 14:16). Out of Israel, He chose
some to be saved and left the rest of Israel in their sins, too (Psa. 81:11-12, Acts7: 42). The
pattern is that of reprobation in general. God simply leaves the reprobate in their sins. Being left,
they fall deeper and deeper into sin.
C. As we saw last week, Rom. 9 deals with the problem of why some Gentiles are saved and
some Jews are lost. The answer is election and reprobation in eternity. In time, the answer is
that God has hardened some Jews and Gentiles but softened others. He draws some out of
their sins, but leaves the rest in sin. He gives them over and they plunge deeper and hopelessly
into sin.

7. God Withholds Grace.

A. Rom. 11:8 quotes another O.T. verse to prove the hardening of the reprobate. Deut. 29:4,
Yet to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.
God not only gives spiritual blindness and deafness and an unbelieving heart, He withholds
spiritual sight and hearing and faith from the reprobate. After all, they do not deserve these
things. Nor have they asked for them. Even the elect do not deserve them. God withholds the
means of salvation from the reprobate for the simple reason that He has not chosen them to
salvation.
B. Josh. 11:20, you may recall, stated that God hardened men that they might receive no
mercy. God withholds saving mercy from the reprobate. He gives mercy to whom He chooses
to give it, and He chooses to withhold it from the reprobate.

359

C. Then Matt. 11:25 says that God hides spiritual illumination from certain men, but gives it to
others. Neither deserve it. Again, please note that Jesus is speaking of the same message
delivered. He turns on the same light, but He does not open all mens eyes to see that light. He
withholds sight from the reprobate.
D. Moreover, He even takes away what little they already have. This is taught in Matt.13: 12
and 25:29 in the very context of unbelief and withholding. All men have already been given a
little light through general revelation. When special revelation appears, it eventually illumines the
elect but hardens the reprobate. Then God not only removes special revelation, but removes
some of general revelation. They are more blinded than ever before! That is why a person who
rejects the Gospel is worse than if he had never heard it to begin with. His sin is compounded
and his reprobation is confirmed.

8. God Turns Their Hearts.

A. Pro. 21:1, The kings heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it
wherever He wishes. We see this exemplified in Egypt. God turned the heart of Moses, an
adopted Egyptian prince, to serve the Lord. But God also turned the heart of Pharaoh to disobey
the Lord. Note Psa. 105:25, He turned their heart to hate His people. The reprobate hate
Gods people because they hate God. They do this because God has sovereignly given them
over and turned their hearts.
God does something else in the hearts of the reprobate. He not only withholds grace, but He
permits the entrance of great sin. This is more than simply His giving them over. This seals
their reprobation. Rev. 17:17, For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by
having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God
should be fulfilled. God actually puts it into the hearts of the reprobate to serve Satan, thereby
fulfilling Gods purposes and words.
C, This echoes 2 Thess. 2:11-12, God sends them a deluding influence so that they might
believe what is false. God not only withholds light and grace that they might believe the truth,
as He does in the elect, but He actually sends a special influence to the reprobate that they
might believe lies and be damned. This is not only true in the last days concerning the Man of
Sin and the Beast, but with every one of the reprobate. He gives them enough rope to hang
themselves.

9. God Uses Satan and the Demons,

A. Other passages tell us that not only does God turns the reprobate over to Satan, but He
allows Satan and the demons to have a special influence in the hearts of the reprobate. This is
seen, for example, in I Kings 22:19-23, 2 Chron. 18:18-22, I Sam. 16:14 and Judges 9:23-24. In
each of these cases, God sent an evil spirit to deceive certain persons so that their sin would
increase, hastening their judgment. Note 2 Chron. 18:22, the Lord had put a deceiving spirit in
the mouth of these your prophets, for the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you.
B. This is not always demon-possession. Demonization is extremely rare; and though all men
are sinners by nature, very few are demonized. By nature, men are in Satans hands. God not
only leaves them there, but He grants Satan greater power in their lives. If they are elect, they
will be freed by Christ. But if they are reprobate, God simply turns them over to Satan, who then
exerts increasingly greater power in their lives. He takes the Gospel seed away, blinds their

360

minds, deceives them, sends false prophets, etc. Satan has many tricks, and they are
successful in the reprobate for their entire lives.

10. The Bottom Line.

A. What is all this leading to? Twice Josh, 11:20 tells us why. God hardens hearts: that He
might destroy them. I Sam. 2:25 adds that this is because the Lord planned to put them to
death. Why does God harden the hearts of the reprobate? He does this in time because of what
they are predestined for. God is simply fattening them up for the slaughter. He is letting them
have their fill of sin and darkness so that He will be glorified in punishing them on Judgment
Day. [More on this in the next lesson]
B. It behooves each of us to examine our own hearts to see whether they be yet hardened.
Christ asked the disciples and He asks us the same, Do you not yet see or understand? Do
you have a hardened heart? (Mark 8:17). Christ alone can unharden the heart; He alone can
give illumination and faith. To the one who stays hardened, the Word of God warns, A man who
hardens his neck after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond remedy (Pro. 29:1). May
all those who hear these words flee to the Savior, thereby confirming their election in Him.

361

Chapter 49. The Destiny of the Reprobate.

1. Introduction.
A. In earlier studies, we traced the Golden Chain of Salvation from the oceans of sovereign
grace in eternal election to the destiny of the elect in eternity future. The destiny of the elect is
glorification, which includes their holy and loving perfection before God as well as Gods glory
through their election and glorification.
B. But what about non-election? What are the concluding links in the Black Chain of
Reprobation? Its initial links were reprobation in eternity past. Its middle links were hardening
and blinding in time. After death, the reprobate meet their eternal destiny in the last two links Hell and the glory of God. But how are those two links related to each other, and how are they
together linked to previous links, specifically eternal reprobation and temporal hardening? That
is the subject of this present study.
C. The next to last link is Hell. We will not explore all the Bibles teaching son Hell here. We will
instead concentrate on Hell as it relates to reprobation and the glory of God. Still, it would be
appropriate here to give a brief summary of the Reformed doctrine of Hell.
D. First, Hell is real. It is not imaginary or mythological or superstitious. The Bible repeatedly
teaches the existence of Hell. Second, Hell is a place of punishment for sinful men and angels
(Matt. 25), Only sinners go to Hell and all in Hell are sinners. Third, those in Hell receive what
they deserve. Hell is where God punishes sin. Since some people have sinned more than
others, some will be punished more than others. There are degrees of Hell. Fourth, Hell is both
spiritual and physical (Matt. 10:28). Sinners go there in both their bodies and souls, for they
have sinned with both. Fifth, Hell is permanent. There is no escape from Hell. There is neither
reincarnation nor second chance. Hell is punitive, not reformatory or purgative. Sixth, Hell is
eternal. Let us examine this last point for a moment in our study.

2. Hell is Eternal.
A. Calvinism has always taught that Hell is eternal, everlasting and never-ending. Until the
twentieth-century, there was almost no debate over this point within historic Christianity. Before
1900, virtually the only persons denying eternal Hell were Liberals and cults. But within this
century - and especially in recent years voices have been raised in support of a temporary Hell.
These voices not only claim to be Evangelical, but even Reformed.
B. One of them was Arthur C. Custance. In several of his otherwise excellent and orthodox
writings, such as The Sovereignty of Grace, Custance questioned whether Hell had to be
eternal to be Hell. To my knowledge, Custance never actually denied that Hell is eternal; he
simply played with the idea of a temporary Hell, or what is known as Annihilationism. He opened
the door but did not go through it, but others will probably go through it. It is likely that we will
hear of more and more Evangelicals and even Calvinists denying eternal Hell, even in the
name of orthodox Calvinism. And this will have major ramifications on the Reformed doctrine of
reprobation. What shall we say?
Custance adduces several of the usual arguments in favor of temporary Hell. He also puts forth
an unusual one, which needs to be mentioned only that it may be refuted. It is as follows:
Custance argues that Christ suffered the eternal and infinite wrath of God within a limited period

362

of time (3 hours, to be precise). If, then, it was possible to pour infinite punishment onto one
person in 3 hours, would it not be possible for God to pour out limited punishment onto all the
reprobate within an equally short period of time? After being punished justly and in the degree
deserved, they would then be annihilated. Justice would be served, and for the rest of eternity
there simply would be no reprobate, only the elect and God.
D. There are several flaws in this line of reasoning. First, Christ could suffer infinite punishment
in a finite period of time because He had an infinite person. He was, after all, the God-Man.
Moreover, He was sinless of Himself. On the other hand, the reprobate are not infinite beings. It
will take all eternity to pour punishment into them. And that doesnt even raise the question of
whether they will go on through eternity in a state of perpetual sin, requiring yet further
punishment. (Edwards has some fascinating thoughts on the subject. See the bibliography
below.)
E. Furthermore, there are many other Biblical proofs we could recite which show that Hell is
eternal and everlasting. First, the same word eternal is used of both Heaven and Hell in the
same context (Matt. 25:46. Cf. vs. 41). Next, Rev. 14:10-11 is the classic proof for eternal
conscious torment. Note the words forever and ever and day and night. Third, Luke 16
makes it quite clear that the rich man did not cease to exist once he was in Hell. Fourth, Rev.
19:20 says the Beast and the False Prophet will be cast into the Lake of Fire (Hell), but 20:10
says they will still be there 1000 years later when the Devil and sinners join them. They were not
annihilated. Next, that there are degrees of punishment necessitates that there will be degrees
of torment in Hell. The Bible never for a moment suggest that the worst sinners stay in Hell
longer than others. They all stay in eternally. Moreover, none will ever non-exist, for nonexistence does not admit of degrees. Sixth, non-existence is not a punishment, but a respite.
The Biblical counterarguments to Annihilationism are many and are conclusive.
F. But let us specifically look at the question in the light of reprobation. Why does the destiny of
the non-elect have to be eternal Hell? One brief answer is that just as the elect will enjoy an
eternal destiny, so will the non-elect suffer an eternal destiny.
G. We will not waste time refuting Universalism here. For one thing, no real Calvinist seriously
considers that option, at least not yet. Some Liberal pseudo-Calvinists and Neo-Orthodox
writers who wrongly claim to be Reformed hold to ultimate universal salvation (such as Barth
and Brunner). But of course, that immediately destroys the doctrines of election and
reprobation. It could only mean that all men are elect and that none are reprobate, or possibly
that reprobation is reversible. But none of that would be Calvinism.
H. To understand the true Reformed view, we must see how it relates to the final link in the
chain, namely, the glory of God. God will be glorified in the reprobate. How? Well, how is He
glorified in anything, in everything? By revealing His glory. He is glorified in the elect by
revealing His grace, and He is glorified in the reprobate by revealing His wrath. God will be
eternally glorified in the elect because they will go on through eternity being recipients of grace,
to which they were predestined. In the same way, the reprobate will go through eternity as
recipients of wrath. If they ceased to exist, then Gods glory would be thwarted. One could even
surmise that the reprobate would then be able to say right before being snuffed out into oblivion,
At least I cheated God out of eternal glory in punishing me. But that will never happen.
I. It is no coincidence that Custance also denies reprobation in the true sense. To him,
reprobation is of Man, but election is of God. It is by God only in the sense that God foresaw
unbelief. So, a weakened doctrine of reprobation goes hand-in-hand with a weakened view of
eternal Hell. But why?
J. The reason is that those such as Custance fail to see that God is glorified in both the elects

363

glorification and the reprobates damnation. If, for the sake of argument, we suppose that
election alone glorifies God, then we are forced to blaspheme. Since God has not chosen all
men, then it follows that He made a mistake, for surely God desires ultimate glory (Rom. 11:36).
It would be high blasphemy, however, to suggest that the Almighty made a mistake. Since He
will be glorified in all things, and He has reprobated some men to be punished forever, it
necessarily follows that eternal Hell is the means by which the reprobate glorify God. Diminish
that and you either blaspheme God or weaken His glory.
K. God will be so glorified for all eternity. His plan is to glorify Himself forever and ever (Rom.
11:36). This applies equally to elect and non-elect. Otherwise, God would be only half-glorified
eternally. Further, annihilation of the reprobate would annul their reprobation. They would not be
transformed into elect, no, but they would become a third class - the non-existent. But that will
never be. Of course, God could theoretically remove them to oblivion, as He may do to certain
other things from original Creation. But He will not erase the existence of the reprobate. He has
not so chosen to do so. God created ex nihilo (out of nothing), but there is no reprobatioad
nihilo (reprobation to nothing). God did not reprobate the non-elect to a destiny of nonexistence, but to an eternal destiny of being justly punished to the glory of God. A billion years
from now, the reprobate will still be reprobate, and being punished justly to the glory of God.

3. The Reprobate Will Actively Give Glory to God.

A. Now let us delve deeper into the subject. Before turning to specific Scriptures, we could
easily extrapolate much here simply by deducing the necessary converse of the destiny of the
elect. The elect will receive love forever; the non-elect will receive hatred forever (Jacob have I
loved, but Esau have I hated then becomes Jacob will I always love, but Esau will I always
hate). The elect will go through eternities of eternities singing praises to God. But will the
reprobate actively render glory to God? Will they too praise God?
B. The Scriptures say, Yes. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is
Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:11). Every mouth will be stopped, insofar as none
of the reprobate will be allowed to blaspheme God at Judgment Day. Obviously this means that
they will not be able to blame God. They will not even be able to appeal to their own reprobation
(It wasnt fair. I never had a chance, because you reprobated me.). No, their mouths will be
shut to blasphemy but open to praise and acknowledge God.
C. We also know that they will acknowledge for the first time in their existence that they are
guilty sinners deserving of Hell. In that sense, they will be like the thief on the cross: We are
receiving what we deserve for our deeds. This will not be a confession unto salvation, but unto
deserved damnation. Moreover, they will even be forced to confess, We deserved to be
reprobated. We did not deserve to be elected. It will be an awesome sight, and will glorify God.
D. We have shown that men glorify God in the manner appropriate to the revelation of Gods
glory. The elect, for example, will actively and consciously give God glory out of love when they
receive the final revelation of glorious grace. It fits. Likewise, the reprobate will reflect glory back
to God in kind and appropriate to the glorious revelation given them. That revelation will be
wrath, so they will glorify God in kind - by acknowledging His holiness and their guilt.
E. Theres even more. The elect will read their names in the Lambs Book of Life, which is the
scroll of election. This will cause them to rejoice and actively glorify God. The non-elect, by
contrast, will gnash their teeth in anguish to the glory of God when they see that their names are
not there. Moreover, they will be forced to glorify God in an utterly awesome way when they
read their names in the Book of Death, which is the register of reprobation. The Black Chain of

364

Reprobation will bind them hand and foot for Hell more tightly than the chain around Jacob
Marley. Bound in this way, they will be cast into the Lake of Fire to begin an eternal sentence of
glorifying God in their punishment. They will exist for no other purpose than to be tormented
forever to the glory of God. What will give a special ring to their God-glorifying groans is the
consciousness that they are receiving exactly what they deserve.

4. The Glory of Gods Wrath.

A. There are two related ways in which God will be glorified in the damnation of the reprobate.
The first will be the revelation of divine power. Rom. 9:17,For the Scripture says to Pharaoh,
For this very purpose I raised you up, [namely] to demonstrate My power in you, and that My
name might be proclaimed throughout the whole Earth. This worldwide proclamation is the
revealed glory of God. And it is in conjunction with the revelation of divine power to the
reprobate. How?
B. First, God is glorified in revealing this power in time with the reprobate. He does this by the
irresistible hardening of the reprobate. It is as irresistible in the non-elect as saving grace is in
the elect. But, second, God is glorified in eternity future by revealing His sovereign power to
these self-same reprobate by punishing them. He actually will work upon them in such an
irresistible way that the decree of reprobation will be fulfilled letter-perfect down to the last detail.
They will not be able to resist. They will be irresistibly forced to praise their Judge, admit theirs
in, and receive their deserved punishment. This displays Gods power, bandit glorifies Him.
C. The other way in which God will be glorified on that eternal day will be through the eternal
revelation of the glory of His wrath. Note that Romans9 describes the reprobate as vessels of
wrath (vs. 23). The elect will actually and internally receive glorious grace and love and mercy.
But the non-elect will internally and eternally receive the exact opposite: wrath and anger and
hatred. This is the dishonorable use for which they were reprobated by the Potter (vs. 21).
D. This truth is also taught in Pro. 16:4, The Lord has made everything for His own purpose,
even the wicked for the day of wrath. [NASB and others translate this as day of evil, but that is
the same, as the day of wrath, when evil will be punished with wrath.] The reprobate were
predestined to this end: to glorify their Maker by receiving the wrath they deserve. This is also
clearly taught in I Thess. 5:9, God has not destined us [the elect] for wrath, which necessarily
means that God has indeed destined others for wrath.
E. God, then, will be glorified in the damnation of the reprobate. An objection will immediately
be raised here. Doesnt the Bible say that God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner? (Ezek.
33:11) Yes, the Bible says that and it is true. Calvinists give several answers. First, that has to
do with the Revealed Will of God, not the Secret Will. Second, even in the Secret Will there is a
corresponding principle, which is this: God receives glory from the damnation of the reprobate,
but not pleasure. He is no sadist. He receives pleasure by pouring out eternal love on the elect.
He smiles upon them, and that is a glorious revelation of love. On the other hand, God is also
glorified by revealing a countenance of anger and hatred to the reprobate. When they see it,
they are truly terrified. They will always be terrified to their very bones, for they will be eternally
punished by God who will look on them in His anger.
F. Also, let it not be supposed that God created the reprobate simply to punish them. God
created no man simply to damn him. The final link in the Black Chain of reprobation is not wrath,
but the glory of God. The end of all things is the glory of God. Hence, reprobation and
damnation are but means to that final end. All thy works shall praise thee (Psa. 145:10).

365

5. The Echo of Glory in the Elect and the Reprobate.

A. One last area of ultimate glory needs to be mentioned. The elect and reprobate will not only
receive and reflect Gods glory in the end, but they will do so in special yet complementary
ways. We have shown that each will glorify God in kind according the glory revealed to them
as elect and as reprobate. But there is an additional glory, which might be described as an echo
or rebounded glory.
B. This has two sides to it. On the one hand, the elect will view the damnation of the reprobate,
and this glory will move them to give glory to God. In brief, the elect will praise God as they view
the reprobate being cast into Hell. Rev. 19:1-8records the heavenly scene where those in
Heaven witness the destruction of Mystery Babylon. As they view the glory of Gods wrath being
poured out, they shout and sing, Amen! Hallelujah! Since Mystery Babylon includes
individuals, specifically the reprobate, and since it prefigures the last judgment of God upon all
the reprobate, it is sure that at the Last Judgment the elect will repeat these choruses.
C. This was prefigured in time in the imprecatory Psalms. In several of them David prayed for
God to punish and destroy the wicked. This was not a sinfully vengeful attitude, but a righteous
attitude zealous for the glory of God. It is difficult for us now to have this correct attitude, for we
are still imperfect; we do not thoroughly see sin as sin; and we do not yet see God in His glory.
But in Heaven, especially at Judgment Day, we will be perfect with pure motives zealous for the
glory of God. We will view the reprobate not only as wicked sinners who deserve wrath, but as
reprobate who have been foreordained to glorify. God by receiving the wrath they deserve. And
we will actually see Gods glory in it all. So, it is not at all unbecoming of the glorified elect to
shout Amen! Hallelujah! when they view the damnation of the reprobate. In this marvelous
way, God is glorified through the elect as they view divine glory on the reprobate.
D. The converse is also true. The reprobate will be irresistibly moved to give God glory as they
view the elect in Heaven in their glorified state. They will see them as the Bride of Christ and
adorned with grace and holiness. They will be forced to praise God for the culmination of the
salvation and perfection of the elect. Moreover, as they finally realize the final end for which God
elected the elect, the reprobate will be forced to sing the praises of God for electing the elect. In
time, the elect were their enemies, but at that Day they will bow before them and acknowledge
that they were right and that God is great. In this way, God receives glory by rebound from the
reprobate as they witness the final glorification of the elect. Whats more, it is likely that the
reprobate and the elect will continue through eternity singing these praises to Gods glory.

6. Conclusion.
A. What should be our attitude now concerning these things? For one, we should believe them
and strive to have the proper attitudes to God appropriate to them. We should, for instance,
strive for purity of motive to give God glory in all things, even the damnation of the reprobate.
B. When we discussed the practical implications of the doctrine of election, we asked, Do you
love the doctrine of election? The answer should be, Yes, praise God. Now ask yourself, Do I
equally love the doctrine of reprobation? We should love it to the glory of God, as He does.
Christ glorified God for hardening the reprobate (Matt. 11:25); so should we. Unfortunately, most
Christians reject and loathe this glorious truth. Even many Calvinists secretly hate it. At the
least, many wish reprobation and damnation were not so. But that is the wrong attitude. We

366

should not wish for things to be other than they are regarding election and reprobation, else we
are correcting God. Nor should we wish there were no such place as Hell. Such wrongful
internal attitudes do not give glory to God, but instead are mild forms of blasphemy. Rather, we
should marvel at the glory of God in these dual doctrines, and praise God for them.
C. Lastly, you may not yet be a believer in Christ. Your attitude should be one of terror at the
awesome destiny awaiting you if you die impenitent. If you die in your sins, you confirm your
reprobation and will spend eternity glorifying God through your torments in Hell. Come to Christ
now, thereby confirming your election. But be forewarned - whether elect or reprobate, you will
glorify God.
D. This is an awesome doctrine. It speaks of an awesome decree and destiny. It is so because
it is the work of an awesome God.

Recommended Reading
Edwards, Jonathan. The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners, The Works of Jonathan
Edwards, vol. I, pp. 668-680; Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God, vol. II, pp. 7-12; The
Future Punishment of the Wicked, vol. II, pp. 78-83; Wrath upon the Wicked to the Uttermost,
vol. II, pp. 122-125; The Wicked Useful in Their Destruction Only, vol. II, pp. 125-130; The
Final Judgment, vol. II, pp. 190-201; The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous,
vol. II, pp. 207-213; Concerning the Endless Punishment of Those who Die Impenitent, vol. II,
pp. 515-525; The Portion of the Wicked, vol. II, pp. 878-888. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Gerstner, John. Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Shedd, William G.T. The Doctrine of Endless Punishment. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Morey,
Robert. Death and the Afterlife. Minneapolis: Bethany House.
Owen, John. A Dissertation on Divine Justice, The Works of John Owen, vol. X, pp. 482-624.
Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, vol. I, pp. 132-142, 466-481, 654669. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications.
Helm, Paul. The Last Things, pp. 108-128. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.

367

Chapter 50. The Relation of Election and

Reprobation.
1. Are the Elect and the Reprobate in Any May Related?
A. In this study, we will discuss four questions regarding the relation between theelect and the
reprobate. They are not the most popular issues in the field; endmost Calvinists are not even
familiar with the questions, let alone the answers.
B. The first question concerns whether those who are elect are ever in any way related to those
who are not elected. The elect form the family of God. Does this association find expression in
human families or races? Are there any historical patterns to reprobation and election?
C. In brief, the Reformed position is that the elect and the reprobate are mixed together in the
world throughout history, but it is not an even mixture. First, the elect and reprobate are mingled
together. Jacob and Esau (Rom. 9:13) were brothers - one was an elect, one was reprobate.
The same was true with Cain and Abel, and other brothers. Therefore, salvation history shows
that God has not decreed to put the elect and reprobate in separate families.
D. In fact, families are usually divided like this. It is rare to find a family in which all members
are regenerate. On the other hand, it is not so rare to find families in which all members are
unbelievers, and confirm their reprobation by dying impenitent. One practical application of this
is that parents cannot assume that their children are elect simply because they themselves have
confirmed their election by saving faith (2 Pet. 1:10). A godly set of parents may produce very
ungodly children. The converse is also true - reprobate parents may produce one or more
children who are in fact elect.
E. Still, there is a general pattern to be noticed, even from the human perspective. Everything
else being equal, a child raised in a Christian home is more likely to become a Christian than a
child raised in a non-Christian family. Hence, Calvinists sometimes comment that the elect tend
to come from elect parents. Now some Covenant Calvinists take this principle and stretch it
beyond Biblical boundaries. For example, we have already discussed Presumptive
Regeneration. But the misuse of a principle does not negate the basic principle that God has
deigned to place an unusually large number of the elect in families where one or more of the
parents are also elect. When the elect meet in Heaven, there will be a disproportionately large
number of them who were physically related on Earth.
F. The balance, then, is this: Not all relatives of the elect are elect, but not all are reprobate
either. A large number of relatives are in fact elect.
G. This principle can also be seen in other relations. For example, race and nationality. On the
one hand, it is quite clear that election and reprobation are not limited to race. There is no elect
race in the sense that all members of a race are necessarily elect, and all others necessarily
reprobate. This gives the lie to the basic misunderstanding of inter-testamental and Talmudic
Judaism. The early rabbinic writings frequently taught that every Jew was elect and every
Gentile was reprobate. That has never been true.
H. That error was not even true in the O.T. First, there were elect before the first Hebrew
(Abraham). Also, there were Gentiles that proved to be elect by their faith (such as Ruth). This
is not negated by the fact that they associated themselves with Israel. Moreover, many - if not
most - Israelites proved that they were not elect, for they were in the main a rebellious lot (Acts

368

7).
I. And yet, during the O.T. economy, there were far more elect that were born in the family line
of Abraham than of Gentile stock. That pattern continued for 2,000 years In the N.T., there is no
specific promise that most believers will come from believing parents (the counterpart to Israel).
But what does continue is what may be termed clusters of the elect in families and races.
J. Thus far in history since the N.T., believers have not been spread equally in all the races. For
example, even at the present day there are proportionately more believers in some races and
nations than in others. There have always been relatively few believers among the Arab and
Indian races. This is not due to either the alleged inherent superiority or inferiority of the races
concerned, but of Gods providential placing of the elect here and there as it pleases Him.
K. We know that there will be believers from every race and nationality (Rev. 7-9) Therefore,
God has elected men from these groups. The pattern thus far in church history could certainly
change. God may well have ordained that in the future proportionately large numbers of elect
will come to faith from races and nations which heretofore have been relatively underrepresented. After all, He did that in the change from Old Testament to New Testament.
L. By the same standard, it would be unbiblical to suggest that there is any such thing as a
reprobate race. Such a perversion would contend that there are absolutely no elect from suchand-such a race. Scripture gives no countenance to such a theory. Theologians may argue
about the present status of physical Israelites, but none of them suggest that Israel is a
reprobate race in this sense.
M. The truth is that God was pleased to mingle His elect in all races, nations and ages
Therefore, we are commanded to preach to all (Matt. 28:19-20), for we do not know who the
elect are. Nor do we know who the reprobate are.

2. Could God Have Reversed the Subjects of Election and Reprobation?

A. In other words, could God have rejected one whom He elected, and elected one whom He
chose? This is an interesting question, and though it may seem irrelevant and obscure, it does
touch on something of the essence of election: sovereign grace.
B. Could God have elected Judas and reprobated Peter? Could He have decided to choose
Cain and not Able? Was there any possibility that God could have decreed, Esau have I loved,
but Jacob have I hated? Again, there are two truths which need to be kept in balance. On the
one hand, it is theoretically possible that God could have chosen Judas, Cain and Esau, or any
other of those who are reprobate. After all, He chose whom He chose out of mere sovereignty
and grace. There was no higher law which required that God chose one or the other. And
certainly there were no lower laws which could have persuaded Him. In this sense, God could
have done it otherwise.
C. But we need to be careful here. When God made the choice, He did it after the counsel of
His own will (Eph. 1:11). He did not flip a heavenly coin. God made the difference, and being
infinitely wise, His choice therefore reflected infinite wisdom. In this sense, therefore, God could
not have done otherwise, for to have done otherwise would suggest that the present way is
defective in some respect. God decreed all things in order to best glorify Himself (Rom. 11:36).
Thus, the present subjects of election and reprobation are in the best interests of His glory.
D. This same balance is true regarding every other relation between elect and reprobate. Could
God have chosen someone other than Abraham to raise up a godly nation from? In a sense,

369

yes, in another sense, no. The same is true with how the elect and non-elect are spread
throughout the worlds races and ages.
E. To change the question slightly, this is true also regarding whether the proportion of elect
and reprobate was subject to variation. In other words, could God have elected all men and
reprobated none? Or conversely, could God have rejected all and chosen none? In a sense,
yes, for He is sovereign and will be gracious to whom He will be gracious (Rom. 9:15). God
would have been absolutely just had He decreed to elect none. His justice would have been
displayed gloriously in history and in the awesome destiny of a human race that would be 100%
reprobate.
F. Similarly, He would have been glorified to elect all and reject none. After all, in this sense, He
could just as well have chosen to be merciful to all men and elect the entire human race. His
grace would have certainly been glorified.
G. But that possibility is in fact moot. First, God did not so choose to elect all nor to reprobate
all. He did it this way after the counsel of His own will and wisdom and in this sense this world is
the one which brings optimum glory to God. But there is a second reason, and it is important to
see it in order to be reminded of the very purpose for which God has done what He has done.
God decreed all this for His own glory - the revelation of His being. But His being is not just
justice, nor is it only mercy. He is both. What this means is that, had God chosen to elect all,
then His justice would not have been revealed and glorified. Hence, there is a sense in which,
according to His nature, He had to reprobate some sinners. Conversely, He is not just mercy.
Had He elected all, where would be the glory of His justice and wrath and power? And, of
course, this takes on even greater magnitude when we remember what we saw in the last study
regarding the echo of glory in the elect and the reprobate.
H. And even higher, this brings us back to the unfathomable mystery of why God decreed to
create at all. On, the one hand, God was already perfectly glorified. On the other hand, He
decreed the universe in order to show forth His glory and in turn receive glory from something
outside of Himself. But remember, He had no force outside Himself (either higher or lower, or
even on the same level) which impelled Him to decree at all. These issues, then, bring us to the
brink of the Secret Will and deep and glorious mystery. They belong to the secret things which
belong to God alone, of which it would not be proper to further attempt to investigate (Deut.
29:29).
I. Returning to a lower level of the question, then, we can make two further observations. First,
God has not decreed that there shall be any changeover between elect and reprobate. Just as
there is no crossover from Heaven to Hell (and vice-versa, Luke 16:26), so there is no way in
which an elect could become reprobate or a reprobate become elect. Once elect, always elect.
Once reprobate, always reprobate.
J. That is true regarding all links in the Golden Chain of Salvation and the Black Chain of
Reprobation. Yet our second observation must be made at this point. In time, there is no
essential difference between elect and reprobate. They were chosen and rejected from the
same lump of clay (Rom. 9:20-21). In other words, the elect are born in the same Original Sin as
the reprobate.
K. Furthermore, this does not mean that before conversion the elect were any better or worse
than the reprobate, at least not necessarily so. For instance, some elect were certainly more
sinful than some of their reprobate relatives and friends. But they were not elected because they
were more sinful, nor were those particular reprobate rejected because they were less sinful.
The degree of their sin had no effect on Gods choice and rejection. Similarly, to display His
sovereignty in these matters, God frequently places clusters of the elect among the more sinful

370

simply to show that it is solely by His mercy (cf. esp. I Cor. 1:26-29). These two principles must
be kept in balance.

3. Are There More Elect or Reprobate?

A. Now we come to a question more likely to have been pondered in the mind of the typical
Calvinist. Granted God chose only some, but did He choose more than He rejected? Granted
that the Potter divided the lump into two* but which half-lump is larger? Is there a difference in
size between the vessel to honor and the vessel to dishonor? Probably more Christians have
pondered these questions in a more obvious form, namely, will there be more people in Heaven
or in Hell? Will there be more lost or saved, more sheep or goats, more wheat or chaff, more in
or out of the Book of Life? Obviously we will know when we get to Heaven, but has God given
us any revelation on the subject in Holy Scripture?
B. As a matter of fact, there are several portions of Scripture which raise the matter. Well look
at them in due course. First, the question has not been answered with unanimity among
Calvinists, let alone Christians in general. For example, Charles Hodge, William G.T. Shedd,
Robert Lewis Dabney and B.B. Warfield all taught, in the words of Hodge, We have reason to
believe... that the number finally lost in comparison with the whole number of the saved will be
very inconsiderable. In his famous article entitled Are There Few That Be Saved?, B.B.
Warfield argued that the saved/elect will greatly outnumber the lost/reprobate. Several
Calvinists have compared the final universe to a city in which the general populace far
outnumbers the criminals in the local jail.
C. On the other hand, other Calvinists have taken the other position. For example, the great
17th-century Swiss theologian Johann Heinrich Heidegger wrote, Not only did God not elect all,
but not even most, but a few. For, although the elect are absolutely, sufficiently many... yet,
comparatively to those who are not elect, the elect are said to be few.
D. All sides agree that the number of the elect is large, a great multitude, which no man could
number (Rev. 7:9). But that is not the state of the question. The question is whether this large
number exceeds or is exceeded by the number of reprobate.
E. One factor affecting the discussion is ones millennial views. Post-Millenialists such as
Hodge, Dabney, Shedd and especially Warfield usually posit that the elect are in the majority.
As expected, most Pre-Millenialists say the opposite, though there are a few exceptions, such
as those who stress that a great and protracted revival will precede Christs pre-millennial
return. Amillenialists waver between the two answers. And, of course, probably at least half of
all Calvinists have been Amillenial.
F. A few Amillenialists propose an unusual third option to the question. They argue that history
will neither get better or worse, but the good will get better and the bad will get worse. The
Church will grow but so will the world. This is projected into election/reprobation with the curious
result that some suggest that the number of elect and reprobate will be almost exactly equal.
One or two have pointed out that five of the ten virgins of Matt. 25 were elect, five were not. But
this option is relatively rare. Matt. 25 can hardly be used to estimate the proportions of sides.
G. Theoretically, there are five possibilities: all elect, all reprobate, half-and-half, more elect,
and more reprobate. We have already shown that the first two are unscriptural (and nobody
challenges this, except Karl Barth in his strange doctrine that all men are both elect and
reprobate!). Very, very few hold to the third. So we will concentrate on the other two options in
the light of the pertinent Bible texts.

371

H. Host of the Scriptural data comes from the mouth of our Lord Himself. First, Matt. 7:13-14
contrasts the many who follow the wide gate to destruction with the few who enter the
narrow gate to life. Obviously, one group goes to Hell because theyre reprobated, and the
other goes to Heaven because they were elected. Those who argue that the elect outnumber
the reprobate usually say that this text only concerns the proportion of people in Christs own
day, or possibly history until then, but no more. The pattern will eventually and drastically
reverse itself. The other side says that Christs words can only be taken as a general pattern for
all time.
I. Note that a certain qualification needs to be made, even by both sides. By nature, all men are
on the wide path to destruction, even the elect before their conversions (Eph. 2:1-2). God
creates an exit off of this path and invites many to exit. But He causes only a few to actually
take the narrow exit. This has always been His pattern.
J. Luke 13:22-30 ties in Matt. 7:13-14 and 25:1-13. First, note the question is specifically the
one we are here discussing. Also note the present tense, are being saved. Those such as
Warfield argue that this present tense militates against it being a general principle for the future.
It only concerned them then. However, Christs answer would counter Warfield's point, for Christ
answers in the future tense repeatedly in vss. 24-29 (will seek, will not be able, will answer, will
begin to say, will say, will be weeping, will come, will recline, will be first, will be last). This
emphasis obviously implies a general pattern in the future.
K. Also, Warfield and others feel that Christ didnt really answer the question. The question is
impertinent; the answer is not revealed (Deut. 29:29). It was as if Christ replied as in Acts 1, It
is not for you to know whether there will be many-or few that will be saved. Your duty is to strive
to enter in. But this too does not wash. Christs answer clearly implies few will be saved. If only
a few will be saved, then there is all the more reason to strive to be among those few. But if a
far larger number will be saved, the demand is lessened.
L. Lastly, Christ is not only answering the one man but is answering and rebuking Israel as a
whole (note the plural you in the verses). In a sense, Israel had made some sort of effort to
enter in (vs. 24). But it was not wholehearted nor with proper motives, therefore Christ slams the
door on them and rejects their excuses (vss. 26-27). Israel will therefore witness the kingdom
being taken from them and given to Gentiles who press to enter in more wholeheartedly
(vss.28-29). The argument is similar to chapters 9-11 of Romans, namely, why are not all Jews
saved and why are not all Gentiles lost? Behind it all, of course, is the sovereign hand of God.
Israel, then, was first in the historical economy of God but will be last later on (vs. 30).
M. What, then, is the answer to the question of vs. 23? The answer is found in the close parallel
in Matt. 7:13-14. That is, the future pattern will be many lost and few saved. We can deduce
from their final destiny what was the same eternal proportion in election and reprobation. There
are more reprobate than elect.
N. Matt. 22:14 is even more explicit, Many are called, few are chosen. Notice that the two
groups are not exclusive in all respects. Even the elect are called (Rom. 8:30, 2 Pet. 1:10, Rev.
17:14, etc). What is said is this: not all men hear the Gospel call; of those many that do, not all
are chosen to accept it. Viewing these 3 concentric circles as such, the few who are chosen
are thus outnumbered by those who not only hear and reject the Gospel but even those who
never even hear. Together they form the reprobate and outnumber the elect few.
O. Then there is the general pattern of salvation history. Certainly there were only a few in each
dispensation of the O.T. Only a few were saved between Adam and Noah, for in Noahs day a
few, that is, eight souls were saved (I Pet. 3:20). And the Bible portrays the same proportion
from Noah to Abraham. And again it is obvious that from Abraham to Christ, few were saved; for

372

only Israelites and a few godly Gentiles who attached themselves to Israel were saved small
compared to the vast number of Gentiles. Moreover, even within Israel there was only a small
godly remnant at all times; most were rebellious as in the wilderness (cf. Acts 7).
P. Does this change in the NT? Some say yes, but the evidence suggests otherwise. For one,
the latter days before Christs return will not be a great revival where such a vast number will be
saved as to make up for the deficiency in ages past. Christ and Peter compared the closing
years to the days of Noah, when only a few were saved (I Pet. 3:20, 2 Pet. 3:1-7, Matt. 24:3739). Christ also asked the rhetorical question, When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on
the Earth? (Luke 18:8) The question implies that very few will be believers at that time. The
church era will end more or less as it began, with the true Church being a little flock (Luke
12:32). In itself, it is a large number because more would be added in church history (John
10:16). But compared with the goats, the sheep are few.
Q. Warfield and other Post-Millenialists often say that even now the Church is in its infancy.
True, history may last several thousands of years more. Even Biblical Pre-Millenialists agree
that Christs return may be ages from now. But that is not the point. The point is whether there
will be a general pattern where believers outnumber unbelievers to the level of even making up
for lost ages. The Bible nowhere suggests that this will be the case. Warfield relies heavily on
the leaven parables to prove that believers will outnumber unbelievers. In fact, those parables
only teach that the Church will permeate, not outnumber, the rest of the world. Leaven is always
a small amount compared with the dough.
R. One last argument needs only brief mention, for we will discuss it at greater length later.
Warfield and Hodge argue that since all dying infants are saved, and in history at least half of
infants have died in infancy (not to mention abortion), then this will make up any slack in the
proportion and thus tip the scales greatly. Our answer is that, even granted the salvation of all
infants, this does not necessarily tip the scales. And it certainly does not dismiss the passages
in Matt. 7 and 22 and Luke 13. Infants may not press into the kingdom, but if saved then they
would be among the few on the narrow path.
S. To relate this to what was said earlier, it would be futile and moot to suggest that God would
receive more glory if there were more elect than reprobate, or any other possibility. If He has
deigned a certain proportion, whatever it is, then that proportion is that which gives Him
maximum glory.

4. Are the Elect and the Reprobate Equal?

A. This last question has to do with what is known in Reformed theology as the matter of Equal
Ultimacy. Briefly stated, it is this: In the mind of God, which is more important to the
manifestation of His glory - election or reprobation? Stated as such, then the clear answer is,
Both, for both reveal and render glory to God in kind and in echo. Another version of the
issue has it: Which- logically came first? Nobody suggests that reprobation is first, more
important or logically first. But many Calvinists say election comes first, is more important and is
logically prior to reprobation.
B. Actually, it may just be a matter of semantics. All orthodox sides agree that both election and
reprobation stand together, and that both happened at the same time in the eternal mind of
God. Still, following the lump analogy of Rom. 9, it would appear that election logically
preceded reprobation. God chose some sinners out of the fallen mass, thereby logically
leaving the rest in.

373

C. The last issue in this study is somewhat related. Reformed theology teaches that there is a
sense in which the reprobate serve the elect. Rom. 9:12, The older shall serve the younger.
Esau was slightly older and represented the reprobate; he served Jacob the elect. John Gill
commented, Esau was serviceable to Jacob, even in spiritual things, as reprobates are to the
elect; for all things are for their sake, and all things work together for their good. Herman
Hoeksema agreed: For even as the chaff must serve the wheat, so the reprobate must be
subservient to the realization of the glorification of the elect Church of Christ.
D. Now, this is not according the heresy of The Talmud, which taught that since all Jews are
elect and all Gentiles are reprobate, Gentile dogs must serve the Jews and therefore have no
rights or mercy. No, believers are to love and witness to unbelievers. Rather, in time the
reprobate are means by which God blesses the elect. For example, they are tending our garden
until we inherit it (cf. Matt. 5:5). We will inherit also what they forfeited. Whatever God has done
good for the reprobate by way of Common Grace will redound to their damnation, but will
redound to the glorification of the elect. Some Calvinists refer to Isa. 43:4, Since you are
precious in My sight, since you are honored and I love you, Twill give other men in your place
and other peoples in exchange for your life. Even the damnation of the reprobate, serves the
elect in that the sight of it-will move the elect to thank God all the more for electing them out of
grace in spite of the sin which they shared with the reprobate. Edwards said, The wicked are
useful in their destruction only. Their damnation glorifies God and adds to the elects
glorification

374

Chapter 51. The Order of the Decrees.

1. Introduction.
A. The subject of this study is one of the deepest in all of theology. Not only is it baffling to nonCalvinists, but it has a tendency to overwhelm those who are new to the doctrines of Calvinism.
It has caused more than one theological headache.
B. In discussing the second point of Calvinism (election/reprobation), we have made mention of
the Golden Chain of Salvation and the Black Chain of Reprobation. The subject before us is just
this: What is the logical order of the links in those chains? All Calvinists agree that the initial
links were in eternity past and the final ones are in eternity future. They further agree that the
links in the two chains are somewhat complementary - election and non-election proceed
together. But from there, disagreement follows.
C. Within Calvinist theology, there have been three main theories. These may be charted like
this:
Amyraldianism

Infralapsarianism

Supralapsarianism

1. Decree to create Man.

1. Decree to create Man.

1. Decree of election and

reprobation.

2. Decree to allow the Fall.

2. Decree to allow the Fall.

2. Decree to allow Fall.

3. Decree to send Christ to die 3. Decree of election and

for Man.
reprobation.
4. Decree of election and
reprobation.

3. Decree to send Christ to die

for the elect.

4. Decree to send Christ to die 4. Decree to create Man.

for the elect.

D. By far and away most Calvinists have been Infralapsarian. Probably 75% have held to this
view. Maybe 15% have been Amyraldian on the decrees, and around 5% have been
Supralapsarian. Truth is not ascertained by a majority vote, but this is the pattern in the history
of Reformed theology.
E. Perhaps it might be useful to note just who are among the leading representatives of the
three views:

375

Amyraldianism

Infralapsarianism

Supralapsarianism

Moyse Amyraut

Francis Turretine

Theodore Beza

Richard Baxter

John Owen

William Perkins

John Davenant

Thomas Watson -

William Ames

John Bunyan

Matthew Henry

Samuel Rutherford

Timothy Dwight

Thomas Boston

Francis Gomarus

Albert Barnes

George Whitefield

William Twisse

Ralph Wardlaw

Jonathan Edwards

Thomas Goodwin

J.C. Ryle

C.H. Spurgeon

Alexander Comrie

Lewis Sperry Chafer

Charles Hodge

Augustus M. Toplady

R.T. Kendall

William G.T. Shedd

John Gill

Robert Lewis Dabney

Abraham Kuyper

James Henley Thornwell

Herman Hoeksema

William Cunningham

Arthur W. Pink

Benjamin B. Warfield J.

Cornelius Van Til

Gresham Machen

Gordon Clark

John Murray
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Loraine Boettner
J.I. Packer
F. These are not lightweight names in the ranks of Reformed theology, and the lists could be
greatly expanded. The first column is generally called Low Calvinism, the second Moderate
Calvinism, and the third High Calvinism. All the major Reformed confessions and catechisms
have been Infralapsarian. All Hyper-Calvinists have been Supralapsarianism, though not all
Supralapsarians have been Hyper-Calvinists. Similarly, almost all Theonomists (Rushdoony,
North, and Bahnsen, for example) have been Supralapsarians as well.
G. Dispensationalists debate with their many charts over the order of future events, but
Calvinists are more likely to debate over the logical order of events in eternity past. And they too
have their charts. The famous Golden Chain chart of William Perkins was modeled after that of
Theodore Beza, and they were classic Supralapsarian charts. Probably the most useful general
chart is that of Benjamin B. Warfield in The Plan of Salvation (p. 31). He charts all the theories
by all branches of Christendom, including the Lutheran and Arminian schemes.
H. The above list did not include any of the Reformers except Beza. Scholars are still earnestly
debating where Calvin and the others stood on these issues. Each of the three systems have
claimed Calvin. Simply put, the question of the order of the decrees did not gain much
prominence in Reformed theology until the end of the period of the Reformation.

376

I. Moreover, the whole question is not debated today as much as in the past. Even several
recent books on election do not touch on the question. Every now and then somebody will say
that the controversy has been a bitter debate. That is not true. The phrase bitter debate
suggests hardened attitudes, excommunication and personal invective. I have not found that to
be the case with this issue, as, for example, the truly bitter debates of Hyper-Calvinism and
Theonomy (not to mention the even bitterer debates of Arminianism and Neo-Orthodoxy). For
example, the Reformed confessions are all Infralapsarian, yet they do not pronounce curses on
the Supralapsarians, though some (such as the Formula Consensus Helvetica) were quite
rigorous in opposing Amyraldianism.
J. Note that Gomarus and Twisse were two leading Supralapsarians; they were also the
moderators of Dort and Westminster. It has frequently been averred that the confessions of
these meetings were Infralapsarian but so phrased that a Supra could still remain in the fold
(and this could possibly apply also to the Amyraldians). So, we too should have a conciliatory
attitude when we differ with our fellow Calvinists on the order of the decrees.

2. What is the State of the Question?

A. While a few Calvinists (and more than a few non-Calvinists) argue that we do not have
Biblical revelation enough to settle the question, most Reformed theologians disagree. Most say
that there are a few passages, which directly touch on the matter, and we can deduce more
information from what is elsewhere revealed.
B. But first, let us note what is not being debated: (1) Whether God foreordained the Fall, (2)
whether the Fall was actively or passively ordained by God, (3) reprobation, (4) the glory of God
as the final end of all the decrees, (5) when the decrees occurred. All parties concerned agree
on these matters; their slight variations do not touch the state of the question.
C. The last of these points is especially worth noting. When we say order of the decrees, we
mean the logical order, not-the chronological order. These decrees were framed in eternity,
which is infinite time and has no sequence, as we know it. Still, they were in eternity past and
not in time or history. This is vital to keep in mind or else confusion will be multiplied.
D. For example, some Calvinists will look at the above chart and reason, Well, I certainly must
be a Supralapsarian, because I agree that the decree to elect was before the Fall. The Fall
occurred in time and election was in eternity past. Such a statement misunderstands what is
being discussed. Everything on the above charts occurred in eternity past. They are all
decrees. God foreordained everything that conies to pass in time (Rom. 11:36), and what is
discussed is simply what was decreed logically prior to what else was decreed. All the decrees
occurred before the Fall. In fact, all the decrees occurred before their enactment in time, and
therefore before Creation itself.
E. The debate is, What is the logical order of the decrees? What is the relationship between
the decrees? In turn, this indicates what is the nature of each decree and the nature of the
enactment of what is decreed. Jonathan Edwards commented, God decrees one thing out of
respect to another decree that he has made; so that one decree must be conceived of as in
some sort to be the ground of another, or that God decrees one because of another; or that he
would not have decreed one, had he decreed that other.
F. Hence, the logical order assumes that each decree builds on the previous decree and moves
towards the final end, the glory of God. Most Calvinist theologians agree. A few, such as
Herman Bavinck and Louis Berkhof, hesitate here. They argue that because of the nature of

377

eternity and predestination, the decrees are not to be envisaged as being logically subordinate
but as eternally coordinate. In other words, there is no priority or posteriority to any of them.
Among the replies to this view is the reference to the obvious order of links in the Golden Chain
(Rom. 8:29-30). Further, Christs death was predestined (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28). But for Christ to
have been predestined to die presupposes that He would become a man. It also presupposes
that He died for the sins of others. This certainly implies that the decree of atonement logically
followed the decrees of the Fall and the Incarnation.
G. As a close observation and comparison of the above chart will show, there are three main
issues being debated. (1) Was the Creation decree first or last? (2) Did the election decree
precede or follow the decree to allow the Fall? (3) Did the atonement decree precede or follow
the election decree? The debate is not simply over the order of the decrees, but the nature of
the decrees and, more especially, the nature of what was decreed. By examining the nature of
what actually occurs, we can deduce much concerning the order of the decrees.

3. Amyraldianism.
A. We will not again review in detail Amyraldian theology. Basically, it is Four Point Calvinism.
It agrees with Infralapsarianism that the creation decree must be first in the order of decrees.
How could God logically decree anything of mere potentialities? For example, the
Supralapsarians err when they suppose that God decreed to elect some and reprobate others,
but He had not logically decreed that any would yet exist. Nothing can be predicated about
something that does not (or will not necessarily) exist.
B. But it is precisely on this very principle that the other two attack the Amyraldian scheme, also
known as Hypothetical Universal ism. Note that the Amyraldian scheme places the atonement
decree before the election decree. Why? Because this system believes in universal atonement.
Since Christ died for all men, God must have decreed that Christ die for men as sinners and not
as elect sinners.
C. Hence, according to this theory, when God came to make the choice in election, He not only
made it from a mass of humanity which had been decreed to fall, but also from a mass of
humanity for whom Christ would die. Out of the world for whom Christ died, God chose some to
be saved by that death, in consequence of which He decreed to give faith. He left others merely
in a state of having Christ die for them, but being reprobate they will not receive the gift of faith,
and so will perish.
D. In later studies we will discuss the pros and cons of whether Christ died for all men or only
for the elect. Obviously, if one believes in Limited Atonement, he cannot believe in this order of
the decrees.
E. But, as noted above, the real problem is greater. It concerns not only universal atonement,
but the very nature of the decrees as decrees. Charles Hodge explained:
At first view it might seem a small matter whether we say that election precedes redemption or
that redemption precedes election. In fact, however, it is a question of great importance. The
relation of the truths of the Bible is determined by their nature. If you change the relation you
must change their nature. If you regard the sun as a planet instead of the center of our system,
you must believe it to be something very different in its constitution from what it actually is. So in
a scheme of thought, if you make the final cause a means, or a means the final cause, nothing
but confusion can be the result.
F. Thus, the Amyraldian scheme makes the death of Christ a means whereby Man maybe

378

saved if he is given faith, but it is not true that the atonement made that salvation necessary.
More to the point, in the decrees, if Christ died for all men equally, then He must have died for
them in a manner of salvation. Hence, at that stage of the decrees, God viewed mankind at
large as hypothetically saved. And that is why the system is known as Hypothetical
Universalism.
G. But again, the problem is that this implies that the decrees are somewhat conditional and
hypothetical. Gods purposes are seen to be tenuous. Some Calvinists suggest that this scheme
has God write up an order of decrees and then switch to Plan B. Plan A was that Christ die
for all with a view to save all, then God switches to Plan B whereby He changes His mind and
does not save all but only some. The very logic of this argument is convincing. The Amyraldian
order of the decrees teaches a weak doctrine of predestination.

4. Supralapsarianism.
A. At the other end of the three is Supralapsarianism. The main issue here is whether God first
decreed the Fall and then election/reprobation, or first election/reprobation and then the Fall. In
other words, did election come before (supra) or after (infra) the Fall (lapsus).
B. This theory has several arguments to which it appeals. First, What is first in intention is last
in execution... the end is first firmly fixed and then the means(John Gill). Before a man builds a
house, he makes a picture. Then he works backwards. If the house is made of wood, then he
needs saws to cut the wood. He needs nails to hold the wood together, and in turn that means
he needs hammers to drive in the nails. And so it goes. Some refer to Luke 14:29-30, For
which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost,
to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not
able to finish, all who observe it will begin to ridicule him?
C. Second, The order of history is, so to speak, infralapsarian; but the order of the decrees is
Supralapsarian, so that history unfolds in exactly the opposite order from that of the decrees
(Homer Hoeksema). We can look at the order of history as recorded and predicted in Scripture,
and deduce the order of the decrees. This is why the Creation decree is last, for Creation
occurred first in history.
D. Third, the Fall preceded salvation in time; therefore election preceded the Fall in the order of
the decrees. When God chose who would be saved, He made the choice from an unfallen mass
of humanity. The lump of clay in Rom. 9:20-23 is a formless stuff which is neither good nor
bad, simply bare humanity.
E. Fourth, Rom. 9:11 says about Jacob and Esau (elect and reprobate), for though the twins
were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that Gods purpose
according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls.
Hence, when God viewed humanity, it was formless and neither good or bad. God divided them
into those who would glorify Him through salvation and those who would glorify Him through
damnation. Then God decreed to allow the Fall as a means of salvation (the elect would be
saved from sin) and damnation (the reprobate would be damned because of sin).
F. Fifth, this view gives greatest glory to God. Election and reprobation have absolutely nothing
to do with anything good or bad in man. Thus, election and reprobation are by bare sovereignty.
G. How do the Infralapsarians reply to these arguments? First, if Creation is the last decree,
then in the previous decrees God was dealing with Man as only potentially existing. Nothing can
be predicated of a mere potential being. A potential being is a contradiction in terms; a

379

potential being can be neither elected nor reprobated. In fact, this is much the same as
Hypothetical Universalism in that it implies something hypothetical in the decrees.
H. Next, history is not the exact opposite order of the decrees, even by the theory of
Supralapsarianism. If Supralapsarianism were true, then history would have Christ dying before
the Fall, for the atonement decree followed the Fall decree. Infralapsarians sometimes chuckle
that the Supralapsarians have history backwards.
I. But the real problem is election and reprobation from a mass of unfallen humanity. James
Henley Thornwell argued, An election to salvation or to deliverance from guilt and misery
necessarily presupposes guilt and misery in its objects, as healing implies a disease or cooling
implies heat. Scripture repeatedly says that election is by grace and mercy (Eph. 1:4-6, Rom.
9:13, 15, 16, 18, 23, 2 Tim. 1:9). Rom. 11:5.calls it the election of grace. But grace and mercy
have to do with Gods super-abounding love to sinners. When God elected the elect, He
showed them grace and mercy, and that presupposes that they had already been ordained to
Fall. Thus, at best the Supralapsarian position can have an election of love (which does not
presuppose sin) but not an election of grace.
J. A similar problem arises regarding reprobation. Again Thornwell commented, The
Supralapsarians, by their arbitrary reduction of creation and the Fall to the category of means,
really make sin the consequence of damnation and not its ground. Man is not condemned
because he sins, but sins that he may be condemned. The Supra scheme would have God first
hate Esau and then predestine a reason to hate him. This would sound dangerously like John
15:25, They hated me without a cause- Supras would have God hate sinless Man. That
reflects badly on divine justice. But God does not pervert justice.
K. When Supralapsarians argue that their position exalts divine sovereignty most, they overlook
that they do not balance divine sovereignty with the nature of divine grace and justice. In
election, God did not elect simply out of bare sovereignty but out of sovereign grace. And He
did not reprobate men out of bare sovereignty but out of just sovereignty. Therefore, both of
these decrees had to presuppose the Fall for the proper revelation of the attributes of God
working together.

5. Infralapsarianism.
A. By process of elimination we are left with Infralapsarianism in the middle. Logically this alone
could prove its validity, but let us add a few comments. B.B. Warfield observed,
Supralapsarianism errs therefore as seriously on one side as universalism does on the other.
Infralapsarianism offers the only scheme which is either self-consistent or consistent with the
facts.
B. Infralapsarianism is sometimes also called Sublapsarianism. Both mean that God chose the
elect out of a fallen mass of humanity and left the reprobate in their fallenness. One of their
favorite verses is John 15:19, I chose you out of the world. Verse 18 already described the
world as God-haters. Moreover, Infralapsarians point to Romans 9 and assert that the lump of
clay is obviously a fallen lump of clay. For God to reprobate an unfallen man would be unjust.
But God is just. Moreover, how can election from an unfallen mass of humanity be described as
the election of grace? The very nature of election and reprobation demand that the lump be of
fallen humanity.
C. Also, Infralapsarians argue that the order of the decrees is the order of the enactment of the
decrees in history. God does it exactly as He planned to do it. The only difference is that of

380

chronology. Time is chronological; eternity is not chronological, but the nature of the decrees
demand that there be a logical order in them.
D. Infralapsarianism, then, best deals with the Scriptural data regarding the nature of the
decrees as unconditional decrees, merciful election and just reprobation, and the relationship
between Gods attributes.

6. Conclusion.
A. Sometimes a new Calvinist will over-react and think that Supralapsarianism gives most glory
to God. Instead, he ends up compromising certain attributes of God and is on the verge of
Hyper-Calvinism. Other Calvinists over-react against Supra-lapsarianism and back into
Amyraldianism. Some even go further in that direction and end up in Arminianism or NeoOrthodoxy. The truth is in the middle.
B. There is, by the way, one other argument adduced by the Supralapsarians: the election and
reprobation of angels. They argue that, since the good angels never sinned, they were elected
out of an unfallen mass. And that would be angelic Supralapsarianism. But that is getting
ahead of ourselves. Our next study is on the election and reprobation of the angels.

Recommended Reading
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. II, pp. 313-353. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkhof,
Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 118-125. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Bavinck, Herman. The
Doctrine of God, pp. 382-394. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Thornwell, James Henley. The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. II, pp. 17-27.
Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Plan of Salvation, especially pp. 20-31. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;
and Boonton: Simpson Publishing Co,
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 133-189, especially pp. 146-149 and 159-162.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. II, pp. 525-543, especially pp. 540542. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Berkouwer, G.C. Divine Election, pp. 254-277. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Gill, John. Body of Divinity, pp. 182-185. Paris: Baptist Standard Bearer.
Shedd, William G.T. Calvinism, Pure and Mixed, pp. 29-68. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 126-130. Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed.

381

The Order Of Decrees

Supernaturalistic
Evangelical
Particularistic
Consistently Partlcularistic
Supralapsarian

Infralapsarian

Inconsistently
Partlcularistic
Amyraldian

Lutheran

Wesleyan

Pure
Unlverstalistlc

Anglican

Roman

Orthodox Greek

Remonstrant

Permission of
Fall = loss of
original
righteousness,
involvlng loss of
knowledge of
God and
proneness to
evil.
Gift of Christ to
reconcile sinful
mankind with
God.

Permission of
Fall =
(physlcal)
deterioration
(followed by
moral).

Gift of free
will by virtue
of which each
may do all
that Is
required of
him.

Gift of Christ to
render gift of
sufficient irrace
possible.

Gift of the law

and gospel to
illuminate the
way and
persuade to
walk In It.

Institution of
the Church
and the
sacraments, to
apply
satisfaction of
Christ.

Establishment
of the Church
for the
continual supply
of the befits of
the cross.

Gift of
sufficient
(suasive) grace
to all.

Gift of Christ
to (expiate
past sin and
to) set good
example.

Application of
satisfaction of
Christ through
sacraments,
under
operation of
second
causes.
Salvation through Building up in
the sacrament of holy life of all
baptism imparting to whom the
life and of the
sacramenis
Eucharist
are continued.
nourishing it.

Instruction,
Justlflcation and
edification
through the
ordinances of
the Church.

Salvation of all
who freely
cooperate with
this grace.

Acceptance
of all who
walk In right
way.

Building up In
grace through
the seven
sacraments.

Sanctiftcation Continuance
by cooporation In right-doing
with grace.
by voluntary
effort.

Election of some Permission of

to eternal life
Fall = guilt,
with God.
corruption and
total Inability.

Permission of
Fall =
corruptlon, guilt
and moral
inability.

Permission of
Fall = guilt,
corruption and
total inability.

Permission of Permission of
Fall = guilt,
Fall.
corruption and
total inability.

Permission of
Fall = guilt,
corruption and
total inability.

Election of
some to life in
Christ.

Gift of Christ to
render
salvation
possible to all.

Gift of Christ
to render
satisfaction
for sins of the
world.

Gift of Christ Predestination Gift of Christ to

to render
of all to life.
make satisfaction
satisfaction
for the sins of all
for sins of the
men.
world.

Gift of Christ
to offer satisfaction for all
human sins.

Gift of Christ to
redeem the elect
and ground offer
to all.

Gift of Christ to Election of

redeem his
some for gift of
elect and
moral ability.
ground offer to
all.

Gift of mieans
of grace to
communitcate
saving grace.

Remission of Gift of Christ

original sin to to explate the
all and gift to sin of all.
all of sufficient
grace.

Establishment of
Church as livlnig
agent for
communicating
God's sufficient
grace.

Gift of the Holy

Gift of the Holy Gift of the Holy
Spirit to save the Spirit to save
Spirit to work
redeemed.
the redeemed. moral ability In
the elect.

Predestination
to life of those
who do not
resist the
means of
grace.

Predestlnatlon
to life of those
who improve
sufficient
grace.

Communication
of this grace
through the
sacraments as
Indispensable
channels.

Sauctlflcatlon of Sanctlflcatlon of Sanctlfication

all the redeemed all the
by the Spirit.
and regenerated. redeemed and
regenerated.

Sanctlflcatlon
through the
means Of
grace.

Sanctlflcatlon Salvatlon of
of all who
all.
cooperate
with sufficient
grace.

Gilt of the
Spirit to apply
the expiation
of Christ to all.

Naturalistic

Sacerdotal

Universalistic

Permission of sin. Permission of

Fall = loss of
supernatural
righteousness.

Pelagian

Chapter 52. The Election of Angels.

1. Introduction.
A. In discussing election and reprobation, three hard cases arise: angels, infants, and the
unevangelized. In this study we examine the first, followed in turn by the others. Reformed
theology has taught that God elected some angels as well as men. The Westminster
Confession. (Ill: 3-4) states: By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men
and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
These angels and men, thus predestined and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably
designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or
diminished.
B. The Westminster Larger Catechism (Question 19) adds further details: God by His
providence permitted some of the angels, willfully and irrevocably, to fall into sin and damnation,
limiting and ordering that, and all their sins, to His own glory; and established the rest in
holiness and happiness; employing them all, at His pleasure, in the administrations of His
power, mercy and justice.

2. The Elect Angels.

A. Very little is explicitly stated in Scripture concerning the election of angels. Infact, only one
verse specifically and explicitly mentions it. That alone would be sufficient to prove the doctrine.
Nevertheless, we can legitimately deduce more about the subject from what is explicitly and
implicitly said about angels, demons and the election of men in other contexts.
B. The one explicit verse is I Tim. 5:21, I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of
Christ Jesus and of his chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing
in a spirit of partiality. The KJV and other versions render this phrase, elect angels. Evidently,
Pauls injunction was so solemn that he felt the need to specify not only that God and Christ
were listening and watching, but also the elect angels. Among other things, this tells us that the
elect angels have a concern in the affairs of believers.
C. The phrase elect angels means that some angels were elected. Angels is in the plural, so
obviously there are many such angels. They are now elect, therefore their election occurred
sometime in the past. But what sort of election was this?
D. Negatively, the term does not refer to the ranks of heavenly angels. Other passages teach
that there are indeed ranks of heavenly angels (Eph. 1:21, Col. 1:16, Rom. 8:38). But surely all
the heavenly angels are elect, not just the ones of higher rank or power. All the angels of
Heaven are elect. And just as some humans are elected to be holy (Eph. 1:4), so the elect
angels are called holy angels (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26).
E. John Gill thought that the phrase angels of God (Luke 12:8-9) implied their election. They
are called this not merely because they are His creatures, so are the evil angels; but because
they are His chosen, His favorites, and appointed to be happy with Him to all eternity.
F. Now it is evident at once that we find a difference between elect angels and men. All elect
men fell into sin, but none of the elect angels have ever sinned. There is not the slightest
indication in Scripture that God elected some of the fallen angels. Since salvation is the product

383

of election (2 Thess. 2:13), and none of the fallen angels will ever be saved (Matt. 25:41), it
follows that none of the fallen angels were elected. So, the elect angels never fell. They
continually behold the face of My Father who is in Heaven (Matt. 18:10).
G. So, their election was tied in with the decree to keep them from falling. William 6.T. Shedd
commented, It is not, in this case, a decree to deliver from sin, but to preserve from sinning.
This decree, then, had two stages: (1) preservation from the Fall, (2) predestination to
happiness and glory.
H. A number of theologians suggest that all the angels were placed on a sort of probation in
their sinless state, similar to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Robert Lewis Dabney even
says that this involved a covenant. The stipulation was that if they obeyed, they would pass and
then be made impeccable. That is, they would be confirmed in holiness and thus guaranteed
never to fall. According to this view, a certain number of angels passed the probation and were
made impeccable. These were the elect angels. The very test and their passing it had been
foreordained by God.
I. Other theologians favor another view. These suggest that the elect angels were always
impeccable. The others were not created impeccable, and eventually all of those fell into sin.
According to this view, the angels were created on an unequal basis. This does not mean that
God created some of them sinful. Rather, God created the elect angels impeccable (unable to
sin) and the non-elect angels sinless but peccable (able to fall). Francis Turretine was the
leading Calvinist proponent of this view.
J. Theologians agree that the election of these angels occurred in eternity before. Creation.
There are other parallels with the election of men: their number is definite and certain, not all
were elected, their election is past and complete, they are predestined to glory, etc.
K. There is also another interesting similarity regarding their present situation. In time, it is the
privilege of every elect man and woman to know that he was chosen. Some come to this
assurance, others do not. But there is every indication that all of the elect angels know that they
are elect. They know they will never fall. That is part of their present happiness. In fact, they are
already enjoying much of the eternal glory to which they were predestined.

3. The Reprobate Angels.

A. There is another important parallel between men and angels here: election of some implies
rejection of others. Calvin saw this and observed, Paul calls the angels who stood in their
uprightness elect (I Tim. 5:21); if their steadfastness was grounded in Gods good pleasure, the
rebellion of the others proves the latter were forsaken. No other cause of this fact can be
adduced but reprobation, which is hidden in Gods secret plan. Hence, some angels are
reprobate angels.
B. Just as the election of the holy angels was in two stages, so was the reprobation of the fallen
angels: (1) Negatively, they were foreordained to fall into sin, (2) positively, they were left in that
sin and predestined to suffer the consequences. The predestined consequences follow the
order of history: (A) they were cast out of Heaven, (B) some were cast onto the Earth and others
were reserved in chains in Hades, (C) they will all be cast into the Lake of Fire. Let us look at
these stages.
C. Back before the Creation of the material universe, God created the immaterial universe of
angels. Then one of the highest of the angels wanted to be God. He was the first being ever to
sin. His name was Lucifer, later changed to Satan. His fall is mentioned in John 8:44, I Tim. 3:6,

384

Luke 10:18, and probably also Isa. 14:4-21(cf. vs. 12, Lucifer in some versions} and Ezek.
28:11-19.
D. Scripture also tells us that other angels followed Satan in his sin (Jude 6, 2 Pet. 2:4). Job
4:18 refers to this, Against His angels he charges error. Many scholars feel that this is referred
to in Rev. 12:4-12. And some others think this was the incident mentioned in Gen. 6:1-4. If so,
then the fall of these other angels was after the Creation and Fall of Man. Augustine had a
curious theory regarding the fall of the angels, when it was, and how it was the result of their
reprobation:
The angels were created when that first light was made, and that a separation was made
between the holy and the unclean angels, when, as is said, God divided the light from the
darkness; and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. For He alone could
make this discrimination, who was able also before they fell, to foreknow that they would fall,
and that being deprived of the light of the truth, they would abide in the darkness of pride...
Between that light, which is the holy company of the angels spiritually radiant with the
illumination of the truth, and that opposing darkness, which is the noisome foulness of the
spiritual condition of those angels who are turned away from the light of righteousness, only He
Himself could divide, from Whom their wickedness (not of nature, but of will), while yet it was
future, could not be hidden or uncertain... the light alone received the approbation of the
Creator, while the angelic darkness, though it had been ordained, was not yet approved.
E. The reprobate angels are eternally doomed. None will ever be saved. God did not have to
keep them from falling and He does not have to save any of them. He has chosen to leave all
the fallen angels in their sins, even as He has chosen to leave all the unfallen angels in their
holiness. Unlike fallen men who are elect, there is no mixture of sin in the elect angels. In this
respect, the fallen angels are like the fallen reprobate men - they are left in their sin to suffer the
consequences.
F. There is, however, one temporary difference between reprobate men and angels. No man
now on Earth can know that he is reprobate, for he may yet believe. But all reprobate angels
presently know that they are reprobate. In that sense, they are now like all reprobate men will be
in eternity when they meet the awesome doom to which they were predestined. Rev. 12:12
indicates that Satan knows that his time is short he does not, however, know how short - only
Christ knows the time of His return to judge Satan and the fallen angels, Matt. 24:36). His time
is short in the sense that it is not endless. His present time will end when Christ returns and
slings him into Hell. Satan knows that he will never be saved, and so knows that he is
reprobate.
G. The rest of the reprobate angels also know they are reprobate. In Matt. 8:29, some demons
cried out to Jesus, Have you come here to torment us before the time? Thus, they know that
there will come a time when they will certainly be judged with Satan. They do not know when,
but they know it is certain and inevitable. Hence, they are well aware of their reprobation.
H. Francis Turretine, who has the best discussion on the whole subject of elect and reprobate
angels, made the following observation:
The fallen angels are so constituted in the penal state, that their reprobation is known by them,
and they know to increase their desperation that no spark of hope is left for them; so that here
also they differ from reprobate men, whose reprobation although sure from eternity and
immutable, is however infallibly known by no one while on earth; but the devils so bear the
punishment of damnation, as to know that they have no hope of pardon, so that to wish to
condole with their misery is as preposterously merciful, as to hope with Origen for their
restitution after many revolutions of ages is a ridiculous hope.

385

I. Lets extend this further. All the elect angels know that they are elect, and they know that all
the rest of the elect angels are elect. But the elect angels also all know that all the fallen angels
are all reprobate. Conversely, all of the reprobate angels know that all the rest of the fallen
angels are reprobate. They share the same misery. Moreover, all the reprobate angels know
that all of the elect angels are elect.
J. One further comment. Loraine Boettner wrote, If it was consistent with Gods infinite
goodness and justice to pass by the whole body of fallen angels and to leave them to suffer the
consequences of their sin, then certainly it was consistent with His goodness and justice to pass
by some of the fallen race of men and to leave them in their sin. We hear many Armenians
complain that the Reformed doctrine of reprobation is unfair, but do any of them charge God
with unfairness for reprobating the demons?

4. Angelic Supra!apsarianism?
A. There are several obvious differences between the election/reprobation of angels and the
election/reprobation of men. First, only half the angels fell; but all men fell. Second, no elect
angel ever fell and no fallen angel was elect; while all elect men have fallen. Now we come to
another area of difficulty. Was the election and reprobation of angels according to the
Supralapsarian theory? Several of the proponents of Supralapsarian election/reprobation of
men say that the same scheme fits both men and angels. If it was not unfair for angels, then
why is it considered wrong for men?
B. I am not persuaded by their arguments. They overlook the necessary differences between
the respective elections and reprobations, specifically the facts mentioned above. The most
glaring difference is that no elect angel ever sinned, while all elect men have sinned. How does
this apply to the Supralapsarian question? Just this regarding men, it is the election of grace,
which presupposes sin. Since the elect angels never sinned, it cannot be the election of grace.
The angels were chosen, yes, but not out of grace per se.
C. In a general sense their election could be called of grace, but only in the sense that they
did not intrinsically merit it. They did not earn it. Even if one were to grant the idea of a
probationary period, that followed, not preceded, their election and thus could not be the cause
of it. Still, grace refers to love for sinners. It would be more precise to refer to their election as
the election of sovereign love, for love does not necessarily have to do with sinful beings (after
all, the Father, Son and Spirit love each other, and they are sinless).
D. Similarly, God was under no external obligation to keep them from falling. When he allowed
the other angels to fall, He did no injustice, for they fell of their own weight. God owed
restraining grace to the unfallen angels. But even this should more properly be termed
restraining power than restraining grace, for it dealt with them as sinless beings.
E. In one sense, their election of angels was Supralapsarian. The sense is that they never
sinned, and hence were chosen out of a pure mass. But that is as far as it goes. One cannot
automatically transfer this to human election, for the simple reason that the elect angels never
fell and elect men have fallen.
F. We meet another factor dealing with the reprobation of the fallen angels, and it is the
converse of the elect angels. Just as all unfallen angels were elect, so all fallen angels were
reprobate. They do not have sin in common, unlike humans who are elect and reprobate. Not all
fallen men are reprobate. At the least, this opens the possibility that the systems of their
respective reprobations followed variant orders.

386

G. Francis Turretine solved the dilemma with the correct conclusion: The predestination of
men supposes sin... therefore also the angelic with respect to reprobation. He refers the reader
to Jude 6 and 2 Pet. 2:4, and adds, Therefore, they are conceived to have sinned and left in
their first estate before they could be conceived as reprobated... He did not reprobate and
devote to eternal punishment those whom He would permit to fall; but those whom He had
permitted to fall by their own fault, He reprobated and relinquished forever.
H. At the stage of the foreordaining of the angelic fall, God could have either elected all of
them, elected some of them, or reprobated all of them. He sovereignly and justly chose the last
option. He reprobated all the fallen angels after He had sovereignly decreed to allow them to
fall, not before.
I. We might chart the order of the decrees of the election and reprobation of angels so:
1. Decree to create the angels.
2. Decree to preserve some angels in holiness and not to preserve the others.
3. Decree to predestine to glory the unfallen angels and predestine to punishment the
fallen angels.
J. Thus, in a sense angelic election was akin to the theory of Supralapsarianism, but not so as
to require it in men. And angelic reprobation was not Supralapsarian, so the reprobation of men
need not be Supralapsarian either.

5. The Elect Angels and Christ.

A. Another difference needs to be mentioned in passing. Because the elect angels never fell,
they did not have need of a Savior from sin. Hence, they were not elected in Christ as men are
(Eph. 1:4). Louis Berkhof sums up the Reformed view here: The angels were not elected or
predestined in Christ as Mediator, but in Him as Head, that is, to stand in a ministerial relation
to Him.
B. This can be deduced from such texts as Col. 1:16, 2:10; Eph. 1:21-23; Heb. 2:14-16and I
Pet. 3:22.

6. The Relation Between Elect and Reprobate Angels and Elect and Reprobate
Men.
A. The first question here is, How many angels are there? Their number is definite. Since
angels do not reproduce of themselves (Matt. 22:30), and God ceased all creation after the end
of the first week (Gen. 2:1-3), their number is always the same. But how many are there,
anyway?
B. They are described in Scripture as a multitude (Luke 2:13), many thousands of angels
(Psa. 68:17), more than twelve legions of angels [as many as 72,000](Matt. 26:53); myriads of
His holy ones (Jude 14, where myriads means thousands, but these holy ones might be
saints instead of angels), ten thousands of holy ones(Deut. 33:2, which might also refer to
saints), an innumerable company of angels(Heb. 12:22), and the number of them was ten
thousand times ten thousand [100million] and thousands of thousands (Rev. 5:11), The two
hundred million horsemen of Rev. 9:16 is thought by many to be a reference to angels.

387

C. Dan. 7:10 says, thousands upon thousands were attending Him, and ten thousand times
ten thousand were standing before Him. Like all the above, this simply tells us that the angels
number in the millions, perhaps in the billions. But now we come to a second question, Are
there more elect angels or reprobate angels? Are there more good angels or fallen angels, that
is, demons? Some scholars think that this is in view in Dan. 7:10, that is, the first number refers
to the good angels and the second number refers to fallen angels before Gods throne of
judgment. It is more likely that the sentences are parallel and simply refer to the vast number of
unfallen angels.
D. We do not have enough Scriptural data to deduce the number of total angels on either or
both sides. But we do have a few references, which help us deduce what the proportion is
between elect and reprobate angels. Earlier we showed that Scripture indicates that there are
more reprobate men than elect men. Is it the same with the angels?
E. There are two passages, which indicate the answer. In 2 Kings 6, Elisha and his partner
were given a vision of angelic warfare. The elect and reprobate angels were at war behind the
scenes of human conflict (cf. Eph. 6:10-17). In vs. 16, Elisha says, Do not fear, for those who
are with us are more than those who are with them. In other words, there were more elect
angels present than reprobate angels. Even if only a small percentage of angels were present,
the proportion implies that the good angels outnumber the bad angels. God would not leave his
people outnumbered.
F. Then in Rev. 12 we find the heavenly battle between Michaels angels and Satans angels.
Michaels elect angels won. It may be simply because the Lord won through them, but it may
also be because they outnumbered the reprobate angels. Vs. 4 is conclusive: a third of the
stars fell from Heaven after the Dragon. Thus, it would seem that Satan took approximately a
third of the angels with him. Hence, there are more elect angels than reprobate angels, by a
two-to-one majority.
G. Next, we probably do not have enough information to deduce whether there are more angels
than men. The Bible seems to teach that there are Guardian Angels for every Christian, so there
are at least as many elect angels as elect men at any one time. But here we come to a strange
theory regarding angelic and human election: Were elect men chosen to replace the reprobate
angels? After all, the proportions might match. Were we chosen to fill the vacancies of the
fallen angels? One rather strange theory has been promoted by Richard Wurmbrand. He
teaches that Christians become angel- -when they die (and presumably, non-Christians become
demons when they die, too). Some * -die as babies and become cherubim; others become
seraphim; pastors become principalities, Apostles become archangels, and so on. If this theory
were true, then it might be true that elect men were chosen to fill up the ranks of the fallen
angels. But Matt. 22:30 (which Wurmbrand refers to) says that we shall be like angels. It does
not say that we shall be angels. We are not nor ever will be angels, nor was any angel ever a
man We were created constitutionally lower than angels, but will be elevated higher.
H. Two quick points regarding this other relation between men and angels respecting election.
First, in the order of the decrees, the election and reprobation of angels logically preceded that
of men. Why? Because the fall of Satan preceded the fall of Adam, and the order of the decrees
is the order of history. Second, elect angels know who the elect and reprobate angels are, but it
is unlikely that any of either the elect or reprobate angels know which humans are elect until
they are converted and thereby confirm their election. When they are converted, both elect and
reprobate angels know who they are. But no angel knows who the reprobate are.

388

7. The Predestined Destinies of the Elect and Reprobate Angels.

A. Matt. 25:41 and several verses in Revelation tell us that all the fallen angels will one day be
cast into the Lake of Fire. They are thus reprobated to the same end as reprobate men. They
will glorify God through their torments.
B. But just as even reprobate men will bow the knee to Christ and give Him glory, so even all
the demons have been foreordained to worship Christ before being punished in Hell (Phil. 2:1011). Heb. 1:6, And let all the angels of God worship Him.
C. On the other hand, the elect angels were predestined to glory. They will live in Heaven
forever, beholding God and giving Him glory. They already willingly bow the knee to Christ, as
they did at His Incarnation.
D. In an earlier lesson, we discussed the echo of glory respecting the predestined destinies of
elect and reprobate men. This echo finds a parallel with the angels. The elect angels will sing
Gods praise for reprobating and punishing the fallen angels; the reprobate angels will praise
God in Hell as they view the elect angels in Heaven. Their respective destinies cause each
other to reflect more glory to God, for each witnesses Gods glory upon the other.
E. Now this echo of glory is compounded even further when we see how each of these four
groups view each other. First, elect men will meet elect angels. They will glorify God for the
election of these angels, and specifically they will thank God for using them as ministering
spirits, while they (men) were still on Earth. Second, elect angels will be amazed at the glory,
which God bestows on, elect men. Now they are curious (I Pet. 1:12), and in time they rejoice to
the glory of God as they witness the conversions of elect men (Luke 15:10). How much more
will they rejoice in glory when all elect men will be finally glorified. They sing a different song, but
their song is to Christ on the order of, Behold how He loved His chosen wife! Eph. 3:10
indicates also that they will glorify God through the revelation of Gods wise plan. Since they are
our servants here, it is likely that they were predestined to be our servants forever.
F. Third, the elect angels will glorify God as they witness both the reprobate men and angels
being cast into the Hell to which they were foreordained. Fourth, elect men will also glorify God
as we view the predestined damnation of reprobate men and angels. We will even help judge
them (I Cor. 6:2-3). This too will redound to the glory of God. Lastly, both reprobate men and
angels will glorify God as they view the predestined glory of elect men and angels. They will
groan that they deserved Hell and worship God for choosing the elect. And since the fallen
angels are the worst sinners in the universe, with. Satan as their head, they will suffer worst in
the Lake of Fire, to which they were foreordained - to the glory of God.

Recommended Reading
There are usually only a few paragraphs on this in the standard Reformed theologies: Berkhof,
p. 113; Gill, pp. 176-177, 192-193, 304-309; Shedd, vol. I, pp. 418-420; Dabney, pp. 230-232;
Heppe, pp. 207-208. See the commentaries on I Tim. 5:21; Edwards, Works, vol. II, pp. 148;
Augustine, The City of God, Books IX to XII.

389

Chapter 53. The Election of Dying Infants.

1. Introduction.
A. Lewis Sperry Chafer once wrote, No theology is established or complete which doesnt
account for the salvation of those who die in infancy. Since we are examining the theology of
Calvinism, it is appropriate at this juncture to inquire what Reformed theology has to say about
the subject.
B. Basically, the question is Are dying infants elect? This is much the same, as the more
popular form of the question, Are dying infants saved? The questions are related. If they are
saved, then they are elect, for only the elect will ever be saved. Conversely, if they are elect,
then they will most assuredly be saved (2 Th. 2:13). But we address the issue under this the
second point of Calvinism for a reason. It is our contention that the Reformed doctrine of
election provides the only solid answer as to why dying infants can be saved. Only Calvinism
offers a full answer; the answers of other schools of theology are only partial or incorrect.
C. Furthermore, one of the popular slanders against Calvinism is that we Calvinists teach that
all dying infants are reprobate and consigned to Hell. That simply is not true. I for one have
never read of a single Calvinist who has taught that all dying infants are reprobated to Hell.
D. Theoretically, there are several options open to the question:
(1) We dont know. Some writers say that Scripture does not reveal the answer.
(2) All dying infants are lost. I know of no theologian, Calvinist or otherwise, who asserts
this.
(3) Baptized infants are saved, but unbaptized dying infants are lost and reprobate. As
we shall see, there are several theologians who have made this claim. But extremely few
Calvinists, if any, have aligned themselves with this view.
(4) Some are definitely saved (such as baptized infants), but we do not know about the
rest. This has been the position of some Calvinists, such as FrancisTurretin, Herman
Hoeksema, and several of the older Reformed theologians.
(5) All dying infants are saved and elect, whether baptized or not. This is by far the
prevailing view among Calvinists, such as Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, C.H. Spurgeon,
A.M. Toplady, Ulrich Zwingli (probably the first to say so in no uncertain terms), Lewis
Sperry Chafer, W.G.T. Shedd, Loraine Boettner, etc.
E. The classic statement in Reformed confessions is that of the Westminster Confession (X: 3):
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who
worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So are also other elect persons, who are
incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Some non-Calvinist critics read
this and feel that it insinuates that there are some non-elect infants, but the Confession does not
say that. Almost all Reformed theologians take this as a pronouncement that all dying infants
are elect. At the least, it is only an assertion that some are elect but we do not know about the
rest (a few theologians take it this way). In 1903, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.
approved a Declaratory Statement giving the official interpretation of this article: It is not to be
regarded as teaching that any who die in infancy are lost. We believe that all dying in infancy
are included in the election of grace, and are regenerated and saved by Christ through the
Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases.

390

F. This is the second of three hard cases regarding election. It is indeed hard. But God has
given us His Word, and though there are no explicit statements such as All dying infants are
saved (or elect), God has provided us with a sure Word on related areas that give us sufficient
revelation from which to legitimately deduce the mind of the Lord in the matter.
G. And it is to this Word that we must appeal. It is not enough to say, I feel that my baby is in
Heaven. Feelings are not dependable. Nor can we say, It seems to me or My opinion is.
What does God Himself say? For example, we cannot argue, All dying infants are saved,
because all people in general are saved. No, Scripture quite clearly states that not all men are
elect and not all will be saved (e.g., Matt. 25:41, 46). Nor can we posit a second chance theory
for infants, such as a probationary period after death or even reincarnation to be given a second
chance back on Earth in another body that reaches adulthood. Such theories are also unbiblical
(Heb. 9:27).

2. Original Sin.
A. Now the first problem that strikes us is, If infants are born with Original Sin, then how can
they be saved? It is quite clear from Scripture that all infants are born with Original Sin and a
sinful nature. In sin did my mother conceive me (Psa. 51:5). Infants are not innocent; they
have a sinful, fallen nature (Eph. 2:1-3;Gen. 8:21; Job 15:14; John 3:6).
B. That means that they are born guilty. If fallen, then guilty; and if guilty, then damnable. No
infant is born holy; all infants are born in sin. Original Sin, not just Actual Sin, deserves
punishment. God would be totally just to punish them if He so chose. But the question is, Has
He so chosen?
C. Jonathan Edwards elucidated this best in his masterpiece on Original Sin. For instance, he
argued that some infants die in infancy. But all death can be traced back to sin. The fact that
some die in infancy proves that all are born in sin. Our point is that if any or all dying infants are
saved, it is not because they are innocent. William G.T. Shedd commented, The salvation of
infants supposes their prior damnation.

3. The Question of Baptism.

A. The next pertinent issue is infant baptism. Some suggest that baptized infants are saved and
unbaptized infants are not saved. This is in line with Baptismal Regeneration. That is, infant
baptism is essential for salvation and baptism washes away Original Sin. However, this theory
has no substance in Scripture. No man is saved because of baptism, but solely by faith and
repentance. The thief on the cross was saved and was never baptized. Cornelius was saved
and then was baptized (Acts 10). To claim that baptism is in any way essential to salvation, or
that it produces salvation, is to fall to the Galatian heresy respecting the necessity of
circumcision.
B. Furthermore, the Bible does not teach infant baptism at all. All examples of baptisms are of
believers. All commands are explicitly or implicitly tied in with the call and requirement to faith.
The New Testament teaches believers baptism. This need not be adult baptism, for an
adolescent may believe before reaching adulthood. Baptism, then, has no bearing whatsoever
on the eternal destiny of any person, infant or otherwise. Even evangelical Calvinists who teach
infant baptism concede the point here, such as Charles Hodge: All who die in infancy are
saved...The Scriptures nowhere exclude any class of infants, baptized or unbaptized, born in

391

Christian or in heathen lands, of believing or unbelieving parents, from the benefits of the
redemption of Christ.

4. The Roman Catholic View.

A. Augustine taught, a strong view of Original Sin and an equally strong view of the necessity of
baptism to remove Original Sin. This led him to the conclusion that all baptized dying infants are
saved, but all unbaptized dying infants are lost and reprobate. The unbaptized ones go to Hell,
where they suffer the pain of punishment in all their senses. They suffer less than adults, but
they suffer nevertheless. He was followed by Gregory Nazianzus: and Gregory the Great in this,
and may have learned it from Ambrose. Later, Peter Lombard taught much the same view,
though modified. The Jansenists in 18th-century Italy also taught this view.
B. The Roman Catholic theologians of the Tatter Middle Ages began to greatly modify
Augustines theory. They came up with another theory. Unbaptized dying infants do not go to
Hell per se, but to a place called Limbo (Limbus Infantum). Since baptism is essential for the
washing away of Original Sin, except in a few rare, instances (such as the Baptism of Blood of
martyrs), unbaptized infants could not be admitted to Heaven. Regarding the limbo of infants, it
is an article of the Catholic faith that those who die without baptism, and for whom the want of
baptism has not been supplied in soma other way, cannot enter heaven (Modern Catholic
Dictionary, p. 319). This was officially pronounced at the Council of Trent at the time of the
Reformation.
C. Yet Rome has wavered here. There has been no final official definition of Limbo.
Consequently, theologians have offered various views of Limbo. Some say Limbo is simply the
lack of the Beatific Vision (seeing God in Heaven). Dying infants suffer no positive punishment,
but only the deprivation of Heaven. Some, such as Thomas Aquinas, even suggested that
Limbo is a place of happiness; others say it is like the Garden of Eden before Adam fell. Still
others say that it is indeed part of Hell, while most say that Limbo is a third place in neither
Heaven nor Hell. More anymore are suggesting that there might be a mysterious way in which
God could save unbaptized dying infants. Even Aquinas mentioned this possibility.
D. Of course, all this is unbiblical. The Bible knows no third place and never mentions Limbo
by name or description. Matt. 25:46 and Rev. 20 mention only Heaven and Hell as final
destinies. Rev. 20:15 even says that whoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast
into the Lake of Fire, which is clearly Hell and a place of eternal conscious torment. If infants do
not go to Heaven, then there is no other place they could go. Moreover, all in Heaven see Gods
face (Rev. 22:5).

5. Protestant Views Similar to Romanism.

A. The Greek Orthodox Church teaches much the same view of Augustine, but of course there
have been attempts to modify it. High Church Anglicans also verge on this position, though few
have been brave enough to explicitly say so.
B. The view of historic Lutheranism bears mention here- Basically, Luther taught the same as
Augustine. Since baptism alone washes away Original Sin, unbaptized infants dying in infancy
are not regenerated. This is strongly implied in the Augsburg Confession against the views of
the Anabaptists. Of course, this applies only to historic Lutherans, not to liberal Lutherans.
Liberal Lutherans do not even believe in Hell.

392

C. Still, even Luther cherished the hope that there might be a mysterious way in which
unbaptized infants might make it to Heaven. Generally this hope applies only to unbaptized
infants of believing, baptized parents and not unbaptized infants of unbelieving, unbaptized
parents. But this area was not developed to any great length.
D. The Anabaptists rejected all forms of baptismal regeneration, infant or otherwise. Zwingli
and the Swiss Reformers also rejected the necessity of baptism for salvation. Increasingly, the
Calvinists made it clear that they believed all dying infants are saved and elect. For example,
the Second Scots Confession (1580) said, We abhor and detest his [the Popes] cruel judgment
against infants dying without baptism.

6. The Question of Infant Faith.

A. Here is the next difficult area in the controversy. Can infants believe in a saving manner?
Historic Lutherans argued that saving faith is necessarily given through infant baptism (though
not necessarily through adult baptism). They sometimes appeal to I John 2:13, I have written to
you, children, because you know the Father. However, it is obvious that John is using children
here in a metaphorical way.
B. Reformed paedobaptists frequently say that faith might be given to infants, but it is given
through the Word accompanying baptism and not through baptism itself. Some, such as
Turretin, say that this is seminal faith rather than actual faith. Shedd explained: The
regenerate child, youth, and man believes and repents immediately. The regenerate infant
believes and repents when his faculties will admit of the exercise and manifestation of faith and
repentance. In this latter instance regeneration is potential or latent faith and regeneration.
C. The Anabaptists correctly argued that infants are constitutionally incapable of faith. Their
reasoning is good and Biblical. First, faith comes by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17), not by
baptism in any way. But infants are constitutionally unable to understand the Word. Faith is not
given mystically through the Word in a way that bypasses the mind. If it did, then why not simply
read a Chinese Bible to someone who doesnt understand Chinese? I Cor. 14:9 says that we
must understand words before we can say the amen of faith. And the Bible says nothing about
seminal faith.
D. What, then, about John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit even within his
mothers womb (Luke 1:15)? First, he was filled with the Spirit and obviously regenerated, but it
does not say that he had faith. Second, while some say that John is an example of being filled
with the Spirit in infancy, others say that hes the exception and not the example. [Jer. 1:5 and
Gal. 1:15-16 are sometimes also adduced as examples of infant faith, but Jer. 1:5 clearly says,
before I formed you, in other words, in eternity; and Gal. 1:15-16 also implies election, for Paul
was not regenerated until he was an adult in Acts 9]. At the least, John the Baptist proves that
infants have the capacity for regeneration but not necessarily faith. This is important to keep in
mind, as we shall see. Infants cannot believe.

7. The Age of Accountability.

A. Most schools of theology, including Calvinism, teach that infants have not reached the Age
of Accountability. Is this a Biblical concept? Though the term is not used, the truth certainly is.
Deut. 1:39 speaks of infants who have no knowledge of good or evil. These were allowed to
enter the Promised Land because they had not rejected the Word of the Lord, as did their

393

parents. This verse tells us that they were incapable of rejecting or accepting Gods Word.
B. Jonah 4:11 mentions more than 120,000 persons, who do not know the difference between
their right and left hand. This is obviously not speaking of adults, who clearly know whether
they are right-handed or left-handed. Rather, it speaks of infants, and that not just in-a physical
manner of identifying which hand is stronger. The great Old Testament commentator Carl F.
Keil noted, Not to be able to distinguish between the right hand and the left is a sign of mental
infancy. Infants do not have the mental capacity to differentiate good and evil. In Scripture, the
right hand stands for good and the left for evil (cf. Matt. 25:33r34, 41).
C. Isa. 7:15-16 is even more explicit: He will eat curds and honey at the time he knows enough
to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose
good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
D. Then there is Rom- 7:9, I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment
came, sin became alive and I died. There are three major interpretations of this verse. First,
Paul is not speaking biographically, but only metaphorically of all men in a general sense
(whatever that means). Second, Paul is speaking of the days before conversion when he had no
conviction of sin and then came under conviction, probably on the Damascus Road. This is the
view of Calvin, John Murray, arid others.
E. I prefer the view that says this is: an autobiographical statement in keeping with Jewish ways
of speaking. Paul is saying that at one time, he was alive in one sense. Then the
commandment came when he came to the Age of Accountability. This would be when he was
old enough to discern good and evil according to the Law. For non-Jews, this would be when
they awakened to the Law written on their hearts (Rom.2). But for Jewish boys, it would be their
Bar Mitzvah. They became bene hattorah, or sons of the Law. The written Tradition of the
Elders, known as the Hishnah, said: At 5 years old, one is fit for the Scripture, at 10 for the
Mishnah [Tradition], at 13 for the fulfilling of the commandments (Avoth 5:21).
F. Arthur Custance gives a Reformed explanation: There is a transitional period inhere, and
about all we can say on the basis of what is written in Scripture is that the time at which a child
first discovers there is a difference between right and wrong seems to mark the age of
accountability. When the time comes to make an actual choice between the two, a previous age
of innocence, becomes an age of virtue if the choice is made correctly, but an age of culpability
if the choice is wrongly made. This may not, of course, actually occur at the same time of life for
each individual.
G. The element of knowledge seems to be the key. James 4:17 says, He that knows to do
good and does it not, to him it is sin. It is an Age of Consciousness. Infants are still in Original
Sin but not Actual Sin, which requires a certain amount of knowledge, of which they are
incapable. The situation would be similar to the difference between Sins of Ignorance and Sins
of Deliberation. Infants cannot deliberate.
H. We go through several stages: pre-natal, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood. But
when is the Age of Accountability? It is when one leaves infancy. But when is that? Some say at
puberty, usually 12 or 13. Others, even as late as 18 or 21. I, for one, put it much lower than
puberty in most cases. It is probably more to be linked with the age of talking (and not simply
parroting). In such a case, it might be as low as 2 or 3. But the point is that no specific year or
age can be assigned. It evidently varies from child to child. Moreover, some never reach it, even
though their bodies continue to grow. This includes extremely retarded persons. They never
reach the Age of Consciousness. If they die as such, they would be included with dying infants.
I. This would also be the age at which faith would be possible. A.H. Strong commented, The
child that is old enough to sin against God is old enough to trust in Christ as the Savior of

394

sinners. Samuel was evidently right at this age. Hence, childhood conversions are possible:
Jonathan Edwards was 8, Richard Baxter was 6, Isaac Watts was 9, etc.

8. Dying Infants are Saved.

A. By definition, then, an infant is one who has not reached the Age of Accountability. He is
guilty by nature but not by act. Is he saved? Scripture clearly says, Yes. First, there are no
passages that say explicitly or implicitly that dying infants are damned, reprobate, go to Hell or
any such thing. But positively, there are several passages, which leave no other legitimate
interpretation than that dying infants are saved.
B. First, 2 Sam. 12:23. The infant son of David and Bathsheba died at age 7 days (vs. 18).
David stops mourning and is encouraged by the sure hope that he will be reunited with the baby
one day. This clearly implies not only a life after death for both, but life after death in the same
place. David was a believer who knew that he would live forever with God. The baby went to
Heaven. Critics say that David only meant that he would join the lad in the grave, but how could
than encourage him and stop his tears? If anything, that would cause tears, not dry them away.
Also, contrast Davids attitude here with his sorrow over the death of wicked Absalom, his other
son. He refused to be comforted because he knew Absalom died in sin and went to Hell.
C. Had the baby recovered, David could not know if he would live and become right with God
and go to Heaven or not. But when he died, David knew at once that he went to the same
Heaven where he himself would one day go. Another set of critics say that this only applies to
covenant children. Even given their premises of covenant children, such a covenant needed
ratification. But the baby died on the 7th day and infants were not to be circumcised until the 8th
day. David knew this, and so is moved by God to realize that all dying infants, including his own,
are saved.
D. C.H. Spurgeon points to Ezek. 16:21 as assuring the salvation of all dying infants. The
wicked Israelites had sacrificed their children to Molech. God rebukes them and says, You
slaughtered My children. The implication is that the dead children were forsaken by their
parents but not by God. In dying, they proved to be Gods children. He took them to Heaven.
Incidently, this text should be blazoned on the doors of every abortion mill in the country: You
slaughtered My children.
E. There are two passages in the Gospels, which are usually confused with each other. Both
shed light on this question. First, Matt. 18:1-14 (and parallels in Mark 9:35-37, 42and Luke 9:4648). Jesus took the children up in His arms (Mk. 9:36); this says nothing about their age. Jesus
called them to Himself (Matt. 18:2), which might imply that they were of age to recognize their
names and come, that is, walk. But the text also says that they believed (Matt. 18:6; Mark
9:42). Therefore, they were not infants, but children. Matt. 18:14 is frequently appealed to in
order to prove that it is not Gods will that dying infants perish in Hell. Though that is truth, I am
not convinced that this text proves it. Rather, Jesus is warning against leading little believers
astray. Incidently, a few sometimes even appeal to vs.10, rendering their angels as their
spirits. This unusual theory says that this verse makes all spirits of dying babies behold the
face of God. While that is a truth, it cannot be found here, for angels are not infants nor ever
have been.
F. Matt. 19:13-15 is sometimes confused with this incident. It is an entirely different incident
(parallels are in Mark 10:13-16 and Luke 18:15-17). While the earlier passage cannot be used
to substantiate infant salvation, this one can and does. First, vs. 13 says the children were
brought to Jesus, implying that they did not come of their own accord. Next, Jesus blessed

395

them; it doesnt say He baptized them. There is Biblical precedent for the laying on of hands to
bless infants at a dedication, but no precedent for baptizing infants. There is not a drop of water
in Matt. 19.
G. Matthew and Mark use the same word as in the earlier account, PAIDEIA. This is a general
term much like the word child in English; It can include anyone up to adolescence. It is the
most frequent term used in the New Testament. It tells us nothing about whether they had or
had not reached an Age of Accountability.
H. However, and this is crucial, Luke the Physician uses a more precise term, BREPHOS (Luke
18:15). Most occurrences of this term in the New Testament are in Lukes Gospel, usually in the
first two chapters (John the Baptist and Jesus). This term almost always - if, in fact, not in every
single case - refers to infants. It is used of baby Jesus both inside and outside Marys womb.
So, this incident is speaking of infants, those before the Age of Accountability.
I. The crux is vs. 14, Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven (NASB: the Kingdom of Heaven
belongs to such as these.). This is more than simply saying that adults need to become like
little children, which is elsewhere asserted. Here Jesus is clearly saying that infants are in a
state compatible with Heavenly citizenship. If they die in that state, they go to Heaven. The
passage cannot be taken any other way.
J. Then there is Matt. 21:16, Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babes Thou hast
prepared praise for Thyself. Two other Greek words occur here. First, NEEPIOS is another
general word for child. But THEELAZO literally means a nursing baby or suckling (KJV).
Spurgeon commented here: Does not that text seem to say that in Heaven there shall be
perfect praise rendered to God by multitudes of cherubs who were here on Earth - your little
ones fondled in your bosom - and then snatched away to Heaven.

9. Some Misused Texts.

A. Some other texts are often appealed to as teaching the salvation of dying infants. R.A.
Webb, in his excellent and definitive The Theology of Infant Salvation, appeals to such verses.
He proves too much, as it were. For example, Isa. 11:6-9 speaks of infants, but this is probably
a reference to the Millennium or is figurative of the eternal state. Acts 2:39 mentions children,
but in light of 16:31, it is clear that the promise of salvation envisaged requires faith. Spurgeon
appeals to 2 Kings 4:26, but the child in question was no infant. He spoke and was probably
working with his father in the field.
B. Rom. 9:11 speaks of Jacob and Esau, but this too speaks of them before they were even in
the womb. The verse proves eternal election and reprobation, but says nothing about whether
dying infants are either elect or reprobate. Pro. 22:6 only speaks of raising children; it doesnt
include information on what happens to them if they die in infancy. 2 Tim. 3:15 is appealed to by
some as teaching that Timothy was saved in infancy, but the text only says that he was raised
to know the Scriptures from early youth. Timothys conversion, at whatever date, says nothing
about the conversion of other youths, much less about dying infants. Lastly, Chafer and others
point to the large multitude in Heaven from every tribe and nation and tongue (Rev. 5:9).
Chafer wrote, It is probable that the elect company, in order for it to be from every kindred, tribe
and people, will be built up in part out of those who die in infancy. That may well be. But it may
also be that by the time of the Second Coming, the Gospel will have gone out to all tribes and
peoples, converting some from each of them. This and other texts are inconclusive, though
interesting.

396

9. Problems.
A. As with any other Biblical doctrines, certain apparent problems arise with this doctrine. For
example, If all dying infants are saved, then why are abortion and infanticide wrong? After all,
wouldnt abortionists simply be sending the babies to Heaven? If this theory were true, then
Pharaoh and Herod were doing good, not evil. In fact, why not kill all infants and thereby
guarantee that they are all saved? This would prevent their growing up and falling into Actual
Sin and dying damned. This is bad logic. It overlooks one clear fact: God expressly forbids
murder (Ex. 20:13). God forbids killing those who are innocent of a capital crime. Moreover, if
this counter-argument were true, then we should also kill adult Christians and send them to
Heaven. But. God prohibits that, too.
B. Then it is asked, If they die as infants, what will they be like in Heaven? This is difficult to
answer. Dying infants will be resurrected in new bodies, and thosebodies will almost certainly
not be mere infants. Many theologians suggest that all in Heaven, whether they died young or
old, will be something like Adam when he was created - in the prime of life. Others suggest that
we will all be the age of Christ when He died and rose - also in the prime of life. In any case, this
problem does not immediately pertain to the issue at hand.
C. Robert Lightner, in his useful Heaven for Those Who Cant Believe, raises the unusual
problem of what happens to infants and their mothers at the Rapture. Will all infants be
Raptured out of their mothers wombs? What if the mother is an unbeliever and not herself
raptured? This is certainly an unusual problem, but it does not present insurmountable
difficulties to the truth of universal salvation for dying infants. Lightner himself advocates
salvation for dying infants.

10. How Are Dying Infants Saved?

A. There is, however, one other major problem, How are dying infants actually saved? Our
answer is as follows. First, the Golden Chain still applies to dying infants. They are saved by the
same links as adults: election by the Father, atonement by the Son, and regeneration by the
Spirit. If all dying infants are saved, as we have shown, then it is sure that they were elected to
this salvation. This election is totally by sovereign grace, not on the basis of foreseen faith (for
there was no faith to foresee). Among other things, the election and salvation of dying infants
proves that election was of free grace and not according to anything we ourselves do.
B. It follows that all dying infants were elected as a class. God could have elected all, elected
some or elected none. All were damnable and reprobatable. But He sovereignly chose to
choose them all, just as He sovereignly chose to elect all unfallen angels as a class and
reprobate all fallen angels as a class. That God does not elect all adult humans, as a class does
not mean that He could not elect all dying infants as a class. And that is exactly what He did.
C. For reasons not entirely revealed and for His own glory, God decreed to place a large
number of His elect in human bodies that would die in infancy. He could have somehow
guaranteed that no infant would die in infancy, but He did not so decree. He chose all dying
infants. As Spurgeon wrote, It is saved because it is elect. In the compass of election, in the
Lambs Book of Life, we believe there shall be found written millions of souls who are only
shown on earth, then stretch their wings for heaven. Election is the key to infant salvation. If the
Arminians were right, then no dying infant could be saved, for they have no faith that God could

397

foresee and thereby use as the basis for election.

D. Next, in time Christ died for all His elect, including all dying infants. This does not require
universal atonement, (as argued by Strong and Lightner), but it does require that Christ die for
the Original Sin of dying infants. And He did. Lightner does have a point, though: Since Christ
died in the place of those who cant believe, they will as certainly receive salvation in Christ, the
last Adam, as they received sin and condemnation in the first Adam. Dying infants are saved by
Christ and His death, for there is no salvation outside of Christ or the Cross (John 14:6).
E. But what about the need for faith? There are several theories. J. Oliver Buswell suggested
that dying infants are given adult consciousness just before dying, thereby enabling them to
receive the gift of saving faith. That seems somewhat unlikely. A.H. Strong felt that they would
be given the gift of faith immediately after death concurrent with their first sight of Christ. That
too has problems. In any case, all in Heaven have faith, and so dying infants will have faith then
if not now.
F. But, does not Scripture say that faith is necessary to enter Heaven? Those verses speak of
those who are constitutionally capable of having faith, not of infants. The key is regeneration
more than faith. As we shall see in a later study, the new birth precedes faith, not follows it.
Therefore, it is possible for the Spirit to give regeneration without faith, and such a one still be
saved. He does not do this with those capable of having faith, but only with dying infants. This is
what the Westminster Confession means when it says that the Spirit saves by whatever means
pleases him.
G. Seen like this, salvation of dying infants is fundamentally no different from the salvation of
adults. Both are saved by sovereign election, the atonement, and the new birth. But only in
Calvinism are these totally sovereign; only Calvinism can thus explain how they are given to
dying infants. Otherwise, there is the problem of Original Sin, etc. The death of an infant
confirms that he is elect, for none of the reprobate die in infancy.

11. Conclusion.
A. This is very practical. Somewhere close to a million and a half infants are killed each year in
America by abortion, plus at least 40,000 more who die by other causes within the first year
after birth. Christian parents would do well to come to a firm grasp of this now, before the tears
of grief make such study difficult.
B. If you are a parent who has lost an infant, or maybe you are grieving for an abortion or
miscarriage, then Scripture offers you the same comfort as to David. If you are a believing
parent, then it is sure: You will meet your baby in Heaven, for of such is the kingdom of
Heaven. You need not grieve as for those who have no hope (I Thess. 4:13). As much as it
hurts, you can know that Sods will is the best. The baby is in the arms of Jesus, who cradles
His lambs with infinite compassion and eternal mercy. And by faith, see that the little one is
better now than to have grown up and possibly never believed in Christ. His destiny is sure:
election unto glory. And if you are an unconverted parent, you need to examine your own state.
Will you meet your baby in Heaven? He is there; will you be, too? Come to Christ and be sure.

Recommended Reading
Webb, R.A. The Theology of Infant Salvation. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle. (The best)

398

Spurgeon, C.H. Infant Salvation. Pasadena; Pilgrim Publications. (Excellent pamphlet.

Contains a sermon also found in Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 7, pp.505-512) Warfield,
B.B. The Development of the Doctrine of Infant Salvation, in Studies in
Theology, pp. 411-446. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Lightner, Robert. Heaven for Those Who Cant Believe. Schaumburg: Regular Baptist Press.
Shedd, William G.T. Calvinism Pure and Mixed, pp. 62-68, 107-115. Carlisle: Banner. Strong,
Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology, pp. 660-664. Valley Forge: Judson Press. Edwards,
Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol.1, pp.173-177. Carlisle: Banner. Boettner,
Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 143-148. Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed.
Custance, Arthur C. The Sovereignty of Grace, pp. 105-107. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed.

399

Chapter 54. The Destiny of the

Unevangelized.
1. Introduction.
A. What happens to those who never hear the Gospel? Do they all go to Hell; do they all go to
Heaven, or some to Heaven and some to Hell? And does this have any bearing on the question
of election?
B. As we study the theology of Calvinism, we are going through the Five Points. Under the
second point (election), there are three hard cases. We have already discussed the angels
and dying infants. Now we examine the destiny of the unevangelized. Now, some will make a
conclusion here which they feel is logical: If all dying infants go to Heaven and are therefore
elect, then surely that is the case also with adults who never hear the Gospel. They argue that
neither got to hear the Gospel, and are saved and therefore elect.
C. That would be to make a deduction not necessitated by the facts themselves. Those who
never hear the Gospel are not always infants. Obviously what we said last week applies to all
infants, whether their parents were Christians or not, whether their parents heard the Gospel or
not. But heathen who never hear the Gospel are not in all ways like dying infants. The most
obvious difference is that dying infants have not reached the Age of Accountability, whereas the
heathen in question have. That is important. Secondly, dying infants were not elected and saved
because they are infants. Because they have Original Sin they are fallen and guilty and
damnable. They are not saved because they are supposedly innocent; they are saved because
they are elect.
D. Just as there are no explicit statements in Scripture saying, All dying infants are elect, so
there are none saying, All unevangelized heathen are elect. However, we can make a logical
deduction by good and necessary inference from other Biblical facts. If all dying infants are
saved, then it follows that all dying infants are elect. Likewise, before we can deduce whether
unevangelized heathen are elect or not, we must first ascertain whether they are saved or not. If
saved, then elect; if lost, then reprobate. Scripture gives us enough data to discover their
destiny, and from that we can logically deduce their predestination.
E. Of course, there are those who say, We dont know. These are frequently the same voices
who say that we cannot know the destiny or predestiny of dying infants. But there are some
curious variations here. Take Roman Catholicism. Rome teaches that all dying, unbaptized
infants go to Limbo and not Heaven (though occasionally it mentions a faint hope for their
entrance into Heaven). But as for the unevangelized, Rome says: Those also can attain to
salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet
sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to
them through the dictates of conscience (Documents of Vatican II, p. 126). Rome, therefore,
recognizes the existence of godly pagans or noble savages. Yet, Rome balances this with
the blatant heresy that those who know about the Gospel and the Roman Church but who do
not wish to join it, cannot be saved. The same goes for any who leave Romanism.
F. Now, a number of Protestants accept this notion of the godly pagan. Many would agree
with the sentiments of Vatican II quoted above. But what does Reformed theology say? Well,
some Reformed theologians accept this notion of godly pagans. For example, this is discussed
by William G.T. Shedd at length in Calvinism Pure and Mixed (pp.116-131), and elsewhere.

400

A.H. Strong presents the same view in his Systematic Theology. Many of the Primitive Baptist
Hyper-Calvinists teach the same view. This view is not usually found in any of the Reformed
confessions, but it appears in one of them. The Second Helvetic Confession (1:7) says: At the
same time we recognize that God can illumine whom and when He will, even without the
external ministry, for that is in His power; but we speak of the usual way of instructing men,
delivered unto us from God, both by commandment and example. Shedd seizes upon this as
an example of the Reformed idea of the usual and unusual means of calling.
G. Some Reformed theologians take the Helvetic Confession to be referring to infants and not
the heathen. A similar difference of opinion exists concerning the Westminster Confession (X:
3). After asserting that elect infants will be saved, it says: So also are all other elect persons,
who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. Shedd takes this to
refer to the heathen, while most Reformed scholars take this to refer to persons who are
extremely mentally retarded, so that they grow physically but mentally have not reached the Age
of Accountability. They are incapable of hearing the call of the Gospel and are spiritually the
same as infants. Some Calvinists even suggest that this is what is meant in the Second Helvetic
Confession.
H. That this is, in fact, the correct interpretation is apparent from the very next paragraph in the
Westminster Confession (X: 4): Others, not elected, although they may be called by the
ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly
come unto Christ, and therefore can not be saved: much less can men, not professing the
Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame
their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess; and to
assert and maintain that they may is very pernicious and to be detested. Here the Confession
differentiates the subjects of paragraph 3 by the word Others. If paragraph refers to
unevangelized heathen (as clearly it does), then those in paragraph 3 cannot be the same. The
appended Scripture references also bear this out. This is also the explicit teaching of the
Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 60.
I. So, then, this is at least one major Reformed statement on the subject. Most of the other early
confessions do not touch on the matter. A brief survey of major Reformed theologians will reveal
the following positions on the question at hand:
(A) We do not know if any unevangelized heathen will be saved (e.g., Dabney).
(B) At least some, though few, of the unevangelized heathen will be saved (e.g., Shedd}.
(C) None of the unevangelized heathen will be saved (e.g., Charles Hodge).
J. In my opinion, the last position seems to be the majority opinion among Reformed
theologians. But opinions do not matter. What does the Word of God say? The Word of God is
quite explicit and clear on the question: Salvation requires faith in the Gospel; therefore, those
who never hear the Gospel cannot be saved.
K. Before examining the pertinent Scripture texts and arguments, let it be understood that we
are speaking about the destiny of those heathen past the Age of Accountability. Also, we use
the terms heathen and pagan as synonyms for the unevangelized. The terms, however, are
not the same as Gentiles.

2. All Men Are Already Under Gods Wrath.

A. The Book of Romans develops the theme of Gods way of justification by faith. But in order

401

to explain this properly, Paul first lays the backdrop of the wrath of God upon all men. First, look
at Romans 1. In vss. 14 to 17, the Apostle states that he is ready to preach the Gospel. The way
of righteousness is revealed in the Gospel. That alone should answer the problem. Unless they
hear about the way of righteousness, men remain in the way of unrighteousness.
B. Then in vss. 18 to 32 Paul describes the utter hopelessness of Man in sin. All men know the
God exists. Nature tells them so. This leaves them responsible before God, and also guilty. All
men everywhere are under the wrath of God. Nature only reveals the problem; it does not reveal
the answer. All men hear this Natural Revelation, for God has not left Himself without a
witness. All men pervert this revelation and turn to idolatry and immorality.
C. Then in chapter 2:1-11 Paul elaborates. All men, Jew and Gentile, are without excuse. The
Jews who have the Law are guilty; the Gentiles who have only the Law on their consciences are
guilty. The utter hopelessness of the Gentiles is brought out by Paul in other letters, especially
Ephesians. In Eph. 2:11-12, he says they are without hope and without God. In 4:17 he says
they are spiritually blind. In I Cor. 10:20, he says that their religions are demonic in nature.
D. Next, in Rom. 2:12-16 Paul explains that the Gentiles do not have the written Law, as do the
Jews. That does not leave them with an excuse (I didnt know any better.). They have the
basic Law written on their hearts, on their consciences. Hence, they have two condemning
witnesses: external in Nature and internal in conscience. They will not be judged by the written
Law that they did not have, but by the unwritten Law in Nature and conscience that they did
have. Vs. 12 is final: they will perish without the Law. They do not need the written Law to be
condemned; they are condemned already. Similarly, they are condemned before the Gospel
ever reaches them.
E. Paul elaborates this again in chapters 3 and 5. In chapter 3, he repeats over and over the
sinful ness of every man. In chapter 5, he gives another explanation why all men are guilty. It
even lies behind their guilt according to Nature and conscience. This is the great chapter on
Original Sin. All men everywhere are guilty and lie under the wrath of God. They were born that
way. If they die in infancy, as we showed before, they are saved because elected. But if they
pass the Age of Accountability, they die damned.

3. The Answer of Romans 10.

A. The only solution to the sin of Man is the death of Christ (Rom. 5:8). But how is the death of
Christ applied to men? The death of Christ is applied by the gift of faith. But how is that given?
Through Nature? No. Through conscience? No. It is given by Gods grace through the Gospel
and the Gospel alone.
B. Rom. 10:1V gives us some of the links in the Golden Chain in time. 8:29-30 describes other
links; here are some more, all essential to salvation. Unlike Rom. 8:29-30,10:1H lists them in
reverse order for a logical point. They must call on the name of the Lord. But to do this, they
must first have faith. But to have faith, they must have spiritual hearing. But to hear, they must
be told by a preacher. And that preacher must be sent. All of these are necessary links in Pauls
argument.
C. This settles the question. No man can be saved without faith, but faith must have content. It
is faith in Christ through the Gospel. No Gospel, no faith. Therefore, unless the Gospel reaches
a man, he will never be saved.
D. Notice also vss. 16 and 17. First, not all who hear the Gospel believe it. Secondly, faith is
given through the Gospel, the Word of God. This is the means God has chosen to give saving

402

faith. And it is His only means.

E. Someone might point to vs. 18 and say, But have not all men heard the Gospel? No, not all
men have heard the Gospel. Vs. 18 quotes from Psa. 19:4, which is the great passage on
Natural Revelation. There David said what Paul later said in Rom. 1. All men have heard that
God exists and that they are guilty, but only those who have received Special Revelation
(Scripture) have heard the only way of salvation.
F. Lets recap. All men are guilty and need salvation. They cannot save themselves by their
own good works (Rom. 3:28, Eph. 2:8-9). Christ is the only way of salvation (John 10:7, 9, 14:6;
Acts 4:12; I Tim. 2:5). Only through the death and resurrection of the God-Man can men be
saved. Next, no man can be saved without faith in Christ (Mark 16:16, John 3:18, 36, I John
5:12). But we believe, in Christ by believing in the Gospel of Christ according to the Scriptures
(I Cor. 15:1-4). Robert Haldane commented, Men are not only saved through Christ, but they
are saved through the knowledge of Christ communicated through the Gospel. Donald Grey
Barnhouse also explained: There is no hope for any man outside of Christ, whether that man
has lived beyond the bounds of the Gospel call or within its bounds.
G. The crucial point is that the gift of faith and saving grace is given only through the Word of
God. Charles Hodge explained: The call in question is made only through the Word of God, as
heard or read. That is, the revelation of the plan of salvation is not made by the works or by the
providence of God; nor by the moral constitution of our nature, nor by the intuitions or
deductions of reason; nor by direct revelation to all men everywhere and at all times; but only in
the written Word of God... the Scriptures do teach that saving knowledge is contained only in
the Bible, and consequently that those ignorant of its contents are ignorant of the way of
salvation

4. Objections.
A. But what about the examples in the Bible? What about Cornelius, Ruth, Tamar, Rahab
Melchizedek, Job, Jethro, Eliphaz and others? We reply as follows: First, Cornelius is called a
God-fearing man. This does not mean that he was a Christian or right with God. The term was
a Jewish way of describing Gentiles who aligned themselves with Israel but were not yet
proselytes by circumcision (cf. Acts 13:26, 17:4, 17,16:14). They listened to the Word of God in
the Court of the Gentiles at the Temple or like the Ethiopian eunuch read what Scripture they
had. We might call them seekers. In Scotland, they are called adherents of a church - not
members, but regular listeners. Moreover, Cornelius was still unsaved. Even the angel that
came to him did not preach the Gospel. Only when Peter preached the Word of the Lord to him
did he believe and was converted.
B. Similar explanations apply to the others mentioned above. Ruth, Tamar and Rahab came to
faith by hearing the Word of God through Israel. They came under Israels covenant.
Melchizedek was a prophet, as was Eliphaz and possibly Job.
C. The heathen that never hear today are like Old Testament believers before Christ. This is
bad logic. Old Testament believers were saved, not by obeying the Light of Nature, but by faith
in Gods promise of the coming Messiah. They were saved even as were - by faith in Christ. Old
Testament believers heard the Gospel by types, prophecies and sacrifices in Scripture. Heathen
do not have that revelation.
D. Didnt Christ say many will come from the East and the West to be saved (Matt. 8:11-12}?
Didnt He say that He has other sheep outside the fold that will be saved (John 10:16)? These

403

were certainly among the elect, but they are the elect who will be saved through hearing the
Gospel as church history unfolds. Jesus referred to them in John 17:20, those who also believe
through their [Apostles] word.
E. What about the good Moslem and the good Hindu? To suggest that one can be good
through false religions goes counter to John 14:6 and Acts 4:12. You might as well speak about
the good idolater or the good blasphemer or the good Devil-worshipper, for that is how the
Bible describes the followers of all the false religions of the world. All other religions lead to Hell.
Christ is the only way to Heaven.
F. But what about Socrates, Plato and the great philosophers? Justin Martyr and in some
places even Augustine considered such men to be pre-Christians, or pagan Christians. They
were not; they were pagans who perished in their sins. Acts 17, I Cor. 1 and Rom. 1 describe
the utter futility of philosophy as a way of salvation. Paul warns against philosophy in Col. 2:8,
saying that it does not have Christ.
G. Isnt there a second chance after death? Could not God reincarnate the heathen so that
they would hear the Gospel in another life? Doesnt I Pet. 3:19 say that men hear the Gospel
after death? Both these theories are in grave error. First, there is no reincarnation: After death,
judgment (Heb. 9:27). I Peter does not speak of Christ preaching the Gospel to souls who
never heard the Gospel in this life, but to His proclamation of doom to those who had already
died in their sins, especially demons. Death seals the fate of all men. They cannot go from Hell
to Heaven (Luke 16).
H. Couldnt they come to faith in Christ through a revelation of the Gospel through means other
than Scripture or preaching? What about if their followed the Light of Nature or their
consciences? Doesnt Nature and conscience tell the way of salvation through Christ? What
about the Gospel in the stars? Didnt God inspire the Gospel in the Great Pyramid? All these
theories fail to understand Romans 1:14-25. Gods way of righteousness and salvation is made
known only through the Gospel, not Nature. Nature and conscience reveal only the problem, not
the answer. They leave men without excuse and with the answer. Christian Astrology (the
Gospel in the stars) is a very dangerous and unbiblical notion. The stars are simply part of
Nature that reveals the problem. God could have revealed the Gospel there had He so chosen,
but He has not so chosen. He has chosen to reveal salvation through the Gospel alone (I Cor.
1). And God certainly did not inspire the pyramids, for they were built by Man, not God, and
pagan men at that. Nor is the Gospel in tree rings, flower petals, and other goofy ideas.
I. Couldnt God bring the Gospel to men through visions, dreams and angels? Yes, God could
if He had so chosen, but He has not so chosen. He used these means to bring Special
Revelation to the prophets and apostles, but Special Revelation ceased with the death of the
apostles (Heb. 1:1-2). Again, note that even the angel that appeared to Cornelius did not preach
the Gospel to him. And there is no indication that the angel with the everlasting Gospel in Rev.
14:6 is evangelizing anyone on Earth.
J. But what about the many stories of heathen who were saved before they heard the Gospel
through missionaries? Such stories and rumors abound. Don Richardson collected some of
them in his book Eternity in Their Hearts. This theory suggests that they heard the Gospel
through Nature, believed and only needed instruction and discipleship when the missionaries
arrived. But these stories are unscriptural. They go against Romans 10. Such stories are
promulgated by Evangelicals who think they are promoting the Gospel and missions, when in
fact they are agreeing with Liberals in undermining the Gospel and killing missions. There is no
salvation outside of Christ, and there is no knowledge of Christ outside the Gospel.
K. It would not be fair of God to condemn the heathen if they have not heard the Gospel. God

404

owes every man a chance to be saved. The Gospel comes to men to offer them salvation, and
they are not accountable to God until they hear. This is totally wrong. All men everywhere are
already sinful, whether they have the written Law or Gospel or not (Rom. 2:16, etc.). A.W. Pink
observed, The heathen will not perish because they have not believed in Christ, but because
they failed to live up to the light which they did have - the testimony of God in nature and
conscience.
L. This objection is similar to the one that says, Since Christ died for all men, no man is
condemned for sin but for lack of faith in Christ. But no man is condemned unless he actually
hears about Christ. If this theory were true, then the only ones damned would be those who
hear and reject. This means all who do not hear will be saved, for they have not consciously
rejected Christ. If so, then we ought not to send missionaries to them, for that might bring them
condemnation. Such is utter nonsense. Men go to Hell because of their sins. They who never
hear are damned for their sins In Adam, against Nature and against conscience [dying infants
excepted]. They who hear and reject Christ are doubly damned.
M. This is really the basic objection and it arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of Man,
God and Christ. That is why only Calvinism sets the record straight on this matter. Let us
explain. First, because of the first point of Calvinism, we see that all men are born in Original Sin
and are totally depraved. They are doomed. Second, God does not owe men salvation or even
the offer of salvation. John Gerstner gives an excellent analysis of the damnation of those who
never hear:
Assuming that God does damn such persons, why is it [supposedly] unjust of Him to do
so simply because they have no opportunity to be saved? If these persons are damned
they are damned because they are sinners; they are not damned because they have
had opportunity to be saved and have not utilized it. Their opportunity, or the lack of it,
has nothing to do with their being damned; they are damned because they are sinners.
What is unfair in Gods damning sinners? ... Some will say: Granted that God could
damn men for the sins they have committed even though they did not hear the Gospel
and there would be no injustice in that as such. But, does not God have an obligation to
offer a way of salvation to everyone? But, we ask, why? Why does God have any
obligation to offer salvation to any sinner? Grace, by definition, is undeserved. If it were
deserved, it would not be a gospel; it would not be grace.
N. Therefore, the theory that some heathen that never hear the Gospel can be saved undercuts
the Gospel of Grace. It posits two ways of salvation. God has only one way.

5. Election.
A. Having shown that all who never hear are damned, we can deduce several further truths. If
they die damned, they go to their deserved destiny - eternal Hell. If their destiny is Hell, then it
follows that they were predestined to that end. All in Hell were predestined to go there for their
sins. Nobody is in Hell who does not deserve to be there (by the same standard, even the elect
deserve to go to Hell).
B. Hence, we see that God ordained to place the reprobate in two categories: the reprobate
who hear the Gospel and reject it, and the reprobate who never hear the Gospel. Both are
damned for sins. But there are degrees of Hell (Luke 12; Matt. 10:15, 11:22). Those who never
hear are punished with few stripes, like those at Sodom and Gomorrah. But those who hear

405

and reject the Gospel are punished much more. There are not degrees of reprobation, but
degrees of punishment for the reprobate.
C. Note the differences with the election of angels, dying infants and heathen:
(A) Most angels are elect; only a few are reprobate. But all unfallen angels are elect; all
elect angels are unfallen. All fallen angels are reprobate; all reprobate angels are fallen.
(B) All dying infants are elect. They are all fallen, but this did not preclude their elect by
Gods sovereign grace. Nor did their fallenness require reprobation.
(C) All unevangelized heathen are reprobate. They are all past the Age of Accountability.
They are condemned for Original Sin and for Actual Sins against Nature and
Conscience.
D. Conversely, God has ordained that all the elect will certainly hear the Gospel. Even if that
elect one is in a land where the Gospel is not now, God will get it to him through a missionary, a
Bible, or other such necessary means - but not through Nature, conscience or false religions.

6. Missions.
A. Obviously, if the unevangelized had any other way of hearing the Gospel, then the need for
missions would be killed at once. A true view of missions in the light of election and reprobation
gives great incentive to bring the Gospel to every creature. Charles Hodge noted: The-proper
effect of the doctrine that the knowledge of the gospel is essential to the salvation of adults,
instead of exciting opposition to Gods Word or providence, is to prompt us to greatly increased
exertion to send the gospel to those who are perishing for lack of knowledge.
B. Beware Hyper-Calvinism that says, When God wants to save His elect, Hell do so
In His own good time without your help or mine. Beware also those who speak of the larger
hope that those who never hear the Gospel can be saved in another way. Both theories are
errorneous, unbiblical and un-Reformed.
C. Lastly, we are not simply speaking of the heathen in India or Africa who never hear the
Gospel; we should also include those in Dallas and New York and America at large who never
hear the Gospel. Have you taken the Gospel to those you know? The same Bible that says
there is no hope for those who never hear also commands all Christians to bring the Gospel to
every creature.

Recommended Reading
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. II, pp. 646-649. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 117-121. Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed.
Girardeu, John. Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, pp. 287-298. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle.
Barnhouse, Donald Grey. Expositions of Bible Doctrines, vol. II, pp. 67-77; vol. IV, pp. 86-95.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

406

Chapter 55. The Covenant of Redemption.

1. What is the Covenant of Redemption?
A. There is an important link in the Golden Chain, which unites eternal election with salvation in
time. It is what Reformed theology calls the Covenant of Redemption. It is that part of the
eternal decree concerning election which predestines the means of salvation. It is the first of the
great covenants, and opens the doors for salvation through the Covenant of Grace in time.
B. Most Calvinists have believed in this Covenant. Some equate it with the Covenant of Grace
in time, though most prefer to say that the Covenant of Redemption is eternal and is the
foundation for the Covenant of Grace in time- Only a few have out rightly rejected the doctrine.
C. This Covenant was especially discussed in the first 100 years of Covenant Theology, by
such writers as Johannes Cocceius, Herman Witsius, Thomas Brooks and John Gill. The
technical term is Pactum Salutis, and it has also gone by other titles: the Covenant (or Council)
of Peace (as in Zech. 6:13), the Covenant of Life, the Covenant of Designation, etc. But
Covenant of Redemption is by far most popular.
D. The Swiss theologian Johann Heinrich Heidegger gave a useful definition: The covenant of
God the Father with God the Son is a mutual agreement, by which Goethe Father exacted from
the Son perfect obedience to the Law unto the death which He must face on behalf of His
chosen seed to be given Him; and promised Him, if He gave the obedience, the seed in
question as His own perquisite and inheritance; and in return the Son, in promising this
obedience to God the Father and producing it in the literal act, demanded of Him in turn the right
to demand this seed for Himself as an inheritance and perquisite.
E. There have been, of course, objections to the whole idea of an inter-Trinitarian covenant.
Karl Barth, for instance, labeled it tritheistic mythology. That is very ironic indeed, since Barth
himself admits to believing myths, while we orthodox Calvinists reject all myths. It is not tritheism but Trinitarianism.
F. Another objection argues that such a covenant sounds too commercial and therefore is an
affront to salvation by grace alone. This objection would logically deny that Christ had to die for
us in order to save us. The truth is that the Golden Chain of Salvation has several links. One is
election of grace, another is atonement by Christ. The Covenant of Redemption is simply the
link between the two.
G. Perhaps the major objection is that the Covenant is not explicitly or elaborately mentioned in
Scripture. This objection fails to see an important truth of Biblical theology: many great Biblical
doctrines are not explicitly elaborated in a single passage. For example, the Trinity is best
understood by comparing many explicit and implicit passages from both Testaments. Even the
entire Gospel is not contained in a single verse or chapter, but must be gleaned by comparing
Scripture with Scripture (what we call the Analogy of Scripture and the Analogy of Faith).
Moreover, we find all the elements of this Covenant in Scripture, even though we do not find the
exact term Covenant of Redemption there. Charles Hodge commented:
When one person assigns a stipulated work to another person with the promise of a
reward upon the condition of the performance of that work, there is a covenant. Nothing
can be plainer than that all this is true in relation to the Father and the Son. The Father
gave the Son a work to do; He sent Him into the world to perform it, and promised Him a
great reward when the work was accomplished. Such is the constant representation of

407

Scriptures. We have, therefore, the contracting parties, the promise and the condition.
These are the essential elements of a covenant. Such being the representation of
Scripture, such must be the truth to which we are bound to adhere. It is not a mere
figure, but a real transaction, and should be regarded and treated as such if we would
understand aright the plan of salvation. (Systematic Theology, vol. II, p. 360)
H. Finally, one of the more popular defenses of this Covenant is the analogy between Christ
and Adam in Romans 5 and I Cor. 15. Both were federal heads of a people. Adam was given a
covenant, and therefore so must the Last Adam have been given one.

2. Three Key Scripture Passages.

A. Psalm 2. This is universally acknowledged to be a Messianic Psalm. It is quoted in the N.T.
several times in reference to Christ. It speaks not only of King David, but also of the Son of
David, the King of Kings. Verse 2 speaks of His anointed, which speaks of Jesus being the
Christ (which means anointed one). Verse 7 mentions
My Son and vs. 12 mentions the Son, both clear references to Jesus the Son of God.
B. Note especially vs. 8, Ask of Me and I will surely give the nations as Thin inheritance. Who
asks whom for whom? The Father bids the Son to ask Him and He (the Father) will give Him a
people, which includes Gentiles. Christ, then, asks and the Father gives. Notice that the gift of
this people is called an inheritance. But when did all this occur? Not in time, but in eternity
past.
C. Psalm 89. This also is an undisputed Messianic Psalm. Now look at vs. 3, I have made a
covenant with My chosen. This is repeated in vss. 28, 34 and 39. The chosen one is Christ, the
Messiah. Earlier in this series we discussed Christ as the Elect One, the one chosen to be our
mediator and savior. Here we are told that the Father made a special covenant with this Chosen
One - the Covenant of Redemption.
D. Next, vs. 20, I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed Him. This
speaks of the Son of David who was also the Son of God, the God-Man. He is the Servant of
the Lord, as in Isaiahs prophecy. He was specially anointed by the Holy Spirit for a task- procuring salvation for His people. Vss. 26 and 27 also specifically mention the Father and the
Son.
E. John 17. In what is called Christs High Priestly Prayer, we find glorious glimpses of that
deep communion between the Father and the Son. The Son reminisces about eternity past in
vss. 5 and 24. Then He recalls that the Father gave the Son authority over all mankind (vs. 2).
The Father sent the Son into the world on a specific mission (vss. 3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25). This is a
key theme in Johns Gospel (see 3:17, 34, 5:36-38, 6:29, 38-39, 57, 7:28-29, 8:42, 10:36, 11:42,
20:21). The Father also gave the Son a work to accomplish (vs. 4. Cf. 5:36) and will glorify the
Son (vs. 22).
F. Observe specifically that the Father gave a people to the Son (vss. 2, 6., 9, 24). Johns
Gospel frequently mentions this gift of a people out of the world (see 6:37,39, 10:29). The Son,
then, prays for these people and for them alone (vs. 9). When were they given? At the time
when Christ was sent - eternity past. The order is this: they were given to the Son judicially in
the eternal Covenant, then they were actually brought to Him and given to the Son in time by
the Holy Spirit, and then the Son again presents Himself and His people to the Father in eternity
future. At the last great day, Christ says, Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me.

408

3. The Fathers Part in the Covenant.

A. As we saw earlier, there is a Trinitarian aspect to election. Technically, election preceded the
Covenant of Redemption in the logical order of the decrees. There is a specific Trinitarian
aspect to this Covenant, even as in election. It reflects the respective distinctions of each of the
members of the Trinity. First, the Father. He is the initator of election because He is the eternal
begotten of the Son. Similarly, He initiates the Covenant. To be sure, He begins it by making
stipulations, or promises. He stipulates, the Son restipulates, the Sprit witnesses and seals the
transactions.
B. The Father not only gives the elect to the Son, but He gives the Son to the elect in a special
way. relevant to this Covenant. Isa. 42:6, I will appoint you as a covenant to the people (cf.
49:8). In this Covenant, the Son represents the Father to the people and the people to the
Father.
C. Next, the Father represents the Trinity in this Covenant in another important way. God
requires satisfaction and payment for the sins of the elect. So the Father fills the role in the
Covenant of the One to whom this payment must be paid. It was decided that the Son would be
the One to pay this debt, and in time Christ paid the debt, which we owed - and He paid it to the
Father.
D. As we saw in John 17 the Father gave the Son a work to do and sent Him on this mission.
He also prepared the Son for the mission. Specifically, He prepared a human body for the Sons
incarnation (Heb. 10:5-9, quoting from Psa. 40:7-8). He further promises to sustain the Son
during His mission on Earth (Psa. 89:21). This included providing special protection from Satan
(Psa. 89:22). Everything that the Father did in time regarding Christ and the elect was done in
accordance with His eternal stipulations and promises in the Covenant of Redemption. The
Father kept His part of the Covenant perfectly.
E. The Father further promised that if the Son kept His part of the Covenant, He would make
Him heir of all things. Heb. 1:2, in these last days He has spoken to us in His Son, whom He
appointed heir of all things. So, the Father not only gave the elect to the Son, but He also gave
all things to the Son. Even the reprobate belongs to the Son, though not as a special
possession.
F. Lastly, look now at Luke 22:29-30, and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant
that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom. The Greek word for grant here is
directly related to the word for covenant. The Father covenanted with the Son to give Him a
kingdom, and this included Christ bringing His people into this kingdom. This is the Fathers role
in the Covenant of Redemption.

4. The Sons Part in the Covenant.

A. In accordance with His being the eternally generated Son, the Son restipulated and agreed
to the promises and conditions of the Father. He submitted to the Fathers will, both in the
eternal Covenant and in time while on His mission. Johns Gospel frequently quotes Christ
saying that He did not come to do His own will but the will of the One who sent Him.
B. He agreed to become a man, for this was part of the stipulated will of the Father. Notice Heb.
10:5, 7, Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, Sacrifice and offering Thou hast

409

not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me. Then I said, Behold, I have come (in the
roll of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, 0 God. It was the will of the Father that the
Son become a Man. This was eternally written in the roll of the book, that is, the decrees of
God and specifically the Covenant of Redemption. As agreed in the Covenant, Christ became
also the Servant of the Lord, and was invested in His threefold office as Prophet, Priest and
King. He exercised these offices while on Earth, but was ordained to them in the Covenant of
Redemption.
C. All this led up to a crucial part of the Covenant. Christ came specifically to die for His people.
That is why He needed to become a Man and have a human body. He could not make
satisfaction to the Father unless He had both a human body and soul. Note that Heb. 10:5-6
says that the Father did not desire offerings and sacrifices. This was because the Father
desired a perfect sacrifice, which only the God-Man could make. Christ was eternally God, but
He needed to become the God-Man in order to atone for the sins of His people. All this was
planned in the eternal Covenant.
D. Heb. 7:22 says that Christ was the surety of a covenant. This has great significance. A
surety was the one who guaranteed that payment would be made. If another could not pay, then
the surety had to pay. The elect could not pay, so Christ paid for them. He was our sponsor. He
paid by taking upon Himself the wrath of His Father for their sins.
E. The work of Christ on the Cross was no accident or coincidence. It was planned in the
Covenant of Redemption. This is explicitly stated in several places in the Bible. First, Luke
22:22, The Son of Man is going as it has been determined. Christ did not resist going to the
Cross. Rather, He submitted to the Fathers will in the Covenant. It had already been
determined. Next, John 10:18, I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it up
again. This commandment I received from My Father. The Father commanded the Son to die
and rise again. When? In the eternal Covenant of Redemption.
F. Then there are two verses in Acts that speak of this. First, 2:23, this Man, delivered up by
the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. Also, 4:28 says that Herod, Pilate, the Jews
and Gentiles crucified Christ - to do whatever hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur. It
had all been predestined in the Covenant of Redemption.
G. This is what we mean by the phrase the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He
had not been actually slain in eternity, but it had been foreordained that He most certainly would
be slain. This is where scholars discuss two passages. The first is Rev. 13:8. In some versions,
it reads, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world (KJV). Other translations, however, connect the key phrase with another phrase,
so that it reads, whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book
of life of the Lamb that has been slain (NASB). Which is right?
H. Scholars differ even as the translations differ. Linguistically and grammatically either could
be correct. The KJV more closely approximates the Greek word order, but the Greek scholars
also acknowledge that John frequently departs from usual Greek word order and syntax. There
are two other passages in Revelation that shed some light. The first one is 17:8, which contains
almost the exact same words: whose name has not been written in the book of life from the
foundation of the world. In this verse, there is no mention of the Lamb slain, so clearly the
phrase from the foundation of the world has to be connected with not written in the book of
life.
I. The other passage in Revelation that sheds light is 5:12, Worthy is the Lamb that was
slain,.. There is no added phrase from the foundation of the world. This tells us that the
phrase the Lamb that was slain can certainly stand on its own, and was used by John earlier in

410

the same book. Personally, I therefore translate 13:8 in the manner of the NASB. This does not
deny that Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; it only denies that it is
explicitly taught in this verse. To see that great truth in Scripture, we have to compare several
other verses.
J. The other main place where this is mentioned is I Peter 1:19-20. Vs. 19 explicitly calls Christ
a lamb. Peter also mentions His blood, which clearly means a slain lamb. He will later imply
this is 2:22, which is a quote from Isa. 53:9, which was preceded by vs. 7, Like a lamb that is
led to the slaughter. Then in vs. 20, Peter states that Christ was foreknown before the
foundation of the world. Here we find that phrase from Revelation 13 and 17, and it is clearly
applied to Christ in the context of His being the slain Lamb. Therefore, it is good and proper to
speak of Christ as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
K. One more point bears noting. I Peter 1:20 says foreknown. This can mean foreordained,
predestined, or foreseen, or foreloved. Each would be linguistically possible. Two other
passages help us in the choice. The first is the close context of I Peter 1:2, which speaks of the
elect who were chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. This certainly
seems to mean foreloved as in Romans 8:29. If that is the sense in 1:20, then it refers to
Christs own election by love - not to be saved from sin, but to become the savior from sin. The
other helpful passage is Acts, 2:23, which ties in predetermined plan with foreknowledge in
reference to the Crucifixion. Note that it was Peter who spoke those words.

5. The Spirits Part in the Covenant.

A. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and in time works behind the scenes and
in the shadows. Perhaps for this reason He is frequently ignored by theologians when they
discuss the Covenant of Redemption. But since the Spirit is an equal member of the eternal
Trinity, He too had a vital role in the Covenant.
B. In sum, we can say that just as the Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son (John
15:26), so the Spirit is the witness of the Covenant between the Father and the Son. He is
frequently denominated a witness in Scripture in other contexts (Rom. 8:16, Acts 5:32, 20:23,
Heb. 2:4, 1 John 5:7-11). Thomas Brooks the Puritan explained it like this: The whole compact
and agreement between God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, about the redemption of
poor sinners souls, was really and solemnly transacted in open court; or, as I may say, in the
high court of justice above, in the presence of the great public notary of Heaven - viz, the Holy
Ghost; who being a third person of the glorious Trinity, of the same divine essence, and of equal
power and glory, makes up a third legal witness with the Father and the Son. Hence, all
legalities require two or three witnesses.
C. We can deduce what the Spirit promised to do in the Covenant from what He actually does
in time. He does nothing in time that He did not promise to do in eternity and nothing is done by
any member of the Trinity that was not predestined. John Gill commented, There are many
things which the Holy Spirit himself undertook and engaged in covenant to do; and nothing more
strongly proves this than his doing them; for had He not agreed to do them, they would not have
been done by Him.
D. Just as the Spirit witnessed to Christ in time, so He witnessed Christ and the Father in the
eternal Covenant. He sealed the eternal Covenant with Gods oath, and in time seals the elect.
He witnessed the agreement regarding the atonement, and in time had a part in it (Heb. 9:14).
He promised to effectuate the incarnation through the Virgin Birth (cf. Luke 1:35), empower the
God-Man, anoint Him, draw the elect to Him, regenerate His people, and much more - all of

411

which He does in time in accordance with His part in the Covenant of Redemption.

6. The Covenant of Marriage.

A. Occasionally, Reformed theologians have spoken of the eternal Covenant as a Marriage
Contract or Marriage Covenant. This is certainly appropriate. For example, Scripture speaks-of
giving in marriage. In election and the Covenant, the elect were chosen to become the Bride of
Christ, and this was specifically planned in the Covenant wherein they were given to the Son.
The elect were not actually the Bride yet (they did not even actually exist yet). But it was made
certain that in time they would be actually given to Christ and married to Him.
B. This was typified in Hebrew marriages. The Father gave His daughter to be married. In what
sense were the elect daughters of God the Father? There are two senses: creation and
redemption. The Father also gave His Son in marriage to the elect. Of course, this analogy
involves some mixing of metaphors (Christ does not marry His sister, we are not daughters
exactly as He is a Son, etc). Still, the analogy is useful. Specifically, Christ paid the marriage
dowry for His Bride by the atonement. In that sense, He is the Bridegroom slain from the
foundation of the world.

7. The Covenant of Glory.

A. There is another way of describing, this great eternal Covenant: the Covenant of Glory. In
this sense, it is but a part of the whole plan of God, which includes decrees and the decreed
end. The end of all things is the glory of God (Rom. 11:36). It would not be inappropriate, then,
to postulate that glory runs through this Covenant and prepares the way for the final display of
the glory of the Trinity.
B. We can describe it under this picture as follows. The members of the Trinity formed a plan to
glorify each other; we already know that all the decrees are to glorify God. It is-logical, therefore,
to assume that the members of the Trinity formed these decrees together as God to glorify God
as Trinity. In other words, they each conspired together to glorify each other. The Father
planned to glorify the Son; in time He does glorify the Son (John 17:5). The Son glorifies the
Father. The Spirit glorifies the Son. They all TOW glorify each other; they all will glorify each
other in the ultimate fulfillment of the Covenant; they all planned to glorify each other. Of course,
they were all already perfectly glorified. So the plan called for something new. It would be a
display of glory to creatures. And this meant a new kind of glory. But something else. It
specifically concerned Christs glory.
C. In fulfillment of the Covenant of Redemption, Christ was given a special reward: He will see
His offspring; He will prolong His days (Isa. 53:10), Therefore I will allot Him a portion with the
great, and He will divide His booty with the strong (vs. 12). Christ would be given a special kind
of glory. This is what is hinted at in Heb. 12:2, for the joy set before Him. It is this: Christ would
be highly exalted and glorified as the God-Man. God was already perfectly glorified, but the
Covenant planned for the glory of the God-Man. Phil. 2:5-11 tell us that He is given a special
Name and glory because of what He did (in fulfillment of the Covenant). And this redounds to
the glory of the Father (vs. 11).
D. Thus, the end of the Covenant is the glory and happiness of the Trinity. No better words
have described this than those of the Puritan Thomas Goodwin: There was never such joy in
Heaven as upon this happy conclusion and agreement [Covenant of Redemption], The whole

412

Trinity rejoiced in it... they not only never repented of what they had resolved upon; He swore
and would not repent, Heb. 7:21; but further, their chiefest delights were taken up with this more
than in all their works ad extra. Gods heart was never taken so much with anything He was able
to effect so as the thoughts of this business, ever since it was resolved on, became matter of
greatest delight unto them. At the bottom of the Covenant reads, Soli Deo Gloria,

Recommended Reading
Brooks, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Brooks, vol. 5, pp. 329-402. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 265-271. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Owen, John. The works of John Owen, vol. 12, pp. 496-508. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. 2, pp. 359-362. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Gill, John. Body of Divinity, pp. 209-250. Paris, AK: Baptist Standard Bearer.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 168-170, 373-382. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House!
Flavel, John. The Works of John Flavel, vol. I, pp. 52-62. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Berkouwer, G.C. Divine Election, pp. 162-171. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 285-336. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free
Publishing Association.

413

Chapter 56. The Active and Passive

Obedience of Christ.
1. Introduction.
A. As we begin to look at the third point of Calvinism, it would be useful to first take a look at an
interesting and useful point of Reformed theology. It is a fine point over which historic Calvinists
and Lutherans have been in basic agreement. A few Calvinists disagree, while virtually
everyone other than Calvinists and Lutherans also disagree. It has to do with the Active and
Passive Obedience of Christ.
B. The question concerns how the work of Christ justifies us. All Evangelicals agree that we are
justified solely on the basis of Christs work for us, but there is some disagreement over exactly
what that work was. The Reformed view is that the Active and Passive Obedience of Christ is
the basis on which we are justified. Excepting Calvinists, Lutherans and a few others, most say
that it is only the Passive Obedience that saved us.
C. Lets define our terms. The Active Obedience is His complete life of obedience to His Father.
The Passive Obedience refers specifically to His death on the Cross-. All true Evangelicals
believe that we are saved by the Cross, but are we also saved by His obedient life before He
died? We say yes, others say no.
D. This fine point has some parallel in the two natures of Christ. Did Christ save us in His deity
or in His humanity? The answer is, Both. He had to be both in order to be the perfect Mediator.
If He had been God but not Man, then He could not identify with us, nor die for us (for deity is
immortal and cannot die). On the other hand, had He been Man but not God, then He could not
complete the bridge between us and God. But being both, He is the perfect Savior.
E. The same is true with His work. He had to both obey for us and die for us. Had He only done
one or the other, redemption would have been incomplete and we would have been lost. Now
the two are not to be conceived of as separate. There is, however, a chronological order. Just
as Christ was first God and then the God-Man, so He first obeyed and then died.

2. What Saith the Scriptures?

A. Romans 5:18-19 is the key passage. In the midst of discussing justification by faith, Paul
draws an important parallel between Adam and Christ. From verses 12 on, he shows that Adam
was the representative for all mankind. When he fell, all fell in him. That explains why all men
are born in sin. Original Sin is traced back to Adam. The condemnation of men takes two
stages. First, they are condemned because of what happened then in the Garden of Eden;
second, they are condemned because of what actually happens in their lives.
B. Now the parallel with Christ is apparent. Christ is the head of a people, too. But there is not
only a parallel; there is also a contrast. Adam disobeyed and brought condemnation upon all
whom he represented. Christ, by contrast, obeyed and brought justification upon all those He
represented. This too has two stages. First, Christ obeyed for us then; second, Christ now
justifies us and saves us by His perfect work.
C. Note the phrase in vs. 19, the obedience of the One. This is where the debate centers. Is

414

this His obedient life or His death? It was both. We are justified by His entire obedient life,
especially His obedience in dying for us according to the conditions of the Covenant of
Redemption. Someone objects and says that vs. 18 speaks of one act of righteousness, not
one process. We reply that this refers to the unified entity of His obedient life and death, they
are a whole. Even His death included various stages and aspects (crucifixion, propitiation,
suffering, death).
D. Commentators differ over the nature of the obedience of vs. 19. The mainstream Reformed
view is that it includes both the Active and Passive Obedience. Some, however, limit it to His
Passive, and one or two limit it to His Active Obedience.
E. Phil. 2:7-8 is another key passage. Interestingly, this passage also illustrates the necessity of
His two natures. He was God first, then the God-Han. Vs. 7 says Christ humbled Himself and
became a bondservant. Scripture frequently speaks of the Messiah as the Servant of the Lord.
To whom was Jesus a servant? First and primarily He was servant to God the Father, in accord
with His agreement in the ^Covenant of Redemption. He agreed to come, and on Earth
regularly spoke of obeying the will and commandment of Him who sent Him. In a secondary
sense, Christ was also the servant of Man - He came to minister, not to be ministered unto, etc.
F. Vs. 8 adds that He became obedient to the point of death. Again, the Reformed
commentators vary on what this means. Unlike Rom. 5, this is a clear reference to death and
not simply to His life. Consequently, many take this to refer only to the Passive Obedience.
Others, however, point out that this passage in context speaks of Christs whole life of humility
and servant hood, culminating in His death. Christ did not obey simply at the Cross; He obeyed
in coming to Earth, being humbled, serving others, etc. I know of none who says that vs. 8
refers only to the Active Obedience. The mainstream view is as in Rom. 5, viz, that this verse
could be rendered: was always obedient, even to the end, death.
G. There are several other passages that touch on the matter. In the previous lesson, we
mentioned the many passages in Johns Gospel where Christ speaks of obeying the
commandment of the Father. 2 Cor. 5:21 says that because of His being made sin, we are
made the righteousness of God in Him. What was this righteousness of God in Christ? The
mainstream Reformed view is that its two aspects are right here in this verse: first, He knew no
sin (He was Actively Obedient throughout His life); second, He was made to be sin and died for
us (He was Passively Obedient).
H. Heb. 5:8 also-sheds light on the point in question. Note that the writer associates Christs
learning obedience with His suffering, and both are linked with what He did to bring us salvation.
Now Christ grew by stages in learning. In His deity He was omniscient, but in His humanity He
grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52). Undoubtedly He suffered some throughout His life
and not simply in His death. He suffered misunderstanding, ridicule, and rejection. He learned
through it all. And the culmination of the entire process was His death on the Cross for us.

3. The Sinlessness of Jesus.

A. Then there is the necessity of Christs sinlessness. This has direct reference to His Active
Obedience, but it is necessary for His Passive as well. First, He was born of a Virgin. This
insured that He was both God and Man. Had Joseph been His father, then Jesus would have
been only a mere man. But had He not had a mother, then He would be God but not Man.
Similarly, had Joseph been His father, then Jesus would have inherited Adams sin. Whats
more, eventually that Original Sin would have produced Actual Sin. Hence, Jesus would have
been a sinner just like Adam.

415

B. But Romans 5 shows the contrast between Adam and Christ. It was necessary for Christ to
be without all taint of sin, Original or Actual. Thus, it was absolutely necessary for Him to be
born of a virgin. So, throughout His entire life, even from the moment of conception, Jesus was
totally free of all sin. Scripture repeatedly stresses the total sinlessness of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21; I
Pet. 2:22; Isa. 43:9, etc.). He never sinned in thought, word or deed. He was the Holy One of
Israel.
C. Now, this is the aspect of the Active Obedience of Christ that is directly tied in with His
Passive Obedience in the Book of Hebrews. Hebrews discusses Christ as the perfect sacrifice
for our sins according to the typology of the Old Testament sacrificial system. But, and this is
crucial, those sacrifices had to be whole and unblemished. Otherwise, they would not be
acceptable. They spoke of Christ, the final sacrifice, who had to be without any taint of sin.
Otherwise, He would have had to die for His own sin.

4. The Active Obedience of Christ.

A. But the active Obedience of Christ was more than merely the absence of sin - it was the
actual obedience and meriting of something. Lets explore this some. The first question is,
What did He obey? The answer is that He obeyed several things. First, He obeyed the Law,
The Lawgiver became a Man and obeyed His own Law Gal. 4:4 says that Christ was born
under the Law. He kept this Law perfectly in its entirety. Take the Ten Commandments. Christ
kept every single one of them [John Gill has a delightful exposition of this in his Body of
Divinity]. Christ also kept the other two divisions of the Law. He obeyed the Ceremonial Law in
that He went to the Temple, was circumcised, kept the feasts, and so forth. And He also kept
the civil aspect of the Law, such as paying taxes to whom taxes are due
B. Secondly, Christ obeyed the stipulations of the Covenant of Redemption. He obeyed the will
of His Father in coming to Earth as a man. And this directed Him to the special work of
redemption at the Cross.
C. Now a few Calvinists have argued that Christ did not merit salvation for us in His life, but
only in His death. The major proponent of this was Johannes Piscator. Piscator followed Anselm
in this and in turn was followed by the Armnians. He agreed that the death of Christ was
substitutionary and merited salvation for us, but denied that Christ actively obeyed for us. He did
not believe that Christ obeyed the Law as our substitute. After all, argued Piscator, Christ was a
man and had to obey the Law for Himself in His humanity. But since He did not sin, He died on
the Cross-for others and not for himself. Next, Piscator argued that the idea of substitutionary
obedience to the Law opens the door to Antinomianism. If Christ obeyed for us, then there is no
real need for us to obey.
D. Piscator made several logical errors. The most blatant one is that he failed to see that Christ
was a substitute for us in all that He did, not simply in His death. For example, He rose from the
dead for us. Just as the Resurrection after the atonement was necessary and substitutionary, so
His Active Obedience before the Cross was necessary and substitutionary.
E. Here is where Covenant Theology brings out an important point. According to the Covenant
of Works, Adam was on probation, as it were, to obey in order to maintain his relationship with
God. But there was more to it than that. Adam had to earn something, something more than the
temporary state in which he was created. Adam was able to do it, but failed. Reformed theology
says that the Law is the basic embodiment of the Covenant of Works. Adam broke it, and so
forfeited its rewards for those he represented. In doing this, he forfeited eternal life and merited
death.

416

F. By contrast, throughout His life Christ obeyed the Covenant of Works, not only for Himself
but for those He represented. In so doing. He never incurred the penalty of death for His people.
But there is more. In so doing, He actually and actively earned the reward of the Law - eternal
life. William G.T. Shedd explained it thusly: The chief function of Christs obedience of the
moral law is, to earn a title for the believer to the rewards of heaven. This part of Christs agency
is necessary; because, merely to atone for past transgression would not be a complete
salvation. It would, indeed, save man from hell, but it would not introduce him into heaven. He
would be delivered from the Laws punishment, but would not be entitled to the Laws reward.
G. Theoretically, Christ could have suddenly appeared on Earth as an adult and then died for
us. Had He done that, He would have removed the curse of Adam, but He would only have put
us back where Adam was in Eden. Therefore, it was necessary for Christ to grow through the
stages of life perfectly and without sin in order to justify us perfectly. His death removes our
sins, but His life provides something in place of our sins -His very own righteousness.
H. This means that the Active Obedience was not merely obedience to the Covenant of
Redemption, but also to the Law. Christ was our surety in keeping all aspects of the Law for
us, namely, He kept its precepts and He kept its penalties. The 17th-centurv Reformed
theologian Johannes Wollebius wtate, Those who wish only Christs passive obedience to have
the nature of merit, claim that Christs obedience extended only to the special mandate of the
Father that He should die for us. This would not be a special but a partial mandate: Christs
obedience extends just as widely as the Law extends. Since therefore the Law binds us both to
punishment and to obedience, He satisfied both its requirements.
I. This illustrates the utter inseparability of both aspects of His obedience. Calvin saw this, and
though he did not comment on it. At length, he made a concise observation- In short, from the
time when he took on the form of a servant, he began to pay the price of liberation in order to
redeem us.

5. Some Unusual Variations on the Reformed Doctrine.

A. There are three main areas of Christs Active Obedience that have been disputed within
Reformed theology. The first is the question of Vicarious Faith. Granted that Jesus obeyed for
us, is it also true that Jesus believed for us? Some Reformed scholars (most notably those of
the Scottish New Reformation school of Thomas F. Torrance) argue that this is the meaning of
such verses as Gal. 2:16 and 20, which literally read the faith of Jesus Christ. In other words,
we are justified not only by faith in Christ but also by the faith of Christ. He not only obeyed the
Covenant of Works for us, He also fulfilled the Covenant of Grace for us by believing for us.
B. Mainstream Reformed theology sees some good in this theory, but we would note certain
necessary safeguards. First, it is true that Gal. 2:16 and 19 use genitives which could be
translated of. But we add that this is not necessary. They could also be translated faith in
Christ Jesus, as in almost every English translation. This much better fits the context. Paul is
saying that we are justified by our faith, not by our works. It doesnt fit the flow of his argument
to contrast our works with Christs faith. And yet, we admit that there is some truth to the theory.
The Law required faith, and so Christ obeyed and in that sense believed for us. But we are slow
to go much further. The tendency of those of this vicarious faith school is to believe in
universal justification of all men, even those who do not believe. If Christ believed for them, then
they need not believe. Mainstream Calvinism prefers to say that Christ purchased faith for His
people and gives it to them.
C. Secondly, theres the theory of Vicarious Baptism. Matt. 3:15 says that Jesus was baptized

417

in order to fulfill all righteousness. Vs. 14 implies that Jesus did not need to be baptized, for He
had no sin. This does not mean that baptism is essential for salvation. Rather, baptism was the
sign that followed what was the necessary thing, namely repentance. But repentance implies
sin, and Jesus had no sin. Why then was He baptized? Some Calvinists say that in one sense
baptism is essential for salvation. Christ fulfilled this for us, and so there is no need for us
individually to be baptized in order to be saved. Proponents of this view include R.T. Kendalland
several of the Torrance school. Mormons also teach a strange form of this.
D. Mainstream Calvinists again agree with some aspects of this, but shy back from its possible
abuses. For one, Matt. 3:15 does imply that it was necessary for Christ to be baptized. The
usual Evangelical interpretation is that this was necessary for His identification with sinners.
That is true so far as it goes. One Reformed view adds that just as our water baptism speaks of
our being cleansed from sin, so Christs water baptism symbolized the baptism in the wrath of
God that would happen when He was made to be sin for us. We are slow to, go much further,
for fear of Mormonism.
E. The third, and most extreme, variation is the theory of Vicarious Repentance. This was
hinted at in some of the so-called Calvinistic Antinomians of the 17th-century,but was explicitly
developed by John MacLeod Campbell in 18th-century Scotland. The school of Torrance are the
main promoters of it today. Their reasoning hinges on two arguments. First, Christ was baptized
for us; baptism required repentance; therefore, Christ repented for us. Second, in His work on
the Cross Christ was made sin and suffered for our sins. To make this suffering acceptable to
God, Christ must have added the necessary ingredient that made it acceptable to God repentance. The High Priest had to confess the sins of the people onto the sacrifice. Hence, it is
argued, Christ the High Priest confessed the sins of mankind onto Himself and from there to
God.
F. Mainstream Calvinists have great difficulty with the rather strange theory. We admit that
Christ obeyed for us, even in His baptism in some respects, and that He suffered a
substitutionary and penal death for us. But we are slow to accept this theory. For one thing, one
person can obey and even believe and be baptized for another, but how in the world can one
repent for another? Repentance assumes the presence of sin. But Christ had no sin. Sin was
imputed to Him, not infused into Him. Had it been infused into Him, then perhaps there may be
some truth to this theory. But if so, then Christ would have been an actual sinner. It is no
coincidence that Campbell developed this theory along lines similar to those of Edward Irving,
who taught that Christ inherited a fallen human nature.
G. Did Christ have a change of mind about sin for us? Did He have remorse in His heart
regarding something there? Did He confess sins, which He had never committed? The answer
to these questions is, No. They go too far with true principles and open the door to bizarre;
conclusions and possible blasphemy. Christ suffered for us, prayed for us, mediated for us. But
none of those required that He repent for us. Scripture nowhere explicitly or implicitly teaches
Vicarious Repentance, nor can it be legitimately deduced from what Scripture teaches on other
doctrines.

6. The Dual Obedience and Justification.

A. Romans 5 and 2 Cor. 5 both discuss the relationship between Christs work and our
justification. In a nutshell, we are justified because of what He did. If, then, He both obeyed and
died for us, how is this reflected in justification?
B. The Reformed answer is that, just as there are two aspects of His obedience, so there are

418

two aspects of justification. Justification includes both the forgiveness of sin, but the imputation
of Christs righteousness. One is negative - it removes sin. The other is positive - it puts
something in sins place.
C. These two aspects of justification match the two aspects of His obedience. Obviously we are
forgiven because of His Passive Obedience: The blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin (I
John 1:7). But. His Active Obedience provided the gift of a perfect righteousness to replace our
perfect unrighteousness. Reformed theologians usually say that this positive gift includes
eternal life and adoption. Others go further and add that even something greater is imputed to
us, namely, the personal righteousness and obedience of Jesus Christ Himself.
D. There are several passages which teach the negative and positive aspects. In Zech. 3:4-5,
the priests rags are removed and he is given a beautiful new coat. This is a clear type of our
justification. Acts 26:18 also mentions the two aspects: in order that they may receive
forgiveness of sins and an inheritance. Gal. 4:4-5says that Christ was born of a woman (Virgin
Birth) under the Law (Active Obedience)in order that He might redeem those who were under
the Law [the negative], that we might receive the adoption as sons [the positive]. Gal. 3:13-14
also mentions the positive and the negative. Dan. 9:24 says that He made atonement for
iniquity in order to bring in everlasting righteousness - the negative through the Passive, the
positive through the Active.
E. And Rom. 5:10, which immediately precedes Pauls comments about Christs obedience
unto justification, seems to include both as well: If while we were enemies, we were reconciled
to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by
His life. Life here could mean His entire life or Resurrection.

7. The Passive Obedience of Christ.

A. As we showed earlier, both the Active and the Passive were necessary. He had to both live
perfectly and die perfectly for us. Occasionally a few theologians have argued that only the
Active Obedience was necessary. But they are almost always Liberals who deny the
substitutionary death of Christ for us. Had Christ only lived a perfect life for us without dying for
us, then He would either still be alive on Earth or would have gone straight to the Ascension
without going to the Cross and Empty Tomb. But He did die for us and rose for us. If He had
not, we would still be in our sins. The only other conclusion would be that He died for Himself.
B. By Passive, we do not mean what the word is taken to mean by some people. It does not
mean that Christ ceased to obey, that He shut off all feelings, or anything like this. Passive
means submission with respect to death. No mere man can do that, even in suicide. But Christ
surrendered to death in a unique way.
C. Of course, Calvinism teaches that there are several inter-connected aspects of Christs
death - it was penal punishment, substitution for His people, a display of Gods love, and so on.
But there is one other aspect that we bring out that infrequently ignored by other systems of
theology. And it concerns how His entire life led up to His death. The Heidelberg Catechism put
it like this: That all the time that He lived on Earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore,
in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race... (Answer37).
Every moment of His life was spent in vicariously obeying and suffering for us. He grew by
stages in this, culminating in His perfect work at the Cross. When did He suffer for us?
Throughout His entire life, more especially in Gethsemane, most especially on the Cross, and
particularly during the final three hours, and ultimately in that culminating act of voluntary death
in a moment.

419

D. So, then, Calvinism teaches that For me He lived, for me He died. The next logical question
is: For whom did He live and die? That will be the subject of the next few studies.
Recommended Reading
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen, vol. V, pp. 251-275. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Hodge, A.A. The Atonement, pp. 230-245. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; and Memphis:
Footstool Publications.
Hodge, A.A. Outlines of Theology, pp. 405, 500-502, 506-507. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (In an
appendix is the Formula Consensus Helvetica, which on p. 660 discusses the Active Obedience
of Christ in a most helpful and concise manner.)
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 458-465. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 324-325, 379-382. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Gill, John. Body of Divinity, pp. 396-406. Paris: Baptist Standard Bearer.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. II, pp. 612-613; vol. Ill, pp. 142-143, 182-185. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. II, pp. 151-157. Carlisle: Banner of
Truth.
Calvin, John. Institutes, II:XVI:5 (vol. I, pp. 507-510). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Chapter 57. The Extent of the Atonement.

1. Introduction.
A. We know from Scripture that Jesus Christ died a substitutionary death for others. He had no
sin of His own (2 Cor. 5:21), and so did not have to die. He voluntarily died in the place of others
who were sinners (Rom. 5:8). But then the question arises, For whom did Christ die?
B. Perhaps no other question has so divided Calvinists over the centuries as this one. It is, by
all accounts, a controversial one. Curiously, almost no non-Calvinist wrestles with the question,
while almost every Calvinist has wrestled with it sooner or later. The question concerns the
Third Point of Calvinism. By common consent and history, this is the hardest of the Five Points
to understand and is almost always the last to be accepted.

2. History of the Controversy.

A. There were occasional debates about the issue long before the days of John Calvin. Virtually
every Christian, including heretics, believed that Christ died for every human being. Even
Augustine believed this. Probably the first to expressly limit the atonement only to the elect was
Gottschalk. During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Schoolmen debated the question.
They too concluded that Christ died for every man, though some of them added the proviso that
the atonement is not applied to all but only those who receive it by faith.

420

B. Then came the Reformation. Martin Luther did not substantially depart from the accepted
teaching on the subject. For example, he wrote: He bore the sins of the entire world... He has
and bears all the sins of all men in His body... The sins of the whole world, which are committed
from the first man to the last day thereof, lie upon the back of that one man who was born of
Mary (Works, vol. 26, pp. 285, 277).
C. Consequently, all succeeding Lutherans believed in Universal Atonement. This continued in
other branches of the Reformation as well. For example, all the English Reformers believed in
Universal Atonement, as expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles: The offering of Christ once
made, is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world,
both original and actual (Article 31).
D. When we come to the Swiss Reformation, we find the same views. Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich
Bullinger and Wolfgang Musculus all believed that Christ died for every man. There has been
debate whether Calvin believed in Universal or Particular Atonement, but the evidence is
overwhelming that John Calvin agreed with all the other Reformers that Christ died for all. In this
he was followed by Peter Martyr Vermigli, Zacharias Ursinus, and other Reformers. Universal
Atonement was clearly the accepted viewpoint of Reformed Theology up to about the year
1600. For example, the most important Reformed statement of doctrine at that time, the
Heidelberg Catechism, said: That all the time He lived on the earth, but especially at the end of
His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the whole human race... (Question
37).
E. Theodore Beza was probably the first Reformer to explicitly teach Limited Atonement. In this
he felt that he was improving upon the theory of Universal Atonement, even as he was probably
the first Reformer to teach Supralapsarianism. Soon other Calvinists began to place certain
limitations on the atonement, such as William Perkins and Johannes Piscator. These
limitations were basically clarifications regarding the purpose of the atonement according to
the decrees of God. In other words, the question was not merely, For whom did Christ die?
but, For whom did God foreordain the atonement?
F. Then came the Synod of Dort. While accepting that the atonement was of infinite value and
sufficiency, it rejected the Arminian doctrine of Universal Atonement and stated that the
atonement was properly for the elect alone. This gave rise to further debates. One the delegates
at Dort, John Davenant, wrote A Dissertation on the Death of Christ arguing that the Synod
never meant to totally exclude the non-elect from the benefits of the atonement. About this
same time, Moise Amyraut and others in France began to re-assert the more universal theory.
Back in England, there were many Four Point Calvinists, such as John Bunyan. There were
also some such as Richard Baxter who sought to mediate between the opposing extremes by
proposing what some call Four-and-a-Half Point Calvinism.
G. Meanwhile, the more limited system was developing in the writings of the higher Puritans.
John Owen wrote the classic defence of the more strictly limited view in The Death of Death in
the Death of Christ. Owen allowed very, very little in the atonement for the non-elect. He was
paralleled by Francois Turretine and others on the Continent.
H. In the 18th century, the same situation continued and solidified. On the one hand, Phillip
Doddridge, Isaac Watts and others taught the lower scheme (Low Calvinism), while John Gill
and the Hyper-Calvinists taught the higher scheme (High Calvinism). One attempt to mediate
came from the so-called Harrow men in the Scottish debate over The Marrow of Modern
Divinity. Thomas Boston and the other Marrow men taught that there were two aspects of the
atonement, one general for all men and one particular for the elect alone.
I. This pattern continued into the 19th century. While there were still some strict Limited

421

Calvinists (probably William Rusnton was the most extreme), and some strict Universal
Calvinists (especially in New England Theology, such as Albert Barnes), the two factions began
to modify and adapt. On the one side, the Low Calvinists stressed the universal aspect of the
atonement, but did not entirely negate the particular aspect. These would include James
Morison and Ralph Wardlaw. On the other hand, the High Calvinists stressed the particular
aspect of the atonement, but began admitting more freely to the universal aspects. These
included Charles Hodge, William G.T. Shedd and William Cunningham.
J. The debate has continued up to the present. There have been the more traditional Four
Point Calvinists who prefer not to see any limitation in the atonement. Such have included W.H.
Griffith Thomas, Lewis Sperry Chafer and R.T. Kendall. Robert Lightner has written the fullest
defence of Calvinistic Universal Atonement, The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited
Atonement. In his important book, The Death of Christ, Norman Douty greatly improved upon
the Low Calvinist view by attempting an almost even balance between the Universal and
Particular aspects of the atonement. He relies heavily upon Davenant and Morison, and shies
away from both the stricter Universal and Limited views.
K. Also, there has been some development on the more Limited side. True, the stricter form
has still been represented, mainly by the Hyper-Calvinists such as A.W. Pink and Herman
Hoeksema. But the somewhat lower view has also been represented. Gary Longs Definite
Atonement closely resembles the views of Hodge. Louis Berkhof and John Murray have made
important contributions as well. Probably the Limited counterpart to Douty has been R.B. Kuiper
in his excellent For Whom Did Christ Die? Just as Douty improved upon the Low scheme, so
Kuiper improved upon the High scheme. Both made useful clarifications. In many ways they
complement each other. But there is still some tension between the two tendencies in Reformed
theology regarding the Universal and Particular aspects of the same atonement. There is no
one mainstream Reformed view regarding the extent of the atonement. The more Limited view
has probably had more adherents, but then again, the Reformers (except Beza) all accepted the
more Universal view.

3. The Dual Aspects of the Atonement.

A. Most of the popular books on Calvinism paint the issue as an either-or choice. That is they
will say either that Christ died equally for all men or Christ died only for the elect. But when
more serious research is done into the Scriptures and Reformed theology, it is more of a bothand balance with clarifications on both sides. It would be useful here to give some
representative quotes from major writers on the subject showing how they saw both Universal
and Particular aspects of the atonement.
B. Richard Baxter wrote, Christ therefore died for all, but not for all equally, or with the same
intent, design or purpose. Archbishop James Ussher put forth a similar view: So, in one
respect he may be said to have died for all, and in another respect not to have died for all.
Davenant abounds with such statements. He especially liked the formula of the Church Father,
Ambrose: Although Christ suffered for all, yet he suffered especially for us, because he
suffered for his church.
C. On the more Limited side, we find similar qualifications. Jonathan Edwards wrote: From
these things it will inevitably follow, that however Christ in some sense maybe said to die for all,
to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world by His death; yet there must be something
particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be
saved thereby (Freedom of the Will, p. 435). Charles Hodge concurred in words almost exactly

422

like those of Ussher: There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense
in which He died for the elect alone (Systematic Theology, vol. II, p. 546).
D. His son, A.A. Hodge, followed in this vein: Nor is there any debate as to the universal
reference of some of the benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire
dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest since the fall, including for the
unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of
Christs blood. They admit also that Christ did income sense die for all men, that he thereby
removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction
may be applied to one man as well as to another if God so wills it (Outlines of Theology, p.
416).
E. William G.T. Shedd made some rather unusual qualifications: Atonement is unlimited and
redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that
Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people (Dogmatic Theology,
vol. II, p. 470). The Scottish Calvinist, William Cunningham, has an excellent and lengthy
discussion on the history of the debate, in which he makes important qualifications for the
Limited side. For example: It is not denied by the advocates of particular redemption, or of a
limited atonement, that mankind in general, even those who ultimately perish, do derive some
advantages or benefits from Christs death (Historical Theology, vol. II, p.332).
F. More recently, John Murray of Westminster Seminary has elucidated these universal
benefits, which, he said, accrue to the non-elect from the redemptive work of Christ. Louis
Berkhof paralleled Murray in writing, All that the natural man receives other than curse and
death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ (SystematicTheology, p. 439).
Berkhof argued that the primary design of the atonement was to secure redemption for the elect
alone, but that was not the only design in it. There are secondary designs as well.
G. Loraine Boettner popularized Calvinism as much as any other man in this century, and he
too made qualifications, such as, There is, then, a sense in which Christ died for all men
(Studies in Theology, p. 325). J. Oliver Buswell also notes these universal benefits: There is no
question among those who adhere to the Calvinistic system of doctrine as to the fact that the
atonement of Christ is universal in three respects:(1) It is sufficient for all... (2) The atonement is
applicable to all... (3) The atonement is offered to all (Systematic Theology, vol. II, and pp. 141142).
H. Two last quotes illustrate how the two tendencies have made even more qualifications,
almost resulting in a rapprochement. First, from the higher side, R.B. Kuiper wrote: According
to the Reformed faith the divine design of the atonement is in an important respect limited. But
the Reformed faith also insists that in other respects it is universal. It can be shown without the
slightest difficulty that certain benefits of the atonement, other than the salvation of individuals,
are universal.... Therefore the statement, so often heard from Reformed pulpits, that Christ died
only for the elect must be rated a careless one... The particular design of the atonement and its
universal design in no way contradict each other. Nor do they merely complement each other.
They support and strengthen each other. In final analysis they stand and fall together (For
Whom Did Christ Die? pp. 78-79).
I. Lastly, Norman Douty wrote the following words of qualification which almost bridge the two
sides: Christ died to make possible the salvation of all, but to make actual the salvation of the
elect alone... the cross had a special reference to the elect... Christs redemptive work was
primarily for the elect, and only secondarily for the rest of men... Thus Gods intention in the
death of Christ was not the same with reference to the two groups. But though Gods design in
Christs death was dual, we must not think that the death itself was... the sense in which Christ
died for the elect and non-elect was single, but His object in doing so was double... His death

423

had a special reference to the elect, but we strongly deny that it had an exclusive reference to
them (The Death of Christ, 1972 edition, pp. 30, 44, 49, 50).

4. The Balance of the Dual Aspects.

A. Thus far in treating the doctrines of grace, we have noted that several aspects of doctrine
need to be kept in balance. For example, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the
Secret and Revealed Wills of God, total depravity and total responsibility, the Active and
Passive Obedience of Christ, and so forth. The same balance needs to be maintained regarding
the atonement.
B. Three helpful points will help keep this balance. First, the dual aspects of the atonement
match the dual aspects of the grace of God. In later studies we will discuss these further, but
suffice it here to make the following statement: God loves all men as creatures, but He has a
special love for the elect. Reformed theology has always, with few exceptions, taught both
Common Grace and Special Grace. God loves all men, especially the elect whom He has
chosen. The difference is exactly that of the loves a man has for his neighbor and for his wife. A
Christian man will love all other men, as he is commanded in the Law; but he will have a special
love for his wife. The difference is not quantitative, as if he merely loved her more than the
others; rather, it is qualitative - he loves her differently.
C. Now, this difference is reflected in the atonement. The general, universal love of God for all
men is reflected in the universal aspect of the atonement. But we also know that God has a
special love for His bride, the elect, and this is reflected in the special aspect of the atonement.
We will develop these two in due course.
D. Second, there is a Scripture text, which illustrates this dichotomy. I Tim. 4:10 says, We have
fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. Now,
some of the stricter Limited theologians interpret this as a reference solely to the protection of
Providence. I disagree. It includes Providence, but more. If solely Providence, then how is it that
the elect usually suffer more than the non-elect in this life? Moreover, the word Savior is used
in the New Testament almost exclusively of salvation, not Providence.
E. Richard Baxter and others brought this out by incorporating I Tim. 4:10 in a useful
theological formula: Christ died for all men, especially the elect. This is not to deny either the
universal or particular aspects, but to accept both and specify the primary importance of the
atonement for the elect. Personally, I find this very useful. Reminded of Kuipers words, I prefer
to speak of Christ dying especially for the elect rather than only for them.
F. Third, Matt. 13:44 provides an illustration of the principle of duality. A man finds a treasure in
a field. He cannot simply take the treasure, for it is in the field. So he buys the field, and in so
doing also buys the treasure. He bought both, but his special intent was to acquire the treasure.
But he did not buy only the treasure. By analogy, the elect are dispersed in the world. Christ
wants them. But He cannot simply purchase them alone. So He purchases the whole world.
Consequently, He owns all men by virtue of the atonement, but His special intention in dying
was to obtain the treasure, the elect. Calvinists have occasionally made this analogy.

5. The Infinite Value of the Atonement.

A. Much of the problem in the lengthy debate has been differentiating which aspects are

424

universal and which are particular. The remainder of this study will concentrate on the universal
benefits, and the next two studies will discuss the particular aspects.
B. One of the popular phrases used by Calvinists is, Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently
only for the elect. The formula seemed to have originated in the writings of the medieval
Catholic theologian Peter Lombard. Thomas Aquinas and others accepted it. Calvin, Vermigli
and most Reformers and later Calvinists also accepted it. Some, such as Beza and Piscator,
preferred not to use it. Many use it and say it teaches Universal Atonement; others say it
teaches Limited Atonement.
C. Basically, the formula is correct. Among other things, it teaches the infinite value and
sufficient of the death, blood and sufferings of Christ. Luther noted, Just one drop of this
innocent blood would have been more than enough for the sin of the whole world. Reformed
theology does not teach Equivalentism, namely, that Christ suffered just so much and shed
just so much blood in proportion to the number of the elect. Rather, we believe that Christs
blood, sufferings and death whereof infinite value and therefore of universal sufficiency. In the
famous words of Charles Hodge, All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary
had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more
would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through His blood.
D. The more detailed explanation of the Synod of Dort bears quoting at this juncture: The
death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; and is of
infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate thesis of the whole world. This death
derives its infinite value and dignity from these considerations, because the person who
submitted to it was not only really man, and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of
God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which
qualifications were necessary to constitute him a Savior for us; and because it was attended
with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin (11:3-4).

6. Universal Benefits of the Atonement.

A. Reformed theologians from all sides have put forth numerous benefits of the atonement
which accrue to all men. One of the more well known is Common Grace. There is a sense in
which Common Grace flows freely from God by His very nature. But since Man is fallen and
deserves instant and eternal wrath, there must have been something else necessary for God to
provide the bounties of Providence rather than instant wrath. That something else was the death
of Christ. In other words, as C.H. Spurgeon said, Christ hath bought some good things for all
men - the common mercies of life.
B. This is as much to say that all that every man receives that is good can be traced back to the
atonement. He has Christ to thank for the sunshine he sees, the food he eats, the family he has,
and so on. He deserves none of these, but Christ purchased them for him.
C. Next, all men deserve immediate wrath and judgment. Not only do they receive some
providential good, but they do not receive the wrath they deserve immediately. Christ purchased
a delay of judgment for them. The very fact that all men are not yet in Hell is due to the blood of
Christ. Christ purchased a stay of execution for them. Whether He purchased an actual pardon
is another question, but it is obvious that He purchased a stay of execution. Some live longer in
this delay than others, and some even come to Christ during the interim. But all have Christ and
His atonement to thank for being still alive and not in Hell. Few, however, thank Him for it.
D. This is related to yet another universal benefit. Rom. 14:9, For to this end Christ died and

425

lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living. By His death and
Resurrection, Christ is now Lord of all men, both elect and reprobate. This is also brought out in
Phil. 2:5-11. Because of Christs work, and not simply because of His person and dual nature,
He is Lord of all - believer and unbeliever.
E. Lastly, Calvinists usually ground the universal free offer of the Gospel in the infinite
sufficiency of the atonement. This is why the strictest views of the atonement tend to restrict or
even deny the free offer, as in Hyper-Calvinism. Because there is more than enough food on the
table, all are invited to partake, even though only few do, (More will be said on this point later).
Some Calvinists mention other benefits in relation to the special benefits for the elect only.

7. Concluding Comments.
A. Having said all this, one may wonder just what the controversy has been about. Those on
the Universalist side accept these Universal benefits of the atonement, and so do the leading
proponents of Particular Atonement.
B. Some of the confusion can also be cleared up with several further statements. First, both
sides agree that not all men will be saved. Oddly, there have been only a few persons who have
argued that literally all men will be saved because Christ died for all men. In the late 18th and
early 19th century there was a brief movement along those lines in New England, but they were
opposed by both High and Low Calvinists, and even Evangelical Arminians, Both Calvinists and
Arminians agree that only some sinners will be saved. We may differ regarding election, but we
agree that only the elect will be saved. Not all were elected; therefore not all will believe and be
saved.
C. Similarly, there is no real disagreement regarding the application of the atonement in
salvation. All agree that unless the atonement is applied efficaciously, then a sinner will not be
saved. Of course, there is some variation on exactly how the atonement is applied. The
Arminians and lowest Calvinists tend to say that it is not applied at all to doomed sinners, for
they refuse it. More mainstream Calvinists prefer to say that the atonement is sovereignly
applied by the Spirit to whomsoever He wills, and He wills to apply it only to the elect.
D. Thus, much of the debate revolves around the question of the necessity of the application of
the atonement. All agree that the application is in some sense related to election, but here is
where the Limited school goes furthest. None of these believe that the very nature of the
atonement requires that it be applied to all men. Only the extremist Universalists with a taste for
Calvinism suggests that. Low Calvinists may say that it is available to all, but they deny that it is
necessarily applied to all by way of salvation.
E. Curiously, several of the universal aspects of the atonement are. in fact, necessarily applied
to all men. By virtue of the atonement, all men are given a stay of execution (though in varying
amounts). All are also subjected to Christs authority, even those vast majority of sinners who
either never hear the Gospel or who hear but reject it. And the bounties of Providence are also
applied to all men, though again in varying amounts.
F. This is where the question of the Free Offer conies in. The Free Offer should be given to all,
but it is not. In other words* the atonement did not guarantee that all men will hear the good
news. This is an important point: How so? In our study on the destiny of the unevangelized, we
showed that there is no salvation for those who never hear the Gospel, which is the Free Offer.
Since they never hear, they can never believe in the Cross. Conversely, unless the Gospel is
preached, the Cross will never be applied to someone. The atonement is applied only through

426

the Gospel.
G. In conclusion, let me make a few comments regarding the place of this debate in Calvinism.
Unfortunately, it has too often divided Calvinist from Calvinist. Those holding a strictly Universal
Atonement frequently charge those holding to Limited Atonement with Hyper-Calvinism. The
charge is not necessarily true. Hyper-Calvinists all hold to the stricter forms of Limited
Atonement, but the converse is not necessarily true. Not all proponents of Limited Atonement
are Hyperists; few are.
H. Similarly, the more Limited school tends to look disparagingly down on those who advocate
Universal Atonement. Charges of Amyraldian! are often heard from those who really have no
idea what Amyraldianism is. Four-point Calvinism has always been quite popular; it historically
preceded Five-point Calvinism. Basically, this is what historic Lutherans believe. And those who
attempt to wrestle with the issues and bridge the differences Scripturally should be commended.
Unfortunately, they often catch flak from both sides. Historically, contrary to some popular
opinions, the Five Points do not rise and fall together. The qualifications and fine-tuned
differentiations of the dual aspects of the atonement do much to strengthen the Five Points.

Recommended Reading (including the next two lessons)

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Also may be found in vol. 10 of The
Works of John Owen, Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (The largest defence of Limited Atonement.
The Introductory Essay by J.I. Packer [not in Works ed.] is a useful summary)
Long, Gary. Definite Atonement. Rochester: Backus Books. (One of the few recent treatments)
Douty, Norman. The Death of Christ. Irving: Williams and Watrous. (Revised reprint of the 1972
Reiner edition. The major 4 Point discussion of recent years. Useful footnotes.)
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology, vol. II, pp. 237-371. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Webb, Robert Alexander. Christian Salvation, pp. 148-223. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications.
Pink, Arthur W. The Atonement. Swengel: Reiner Publications; and Sterling: GAM.
Hurray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. II, pp. 544-562. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Custance, Arthur C. The Sovereignty of Grace, pp. 149-174. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian &
Reformed.
Hodge, A.A. The Atonement, especially pp. 321-395. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; and
Memphis: Footstool Publications.
Morey, Robert. The Saving Work of Christ. Southbridge: Crowne Publications. J Clark, Gordon
H. The Atonement. Jefferson: Trinity Foundation.
Gill, John. Body of Divinity, pp. 390-4Q6, 427-439, 454-493. Paris: Baptist Standard Bearer.
Pink, Arthur W. The Sovereignty of God, pp. 72-86, 311-320. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Smeaton, George. The Doctrine of the Atonement According to the Apostles. Peabody:
Hendrickson. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 393-399. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Palmer, Edwin. The Five Points of Calvinism, pp. 41-55. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Gerstner, John. A Primer on the Atonement. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.

427

Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. I, pp. 29-85; vol. II, pp. 142-150.
Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (His essay on the Free Offer and the Atonement is most useful)
Thornwell, James Henley. The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. II, pp. 198298 (especially 198-200). Carlisle; Banner of Truth.
Peterson, Robert. Calvins Doctrine of the Atonement. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed.
Calvin, John. Sermons on the Saving Work of Christ. Evangelical Press, c/o Presbyterian &
Reformed.
Best, W.E. The Saviors Definite Redemption. Houston: South Belt Grace Church.
Boettner, Loraine, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 150-161. Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed.
Lightner, Robert. The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement. Schaumburg:
Regular Baptist Press. (The major 4 Point work, closely along the lines of Lewis Sperry
Chafer)
Armstrong, Brian. Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
(Frequently discusses the Amyraldian debates over the extent of the atonement, Calvin, etc.)
Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 363-412. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Pub.
Association.
Hoeksema, Herman. The Triple Knowledge, vol. I, pp. 508-543, 631-672. Grand Rapids:
Reformed
Free Publishing Association.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 448-487 (esp. 475-479). Grand Rapids: Baker.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Lectures in Systematic Theology, pp. 518-535. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.

428

Chapter 58. Limited Atonement.

1. Introduction.
A. The phrase Limited Atonement frequently raises the hackles of Christians because the work
of Christ is dear to our hearts; we react negatively to any term that implies a weakness of
deficiency in it. Is it not a perfect work? For this reason, many Calvinists referr the less
offensive term Particular Redemption. Both basically refer to the same concept. To varying
degrees and with some points of qualification and definition, Calvinists use these terms to refer
to the Third Point of Calvinism.
B. This is true regarding both those who speak of Christ dying only for the elect and those
who prefer to say Christ died especially for the elect. In both cases there is something more
than mere Universal Atonement. The nature of that more is the subject of this study.

2. Election and the Atonement.

A. We begin with the relationship between election and the atonement. This is usually the place
where Calvinists note some Particularity in the atonement. We have already established that
Scripture teaches that God has chosen only some persons to be saved (e.g. Eph. 1:4). That is
definite; they certainly shall be saved. Nothing can prevent it. They, and they alone, will be
saved.
B. We also pointed out that the sovereign God uses means. He is the first cause of all things
(Rom. 11:36), but in most cases He uses second causes, or means this is true regarding the
salvation of the elect. God first chose them to be saved and then He prepared a plan whereby
they would be saved in time. That plan was the Covenant of Redemption.
C. Occasionally theologians have argued whether such a plan was necessary. Could not God
have simply decreed to save the elect, thereby rendering them saved? Was it necessary that
anything transpire in time regarding salvation? Could they not have been born in a state of
salvation? Or, if born in sin, could not God simply have forgiven and saved them at an
appointed time? These are poignant questions.
D. We showed in our study on the Covenant of Redemption that a specific plan was necessary.
No, the elect could not have been born in a state of salvation, for they were elected out of a
fallen mass. We were born in sin and therefore were children of wrath, even as the rest of
mankind (Eph. 2:1-3). But what about the means whereby we are transferred from that state
into the state of salvation? Were means necessary? Most Calvinists have been emphatic that a
specific means was absolutely necessary, namely atonement. God could not merely have swept
our sins under the carpet. Blood had to be shed (Heb. 9:22). And that had to be the blood of
Christ. Samuel Rutherford and some other Supralapsarians suggested that God could have
decreed to accept another sacrifice, but most Calvinists strongly disagree.
E. So, then, the atonement was necessary for the salvation of the elect. And this was planned
in the Covenant of Redemption. Christ volunteered to provide the atonement for sin, the Father
agreed to accept it and the Spirit agreed to apply it. Thus, the primary design of the atonement
was to provide a sacrifice whereby the sins of the elect would be forgiven. Most Calvinists point
out that this means that in the order of the decrees, the decree of election preceded the decree
of atonement.

429

F. The extent of the atonement cannot be divorced from election. Christ died to provide the
means whereby sins could be forgiven, specifically the sins of the elect. To posit a strictly
universal atonement requires a radical reinterpretation of the Covenant of Redemption.

3. Special Grace and the Atonement.

A. Out of Special Grace, God chose the elect (Eph. 1:4-6, etc.). Hence, the matter of the extent
of the atonement must also be discussed as it relates to specialgrace. Scripture frequently
associates the love of God and the atonement, Rom. 5: 8, I John 3:16, 4:9-10, etc).
B. It is granted that Common Grace has a relation to the atonement, but there must logically
also be something more particular regarding the atonement for those who have been specially
loved and elected. The key verse here is Eph. 5:25, Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ
also loved the Church and gave Himself up for her. Christ has a special love for His bride, the
Church, which includes only the elect. This does not deny that He has a general love for all
mankind as well, but it does indicate a special love for His bride. That cannot be ignored. And
Paul associates this with the atonement in this verse. The phrase gave Himself up for her
refers to His self-sacrificial death on the cross (cf. Gal. 1:4, 2:20). Earlier in the same chapter,
Paul said that Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to
God, as a fragrant aroma.
C. This is one of the major arguments for Particular Redemption. For instance, John Gill wrote:
Those for whom Christ died, he loves with the greatest love; but he does not love every
individual man with the greatest love; therefore he died not for every individual man.
D. The key is the analogy of Christ the husband dying for His bride. To understand this, we
need to understand the Hebrew concept of marriage. First, the man and the woman were
betrothed to each other. This may have occurred even before either of them were born. Their
parents may have arranged the betrothal. From the moment of the betrothal, they were in a
sense married. That sense is that nothing except death or divorce could legally prevent the
marriage itself. But before the actual marriage could occur, there had to be an exchange, as it
were. The father of the bride provided a dowry, and the groom provided the marriage price. In
that sense the groom bought his bride, even though he was already legally obliged to marry
her. Then at the appointed time, they came together as man and wife.
E. This is a perfect type of Christ and the Church. In election and the covenant of Redemption,
Christ and the Church were betrothed to each other. The elect were given to Christ by God the
Father, and Christ was given to us also by the Father. The Covenant was an unalterable
marriage contract.
F. But, Christ the groom had to pay the marriage price for His bride. How did He do this?
Because of our sins, the price was death. Therefore, Christ gave Himself for the elect in death.
The atonement purchased us for Him. The next stage will be when Christ comes for His bride,
to be united with her in all the fullness of marriage. We are now presently betrothed to Christ (2
Cor. 11:2), not married to Him. We are His fianc, not His bride. But there is nothing that can
prevent our becoming His actual bride, for the price has been paid and He has pledged Himself
by election that He will not renege on the marriage contract.
G. Note what the text goes on to say, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed herby the
washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory...
(vss. 26-27). The order here is crucial. First, Christ loved the Church; this is election (vs. 25).
Next, He pays the marriage price; this is the atonement (vs. 25). Then, He prepares her for the

430

wedding; this is salvation applied (vs. 26); lastly, He presents her to Himself in marriage; this is
the final consummation of our union and glorification (vs. 27).
H. The point is simply this: Christ died with a special intent for His betrothed that He did not
have for the rest of mankind. He may have died to provide salvation for all in a general sense
(that is, to remove all legal impediments to them in case the Father chose to apply it to them),
but He died with a special intent for the elect. That special intent was to usher in salvation for
them in preparation for ultimate glorification when the elect are finally united with Christ.

4. The Shepherd Dying for the Sheep.

A. Scripture uses a variety of metaphors for Christ in His relation to His people. Not only is He
the groom, He is also the Shepherd. John 10 is the key passage, and like Eph. 5 it too mentions
it in relation to the atonement. Note vs. 11, I am the Good Shepherd; the Good Shepherd lays
down His life for the sheep (cf. vss.15, 17, 18). Christ the Shepherd loves the sheep in a
special way, so much that He*was willing to die to protect them from the wolves and hirelings.
And He did just that. He died for the sheep in such a way as to save them.
B. Now, someone will say, It says He died for the sheep, but it does not say that He died only
for the sheep. True, it does not explicitly say that. But the whole argument of the passage
demands this. Christ is making two contrasts. First, He contrasts Himself with hirelings and
thieves. The hirelings are evidently the false shepherds, namely, the false prophets. The thieves
are Satan and the demons. Next, He contrasts the sheep with those, which are not His sheep.
Note vs. 26, But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. These are unbelievers
who will always remain unbelievers. It does not include unconverted elect, for they will one day
be brought into the fold through faith (vs. 16). Those who are not of His flock are of two sorts.
First, they are goats, not sheep (cf. Matt. 25:32-33). Second, there are wolves, specifically
wolves in sheeps clothing (Matt. 7:15). The sheep are all elect; the goats and wolves are all
reprobate.
C. Now, then, is there any suggestion that Christ died for the goats or the wolves? It just does
not follow from the tenor of this passage. Christ repeats that He died for the sheep. This would
have no special meaning to His argument if He died for the goats and wolves in the exact same
sense.

5. The Atonement and Christs Special People.

A. Here, then, is a key principle in our argument. There are numerous passages, which assert
that Christ died for His people. They do not of themselves deny that He died for others in
another way, but they all imply that He died for them with a special intent. For example, what
would be the purpose of a man saying, I love my wife if he loved all other women in the exact
same sense? The fact that he specifies her in his statement necessarily implies that he has a
special love for her.
B. There are several passages which use this sort of language regarding the atonement Isa.
53:8 says that Christ died for the transgression of My people. This phrase My people means
more than simply national Israel. I have yet to meet a Calvinist Dispensationalist who limits the
atonement only to national Israel. Rather, it means the people of God in every dispensation.
Christ died especially for them.

431

C. Incidently, this touches on an argument sometimes mentioned by Calvinists. The Old

Testament sacrifices were types of the atonement of Christ. Yet the sacrifices were only for
Israel, not the Gentiles. In a sense, then, it could be argued that Christ gave a perfect sacrifice
for the Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), and not for the reprobate as such.
D. Then there is John 15:13-14, Greater love has no man than to lay down his life for his
friends. You are My friends... Christ died for the special group of people called His friends that
He did not for those who are not His friends. Otherwise, His statement loses all force. True, we
who are now His friends were once His enemies (Rom. 5:10), but His atonement transformed
us. We were chosen to be friends and something in the atonement provided the wherewithal
that made the transformation possible.
E. Acts 20:28 also falls into this category: ...to shepherd the Church of God which He
purchased with His own blood. This follows much of the argument of John 10.The elders are
under-shepherds, as it were. They are responsible to protect the sheep. What makes them so
special? The sheep are special because they were purchased by the blood of Christ, to suggest
that Christ died equally for the wolves as for the sheep would break down the point of Pauls
charge. If Christ died equally for all, one of the wolves could reply, Let us in, for Christ
purchased us, too. But Christ purchased the sheep in such a way as to protect them from the
wolves.
F. He also died to protect us from Satan. Incidently, here is an interesting point. Even
advocates of Universal Atonement must admit that there is some limitation in the atonement.
Only the most extreme heretics would wish to suggest that Christ died for the Devil and the
demons. Heb. 2:16 expressly says that He became a man to redeem men, not an angel to
redeem angels. Christ did not die for the reprobate angels, because they were all reprobate. But
He became a man to redeem elect men. But since the elect share humanity with the reprobate,
Christ took on this common humanity and in a sense removed the legal impediments for their
salvation, should they believe. But they will not believe because they are not elect.

6. Romans 8:32.
A. This verse is another key verse in the discussion. Paul is discussing the great blessings
bestowed upon the elect. Vss. 29-30 form the Golden Chain. Later he will say that nothing can
separate us from the love of Christ (vss. 35-19). In the midst of all this, he writes vs. 32, He
who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him
freely give us all things?
B. Now the point, which Calvinists usually make, is this: There is a necessary link between
Christs death and the gift of all else. If He gave us Christ, which is the greatest gift, then He
certainly will give us all other gifts. In logic we call this the Argument from the Greater to the
lesser.
C. But, if God gave Christ to die equally for all men, then it must necessarily follow that He will
give all things to all men. But we know that it not true. God will not give salvation to all men, for
He has not chosen all men to salvation.
D. What are these all things? They are all the other blessings of election, including the means
of salvation: perfect bodies, faith, Heaven, the Holy Spirit, etc. These are given only to the elect.
Therefore, there is something in the atonement only for the elect, and that something brings all
these blessings.
E. Should someone wish to argue that this verse uses the word all, we would point out that

432

Paul uses two words: us all. And who are the us of this passage? Only believers, only those
who have been elected according to Gods purpose (vss. 28-30).

7. Miscellaneous Arguments.
A. There are many other arguments, which Five Point Calvinists use to back up their belief in
Particular Redemption. Some have force, some do not. Let us deal with them. First, there is the
argument; Christ did not die for those already in Hell. Thus, He did not die for all men. Actually,
this is a weak argument and should not be used. Norman Douty counters it effectively by turning
it around. If Christ did not die for those already in Hell because their destiny had been reached,
then He could not have died for those already in Heaven either. But if so, then they must have
gone to Heaven other than through the blood of Christ, which is impossible. The truth lies
between these arguments. Christ died in such a way that those before and after His atonement
were saved because of it. Those who went to Heaven before Calvary were saved on the basis
of what would later happen. This does not of itself deny that in some sense Christ died for those
already in Hell, while on Earth, they could have been saved had they too believed in the still
future atonement.
B. Then there is the argument from the Trinity. It is argued that if Christ died for all men equally,
then there would be conflict within the Trinity. The Father chose only some and the Spirit
regenerates only some, so how could the Son die for all men in general? Actually, this argument
needs refinement. There are general and particular aspects about the work of each member of
the Trinity. The Father loves all men as creatures, but gives special love only to the elect. The
Spirit calls all men, but efficaciously calls only the elect. Similarly, the Son died for all men, but
died in a special manner for the elect. We must keep the balance with each of these. If, on the
one hand, we believe only in a strictly Limited Atonement, then we can easily back into a strictly
particular work of the Father and the Spirit. The result is Hyper-Calvinism, rejecting both
Common Grace and the universal Free Offer of the Gospel. On the other hand, if the atonement
were strictly universal, then there would be disparity. The tendency would be towards
Arminianism - the result would be to reject election and the special calling of the Spirit. C. Next,
Calvinists frequently appeal to John 17:9, I pray not for the world. Again, there is a balance
that needs to be kept. There is a sense in which Christ prayed only for the elect, and this is tied
in with the special aspect of the atonement. But there is also a general sense in which Christ
prayed for all men, even those who crucified Him (and certainly at least some of them were
reprobate!), and this is associated with the universal aspect of the atonement.

8. The Double Payment Argument.

A. This is another argument that needs refinement. It can easily be misused by either side. It is
summed up in the famous lines from A.M. Topladys hymn, Rock of Ages, viz, Payment
cannot God twice demand, First at my bleeding suretys hand, and then again at mine. If Christ
paid the debt for all men, then all men must necessarily be saved. If someone goes to Hell, then
God demands payment twice -first at the Cross, and then in Hell.
B. But this has weaknesses. First, it is nowhere taught in Scripture, explicitly or implicitly. Why
cannot God hold men extra guilty on account of the death of Christ? I would rephrase the
argument as follows. Christ died in one sense for all men. Some are given the gift of faith to
believe in Christ crucified, and this ratifies the payment of their debt. The rest do not receive
faith, for the atonement is never applied to them. Does that mean their debt was totally paid?

433

No, it means that the account was never finally settled. The potential payment for them was
never ratified. But since there was a payment in some sense, this redounds to greater
condemnation. Calvin spoke of such persons as doubly culpable. They are punished first for
their sins, and secondly because Christ provided a payment that they never accepted.
C. The Double Payment argument lies behind John Owens famous Treble Choice argument,
viz: Christ died either for (1) all the sins of all men; (2) all the sins of some men, or (3) some of
the sins of all men. He then argued that, (1) if the first were correct, then why are not all men
saved? (2) If the third were correct, then no man will be saved, for there would remain some
sins still on the books. (3) Hence, only the second can be true, namely, Christ died for all the
sins of only the elect.
D. This sounds like impeccable logic, but it has flaws. First, Scripture never says that a man
goes to Hell because there was no atonement provided for him. Rather, some men perish, and
their punishment is compounded because they rejected the atonement. Second, the reasons
why men are said to perish are twofold: (A) They were not chosen, (B) They did not believe.
Third, it could be counter-argued that in a sense Christ died for all men, but He does not apply
this to all men. The limitation was not in the provision, but in election and the application.

9. Conclusion.
A, Just as the Universal aspect of the atonement does not negate the Particular, so the
Particular does not negate the Universal. In the last study we showed that there is a sense in
which Christ died for all. In this study, there is a sense in which He died especially for His bride
out of special grace according to the Covenant of Redemption.

434

Chapter 59. Objections to Limited

Atonement.
1. Introduction.
A. The Third Point of Calvinism is the least popular, the hardest to understand, andthe one
which has attracted the most objections. In this study, we will briefly discuss the major
objections. Since there is great variety within Calvinists on the question of the extent of the
atonement, it is fitting that we mention how each major group answers the objections.
B. It is important to keep one principle in mind in handling these objections: the atonement has
two aspects to it. Hence, most objections can be handled by referring to the appropriate aspect.
For example, some objections can be answered by referring to the universal aspect of the
atonement. Some objections are leveled against the strictest forms of limited atonement, and
they would have weight if it were not for the universal aspect.

2. The Perishing Passages.

A. One of the popular objections concerns the perishing passages. Rom. 14:15 and I Cor.
8:11 tell us of persons perishing for whom Christ died. The objection runs something like this:
Limited atonement says that all for whom Christ died must necessarily be saved. If they are
saved, they can never perish. But these verses say that some for whom Christ died do in fact
perish. Therefore, not all for whom Christ died will ultimately be saved, and hence, it follows that
He died for all.
B. Occasionally a Calvinist will respond that these verses refer to the universal aspect of the
atonement, but by far most Reformed theologians answer differently. The standard answer is as
follows. Both texts specify that this person for whom Christ died is a brother. This term is
almost always used in Scripture (especially in Pauls letters) of a Christian brother, that is, a
believer. If a believer, then he is one of the elect. Now if one of the elect, he cannot perish in
the sense of losing his salvation (John 10:28). Rather, this elect brother is said to perish in the
sense of natural death.
C. So, Paul is simply warning against doing anything against a fellow believer. We should not
hurt his conscience; cause his death, or anything like that. Neither text addresses the question
of unbelievers, and in that sense they are irrelevant to the question of the extent of the
atonement. On the other hand, some Calvinists detect a hint of particularism in them. Paul says
that fellow believers are valuable because Christ died for them. Some sense that Paul is
suggesting that they have a special value because Christ died only for them, as if the injunction
would lose force of Christ died equally for all.

3. 2 Peter 2:1.
A. The next objection runs like this: 2 Pet. 2:1 says that these heretics denied the Lord who
bought them. They are reprobates. If Christ bought reprobates, then it is clear that He died for
all and not only for the elect.

435

B. There are several answers. First, some of the more strictly limited Calvinists reply that the
verse could be rendered, even denying that the Lord bought them. Ironically, this is just what
the Limitarians argue: they too deny that the Lord bought the reprobate. However, few hold this
interpretation. The grammar just does not allow it. The heretics denied the Lord, not that the
Lord bought them. How were they denying Christ while at the same time pretending to honor
Him? Titus 1:16 gives the answer: They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny
Him, being detestable and disobedient, and worthless for any good deed.
C. Theres another interpretation. Some suggest the word bought here has nothing to do
with the atonement. This view says that the heretics were Jews who were denying God who
bought them from Egypt in the Passover deliverance. This too has few adherents.
D. Then there is the view that says that they were not ever really bought by Christ. They simply
thought they were bought. But this view has great difficulties. The text does not say, denying
the Lord whom they thought bought them, but denying the Lord who bought them. It is Peter
the writer who specifies that Christ bought them.
E. The last view is more popular and does justice to the text. I favor this one. It is clear from the
text that Christ did in some sense buy even heretics and reprobates. This would be the
general aspect of the atonement, not the particular intent. Christ owns the whole world,
including the reprobate, by virtue of the atonement. He bought the reprobate to own them and
be their Master (Greek: DESPOTES, or absolute owner). But this does not mean that He
bought all men with the same intent. Just as in the parable of the treasure, Christ bought all men
in order to own them, but with the special intent of owning the elect.

4. The World Passages.

A. There are seven verses, which teach that Christ died for the world (John 1:29,3:16, 4:42,
6:33, 51; 2 Cor. 5:19, I John 2:2). The objection says that these settle the matter: Christ died for
the world, and therefore not just for some men.
B. Calvinists who believe in some special intent in the atonement reply in various ways. One is
simply to say that these verses refer to the universal aspect of the atonement. They take them
at face value in context and agree that Christ did in fact die for all men, the world, all human
beings. This is not to deny that He died in a special-way for. The elect, that is, with a special
intent (for He did not die in one way for one and in another way for the other, for there was only
one death). This general atonement merely means that Christ paid an infinite price, and all may
partake of it if they will. None will, of course, unless God gives him faith. And He gives faith only
to the elect. Hence, the provision is infinite and universal, but the intent and application are
particular.
C. The other way of handling them revolves around the word world. The more staunch
supporters of Limited Atonement have gone to great lengths to attempt to prove that world has
many meanings. For example, world (Greek: KOSMOS) sometimes means the entire created
universe (Acts 17:24). Or it can mean the Earth (John 13:1; Eph. 1:4). Then, too, it can mean
mankind in general. Or it can mean unbelievers in contrast with believers (John 15:18, and
much of John 17). Or it can mean Gentiles as opposed to Jews (Rom. 11:12, 15).
D. Now, at this point there are three main theories. First, world in these passages means
something like Gentile believers. Hence, Christ died for Gentile believers and not Jewish
believers alone. Second, world means world of the elect. If there is a world of unbelievers,
there is a world of believers. Third, world simply means mankind at large, but not inclusive of

436

everyone in it. B.B. Warfield was the main proponent of this third view. In other words, John
3:16 does not mean everyone in the world but a worldwide distribution of men. God created a
world of men and redeems a world of men, only the redeemed world is smaller.
E. 2 Cor. 5:19 has certain features which require note. One school of Calvinism goes to great
length to argue that world cannot mean each and every man in the world. The argument is that
when Christ died for this world, He actually reconciled it to God. When He died for them, their
sins were forgiven. Hence, to make world mean all in the world would necessitate ultimate
universal salvation.
F. Others, however, take world in its most common sense, namely, every member of the
human race. They interpret 2 Cor. 5:19 to refer to the universal provision of the atonement.
Christ died for the world of men at large to provide salvation for them. But they are not actually
saved until the atonement is applied to them. Advocates of this interpretation point out that Paul
could not have been saying that those for whom Christ died were automatically and actually
reconciled to God at the time of the atonement. First, they did not even exist. Second, when
born, they were born sinners and enemies of God in need of reconciliation. Third, Paul goes on
to call for sinners to Be reconciled to God (5:20).
G. I John 2:2 presents the most difficulties. The stricter Limitarians interpret it in several ways,
some take whole world in the Warfieldian sense, that is, the world at large but not including
reprobate. This is related to the more popular Limitarian view that says that John is saying
something like Paul did in his epistles concerning Jews and Gentiles. It is usually noted that
John was an Apostle to Jews (Gal. 2:7-9), Hence, John was writing to Jewish Christians. But he
knew there were Gentile Christians as well, and so he says in vs. 2 in effect, Jesus is the
propitiation not only for the sins of us Jewish believers but also for the sins of Gentile believers.
H. I have problems with that interpretation, and prefer to follow those who take this verse to
refer to the universal provision of the atonement. First, John nowhere makes the Jew/Gentile
contrast anywhere in his epistle, either explicitly or implicitly. Rather, his has always been
considered a Catholic Epistle - one meant for the Church at large. Second, 2:2 is but one of
many contrasts in the letter. John regularly contrasts we and they. He never once makes this
a contrast of Jews and Gentiles, or even Jewish believers and Gentile believers. In every single
instance it is a contrast between believers and unbelievers, Christians and non-Christians,
children of God and children of Satan, etc (cf. 2:19, 3:4-10,4:5-6).
I. Third, what does John mean by the whole world? The phrase occurs only one other place in
his writings, and that is right here in this same letter. Almost all grammarians would agree that if
a phrase occurs only twice in a writer, and those two times are in close proximity, then it is
virtually assured that they have the same meaning. Look, then, at 1 John 5:19, We know that
we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. This closely parallels 2:2,
where Our corresponds to we. There can be no disagreement as to the meaning of whole
world in 5:19. It does not mean Gentile believers but all unbelievers. Hence, it follows that I
John 2:2 refers to Christs provision of atonement for each and every man - not for believers
alone, but for all men everywhere. This is not to say that God intended to apply it to all men or
that He actually does apply it to every man. Rather, the provision is there for all.

5. The All Passages.

A. A similar state of controversy surrounds the passages that say that Christ died for all (2
Cor. 5:14, Heb. 2:9, I Tim. 2:4-6, I Cor. 15:22). On the one hand, there are those Calvinists who
take them at face value and agree that they teach that in some sense Christ died for literally

437

each and every man. This would be like their interpretation of the world passages - they refer
to the universal provision.
B. The more Limitarian school has to drastically reinterpret all in each of these passages. If a
single one of them or the world passages means literally all men, then the stricter theory of
limited atonement cannot stand. They begin by pointing out that all does not always mean all
without exception but can mean all without distinction. This is frequently believed to be the
case in several verses in the context of the Jew/Gentile contrast. In some places, all merely
means most or a large number. For example, Mark 1:5 says that all went to be-baptized by
John the Baptist, whereas Luke 7:30 says that the Pharisees did not. In other words, all can
be a legitimate hyperbole. They also refer to passages such as Acts 2:17, 22:15, 26:4; Matt.
10:22; and John 8:2. And they also say all can mean some of all kinds, and that the all and
world passages simply mean that Christ died to save men from all races and tribes and
languages and classes, as in Rev. 5:9, Thou west slain and didst purchase for God with thy
blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
C. First, 2 Cor. 5:14-15. The more Limitarian school takes this as a reference to all the elect. It
could be paraphrased, One died for all believers, who died in Him as their substitute. He died
for all believers so that they would one day live unto Him who died for them. The other school,
however, says this refers to the universal provision. They would paraphrase these verses
something like this: He died for all men, and hence they all died in Him as their substitute. He
died for all men to make provision especially for those who will be spiritually alive to Him who
died for them. Some take the phrase therefore all died to refer to their previous spiritual death,
as if to say, He died for all men, for all men were spiritually dead, In any case, this school says
that this teaches a universal provision and a particular intent and application.
D. Second, Heb. 2:9. While some Calvinists feel this refers to the universal aspect of the
atonement, most interpret it otherwise in context. First, the Greek is literally all, not all men.
But that is not a major point, except that all by itself could be relative. That is, all could mean
all of those about whom the author is speaking. Hence, the writer means that Christ tasted
death for all the sons (vs. 10), those who are sanctified (vs. 11), brethren (vs. 11), children
(vss. 13-14), the seed of Abraham (vs. 16), and the people (vs. 17).
E. Third, I Tim. 2:4-6 has been interpreted by Calvinists in two main ways. First, there is the
more limited school. They reason as follows. Paul tells us to pray for all kinds of men - not just
average men, but kings as well, etc. But of course, we cannot pray for literally all men (cf. John
5:16; John 17:9). Why, then, should we pray for men of all classes? Because God has chosen
men of all ranks. He has decreed salvation for some men of all stations in life. Moreover, Christ
died for men of all kinds - rich, poor, Jew, Gentile, black, white, male, female, etc. This
interpretation thus takes all to mean some of all kinds. 2:4 refers to the Secret Will of God,
not the Revealed Will. Christ died for some of all sorts, not for all men in general.
F. There is another Calvinist interpretation of these verses. First, all does mean all, each and
every member of the human race. We should pray for all men, from the highest to the lowest,
including the kings of vss. 1-2. Why? We should pray for all because God wills all to be saved.
This is not the Secret Will of election, but the Revealed Will of the Gospel. In the Secret Will,
God desires salvation only for the elect, but that is not what Paul is discussing here. Rather, the
Gospel tells all that God will receive all who come to Him. Further, Christ died for literally all men
according to the Revealed Will. He died to make a universal provision for all mankind. This is
the Universal aspect of the atonement, nothing more and nothing else.
G. Fourth, I Cor. 15:22. Again, there are two main interpretations. The more limited school
would paraphrase it, Just as all in Adam die, so all in Christ shall be made alive. These are two
different groups. All who are in Christ were born in Adam, but not all who are in Adam are

438

also in Christ. All who remain in Adam will remain in spiritual death, but all those in Christ will
be made alive.
H. Some of the more universal Calvinists take this line, but others offer another view. They say
that this refers to an unusual universal aspect of the atonement. Because Christ died for all
men, all men shall be resurrected one day. Some will go to Heaven, some to Hell. One problem
with this view is that, although Scripture teaches that even the reprobate will be raised one day,
I Cor. 15 is discussing only the resurrection of believers.

6. The Many Passages.

A. I Cor. 15:22 is similar to what Paul says in Rom. 5:18-19. Hence, the two schools offer
interpretations similar to their views of I Cor. 15:22. Rom. 5:12-21 shifts back and forth between
the terms all and many. In some places, they are clearly synonymous. The Limitarian school
takes this to mean all in Christ and not all men in general. The other school tends to follow
Calvin, who wrote of these verses: Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact
extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world,
and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive him.
B. There are other passages which speak of Christ dying for many (Isa. 53:11-12; Matt. 20:28,
26:28; Mark 10:45; Heb. 9:28). The stricter school takes these to mean many as opposed to
all. That is, Christ died for some but not all. The other school takes many to be a contrast with
few and as synonymous with all, as in Romans 5. This was Calvins view. Hence, these
verses are said to refer to the universal provision of the atonement by the blood of Christ.

7. The Free Offer.

A. Another objection runs like this, The free offer of the Gospel can go no further than the
extent of the atonement. If the atonement is limited, then there can be no universal offer of the
Gospel. It should be no surprise that Calvinists reply in a variety of ways. One somewhat
unusual reply is that of the Hyper-Calvinists. They see the objection and agree with it. But rather
than modifying their rather strict views of the extent of the atonement, they jettison the free offer.
B. The other Limitarian but non-Hyper-Calvinist school takes a different line. Some say there is
no relationship whatsoever between the extent of the atonement andthe extent of the free offer.
Others, that it is a mystery how we can hold to both. Others attempt a clarification.
C. Roger Nicole, for example, holds to a rather strict Limited Atonement but also a very
universal free offer. He argues that it is comparable to a sale advertised in the newspaper. The
ad offers 50% off all couches. Of course, the owner knows that only a few persons will actually
take advantage of the sale. He does not have to have as many couches in the store as people
who read the ad. Hence, there can be a small provision but an unlimited offer.
D. Others ground the universal free offer in the universal aspect of the atonement, specifically
the infinite value and universal sufficiency. Christs death had infinite value and more than
enough sufficiency- to alter Nicoles analogy, it would be as if the furniture storeowner had a
million couches, and his ad would-be read by only a thousand people. In other words, the
provision exceeds the offer Christ paid more than enough to cover the free offer.

439

8. Faith and Assurance.

A. There is another objection, which is somewhat, related to the free offer objection. It is this: If
Christ died only for the elect, then no man can believe that Christ died for him until he first
knows that he is one of the elect. But no man can know he is one of the elect until he first
believes in Christ and is converted. But to be converted, one must believe that Christ died for
oneself.
B. As with most of the objections, there are two main replies. First, the higher school
disagrees with one of the premises, namely, that one must believe that Christ died for oneself in
order to be saved. For example, they deny that the free offer says to all men Christ died for
you. That could not be true, for Christ did not die for all to whom the free offer comes.
Moreover, saving faith need not include the persuasion that Christ died for me. That assurance
may come later; such as after one discerns that he is one of the elect. We are saved, they say,
by faith in Gods promise to save on the basis of Christs work, but we need not (indeed, cannot)
know that Christ died for us.
C. The lower school disagrees. They contend that the free offer explicitly or implicitly says to
all men, Christ died for you. They ground this in the infinite value and universal sufficiency of
the atonement, not merely in Gods command to believe. Their key verses are I Cor. 15:3-4.
Paul reminds the Corinthians of whether preached to them before they became believers,
namely, Christ died for our sins.
D. Moreover, the lower school argues that the stricter view of the atonement places
unnecessary restrictions on the free offer. Granted, the average Limitarian disagrees with the
Hyper-Calvinists who completely deny the idea of universal free offers, but they cannot give the
universal free offer that in any way says, Christ died for you to all men. Hence, this weakens
the call to faith. Why? The lower school, following Calvin, makes it essential to saving faith to be
persuaded that Christ died for me. One may have this persuasion explicitly or implicitly, but it
is always there. This school directs men first to the Cross-, and then after conversion to the
question of whether one is an elect or not. Their key verse is Gal. 2:20, the Son of God who
loved me and gave Himself for me. They say this is part of justifying faith, which is the context
of Gal. 2. This was the interpretation of Luther and Calvin, but not those of the more limited
school.

9. The Objection Based on Majority Opinion.

A. This last objection runs like this: No major theologian has believed in any limitation in the
extent of the atonement. This is easily dismissed by listing some of the great theologians who
have taught that there is something particular in the design of the atonement. They would
include: John Owen, Francis Turretine, William Perkins, Theodore Beza, Jonathan Edwards,
John Gill, Charles Hodge, C.H. Spurgeon, Abraham Kuyper, John Murray, and Cornelius Van
Til. The list could be greatly amplified.
B. A variation of this objection is this: Calvin himself did not believe in limited atonement.
Replies again vary. Those holding to the stricter limited views tend to argue that Calvin did
believe in limited atonement, though most of them have not checked it out. They tend to react
like someone whose purity of ancestry has been challenged. Only a few have said Calvin was
universal but was wrong.
C. Others admit that Calvin taught that Christ died for all men. Some agree with Calvin, and the

440

problem disappears. Others agree that Calvin taught universal atonement, but disagree with
Calvin and go further themselves.
D. The best answer is that it ultimately doesnt matter what Calvin or Owen or anyone else
teaches. They may be worthy theologians, but they are not infallible. Good Calvinist theologians
have differed on the extent of the atonement. Some have been rather strict in their limitation of
the extent of the atonement, such as John Owen and the Hyper-Calvinists. Others have been
quite universal on the matter, such as Calvin, Luther, Bunyan, Doddridge, Watts, Ryle, Griffith
Thomas, Chafer, and a host of others. Still others have attempted a middle course.
E. The real issue is rather, What saith the Scriptures? These three studies on the extent of the
atonement have shown that there are Scriptures that teach that Christ died for all men, and
there are others that say He died specifically for His people, the elect. They are not
contradictory, but complementary. The Scriptural view, then is that Christ died for all men as
sinners to remove all impediments in case they believe, but also that He died especially for the
elect, to whom alone it is efficaciously applied by the Spirit with the gift of saving faith. The
universal and particular aspects of the atonement have been eternality married to each other,
and what God has joined together let no man put asunder.

441

Chapter 60. Irresistible Grace.

1. Introduction.
A. Thus far we have shown from the Scriptures that every man is totally depraved and unwilling
of himself to believe and be saved. We have also shown that God has sovereignly chosen some
sinners to be saved. Here, then, we are faced with a unique dilemma. If men must believe to be
saved but are unable to do so, how is it that some of them do in fact come to believe? Arthur
Custance remarks: If a man by nature always resists the grace of God, then in order for that
grace to be effectual it must in some sense be irresistible; for if the grace of God were
ineffectual none would be saved, and this we know is not the case.
B. The answer to the dilemma, then, is the Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace. This is the
Fourth Point of Calvinism. It builds upon the foundation of the first two Points (Total Depravity
and Particular Election), and like all the Points of Calvinism, it presupposes the absolute
sovereignty of God.
C. Now the term itself does not occur in Scripture, but the truth of the doctrine is found
frequently in Scripture. Let us define some of the basic terms we shall be using. Grace is the
unmerited favor of God, specifically regarding salvation. It is sovereignly given. It is the special
love of God. Irresistible means that no man can successfully resist it when it is bestowed on
him. Some Calvinists prefer the term invincible, meaning that it conquers the will of Man.
Others like the word efficacious or effectual, meaning that it always effects what God intends.
This grace is particular; it is for the elect alone and not for all men. The Westminster
Confession gives this explanation of what we mean:
All those whom God hath predestined 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 an 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 (X:l).

2. Special Calling.
A. One of the first stages of the application of Irresistible Grace is that of Special Calling, also
termed Particular Vocation. Reformed theology recognizes that the Bible speaks of two kinds of
calls. The first is universal. It is the Gospel, mentioned in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:1920; Mark 16:16; Acts 1:8, etc). God calls all men who hear the Gospel to believe (Mark 16:16)
and repent (Acts 17:30). Christ invites all men who hear the Gospel to come to Him (Matt.
11:28;Rev. 22:17). This is the universal free offer of the Gospel.
B. But there is another calling. This is given only to the elect: Many are called, but few are
chosen (Matt. 22:14). Not all who hear the Gospel are elect. Thefree offer of the Gospel is
external; the Special Call is internal. This SpecialCalling is part of the Golden Chain of Salvation
(Rom. 8:30. Cf. 2 Pet. 1:10).
C. Gal. 1:15 says that Paul was called through His grace. Irresistible Grace is inseparable
from Special Calling. By this unique application of grace, elect sinners are called out of

442

darkness into salvation (I Pet. 2:9). All previous links in the Golden Chain were totally outside of
the sinner and were -antecedent to salvation. Now salvation is applied and given: he saved us
and called us with a holy calling (2 Tim. 1:9).
D. This Special Calling is referred to many times in Scripture, always applicable to believers
alone (e.g. Rom. 1:7, 9:24; I Cor. 1:9, 26; Gal.-5sl3; Eph. 4 4; Col. 3:15; I Thess. 2:12, 4:7; I
Tim. 6:12; I Pet. 2:21, etc.). But there are three passages in particular which illustrate its
teaching.
E. The first is Acts 16:14, and the Lord opened her heart to respond the things spoken by
Paul Lydia was another totally depraved sinner. She had a hard heart and could neither hear
nor respond from the heart to the things of the Gospel Paul gave the external, general call of the
Gospel. But only when the Spirit worked miraculously in her heart was she able to truly hear and
believe. When the Spirit opens the heart, a sinner automatically responds.
F. Second, in John 10:16 and 27, Jesus said, My sheep hear my voice. Obviously all men
heard the external words of Christ. But the wolves and goats would not follow Him. So He give a
secret, special call to those whom He has chosen to be His sheep When they hear, they
automatically follow Him. But they alone hear this call.
G. Third, there is the parable in Luke 14:16-24. In the parable, a man gives a banquet and
sends servants to invite people in. Those who hear the invitation make all sorts of excuses to
absent themselves from coming. Then the man sends the messengers out again in a different
way: Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my
house may be filled (vs. 23). Medieval Roman Catholicism misunderstood this text to mean that
special inquisitors could compel men to believe in Catholicism, through the use of torture. But
that is all wrong. No man can save another person. The text means something different. The
first group of messengers are Christians. We give the universal invitation to all men to come to
the salvation banquet, which Christ has furnished. But of themselves, none will ever come. They
will all make excuses. The free offer is resistible. But then God sends out another call, one that
is irresistible. When the Holy Spirit gives this call, He compels sinners to come in. But He does
not do this with all men; else all men would be saved. He goes where He pleases (John 3:8). He
compels only the elect. When He calls in this way, they always come.

3. The Drawing Influence of the Holy Spirit.

A. Another key text is John 6:44, No man can come unto me unless the Father who sent me
draws him. The Father draws men to Christ by means of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 14-16). In
previous lessons we pointed out that this text proves the doctrine of Total Depravity, specifically
Total Inability. Fallen Han always fights against God; he never seeks for God (Rom. 3:11); he
never wants to come to Christ. Indeed, he is unable to want to come.
B. God, then, must do something in the sinner to make him willing. And this He does through
Irresistible Grace. Note that the text says, unless the Father draws him. The Father sends the
Spirit to draw the sinner to Christ in a special way. Now, non-Calvinists may agree up to a
point here. The usual view is that the Spirit draws all men who hear the Gospel. Well, the Spirit
does draw all who hear, but not all in the same way. The general drawing is always resisted and
rejected. But there is another drawing, which is referred to here. It always wins.
C. The key word is draw. In Greek it is the word HELKO (related to HELKUO). It has a
specific meaning behind it: compelling force. It is used in John 21:6 and 11 of fishermen
dragging a net (hence the word dragnet). The net of itself could not successfully resist. In

443

John 18:10, it is used of Peter drawing his sword. In Acts 16:19 and 21:30, it is used of Paul
and Silas being dragged by a mob. James 2:6 uses it of rich men dragging poor men into
court.
D. HELKO meant to drag, compel, pull, force, overwhelm. Note the following examples of its
use in ancient Greek: to drag a dead body by the foot, to drag away a prisoner, to drag a felled
tree, to draw ships down to the sea, to pull a chariot to pull a plow, to drag chains, to pull a cloak
behind oneself, to drink a liquid, to draw a bowstring, to hoist sails, to lift up scales, to pull a
barge pole, to tow a ship, to compel another person to work for you. In every instance we find
superior force being exerted on an object or person, with the necessary result that the one doing
the dragging was successful.
E. The point is simply this: when God sets out to save one of the elect, He so works on his
heart that He successfully overcomes all resistance. He irresistibly and efficaciously draws the
sinner to Christ. It never fails.

4. Power Grace.
A. But why does this always succeed? Simply put, God always succeeds in something when
He uses omnipotence. General mercy to all men does not have the force of omnipotence behind
it, else all men would be saved. Irresistible Grace is simply the combination of electing grace
and omnipotence.
B. A few years ago, John Wimber wrote a book entitled Power Evangelism. Being an Arminian,
he does not believe in the real power in evangelism. Believers can witness and preach all they
want to, but that will never save a single soul. It takes God the Spirit, the divine evangelist, to
successfully win a soul to Jesus. He wins sinners by what I term power grace. Note how Paul
speaks of it in I Thess. 1:5, our Gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and
in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. He also speaks of it in Eph. 1:19, what is the
surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the
working of the strength of His might. The same omnipotent, invincible power that raised Christ
from the dead also successfully and efficaciously raises elect sinners from spiritual death. That
is real power.
C. Have you ever pondered the philosophical concept, What happens when the unstoppable
force meets the immovable object? Even natural physics says that such is a contradiction;
something must give way. The same is true in salvation. Mans fallen will is dead and hardened
against coming to Christ. Of itself it is immovable. Then Gods force comes and meets it. Which
will win out? Why, God will, of course. Divine omnipotence is always greater than our sin and its
power. When God is set to convert a man, even total depravity must give way. We have already
shown that God is sovereign in Providence. He is also sovereign in salvation. Man cannot stop
Providence, nor can he thwart Irresistible Grace.
D. Note Psa. 110:3, Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power. The Hebrew word
means, be willing, volunteer, offer a sacrifice. Of ourselves, we are unwilling and unable to do
this. But what is impossible with Man is not impossible with God. God sends forth special power
and overwhelms the will of Man. He makes men willing to come to Christ. He works in and
through and behind their wills in such a sovereign way that they will exactly as He wants them to
will: God is at work in you, both to will and to work of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13).
E. This is much the same as another phenomenon in the Bible. The Old Testament frequently
speaks of the Holy Spirit coming upon such-and-such a person (e.g. Num. 11:25-29, 24:2; I

444

Sam. 10:6, 10, 11:6, 16:13; Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29,13:25, 14:6; 2 Chron. 15:1, 20:14, 24:20.
Cf. Rev. 1:10). This usually was related to the gift of prophecy. When the Spirit came upon such
a man, he was given a message from God and could not resist the overwhelming drive to speak
it. Jeremiah attempted to resist, but could not. The same is true in salvation. When the Spirit
comes upon a sinner, he too is given a message and is too weak to successfully resist. The
message is faith. The Spirit gives the sinner faith in Christ (cf. I Cor. 12:3). Just as with the
prophets and mighty men of old, when the Spirit comes upon a sinner, he is not only able to do
what he was unable to do before; he is also compelled to do it. Irresistible Grace both enables
and compels a sinner to believe in Christ and be saved.

5. The Wooing of Irresistible Grace.

A. Though this grace is irresistible, we ought not to think of it as merely raw force. God does not
save us by grabbing us by the scruff of the neck and drag us kicking and screaming to the
Cross. Sure, we kick and scream before this grace is given, but not after. God does not simply
use mere force. He does not make us an offer you cant refuse. He couples power with grace.
It is power love.
B. We find the Greek word ELKO in two pertinent Old Testament passages in the Greek
Septuagint. In Jer. 31:3, God says, I have loved you with an everlasting love. Therefore with
loving kindness have I drawn you. And in Hosea 11:4, I led them with cords of a man, with
bonds of love. Irresistible grace is that special love of God whereby He woos His Bride to
Himself in such a way that He wins her over. She comes willingly, as when she confesses in
Song of Solomon 1:4, Draw me after you and let us run together! The king has brought me into
His chambers.
C. This is that same special love of God that chose the elect in the first place. Irresistible Grace
is simply the temporal application of Electing Grace, First He chooses us, then He woos us. In
both, He is successful. He overcomes all obstacles. He is intent on bestowing His love upon His
beloved, in such a way that guarantees her love in return. You may recall the old song, You
made me love you. I didnt want to do it, but you made me love you. And such a one willingly
receives and returns this love.
D. Now, what exactly is there in this grace that does the trick? Not just power, but something
else. This grace is the grace of Christ. It tells us of Him, Him who is altogether lovely and
suitable and perfect* To change the metaphor slightly, you may conceive of it as walking
through an art gallery, strolling past painting after painting, until you are arrested by the
overwhelming beauty of a certain picture. You cannot take your eyes off it. Its beauty draws you
to it. Lovers know what this is like on a personal level. And Christians know what it is like on the
spiritual level. When the Spirit shows us Christ for the first time as He really is, we are irresistibly
drawn to Him. To make this grace resistible, therefore, is to detract from the perfect beauty that
resides in Christ.

6. Objections.
A. But what about Acts 7:51, You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart are
always resisting the Holy Spirit? Actually, this verse only illustrates the First Point of Calvinism.
Fallen Man always fights against the Holy Spirit. He kicks against the pricks, he hardens his
heart, he stubbornly refuses to believe. This does not mean, however, that the Spirit has been

445

frustrated. No, the Spirit has a general way of striving with sinners that can be successfully
resisted. But He also has a particular, irresistible way of working on mens hearts. He had
worked irresistibly on Stephens heart but had not on the hearts of the Pharisees. Later in Acts
we read of how He irresistibly worked on the heart of one of those Pharisees, namely, Paul of
Tarsus. When He works like that, Man gives up.
B. The Spirit makes all men able to believe, but He doesnt compel them to believe. This is
not what the Bible teaches. First, there is no text, which teaches that God gives a hypothetical
potential faith to all men (or all who hear the Gospel), steps back, and leaves it to them
whether they will place this faith in Christ. It is true that the Spirit enables sinners to believe. But
He does not do this with all men. Moreover, as we showed already, He not only enables us to
believe, He compels us to believe.
C. But what about free will? The human will is sacrosanct and off-limits to God. No, Man does
not have free will. His will is dead in sins (Eph. 2:1-3) and is a slave, not free. Moreover, there is
not an inch in the universe that is off-limits to God. As we saw in our studies on Providence,
Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility and Total Depravity, God can and does govern
the human will. But doesnt John 12:32 say that Christ draws all men to Himself? Calvinists
offer several answers. Some say that all means all kinds or all the elect. Others say this
refers to the general calling of the Gospel. Still others interpret it to refer to the Phil. 2 motif, that
is, that because of the Cross Christ is Lord of all men. Hence, He will draw all men under His
authority and judgment.
E. It is unfair for God to work like that in some but not all. The Canons of Dort anticipated this
objection, and replied: God is under no obligation to confer this grace upon any (3/4: 15). No
man, even the elect, deserves this grace or any other grace. Therefore, if God so chooses to
bestow it - and that irresistibly - upon some, are we cheated? Cannot He do what He wants to
with what is His?
F. The last objection is the most serious. We will quote it from the words of one of its main
proponents, Norman Geisler: Irresistible grace (?) on the unwilling is a violation of free choice.
For true love is persuasive but never coercive. There can be no shotgun weddings in heaven...
God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a
divine rapist! This is dangerous heresy. It presumes that men have free will, which they do not.
If Geisler were right that God never exerts invincible power, then no man would ever be
convinced or converted. Those making this objection, including Dr Geisler, have not yet
plumbed the depths of their own sinfulness. Moreover, it severely limits the sovereignty of God.
Where does he get the notion that God cannot and does not force us to love Him? This is
exactly what the Bible teaches, as we have shown. Moreover, Geisler greatly errs in comparing
the Reformed doctrine of Irresistible Grace to rape. First off, rape is not love, but a form of
hatred and lust. Second, victims of rape do not reply with love for their attackers. Third, neither
victim nor rapist continues to love the other. The whole objection is dangerous. It is tantamount
to high blasphemy. It only shows that Arminians have a severely limited view of Gods majesty,
sovereignty, power and true grace. God loves His elect too much to leave, them in their sins. He
forcibly and lovingly rescues them. Once rescued, they are eternally and lovingly grateful. It is
not rape; it is true romance.

7. Conclusion.
A. This is only an introduction to a deep subject. There is still much mystery in it. The hymn is
right: I know not how the Spirit moves, convincing men of sin; revealing Jesus through the

446

Word, creating faith in Him. But the point is, it happens and we praise God for it. As the Canons
of Dort explain, The manner of this operation cannot be fully comprehended by believers in this
life. Notwithstanding which, they rest satisfied with knowing and experiencing, that by this grace
of God they are enabled to believe with the heart and love their Savior (3/4:13).
B. Praise God for His Irresistible Grace!
Recommended Reading
Wells, David F, God the Evangelist: How the Holy Spirit Works to Bring Men and Women to
Faith. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hoeksema, Herman. The Wonders of Grace. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing
Association.
Flavel, John. The Method of Grace. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Also contained in The
Works of John Flavel, vol. II. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Hoekema, Anthony. Saved By Grace, pp. 80-92. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Goodwin, Thomas. The Work of the Holy Spirit in Our Salvation. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Winslow, Octavius. The Work of the Holy Spirit. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Pink, A.W. The Sovereignty of God, pp. 49-79. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Booth, Abraham. The Reign of Grace. Reiner/Grace Abounding Ministries.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 162-181. Phi 11ipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. II, pp. 543-565. Carlisle: Banner.

447

Chapter 61. The New Birth.

1. Introduction.
A. Until the mid-1970s, the phrase Born Again was known and used almost exclusively by
Evangelical Christians. Then things changed. President Jimmy Carter said that he had been
born again. Billy Graham wrote a book entitled How to Be Born Again. The media picked up on
it, and soon it took on new meanings. For example, a born again Republican would not mean
a religious member of the G.O.P., but rather a new convert to the Republican Party. There was
even a song entitled, With You I Am Born Again, referring to the positive effects of a new
romance.
B. The phrase, however, is a Biblical one and a good one. Jesus used it (John 3)and other
Biblical writers used the same metaphor. In theology, the more precise term is regeneration.
Regeneration is the same as the new birth, or spiritual rebirth, being born again.
C. This will not be a complete study on regeneration. As we are looking at the Fourth Point of
Calvinism, we will examine regeneration as it applies to Irresistible Grace. We will especially
look at those aspects of regeneration, which illustrate the sovereignty of God in salvation. All
Evangelicals believe in the doctrine of the new birth, but there are certain Reformed distinctive
which differentiate our view from, say, the Arminian view.
D. First, let us eliminate several misconceptions. Regeneration is not:
(1) Reincarnation. Those who believe in reincarnation frequently use the term(born
again . But reincarnation is a Hindu heresy, not a Biblical truth. It is appointed unto man
once to die, and after this the judgment (Heb.9:27).
(2) Moral Reformation. There was once a movement called Moral Re-Armament. Many
people still think that regeneration is simply making new resolutions. It is not.
(3) Law Keeping. Similarly, many think that one can be born again by keeping the10
Commandments, the Golden Rule, and such, or at least most of them. But Gal.3:21
says, If a Law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would
indeed have been based on Law. But no such law exists.
(4) Deification. Kenneth Copeland, among others, teaches that Dogs beget dogs, cats
beget cats, God begets little gods. Man will never be a little god. One of Satans first lies
was the promise of deity to Man (Gen. 3:5). Some reach this false conclusion through a
misunderstanding of 2 Peter 1:4. The new birth involves the infusion of the life of Christ.
We are Gods, not gods.
(5) Death. Some groups, such as the Armstrong cult (the Worldwide Church of
God),teach that nobody is born again in this life. To them, regeneration occurs the
moment we die physically. However, virtually all of the Biblical references to
regeneration use the past or perfect tense. Regeneration happens in this life.
(6) Christs Experience. Another false view says that we are born again just as Christ
was, whether in His Incarnation or Baptism. However, Jesus was never born again. He
never had to be regenerated, for the simple fact that He was always spiritually alive. The
closest analogy would be His Resurrection. This error supposes that we can be just like
Jesus in every way. We cannot.

448

2. John 3.
A. John 3 is the classic passage on spiritual rebirth. Unfortunately, many who read it are as
confused as Nicodemus, who was baffled by Christs words (later he understood and was
indeed born again). There are several points, which are essential to Christs discourse. The first
is the utter necessity for rebirth. Vss. 3 and 5 are virtually the same - without spiritual rebirth,
one cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. There are no exceptions. To underscore this in no
uncertain terms, Jesus said bluntly in vs. 7, You must be born again. This was the favorite text
of the great Calvinist evangelist George Whitefield. When asked why he preached it so often, he
replied, Because you must be born again.
B. Second, spiritual rebirth equips and prepares one for the Kingdom of God. This does not
refer to an earthly, Jewish kingdom then or at a later time. Rather, the Kingdom of God is the
realm or empire under the direct rule of King Jesus. He inaugurated it when He was on earth
and has been ushering the elect into it ever since. How? Through regeneration. Col. 1:13, He
delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the Kingdom of His beloved
Son. The Kingdom is already in existence; but its final consummation comes when the King
returns.
C. Third, note the different verbs in vss. 3 and 5. Vs. 3 has see, while vs. 5has enter. What
does this mean? It can mean either or both of two things. They can be synonyms. We use them
this way when we say Youll never see the inside of my house, meaning Youll never enter it.
Once entered, we see it. Or it can mean perception. Calvinists frequently point out that the
unregenerate are spiritually blind and are not even capable of perceiving Christs Kingdom.
D. Fourth, there is also a curious adverb used in vs. 7. It can mean either again or from
above. Perhaps it means both, or what we would call a double entendre. Certainly this
spiritual rebirth is from above, as James 1:17 tells us. But it is also patent from John 3 that it is
a second birth, a new birth. Comparing John 3 and Rev. 20, we can see a principle here: He
that is born once dies twice, but he that is born twice dies once.
E. Fifth, regeneration is spiritual, not physical. This is one of the main points Jesus made and
over which Nicodemus stumbled. It is also the point over which many stumble today. There is
nothing which we can do physically to make ourselves born again, for the simple fact that
nothing physical can be the cause of anything spiritual.
F. Sixthly, regeneration is sovereignly given. Vs= 8 says it is like the wind, the new birth is
given sovereignly by the Holy Spirit. No man deserves it. No man can do anything of himself to
bring it about, either for himself or for others. Nor can we fully describe it; it remains somewhat
mysterious. Moreover, no man can predict it. We cannot prophesy that such and such a person
will be reborn. Now this is not total randomness. The Spirit does not flip coins. We cannot
discern His pattern, but He can. The Spirit simply regenerates all those whom God has elected,
and He does it at the appointed time. Psa. 65:4, How blessed is the one whom Thou dost
choose and bring near to Thee. Regeneration is the work of the Trinity. Just as the Spirit
regenerates whom He will, so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes (John 5:21). No
election, no regeneration.

3. I John.
A. There are six places in I John that mention spiritual rebirth (2:29, 3:8-9, 4:7,5:1, 4, 18). In
them, John makes two complementary points. The positive is that the one who has been

449

spiritually reborn practices righteousness as a way of life (2:29, 3:9). Not only is he new inside,
but his lifestyle has changed. This new life is especially characterized by love (4:7) and
overcoming sin (5:4).
B. The negative side of this is that regeneration prevents one from living in permanent,
perpetual sin (3:8-9, 5:18). This has great implications for the Fifth Point of Calvinism, as we
shall see later. The one who has been reborn has a new nature, and one always acts according
to his nature. The fallen sinner still has only one nature, so he only practices sin - the First Point
of Calvinism. But believers have two natures, and their lives are spent going back and forth, as
it were, between the two. One day, the old nature will be totally taken away from them and they
will be incapable of any sin whatsoever.

4. Three Parallel Metaphors.

A. Scripture uses three other metaphors, which describe spiritual regeneration. The first is
spiritual resurrection. Sinners are totally depraved and dead in sins. They do not need medicine,
they need life. They require resurrection, not resuscitation. See Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13; Rom.
4:17. I John 3:14 describes it as spiritually passing out of death into life. Jesus first raises a
man from spiritual death now, and then from physical death later (see John 5:24). How? By the
Holy Spirit. Ezek. 37 describes this. Note especially vs. 14, And I will put my Spirit within you
and you will come to life.
B. Remember that Total Depravity means that a sinner is spiritually dead. Among other things,
this means that he is separated from God. Resurrection, then, would mean being re-united with
God. Spiritual resurrection is spiritual reunion. Further, it is the very infusion of the life of Christ.
This is especially brought out in the Gospel of John, who terms it eternal life.
C. The second parallel metaphor is that of a new creation. If anyone is in Christ, he is a new
creation (2 Cor. 5:17. Cf. Gal. 6:15). It is as radical a change as being re-created. Eph. 2:10
seems to be describing this as well, and uses a slight variation on the theme. There, it is not
merely creation, but artistic creation. God repaints us, as it were. He reforms the image of God
in us.
D. The third parallel metaphor is a new heart (Ezek. 11:19, 36:26-27). Our old hearts were rock
hard in sin; but in regeneration God gives us new hearts. The Great Physician gives us a heart
transplant. One of the purposes of this transplant is brought out in Jer. 24:7, And I will give
them a new heart to know me, for I am the Lord. Without it, we cannot know God personally.
Deut.10:16 and 30:6 use a slight variation on this metaphor. Instead of transplantation of the
heart, the figure is of circumcision of the heart.

5. Qualities of the New Birth.

A. There are many qualities of the new birth, but four seem to stand out. The first is that it is
complete and instantaneous. There are several preparatory stages, but the new birth itself
occurs in the twinkling of an eye. One is either regenerate or he is unregenerate. He cannot be
both and there is no middle ground. There are no degrees of regeneration. Hence it is
unrepeatable. One is born again, but not born again and again and again. The new birth is
perfect in itself. In fact, the passages in I John all use the perfect tense, meaning that it occurs
in the past with the results continuing into the present.

450

B. Hence, there is no such thing as Dormant Regeneration, as taught by many nonEvangelicals and even a few Calvinists such as Abraham Kuyper. This error supposes that one
can be regenerate but not yet have faith, sanctification, conscious assurance, and so forth. It
frequently is associated with the notion of infant regeneration, then later the person confirms his
faith. But the Bible knows nothing of such a theory. Nor does it know anything of the theory
posited by some Lutherans, that regeneration has several ongoing stages. No, a baby is born
only once, but thereafter grows by stages. Growth, nor birth, has stages.
C. The second quality worth noting is that regeneration is the same in every Christian. Nobody
is more regenerate than anyone else. Nor does anyone have a different kind of spiritual birth
than anyone else. There may have been some differences in the human particulars preceding
regeneration, but every true Christian has been born again exactly the same as every other
Christian. Incidently, all Christians and only Christians are born again. Hence, the phrase born
again Christian does not mean that some are and some are not. Anyone who has not been
born again simply is not a Christian.
D. Third, being born again occurs simultaneously with what is called the Baptism of (or in) the
Holy Spirit. The figure of Spirit-baptism is that of the Spirit placing us into Christ and His Body.
At the same time, Christ puts us into the Spirit. Result: we are in Christ and in the Spirit.
Similarly, at the exact same time Christ comes into us with the Spirit. Result: Christ and the
Spirit are in us. See I Cor. 12:13. By comparing the various verses in this study, you will note
that many of them link regeneration with the gift of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Ezek. 11:19, 36:26-27).
All who have been born again have the Holy Spirit, and vice-versa.
E. Lastly, regeneration begins the reversal of the Fall. Total depravity means that all aspects of
a mans being have been affected by sin. In regeneration, all aspects of a mans being are
affected by the life of Christ. The Christian has a new heart, the mind of Christ, new desires, and
so on. Among other things, this tells us that regeneration is primarily spiritual and internal. It is
that special thing that God does in us (Phil. 1:6).
F. But regeneration is more than simply the restoration of what Adam lost in Eden. We regain
what was lost, but we receive even more. We receive the very life of the Second Adam - Jesus
Christ.

6. The Means of Regeneration.

A. The entire Trinity is involved in regeneration (e.g., John 5:21). But there is a sense in which it
can be said that regeneration is primarily the work of the Holy Spirit, even as election was
primarily the work of the Father and redemption was the work primarily of the Son.
B. Note, for example, how Jesus specified that regeneration was being born of the Spirit in
John 3. He also said, It is the Spirit who gives life (John 6:63,which is echoed almost verbatim
in 2 Cor. 3:6). In the last lesson, we pointed out that Irresistible Grace was comparable to the
phenomenon of having the Holy Spirit irresistibly come upon oneself. I Sam 10:6 associates
this with regeneration: Then the Holy Spirit will come upon you mightily, and you shall prophesy
with them and be changed into another man.
C. There is a dangerous error, which must be cautioned against at this juncture. Though the
Holy Spirit is personally involved in giving the new birth, this does not at all mean that the Spirit
is a mother-figure. Such is the heresy being propagated by religious feminists. No, the Spirit is
not a mother at all.
D. Tit. 3:5 is an important verse on regeneration. It says that we are born again by Gods

451

mercy, not by our works. Paul also specifies that it is the washing of regeneration and renewing
by the Holy Spirit. What does this washing mean? Unfortunately, many have taken this and
the water of John 3:5 to mean water baptism. That cannot be. For one thing, the whole point of
John 3 is that regeneration is spiritual, not physical. Let me repeat: nothing physical can be the
cause of anything spiritual. Many cults, churches (especially the Roman Catholic Church), and
preachers teach baptismal regeneration. But not God.
E. What, then, is the water of John 3:5? Scholars offer several suggestions:
(1) Natural birth. One needs more than natural birth; he needs spiritual birth. Without
both, he will never see Heaven. See vss. 4 and 6.
(2) The Holy Spirit. The word and in Greek (KAI) sometimes means even. Hence, it
could mean born of water, that is, of the Holy Spirit.
(3) The Word of God. Paul specifically speaks of the Word of God washing us in Eph.
5:26.
F. This brings us to the means, which the Spirit uses to effect the new birth. Some Calvinists
believe in Immediate Regeneration. This view says that He acts directly and without any means.
But most Calvinists believe in Mediate Regeneration. This is clearly the Biblical view. But what
is the means, which the Spirit uses? Scripture repeatedly tells us the answer: you have been
born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and
abiding Word of God (I Pet. 1:23). James 1:17 teaches the same thing. Rebirth occurs when
the spiritual seed germinates. The seed is the Word of God, said Jesus (Luke 8:11). Spiritual
hearing and faith come through the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Not all who hear the Word of
God are born again, but only those who spiritually hear it. And nobody is regenerated without
the Scriptures.

7. God is Active, Man is Passive.

A. Now we come to two major points of the Reformed view of regeneration. The first is that
regeneration is totally and solely the work of God. It is a sovereign act. In theology, we call it
Modernistic Regeneration. God alone works it in us. It is not Synergism, where we work it along
with God. Much less is it our own.
B. One key verse is James .1:18, In the exercise of His own will He brought us forth by the
Word Of truth. Vs. 15 has already used the figure of conception and birth concerning spiritual
death. Here James says that God alone gives spiritual birth. A man can no more give himself
spiritual birth than he can physical birth. No baby chooses to be born.
C. John 1:12-13 also stress this. Vs. 12 is often quoted in evangelistic contexts, implying that
sinners can do something to bring themselves to regeneration. That is exactly what John is not
saying. He almost expected such a misunderstanding, so he added vs. 13. He explicitly says
that no man is spiritually born by anything human, be it natural birth, his parents*will or even his
own will. It is not of man that willeth, but of God that showeth mercy (Rom. 9:16).
D. Regeneration, then, is something done to us, not by us. God does it to us. He alone is
active. Sinners are totally passive in it. They contribute nothing. Now this does not mean, as
some suppose, that we are simply not to resist it, or perhaps we can ask for it. Quite the
contrary. Because of sin, natural man always resists it and will never ask for it.
E. Remember the analogy of resurrection? Jesus raised Lazarus in John 1.1, Jesus alone was
active; Lazarus was totally passive in the whole experience. A sinner can no more contribute to

452

his rebirth than a dead man can help raise himself from death. Moreover, sinners are not even
commanded to give themselves regeneration. John 3:7 is not a command, as frequently
thought. It is a statement of fact.

8. Regeneration Precedes Faith.

A. But, someone will argue, do we not believe first and then are regenerated? This is the usual
Evangelical theory. For example, the Statement of Faith of a leading seminary says: We
believe that when an unregenerate person exercises that faith in Christ which is illustrated and
described as such in the New testament, he passes immediately out of spiritual death into
spiritual life, and from the old creation into the new.
B. The problem with this view is that it ignores the Biblical truth that fallen man is incapable of
exercising saving faith. Faith is impossible to a sinner as life is to a corpse. Faith is a blessing of
regeneration, not a means of it. Faith is good; but fallen sinners are incapable of anything good,
C. I John 5:1 explicitly teaches that regeneration precedes faith. Believes is in the present
tense, whereas born is in the perfect. We could paraphrase it:.. Whoever now believes that
Jesus is the Christ has been born of God in the past with the result that he is now in a state of
spiritual life.
D. This is also the order of Psa. 80:18, Revive us, and we will call upon thy name. Unless a
man is revived, he simply cannot and will not call upon God in faith. Incidently, the salvation of
dying infants proves this. If faith preceded the new birth, no infant could be regenerated, for
infants are incapable of faith. But we do know that dying infants are all saved, and therefore
regenerated. How? Just this: God sovereignly gives them the new birth as they pass from this
life, and concurrently gives them the gift of faith as they enter Heaven.
E. So, this brings us to the issue of whether faith is a gift or not, which will be the subject of the
next study. In sum, then, God sovereignly and graciously gives the new birth by the Holy Spirit
to the elect through the Word of God.

Recommended Reading
Charnock, Stephen. The New Birth. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Also in vol. Ill of The
Works of Stephen Charnock. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Pink, A.W. Regeneration. Choteau: Gospel Mission.
Best, W.E. Regeneration and Conversion. Houston: South Belt Grace Church.
Hodge, Charles H. Systematic Theology, vol. Ill, pp.3-40. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. II, pp. 167-201. Carlisle: Banner of
Truth.
Webb, Robert Alexander. Christian Salvation, pp. 293-325. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle. Hoekema,
Anthony. Saved By Grace, pp. 93-112. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic
Theology, pp. 465-479. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Toon, Peter. Born Again. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House. Warfield, B=B= Biblical Doctrines, pp, 439-463. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Gill, John. Body of Divinity, pp. 528-538. Paris: Baptist Standard Bearer.
Reformed commentaries on John 3, such as those by A.W. Pink, John Calvin, Matthew Henry,

453

Matthew Poole, William Hendricksen, John Gill, James Montgomery Boice, J.C. Ryle, and
George Hutchison.

454

Chapter 62. The Gift of Faith.

1. Introduction.
A. Is faith something which we give to God in order to be saved, or is it something that God
gives to us in saving us? Calvinists have always believed that saving faith is a sovereign gift of
God, freely bestowed on the elect and them alone.
B. Scripture speaks of several kinds of faith, but we will concern ourselves herewith Saving
Faith. The term Saving Faith should not be taken to mean that faith has any merit in itself or
that one is saved on the basis of his faith. Rather, Saving Faith is the faith without which one
cannot be saved.
C. In the last study, we ended by showing that the new birth precedes saving faith. One does
not believe in order to be born again; he believes because he has already been born again. The
two are inseparable - one cannot be born again and never believe, nor can he truly believe
without ever having been born again. The point is that saving faith is every bit as much a
sovereign gift of God as regeneration. God freely gives regeneration to people; He also
sovereignly and feely gives them faith. Admit that faith is a sovereign gift, and the Fourth Point
of Calvinism stands.

2. Ephesians 2:8-9.
A. Ephesians 2:8-9 is the first passage that comes to mind in the debate over whether faith is a
gift. There are -four main interpretations of what is meant by the phrase and that, and this is
where we begin.
B. The first interpretation takes it to mean faith, but this faith is not our faith at all. It is Gods
faithfulness to His promise. This rather rare view would refer us to those verses which speak of
the faithfulness of God or the faith of God* or the faith of Christ. Accordingly, Eph. 2:8
would be paraphrased like this: By grace you have been saved because of Gods unfailing
faithfulness to His promise. There is much truth in that statement, especially in light of election.
But it is straining the language, syntax and context too much.
C. Next, some take that to refer back to faith. This has been the view of many Calvinist
scholars (e.g., Augustine, Beza, Cocceius, Hodge, Kuyper, Clark and Hendricksen). If this were
the correct interpretation, then the question is immediately settled. Those espousing this view
would paraphrase it like this: By grace you have been saved through faith, and even your faith
is not of yourselves. Even faith is a gift from God, so you cannot boast in the least. Hence, Paul
is stressing that even faith is a gift in order to exclude boasting.
D. Now the major difficulty with this view is just this: that is a neuter demonstrative pronoun,
whereas faith is a feminine noun. Why would Paul change the gender? Why would he use bad
grammar? The Calvinists who hold to this interpretation give several replies. The main one is
that a pronoun usually but not always agrees with its noun in gender. There are exceptions to
the general rule. Gordon Clark refers to Acts 8:10, Jude 12, 2 Peter 2:17. I Cor. 6:11, 10:6, and
especially 1 Peter 1:19-20, where a neuter pronoun actually refers to two feminine nouns.
Others have suggested that a neuter pronoun can refer to a masculine noun, or even masculine
and feminine pronouns can refer to neuter nouns. So it goes. Further, they sometimes argue
that the change is because Paul is speaking of faith in general terms, or that he is wishing to

455

emphasize his point.

E. Still, this view is awkward. Paul does not often change gender in his sentences, even for
emphasis. He usually resorts to other means. Even in this sentence there is a device used for
calling attention to the emphasis, namely, the very phrase and that. Then there is the problem
of context and flow. If that were faith, then the ensuing parallelism is awkward. It would
paraphrase as, and faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Faith is not of works, lest any
man should boast. The Scottish Calvinist John Eadie commented: You may declare that
salvation is not of works, but you cannot with propriety say that faith is not of works. Galatians
says that the Law is not of faith, but it is rather awkward and non-Pauline to say that faith is not
of works.
F. The third interpretation is that that refers back to the word grace. Very few Calvinists have
taken this interpretation. For one, it seems redundant. It says what is already being said and
adds no real emphasis. Moreover, grace, like faith, is also a feminine noun. It could be an
exception to the general rule, but there is no overwhelming requirement for this to be the case.
Lastly, a pronoun usually refers back to its nearest antecedent, or closest noun. But faith is
closer to that than grace. It is possible, but unlikely.
G. The last major interpretation is that that refers back to the whole sentence, centering on
the verb. This was the view of Calvin, Eadie, Matthew Henry, John Gill, and others. This
interpretation has the least difficulties and appeals to more direct grammatical parallels. For
example, there are at least four other sentences in the New Testament - and all by Paul - which
are grammatically parallel (I Cor. 6:6, 8; Phil. 1:28; and Rom. 13:11). In each of these, the
demonstrative pronoun that refers to the whole preceding sentence, centering on the verb.
According to this view, vss. 8-9 would be paraphrased: by grace you have been saved through
faith. But this salvation is not of yourselves; salvation is the gift of God. Salvation is not of works,
lest anyone should boast.
H. This last interpretation is also held by many non-Calvinists. Many Arminians hold to it. But
heres the snag for them. They think that in rejecting the view that that means faith, they have
disproved that faith is a gift. They do greatly err on at least two counts. First, that refers back to
the whole sentence. It is not merely salvation which is the gift of God, but salvation through faith
which . is Gods gift. Hence, this doesnt exclude the gift of faith. But, second, even if somehow
one could show that Paul did not say that faith is a gift here, that does not mean that Paul is
denying that faith is a gift. He would then simply be saying something else, but that of itself does
not mean that faith is not a gift. As a matter of fact, there are many other verses that teach that
faith is the gift of God, freely and sovereignly bestowed.

3. What Saith the Scriptures? .

A. John 6:65 No man can come to me unless it has been granted him from the Father.
Coming to Christ is faith. But no man can have that unless God gives it to him. This explicitly
teaches that God gives the faith to come to Christ. Note also that this verse is similar to vs. 44,
... unless the Father who sent me draws him. When the Father irresistibly draws a sinner to
Christ, He grants saving faith to him.
B. 2 Peter 1:1, ...to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours...
If faith is received, then it follows that faith is given. We do not give ourselves saving faith; it has
to be given to us. Note that Peter says that all Christians have received this faith. Faith is a gift
for all believers; there are no exceptions. And it is the same gift of faith in every Christian.

456

C. Phil. 1:29, For to you it has been granted for Christs sake, not only to believe in Him, but to
suffer for His sake. God grants two things to every person when he becomes a Christian:
saving faith and persecutions for that faith in Christ. Justas every believer should realize that
God sovereignly gives us persecutions, so we need to recognize that faith is a sovereign gift,
too. Paul uses the word grant, as in John 6:65. The word speaks of a sovereign bestowal from
a superior.
D. John 3:27, A man can receive nothing unless it has been given him from Heaven. John the
Baptist had been a great prophet. He realized that this was not his doing. The gift of prophecy
was a sovereign gift. By the same standard, no Christian can have faith unless it is given to him
from Heaven (that is, from God). Notice how the text uses the two verbs receive and given.
God gives, we receive.
E. I Cor. 3:6, I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. Paul preached the
Gospel and thereby planted the Gospel seed. Apollos followed up on that with further preaching
and teaching. But God gave the increase. Some versions render this, God was causing the
growth (NASB). God alone causes the Gospel seed to germinate. It is a sovereign gift of God
alone.
F. I Cor. 4:7, And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do
you boast as if you had not received it? Paul reminded the proud Corinthians that they had
nothing to boast of. Spiritual gifts were sovereignly bestowed, not earned (cf. ch. 12). By the
same standard, no man can boast of his faith, for even that faith is a gift. All Christians have
faith, but if it had not been received as a gift, then they could boast. Such is the case with those
who deny that faith is a gift. In effect, they are boasting, Well, salvation may be a gift, but at
least I contributed to it with my faith. No, even that faith is a ; gift. Hence, Let him who boasts,
boast in the Lord (I Cor. 1:31. Cf. Eph. 2:9).
G. I Cor. 12:3, No one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. Now obviously Paul is
not saying that no one can utter those three words unless by the Holy Spirit. Unbelievers are
capable of that. Rather, Paul is saying that no one can say it as a heartfelt confession of faith
unless the Spirit gives it to him (cf. Rom. 10:9-10). Did you notice how this verse sounds like
John 6:65?
H. I Cor. 12:8-9, For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit... to another, faith by
the same Spirit... Paul is reiterating that the charismatic gifts are gifts, not badges of merit.
Faith in this verse is not saving faith, but the faith to accomplish great things for God (George
Mueller is frequently cited as an example). The principle is valid, however. Faith is a gift.
Someone has pointed out that miracle-working was a gift, and would anyone claim that it was of
their own power to work miracles? Of course not. The same is true with faith.
I. Gal. 3:23, But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law... Paul is speaking
of two developments in this passage: the macrocosm of the history of Gods covenants, and the
microcosm of individuals coming to faith in Christ. Just as the Law preceded the coming of
Christ, so a person is under bondage and condemnation before Christ comes into his life. Note
the words before faith came. We speak of our coming to faith, but it might be more Biblically
precise to say before faith came to me. Not only do we come to faith in Christ, but Christ
comes into us with the gift of faith.
J. Gal. 5:22, The fruit of the Spirit is... faith... Some versions render this as faithfulness, but
faithfulness springs from faith. Either way, we see that faith is something grown in us by the
Holy Spirit. He produces it, not us.
K. Rom. 10:17, So faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Some versions
have word of Christ or preaching of Christ. In either case, Pauls point is that faith is given by

457

means of the Word of God. Note also how it is given. Through the Word, God opens the ears of
the heart (cf. Gal. 3:2, Matt. 13:9, 13). That is part of regeneration. And in that, He also gives the
gift of faith.
L. Matt. 13:11, To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven,
but to them it has not been granted. Notice how the word granted is again used. Knowledge
of these spiritual mysteries comes through the Word and produces faith. But it is sovereignly
bestowed only on a few, not all.
M. Luke 22:32, I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail... Christ knew that Peter
would soon deny Him. But Christ had given him faith and prayed that that gift of faith would be
revived. We receive the gift of faith, from God in answer to Christs prayers. Hence, he will
continue to supply us with faith to the end (cf. Phil. 1:6).
N. Acts 18:27, ...those who had believed through grace. Why is it that some people believe
and others do not? It is only because God has extended special grace to some and not to
others. When He gives this grace, they believe. Without such grace, no one can believe. All
Christians believe through grace, Gods gift.
O. I Tim. 1:14, and the grace of our Lord was more abundant, with the faith and love which are
found in Christ Jesus. Paul is recounting how Christ saved him (vss. 12-13). He is sure to
remember that he was converted by Gods grace. Grace was freely given to Paul with faith and
love. When God converts a sinner, He gives him grace, love and faith. Faith is as much a gift
as grace and love.
P. Heb. 12:2, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith... How is it that we
can fix our eyes on Jesus in faith? We can believe in Him only because He began it in us. He
authors it. Moreover, if He starts it, then He will also finish it. Faith is the gift, which the Good
Shepherd gives to His sheep.
Q. 1 Pet. 1:21, ...who through Him are believers in God... Christians believe in God unto
salvation, but only through Him, that is, Christ. If it were not for Christs gift of faith, nobody
would believe savingly in God.
R. Calvinists appeal to other verses as well: Eph. 6:23, Acts 3:16, 2 Cor. 4:13.

4. The Gift of Repentance.

A. Jesus preached, Repent and believe the Gospel (Mark 1:15). Faith and repentance are
frequently given as the conditions of salvation. In some texts, faith (e.g. Mark 16:16; Acts
16:31). In others, repentance (e.g., Acts 2:28, 3:19). The two are associated in still others (e.g.,
Acts 20:21). They are the two sides of the same coin. But the coin is a gift of God. Repentance
is as much a gift as faith.
B. Acts 5:31 says, He is the One whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a
Savior, to grant repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. Christ gives repentance to Israel.
Some Calvinists take this to refer to the Israel of God(Gal. 6:16), that is, the people of God
regardless of race. Others interpret this to mean those Israelites who were elect. In either case,
the text explicitly says that repentance is something that is granted. Note yet again the word
granted. Repentance is a royal grant, a sovereign bestowal.
C. But this is not only for Israelites. Acts 11:18 says, Well then, God has granted to the
Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life. This obviously does not mean all Gentiles. The
text simply says that some Gentiles believe and that this is because it has been granted to

458

them. Note that it does not say granted the opportunity to repent, if they so chose. No, it is
more. It is repentance itself.
D. 2 Tim. 2:25 is even more explicit. A preacher should have certain qualities. Why? Because
God is using his preaching of the Word for a dual purpose. The purpose is to give repentance to
some and withhold it from others. Now notice very carefully how Paul phrases this. He says if
perhaps God may grant them. No Christian knows for sure if any person in particular will be
saved, for he doesnt know if God will bestow on that one the gift of faith and repentance. God
might, and He might not. It is His sovereign prerogative to give or withhold. Moreover, this
repentance leads to the true knowledge of the Gospel, resulting in eternal life. Notice that vs.
26. says that this leads to deliverance from Satan. Satan keeps sinners in the bondage of sin.
They need to repent but cannot. Satan will not give them repentance, and they are unable of
themselves to repent. God must give it.
E. Repentance includes several elements. First, it is a spiritual mourning for sin. Then it is a
change of mind. Then it becomes a turning from sin to God. God gives all three stages by the
Spirit. He breaks our hearts with conviction of sin. Then He renews our minds to see sin as it is.
Then He turns us around, and we repent. He sovereignly turns us around like a child turns
around a little windup toy. We repent because repentance has been granted to us. Turn we,
and %. shall be turned

5. How Faith is Given.

A. Sinners are blind and cannot believe (John 12:39-40). How then do some come -to believe?
They must be given the gift of faith. God gives it to them as follows.
B. Several of the texts above show that faith is given in the same manner as the new birth,
namely, through the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. The Spirit gives faith through the Word of
God to the elect. He germinates the Gospel seed. When it springs to life, the sinner is born
again and necessarily believes. As we showed earlier, regeneration precedes faith.
C. Faith has three elements: knowledge, assent and trust. God gives all three. He gives
knowledge. This is more than simply information. It includes illumination. God turns on the light
in our minds and we see for the first time the truth of the Gospel (Eph. 1:17-18, Matt. 16:17, I
John 5:20). Second, we agree with the Gospel. We believe God. Third, we trust in Christ. Trust
includes reliance upon a person. We grasp Christ. But we trust Him because He first entrusted
Himself to us, or as Paul wrote in Phil. 3:12, in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I
was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. We grab Him because He first grabbed us.

6. Objections.
A. God only offers us the gift of faith. We must ask for it. But we can reject it. Calvinists reply
that faith is not offered but given. The Synod of Dort replied to this objection as follows: Faith is,
therefore, to be considered as the gift of God, not on account of its being offered by God to
man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure; but because it is in reality conferred, breathed,
and infused into him; or even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then
expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will, consent to the terms of salvation,
and actually believe in Christ, but because He works in man both to will and to do, and indeed
all things in all, produces both the will to believe, and the act of believing also (3/4:14).

459

B. This objection can also be refuted in another way. Arminians are fond of saying that faith
may be a gift, but we must ask for it. They overlook James 1:6-7, But let him ask in faith without
any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.
For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord. To ask and receive from
God, one must ask in faith. But how can one ask for faith without having faith in the first place?
The conclusion is that fallen man has no faith and therefore cannot ask in faith for the gift of
faith. He must be given faith. Faith is sovereignly given without request.
C. All men have faith. But only some put their faith in Christ. This objection also
misunderstands fallen man. 2 Thess. 3:2 explictly states, not all men have faith. There is a
sense in which all men have a sort of faith, such as those who have faith in themselves. Luke
18:10 speaks of those who trust in themselves. But that is qualitatively different from saving
faith. Not all men have saving faith. No man has it by nature, and so none have it to give to
Christ.
D. Han can believe if he so chooses. He doesnt need it to be given to him. But John 12:39-40
says, For this cause they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, He has blinded their eyes
and He hardened their heart.... Fallen man is blind and deaf and dead, unable to believe. His
nature must first be changed through regeneration, and then God gives him faith. Then and only
then can he believe.
E. But Rom. 12:3 says, God has allotted to each man a measure of faith. God has already
given the gift of faith to every man; only some of them give it back by trusting in Christ. This
greatly perverts Pauls meaning. First, there is no word for man in the Greek of this verse. The
every refers to every believer, for that is the clear context. God has given to every believer a
measure of faith. Though he is addressing the faith of spiritual gifts, the principle is valid for
salvation as well. Actually, this verse explicitly teaches that faith 21 a gift.
F. But we are commanded to believe. It cannot be both a gift and a duty. Oddly, this is the
same bad logic of the Hyper-Calvinists, who because they believe faith is a gift deny that it is
also a duty. However, Scripture clearly teaches both. We are commanded to believe savingly
(e.g., Acts 16:31), but only God can give saving faith. It is like obedience - a duty and a gift from
God. Moreover, we are punished if we do not have saving faith, for we should have been able to
believe.
G. It would be unfair of God to give faith to some and withhold it from others. This is the same
objection against election and grace in general. Calvinists, as in the Canons of Dort (3/4: 15),
reply: God is under no obligation to confer this grace upon any. Cannot God give what is His to
whomsoever He pleases? No man deserves this or any other gracious gift from God. This
objection springs from the same black heart that proudly boasts of free will. Those who truly
believe realize that God did not have to give them faith. They boast in God.

7. Conclusions.
A. We can make several conclusions from what we see in Scripture. First, unless God gives
faith, a man cannot and will not ever believe or repent. Second, God gives this gift only to theelect. But he gives it to all the elect. Third, God's sovereignly withholds it from the reprobate.
They do not deserve it any more than the elect. But God lets them stay in unbelief, and this
compounds their damnation and confirms their reprobation.
B. Fourth, when God gives faith and repentance, that person always believes and repents.
Moreover, he automatically does so, for it is as irresistible as special grace and regeneration.

460

There is no Dormant Faith, where one is regenerated but does not yet believe. Fifth, faith is a
gift and the ability to receive a gift. Faith is the hand that receives Christ (cf. John 1:12). But
even that hand is a gift. God gives us the gift of faith to receive the gift of Christ. Sixth, God, not
man, gives the gift of faith. We cannot, so we should not try. We can pray that God, if He is
pleased, will give faith. But we cannot claim a person or go through the various tricks and
gimmicks of Arminians to pretend to impart faith. We simply cannot.
C. Seventh, once one has faith, he can pray with the disciples, Lord, increase our faith (Luke
17:5). He can invest his faith, as it were. He can ask for more faith by using the faith he has to
pray for God to give him more (cf. James 1:6). And lastly, once he has the gift of faith, he should
thank God for sovereignly bestowing it upon him. If you believe, thank God for giving you the gift
of faith.

Recommended Reading
Wells. Tom. Faith, The Gift of God. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Storms, C. Samuel. Chosen for Life, pp. 45-54. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Clark, Gordon. Faith and Saving Faith. Jefferson: Trinity Foundation.
Machen J. Gresham. What is Faith? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hoekema, Anthony. Saved By Grace, pp. 132-151. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Goodwin, Thomas Justifying Faith. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Shepherd, Victor. The Nature and Function of Faith in the Theology of John Calvin.
Macon: Mercer University Press. Warfield, B.B. Biblical and Theological Studies, pp. 404-444.
Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Clark, Gordon. Predestination, pp. 101-109. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Gill,
John. Body of Divinity, pp. 730-746. Paris: Baptist Standard Bearer. Hodge, Charles. Systematic
Theology, vol. Ill, pp. 41-113. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Webb, R.A. Christian Salvation, pp.
330-358. Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications. Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John
Murray, vol. II, pp. 235-263. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.

461

Chapter 63. The Order of Salvation.

1. Introduction.
A. The problem of the order of salvation is much like that of solving a Chinese wooden block
puzzle. Every piece fits with another, but getting it all together in the right order is not as easy as
it looks.
B. We saw something similar when we looked at the order of the decrees. That order was in
eternity; this one is in time. When we mean order of salvation, we mean the logical order of
elements of salvation. The older theologians used the Latin phrase ordo salutis. Jacob Karpov,
a Lutheran, is generally credited with coining the phrase in 1737, but the question was
discussed long before then.
C. Now some scholars debate the whole question. Salvation is a whole, they say, and it loses
its beauty and cohesiveness to split it up. Karl Barth thought that the idea of an ordo salutis
was psychologistic, and like G.C. Berkouwer tended to consider it somewhat crass and
scholastic. On the other hand, the great Reformed theologians have discussed the question
properly and in submission to Scripture. They may vary here and there on some details, as we
shall see, but there is a general Reformed consensus as opposed to the orders of other
schools of theology.
D. Salvation is a general term in Scripture. It can refer to something in the past, something in
the present, or something in the future. Reconciliation also seems to have this same
generalness. On the other hand, other salvation terms are more limited, such as justification
and regeneration. Then there is redemption, which almost always refers to the work of Christ
for us. What we are concerned with is the logical order of those elements involved in the
application of the work of Christ, or as John Murrays excellent little book is entitled, Redemption
Accomplished and Applied.
E. Perhaps you have wondered sometimes why the inspired writers used different terms to
describe what occurs when a person is saved and reconciled to God through Christ. The
answer is that they are viewing the same event from different, complementary perspectives.
Paul generally speaks of justification; John and Peter usually speak of regeneration. As we shall
see, there are several elements of salvation. They are inseparably related, and so intricately
intertwined that it helps to construct an order of salvation in order to see how they are related.
F. Calvinists emphasize that it is a logical, not a chronological, order. We saw the same
principle when discussing the order of the decrees. That order was logical, not chronological,
because the decrees occurred in eternity. Likewise, salvation occurs in a moment, in an instant.
At the self-same moment, a person is justified, adopted, born again, and believes.
G. This is an important principle to bear in mind. Some, for example, deny that salvation in this
sense is instantaneous. The disagreement is not over the ongoing aspects or effects of
salvation, for all sides teach something about that. Rather, some posit an order of salvation that
is progressive but not instantaneous. Thus, a person could be regenerated but not justified; he
could be born again but not yet believe, and so on. This is especially the case with those who
teach infant regeneration via baptism. But Scripture never envisages such a division. Can one
be regenerate but not justified? Of course not. Could one believe but not be justified? No,
definitely not. Otherwise, what would happen to someone who died between the stages? The
Biblical doctrine is that all of the constituent elements of salvation are essential, and therefore
cannot be separated, not even by so much as a second. Hence, every human being at any

462

given moment is either saved or he is not. Since the elements are inseparable, he either has all
of this salvation or he does not.
H. So, then, when we speak of the order of salvation, we mean the logical, not the
chronological order. In this sense, salvation is instantaneous. But this raises another problem.
Anthony Hoekema, in his excellent Saved By Grace, is reluctant to accept the historic Reformed
view of an ordo salutis. He prefers to follow something that has cropped up occasionally in
Lutheranism. Instead of a subordinate order, he prefers a co-ordinate order. That is, all the
elements of salvation are equal in importance and order. There is no causal order between
them. The elements are like spokes on a wheel - when the wheel turns, all spokes turn together.
I. That sounds nice, but it has difficulties. As we shall see, because of the very nature of the
elements involved, there must of necessity be an order. For example, are we justified because
we believe, or do we believe because we are justified? To turn the analogy of the wheel around,
we would ask whether it matters if the spokes are in a certain order? The nature of the spokes
demands that there is order.
J. In his excellent little article on the subject, Sinclair Ferguson writes, The ordo salutis seeks
to establish, on the basis of Scripture, a pattern common to all believers, although experienced
with different degrees of consciousness by each individual. Hes right. Every element in the
Reformed ordo is essential to salvation, as can easily be shown from Scripture (e.g., John 3:3,
5, 7; Mark 16:16; Luke 13:3, etc.). Each true saint of God has each and every one of these
elements. Salvation would be incomplete without any of them. Moreover, it is the exact same
order that occurs in every Christian. There may have been large differences on the particulars
before and after, but salvation of itself is the same in every believer. But, as Ferguson points
out, some are more aware of it than others.
K. Does it really matter what the order is? Yes, it does. As we shall see, there can be crucial
implications if one were to reverse the order. Moreover, it is vital that we see what Scripture
says, not human experience. Scripture gives us enough material to work with in constructing the
Biblical order of salvation.

2. The Roman Catholic Order of Salvation.

A. There have been as many different orders of salvations as there have been schools of
theology. One of the more well known has been that of Roman Catholicism. This one has been
centered around the sacraments. It is as follows:
(1) Baptism. One is regenerated at baptism. Original Sin is forgiven. Grace is given.
(2) Confirmation. As the baptized child grows up, he develops the grace infused into him
at baptism. This needs to be verified. If verified, then a Bishop breathes the Holy Spirit
into him. He is now eligible for the Eucharist.
(3) The Eucharist. The Catholic now literally eats and drinks the very body and blood of
Christ in this the greatest of the sacraments. From now on, this is the major source of
spiritual life.
(4) Penance. If a Catholic slips into sin, especially Mortal Sin, he must be absolved by a
priest. This is necessary for him to take the Eucharist again. But to be absolved,, he
must confess his sins to a priest and do the required penance. This, together with good
works, develops and strengthens one so as to earn grace through the sacraments.

463

(5) Extreme Unction. When a Catholic is about to die, he is to confess again to a priest
and receive his last forgiveness of sins in this life.
(6) Purgatory. Virtually all Catholics must go through Purgatory after dying, for there are
still vestiges of sin that need to be burned out of him. Of course, he will not even go to
Purgatory if he died in Mortal Sin. All grace can be lost. There is no ratchet effect at any
stage. Moreover, Purgatory can last for many years. Once in Purgatory, hell eventually
make it to Heaven. Only in Heaven can a person know that his sins have been forgiven
and that hes saved.
B. This is an unbiblical system of salvation. First, baptism is not essential to in any respect. Not
all who are baptized are saved, and not al1 who are saved have been baptized. Baptism is
nowhere in the Biblical order of salvation. Second, the Romanist idea of Confirmation teaches
that one can be regenerated but not have the Holy Spirit - a view contrary to John 3, I Cor.
12:13 and other verses. Moreover, God, not man, gives the Holy Spirit. Third, transubstantiation
is not only unbiblical but Communion is in no way essential to salvation. Fourth, the Roman
idea of Penance is the Galatian heresy of works righteousness. And, of course, Scripture says
nothing about our having to confess to a man. Fifth, nor does Scripture teach that we must be
absolved by a priest before we die. Lastly, Purgatory is unbiblical. The conclusion is that none
of the elements of the Roman sacramental system belong in the Biblical order of salvation. Like
Pelagianism, it is salvation by works.

3. The Lutheran Order of Salvation.

A. Jacob Karpov put forth what is representative of historic Lutheranisms order of salvation:
illumination, repentance, faith, regeneration, conversion, justification, union with Christ,
sanctification, conservation and perseverance, and lastly various degrees of grace. Following
Luther, this greatly departed from Romes order. Works were missing from the order. Works
belong to sanctification, and therefore follow salvation.
B. Still, there are several problems with this order. First, most Lutherans have still posited a
form of baptismal regeneration. If, then, an infant is regenerated, how can one speak of a later
regeneration? Is not regeneration instantaneous? Also, what about faith? Can one be
regenerate without having faith for years to come? Can one be regenerate and not yet justified?
Some Lutherans (and, incidentally, some Anglicans and others) have sought to resolve the
difficulty by theorizing that regeneration has two stages comparable to conception and birth:
baptism and confirmation. But nothing of the sort is taught in Scripture. One is either born of the
Spirit or he is not. What if one were to die between the supposed two parts?

4. The Arminian Order of Salvation.

A. Most historical Arminians have greatly improved upon the Roman and Lutheran systems by
eliminating baptism and the sacraments from the necessary order of salvation. Arminianism,
Calvinisms errant child, is remarkably close to Calvinism in certain respects. But it developed
after Calvinism, and so in some senses is a throwback.
B. There are varieties of Arminianism, but the mainstream Arminian order of salvation is as
follows:

464

(1) Sufficient grace is conferred upon all men for Christs sake, because of the strictly
universal atonement. This enables them to believe if they will.
(2) Some men make use of this sufficient grace by means of their free will, resulting in
repentance and faith.
(3) Because they repent and believe, God gives the new birth, making them righteous.
(4) On the basis of what God has now done in them, God justifies them.
(5) God then adopts them into His family.
(6) But this must all be maintained by free, will faith, or all is lost.
C. Most of the differences between this system and Calvinism will be pointed out below.
Technically, this is not Pelagianism, but a form of Semi-Pelagianism.

5. Preparatory Stages.
A. Before we discuss the order of the essential elements of salvation, it would be worthwhile to
say a few words about what precedes salvation. First, there is conviction of sin. This is the
awareness of ones sin and the hopelessness of salvation by oneself. It is produced primarily by
the Law; the Puritans called it a Law-work. This is what the Law works in us. It is not a work of
the Law which we do. This conviction of sin is usually gradual. Yet, one may have conviction
but never experience true salvation. Likewise, no one is ever truly saved without it.
B. Unlike Romanism, Pelagianism and all legalism, Calvinism has always taught that God
requires no good works whatsoever to contribute to ones salvation. It is all of grace, pure grace.
This corrects several other errors. For example, it would be incorrect to say that someone with
many good works is more likely to be saved than someone with few good works. Why? Because
of total depravity, nobody has any good works whatsoever. Good works follow, not precede
salvation. They are not essential to the core of the ordo salutis. They are necessary only as
evidences.
C. Theres something else regarding what precedes the point of salvation. There must be
knowledge of the Gospel. Since faith is essential to salvation, and faith is given only through the
Word of God, it is necessary that a person hears the Word of God. Of course, not all who read
or hear it are ever saved. But nobody will be saved without it. Moreover, it is specifically the
Word of God about the person and work of Christ that is necessary. Some may hear it many
times never believe; others may hear it once and believe at once. Christians may not be able to
give faith, but they can give the means God uses to give faith.

6. Regeneration and Adoption.

A. Scripture indicates that both regeneration and adoption are essential to salvation. But since
both are metaphors for becoming children, there is some confusion. There are several
differences. For example, adoption is a legal act of God for us. But regeneration is an
experiential act of God in us. One affects our standing, the other our nature. But which comes
first?
B. Some Hyper-Calvinists have taught Eternal Adoption, such as James Wells and John Brine.

465

John Gill, the main proponent, v/rote: As the will of God to elect is his election of them, so his
will to adopt the same is his adoption of them. He relied heavily on Eph. 1:5. He continued:
Adoption is before regeneration; the one is an act of Gods will in eternity, the other is an act
and work of his grace in time; the one is the cause, the other the effect.
C. But Gill overlooks Gal. 3:26, which says that we are adopted as children by faith. Faith, then,
must precede adoption. But thats not all. As we saw before, faith follows, not precedes,
regeneration (I John 5:1). Hence, the logical order is regeneration, faith, and adoption.
D. There is another view similar to that of the Eternal Adoption theory, and it is usually held by
the same persons. It is the theory of Eternal Union. It was held by John Gill, William Huntington,
J.C. Philpot, Arthur Pink, and others. This view says that God united us to Christ in the decree
of election. But this is faulty, too Rom. 16:7 says that Andronicus and Junias were in Christ
before me. If all saints were in Christ from eternity, then this could not have been said.
E. The truth is that election is eternal and completed, but neither adoption nor union are
accomplished until the point of salvation. True, the will to elect is election. But is the will to
create also creation? If so, then creation is eternal. Moreover, everything is eternal, for all was
foreordained in advance (Rom. 11:36). No, we were foreordained to be united to Christ from
eternity, but we are not actually united until regeneration. Union is an immediate fruit of
regeneration. Some Calvinists put it the other way around - we are regenerated because we are
united to Christ, much as a lamp turns on when plugged into the wall.
F. This union with Christ is also included in other Biblical metaphors, such as the baptism of the
Spirit. The Pentecostal second-blessing theory would divide the work of salvation. Spirit-baptism
puts us into Christ and the Spirit, and puts Christ and the Spirit into us. Having been put into,
we are in, and that is spiritual union. It all happens as part of regeneration as part of the
experiential aspect of salvation.

7. Calling and Justification.

A. We have already discussed Special Calling, which is part of the gift of Efficacious Grace.
There is a slight difference of opinion among Calvinists over the order of calling and
regeneration. Some, such as Geerhardus Vos, place calling before regeneration. Most,
however, place regeneration before calling. It may be just a matter of semantics, but it involves
the means of the Word of God. Do we spiritually hear in order to receive life, or do we receive
spiritual life in order to hear?
B. Next, which comes first - justification or calling? The Golden Chain of Rom. 8:30tells us at
once: whom He called, these He also justified. All Reformed scholars see an order in vss. 2930. Thus, calling precedes justification in the order of salvation. Calling also precedes and
produces faith (Rom. 10:17), our next point.

8. Justification and Faith.

A. Reformed theology teaches that justification has two elements: the pardon of sin and the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Only rarely have Calvinists discussed which of them
logically precedes the other. There have been on the other hand, more protracted debates on
other aspects of justification.

466

B. For example, all believe that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. Most say that this
includes both the Active (life) and Passive (death) Obedience of Christ. A few, such as Piscator,
argued that justification included only the Passive Obedience of Christ. Curiously, even those
who argued that both are imputed were slow to debate which of them logically preceded the
other in the ordo salutis. But when they did, they usually suggested that first His death is applied
to us, washing away our sins with His blood. Then His life is applied to us in place of sin.
C. There is a more serious point, though. You may recall that Arminianism teaches that
justification must follow regeneration because we are justified because of what God does in us
in making us righteous. Calvinism has always disagreed most vehemently. While we agree that
regeneration is necessary, we deny that it is in any way the ground of justification. The ground is
the work of Christ for us, not in us.
D. This leads into some other issues. First, which comes first, faith or justification? Second,
does justification precede regeneration, or vice-versa? Calvinists have wrestled with these
issues and come up with a general consensus, but there are some interesting variations. One of
the more unusual ones is the theory of Eternal Justification Before Faith. This was taught by
most Hyper-Calvinists and so-called Calvinistic Antinomians (such as Tobias Crisp), but also a
number of important Supralapsarians such as Alexander Comrie and Abraham Kuyper.
E. The theory argues that since justification is not based on what God does in us, justification
must precede regeneration. But since regeneration precedes faith, then justification precedes
faith. Gill wrote at length in defence of the theory, and one of his main arguments was Romans
4:5, that God justifies the ungodly. If a soul is regenerated, it is not ungodly. Hence, justification
precedes regeneration and faith. This is the order in time. But justification is also like adoption
and election in that there is such a thing as Eternal Justification. However, this was only virtual
justification; it was not completed. Gill said that the elect are first justified in the court of
Heaven in eternity, and then justified in the court of conscience in time. In both, we have
Eternal Justification Before Faith.
F. Francis Turretine and other Calvinists have strenuously argued against this theory. The
mainstream view is that the elect were decreed to be justified, then virtually justified when Christ
our representative was raised from the dead; but the elect were not actually and finally justified
until the point of salvation.
G. Furthermore, Paul says that we are justified by faith. That necessarily means that faith
must logically precede justification. Otherwise, we would be believing through justification. Since
calling precedes justification (Rom; 8:30), and regeneration precedes faith, the logical order is:
calling, regeneration, faith, and justification. Those teaching justification before faith must have
calling, justification, faith, and regeneration. But that would be to separate calling and
regeneration.

9. Faith and Repentance.

A. Next, we come to the question of faith and repentance. In the last study, we showed that
both are gifts of God. But which conies first, faith or repentance? To better understand the
question, we need first to look at what they are.
B. Faith includes three elements: knowledge, assent and trust. Here we find the logical order of
faith. One cannot assent to something unless he first knows what it is, and one will not trust
something unless he first agrees that it is trustworthy. So the order is enlightenment, belief and
trust. And, of course, faith is essential to salvation (e.g., Mark 16:16, John 8:24).

467

C. Repentance also has three stages, and they follow a certain order paralleling that of faith.
First, there is sorrow for sin (2 Cor. 7:10). This is directly tied in with the conviction of sin that
precedes salvation. This sorrow is even greater. It mourns for sin because it crucified Christ
(Zech. 12:10). Second, this produces a change in mind. The word for repentance is METANOIA,
which literally means a changed mind. This is directly associated with the enlightenment of
faith. And third, there is a change of direction. This is what is called conversion.
D. Now there has been some controversy over whether repentance is essential for salvation.
The controversy has been outside of Calvinism, for no historical Calvinist disputes the words of
Christ, Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish (Luke 13:3). Non-Calvinists offer several
counter-arguments. Some say that repentance was essential only during Christs lifetime; some
say this was for salvation, others for admittance into the Millenial Kingdom, which Christ offered
to the Jews. Others say that repentance is only a change of mind, not a change of direction, and
so is the same as faith. Those using this argument frequently reduce faith to, only assent, not
trust and commitment. Then there are those who say that repentance belongs to sanctification,
not justification; it is an optional extra.
E. These arguments generally center around the third ingredient of repentance, namely
conversion. Nobody can honestly dispute that the word conversion means turning around.
Calvinists have always argued that this means a turning from sin and turning to God (cf. Acts
14:15, 20:21; I Thess. 1:9). Furthermore, this stage is absolutely essential to salvation: Repent
and return [be converted] that your sins may be wiped out (Acts 3:19; cf. -26:20); Unless you
are converted and become like little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven (Matt.
18:3)
F. Calvinist theologians have differed on which comes first. Some say that faith must precede
repentance (Calvin, W.G.T. Shedd, Herman Hoeksema, John Gill, John Murray, R.A. Webb,
A.A. Hodge, etc.). Calvin wrote, Repentance not only immediately follows faith, but is produced
by it. One of their key verses is Acts 11:21, a large number who believed turned to the Lord.
Another follows the order of Zech.12:10. First we look to Christ crucified, then we mourn for sin
and turn.
G. Other Reformed scholars reverse the order and place repentance before faith (A.W.Pink,
R.L. Dabney, Geerhardus Vos, Abraham Kuyper, James Petigru Boyce, etc.).They point out that
repentance precedes faith in such verses as Mark 1:15, Repent and believe the Gospel (cf.
Acts 20:21). Dabney especially appeals to 2 Tim. 2:25-26.
H. A third position is that faith and repentance are co-ordinate, not subordinate. They occur
simultaneously, for they are really the same thing. They develop in the same stages at the same
time and order. They are the two hands that receive Christ. In any case, Calvinists agree that
both are necessary, for saving faith always has conversion, and true repentance must also have
faith in Christ. Even those who posit one order or the other agree that the other element
necessarily follows immediately.

10. Conclusion.
A. What then is the Calvinist ordo salutis? There is no one Reformed order of salvation. The
theologians have differed slightly among themselves, and there is even some variation among
the official confessions. The appended chart illustrates some of the more popular orders.
B. For my part, I follow the ordo salutis of Louis Berkhof and John Murray, which is that of the
Westminster Confession and most Calvinists. In brief, it is as follows:

468

(1) Special Calling.

(2) Regeneration.
(3) Union to Christ
(4) Faith
(5) Repentance .
(6) Justification
(7) Adoption
C. Sanctification and glorification necessarily follow. We examined glorification under The
Destiny of the Elect in a previous study, and will examine sanctification under the Fifth Point of
Calvinism shortly.

Recommended Reading
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 415-422. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pp. 79-87. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hoekema, Anthony. Saved By Grace, pp. 11-27. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 446-451. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free
Publishing Association.
Berkouwer, G.C. Faith and Justification, pp. 25-36, 143-168. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Webb, Robert Alexander. Christian Salvation, especially pp. 271-273, 293. Harrisonburg:
Sprinkle Publications.
Storms, C. Samuel. Chosen For Life, pp. 101-113. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Ferguson, Sinclair B. Ordo Salutis, in New Dictionary of Theology, pp. 480-481; ed. by Sinclair
B- Ferguson and David F. Wright. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press.
Collins, G.N.M. Order of Salvation, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 802; ed. by Walter
Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Calvin, John Institutes, Book III. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Owen, John. The Works of
John Owen, vol. V. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Lectures in Systematic Theology, pp. 655-658. Carlisle: Banner of Truth;
and Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

469

The Order of Salvation

Romanism Lutheranism Arminianism

Calvinism
Shedd

Calvinism
Dabney

Calling

Calling

Baptism

Baptism

Sufficient
Grace

Confirmation

Calling

Repentance

Eucharist
Penance
Good Works
Extreme
Unction
Purgatory

Illumination
Repentance
Regeneration

Faith
Regeneration

Union
Faith
Repentance

Faith

Justification

Justification

Adoption

Regeneration Regeneration

Calvinism
Vos

Calvinism
Hoeksema

Regeneration Regeneration
Calling

Calling

Union
Repentance
Faith

Union
Repentance
Faith

Union
Faith
Repentance

Justification

Justification

Justification

Justification

Adoption

Adoption

Adoption

Adoption

Adoption

471

Calvinism
Kuyper

Calvinism
Gill

Eternal
Union
Eternal
Regeneration
Adoption
Calling
Calling
Repentance
Justification
Faith
Regeneration
Justification

Adoption

Faith
Repentance

Chapter 64. Common Grace.

1. Introduction.
A. As we conclude these last several lessons on the Fourth Point of Calvinism, it is right and
fitting that we balance what we have said with something else regarding grace. Calvinists
believe in two main kinds of grace. The first is Special Grace, which is both saving and
irresistible. The second is Common Grace, which is not saving and is resistible. The first is for
the elect alone, but Common Grace is given to all men.
B. You may recall our statement early in this series that Calvinism basically boils down to the
two words sovereign grace. Most of the debate between Reformed theology and other
systems centers around the doctrine of grace. This is especially true in the ongoing debate with
Arminianism, which is probably Calvinisms major rival within Evangelicalism today. For
example, two of the most important books promoting and defending Arminianism in recent years
have been entitled Grace Unlimited (1975) and The Grace of God, The Will of Han (1989), both
being a series of essays edited by Clark Pinnock. Arminians agree with the Reformation battle
cry, Sola gratia!, but their understanding of grace is different from ours.
C. Arminians believe in several kinds of grace, but not what we call Special or Irresistible
Grace. Conversely, we Calvinists believe in several kinds of grace, especially Special Grace,
but not only Special Grace. We also believe in Common Grace. However, even regarding the
nature of Common Grace we differ with the Arminians. All agree that Common Grace is
resistible and universal. But, as we shall see, there is a vital difference regarding how it relates
to salvation.

2. Common Grace in Nature and Providence.

A. There are many verses in which we are told that God has a general love and care for all men
as creatures, and that this is displayed in Nature through Providence. One of the more well
known places is Matt. 5:44-45, But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you, in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in Heaven; for He causes
His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
The point is that Jesus commands us to love all men, even our enemies, because God Himself
loves all men. Would God command us to do something that He Himself will not do? This is the
second great love commandment, which sums up the second table of the Law (cf. Matt. 22:3739).
B. The parallel in Luke 6:35-36 also bears mentioning: Love your enemies and do good, and
lend expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most
High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is
merciful. This illustrates Common Grace. God is merciful to all men in this sense. He gives
good to all men, expecting and receiving nothing in return. Note that He is this way to all men,
who are sinners.
C. This Common Grace especially is to be seen in the bounties of Providence, which God
bestows upon all men as His creatures. Acts 14:17, He did good and gave you rain from
Heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness(cf. vss. 15-16). This
is a major theme of Job 37 to 39 and the Psalms (see 65:5-13, 104:1-30, 136:25, 145:9, 14-16).

472

David exclaimed, the earth is full of the lovingkindness of the Lord (Psa. 33:5).
D. Nature, then, tells us something about Gods goodness (cf. Rom. 1:18-21; Psa. 19:1-3).We
know, for instance, that Everything created by God is good (I Tim. 4:4; cf. Gen.1:31) and that
Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father
of lights (James 1:17). When the rich man woke up in Hades, he was told, Remember that
during your life you received good things (Luke16:25). God gives good things even to those
who end up in Hell, that is, the reprobate.
E. Should one ask why, then there are several answers. First, God gives these things to all
men because they display His love for them as creatures. Second, the elect and reprobate are
scattered and mingled together through the world. God sends rain to the reprobate as well as to
the elect. Moreover, He gives such things to the elect even before their conversions, when they
were by nature no different from the reprobate. Third, He blesses the reprobate in this sense
because of the elect. We are told in Gen. 39:5, The Lord blessed the Egyptians house on
account of Joseph. Now this man was blessed because he did good to one of Gods children.
The same is true with us today.
F. The basic principle to bear in mind is this: God gives some good things to all men, and all
good things to some men. That is, the Lord bestows a measure of bounty to all men as His
creatures, and in the end gives all things in creation to some of them (namely, the elect). The
two must be kept in balance.

3. Restraining Grace.
A. Now, perhaps you have wondered why it is that the world of totally depraved men is not as
sinful as it can be. Abraham Kuyper said, The world goes better than expected. This is not due
to any good in men by nature, for they are wicked and evil. Rather, it is due to Gods Restraining
Grace, that aspect of Common Grace which restrains men from being as sinful in behavior as
their natures want to be.
B. We saw this earlier in our discussion of the Problem of Evil. The answer is that God can
choose to restrain evil or not to restrain evil. In Gen. 20:6, God told Abimelech, I also kept you
from sinning against me. The Lord restrained Sennacherib in 2 Kings 19:27-28, and restrains
even the righteous from going too far in their old nature, such as David in 1 Sam. 26:26, 33-34.
Gen. 31:7 says, God did not allow him to hurt me. 2 Thess. 2:6-7 mentions that which
restrains, which is evidently the sovereign hand of God through the Holy Spirit. God draws the
line on how far he will let men fall into sin by sovereignly saying, Thus far you shall come, but
no further (Job 38:11. Cf. Isa. 57:20). Now remember that men are led by their evil natures
(James 1:14-15), which in turn are led captive by Satan (2 Tim. 2:26; John 8:44; Eph. 2:1-3).
Job 1:12 and 2:6 tells us that God sovereignly controls Satan. Thus, God can and does restrain
sin.
C. God also loosens those restraints. Rom. 1:24 and 26 tells us that God gives men over, or
removes the restraints. They thus fall deeper into sin, specifically flagrant and overt sin (see
also Acts 7:42 and Psa. 81:11-12). If it were not for Restraining Grace, then wed all have
murdered each other by now. Jonathan Edwards, in typical incisive style, commented:
There are in the souls of wicked men those hellish principles reigning, that would presently
kindle and flame out into hell-fire, if it were not for Gods restraints. There is laid in the very
nature of carnal men, a foundation for the torments of hell; there are those corrupt principles, in
reigning power in them, and in full possession of them, that are the beginnings of hell-fire.

473

These principles are active and powerful, exceeding violent in their nature, and if it were not for
the restraining hand of God upon them, they would soon break out, they would flame out after
the same manner as the same corruptions, the same enmity does in the hearts of damned
souls, and would beget the same torments in them as they do in them.
D. So, God restrains them from sin. Furthermore, He even enables them through this means to
achieve a certain measure of outward conformity to the Law (Rom. 2:14-15; Matt. 7:11). They
are not doing it from right motives, so it does not qualify as a good work. Yet, this is necessary
for the ongoing progress of the world Common Grace, then, both restrains evil and provides a
measure of outward good in its place.

4. Common Grace and Culture.

A. This leads us to another aspect of Common Grace. Perhaps more than any other branch of
Protestantism, Calvinism has developed the idea of Common Grace as the basis for culture.
The Dutch branch of Reformed theology has especially given attention to this field. Abraham
Kuyper wrote a massive treatment of the subject in three large volumes entitled De Gemeene
Gratia (which in English would translate as Common Grace). Unfortunately, this excellent work
has not been translated into English. Still, Kuyper discusses the subject here and therein other
works, which have been Englished, such as his seminal Lectures on Calvinism.
B. The historic Reformed doctrine of Common Grace teaches that God keeps order inhuman
society through various means of Common Grace. One of them is the ordinance of civil rulers.
Magistrates, whether elected or unelected, are ordained by God to establish a certain measure
of civil righteousness. This is especially developed in Romans 13, but also in I Pet. 2:14 and I
Tim. 2:1-2. This does not necessarily require a theocracy, nor that each and every civil ruler be
regenerate. Scripture gives examples of civil rulers who ruled with a large measure of
righteousness, even though their hearts were not right with God (e.g., 2 Kings 10:29-30, 12:2,
14:3. Cf. Luke 6:33).
C. Common Grace, then, provides a general good for man above and beyond what he would
normally be able to do, or even want to do. This is true in all areas of culture. Another example
is that of art. How is it that a totally non-Christian artist can paint a beautiful painting? Why is it
that not all art by unbelievers is directly blasphemous? Calvinists such as Hans Rookmaaker
have discussed the Calvinist theology of art, or Reformed Aesthetics. They point out that not all
workers on the Temple were Israelites. Some were pagans, but they were good artists and
architects. How? - Because they had been endued by Common Grace with cultural gifts.
D. The same is true in all other areas of culture, such as education, science, etc. This does not
mean that unregenerate Man is exercising these gifts with the right motives, no. But it does
mean that God is keeping His world operating. Nor does it mean that Man, whether regenerate
or unregenerate, can construct the Kingdom of God on earth alone.

5. Common Grace and Salvation.

A. Next, we come to the thorny question of how Common Grace touches on the area of
salvation. Some Calvinists say that there is no connection, but the more orthodox say that there
is, but it needs to be precisely delineated. One of the first points at which they touch is the fact
that sinners are not yet in Hell, Elect sinners, of course, shall certainly come to salvation some
day. But why are not the reprobate destroyed? The answer is that there is something in

474

Common Grace that provides for a delay of punishment for them.

B. Now, even though we can show that this time delay also accomplishes another purpose,
namely Gods fattening them up for the slaughter, there is still something here, which indicates
something merciful. Some theologians prefer to speak of it as general patience. For example, 2
Pet. 3:4 speaks of Gods patience in bearing with the wicked world in Noahs day. All the world
but eight souls were reprobate, and yet God delayed the Flood by many decades. Further, the
very fact that sinners have not yet received their punishment should move them to repent. Paul
says in Rom. 2:4, Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and
patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? The RSV renders this
last clause, Do you not know that the kindness of God is meant to lead you to repentance?
C. But, as in Noahs day, sinners abuse this general patience. They misuse their delay of
judgment as an opportunity to scoff at God. Eccl. 8:11, Because the sentence against an evil
deed is not executed quickly, therefore the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.
Common Grace does not of itself lead to salvation.
D. There has been considerable controversy over the centuries on one more aspect of Common
Grace relevant to salvation, and it is this: Is there such a thing as a universal saving will of
God? Now obviously all true Calvinists will deny that the Secret Will of God is universally
saving. How do we know that? Two facts tell us. First, everything in the Secret Will shall
certainly come to pass, for it is absolute predestination. Second, not all men will be saved. If
God universally willed all men to be saved in predestination, then all certainly would be saved.
That only some will be saved (which Scripture everywhere teaches) means that God does not
will that every individual be saved.
E. The real debate, however, is whether there is anything like a universal saving will in the
Revealed Will of God, that is, the Gospel. Some of the higher Calvinists have denied this, such
as Gordon Clark and the Hyper-Calvinists. But they are in the minority on this point, and are out
of step with Scripture.
F. The Word of God teaches us that there is a sense in which God wills the salvation of all men,
and that this is owing to His Common Grace. For example, Mark 10:21says that Jesus loved
the rich young ruler. There is no indication that this young man was saved at that time or any
other time, much less that he was elect. Since this is a salvation context according to his very
question, the clear implication is that Christ had a saving will for Him in this sense, even though
he ended up lost.
G. This is even more evident in Christs weeping over Jerusalem at large (Luke 13:34,19:41;
Matt. 23:37). These verses indicate that Christ stretched out His arms to them in love, but they
rejected His love and salvation. They echo the words of Pro. 1:24-25, I called and you refused;
I stretched out my hand and no one paid attention; and you neglected all my counsel and did
not want my reproof. Truly these are among the saddest words in the Bible.
H. Then there are the words of Ezek. 33:11, As I live, declares the Lord God, I take no
pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn
back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, 0 house of Israel? Virtually the
same words are also in Ezek. 18:23 and 32. The same theme is expressed in the Book of Jonah
4:2 and 11. God most certainly does have a saving will in this the Revealed Will.
I. Some Calvinists see this as the meaning in I Tim. 2:3-4, This is good and acceptable in the
sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the
truth. They argue that just as Paul exhorted Christians to pray for each and every man,
including civil magistrates, in verses 1 and 2, so he says that this is because there is a sense in
which God wills the salvation of each and every individual man. Verses 5 and 6 go on to add

475

that in this same sense, Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all. In other words, the universal
saving will of God is associated with the universal aspect of the atonement.
J. We might add, on the other hand, that other Calvinists interpret these verses differently. They
contend that I Tim. 2 is not speaking of each and every man, but all kinds of man. We are not
to pray for every man, but for any man regardless of race or class. For example, they point to
John 17:9 and I John 5:16. Hence, vs. 4 refers to the Secret Will, which is limited, not universal.
K. Be that as it may, almost all Calvinists interpret 2 Pet. 3:9 to refer to Gods saving will for the
elect. Still, that does not mean that there is not a sense in which it is Gods will that all who hear
the Gospel believe it and be saved. If He commands faith and repentance, then surely it is His
Revealed Will that they believe and repent. Since these are the means of salvation, it follows
that in some sense He wills all who hear the Gospel to be saved.

6. Prevenient Grace.
A. Because God has a general grace on all men regarding salvation, and especiallythose who
hear the Gospel, He sends the Holy Spirit to strive with men, calling them to salvation (Gen.
6:3-5). This is not Effectual Grace or the Special Calling, which accompanies salvation. Rather,
it precedes salvation. Shedd commented, There is a grace of God that goes before
regenerating grace and makes the soul ready for it. It is common or prevenient grace.
B. There is much confusion about the nature of this aspect of Common Grace. The Arminians
teach that it is saving grace, and there is nothing more than this. They develop the idea of
Sufficient Grace. Some even appeal to 2 Cor. 12:9, M grace is sufficient for you. It should be
obvious that this verse refers to a kind of grace already given to a regenerate man. Still, they
argue as follows. First, they say that God gives Sufficient Grace to all men, or at least to all who
hear the Gospel. Second, it is up to them to exert their free wills and use this Sufficient Grace to
believe the Gospel and receive Christ, resulting in regeneration. Hence, it can be successfully
resisted. Moreover, Man needs nothing more. Arminianism strenuously rejects the idea of
Special, Irresistible Grace. This resistible grace is sufficient. It is all they need, say the
Arminians.
C. Historic Lutheranism is a little better. Many Lutheran theologians have suggested that this
Prevenient Grace is given in order to enable men to receive Special Grace. They are not able to
actively believe unto salvation, but through Sufficient Grace they are enabled to passively cease
from resisting Special Grace. If they do so, then Special Grace has its desired end in them, and
they are saved. This is better than Arminianism, but is still deficient. It erroneously teaches that
fallen man is still able, even though enabled by Sufficient Grace, to do a good thing. Reformed,
theology rather says that no man is able to do anything good until regenerated. He cannot even
cease to resist Special Grace of himself. Hes that bad.
D. What, then, is the purpose of Prevenient Grace and how does it differ from Special Grace?
William G.T. Shedd explains: The reprobate resist and nullify common grace; and so do the
elect. The obstinate selfishness and enmity of the human heart defeats the Divine mercy as
shown in the ordinary influence of the Holy Spiriti in both the elect and non-elect... The
difference between the two cases is, that in the instance of the elect, God follows up the
common grace which has been resisted, with the regenerating grace which overcomes
resistance; while in the instance of the reprobate, he does not.
E. Common Grace, then, is good. But it is not enough. Man needs more. God gives that extra
grace, but He gives it only to the elect. In the elect, Common Grace that deals with the Gospel

476

and salvation (what is called Prevenient Grace) prepares the way for Special Grace. There can
be Prevenient Grace with no Special Grace following, but there is no Special Grace that has not
been preceded by Prevenient Grace.

7. The Rejection of the Doctrine of Common Grace.

A. Some Calvinists think that all this is being too generous. Most Hyper-Calvinists are
especially uncomfortable with the Reformed doctrine of Common Grace, with various degrees of
reluctance on its varying aspects. But most still believe in it, at least in some form. There is one
branch of Hyperism, however, that has always strenuously denied the doctrine of Common
Grace, especially as formulated by Abraham Kuyper. That has. been the Protestant Reformed
Church and its founder, Herman Hoeksema. Hoeksema started the smal1 Protestant Reformed
Church after he was expelled from the Christian Reformed Church for opposing the Three
Points of Common Grace of 1924. These points were produced by the leading theologians of
the denomination, such as Louis Berkhof, -and are an excellent summary of the historic
Reformed doctrine of Common Grace in its main features. They are as follows:
Concerning the favorable attitude of God toward mankind in general and not only toward the
elect, the Synod declares that it is certain, on the ground of Scripture and the [Belgic]
Confession, that there is, besides the saving grace of God, shown only to those chosen unto
eternal life, also a certain favor or grace of God which He shows to all His creatures. This is
evident from the quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dordt II, 5, and III and IV, 8
and 9, where the general offer of the Gospel is discussed; while it is evident from the quoted
declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our
Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.
Concerning the restraint of sin in the life of the individual and in society, the Synod declares
that according to Scripture and Confession, there is such a restraint of sin. This is evident from
the quoted Scripture passages and from the Belgic Confession, Art. 13 and 36, where it is
taught that God through the general operations of His Spirit, without renewing the heart,
restrains sin in its unhindered breaking forth, as a result of which human society has remained
possible; while it is evident from the quoted declarations of Reformed writers of the period of
florescence of. Reformed theology, that our Reformed fathers from of old have championed this
view.
Concerning the performance of so-called civic righteousness by the unregenerate, the Synod
declares that according to Scripture and Confession the unregenerate, though incapable of any
saving good (Canons of Dordt, II, IV, 3), can perform such civic good. This is evident from the
quoted Scripture passages and from the Canons of Dordt, III and IV, 4, and the Belgic
Confession, where it is taught that God., without renewing the heart, exercises such influence
upon man that he is enabled to perform civic good; while it is evident from the quoted
declarations of Reformed writers of the period of florescence of Reformed theology, that our
Reformed fathers from of old have championed this view.
B. Hoeksema argued that this was Arminianism in disguise. The three points contradict the first
two points of Calvinism. First, they imply that man is not totally depraved. Next, that God does
not love the elect alone. Hoeksema wrote much against the Three Points of 1924. His views led
him also to reject the historically Reformed doctrine of the free offer of the Gospel, for after all,
men are unable to accept a free offer and God really wouldnt want them to accept it anyway.
C. Hoeksema went to the opposite extreme from Arminianism. Arminianism denies the doctrine
of Special Grace for the elect alone; universal Common Grace is enough. Hoeksema is the

477

reverse: he denies the doctrine of Common Grace because he over-Emphasizes the doctrine of
Special Grace. True Reformed theology has always taught both in the places which Scripture
gives them. In sum, there is a sense in which God loves all men as creatures, takes care of
them, restrains their sin, enables them to carry on in society, and even calls for their salvation.
But there is also a sense in which He loves only the elect, and in that sense efficaciously calls
them alone by Special and Irresistible Grace. Both graces are taught in Scripture. They are
united; and what God has united, let no man put asunder.

Recommended Reading
Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace and the Gospel. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. II, pp. 93-119. Carlisle: Banner of
Truth.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 432-446. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
North, Gary. Dominion and Common Grace. Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics.
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Berkouwer, G.C. The Providence of God, pp. 57-89. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. II, pp. 654-675. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

478

Chapter 65. The Preservation of the

Saints.
1. Introduction.
A. At one point or another, every Christian has asked the question, Can I lose my salvation?
Some ask this over and over because they fear that they already have lost their salvation,
usually because of some specific sin or habit. Thus, the question is very practical and has
obvious implications for salvation itself.
B. There are three basic possible answers to the question at hand. First, there is the theoretical
possibility that nobody can know the answer, for the Bible does not tell us enough about the
matter, very, very few Christians have accepted this answer. As we shall see, there is more than
enough in the Bible given so that we can find out Gods answer.
C. Second, there is the basic Arminian answer. With variations, this school teaches that it is
possible for a saved person to lose that salvation and end up in Hell. This has been the position
of the Roman Catholic Church, the Churches of Christ, the Church of the Nazarene, most
Pentecostal churches (such as the Assemblies of God), virtually all Methodist churches, and
many more. James Arminius and most of the Remonstrants taught this view, as did John
Wesley and a host of others. In more recent days, it has been popularized by Robert Shank in
Life in the Son and I. Howard Marshall in Kept By the Power of God.
D. The third answer is that a true Christian can never lose his salvation. This has been the
unanimous view among Calvinists. Many historic Lutherans and most Baptists have also
followed this line. The Fifth Head of the Canons of the Synod of Dort gives it its lengthiest
exposition of any major confession of faith, but probably the best concise summary is that in the
Westminster Confession: They whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called and
sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall
certainly persevere therein to the end and be eternally saved (XVII:1).
E. As this quotation shows, the historical Reformed position includes two necessary elements:
preservation and perseverance of the saints. In this first lesson we will examine preservation; in
the second, perseverance; in the third, objections.
F. For the record, there are several related terms that are frequently used in the discussion.
Perhaps the most popular is, Once saved, always saved. Then there is the phrase, Eternal
Security. By contrast, the other view is sometimes termed Conditional Preservation. If one
wanted to coin new phrases by negating the accepted term, Eternal Security, one might
consider using the terms Temporary Security or Eternal Insecurity to describe the Arminian
theory.

2. Preservation by God.
A. This is the Fifth Point of Calvinism. To understand the doctrine of perseverance, we first
need to understand the doctrine of preservation. To preserve is to keep, to sustain, to protect, to
guard. The opposite is to abandon and to forsake. Now, the Bible is filled with verses which tell
us that God preserves His people and never forsakes them. Consider the following: The Lord

479

loves justice and does not forsake His godly ones. They are preserved forever (Psa. 37:28);
who keeps us in life and does not allow our feet to slip (Psa. 66:9); The Lord will not forsake
His people, nor will He forsake His inheritance (Psa. 94:14); who preserves the souls of His
godly ones (Psa. 97:10); The Lord sustains all who fall... The Lord keeps all who love Him
(Psa. 145:14, 20); He preserves the way of His godly ones (Pro. 2:8). Lest there be any doubt,
God tells us, I will never leave you, nor forsake you (Heb. 13:5). In the first clause of that
verse, God uses two negatives, and three negatives in the second. There are ..also three
negatives in John 6:37, The one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. This is triple
emphasis.
B. I Peter 1:5 is a major verse on this subject. Peter writes that we are kept by the power of
God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. The NASB translates the
key verb as protected. Salvation has three stages: past, present and future. God protects
those who have received the first stage, continually supplies them with the second, and
guarantees that they will receive the third. Lest somebody say, Yes, but the text says that we
must do our part by believing, we would remind them that Scripture teaches that God is the one
who gives us that faith in the first place. Moreover, notice that the text says that we are kept by
the power of God. Preservation of the saints is as sure as divine omnipotence. We are safe
because God is strong.
C. 2 Tim. 1:12 is also well-known: I know whom I have believed and am convinced that He is
able to guard that which I have entrusted to Him until that day. In salvation, we entrust our very
souls to God. He keeps and preserves them for us. How do we know that He will keep them for
us? Because God is faithful (I Thess, 5:23-24).
D. There is a sense in which we keep ourselves and there is a sense in which we are being
kept. Both aspects are mentioned in Jude 21 and 24, Keep yourselves in the love of God...
Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to make you stand in the presence of
His glory blameless with great joy... We keep ourselvesonly because we are being kept. Just
as we love Him because He first loved us (I John 4:19), so we keep because we are being kept
by God. When Arthur W. Pink was once asked, How are you keeping yourself these days?, he
replied, Im not. Im being kept.
E. I John 5:18 touches on the subject, but is fraught with translation^ problems. The NASB
renders the second half, He who was born of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch
him. Other translations render it, Whoever was born of God keeps himself. In the first version,
He is Christ, the one who was uniquely born of God the Father. In the second, he is every
Christian. I follow the majority interpretation that it is Christ who is doing the keeping. In either
case, two facts emerge. First, we are certainly being kept. Second, we are being kept from
Satan.
F. This is in accord with Christs prayer in John 17. Twice He prays that the Father preserve
them: Holy Father, keep them in Thy name... I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world,
but to keep them from the evil one (vss. 11, 15). While He was on the Earth, Jesus kept and
guarded His people (vs. 12). Now He is praying that the Father keep and protect them after
the Ascension. This applies to all future believers, not just to the earliest disciples (vs. 20). Vs.
15 is crucial. Christ prayed for the Father to keep and protect His people from Satan. If, then,
even a single one of His people were lost, then the father did not answer Christs prayer. But
that could never be, for the Father always answers Him.
G. This answers the question, What are we preserved from? We are not only preserved from
Hell and eternal damnation, but from Satan himself. Satan seeks to keep every human being in
his control. They are in his grip by their sinful nature (Eph. 2:1-3;I John 5:19). Christ rescues His
elect from Satan. The Devil then seeks to get them back. For example, Christ said to Peter,

480

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have
prayed for you, that your faith may not fail (Luke 22:31-32). Christs prayers are stronger than
Satans wiles.
H. If any of the elect were to be lost, then we could rightly conclude that Satan won the tug-ofwar with God. If so, then Satan would be the stronger one, and we should follow him instead of
God (cf. I Kings 18:21). But Satan is no match for God. 2 Thess. 3:3, The Lord is faithful and
He will strengthen and protect you from the evil one. A true believer can never fall back into the
vice-grip of Satan. Consequently, a true believer can never be demon-possessed (cf. I John
4:4). Some Arminians point to Luke 11:24-26 as an example that a true believer can lose all and
wind up demonized, but Calvinists point out that this passage describes one who was never
born-again to begin with. His house was empty of Christ. Once Christ lives in a soul, He
preserves it from Satan.

3. Preservation and Predestination.

A. Calvinists have another set of aces in proving eternal preservation, and it is the doctrine of
absolute predestination and election. Simply put, all the elect are eternally secure because they
were elected to receive eternal salvation and glorification. Thus, it has the immutable
omnipotence of the divine decrees behind it, Louis Berkhof sums it up: Election does not
merely mean that some will be favored with certain external privileges and may be saved, if they
do their duty; but that they who belong to the number of the elect shall finally be saved and can
never fall short of perfect salvation.
B. Romans 8 is the definitive passage on this point. First, notice vs. 28. Whether one renders
this as All things work together or God works all things together, the result is the same. God
works all things together in such a way that His people will receive only good in the end. This is
His eternal purpose. An Arminian will chirp at this and say, But this verse is conditional upon
our continuing in love for God. Well, that is partly true. But we would remind him that all true
believers do love God. Why? Because God first loved us. And God will keep us supplied with
that love so that in turn we will persevere in love. Furthermore, we would ask the Arminian,
Does apostasy and loss of salvation work together for the good of those whom God has
elected and called? Of course not.
C. Now look at the unbreakable Golden Chain of vss. 29-30. As indicated earlier in this series,
these links are inseparable from each other. In fact, this could be rendered, All those whom He
foreknew, He predestined. Thus, look at vs. 29:and all those whom He justified, He glorified.
All who are justified in time shall most certainly be glorified in eternity future. Why? Because
they were elected and predestined to that end. To suggest that one can be justified but not
glorified is as impossible as to say that one could be elected but not justified.
D. Paul concludes-this glorious chapter with the resounding chorus of vss. 35-39.Who shall
ever be able to separate any of Gods elect from God and His salvation? Certainly not Satan, or
other people. Note verse 39: nor any other created being. That includes ourselves. But lets
not miss the emphasis. The eternal security of the elect is solely due to the sovereign grace of
God. To deny eternal security, therefore, is to grossly underestimate Gods love for His elect.
E. Now there have been several unusual variations and modifications of this doctrine
concerning predestination and preservation. Augustine and some Lutherans taughtthat one of
the non-elect might believe, be saved, then fall from salvation and end up in Hell. Hence, only
the elect make it all the way to the end. Such a theory is closer to Arminianism than to
Calvinism. Still, Augustine was correct to state that predestination guarantees preservation and

481

perseverance of the elect. But such a theory fails to explain how one of the non-elects ever
supposedly got saved in the first place. Scripture indicates that only the elect will ever be saved.
F. Theres another important reason why the elect will be preserved: the Covenant of
Redemption between the Father and the Son in eternity. In John 6:39, Jesus stated, And this is
the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me, I lose nothing, but raise it up on
the last day. This is the sovereign, Secret Will of God. Nothing can stop it. What does it
include? It includes that those whom the Father gave to the Son in the Covenant of Redemption
will never be lost, but will most certainly be raised by Christ to eternal glory at the end of time.

4. Preservation and Eternal Life.

A. There are several other passages in Johns Gospel which teach perfect preservation. First,
John 5:24, He who hears my word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not
come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. This explicitly tells us that whoever
has eternal life shall absolutely never be condemned, for they have passed out of judgment into
life. Other verses in John state without equivocation that eternal life is a present possession.
For instance, He who believes has eternal life (6:47. Cf. 3:16, 36; I John 5:11, 13). Eternal life
is given in regeneration. As a result, one believes in Christ. And this eternal life can never be
lost.
B. John 10:28-29 is probably the best passage in the entire Bible on the subject of eternal
security. Christ says that He gives eternal life to His sheep. That much, is certain and agreed by
all. But note what He then says: and they shall never perish. This is a definite and unqualified
assertion by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. In fact, the Greek text has a double negative for
extra emphasis. Millard Erickson offers this translation: They shall not, repeat, shall not ever
perish in the slightest. Preservation prevents perishing. If they never perish, then it follows that
they are eternally preserved.
C. Notice what comes next in the text: and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. This
specifically includes those who would attempt to pull a Christian away from Christ, as the
Pharisees were trying to do in this context. It applies to all humans and devils. Christ keeps us
by protecting us from all others. His hand is around us to keep them out.
D. His hand is also around us to keep us in. Thus, even we ourselves cannot get away.
Arminians like to say that nobody can take us away, but we can escape of ourselves. No, thats
not Biblical. If we escape, it would only be because Satan led us to do so. If so, then behind it all
would be Satan taking us out of Christs hand.
E. But, replies the Arminian, though He holds us in His hand, we can still slip between the
fingers. Not hardly, for we are His fingers, having been made members of His body. Can we
jump out? Occasionally our sin nature deceives us and moves us to try to jump out. But the
glorious truth is that Christ always pulls us back. The picture is as follows: We are like a little
boy holding his daddys hand as the two of them walk along the way. The boy stumbles and lets
go. But the father is still holding on to him with his own hand, which is strong enough to hold him
up. This is precisely what is said in Psa. 37:24, When he falls, he shall not be hurled headlong;
because the Lord is the one who holds his hand.
F. Now notice verse 29, My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all and no one
is able to snatch them out of the Fathers hand. Some expositors take this to mean that
somehow we are in Christs hand, which is in the Fathers hand. I prefer to look at it differently. It
rather seems to be the picture of two hands holding the same object. One hand is the Fathers,

482

the other belongs to the Son. Even if one were to let go, the other would still have hold. But of
course, neither one will ever let go. They are both invincible and work together. Whom the Son
holds, the Father holds. One could also add that there is the third hand of the Holy Spirit.
G. At the risk of mere speculation, I would expand on this along two further lines. Why does a
person hold something with two hands instead of just one? There are two reasons. The first is
for guaranteed strength. When a man attempts to lift a log, he uses both arms. Hence, Christ
immediately says that My Father is greater(that is, stronger) than all. When I was a boy, my
Dad and I would wrestle. Of course, it was all in fun, for he was much bigger than me. He
invented a hold, which he called the Daniel Body Press, a huge bear-hug from which I could
not escape. Thats how it is with God. He puts both arms around us. We cannot getaway. Just
as I felt secure in the strength of my father, so all believers feel secure in the strength of their
heavenly Father.
H. There is a second thing that is implied in the two-armed hold. Friends may shake hands, but
lovers hold each other with both arms. God holds us with both arms. He loves us dearly, and
His hold not only displays His great love but is as if to say, I love you and Ill never let you go.
He holds us in the arms of electing love.

5. Miscellaneous Proofs for the Preservation of the Saints.

A. By its very nature, salvation and its constituent elements are irreversible. Salvation has a
sort of ratchet effect. Once we are saved, we can never go back to being unsaved. I know that
whatever God does will remain forever; there is nothing to add to it and there is nothing to take
away from it, for God has so worked that men should fear Him (Eccl. 3:14). The gifts and
calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). This is especially true with justification. Once we
are justified, we are forever justified: There is, then, no condemnation for those who are in
Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1. Cf. John 5:24 above.) Much more then, having been justified by His
blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him (Rom, 5:9. Cf. vs. 10). If Jesus did
so much to save us, will He not do as much to keep us saved? See Rom. 8:32.
B. Moreover, when one of the elect is regenerated and justified, He is also sealed by God (Eph.
1:13, 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22). Some expositors have waxed eloquent on this, explaining that we are
sealed like canned preserves. Well, that is a truth, but I am not sure that it is the meaning of
these texts. Others are closer to the mark when they compare them with passages, which
indicate that seals are set so as to keep intruders out of a certain location (Matt. 27:66; Dan.
6:17). Note that Matt. 27:65 specifically indicates security. The seal of the Holy Spirit keeps
Satan away from us lest he plunder our souls from God. But the main purpose of a seal was to
indicate ownership. We are Gods property. If we are ever lost, then it could only be because
God lost us. Such a concept is unthinkable. See Col. 3:3.
C. Another proof of perfect preservation is that Scripture knows no third category of persons in
the world: saved, lost, and those who were formerly saved but are now lost again. As we shall
see later, Arminians adduce several passages that allegedly teach such a category. But if so,
then such souls could sing their own version of Amazing Grace: I once was saved but now am
lost, once saw but now am blind.
D. Whats more, if one could conceivably apostatize so as to lose salvation, just how would one
go about doing it? Arminians disagree among themselves on this crucial point. Is one sin
enough? If so, then every Christian loses his salvation hundreds of times a day - a dreadful and
unbiblical concept. Or is there a special number of sins that we reach, and then God says,
Thats one too many. Nowre youre lost again? Or is it rather a special kind of sin? If it were

483

the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then that is so horrendous that nobody who comitted it
would ever be saved again. Very few Arminians suggest that, for they usually have their bag of
stories of those (often including themselves) who have been saved, lost again, and then saved
again. Usually Arminians invent a special kind of throwing in the towel sort of sin, wherein a
saved person consciously forfeits salvation of his own free will. But is this gradual or sudden?
And, ironically, could a person know that he had apostatized enough? Maybe he needs a little
more. Ridiculous.
E. Similarly, we would ask the Arminian, If a person can lose his salvation here and now, why
couldnt he lose it when he gets to Heaven? Arminians almost unanimously agree that nobody
will get kicked out of Heaven, for they will be confirmed in salvation. The Calvinist argues that a
believer is confirmed in justification. He is as secure as if he had already arrived in Heaven. The
only difference is that he has not yet been experimentally perfected. But legally we are safe and
secure.
F. Lastly, this great doctrine affords wonderful assurance to the child of God. What a blessing it
is to know that God will hold us to the end. A pop song a few years ago had the line, If you fall,
I will catch you; Ill be waiting, time after time. Thats how it is with our precious Savior. We fall
daily, but each time He catches us. Underneath are the everlasting arms (Deut. 33:27). And
He preserves us on the way, for God is able to make him stand (Rom.. 14:4). Because He
loves us too much to let us go.

Recommended Reading (includes the next two studies)

Owen, John. The Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance Explained and Confirmed, in The Works
of John Owen, vol. XI. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (The fullest Reformed work on the subject over 600 pages of concise and detailed theology.)
Pink, Arthur W. Eternal Security. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. The Final Perseverance of the Saints. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
(Covers Romans 8:17-39 in the Doctors magisterial exposition of Romans.)
Berkouwer, C.G. Faith and Perseverance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Gromacki, Robert. Salvation is Forever. Schaumburg: Regular Baptist Press.
Hoekema, Homer C. The Voice of Our Fathers, pp. 629-843. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free
Publishing Association. (Exposition of the Canons of Dort)
Augustine. On the Gift of Perseverance, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers of the Christian. Church, vol. V, pp. 521-552. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Gill, John. A Body of Divinity, pp. 559-578. Paris: Baptist Standard Bearer.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. II, pp. 596-603. Carlisle: Banner.
Kendall, R.T. Once Saved, Always Saved. Chicago: Moody Press. (Teaches preservation
without perseverance). .
Hoekema, Anthony. Saved By Grace, pp. 234-256. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Aldersen, Richard. No tidiness, No Heaven! Antinomianism Today. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
(Specifically on perseverance. Interacts with Kendall and others.)
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology, vol. II, pp. 490-501. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.

484

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. Ill, pp. 490-501. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Ryle, J.C.
Never Perish. Choteau: Gospel Mission.
Riesinger, Ernest. The Carnal Christian. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (On perseverance)
Sellers, C. Norman. Election and Perseverance. Miami Springs: Schottle Publishing Co. (A
point-by-point Low Calvinist refutation of Robert Shanks Life in the Son.)
Barker, Harold. Secure Forever. Neptune: Loizeaux Brothers.
Custance, Arthur C. The Sovereignty of Grace, pp. 191-224. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 182-201. Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed,
Palmer, Edwin. The Five Points of Calvinism, pp. 68-80. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 581-589. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Watson, Thomas. A Body of Divinity, pp. 279-289. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. Berkhof, Louis.
Systematic Theology, pp. 545-549. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Lectures in Systematic Theology, pp. 687-689. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pp. 151-160. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
MacArthur, John. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. (Useful sections
on perseverance)
Calvin, John. Institutes, 111:24:6-11 (vol. II, pp. 971-978). Philadelphia: Westminster. Ryle, J.C.
Holiness. Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revel 1. (Especially good on perseverance)

485

Chapter 66. The Perseverance of the

Saints.
1. Introduction.
A. Occasionally in defending the Fifth Point of Calvinism, the Calvinist is likely to hear his
Arminian friend ask, Just where is this supposed perseverance of the saints in the Bible,
anyway? The ready answer is found in Rev. 14:12, Here is the perseverance of the saints who
keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus (cf. 13:10). The phrase is found in the
Bible, and so is the doctrine it represents.
B. Paul told young Timothy, Persevere in these things (I Tim. 4:16). Throughout Scripture,
believers are encouraged to keep on keeping on, to continue believing and obeying, not to grow
weary in well doing; in a word, to persevere. The Fifth Point of Calvinism is not merely that God
preserves His people. The Fifth Point also teaches that the people of God will persevere to the
end in faith and holiness. Such perseverance is evidence that they have been regenerated. It
always happens.

2. Perseverance in Faith and Repentance.

A. The Reformed doctrine of perseverance is that a regenerate soul will certainly persevere
through the trials of life and continue to believe and repent. He will slip and fall, develop bad
habits, wrestle with doubts, but through it all He will keep on going even as he began.
B. The Christian life begins with faith and repentance, and so it continues. In fact, the very call
to faith requires this continual aspect. The Gospel never says to a sinner, Believe only once,
but rather, Start believing. Of course, God alone gives the gift of faith, and once it is given a
person is forever justified. But Calvinism has always taught that it does not end there. For
instance, we point out that several verses in the Bible describe saving faith as something
continuous. Even the verb believes in John 3:16 is in the present continuous tense.
C. For this reason, Calvinists have always rejected Easy Believism, the heresy that a sinner
need believe only once and can remain a Christian without ever believing again. Unfortunately,
that error too frequently pops up in popular evangelism. All of us have heard the sort of
evangelistic appeal that says, Just believe this once. It wont cost much and it wont take long.
Itll only take a few moments, and then you can go along your way. Calvinists utterly abominate
such manipulation. Christ does not call a sinner to a single act of faith, but to a life of faith.
D. The same is true with repentance. Some non-Calvinists teach that a single act of repentance
is enough; others deny that any repentance is necessary at all. Calvinists agree with the first of
Martin Luthers famous Ninety-five Theses: Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying,
Repent ye, intended that the whole life of believers should be penitence.
E. Now it is indubitably true that all believers slip and fall into sin. But the truth of the matter is
that no believer stays down. Just as God gave him faith and repentance unto initial conversion,
so He supplies him with faith and repentance all along the way to Heaven. In other words, God
picks the fallen saint up and works repentance in his heart so that he repents and continues in
the Christian life. And God does this eventually and before too long. The Canons of Dort taught

486

as much:
For in the first place, in these falls He preserves in them the incorruptible seed of regeneration
from perishing, or being totally lost; and again, by His Word and Spirit, certainly and effectually
renews them again to repentance, to a sincere and godly sorrow for their sins, that they may
seek and obtain remission in the blood of the Mediator, may again experience the favor of a
reconciled God, through faith adore His mercies, and henceforward more diligently work out
their own salvation with fear and trembling (V:7).

3. Perseverance in Holiness.
A. This Fifth Point of Calvinism also teaches that the regenerate will persevere in the necessary
fruit of faith, namely, a godly life of obedience to our Heavenly Father. Hence, sanctification is
no optional extra. It is the necessary evidence of regeneration.
B. Heb. 12:14, Pursue peace with all men, and the holiness without which no man will see the
Lord. Such words should be apparent to all, but they have been twisted and tortured by many
who recoil from the true meaning. One such misinterpretation is that this is speaking of the
imputed holiness of justification. Well, it certainly is true that without justification, no man will see
the Lord (cf. Matt. 5:20). But that is not what the author of Hebrews is addressing here. He is not
speaking of positional, legal righteousness but of experiential, practical righteousness. Note the
verb, pursue, or follow after. It speaks of something that goes on, continues, and perseveres.
C. Another misinterpretation contends that the verse does not speak of entering Heaven per se,
but of rewards. That is, he who never pursues holiness can enter, but he has no rewards when
he gets there. The one who pursues this optional extra not only makes it to Heaven, but wins
the extra rewards for his holiness. Such is not the teaching of this or any other text in the Word
of God. Again, notice the text: without which no man shall see the Lord. This says nothing of
extra rewards. Rather, it refers to the Beatific Vision, that aspect of the glorification of the elect
wherein they get to see the very face of God (e.g., Rev. 22:4; Matt. 5:8; Psa. 11:7, 17:15; I John
3:2). All those in Heaven will see God. But if no man will see God without holiness, it follows that
no man will enter heaven without this holiness.
D. The great 19th-century Scottish Calvinist, William Cunningham, offered the following incisive
comments on the Reformed doctrine of perseverance in holiness:
The perseverance which we contend for... is just a perseverance in faith and holiness, - a
continuing steadfast in believing, and in bringing forth all the fruits of righteousness.
Perseverance is not merely a continuing for some time upon earth after faith and regeneration
have been produced, and then being admitted, as a matter of course, to heaven, without any
regard to the moral history of the intervening period; it is perseverance unto the end in the
exercise of faith and in the practice of holiness. This, we say, has been provided for, and will be
certainly effected.

4. The Inevitability of Perseverance.

A. In Job 17:9 we are told, the righteous shall hold to his way. This is not an optional extra,
but a description of every true believer in Christ. But does not the Christian fall into sin? Most
assuredly he does, but he always bounces back: For a righteous man falls seven times and
rises again (Pro. 24:17. Cf. Micah 7:8). This is one of the great blessings of salvation. Note how

487

God promises both preservation and perseverance to His people in the New Covenant: And I
will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them
good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me (Jer.
32:40).
B. Now our opponents in this theological dispute regularly appeal to Matt. 10:22 and 24:13, He
who endures to the end will be saved. One could quibble about the exact eschatological nature
of these verses, but the principle remains. Unfortunately, our opponents do not realize that we
actually agree with them on this point. It is quite true that only those who persevere to the end
will be saved. But it is also true that whoever has been saved will certainly persevere to the end.
Both Calvinists and historic Arminians stress that only those who persevere in faith will be
saved. The point of difference, however, is that while they say that some begin but do not finish,
we assert that all who begin do finish.
C. Likewise, we agree with the words of John 8:31, If you abide in My word, then you are truly
disciples of Mine. This separates the true from the false. The test of a true believer is whether
he perseveres in the word of Christ. If he does, then he is a true believer. If he does not, then he
has not really been a believer at all. He has only been pretending. True disciples will continue.
D. When God saves a man, He gives him a new nature. As a result, there is a necessary
change in lifestyle. Sure, he still occasionally slips and falls, but his overall lifestyle has changed
entirely. Once he hated God; now he loves God. Scripture says this over and over. Take, for
example, I Cor. 6:9, Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Paul then lists ten examples of grossly sinful lifestyles (this is not an exhaustive list by
any means). He bluntly says that such will not make Heaven. But then he says in vs. 11, And
such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified.
When they were converted, their lifestyles changed and they were no longer what they were.
Paul says the same in Eph. 5:5. Consequently, this expressly teaches that a true believer has a
necessary change of life, both internally and externally. The Christian perseveres in this new
nature.
E. There are a host of other passages that clearly teach this inevitability of perseverance in
sanctification as the necessary consequence of justification. Look now at Romans 8. Paul
contrasts the one who walks (lives) according to the sins of the flesh as a way of life with the
one who walks in the Spirit as a way of life (vss. 5-10). If a person walks regularly according to
the flesh, he must die and go to Hell (vs. 13). But since God guarantees that none of His people
will ever go to Hell, then it necessarily follows that those who are on the way to Heaven do walk
in the Spirit as a way of life.
F. Then there is Matt. 7:17-18. Jesus contrasts two kinds of trees, which represent the saved
and the lost. The good tree bears good fruit, for that it its nature. The bad tree bears bad fruit,
for that is its nature. The point is that in regeneration, God changes our natures. As a result, He
changes our lifestyle. The Christian bears good fruit.

4. Perseverance in I John.
A. Nowhere in Holy Writ is this more explicit than in I John 3:4-12. First, John defines sin as
lawlessness (vs.4). Then He says that Christ appeared to takeaway sin (vs. 5). Hence, those
who are in Christ cannot stay in sin. This is very crucial to realize. Note how John repeats this
fact over and over: No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows
Him... the one who practices righteousness is righteous... the one who practices sin is of the
Devil... No one born of God practices sin... anyone who does not practice righteousness is not

488

of God... We know that no one who is born of God sins (vss. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 5:18). John is
absolutely clear in what he is saying.
B. Thus, a true Christian simply cannot stay permanently or perpetually backslidden. He cannot
stay in the flesh. Why? Because he has been born again by God. In regeneration, God gives us
eternal life. This new principle in us is what John calls the seed of God. That new life
guarantees a change of life/Therefore, whoever has been born again will most assuredly
persevere, while the one who does not persevere only shows that he was never regenerated to
begin with.
C. This brings us to another important principle of perseverance in I John: They went out from
us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us;
but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us (2:19). John is
probably speaking of the Gnostics known as Docetists. Such heretics claimed to be Christians
for a while. But then they threw in the towel and did not persevere. Did they lose their salvation?
No, says John, they had never been truly saved in the first place. Had they been truly
converted, they doubtlessly would have continued.
D. John himself saw this years earlier in the ministry of Jesus. In John 6:66, this same John
recorded, From that time many of His disciples went back and walked no more with Him.
Arminians adduce this as an example of Christians departing from Christ. Not so. These were
simply hangers-on, who wanted a free lunch. They were disciples in name only. The true
disciples continued with Christ.

5. Perseverance in James 2.
A. James 2 discusses the relation of faith and works, which is much the same as that of
justification and sanctification. We know from other Scriptures that we are justified by faith
without works of the Law (e.g., Gal. 2, Rom. 3, Eph. 2). Paul discussed what preceded
justification; James discussed what follows. Paul said we do not need works before justification
as a ground; James said that we need works as an evidence. There is all the difference in the
world between a ground and evidence.
B. According to James, faith without works is dead. Such a faith cannot save. It is not saving
faith. Mind you, it is not the works that faith produces that save. Not at all. Rather, the faith that
saves will necessarily produce good works as a way of life. Lack of works shows lack of faith,
and lack of faith shows lack of salvation. Thus, the one who has been justified by faith will
persevere in good works. He who does not persevere in this holiness only shows that he was
never justified to begin with. In Reformed theology, we put it like this: We are justified by faith
alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone.
C. Or, it can be put like this: Justification precedes sanctification, but justification always
produces sanctification. What is sanctification? It is the pursuit of holiness (Heb. 12:14), the
perseverance in obedience to the Revealed Will of God.

6. Mistaken Notions About Perseverance.

A. One mistaken idea runs like this: Perseverance is the ideal, but not the norm. No,
perfection is the ideal. Perseverance is the norm. All saints persevere.
B. Another mistake is to confuse perseverance with Perfectionism. No historic Calvinist has

489

taught Perfectionism. Oddly, that heresy is always associated with some sort of Arminianism.
Rather, we teach that there are two extremes. One extreme says that it is possible never to
persevere. The other, that it impossible to become perfect in this life. Biblical perseverance says
that the true believer will slip and stumble, and thus he is not perfect; but he will also get up
again and keep going, for he is not totally imperfect either.
C. Mind you, this is not in the least to claim that this perseverance is by ones own self-effort.
Left to ourselves, we would only sin. That is why the Scriptures teach that we persevere only
because God perseveres through us.
D. Nor does the Reformed doctrine of perseverance mean that Christians never backslide or
fall into particularly heinous sins. This much should be obvious. Christians most certainly do
backslide for a season, during which they commit gross sins, often even worse than before their
conversions. But Calvinism teaches that this backsliding is only temporary (cf. Hos. 14:4). After
a season, God renews the backslider. A true Christian never permanently or perpetually stays in
sin. Such is impossible.
E. There is another curious misunderstanding of the Reformed teaching. Some have the
strange notion that a Christian can backslide deep and long, but God will pull him back shortly
before he dies. This is incorrect doctrine. It is true that God will pull him back, but it is erroneous
to say that God will leave a believer in a lifetime of sin and pull him back only at the end. The
Scriptural teaching is that God does not leave us in sin for that long a time. He brings us back
relatively soon by the Word, the Spirit, remembrances of grace, chastenings, and the like.
F. This last error is quite popular, but it is also dangerous and deceptive. Many so-called
believers are living in known, flagrant and perpetual sin, yet deceive themselves into thinking
that they will be brought back shortly before death. There is a word for that sort of thing:
PRESUMPTION. Such a person is likely to die before he thinks he will, and discover that he
never repented. When he wakes up in Hell, he will realize that true believers do not stay in sin,
and that he was never a true believer to begin with.

7. Perseverance to the End.

A. Having proved from Scripture that a regenerate soul must and shall persevere to the end in
faith and holiness, we are led to ask the following question: How? We have already stated that
this perseverance is not due in the least to ones own ability. The Reformed answer is that a
believer perseveres to the end because- and only because - God perseveres with that believer
to the end. God does a continual work of grace in the hearts of every true saint of God, thus
insuring that each and every one will persevere to the end. In a word, we persevere because
God perseveres. It is not so much the perseverance of the saints as it is the perseverance of
the Savior.
B. This is the meaning of texts such as Phil. 1:6, For I am confident of this very thing, that He
who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. Notice that Paul does
not say merely, at the day of Christ Jesus, but rather until the day of Christ Jesus. In other
words, God began salvation in us, continues it in us, and will complete it in us at the last day.
C. God is no quitter. He always completes what He began in us; else the devils could laugh
(Luke 14:28-30). The Lord will accomplish what concerns me. Thy loving kindness, O Lord, is
everlasting! (Psa. 138:8) It is only because of sovereign grace that any soul continues, for out
of the riches of divine grace God has pledged Himself to complete what He began in us. He
doesnt stop in the middle; He continues to the end: who shall confirm you to the end,

490

blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful (I Cor.1: 8-9). He began salvation
in us by regeneration and will continue to supply us eternal life. He gave us faith and will
continue to do so, for He is both the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2).

8. Conclusion.
A. There are many who claim to be Calvinists because they believe in the preservation of the
saints, yet they reject the Reformed doctrine of perseverance. The Fifth Point of Calvinism is not
preservation without perseverance, but preservation and perseverance. Thus, these are really
Half-point Calvinists and Four-and-a-half Point Arminians. Even some of the Remonstrants
believed in preservation.
B. True Calvinism is stationed in the Biblical middle between two equally opposite errors. On
one side, those who stress perseverance but reject preservation. They are Arminians. At the
other extreme, those who stress preservation but reject perseverance. They are Antinomians.
We stand on the Word of God and believe in both preservation and perseverance. The
Arminians cry, You must persevere! The Antinomians cry, You need not persevere!
Calvinists reply to both, You must and you shall persevere, because God shall persevere to the
end in the hearts of His elect.

491

Chapter 67. Objections to Eternal

Security.
1. Introduction.
A. So far we have looked at the many places in Scripture that teach the eternal security of the
elect. That should settle the question forever. The Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches both the
preservation and perseverance of the saints. However, non-Calvinists also have their texts and
arguments, which they feel, teach that a Christian can lose his salvation. So, it is right and fitting
that we look at those texts and arguments, both to answer our objectors and to remove doubt
from the minds of Calvinists who waver on the subject.
B. Only a cursory reply can be given to each objection. This is not to stack the deck by failure to
give equal time to our opponents, but simply out of expediency. Were we to give a detailed
and lengthy reply to each argument, and then these studies would be imbalanced and overly
defensive. Our main objective is to present truth; answering critics is secondary.

2. Objections from Old Testament Texts.

A. There are a number of Old Testament texts, which our opponents, who are usually
Arminians, appeal to. Two in particular stand out. The first is Psa. 51:11, Do not cast me away
from Thy presence, and do not take Thy Holy Spirit from me. The Arminian contends that David
had sinned grievously and was fearful that he had lost his salvation. God casts apostates away
from him, they say, and takes the Holy Spirit from within them.
B. Calvinists usually reply that David was truly penitent, and therefore would not be cast away
nor lose the Holy Spirit. In that sense, the question is rendered moot. God never casts His
people away nor removes the Spirit from them, if they are truly His. Some Calvinists suggest
that under the Old Dispensation, the Spirit did not permanently reside in individual saints; some
even argue that believers then were not even indwelt with the Spirit at all (such being a unique
blessing of the New Covenant). But most Calvinists rather say that the Spirit is in all of Gods
people, otherwise they do not belong to Him (Rom. 8:9), nor could they believe unless the Spirit
worked within them.
C. One other point bears mentioning. When a person is penitent he sometimes requests in
humility that which will not be granted. Such is a sign of penitence. For example, the Prodigal
Son asked to be made a slave, but of course the father restored him to sonship, not slavery.
Likewise, David begged that the Spirit not be taken from him. In no way does this imply that the
Spirit actually could betaken away. Moreover, the very fact that David is penitent is evidence
that the Good Shepherd seeks and retrieves His straying sheep.
D. The major Old Testament passage appealed to by those espousing conditional security is
Ezek. 18, especially verse 24. Their argument is as follows. God promises salvation to the one
who perseveres in faith and obedience. A wicked man can turn from wickedness and turn to
God, and be saved. Conversely, a righteous man can turn from righteousness and away from
God and lose that righteousness. He was once saved, but has lost his salvation.
E. Calvinists reply in a variety of ways. One of the more popular theories is that of John Calvin

492

in his commentary on this passage. He interpreted this as merely external righteousness. In

other words, the one who ceases righteousness is only ceasing external righteousness. He is
throwing in the towel on an externally righteous lifestyle, and now begins to live consistently with
his fallen nature.
F. A similar explanation by some Calvinists is that the situation is hypothetical impossible, for
no man is truly righteous of himself (Rom. 3:10). This view says that the Jews in Ezekiels day
needed teaching on the nature of sin and salvation. They were claiming to be righteous and
were unfairly being punished for the sins of their fathers (vss. 2-4). Even the so-called righteous
were not really righteous. Those holding this interpretation point to vss. 5-9. These verses
reiterate the Covenant of Works, that is, if one were to obey the Law completely then he would
be saved. But, it is added; no man ever completely obeys the Law.
G. A third interpretation suggested by Calvinists is that the whole passage is somewhat
hypothetical. If a truly righteous person stopped obeying, then by justice God would certainly
cast him away. But the question then arises whether a truly righteous person ever does this.
This view takes righteous here not so much to mean sinless righteousness, such as perfect
obedience to the Law, as to the righteousness of justification. So, the real question is whether a
justified person can or does ever totally discard obedience to God. Calvinists say that the
doctrine of guaranteed perseverance answers that question. A justified person will never do
what is here discussed.

3. Objections from the Gospels.

A. Matt. 5:13 is the first of several texts from the Gospels which are used by Arminians. The
argument is as follows. We become the salt of the earth by becoming Christians. But we can
lose that saltiness by apostasy, and so be thrown away by God. Actually, few use this argument
because it is so flimsy. A Christian is always salty. He may have more saltiness or he may
have less, but he never loses it all. Another interpretation says that saltiness here has no
bearing on the question of salvation. Rather, it speaks only of how we affect the society in which
we live. A Christian may be saved and yet keep it so secret that nobody knows it, in which case
his society is not affected by him and he is treated the same as all others.
B. Another Gospel text is Matt. 10:33, But whoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny
him before my Father who is in Heaven. Does this mean that a Christian can deny Christ and
so lose his salvation? Not quite. We think the text means something else. For one, it does not
mean what many Arminians take it to mean namely, that one must make some sort of public
profession at the time of conversion in order to be truly saved. Vss. 32 and 33 are frequently
appealed to by the Church of Christ and Arminians in defending the so-called altar call, this is
a gross distortion of the text. Public profession is not essential; for it is an external work we
perform after we have already been saved.
C. To understand the text, we must look at the examples in the Gospels themselves. The main
one, which comes to mind, is Peter. Each Gospel records how Peter denied the Lord. Does this
mean that he lost his salvation? Hardly. Christ prayed for Peter that his faith not fail and so
Peter was indeed restored. Therefore, this text cannot mean that a Christian cannot ever deny
the Lord. Many Christians have denied their Lord in times of persecution, torture, or in daily
temptation. The text rather seems to be saying that Christ will deny knowing the one who
persists in denying Him. A true Christian will not persist for, like Peter, he will be brought back.
O. One practical application of this is that we have no justification for identifying as a Christian a
person who persistently denies the Lord. If he persistently denies knowing Christ, then out of his

493

own mouth he condemns himself. Dare we say someone is saved if he himself regularly and
explicitly denies it? To say otherwise would be to go to the extremes of those such as R.B.
Thieme, who says that a Christian can even backslide and persistently deny the existence of
God. Are atheists Christians?
E. The next text is the Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:3-23). Arminians agree with Calvinists
that the first soil represents unbelievers and that the fourth soil represents true believers. But we
disagree over the identification of the second and third soils. Arminians and others contend that
these two represent believers. After all, they say, does not the text say that they received the
seed, that is, the Word of God? But then it goes on to say that they fell away. So they say.
F. Calvinists, such as John MacArthur in his excellent The Gospel According to Jesus give the
correct interpretation to counter both the Arminian and Antinomian is interpretation of these
verses. The first three soils represent three kinds of unbelievers. The first is a blatant
unbeliever- who doesnt even pretend to be a believer. The second pretends to believe and
therefore has a great show of joy and emotion. He does it for kicks. But when bad emotions are
produced through persecution and affliction, he discards Christianity. The third is similar in that
he was in it only for present blessings. When he counted the cost and saw that the world offered
more in this life, he went with the world.
G. The point is clearly that neither the second nor the third soil were saved. It was only external
with them. Only the fourth soil was truly saved. Interestingly, there are three kinds of this fourth
soil. One produces some fruit; the next produces more, and third produces most. But all three
produce! This counters the Antinomian theory that the second or third of the four soils
represents true believers who are permanently backslidden; they are saints without fruit.
H. Then there is the Parable of the Virgins in Matt. 25:1-3. The argument is that all ten were
saved, but only half ended up saved. Half continued with oil (which is said to represent the Holy
Spirit or faith), the other half did not. Again, we Calvinists reject this interpretation. We point out
that there is a difference between the two sets of virgins to begin with. Those who took extra oil
represent true Christians. The other five represent pretenders. They are condemned in vs. 12 in
words remarkably remnicient of 7:23, I never knew you.
I. As can be seen from such texts, much of the misinterpretation in the debate revolves around
the question of those who pretend to be Christians. Arminians are notably slack in this regard.
They tend to pronounce someone a Christian simply because he says that he is one. When that
person later lives a life in total disharmony with the word of God, even to the point of apostasy,
the Arminian concludes that such a person lost his salvation. Calvinists, however, conclude that
such a one was never regenerated to begin with. The Antinomian contends that such a person
is still saved, even though he may live in permanent sin and even deny Christ and the existence
of God.
J. This figures in other Gospel texts, such as John 6:66, As a result of this many of His
disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. The Antinomian says that these
were true Christians, but of course, not every Christian is a disciple. Arminians say rather that
such persons had been Christians, for they are called disciples, but that they lost their salvation
by failure to persevere. Calvinists disagree with both. Such persons were never saved to begin
with. They were disciples only externally. As Herod liked to listen to John the Baptist without
ever truly believing, so there were many who liked to listen to Jesus but never truly believed.
When the teaching got tough, they forsook Jesus. The key to this passage is I John 2:19, They
went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have
remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us.
K. This brings us to John 15. Arminians argue that vss. 2 and 6 teach that a person can be

494

vitally united to Christ in salvation but fail to continue and so wind up being cut off and thrown
into Hell. Calvinists reply in two main ways. Some suggest that Christ only prunes away the
unfruitful areas of a persons life so that he will be fruitful and not perish. The pruning would be
chastening, for example. The more mainstream Reformed interpretation, however, is that Christ
is speaking of those who associated with Him but did not bear the proper fruit, and thereby
showed that they were never truly united to Him. In context, He is speaking of Judas. One who
is truly united to Christ will certainly bear fruit. Notice that verse 8 says that those who do bearfruit prove that they are true disciples.

4. Objections from Pauls Epistles,

A. Rom. 11:17-24 also uses the analogy of a tree and branches. Some take this analogy to
mean that a true Christian can be broken off and cast into the fire because of his unbelief.
Actually, this misses the drift of Pauls thought. Paul is not speaking so much of individuals as of
groups, and the groups are Jews and Gentiles. God has always had one unified people. In the
Old Covenant, by far most were Jews. In the New Covenant, most are Gentiles. Some Gentiles
were grafted into this one tree in the Old Covenant (Ruth, Rahab, and others). Similarly, if a Jew
turns to Christ, he will personally be grafted in even though as a group the Jews reject Christ.
The text says nothing of individuals being cut off because of their individual unbelief, at least so
far as having once been united.
B. Occasionally an Arminian will cite I Cor. 8:11, For though your knowledge he who is weak is
ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. The theory is that if we are not careful, we can
sin and lead another person into sin, so much so that he will even apostatize and be ruined,
that is, eternally punished. That is not at all what Paul is saying. Rather, he is saying that if we
are too loose with our Christian liberty, then a fellow believer can be led into sin and have his
walk with the Lord hindered. There is not the slightest indication that this other brother will
thereby lose his salvation.
C. Then there is I Cor. 9:27, ...lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be
disqualified. There you have it, say the Arminians, even Paul himself was afraid that he might
lose his salvation. Not so. Paul doesnt seem to be speaking of salvation but of apostleship,
which is his subject through the chapter. We might apply this to preachers who, though still
saved, have ruined their ministries by scandal. They are thus disqualified from serving as
preachers any more, though they are still saved. Curiously, Arminians are much quicker to
restore one to such an office even though he has been disqualified, whereas Calvinists are in
much closer accord with the passages, which discuss such qualifications-and disqualifications.
Controversy has its ironies.
D. Next, I Cor. 10:12, Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. Does this mean that
one who stands in salvation may fall from it and so end up lost? We think not. The context is
that Paul is discussing the Jews who did not continue in faith in the wilderness. Some believed,
others grumbled out of unbelief. This is recounted time and again in the Book of Numbers. As
we shall see in Hebrews, Christians are urged to continue like the Old Testament Jews, and
thereby show they are not like the unbelieving grumblers. Incidently, some interpreters put
emphasis on the word thinks; as if Paul is addressing those who only think they are saved. In
any case, this cannot be used to show that any who truly stand in salvation ever do actually fall
from it.
E. But what about I Cor. 11:29? Does not Paul say that by sacrilege of the Lords Table a
Christian can bring damnation upon himself? No, he does not say that. He only says that a

495

person who abuses the Communion table brings judgment on himself. That obviously means
that unbelievers compound their future condemnation. But it has more precise application to
believers who take Communion improperly, such as in drunkenness or sin. Such persons incur
judgment, meaning chastening (and possibly even death), not final damnation.
F. Sometime about now the Arminian will quote Gal. 5:4, You have been severed from Christ,
you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. Calvinists usually reply
that Paul is speaking either hyperbolically or theologically. He may be exaggerating, even as he
does later in vs. 12. Or he may be saying that those who teach works-righteousness are
theologically departing from justification by grace. He is not saying that they have actually fallen
from grace in the sense that they have lost their salvation.
G. Then there is Col. 1:23. This can easily be answered. Paul is simply saying that a believer
must persevere to the end. We agree. But we add that a true believer shall persevere in faith,
for Christ will supply him with faith to the end (Heb. 12:2).
H. Every now and then someone will suggest that the apostasy or falling away of 2 Thess.
2:3 is an eschatological event or time in which many true believers lose their salvation. This is
not what Paul is predicting. Rather, he says that the time will come when many will depart from
the Gospel by rejecting one or more essentials of the Gospel and following a false Gospel. He
says as much in I Tim. 4:1, which is also quoted incorrectly as teaching loss of salvation. When
the Apostle writes, in later times some will fall away from the faith, he doesnt mean that they
will fall away from personal faith in Christ, but rather that they will fall away from the faith, that
is, the truth of the Gospel (cf. Jude 3).
I. Those who appeal to Matt. 10:33 frequently also appeal to 2 Tim. 2:12, If we endure, we
shall also reign with him; if we deny Him, He will also deny us. We have already shown that
true believers will certainly endure to the end, for Christ perseveres with us and keeps us
enduring. He has pledged to do so. We would interpret the second phrase much in the manner
of Matt. 10:33, that it means that Christ will deny in condemnation those who persistently deny
Him. That it does not mean that He will cast off and condemn a believer who temporally denies
Him in a moment of weakness is patent from the very next verse, If we are faithless, He
remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself. Since He has pledged to supply us with all we
need, He would be denying Himself if He were not to persevere with us.

5. Objections from the Book of Hebrews.

A. There are no passages in the Word of God so fearful, or so hard to understand, or so much
misapplied as certain warning passages in Hebrews. There are four in particular. The first is
2:1-3. The context, as we said earlier, is that the writer is dealing with the Jewish Church much
like Moses did with Israel in the wilderness. Some were true believers and continued in faith;
others were unbelievers and did not. This unusual book was written to encourage true believers
to continue and to warn false believers of the great danger they are in. If they reject Jesus as
the final sacrifice and Messiah, they are going back to an empty Judaism, which has no more
salvation than the Egypt from which their forefathers were delivered.
B. Similarly, 3:4 again encourages true believers to continue to hold fast to the end. This does
not mean that a true believer actually can let loose and go back. We agree with our Arminian
friends in their interpretation of this verse, that only those who hold fast will be saved in the
end. That is the main point of this and the other warning passages. But we disagree with them
in their claim that some who once held fast stopped doing so and ended up lost.

496

C. They cite as their key text the words of 6:4-9. There is no text so much quoted by Arminians
as this one. How do we reply? Calvinists take two main courses. The first suggests that this is a
hypothetical case, but in fact never actually happens. If a person ever did go back on Christ,
then God would be just to cast him off. But, they add, such a situation never occurs. Those
holding to this theory sometimes refer to Gal. 1:8 and Rom. 9:3, where Paul puts forth the
hypothetical situations of himself being cursed. But of course, Paul never was cursed by God.
Similarly, Heb. 6 is said to be merely hypothetical for the sake of argument and emphasis.
D. The other Reformed view, which is probably more popular, is as follows. Those in vss. 4-6
were not truly saved. They were enlightened by hearing the Gospel; they tasted the heavenly
gift but did not swallow; they partook of the Holy Spirit by being blessed in the community of
believers, possibly even being miraculously healed (and not all who were healed by Christ were
saved); they tasted but did not swallow the good Word of God. Similar analogies were made of
the unbelieving Israelites in the wilderness. Such persons were never truly converted and so
ended up being damned forever (vss. 7-8).
E. Notice that vs. 6 says that such persons cannot be renewed to repentance. Very, very few
Arminians say that a person who has lost salvation can never regain it. They usually have their
stories of repeated regenerations. Calvinists say that salvation occurs but once. But those who
pretend to go along and then depart without repenting cannot be saved.
F. Notice also that the writer contrasts such persons with brethren in vss. 9-12.This clinches it.
Whoever those others were, they are not in the same class as those of vss. 9-12. This latter
group are truly saved. God doesnt forget their faith and obedience (vs.10). They simply need
encouraging in perseverance (vss.11-12). Such is the purpose of the warning passages.
G. Heb. 10:26-31, 38 is in some respects parallel to ch. 6. Verse 26 is probably the key. What
does he mean by deliberately? Arminians take this to mean deliberate apostasy. Some
Calvinist pastors assure their people that a true Christian can never commit a sin of
deliberation, but that is incorrect. As a matter of fact, any Christian can sin deliberately. But
we can never go on sinning deliberately. Such is the message of I John 3 and other passages.
The writer is referring to the Pentateuch passages on certain sins of deliberation, for which
there was no sacrifice. Such persons were to be stoned.
H. Vs. 29 is awesome. It is meant to be. Who are these persons? Not true believers, but those
who once claimed to be and now have thrown in the towel. They are probably Jews who said
Jesus wasnt enough, or that He wasnt the Messiah after all. They almost sound like those who
committed the unpardonable blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But they are not the same as
true believers. Again, notice vs. 39, where the author directly contrasts the true people of God
with such false believers.

6. Objections from the Catholic Epistles.

A. Some think that 2 Peter 2 :4 and Jude 6 teach that a Christian can lose his salvation even as
the angels who fell from heaven. Not so. For one thing, the fallen angels are all reprobate; none
will ever be saved. Also, they fell from sinlessness, whereas Christians have been saved from
sinfulness and are being sanctified. If the Arminian were consistent, he would have to say that
we could even fall from Heaven once we got there. I know of none who suggests such
nonsense.
B. But 2 Pet. 2:20-22 is more difficult. Arminians say that these verses teach that a Christian
can return to the world, lose his salvation and end up worse than ever. Peter, however, is not

497

saying that. Rather, he is saying that false believers eventually return to the world. They were
hogs and dogs, never sheep. They went back and wound up worse than ever. This comports
well with all the passages we have been investigating.
C. Then there is I John 5:16-17, the sin unto death. Arminians take this to refer to apostasy
from salvation, resulting in damnation. Calvinists usually interpret it as the sort of chastening
God places on a Christian, as in I Cor. 11:29-30. God sometimes chastens a believer with
death. That is serious and rare, but it does happen. God loves us too much to leave us in
perpetual sin. When He chastens us, He either brings us back or He brings us home.

7. Objections from Examples.

A. What about the examples of apostates in Scripture, such as Saul, Demas (2 Tim. 4:10),
Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus (I Tim. 1:19-20, 2 Tim. 2:17), Simon Magus (Acts 8), Esau
(Heb. 12:15-17), and Judas? Calvinists disagree. Some see Saul as a weak believer, somewhat
like Lot. Others say that he was in the Old Dispensation and so cannot be adduced as an
example for New Testament believers. Still other Calvinists, such as A.W. Pink, say that Saul
was never converted.
B. The various associates of Paul were probably weak and backslidden at the time he wrote of
them. After all, he later says that all of his associates, save Luke, had forsaken him. This is
similar to how the Apostles forsook Christ, but came back.
C. And what of Simon Magus? There can be no doubt that he was never saved at all. Peter
said that he was yet in his sins and doomed to perdition. He believed only externally by a false
profession of faith, including baptism. And Esau? Though Heb. 12 says that he grieved and
sought repentance, the Scriptures also says in no uncertain terms that he was a profane man
and a non-elect reprobate (Rom. 9).
D. And Judas? It baffles Calvinists that some people still think that Judas ever was saved to
begin with. He is described as a devil, or slanderer and spy who infiltrated the ranks of the
Apostles only for money. He is the son of perdition who went to Hell where he belonged. Acts
1 says he fell from his apostleship, not from salvation.
8. Miscellaneous Objections.
A. But I know someone who was saved and then lost. You cant tell me that he was never
saved; I know better! And you certainly cant tell me that he is still saved. This can easily be
dismissed. First, we are not to base our theology on experience or observation, either our own
or that of those we know. Second, we can evaluate such examples in the light of Scripture
according to what we have seen so far. In virtually all the cases adduced by Arminians, these
persons were never saved to begin with. If Arminians would discard their Easy Believism, they
would see fewer false converts in their midst.
B. It leads to Antinomianism and loose living. Actually, there is some truth in this objection.
Were we to hold to preservation without perseverance, then Antinomianism and loose living
would be the logical and practical result. But that is not Calvinism. We would remind Arminians
that we agree with them that perseverance is necessary. But we add that it is guaranteed.
C. Will not God divorce an unfaithful believer? God permits us to divorce asexually unfaithful

498

spouse. But it is not required. Similarly, God could theoretically divorce a Christian the moment
he sins after conversion. But that is only theoretical, for with conversion He has pledged that He
will never leave us or forsake us. In other words, when we are wedded to Christ, we are wedded
forever. Moreover, He wins back His straying bride each time.
D. But what about free will? This is always the bottom line for Arminians. The reply is simple;
Man does not have free will. We would apostatize every time, left to ourselves. But the glory is
that Gods grace overcomes our dead wills, preserves us in grace and perseveres in and
through and for us to the very end. Those who believe in the myth of free will are logical to worry
about losing their salvation. But those who believe in free grace rather than free will do not so
worry.

Recommended Reading
Most Reformed books on perseverance and preservation discuss the objections and hard texts.
Most useful are Owen, Works, vol. 11, pp. 406-666; Pink, Eternal Security, pp. 96-115; and
Gromacki, Salvation is forever, pp. 113-169. Sellers, Election and Perseverance, pp. 83-193,
answers text for text and argument for argument the popular Arminian work on the subject,
Robert Shank, Life in the Son. Also consult the standard Reformed commentaries on individual
texts (Calvin, Gill, Hendrikson, etc.).

499

Chapter 68. The Reformed Doctrine of

Scripture.
1. Introduction.
A. Historic Calvinism has always had a high view of Scripture that is second to none. We have
always believed in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or Scripture Alone. Thus, we are bound by
Scripture and by Scripture alone. The Word of God is our only authority. We are not bound by
popes, councils, church fathers, creeds, reason, experience, feelings, visions or anything else.
B. Reformed theology also believes in the verbal-plenary inspiration of the Bible andthe full
authority of Scripture. The Bible is our only rule of faith and practice simply because it is the
Word of God.
C. Moreover, historic Calvinism has always emphasized the total infallibility and inerrancy of the
Bible. As a matter of fact, in the battle over Biblical inerrancy over the last several years, those
who deny inerrancy usually expend much energy attacking the Calvinist doctrine of inerrancy,
especially as taught by Reformed giants such as Francis Turretine and B.B. Warfield. Oddly,
these moderate evangelicals seem to spend more time attempting to refute the historic
Calvinists than they do refuting the out-and-out liberals. Probably the best book defending
Biblical inerrancy in recent decades has been Thy Word is Truth by Edward J. Young - an
historic Five Point Calvinist.
D. Calvinists have also taught that Scripture is to be interpreted according to the HistoricalGrammatical Method, and not by liberal methods (Form Criticism, Redaction Criticism, the
Historical-Critical Method, etc.). Historic Calvinists have written. Excellent commentaries on the
entire Bible, as well as contributing to the leading discussions of Biblical interpretation.
E. So, then, Calvinists believe the Bible. Calvinists share the same high view of Scripture
taught by other Evangelicals. Yet, there are certain distinctives of the Reformed doctrine of
Scripture. Some are taught by Calvinists alone. Others are shared with others. But where that is
the case, other Evangelicals have usually got that doctrine from us. These are areas of
bibliopoly that have figured large in Reformed theology, and thus bear mention in our studies.

2. The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit.

A. Why do we believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? The Reformed position is
what is known as the Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit (Testimonium Internum Spiritu
Sancti). The classic statement of the doctrine is that of the Westminster Confession:
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend
esteem of the holy scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the
doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole,
(which is to give all glory to God,) the full discovery it makes of the only way of mans
salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof,
are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet,
notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine
authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with

500

the word in our hearts (1:5).

B. Roman Catholicism has taught that a person knows that the Bible is inspired only because
the Church says so. The Reformers stringently denied this. We need no mans testimony to
establish the Bible. Nor do we know it is the Word of God merely because its prophecies have
been fulfilled, for apart from Scripture how could we know those prophecies were ever uttered at
all?
C. Now this testimony is not in the form of an audible voice. Nor is it by mere experience or
feeling, for that would be mysticism. Nor is it the burning in the bosom that Mormons appeal to
in order to prove the inspiration of the Book of Mormon. Nor does this testimony add any new
information to the Bible itself. For example, it does hot identify the authors of anonymous books
such as Hebrews. Nor is the testimony separate from Scripture. The Reformed doctrine is that
the Spirit bears witness by and with the scriptures in the heart of man (Westminster Larger
Catechism, Q. 4).
D. But, someone will object, do not the Koran and other religious books claim to be the Word
of God also? True, they do so claim. But we are not saying that the Bible is inspired merely
because the words say so, but because God says so through those words. Simply put, those
other books do not carry this testimony. God has never spoken through other books in this
special way. This principle applies not only to the books of other religions, but even to other
Christian books, such as the Apocrypha and the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, the Didache, etc.).
As the French Confession of Faith (1559) said, We know these books to be canonical... by the
testimony of inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from
other ecclesiastical books (Art. IV).
E. Nor can we prove to ourselves or to anyone else that the Bible is inspired by means of
human reason. Reason cannot prove that the Bible is inspired, for the simple reasons that the
Bible is greater than human reason and human reason is affected by sin. This was especially
stressed by John Calvin:
The highest proof of Scripture derives in general from the fact that God in person
speaks in it... the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God
alone is a fit witness of Himself in His Word, so also the Word will not find final
acceptance in mens hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The
same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets, must
penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what has been
divinely commanded... Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has
inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture is indeed self-authenticated;
hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning... I speak of nothing other than
what each believer experiences within himself - though my words fall far beneath a just
explanation of the matter (Institutes, 1:7:5).
F. Note that Calvin says that this is something known by all true Christians. It is strange, then
that some Christians do not rely on it but seek to rely on so-called proofs of the Word of God.
Just as only God can prove His existence, so only God can prove His Word. He has already
born indubitable proof of His existence by speaking through Nature (Rom. 1; Psa. 19). That is
Natural Revelation. Similarly, He speaks indubitably through Scripture. That is Special
Revelation.
G. Thus, the divine inspiration of the Bible is self-authenticating. It proves itself. John Murray
wrote, Scripture evidences itself to be the Word of God; its divinity is self-evidencing and selfauthenticating. The Belgic Confession says that the Scriptures carry the evidence in
themselves (Art. V).

501

H. Calvinists therefore see the utter futility of trying to prove the Bible. We cannot prove its
inspiration by the miracles in the Bible, or any other miracle. Luke 16:31 tells us that if scoffers
do not believe the Bible, they will not believe miracles either. Scripture is greater than miracles,
and you cannot prove the greater by the lesser.
I. How, then, does this operate? The very nature of Scripture testifies of itself. John Owen gave
some excellent comments on this, such as: Light manifests itself ... light requires neither proof
nor testimony for its evidence. And the Bible is surely spiritual light (Psa. 119:105; Psa. 6:23; 2
Pet. 1:19). Owen pointed to Eph. 5:13, Whatever manifests itself is light. You do not need a
candle to see the sun. Just as fire proves itself by heat and salt by taste, so light proves itself by
brightness. It gives the ability to see.
J. Moreover, the Spirit actually speaks through Scripture. Heb. 3:7 says, Just as the Holy Spirit
says, and then goes on to quote the Old Testament. Look also at Heb. 10:15, And the Holy
Spirit also bears witness to us, and again quotes Scripture. The Spirit spoke in a selfauthenticating way through the Apostles and prophets; how much more does He speak in that
way through the Bible, for the words of Apostles and prophets are subject to Scripture (Isa.
8:20; Acts 17:11; Gal. 1:8). Notice how this testimony was in effect through the Apostles. In I
Thess. 1:5, Paul said, for our Gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in
the Holy Spirit and with full conviction (cf. 2:13; I Cor. 2:4). God spoke through the prophets
(Heb. 1:1), and continues to speak through the special writings of the prophets.
K. Jesus said, My sheep hear my voice (John 10:27. Cf. vss. 4,16). How do we hear the voice
of Jesus? Only through Scripture. Those who claim to have heard Christs voice in any other
way are mistaken. The Bible is Gods Word, and the fact that God speaks through it evidences
its own inspiration. As Owen noted, What that speaks. He speaks Himself... Being what they
are, they declare whose they are. And this has always been the case, and will always be so.
John Murray said that the Holy Spirit may be said to bear perpetual witness to the divine
character of that which is His own handiwork, even as the work of an artist does.
L. But, someone will ask us, If all that is true, then why do not all men hear this supposed
testimony of the Holy Spirit? The answer takes two forms. First, there is a sense in which even
unbelievers know that this is the Word of God (cf. Ezek. 2:5, 33:33). Of course, they rarely admit
it (cf. Rom. 3:4). Second, there is also a sense in which none but Christs people hear this
testimony. My sheep hear My voice... the reason you do not believe is because you are not My
sheep (John 10:27-28. Cf. I Cor. 2:14). Unbelievers are spiritually deaf to this testimony. But
true Christians have been spiritually illumined through Scripture and so are taught by the Spirit
Himself (I Cor. 2:12-16; I John 2:20, 27. Cf. John 16:13-15.) In this respect, the Internal
Testimony of the Holy Spirit is intrinsically related to assurance of faith. Scripture tells us that
the Spirit testifies with our spirits that we are the children of God (Rom. 8:16; Gal. 4:6; I John
3:20-21, 24, 4:13, 5:10). How? Through Scripture. The Spirit speaks through Scripture and
produces an echo in our hearts. That echo is the assurance of faith. The key passage on this is
I John 5:7-13. It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth (vs. 7). Gods
witness is greater than that of men; therefore to disbelieve Gods witness is to disbelieve God
and call Him a liar (vss. 9-10). Therefore, to disbelieve Scripture is to call God a liar. This has
great ramifications for the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
M. In fine, why do Calvinists believe the Bible is the Word of God? Because God says so.

3. The Perspicuity of Scripture.

A. Another important aspect of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture is what is known as the

502

perspicuity (or perspicacity) of Scripture. This means that the basic message of the Bible is
crystal clear. Again, let us quote the Westminster Confession:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things
which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly
propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the
unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of
them (1:7).
B. This does not mean that we can understand all of the Bible. Nor does it mean that there are
not paradoxes, figures of speech, parables and such in Scripture. The Bible itself says that
some parts of Scripture are hard to understand (2 Pet.3: 16)-But, as Francis Turretine
observed, The obscurity of the whole of Scripture does not follow from the obscurity of some
parts, such as the ancient prophecies and oracles, because either these prophecies are not
about matters necessary for salvation, or, if there is some obscurity in them, it is clearly
explained elsewhere.
C. This also does not mean that exposition is not necessary or that we can do away with all
preaching and commentaries. Still, it does mean that searching the Scripture is important and
possible. Here the Reformers differed with Romanism. Rome had taught (and still does) that no
man can properly interpret Scripture unaided by the official interpretation of the Church. Rome
misunderstands Acts 8:31 and 2 Pet. 1:21.
D. Our proof for the perspicuity of Scripture is from Scripture itself, naturally. First, most of the
books of the Bible are written to common believers at large, not to scholars or prelates. The only
exceptions might be Philemon^ who was aristocratic, and Luke and Acts, which were written to
Theophilus, who was a high dignitary, - Second, the Bible commands us to read it in public,
and we find examples of this in Scripture itself (Col. 4:16; I Thess. 5:27). Third, we are all
commanded to read and study the Bible for ourselves (John 5:39; Acts 17:11). Fourth, this
Word of Faith is not high above us, but obtainable, as close as our mouths (Rom. 10:8; Deut.
30:11-14). Fifth, the Bible is light, and light means clarity, not obscurity (Psa. 119:105; Pro. 6:23;
2 Pet. 1:19).
E. Moreover, Scripture declares that it is able to make even the simple or unlearned wise
unto salvation (Psa. 19:7, 119:98-100, 130; 2 Tim. 3:15-17). Calvinists frequently quote Hab. 2:2
in this context: Then the Lord answered me and said, Record the vision and inscribe it on
tablets, so that he that runs may understand it. In other words, even an uneducated errand boy
can understand the Bible. William Tyndale, the English Reformer, once said to a skeptical
Romanist, If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow should
know more of the Scriptures than thou dost.
F. To be specific, the Reformed doctrine of the perspicuity of the Scriptures means that the
basic Gospel message is clear. God does not play games with us, nor is Christianity one of the
ancient Mystery Religions. Though unbelievers do not really grasp this basic message (Matt.
13:11-15, 19; I Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:14), believers do. This doctrine specifically deals with the
essentials of the faith. Of course, an unbeliever may grasp some of the other truths of Scripture,
which are also quite clear. But the Gospel takes precedence over all.

4. The Analogy of Faith and the Analogy of Scripture.

A. This leads us to another doctrine that has always been vital to Calvinism. It is the doctrine of
the dual analogy. This analogy has two complementary sides to it: the Analogy of Faith and the

503

Analogy of Scripture. The Analogy of Faith (Analogia Fide) is the doctrine that the basic
message of the Bible is to be used in a special way in understanding the rest of the Bible. Lets
look at this deeper.
B. That there is a main message of the Bible should be plain to all. Specifically, the New
Testament calls it the Gospel, the things of first importance (I Cor.15: 1-4). Elsewhere it is called
the faith, or the doctrinal content of saving faith (Jude 3; Acts 6:7; I Tim. 4:1). Paul seems to
speak of this as a specific system of truth in his pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus. For him it
is sound teaching (I Tim. 1:10, 4:6; Tit. 2:1). Retain the standard of sound words(2 Tim. 1:13.
Cf. I Tim. 6:3) holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching (Tit. 1:9).
And in Rom. 6:17 he calls it that form of teaching.
C. Rom. 12:6 was the original basis for the term the Analogy of Faith, viz: let us prophesy
according to the proportion of faith (KJV). The Greek is literally, the analogy (ANALOGIAN) of
the faith. Hence, theologians as far back as Tertullian interpreted this to mean that we are to
preach under the standard of the Gospel. All preaching and Bible interpretation must be with a
view to the Gospel. In his commentary on this verse, Calvin commented: By the word faith he
means the first principles of religion, and any doctrine that has been found not to correspond
with these is condemned as false.
D. This forms the basic skeleton for all theology. Perhaps because of their appreciation of the
Analogy of Faith, Calvinists have particularly excelled in the area of systematic theology.
Furthermore, this basic Gospel (which has been variously summed up in the Apostles Creed
and other statements) is of great use incorrectly interpreting the rest of Scripture. All other
exegesis must conform to the basic Gospel. For instance, no text can be correctly interpreted to
mean that Jesus did not rise physically from the dead, for Scripture explicitly teaches that the
Resurrection is essential to the Gospel (I Cor. 15:1-4).
E. The flip side of this is what is known as the Analogy of Scripture (AnalogiaScripturae). In its
barest form, this principle can be summed up in two similar phrases: Scripturam ex Scriptura
explicandam esse (Scripture is to be explained from Scripture) and Scriptura Scripturae
interpres(Scripture interprets Scripture). This principle has found creedal formulation in
various Reformed statements of faith, such as the Westminster Confession:
The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself; and therefore, when
there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, (which is not manifold,
but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (1:9).
F. Because some parts are hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16), the Christian should refer to
clearer passages to understand the more obscure passages. Hence the great value of crossreferences. Some non-Calvinists, however, reject this and the Analogy of Faith. For example,
they utterly deny that we can use the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, for, as
they say, neither the writers nor the readers of the Old Testament had the New Testament at
their disposal at the time. Calvinists reply that the New is an inspired commentary on the Old,
and no interpretation of the Old is valid if it conflicts with the New. This can work the other way
around, but in most cases the New is clearer than the Old.
G. This applies to the Analogy of Faith as well. Heinrich Heppe said, The obscure passages
are to be explained by the unambiguously clear ones or by the analogia fide based on them.
One example of this is in the Covenant/Dispensational theology debate. Dispensationalists, who
tend to reject the two Analogies, frequently say that saints in the Old Covenant were not justified
by faith in Christ as the comings in-bearing Messiah; whereas Covenant Calvinists contend that
since justification is by faith in Christ crucified (I Cor. 1:23, 2:2), it follows that Old Covenant
saints were justified on the same basis, faith in Christ the sin-bearer, otherwise there are two

504

ways of salvation and two Gospels (Gal. 1:8).

H. One other related principle bears mentioning at this juncture. It is the principle of deductive
exegesis in relation to doctrine. Again, let us quote the standard words on the subject from the
Westminster Confession:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, mans
salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and
necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (1:6).
I. This means that a doctrine may be legitimately deduced from a text, even if that text does not
explicitly teach it. Such doctrines are implicitly, not explicitly, in the Bible. Many doctrines, in
fact, can only be deduced from Scripture. This does not in the least mean that they are neither
true nor important. The key is whether they can be legitimately deduced from what is in
Scripture. Various other systems of theology and hermeneutics reject this principle (for example,
these words are omitted from the Baptist Confession of 1689, the Baptist revision of the
Westminster Confession). But historic Calvinists have always accepted it.

5. Providential Preservation of Scripture.

A. The last area we will mention is the Reformed doctrine of the providential preservation of
Scripture. The fullest statement on this in any major Reformed creed or confession is found in
the Formula Consensus Helvetica:
God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have His Word, which is the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Rom. 1:16), committed to writing by
Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with
paternal care ever since it was written up to the present time, so that it could not be
corrupted by the craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes it to
His singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world, a
sure word of prophecy and Holy Scriptures ([2 Pet. 1:19] 2 Tim. iii.15), from which,
though heaven and earth perish, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass (Matt, v.18)
(Art. I).
B. Scriptural support for this is plentiful. Jesus said that His Words will never pass away (Matt.
5:17, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17, 21:33). I Pet. 1:25 quotes from Isa. 40:8, The Word of
the/Lord abides forever. Rom. 3:2 and 9:4 say that the Hebrew Scriptures were entrusted to the
Jews. The implication is that the Greek Scriptures were entrusted to the Church. That they were
so entrusted means that God foresaw and foreordained this to be a sacred trust that He Himself
would guarantee through them.
C. The doctrine of providential preservation does not mean that every manuscript is correct. It
does mean, on the other hand, that God has preserved His Word within the bulk of the
manuscripts that remain. Moreover, it also means that God has preserved each and every book
of the Bible. There are no lost books of the Bible. If one were to turn up, such as the Dead Sea
Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi codices, they would not be authentic. Otherwise, it would mean
that God had not preserved that portion of His Word for these past 2,000 years. The same is
true with new readings that crop up occasionally in newly found manuscripts.
D. This providential preservation, by the way, extends only to the inspired and canonical
writings of the Apostles and Prophets. On the one hand, God did not promise to preserve
whatever non-canonical and non-inspired books they wrote, such as the lost Letter to the
Laodiceans (Col. 4:16) or Pauls other letter or letters to the Corinthians (I Cor. 5:9; 2 Cor. 2:4,

505

9, 7:8, 12). Nor, on the other hand, does it mean that God preserved all ancient Christian books,
such as the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14).
E. What it does mean is that, just as God providentially preserves His saints, so He preserves
His Scriptures, for the Scriptures are the means of their salvation. Just as saints slip and fall, so
there are errors in manuscripts due to the weakness of the scribes. But even so, every letter of
the original has been by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages (Westminster
Confession, 1:8). Francis Turretine, co-author of the Formula Consensus Helvetica, explained:
But if not even a jot, or the smallest mark, can perish, how could several books
vanish?... It cannot be conceived that providence would will that such a destructive loss
occur; what would become of the wisdom, goodness, and power of God if He willed that
such a precious treasure be shown to His Church and then withdrawn, and that the body
of Scripture exist now in a torn and wounded state?
F. This led to two differences of opinion among Calvinists. The first regarded the Hebrew Old
Testament, specifically the Massoretic vowel points. As is well known, ancient Hebrew and
several other languages consisted only of consonants. Those who knew the language were able
to supply the vowels as they read the words. In some cases, however, two completely different
words could be formed from the same consonants, and even the Jews disagreed at times, over
which vowels were to be assumed. In the seventeenth-century, a controversy arose over
whether God inspired the consonants and vowels, or the consonants alone. Louis Cappel, a
French Calvinist of the Saumur Academy and thus an Amyraldian, wrote a treatise arguing that
only the consonants were inspired. The vowels were the work of scribes known as Massoretes
hundreds of years later. By comparing the Hebrew manuscripts with the ancient versions, we
can ascertain the true readings, though those readings may be found only in the Greek or even
the Latin versions.
G. Cappel was opposed by John Lightfoot in England and especially Francis Turretine on the
Continent. Turretine therefore was responsible for the words in the Formula Consensus
Helvetica, which addressed the issue:
But, in particular, the Hebrew Original of the Old Testament, which we have received
and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church, unto whom formerly
were committed the oracles of God (Rom. iii: 2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its
vowels - either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points - not only
in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God, thus forming, together with the Original of
the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of our faith and life; and to its standard,
as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, oriental and occidental, ought to be applied,
and where-ever they differ, to be conformed. (Art. II).
Therefore, we can by no means approve the opinion of those who declare that the text
which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by mans will alone, and do not
scruple at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it
from the Greek Versions of the LXX and others, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Chaldee
Targums, or even from other sources, yea, sometimes from their own reason alone; and
furthermore, they do not acknowledge any other reading to be genuine except that which
can be educed by the critical power of the human judgment from the collation of editions
with each other and with the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself - which, they
maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and finally, they affirm that besides the
Hebrew edition of the present time, there are in the Versions of the ancient interpreters
which differ from our Hebrew context other Hebrew Originals, since these Versions are
also indicative of ancient Hebrew Originals differing from each other. Thus they bring the
foundation of our faith and its inviolable authority into perilous hazard (Art. III).

506

H. In the eighteenth-century, Thomas Boston and John Gill and other Calvinists would write on
this issue. Interestingly, Cappel basically prefigured the Hebrew textual criticism of the
nineteenth and twentieth-centuries in the areas of versional and conjectural emendation.
Turretines main argument was theological, not critical. He argued from the principle of
providential preservation that we can ascertain the true Hebrew text by the bulk of Hebrew
manuscripts alone.
I. a second controversy developed regarding the Greek New Testament. Turretine touched on it
some, but the leading Calvinist this time was John Owen in his The Integrity and Purity of the
Hebrew and Greek Text. Owen added little that was different regarding the Hebrew. But his
arguments for the Greek had interesting points. He argued that both Testaments have been
providentially preserved by God through the ages, and that this implies that the true text is to be
found in the majority of manuscripts and readings, not in the aberrant minority. This coincided
with the mainstream editions of the Greek New Testament, generally known as the Textus
Receptus. Owen took special umbrage with Bishop Brian Walton, editor of the celebrated
London Polyglot. Walton not only organized the publication of the entire Bible in Hebrew, Greek
and all the major ancient versions, but he included detailed lists of variant manuscript readings
which suggested that the true text might be found outside of the majority stream. Owen
disagreed.
J. The debate occasionally resurfaces in Calvinist circles. In the nineteenth-century, when
German criticism made major breakthroughs in textual criticism, several Calvinists returned to
the arguments of Owen and Turretine in order to argue for the superiority of what has come to
be known as the Majority Text of both the Hebrew and the Greek Testaments. They again argue
that providential preservation guarantees that the true text has been preserved and that it is to
be found in the mainstream, not in only a few manuscripts here and there, some of which were
unknown before 1850. More recently, Calvinists such as Edward F. Hills have argued for the
Majority Witness New Testament on this basis.
K. On the other hand, other Calvinists such as B.B. Warfield have contended that the doctrine
of providential preservation does not guarantee that any stream or family of manuscripts or
readings is necessarily the true one. Rather, they say, the true readings must be ascertained by
the use of the same textual criticism employed with secular writings. The others say that the
Bible is not to be dealt with as other books, because it is The Book. Moreover, those such as
Hills argue that such criticism has no basis whatsoever for adjudicating any reading as authentic
at all, for new manuscripts are being discovered all the time. Such would be incompatible with
the Reformed doctrine of providential preservation.
L. In either case, the Reformed position is that God does indeed preserve His Word in Hebrew
and Greek through the ages until the return of Christ.

Recommended Reading
Berkouwer, G.C. Holy Scripture, especially pp. 39-66, 267-298. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Woolley, Paul, Ed. The Infallible Word. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed. Young,
Edward J. Thy Word is Truth. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Warfield, B.B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen, vol. XVI, pp. 281-421. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Calvin, John. Institutes, I:vii (vol. I, pp. 74-81). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

507

Turretine, Francis. The Doctrine of Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 12-41. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Clark, Gordon. Gods Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics. Jeffersonville: Trinity Foundation.
Letis, Theodore, ed. The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, pp. 113190. Ft. Wayne: Institute for Reformation Biblical Studies. [.Covers Beza and Owen]
Hills, Edward F. The King James Version Defended, especially pp. 106-113, 186-190, 193-194;
and Believing Bible Study. Des Moines: The Christian Research Press.
Backus, Irena Doruta. The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament. Philadelphia: The
Pickwick Press. [On Beza]
Forstmann, H. Jackson. Word and Spirit: Calvins Doctrine of Biblical Authority. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Berkhof, Louis. Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Discussions, vol. I, pp. 115-131, 350-398. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Hodge, A.A. Outlines of Theology, pp. 656-657. Carlisle: Banner of Truth and Grand
Rapids: Zondervan (.contains English translation of the Formula Consensus Helvetica].

508

Chapter 69. The Two Natures of Christ.

1. Introduction.
A. Since the time of the Reformation, historic Calvinism has been in dialogue with various other
theological systems on a number of issues. So far we have discussed its debates with
Arminianism and Neo-Orthodoxy, among others. But we should not forget that Calvinism began
as the second main branch of the Reformation, and that it has been in debate with the first main
branch over several issues.
B. One of the perennial points of difference between historic Calvinists and historic Lutherans
concerns the relation between the two natures of Christ. The debate was much more fervent in
centuries past, but it still crops up in scholarly circles. It is an extremely fine point of theology, so
fine that most Calvinists and Lutherans are not even aware of what the debate is all about. But
though the specific point in dispute is rather small, it touches on a number of other important
theological and practical matters.

2. Jesus Christ, Very Man and Very God.

A. First, a brief survey of the Biblical position on each of the two natures of Christ is in order.
Both Calvinists and Lutherans agree on the fact that Jesus Christ was both Man and God.
Hardly anyone, except some early Gnostics, has questioned whether Jesus was really human.
Scripture frequently calls Him a man, both in the sense of being human and being male (Rom.
5:15-19; Acts 2:22, 17:31; Isa. 53:3; I Cor. 15:21). He Himself said that He was a man (John
8:40). When Pilate presented Him to the Jews, he announced Him by saying, Behold, the
man! (John 19:5. Pilate was Roman, so he probably said it in Latin, Ecce, homo!). Paul wrote,
There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5).
Theologians have often developed the theme of Christ as The Man.
B. He received this human nature at birth from Mary, His mother, not from Joseph, for He was
born of a virgin. He had a heavenly father and an earthly mother, but no heavenly mother or
earthly father. One of the most frequent titles for Jesus in the Bible is the Son of Man, which
speaks of His humanity and messiahship. Jesus had a physical body (Matt. 26:12; John 2:19,
21; Col. 1:22), with flesh, blood and bones (Heb. 2:14; Luke 24:39). John 1:14 says that Jesus
became flesh, and Scripture places much emphasis on this fact (cf. Eph. 2:15; Heb. 10:20; I
Tim. 3:16). Whoever denies that Jesus came in the flesh is an antichrist (I John 4:2-3).
C. When we turn to the Gospels, we read of Jesus the great man, but also the fully human
man. He worked as a carpenter (Mark 6:3). He hungered (Matt. 4:2) and thirsted (John 19:38),
and He ate and drank (Matt. 11:19}. He became tired and slept as we do (Matt. 8:14). He even
sweated (Luke 22:44) and wept on more than one occasion (John 11:35; Luke 19:41; Heb. 5:7).
Moreover, He experienced human emotions, from grief (Matt. 26:38) to joy (Luke 10:21). All in
all, He shared our exact human nature in all respects, except for sin (Heb. 4:15; Rom. 8:3).
D. Yet the same Bible says in no uncertain terms that Jesus was God (John 1:1, 20:28; 2 Pet.
1:1; Tit. 2:13; Rom. 9:5; Isa. 9:6; Heb. 1:8). He is Lord, Lord of Lords, and King of Kings (I Tim.
6:15; Rev. 17:14, 19:16; Phil. 2:11; Rom. 10:9; I Cor. 12:3). He Himself claimed to be God by
using Gods unique name I AH of Himself on dozens of occasions (see especially John 8:24,
58). Scripture says that He created all things but was never created (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16;

509

Heb. 1:2). He possesses all the attributes of deity, such as eternity (John 1:1, 8:58; Isa. 9:6;Heb.
1:12, 13:8), immutability (Heb. 1:12, 13:8), omniscience (John 16:30, 21:17), omnipotence (2
Pet. 1:16; Phil. 3:21), omnipresence (Matt. 28:20), and more. He accepted worship and is to be
worshipped (John 9:38; Matt. 2:2, 8, 11, 8:2, 9:18,14:33, 15:25, 20:20, 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; Heb.
1:6). Jesus Christ is God Himself.
E. So, then, Scripture teaches that He is both God and Man, Han and God. He was God
became a man, or what we call the The anthropos, the God-Man. In fact, several Scripture
texts speak of both natures together (Rom. 1:3-4, 9:5). But here we come to the difficulty. How
was He both? What was the relationship between those two natures in the one person? The
difficulty should not be minimized or ignored. One thing making a full understanding difficult is
that He is the unique God-Man. This was the only man that was also God and the only time God
became a man.
F. This union of two natures in one person is called the Hypostatic Union. It is a deep mystery.
In fact, it is one of the two deepest theological mysteries in the whole gamut of Biblical and
systematic theology. It is related to the first great mystery, namely, the Trinity. Note how both
mysteries are similar: In the Trinity, there is one divine nature and three divine persons. In the
Hypostatic Union there are two natures and one person. Even the greatest theologians have
wearied themselves attempting to plumb the depths of these awesome truths.

3. The History of Christian Theology of the Hypostatic Union.

A. Even in the time of the New Testament, there were those who denied the Hypostatic Union.
Some denied His full humanity, such as the Docetists who said that He was God but not a
physical man. Later, others denied His deity, such as the Ebionites and the Arians. Later still
came problems with theological discussions of how He was both God and Man. At one extreme
were the Nestorians, who tended to speak as if Jesus had two natures and therefore two
persons in the one body. Orthodoxy replied that Jesus had only one person, not two. At the
other extreme, the Eutychians tended to say that Jesus had one person, but only one nature.
They were not denying either His deity or humanity, but they seemed to be saying that in the
Hypostatic Union a third nature was produced, a sort of intermixture of the two. That too was
rejected.
B. The classic statement on the relation of the two natures of Christ was the Chalcedonian
Formula, produced in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. The crucial words bear quoting:
Perfect in Deity and Perfect in Humanity, truly God and truly Man, of a rational soul and
body, consubstantial with the Father according to His Deity, consubstantial with us
according to His Humanity... to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion or
change, without division or separation, the difference of the natures being by no means
removed by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved and
concurring in one Person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons...
C. Most of the church fathers taught the same doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. One problem
arose early in those centuries: Did Christ completely divest Himself of all deity when He became
a man? The correct answer is, No. He was still God and retained His deity. He did not cease to
be God when He became the God-Man. This was explained by the great Athanasius, the major
defender of the deity of Christ:
He was not, as might be imagined, circumscribed [limited] in the body, nor, while
present in the body, was He absent elsewhere... but, so far from being contained by

510

anything, He rather contained all things Himself; and just as while present in the whole of
Creation, He is at once distinct in being from the universe.... thus, even while present in
a human body and Himself quickening it, He was, without inconsistency, quickening the
universe as well, and was in every process of nature, and was outside the whole... He
was not bound to His body, but rather was Himself wielding it, so that He was not only in
it, but was actually in everything, and while external to the universe, abode in His Father
only.
D. Augustine also saw this truth. He expounded it in several places. His most pungent words
were: When, then, in order to be mediator, He willed to take the nature or a slave below the
angels, He remained in the form of God above the angels, being at the same time the way of life
on earth and life itself in heaven.
E. After the patristic era, Roman Catholicism made certain modifications to the views of
Athanasius and Augustine, though attempting to stay within the words of the Chalcedonian
Formula. However, medieval Catholic theologians tended to follow a certain theory known as
Interpenetration. That is, the two natures of Christ interpenetrated each other. The human
nature was deified and the divine nature was humanized, though both natures still retained their
own qualities. This was what Chalcedon wanted to avoid.

4. The Historic Lutheran Theory.

A. Then came the Reformation. Luther and most Lutherans tended to be influenced by the
Roman Catholic theory of Interpenetration. Their views can be seen in Luther himself, but more
precisely in the Formula of Concord and fullest in Martin Chemnitzs massive The Two Natures
in Christ, the largest and definitive Lutheran work on the subject. The mainstream Lutheran
position was solidified quite early and became a point of difference with the Swiss, French and
German Calvinists. In fact, when a moderate Lutheran attempted to tone down some features of
the predominant theory, he would be labeled a Crypto-Calvinist.
B. The Lutheran view is basically a certain view of communication of attributes. In the
Hypostatic Union, some attributes of deity are communicated or infused into the human
nature. Some Lutherans said the communication was dual - the divine nature was humanized
and the human nature was deified, as taught by some Catholics. Later Lutherans tended to say
that it was only a unilateral communication - the human nature was somewhat deified, but not
the other way around. Later, this was modified to say that only some of the divine attributes
were communicated to the human nature of Christ. Usually this meant that omniscience,
omnipotence and omnipresence were communicated to the human nature of Christ. The socalled incommunicable attributes of God (infinity, eternity, and immutability) were not
communicated. Thus they sought to avoid the accusation of teaching Eutychianism, i.e., a
fusion of the two natures so as to produce a third. Their classic illustration is that of heated iron heat is communicated into the iron, but the iron remains iron and the heat remains heat.
C. Much of the discussion of all this centered around one divine attribute in particular:
omnipresence. Lutheranism teaches the ubiquity, or omnipresence, of the human nature of
Christ. Christ is said to be everywhere in His humanity. They argued that to say otherwise would
be to suggest that there is some place in the universe where the divine Logos is present but not
the humanity of Christ. If so, they contended, then you have separated and divided the two
natures of Christ.
D. The Lutheran formula was, Logos non extra carnem, or, The Logos is not beyond the
flesh. The divine nature of Christ (the Logos) is nowhere outside of His human nature. This

511

does not mean that the Logos was finitized or limited to as mall human nature. Rather, it means
that the human nature of Christ was expanded so as to match the divine nature. This specifically
speaks of Christs physical body. Stressing such Bible verses as Col. 2:9, 11; Eph. 1:23, 4:10;
and 2 Cor. 5:19, they taught that Christs human body is everywhere. There is no place where
His human body is not to be found. It is ubiquitous and omnipresent.
E. This communication is said to have occurred in the Incarnation, what then of His deity when
He was on earth? Some Lutherans have said that He exercised deity secretly; other Lutherans
said that certain divine attributes were temporarily inoperative. That is not the main issue. The
main point is that when Christ became a man, not only was He the God-Man, but He was
omnipresent in His humanity.
F. Lastly, this had special ramifications for other teachings. Actually, it was mainly to protect
their doctrine of the Lords Supper that such a theory was devised. Lutherans believe that
Christs Real Presence is in, with and under the bread and wine. And this presence is both His
divine and human nature, including His physical body. Since many Christians have Communion
in many places at the same time, they say, Christs human nature and physical body must be
omnipresent.

5. The Reformed View of the Incarnation.

A. From the beginning, the Reformed (Calvinist) branch of the Reformation differed with the
Lutheran and Roman theories. Let us briefly set forth the historic Calvinist position of the
Hypostatic Union, beginning with the Incarnation.
B. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners (I Tim. 1:15). He came into the world by
taking on a human nature and a human body. This is taught especially in the early chapters of
Matthew and Luke. Luke says that Jesus gradually grew in stature and wisdom and in favor with
men (2:40, 52). At this point, we agree with mainstream Lutheranism in rejecting two errors. The
first is the unusual theory of Isaac Dorner and others, the theory of a gradual Incarnation. No,
Christ was instantly incarnated, but grew progressively. The second is the Kenosis Theory, that
Christ entirely divested Himself of deity when He became a man. The orthodox doctrine is
addition, not subtraction. He became what He was not, but did not cease to be what He already
was.
C. But from here we depart from the Lutheran theory. In the Incarnation, Christ took on a
second nature, but without any co-mingling of the two natures. Calvinism does indeed teach a
communication of attributes, but it is not between natures. The communication is in the
person, not the natures. What does that mean? It means that in the Incarnation, He was one
person with two natures. That one person is fully God and fully Man, but His deity is not
humanized nor is His humanity deified. Yet we can say that the person Jesus is omniscient,
divine, human, and so forth with all the attributes. But we are quick to say that this does not
mean a co-mingling or hybridization of the two natures. Calvinists have always contended that
this is the Biblical balance of the Hypostatic Union, and of course, also the true meaning of the
Chalcedonian Formula.
D. Lest this all sound too technical, let us give three representative quotations from historic
Calvinism that sum up our position. First, the Westminster Confession: So that two whole,
perfect and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in
one person, without conversion, composition or confusion (VIII: 2.). Second, the Second
Helvetic Confession: ... these are bound and united with one another in such a way that they
are not absorbed, or confused, or mixed, but are united or joined together in one person - the

512

properties of the natures being unimpaired and permanent (Ch. XI). Third, John Calvin: We
affirm His divinity so joined and united with His humanity that each retains its distinctive nature
unimpaired, and yet these two natures constitute one Christ(Institutes, 11:14:1).
E. As noted already, there are no perfect parallels or analogies to the Hypostatic Union (any
more than there are with the Trinity). There have been two popular, analogies suggested, but
each one has a fatal flaw. The first is that this union of two natures in one person is comparable
to the two natures in the Christian (cf. Rom. 7:15-25; Gal. 5:16-24, especially vs. 17). As
appropriate a parallel as that sounds, it is not perfect. Christians still have only one nature, a
human nature. In conversion, we simply have two principles, namely, the new man and the old
man, the flesh and the Spirit. To press this too far would almost back into the heresy that we
actually become little gods in conversion. The second popular illustration is that of the two parts
of man - body and soul. This is a better analogy, for the two are inseparable, and our soul is
never made physical in any way nor is our body made spiritual in any way.

6. The Extra Calvinisticum.

A. When the early Calvinists put forth their doctrine on the subject, the Lutherans gave a name
to it: the Extra Calvinisticum. This specifically had to do with our teaching that Christs deity
was not limited to His human nature, Richard Huller explained the term: The Reformed
[Calvinists] argued that the Word is fully united to but never totally contained within the human
nature, and therefore, even in incarnation is to be conceived of as being beyond or outside of
(extra) the human nature.
B. In contrast to the Lutheran formula, the Calvinist formula has been: Finitumnon capax
infiniti, or, The infinite is incapable of the infinite. Human nature is by definition finite and not
omnipresent. That applies even to the human nature that Christ took on; He did not take on a
different humanity than we have. Therefore, Christs humanity as humanity was incapable of
containing divine attributes, such as omniscience, eternity and especially omnipresence. As
C.H. Spurgeon said, You cannot put the ocean into a teacup. A fuller explanation is the one by
John Calvin, closely paralleling both Athanasius and Augustine:
For even if the Word in His immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one
person, we do not imagine that He was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son
of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be
borne in the virgins womb, to go about the earth and to hang upon the cross; yet He
continuously filled the world even as He had done from the beginning! (Institutes, 11:14:1).
C. In other words, when Jesus became a man, He was still God. And as God, He was still
omnipresent. To be precise. He was still in Heaven even when He was on Earth. One of the key
verses for this is John 3:13, And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down
from heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in heaven (KJV) The authenticity of the last four
words has been the subject of no small debate among scholars. They are contained in about
half of the major English translations such as the King James Version, the American Standard
Version, the New English Bible and the Jerusalem Bible), because they have great manuscript
evidence. The Greek words are found in the vast majority of manuscripts, and in at least half of
the early versions and quotations from church fathers. On the other hand, they are omitted from
some English translations (such as the New American Standard, the New International Version,
the Revised Standard Version, and Todays English Version) because some of the Greek
manuscripts do not contain them, as well as some ancient versions and fathers. If the phrase is
authentic, then the doctrine of the Calvinist clearly stands. But even if the phrase is not

513

authentic, the doctrine can be deduced from other Biblical doctrines.

D. Some Calvinists also appeal to John 1:18, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of
the Father. They point out that the present tense there indicates that the Son is ever in the
bosom of the Father, and was so even when He was on Earth.
E. This way of looking at the Hypostatic Union resolves many difficulties in the Lutheran theory.
Christ was omnipresent - and still is - but not in His humanity, only in His deity. That He was not
omnipresent in His humanity while on Earth is easily proved from the Resurrection accounts.
The angel said to Mary Magdalene. He is not here (Matt. 28:6). Clearly there was a place
where something of Jesus was not. Yet He was omnipresent as God, so this can only be a
reference to His humanity, including His physical body. If His body was not there in the tomb,
then it logically follows that His physical body and human nature are not omnipresent.
F. What then of Col. 2:9, For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form In addition to
being a clear proof of the deity of Christ, this verse tells us that Christs deity resided in His
body. The word fullness should not be construed to mean that all of His deity was contained in
His body. Otherwise, why not say that even all of the Father and the Holy Spirit were contained
in that body? If so, then who was ruling the universe during or since the Incarnation, especially
when Jesus was dead? As for Eph. 1:23, the fullness of Him who fills all in all, this probably
means that He fills all Christians (see the context of the book) or is a reference to His deity, as
in 4:10, that He might fill all things.
G. The same is true with the other 0 attributes. Christ was omniscient in His deity (John
21:17), but not in His humanity (Mark 13:32), He is omnipotent in His deity (Matt. 28:18), but not
in His humanity, for He became tired. This was not affected by either the Resurrection or the
Ascension.

7. The Ascension.
A. Forty days after Jesus rose from the dead, He ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand
of the Father (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11). He had already said that He would depart from them
(John 16:28, 17:11). This is obviously a reference to His humanity, including His body, for in His
deity He remains with all believers (Matt. 18:20, 28:20). Heb. 8:4 says, Now if He were on
Earth... which tells us that in some sense Christ is no longer on Earth. As one commentary on
Hebrews is entitled, He is Our Man in Heaven. His humanity is in the Third Heaven, not here.
In Matt. 26:11, He said, You do not always have Me, that is, in His humanity.
B. When He was on Earth, He was still in Heaven in His deity but on Earth only in His
humanity, After the Ascension, this has been somewhat reversed. He is still with us on Earth in
His deity, but His humanity is in Heaven. He is not here physically anymore than He was in
Heaven physically before the Ascension.
C. This has to do with the Extra Calvinisticum in a reverse sort of way. After the Incarnation,
there was still something extra about Christ that was still in Heaven. That was His deity. After
the Ascension, He is with us here below in His deity, but there is still something extra about
Him that is not here. What is it? It is His humanity. It is in Heaven. Calvinists deny the ubiquity of
the human nature of Christ. For example, the answer to Question .48 of the Heidelberg
Catechism is, Christ is true man and true God. As a man, He is no longer on earth, but in His
divinity, majesty, grace, and Spirit, He is never absent from us. That is a deep truth; but
remember that the Heidelberg Catechism was for children (!),
D. There is another vital truth to remember at this juncture. It is this: Just as Christ did not

514

cease to be God when He became Man in the Incarnation, neither did He cease to be Man in
the Ascension. When He became the God-Man, the two natures were permanently united to
each other in the one person. He will always be theThe anthropos. For this reason, Hebrews
says that He ever lives to make intercession for us, being the divine/human mediator (7:25).
But, a Lutheran will object, does not Heb. 4:15 say that He sympathizes with our
weaknesses? And doesnt 4:16 say that we can draw near to Him? Doesnt all this suggest that
we can touch the humanity of Christ, and vice-versa, and therefore His humanity must be
everywhere? No, that is not what the passage is saying. Sure, He can touch us and we can
touch Him. We touch Jesus the person, but not in His humanity. How come? Because His
humanity is in Heaven and we are on Earth. Granted that there remains much mystery as to
exactly where Heaven is, but there is that sense in which it is not here.
E. There might be a parallel in all this according to the manifestation of God as God. We know
that God is everywhere; He is omnipresent. Yet Scripture also says that sinners are separated
from God and will be even more so in Hell. On the other hand, Scripture also speaks of God
being in certain places in particular, such as the Holy of Holies. How do we reconcile these?
The resolution is that God is everywhere, especially in certain places. He is in some places
more and in other places less according to His manifestation of Himself. This is somewhat
similar to Christ. He is everywhere, but especially in Heaven.
F. So, then, we ask a very simple question: Where is Jesus? Someone will answer, In my
heart, and that is true. Someone else will answer, Among believers, and that too is true. A
third person will say, Hes everywhere, also true. And yet a fourth will answer, Hes in
Heaven. They are all true. He is in us and among us by the Holy Spirit and His deity. He is
everywhere in His deity. But He is in Heaven in His humanity. So when the Lutheran asks,
Where in the universe is Christ in His deity without His humanity? we reply, Hes everywhere
in His deity without His humanity, except in that special place at the right hand of the Father.

8. Conclusion.
A. One day Jesus will return to the Earth. He will return bodily even as He ascended bodily
(Acts 1:11). This alone would be sufficient to validate the Reformed view of the relation of the
two natures of Christ. We would ask our Lutheran brethren, If Christ is already everywhere in
His human nature and body, then what do you do with the Second Coming? If He were
everywhere physically, then there would be no need for the Second Coming. In fact, it would
already have happened. The Reformed doctrine of the Second Coming is that He returns in His
human nature and body from the right hand of the Father to the Earth. That assumes that He
was there and not here, and that after His coming He will be here and not there in His humanity.
Premillenialism Calvinists point out that His humanity will be limited to a specific place during
the Millennium. As for the New Heaven and the New Earth, it might well be that the whole
physical realm will be changed so as to render the question of ubiquity moot.
B. To sum up the Reformed position, let us keep two Scriptural truths in balance: Christ is and
always has been everywhere in His deity, even after the Incarnation and Christ in His humanity
was on Earth and not in Heaven before the Ascension, but will be on Earth and not in Heaven
after the Second Coming. And on that day, even a child will understand more of the Hypostatic
Union than the greatest Calvinist or Lutheran theologian in history.

515

Recommended Reading
Willis, E. David. Calvins Catholic Christology: The Function of the So-called Extra Calvinisticum
in Calvins Theology. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. II, pp. 378-418. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Chemnitz,
Martin. The Two Natures in Christ. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Berkouwer, G.C. The
Person of Christ, especially pp. 21-56. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Berkouwer, G.C. The Work of
Christ, pp. 234-241. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics, vol. II, pp. 85-279, especially pp. 271-279. St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House. (The standard Lutheran systematic theology)
Calvin, John. Institutes, 11:13-14 (vol. I, pp. 474-493). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Muller, Richard. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, pp. 72-74, 111, 119, 180,
239-243, 312. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House/
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 321-330. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 410-447, 500-509. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House.
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Person and Work of Christ, pp. 211-264. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian
and Reformed.
Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 342-362, especially pp. 358-362. Grand Rapids:
Reformed Free Publishing Association.
Boettner, Loraine. Studies in Theology, pp. 195-203. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Reymond, Robert L. Jesus, Divine Messiah. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Pipa, Joseph. The Root and the Branch. Philadelphia: Great Commission Publications.
Clark, Gordon. The Incarnation. Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation. (Borders on Nestorianism)
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen, vol. I, pp. 1-421, especially pp. 223-235 and 309-322.
Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Best, W.E. Christ Emptied Himself. Houston: South Belt Grace Church.
Gerstner, John. A Primer on the Deity of Christ. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed
Edward, Jonathan. The works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. II, pp. 499-510. Carlisle: Banner of
Truth.

516

Chapter 70. The Reformed Doctrine of the

Church.
1. Introduction.
A. By and large, Calvinists have shared the major view of the Church that was rediscovered in
the Reformation after centuries of abuse by Roman Catholicism. Our ecclesiology is rather
similar to that of Lutheran churches, Baptist churches and Episcopal churches, at least those
who are true to the Reformation.
B. Still, there are certain distinctives, which bear mentioning as we examine the miscellaneous
distinctives of Calvinism. So, we will concentrate on several main areas of ecclesiology and give
both the general Reformation view and the more particular Reformed view. We will also point
out those fine points where Calvinists disagree among themselves.

2. What is the Church?

A. Reformed theology agrees with mainstream Christianity that the Church is described in the
Bible under a variety of figures: the Body of Christ, the Temple of God, the People of God, and
so forth. But the term Church seems to have a special place because of its frequent
occurrence. Several aspects of its use bear looking at.
B. The first is the word itself. In Greek it is the word EKKLESIA, or called out ones. The
Church is that group of persons who have been called out of the mass of mankind by God to be
His special possession. Calvinists tie this in with the second and fourth points of Calvinism.
Since we are called out, then it follows that this refers to the Special Calling of God in
Irresistible Grace. In fact, EKKLESIA includes the Greek word for to call, KALEO. So, the
Church is made up of those who have received Irresistible Grace.
C. Similarly, we are called out in time because we were called out in eternity through election.
Again, there is a similarity between EKKLESIA and the forms of the major Greek word for elect
(EKLEGO as a verb, EKLOGE as a noun, EKLEKTOS as an adjective). The Church includes
only the elect. But to be precise, it does not include all the elect as yet. It includes only those
elect who have been called; the rest will one day be called and will be included in the Church. In
a more general sense, the roll of the Church matches the roll of the Lambs Book of Life. The
Westminster Confession states, The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of
the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ
the head thereof (XXV: 1).
D. But how does this relate to Israel? Calvinism teaches that the Church is
Essentially different from Israel, when one properly understands both. The Bible teaches that
God has a people, one people. He does not have two separate people, but one. Rom. 11:16-24
speaks of the one tree with different branches, some Jewish and some Gentile. Eph. 2:11-22
speaks of this one people under the figures of a commonwealth, a man, and a temple. When
Gentiles are called in, they are not _ called in to a separate group from Old Testament
believers. Rather, they are called in from the north, south, east and west to come and sit down
at the same table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Matt. 8:11).

517

E. Calvinists have sought to avoid two extremes. The first is the view that suggests that there
are no differences whatsoever between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church.
There is a sense in which the Church is a New Testament entity, for Jesus said, I will build My
Church (Matt. 16:18) in the future tense. On the other hand, we avoid the opposite error, which
says there is no overlap or identity between Israel and the Church, such as in Dispensational
theology. One analogy that is popular in Reformed theology is that the Church was in embryonic
form in the Old Testament, but was born on Pentecost. This means that it already existed and
lived before Pentecost, but did not reach a critical stage until after Christ ascended. What made
the difference in the transition? Several things. For one, Jesus said that the kingdom would be
taken from national Israel and given to another (Matt. 21:43). But the main thing is that the Old
Testament people of God looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, and with Him came the
birth of the people of God. Since then, it has grown and matured. It will not go back to its
embryonic form in the womb, but awaits its perfection when Christ the Messiah returns a second
time.
F. This too can be substantiated by looking at the word EKKLESIA again. Contrary twosome
opinions popular in Dispensational theology, the word had great Old Testament ramifications
and is not a distinctly New Testament concept. Though the Old Testament was written in
Hebrew, it was translated into Greek (the Septuagint) and this became the popular Bible of the
time of the New Testament. When Jesus and the Apostles spoke of the EKKLESIA, their
hearers and readers would immediately think of how the word was used in the Septuagint.
G. EKKLESIA is used about 75 times in the Septuagint. It usually corresponds to the Hebrew
word QAHAL. This word is usually translated in our English versions as the congregation.
Sometimes we read of the congregation of Israel and sometimes simply the congregation.
Furthermore, Stephen referred to this idea in Acts 7:38when he spoke of the congregation in
the wilderness, or as the KJV has it, the church in the wilderness. SUNAGOGE is another
Greek word used to translate the Hebrew words for congregation, and it is much the same as
EKKLESIA. In the intertestamental years, local synagogues sprang up for groups of Jews in a
given locality. Their relation to the nation of Israel is much the same as the relation between
local churches and the universal Church. James 2:2 and Heb. 10:25 use SUNAGOGE as a term
for the local church.
H. With this in mind, Calvinism has taught that the Church is to be identified with Gods people
in every dispensation, and that in the New Covenant it is described by Paul as the Israel of
God (Gal. 6:16). The Israel of God under the Old Covenant was the Israel within Israel, as it
were, the remnant of believing Israelites such as Moses, Elijah and David. This group is
essentially one with New Covenant believers, who are called Abrahams offspring (Gal. 3:29)
and the true circumcision (Phil. 3:2; Rom. 2:28-29; cf. Rom. 9:6). Quoting the Old Testament,
Peter describes the Church as a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for
Gods own purpose (I Pet. 2:9). We are the true Israel, scattered around the world as the true
Dispersion (James 1:1). We are the true Jerusalem (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22).
I. Similarly, Calvinism has always taught that the Church is the Kingdom of God (Matt. 16:1819). This has to be seen in several stages. In one sense, it was in its initial stages as far back as
God had subjects who were made willing by His grace. This stretched all the way back to Adam
and Eve, and certainly included David and other Old Covenant saints. But, like the idea of
EKKLESIA, it too reached a greater fullness when the King Himself came. Scripture leaves no
doubt that those who are now saved by grace are already in the Kingdom of God (Col. 1:13;
Matt. 3:2, 4:17, 11:11-12, 12:28, 23:13; Luke 17:21; Rom. 14:17, etc.). But the consummation of
the Kingdom has not yet occurred, so there is a sense in which the Kingdom is yet future (Matt.
16:18, 26:29, etc.).

518

3. The Visible and Invisible Church.

A. All this is further seen in yet another way in which Calvinists speak of the Church. Calvinists
and Lutherans have spoken of the Church as visible and invisible. This does not mean two
Churches. Rather, it is like the idea and word Israel. Charles Hodge commented, The
Protestant distinction between the Church visible and invisible, nominal and real, is that which
Paul makes between Israel after the flesh and Israel after the Spirit. Just as They are not all
Israel who are Israel (Rom. 9:6), so one could say, They are not all Church who are Church.
B. The invisible Church is the Universal Church, the Body of Christ, that number of truly
regenerated souls in all places around the world. The visible Church is a localized group of
believers, or what we call the Local Church. However, the Local Church is not yet pure. It still
contains false believers unknown to true believers. So, the two groups are not to be seen as
synonymous. One may belong to the visible Church without being a member of the invisible
Church. Many are. They should not be. Such a one is unregenerate. Conversely, one may be a
member of the invisible, Universal Church and yet for one reason or another not be a member
of a visible, Local Church. He should be, of course. Only members of the invisible Church are
saved, and they alone. Membership in a visible, Local Church is not necessary for salvation, nor
does it guarantee that its members are all saved.
C. Calvinists and Lutherans taught along these lines in order to refute the gross ecclesiastical
distortions of Roman Catholicism. Romanism had taught that she alone is the true Church. All
her members were Christians and only her members. Thus, there is no difference of visible and
invisible Church. One problem, however, remained with most Calvinist and Lutheran churches.
They generally admitted to local church membership not only those who gave a credible
profession of faith, but also their children through infant baptism. Calvinistic Baptists have seen
this as a fatal ecclesiastical flaw that in principle can lead back to Roman errors. Presbyterian
Calvinists have wrestled for centuries with the problem, seeking to avoid the heresy of baptismal
regeneration on the one hand and all loss of the doctrine of the family covenant on the other.

4. The Marks of the Church.

A. Calvinists have not only wrestled with the definition of the Universal Church, but also with
regard to Local Churches. The question is, What are the marks of a true Church? Lutherans
and Calvinists disagreed with Romes answer: The Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
In other words, there is only one true Church and it is Roman Catholicism. The only true local
Churches are those, which are in communion with Rome and the Pope.
B. Most Calvinistsennumerate three marks of a true Church. Some give only two and some
give four or more. All true churches have these marks to a certain degree, though none have
them perfectly. Without them, no church is a true church.
C. The first and foremost of them is the preaching of the Word of God. This does not merely
mean the regular proclamation of the Word in corporate meetings, though that is included.
Rome, for example, was no true Church because it did not have the preaching of the Word in
the language of the people, said the Reformers. But this mark means more than that.
D. It means that a true Church is founded on the Word of God, and the Gospel in particular. No
church is doctrinally perfect. None have reached the maximum. But there remains a certain
minimum of correct doctrine that is required for the foundation of a true church, and that set of

519

doctrines is known as the Gospel. Hence, any church, which adds to or subtracts from the basic
tenets of the faith has destroyed the foundations and is no true church. The Reformers thus
opposed Roman Catholicism for being a false church. Subsequently, this principle has been
used by heirs of the Reformation to expose Liberalism and the cults.
E. The second mark of a true church is the practice of the sacraments. Most Calvinists have
spoken of them as sacraments, but some Low Church Calvinists (mostly Calvinistic Baptists)
have preferred the Biblical term ordinance. Now again, we Calvinists agree with the other two
branches of the Reformation in rejecting the Romanist idea of sacraments. First, we oppose
their sacramental ism, whereby grace is physically infused through the sacraments in a magical
way irrespective of faith. Thats occultism, not Christianity. Second, we reject their so-called
sacraments of confirmation, penance and last rites. Marriage is ordained by God, but is a
Creation ordinance, not a Christian ordinance (that is, non-Christians can partake of it, but only
Christians are to partake of the Christian ordinances, or sacraments). Romes sacrament of
holy orders is also a distortion of the Biblical principle of ordination to the eldership. Not all
Christians are elders, so it isnt a sacrament.
F. Lutherans retain the sacrament of confirmation, though with differences on the rite as
practiced by Rome. Calvinists rarely practice this, except in an indirect way when they recognize
that a child growing up in a Christian family has come to faith and should be admitted to
Communion. And as we shall see later, there is a fundamental difference between the Calvinist
and the Roman views of Communion.
G. So, Calvinists believe in two sacraments or ordinances. A few Hyper-Calvinists, however,
have added a third ordinance, namely* foot-washing (such as with many Primitive Baptists). Still
other Hyper-Calvinists, mostly in the early 19thcentury, accepted only one ordinance,
Communion. These Abaptists accepted only Spirit-baptism for this dispensation, and rejected
both believers and infant baptism. H. The question of this mark has led to some serious
disagreements among Calvinists in another way. The early Calvinists understood this mark in
terms of Communion and Baptism. Hence, they did not consider Anabaptist Churches to be true
churches, for they did not rightly practice one of the two sacraments. On the other hand,
Calvinistic Baptists have almost always acknowledged paedo-baptist Calvinist churches to be
true churches, though weak on baptism. The debate still continues. I. The third mark of a true
Church is church discipline. Matt. 18:15-20 is the classic passage on the subject. Without it, a
church ruins its own foundation. If it preaches the Word and practices the sacraments but does
not have at least a measure of church discipline, then it lets out through the bottom of the barrel
what it receives in through the top. It disqualifies itself. Any church that does not practice church
discipline to a certain measure is not a Christian church at all.
J. This is elaborated in several ways. First, believers who stray into sin are to be brought back
through discipline. But second, false believers are not to be admitted to membership. If one has
been discovered to be a false believer after already having been admitted to membership, his
membership is to be terminated, for only true believers are to belong to a local church. If this is
not practiced, then true believers are obligated under God to leave and form other local
churches.

5. The Regulative Principle.

A. There is another matter over which Calvinists have disagreed with Rome and Lutheranism.
The question is: How are we to worship together? The question almost seems to answer itself,
but we disagree with Rome and others. Rome answers by appealing to Tradition and the

520

Magisterium of the hierarchy. Lutheranism tends to answer in a semi-sacramental way, but adds
the use of their ethical formula, Whatever is not explicitly forbidden in Scripture is allowed.
B. The Reformed answer is what is known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. It was given
its best wording in the Westminster Confession: ...the acceptable way of worshipping the true
God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be
worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men or the suggestions of Satan,
under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (XXI:1).
God forbids us to add to or subtract front His Word (Deut. 4:1-2, 12:32). Being sovereign, He
determines the way in which He is to be worshipped. He has laid this down in Scripture. In the
Old Testament, He gave very specific requirements. Most of them have been abolished now,
but some carry over. In the New, there is more freedom and far fewer specific details. But the
principle is still the same: God has given a definite prescription on how we should worship.
C. God does not leave the matter up to us. Of course, there is a certain amount of liberty for
wisdom, prudence and adjustment in each local church. But even that is circumscribed by the
limits of Scripture. The Pharisees added their traditions to Gods ways of worship and were
condemned by Christ (Matt. 15:1-9). Nadab and Abihu were slain for offering strange fire
before the Lord, that is, not in accordance with Gods prescription (Lev. 10:1-3). Uzziah wrongly
sought to offer incense, which was allowed only for the priests (2 Chron. 26:18). David erred in
transporting the Ark on a cart rather than in Gods prescribed way (2 Sam. 6).
D. Why does it really matter? Worship in any unbiblical manner is a form of idolatry. The
answer to Question 109 of the Westminster Larger Catechism reads in part: The sins forbidden
in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise
approving, any religious worship not instituted by God Himself; tolerating a false religion; the
making of any representation of God... all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God,
adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by
tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, demotion, good intent, or any
other pretense whatsoever... Unscriptural worship, not just graven images, is forbidden.
E. This is to oppose two main trends. The first is superstition, such as Romes candles,
incense, holy days and the like. Most Calvinists have opposed the idea of ritualism and liturgy,
preferring a far more simplified pattern of worship. The second is sentimental ism and human
invention for supposed good intentions, but lacking Scriptural support. More recently, this
applies to matters such as religious drama, entertainment, posters, ornaments, and so forth.
Consistent Calvinists also apply it to altar calls. We apply it to the practice of the sacraments
too. We strongly oppose such ludicrous inventions as placing a white rose in the baptismal
water or substituting coffee and donuts for bread and wine at Communion. Most Calvinists have
argued from the Regulative Principle that Scripture commanded bread and wine, not grape
juice.
F. What, then, are the basic elements of prescribed worship? Calvinists accept five: prayer,
singing, the sacraments, and the reading and preaching of the Word. There has been some
difference of opinion among Calvinists over which one of these is central. Some say
Communion, others say preaching.
G. There has also been debate on other matters, such as whether Scripture commands us to
sing psalms only (as practiced, for example, by some in the Scottish and Dutch traditions) or
allows hymns composed by non-inspired authors. The debate hinges onthe interpretation of
Eph. 5:19. Most early Calvinists practiced exclusive psalmody, but most today allow hymns.
There has also been disagreement over the use of vestments, such as clerical collars and
gowns for pastors. Lastly, there has been only a little debate on other practices found in
Scripture in corporate worship, such as raising hands, clapping, saying the amen, testimonies,

521

multiple preaching, and so forth. A few Calvinists have approved and practiced these (and some
even practice yet others). But even that does not materially affect the Regulative Principle, for
they argue that such is prescribed in the Word of God.

6. Church Government.
A. It should come as no surprise that Calvinists apply this principle to church government as
well. However, they have disagreed on what exactly the Bible teaches. Most Calvinists have
believed that Scripture teaches a Presbyterian system. Forexample, this was the view of the
Reformers and at least half of the Puritans. It was the view of the Westminster Confession and
other confessions. This system is that of a semi-hierarchical structure. Each local church has
several elders. The elders in a given locality make up what is called a presbytery (or in some
denominations, a classis). Then the presbyteries in a given region make up a synod, and all of
them together form the general assembly. There have been variations in this system, such as
when Charles Hodge reasoned that only Teaching Elders are members of the local presbytery
and James Henley Thornwell argued that a presbytery included all elders, not simply those in
full-time service.
B. Some Calvinists have believed in a yet more hierarchical structure of church government
known as episcopalism, or rule by bishops over a group of churches. This was the view of
notable Calvinists such as Oames Ussher, John Davenant, Joseph Hall, and J.C. Ryle - all of
whom were Anglican Bishops. It was also espoused by many of the Puritans (William Perkins,
Richard Sibbes, John Preston, William Ames, and others), and of course all the participants of
the English Reformation. It was later the accepted view and practice of Calvinists such as A.M.
Toplady, W.H. Griffith Thomas and J.I. Packer.
C. Still other undisputed Calvinists have taught that the Bible commands a non-denominational
approach, or at least a very loose association. This was the position of quite a few Puritans,
such as John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Jeremiah Burroughes, Thomas Brooks, David Clarkson,
Joseph Caryl and many more. Later it was the system of Jonathan Edwards and the New
England Calvinists. Naturally this has predominated among the Calvinistic Baptists, such as
John Bunyan, John Gill and C.H. Spurgeon. More recently, it was the view of Martyn LloydJones.
D. There has been one principle, however, which almost every Calvinist has believed in,
stressed and practiced: multiple eldership. Scripture expressly and repeatedly teaches that
there are to be several elders in each local church (Phil. .1:1; I Pet. 5:1; James 5:14; I Tim. 5:17;
Tit. 1:5; Acts 11:30, 14:23, 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23, 16:4, 20:17, 28, 21:18). They serve and rule the
local church as under-shepherds. They are under each others authority, and so there is no
threat of a one-man dictatorship.
E. Some problems arise in practice when this is looked into in more detail. For example,
Calvinists agree that Scripture also commands that certain men are to be financially
remunerated for full-time service to the local church (I Cor. 9:6-14). This can include non-elders,
but also one or more elders in a given church. The question arises whether such a remunerated
elder alone is the pastor or whether all the elders are pastors as well. Some say that all are
equal, for all are pastors^ elders and overseers; the terms are synonymous. Others say that the
pastor is the Teaching Elder with somewhat more authority than the other Ruling Elders.
Most of the debate centers around I Tim. 5:17-18. The main concern is that such a one does not
become a sort of bishop.

522

7. Church-State Relations.
A. The last category of ecclesiology that bears mention is church-state relations. Unlike the
previous question, there is very little major disagreement among historic Calvinists on this
question. The mainstream view is that of the Two Kingdoms. This can be traced back to John
Calvin and Martin Bucer. Accordingly, God has ordained two structures in the world: the civil
government and the Church. The two are related (contrary to the Anabaptist idea of total
separation of Church and State), but not identical (contrary to the idea of a strict theocracy).
B. The two realms overlap, as it were. They are parallel. Neither is higher than the other. This is
to reject two erroneous views. The first was that of Romanism, which made the Pope higher
than any civil ruler or government. The second was known as Erastianism. This was more or
less the view of the Lutherans, but very few Calvinists have ever accepted it. Heinrich Bullinger
was probably the notable exception. This theory would place the civil ruler over the church. The
Church of England practices a form of this, and its Calvinists (few as they have been) have
debated the question for centuries. The Calvinist balance of the two realms was best
exemplified in five major places and times: Geneva in the time of Calvin and Beza, Scotland in
the time of John Knox and his successors, England in the time of Cromwell and the Puritan
Revolution, America in the time of the Pilgrim Fathers, and Holland in the time of Abraham
Kuyper (who was at one time both the Prime Minister of Holland and the leading Calvinist
theologian and preacher). The United States has never had a truly Reformed president.
Possibly Woodrow Wilson came the closest, but his views were much lower than historic
Calvinism.
C. The differences between the Two Kingdoms can be seen in a series of contrasts. The
State has the power of the sword, but not church discipline; the Church has the power of church
discipline, not the power of the sword. The State receives taxes; the Church receives tithes. The
States main purpose is to enforce civil _ righteousness according to the Moral Law of Scripture
and the general equity of the Civil Law given to Israel; the Churchs main purpose is to worship
God, feed Christians, and evangelize non-Christians. The State can include the unregenerate;
the Church should include only the regenerate (except their children, say most).
D. One more principle is essential. Calvinists have differed over what exactly is the ideal kind of
civil government. Some have favored monarchy, others democracy. The mainstream view is
that the best government is that of a righteous republic patterned after the period of the Judges.
The government should be limited to certain functions, and leave the rest to Common Grace
and the Church. But, and this is the vital point, the main thing is not the size of the government
but the goodness of the government. Righteousness according to the Word of God is the
primary ingredient of the best government. It is more important than the size of the government,
the economic well being of the society, or any other factor. A righteous monarchy is better than
an unrighteous democracy.

8. Conclusion.
A. Finally, Calvinists have taught the principle that the Church is to be Reformed and always
reforming. It is to build on the Biblical foundations, but not rest on its laurels. The sovereign
God works continual reformation in His Church, somewhat similar to Thomas Jeffersons
suggestion that a republic need a revolution in every generation. The Reformers would be the
first to say that every Reformed church needs a back-to-the-Bible Reformation in every
generation, continually purifying itself in preparation for the day when she will meet Her divine

523

Husband.

Recommended Reading
Banherman, James. The Church of Christ. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Banner-man, Douglas. The Scripture Doctrine of the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Kuiper, R.B. The Glorious Body of Christ. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Berkouwer, G.C. The Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Thomwell, James Henley. The Collected writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. IV, especially
pp. 15-375. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Calvin, John. Institutes, Book IV (vol. II, pp. 1009-1521). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Calvin, John. Selected Works of John Calvin, vol. I, especially pp. 123-236; vol. II; and vol. Ill,
especially pp. 189-359. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Milner, Benjamin Charles, Jr. Calvins Doctrine of the Church. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen, vol. XIII; vol. XV, especially pp. 188-373, 445-530; and
vol. XVI, pp, 1-253. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 555-603. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Baxter, Richard. The Practical Works of Richard Baxter, vol. I, pp. 547-736, 922-948. Ligonier:
Soli Deo Gloria.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 657-694. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Discussions, vol. II. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Cunningham, William. Historical Theology, vol. II, pp. 514-587. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 563-655. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free
Publishing Association.
Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. I, pp. 231-287; vol. II, pp. 321-384.
Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
The Directory for the Public Worship of God and The Form of Presbyterian Church Government,
in The Confession of Faith, pp. 369-416. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications.
De Mar, Gary. God and Government. 3 vols. Bristol: Wolgemuth and Hyatt.
Bogue, Carl W. The Scriptural Law of Worship. Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Press.
Allis, Oswald T. Israel and the Church. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Berkhof, Gerard; and De Koster, Lester. The Elders Handbook. Grand Rapids: Christians
Library Press.

524

Chapter 71. The Reformed Doctrine of

Communion.
1. Introduction.
A. As we briefly look at some miscellaneous distinctive* of Reformed theology, it would-be
fitting to examine the Calvinist doctrine of Communion. After all, the Reformers not only
disagreed with the Romanists but with each other in their understanding of the Lords Supper.
To be sure, all the Protestant Reformers and their successors have agreed that Romes priestly
system of sacramental ism is in gross error. They stressed the priesthood of all believers as
found in Scripture (Ex. 19:6; Isa. 61:6; I Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6, 5:10; Heb. 13:15-16; Rom. 12:1,
15:16). At the Vatican II Council, Rome confessed that there is a sense in which all true
believers are priests. This supposedly was meant to pacify traditional Protestants. Yet at
Vatican II, Rome reiterated its old belief in a separate caste of priests who are higher than the
laity. The Roman error of priests is not the same as the Reformed doctrine of elders. Christ
alone is our High Priest, and all believers can approach Him in prayer and faith. We need no
mediators or priests.
B. Historic Protestants have described the Lords Supper under a variety of terms. The Lords
Supper (I Cor. 11:20} is perhaps the most popular. The Table of the Lord (I Cor. 10:21) is a
similar name. Communion is the term taken from I Cor. 10:16 and is probably the most popular
so far as common, non-theological discussion is concerned. Some use the name Breaking of
Bread (Acts 2:42, 46). The elements of bread and wine are denominated the bread which we
break and the cup of blessing and the cup of the Lord (I Cor. 10:16, 21). Technically,
Christians do not celebrate the Last Supper, for that occurred but once. A few more liturgically
minded Protestants use the name Eucharist (from the Greek word for thanksgiving), but
Calvinists usually shy back from it. Furthermore, no Protestant - Lutheran, Calvinist or
Anabaptist - refers to the Lords Supper as the Mass.
C. The doctrine of Communion has figured highly in the various Reformed confessions of faith.
Perhaps the best summary of the Reformed doctrine of Communion is that found in the
Westminster Confession:
Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein He was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of His
body and blood, called the Lords Supper, to be observed in His church unto the end of
the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death, the
sealing of all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth
in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him, and to be
a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of
His mystical body (XXIX:1).

2. The Four Non-Reformed Views of Communion.

A. To best understand the Reformed view of Communion, it is necessary to see how it relates to
the other main theories, which Christians have put forth. The first is that of Roman Catholicism,
called the Mass. Romanism officially teaches that in the Mass, the bread and wine literally and
miraculously are transformed into the physical body and blood of Jesus. Hence, they say that

525

the wine is no longer; wine and the bread is no longer bread. But this is a double miracle: the
substance of the elements has changed but not the appearance. The wine is as literally the
blood of Jesus as that blood which flowed from His veins and was spilt on Calvary. This is the
theory of Transubstantiation (change of physical substances). The priest then elevates the
supposed body and blood to be worshipped, and then he allegedly offers them to God in a literal
propitiatory sacrifice. Then he serves them to Catholics present, who should but need not have
faith in order to receive the blessings of Communion, for those blessings are physically
conferred.
B. Calvinist and Lutheran Protestants vigorously rejected Transubstantiation. In fact, many of
them were burned at the stake for denying this supposed miracle. We have rejected it as gross
heresy. It would be cannibalism to eat Christs literal body and drink His literal blood, which
Scripture explicitly forbids (Lev. 17:10-16). It is idolatry to worship as God something that is not
God. The Mass is blasphemy and sacrilege. Christs one atonement is never repeated, for it is
perfect. Of the many strong words uttered and written by Calvinists on the subject, perhaps
none are so pungent and representative as those of Charles Hodge: No doctrine of the Church
of Rome is more portentous or more fruitful of evil consequences than this doctrine of the mass;
and no doctrine of that Church is more entirely destitute of even a semblance of Scriptural
support.
C. The Lutherans proposed another theory called Consubstantiation. They deny that the
physical elements change. But the Real Presence of Christ is still present. How? Where?
Lutherans say that Christ is present in, with and under the elements. This is more than simply
a spiritual presence; in some deep mysterious way, the physical body of Christ is invisibly
present in the elements. The body of Christ is not just in Heaven; it is everywhere, especially in
the elements of Communion. Therefore, they say, whoever eats the consecrated elements does
in fact eat the body of Christ, even if he lacks faith.
D. Calvinists saw this as an improvement on the heresy of Transubstantiation, but it still erred
in being too physical. The true physical body of Christ is in Heaven, not on Earth, even in
Communion. It cannot be localized at the Table. Moreover, Calvinists have insisted that
whoever does not have faith does not receive the Real Presence of Christ, even though he may
eat the physical elements.
E. The third theory has come to be known as the Zwinglian theory. Actually, Zwingli himself
never really held to it, but his reaction against Luther gave rise to it among many of his
followers. This theory says there is no Real Presence of Christ in Communion. The Lords Table
is only a meal of remembrance. Those holding to this view stress the word remembrance in
Luke 22:19 and I Cor. 11:24-25. The Table is only a symbol that shows forth Christs death (I
Cor. 11:26) - that and nothing more. To say that believers receive some special blessing or life
at Communion is sacramental ism that leads back to Rome. The Zwinglian theory has found
most support among Fundamentalist churches, especially Baptists.
F. There is a fourth theory that is extremely rare. It is the theory of the Acts28 UltraDispensationalists. All Ultra-Dispensationalists reject the practice of water baptism for this
present dispensation. The Acts 28 Ultras go a step further and deny the Lords Supper as well.
They argue that water baptism and Communion were temporary ordinances for the dispensation
between Pentecost and Pauls imprisonment in Rome, when he was granted the revelation of
the nature of the Church. I Corinthians was written before that, and so they were right to
celebrate Communion at that time, as were believers in Acts 2 and 20. But this is no longer
necessary. Probably not more than one in a thousand believers accept this theory, which has
found its major proponents in Charles Welch and E.W. Bullinger (who was a direct descendent
of Heinrich Bullinger, the great16th-century Swiss Reformer). For one thing, Calvinists and

526

others have cut it off at the roots by pointing to I Cor. 11:26, where we are told to celebrate
Communion until He comes. Christ has not come yet, so Communion continues.
G. The Reformed view of Communion lies midway between these four theories. The theories of
Transubstantiation and Ultra-Dispensationalism are the outer extremes. The Calvinist doctrine
lies between those of Luther and Zwingli, accepting the best of both but rejecting the
deficiencies of both as well.

3. Spiritual Communion with Christ.

A. Reformed theology teaches that there are three primary means of grace, whereby the
Good Shepherd nourishes His sheep. The three are prayer, the Word of God and the
sacraments. When we pray in faith, we receive grace from God according to His will and our
need. When we read, study, believe and practice the Word of God, He again feeds our souls
with grace. But there is a third means: the sacraments. God blesses us when we are baptized.
This blessing is not required for salvation, nor does it produce it. Rather, it is given through the
Word of God. But baptism occurs but once and cannot be repeated.
B. Before proceeding further, it is meet to emphasize the utter importance of the means of
grace. When Christians stagnate in their spiritual life, it is not always due solely to sin. It may be
due to a neglect of the means of grace. The Biblically based counselor will always check his
patients vital signs, namely, whether the person is praying and reading his Bible. It is amazing
how many problems of the Christian life either fade away or can be handled by simply a regular
diet of prayer and Bible study.
C. But the Lords Supper is a means of grace as well. When believers attend the Communion
Table, their hearts and minds are to be attuned to the Lord in three ways. First, they are to look
back in remembrance of His death and resurrection, with faith and gratitude. Even the
Zwinglians admit this. Second, they are to look forward in hope to the day when that same Lord
Jesus shall return. In this way we show forth His death until He come. But the third aspect is
equally important, but is sadly ignored by many Evangelicals. This aspect is denied by
Zwinglians and distorted by Romanists and Lutherans.
D. This important aspect of Communion is just that: Communion with the Lord Jesus. It
includes prayer but is more than prayer. Rather, it is communion in the sense that our union
with Him is strengthened by actually receiving grace at His Table. Mind you, this grace is not
different from the grace received through the other two means of grace (prayer and the Word).
No, it is the same grace, only more so; or one might say, a different flavour of the same grace.
What, then, is this grace that is received for our souls? The soul food is simply the Lord Jesus
Christ Himself. He Himself is the Bread of Life (John 6:35). The Westminster Confession again
gives an excellent summary of the Reformed position:
Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then
also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually,
receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood
of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet
as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the
elements themselves are to their outward senses (XXXIX:7).
E. This is the Reformed view, but is it Scriptural? I believe that it is. Several Scripture passages
prove it to be so. First, some Calvinists point out that the Jewish priests were instructed to eat
some of the sacrifices that were offered. As New Covenant priests, we do not crucify the Lamb

527

of God, for Christmas already been slain. But we do most certainly imbibe Christ Himself by
faith in that special ordinance of remembrance called the Lords Supper.
F. Then there is John 6:48-58. Jesus has just referred to Himself as the Bread of Life (vs. 35)
and repeats and expands upon the metaphor. He explains that true spiritual life is received only
by eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Obviously this cannot be taken literally, as by
Romanists and even some Lutherans, or else you wind up with cannibalism. Jesus Himself
corrected this misunderstanding in vs. 63. So, one must eat and drink Christ for true life. But
how?
G. Calvinists are not saying that the Lords Supper is the initial step of salvation. We do not
receive spiritual life in the sense of salvation by taking Communion. Yet, as we shall see, we
feed our souls by faith in the Word of God at Communion. The point at this juncture is that there
is a necessary link between Christs body and blood and our having spiritual life. He is not
speaking of His literal body and blood, so it must be something spiritual.
H. Of course, the Zwinglians object to the Reformed interpretation of John 6. They frequently
point out that nothing in the passage says anything at all about the Lords Table. We Calvinists
reply that the whole passage speaks about the spiritual body and blood of Christ, which is
exactly what is received in Communion. We also point out that the Zwinglian position errs by
over-reacting against Romes interpretation of John 6, that is* a literal interpretation. Yet even
the Zwinglians admit that this passage speaks of a spiritual feeding upon Christ.
I. To fully understand John 6, one must compare it with I Cor. 10 and 11. I Cor. 10:16-21 uses
similar language as John 6. Verse 16 is the key verse that unlocks the difficulties. Paul says that
eating and drinking the Table is communion. The Greek word is KOINONIA, which is
something quite different from remembrance. It means participation, intimate fellowship, and
shared relationship, something deeply personal. Calvinists contend that at the Table, we do
more than remember with the mind something in the past; we commune with Christ Himself
personally in the present.
J. Look also at vss. 20-21. Paul says that eating at the tables of demons involves partaking of
something demonic. He is referring to pagan sacrifices. In those religious feasts, the heathen
would offer themselves to their god and be filled with something of that god. Elsewhere Paul
says that the actual food is not tainted; Christians can eat food, which has been offered to idols,
and not imbibe of something demonic. Paul does, however, warn them to take the Lords Table
properly. Just as pagans used their feasts to offer themselves to their god and partake of him,
so Christians are to use the Lords Table as an occasion to place faith in Christ and partake of
the Lord in a spiritual, non-physical way. The word partake is analogous to communion and
eating. Calvin said, Our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ in the same way that
bread and wine keep and sustain physical life.
K. Calvinists stress that this does not deify the recipient. It is not like the old Hippie slogan,
You are what you eat. Rather, we receive the benefits of Christs work and increased spiritual
life through communion with Himself. Calvin again commented: These benefits are to nourish,
refresh, strengthen and gladden.
L. Lutherans say this does not go far enough. It cannot be merely spiritual, for Christ said, This
is My body. There must be something physical involved, and that more than merely the
elements themselves. Calvinists reply that Christs physical body and humanity are in Heaven,
not here. We eat the physical elements but receive of Christ spiritually. What is it of Christ that is
received? It is His person. His person is everywhere, though His humanity is in Heaven. The
Second Helvetic Confession, which was mainly the work of Heinrich Bullinger (Zwinglis
successor in Zurich), gives a useful illustration:

528

Yet the Lord is not absent from us His Church when she celebrates the Supper. The
sun, which is absent from us in the heavens, is notwithstanding effectually present
among us. How much more is the Sun of Righteousness, Christ, although in His body
He is absent from us in Heaven, present with us, not corporally, but spiritually, by His
vivifying operation, and as He Himself explained at His Last Supper that He would be
present with us (XXI).

4. Word and Spirit.

A. The Zwinglians and Lutherans (not to mention the Papists and Ultra-Dispensationalists)
buffet the Calvinists at this point with this question, How exactly then is Christ present in the
Supper? Where is the Real Presence? As opposed to the Lutherans and Catholics, we deny
that the presence of Christ is in the elements. Where is He? He is in the Word of God, which
accompanies the elements of the Table. Reformed theology teaches that two things are
necessary for Communion: the Word and the sacramental elements. Not the Word without the
elements - how can one imitate Christ, the Apostles and the New Testament Church if he
celebrates the Supper without any bread or wine? Such would be ludicrous. By the same
standard, there must also be the Word of God. Thus, not the elements without the Word - did
not Christ, the Apostles and the early Church have the elements and the Word?
B. It is precisely here where the beauty of the Reformed balance shines forth. Without the
Word, the Table falls back into the Romanist gutter of ritualism sacramental ism and mindless
mysticism. Calvinists have therefore stressed the absolute need for the Word at Communion. To
be sure, this Word must be read and expounded, and that respecting Christs person and work.
There is no Communion when there is no Word read or preached about Christ. There is not
even Communion when there is a Word read and preached if it does not even indirectly speak
of Christ. Communion is not Communion if the only accompanying Word and message
concerns only matters like raising our children or fighting the Devil. It is for this reason that the
best Reformed preaching is usually found in Communion addresses, of which hundreds of
volumes have been published.
C. But what is the relation between the Word and the elements? Calvinism explains that the
Word is purely spiritual, and is tangibly illustrated before our eyes and hands and mouths by
means of the elements of bread and wine. These arte appropriate elements, chosen by the
Lord Himself. Peter Martyr Vermigli developed the theology of the elements as the visible Word
of God. In fact, they are the only permissible pictures of Christ.
D. There is, as it were, a third necessary ingredient, which ensures the presence of Christ: the
Holy Spirit. John 6:63, It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing, the words that I
have spoken to you are spirit and are life. The Spirit operates through the Word at the Table to
feed Christ and His life to His people.
E. And how is Christ to be received at the Table? By faith. The Zurich Confession said, Eating
is believing and believing is eating. To be precise, we eat by faith. There is a sense, therefore,
in which faith precedes and makes way for the spiritual eating, as Calvin pointed out in his
Institutes. Without faith, one does not receive Christ at the Table. Hence, the Lutherans are
wrong to claim that even unbelievers receive Christ when they eat the elements.
F. This faith requires several things. Calvinists always stress that this faith must include the
persuasion, Christ died for me. It must also include the expectation that Christ will indeed feed
ones soul when he exercises faith. Hodge commented in a pastoral vein, The reason why
believers receive so little by their attendance on this ordinance is, that they expect so little. The

529

Belgic Confession called faith the hand and mouth of our soul (XXXV), and is the appropriate
instrument of receiving what is given in the Supper. Question 174 of the Westminster Larger
Catechism gives an apt summary of the appropriate attitude:
It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lords Supper, that, during the
time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God
in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, need fully
discern the Lords body, and affectionately meditate on His death and sufferings, and
thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves,
and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on Him by
faith, receiving of His fullness, trusting in His merits, rejoicing in His love, giving thanks
for His grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints.

5. The Rightful Participants of the Table.

A. Reformed theology has always taught that the Table of the Lord is for the Lords people and
them alone. Only those who remember Him in faith, discern His body, and exercise faith are
eligible for the Table. The unregenerate should not partake of the elements, though they should
attend the public preaching of the Word, even at the celebration of the Supper. If an unbeliever
partakes of the elements, he not only does not partake of Christ but he partakes of increased
damnation. He commits sacrilege and makes his spiritual state even worse.
B. As an aside, Calvinist theologians have not agreed on whether Judas was present at the first
Table. The Belgic Confession (XXXV) and others rely on Luke 22:20-21 and say Judas was
present. Others deny this; they say Judas had already left, otherwise Christ would have been
setting us a bad example by admitting to Communion one who was not regenerate. Then there
is the problem of the limitation in the atonement, for Christ said to those at the Table, This is my
body, which is broken for you. Those who say Judas was present argue that Christ allowed him
as a necessary exception, even as He allowed him into the ranks of the Apostles.
C. Next, believers who are being disciplined by the local church are to be excluded from the
Table. In a similar way, a believer should exclude himself from the Table if he is backslidden;
otherwise he eats in an unworthy manner. Better still would be for such a one to repent, be
restored and then partake. Many Calvinists, however, do not apply this to those who are weak in
faith. Lack of assurance should not exclude one from the Table, for the Table actually
strengthens faith. Other Calvinists would exclude those who are not members of that local body,
even if they are truly regenerate. Still others exclude the unbaptized.
D. By exclude here is meant that most Reformed traditions teach that it is the duty of the
elders to fence the Table by saying something before the elements are served. Mind you, they
are not special priests who dispense grace, as Rome pretends. But these Reformed churches
teach that it is the responsibility of the elders to. Admit or exclude participants of the Table,
within normal human limitations (only the Lord finally knows those who are His). For example,
they should not serve one who is a known unbeliever or backslider or one who is currently being
disciplined; otherwise they partake of that persons judgment. Other Calvinists modify this, and
say that the elders only officiate, that is give general instructions but not specific admissions or
exclusions.
E. The practice of fencing the Table has sometimes been abused in Scottish Calvinist
churches. The fence has too small a gate. The conditions for participation are too high, and so
too few partake. It has not been that unusual for some old Scottish churches to have 500
members in attendance, but only a couple of dozen actually partake. Those are seen as the

530

extra-spiritual. Oddly, this is sometimes perverted in some peoples minds so that the opposite
opinion is the case. It is somehow considered more spiritual not to partake - only the
presumptuous partake! A strange parallel with the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14) is
made. Those who do not partake thereby pride themselves for their humility for not eating.
F. Another unusual Scottish practice of bygone days was the use of Communion tokens. The
elders would examine would-be participants; if approved, they would be issued a Communion
token for presentation at the church on the day of Communion for admission to the Table.
These tokens were usually in the form of coins.
G. Then there was the controversy with Jonathan Edwards. Some of his fellow
Congregationalists taught the Halfway Covenant. This theory contended that all who have
been baptized are entitled to all the privileges of Christians, such as church membership,
admission to Communion, a church wedding, and so forth. Edwards disagreed, saying that
Communion was only for the regenerate who gave evidence of conversion and a credible
profession of faith. They out numbered him and dismissed him from the church.
H. This in turn is related to another unusual controversy in some Reformed circles: the question
of paedo-communion. This takes two forms. First, there are those wh0 say that children past an
age of accountability but under the age of puberty should be allowed to the Table if they have
been baptized in a covenant family. Second, some take this a step further and would admit even
infants before the age of accountability, if they have been baptized in a covenant family. This
would even include infants who are only a few days or weeks old. There have been an
extremely small group of Calvinists who advocate this. Today, it is mainly in the hands of certain
Theonomists such as the Tyler School (James Jordan, Ray Sutton, et al), some in the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church in America, and a few others.
Christian Keidel and Findlay MacDonald have also written in favor of it from somewhat
Reformed positions. No major Reformed denomination has sanctioned it as yet.
I. By contrast, all the major Reformed theologians have written against it, such as Calvin,
Ursinus, Zwingli, Bullinger, Edwards, Dabney, Berkhof, and John Murray. Of course, no
Calvinist who espouses Believers Baptism accepts paedo-communion. For them, including
myself, the order is: faith, baptism, Communion. Since there is no such thing as infant faith,
there is no infant baptism and hence no infant communion. We usually do accept the principle of
childhood baptism and communion, if the child is past the age of accountability, so long as the
child has faith.
J. Those in favor argue as follows. First, children and infants ate the Passover; Communion
takes its place; therefore, they are to be admitted to Communion. I Cor. 10:1-4 and Ex. 12:4 are
their favorite passages. We reply that this applied only to children, not infants, for Passover
required trust in God their deliverer. Second, they argue that if infants are eligible for the first
sacrament (baptism), then why not the second? Calvinistic Baptists use this to show the
inconsistency of paedo-baptists who do not accept paedo-communion, while the latter point out
that baptism does not require faith but Communion does. Third, they argue that one is eligible
for Communion as soon as he is old enough to digest solid food. Others even deny this - they
would dilute the bread into a mush with the wine and give a small bit to the infant (!). Fourth,
they frequently tend to advocate the error of Presumptive Regeneration. They presume that the
covenant infant is regenerate and therefore eligible for the Table. Fifth, they appeal to early
church history, which they say is replete with examples. Opponents say that examples are rare;
Cyprian is the only major proponent of it in the patristic era. Examples are also rare in Catholic
history, for Rome officially rejected the view. For example, Thomas Aquinas rejected it and the
Council of Trent officially set for the Catholic position against it. In practice, First Communion is
never earlier than seven years. Moreover, Scripture, not history, is our standard.

531

K. Opponents give the following further rebuttals. First, Scripture clearly lays down conditions
for true eating which are impossible for infants: remembering the Lord, discerning the body,
eating worthily, etc. The Westminster Larger Catechism says Communion is only to such as
are of years and ability to examine themselves (Question 177). Calvin wrote, A selfexamination ought, therefore, to come first, and it is vain to expect this of infants. Furthermore,
let us apply the Regulative Principle to the question: we have neither command nor example of
infant Communion. Lastly, paedo-communion destroys the need for faith and the Word,
substituting a perverted Covenantalism that verges on Presumptive Regeneration and an Ex
Opere Operato mechanism of not only baptism but of Communion. It just isnt Biblical.

6. Conclusion.
A. There are other areas of disagreement among Calvinists, such as the frequency for the
Table. Some advocate weekly Communion (Calvin wanted it more than weekly). Others, such
as many Scottish kirks, have it only once or twice a year. Then there is the question of private
Communions, which most oppose, but some allow for those who are bedridden if attended by
the elders.
B. The main thing to keep in mind is the Reformed distinctive. Calvinism teaches spiritual
partaking of Christ and His grace through the Spirit in the Word and received by faith, which is
to accompany the eating of the Lords Supper.

Recommended Reading
Calvin, John. Institutes, IV:14 and 17-18 (vol. II, pp. 1276-1303, 1359-1448). Philadelphia:
Westminster Press.
Calvin, John. Selected Works of John Calvin, vol. II, pp. 114-126, 163-579. Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House.
Berkouwer, G.C. The Sacraments, pp. 188-296. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, vol. Ill, pp. 485-525, 611-692. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bucer, Martin. The Common Places of Martin Bucer, pp. 313-400. Appleford: Sutton Courtney
Press.
Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 590-610, 627-656. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House. Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology, pp. 604-621, 644-658. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. I, pp. 431-531. Carlisle: Banner of
Truth.
Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. II, pp. 376-384. Carlisle: Banner of
Truth.
Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, pp. 701-726. Grand Rapids: Reformed Free
Publishing Association.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Lectures in Systematic Theology, pp. 800-817. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Coppes, Leonard J. Daddy, May I Take Communion? Thornton: By the Author. Bruce, Robert.

532

The Mystery of the Lords Supper. Cambridge: James Clarke. Heron, Alastair I.C. Table and
Tradition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Cunningham, William- The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, pp. 212-291.
Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Bannerraan, James. The Church of Christ, vol. II, pp. 128-185. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.

533

Chapter 72. Reformed Evangelism.

1. Introduction.
A. A Calvinist and an Arminian were discussing evangelism. Said the Arminian, You Calvinists
dont believe in evangelism. The Calvinist quickly replied, Thats not true. We certainly do
believe in evangelism. Well, retorted his friend, if you believe in it, you sure dont practice it.
That too is not true. Whats more, you have a lot of nerve criticizing our evangelism. Just look
at all the tricks and gimmicks you Arminians use in your witnessing. The argument continued
for quite some time. Meanwhile, a non-Christian who was listening to them became confused
and then irritated, and walked off without either the Calvinist or the Arminian telling him about
the Gospel of Christ.
B. This little parable occurs more often than either group wishes to admit. Thus far in these
studies we have looked into the details of Biblical Calvinism. Now the time has come to show
the applications of these grand truths. And the first place we will examine is how the doctrines of
grace apply to evangelism.
C. It might be posited that Arminians evangelize more, but Calvinists evangelize better. A
Christian needs to evangelize with the balance of zeal and knowledge. Arminians frequently
have more zeal but less knowledge than Calvinists. For example, the greater share of
contemporary evangelism is done by Arminians. In fact, a head count in the average Calvinist
church will usually reveal that most Calvinists were in fact converted through Arminian
evangelism, not evangelism that was distinctively Reformed.
D. But this has not always been the case, and here is where the Arminian critics reveal their
ignorance. They often suggest that Calvinists have never - or at least rarely - been involved in
the great evangelistic strides of church history. Such a theory greatly distorts history or reveals
ignorance on the part of the critic. For example, the Reformation itself, which was certainly
heavily Calvinistic, was one of the greatest waves of evangelism ever to sweep through the
Church and the world. Did you know Calvin sent out missionaries from Geneva to parts near
and far?
E. Then there was the Evangelical Awakening in 18th-century Great Britain and its sister, the
Great Awakening in America. Arminians sometimes allege that these movements were entirely
or at least predominantly Arminian. That simply is not true. First, the Evangelical Awakening
was half-and-half. John and Charles Wesley and their fellow Arminians led the way on one side,
but lets not forget the other half. The other half was distinctly and emphatically Calvinistic.
Wesley was a more energetic organizer, but it was Whitefield that drew the larger crowds to
hear the Gospel. Whitefield associated with many other Calvinist preachers, such as Howell
Harris, Daniel Rowland and others. Furthermore, The Great Awakening in 18th-century America
was even more Reformed. Wesley had no part in it at all, for he never returned to America after
his conversion after his first trip over as an unconverted missionary. All the great evangelists of
the Great Awakening were strong Calvinists, such as Jonathan Edwards and the Tennant
brothers. Moreover, the Second Great Awakening was dominated by Calvinists as well, though,
frequently lower in their Reformed theology than Edwards.
F. And then what of the Great Missionary Movement of the late 18th and early 19th centuries?
Who started all that? Arminians? No, Calvinists. All the initial leaders of that movement were
emphatic Calvinists, such as William Carey, Andrew Fuller, John Rippon and John Ryland. This
gives the lie to the old Arminian saw, Calvinism kills missions. On the contrary, Calvinism has

534

frequently been on the cutting edge of foreign missions.

G. The basis of the Arminians argument is that the theology of Calvinism does not lend itself to
evangelism and missions. Not only has this not been true historically, but it is not true
theologically. The doctrines of Calvinism not only do not conflict with evangelism, but are a
safeguard and incentive to evangelism. Without Calvinism, evangelism runs amok into wildfire
and worse. Yet, as we shall see, Calvinists themselves face certain problems in witnessing that
Arminians, because of their theological error, do not have to wrestle with.

2. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.

A. In his excellent little book entitled Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J.I. Packer
grapples with the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility as it relates to the
question of evangelism. Among his many useful observations is that we must keep these two
truths in balance, or else the imbalance will certainly affect and even ruin our evangelism.
B. As we showed earlier, the doctrine of divine sovereignty is the soil out of which the Calvinist
TULIP grows. One cannot really grasp the Five Points unless she first understands the
Reformed doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God. And when one does grasp that doctrine though only in part, for no one but God totally comprehends it - then he very quickly accepts the
other doctrines of grace. So, this is the place to begin.
C. The first thing about the sovereignty of God to bear in mind is that God has unconditionally
foreordained everything that ever comes to pass: For from Him and through Him and to Him
are all things (Rom. 11:36). But we also need to remember that God has predestined means as
well as ends. And one vital means in His plan is evangelism.
D. The next thing-to keep in mind is the doctrine of the twin will of God. God has predestined all
things - that is the Secret Will of God. But there is also the Revealed Will of God, summed up in
the Law and the Gospel. And when we say Gospel, we immediately are thrown into the arena
of evangelism. Earlier we showed that the Law and the Gospel support each other. The Law
instructs men in what sin is and shows them their sin and their need for salvation. But it cannot
save. Then the Gospel comes and shows the way of salvation to those who have broken the
Law.
E. The two intersect in another way, and it is this: the Law tells all men that they are under
wrath, but the Gospel tells all men that God desires to save them. Now this is not the Secret
Will, remember. In the Secret Will, God wills salvation only for the elect. But in the Revealed Will
as expressed in the Gospel, He sincerely desires all who hear the Gospel to believe and be
saved. Calvinism admits and teaches this, and it is the foundation for true evangelism.
F. Moreover, the sovereignty of God also touches on another vital adjunct of evangelism:
prayer. The Biblical evangelist will plant the Gospel seed and water it with the tears of prayer.
He first talks to sinners on behalf of God, and then he speaks to God on behalf of sinners. But
the very act of prayer presupposes the sovereignty of God. How? When we pray, we pray that
God does what only God can do. For example, we do not pray, Lord, we want such-and-such
to be saved, but we know that you will never intrude upon his free will. No, the Calvinist pleads
with His sovereign God like this: Lord, unless you do something in his heart, hell never believe.
Dear Lord, save him. Unless you save him, hell always be lost. The prayer that accompanies
evangelism can only have effect if the one who prays believes that God can actually do
something in the sinners life that supersedes his sin. Thats the sovereignty of God.
G. One more vital point here. The final goal of all that God has predestined is the glory of God

535

(Rom. 11:36). Therefore, the goal of all true evangelism must be the glory of God. Our ultimate
goal is not even the salvation of men, even the elect. It is and must remain the glory of God.

3. Evangelism and the Five Points.

A. As believers in the Five Points of Calvinism, we must understand their proper relationship to
evangelism. Each point has an inherent balance that has to be kept. If one aspect is overemphasized, the resulting evangelism will be impaired. First, there is total depravity. The
balance is this: Man is responsible to believe but is unable to believe. He cannot but he must. If
we deny that he is unable, then we cannot call ourselves Reformed. But if we deny that he
must, then we back into Hyper-Calvinism.
B. But how do we put this into practice? Arminians are good at preaching, You must believe in
Christ. But even Calvinists are slow to say, You cannot believe in Christ. So, what should be
the Biblical balance in our evangelism? Our words should echo the words of Christ. In the same
message in which He invited sinners to come to Him, He told them that they were unable to
come (John 6:37, 44, 65). Try saying something like this next time you witness to an unbeliever:
You must believe in Christ to be saved; there is no other way. But you are so sinful that you
cannot believe unless God gives you faith. Or one could say, You are not able to come, but
you must come. To the Arminian, this either confuses or mocks the sinner. To the Biblebelieving Calvinist, it keeps the Biblical balance and provides the means whereby God, if He so
wills, humbles the sinner and gives him faith to come to Christ.
C. Caution must be exercised, though. We must not give the unbeliever the chance to excuse
himself from faith by replying, I am unable to believe, therefore I am not responsible to believe.
That is one thing he must never be allowed to say. It is a cheapjack excuse. In effect, he is
blaming God.
D. We must also witness in such a way as to leave the sinner in no doubt whatsoever that he
cannot-come to Christ in just any way or at any time he so pleases. He must be told that he is
an inveterate enemy against God, and that if he comes to God then he must come in Gods way
and at Gods time.
E. Then theres election and evangelism. God has scattered the elect to the four corners of the
world, and has not told us who they are. He has not chosen to brand them with the word Elect
on their foreheads. So what do we do? Give up? No. Since we dont know who the elect are, we
are to preach to all men. This shotgun approach thus brings the Gospel to the elect who are
mingled with the reprobate. We are sure to hit the target.
F. The question then arises, Must we tell all men about election when we witness to them?
Some Calvinists, generally of the more Hyper-Calvinist stripe, say that we cannot preach the
Gospel without mentioning election. Others say that we should never tell the unconverted about
election. The truth is between these two. To be precise, we do not have to tell men about
election, but neither must we hide the doctrine from them. Christ gave us the good example by
telling some sinners about it, but it was not at the forefront of His message.
G. Too much stress on election leaves the sinner with his head in the clouds. No man can know
he is elect until he first believes in Christ and knows that he is saved. Then he can deduce his
election. So, we should first direct sinners to the cross and then to the counsels of God in the
Secret Will. On the other hand, sinners can be rightly challenged to Make your calling and
election sure (2 Pet. 1:10). Coupled with the awesome doctrine of reprobation, the second point
of Calvinism can strike fear and conviction into a sinners heart and drive him to seek salvation.

536

That even reprobation can be mentioned is clear from Christs words, You are not my sheep.
But remember, we do not know who the reprobate are in this life.
H. Furthermore, the doctrine of election is no hindrance to evangelism as argued by Arminians.
Quite the contrary! Election is an incentive, not a roadblock. Christ has told us that He has His
elect scattered in the world and that they shall certainly be brought in at the right time. How? By
evangelism. We have the solid assurance that somebody will believe the Gospel. In Acts 18:10,
God encouraged Paul by reminding him that He had many people in the city. Only a few had
been converted, so Paul rightly reasoned that there were yet many elect in that place who were
yet to be brought to faith. That gives incentive. Thats why Paul could say, For this reason I
endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in
Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory (2 Tim. 2:10).
I. But what about limited atonement, the third point of Calvinism? Arminians see it as an
insurmountable obstacle to evangelism. They misunderstand. First, we must remember that the
atonement has two aspects, one general and one particular. Many Reformed theologians
ground the universality of evangelism in the general aspect and the efficacy of evangelism in the
particular aspect. One way of putting it is that more than enough has been provided on the
dinner table, so we can freely invite all men to come and dine. But only the elect will come, and
when they come they will discover name cards at their chairs with the words, Elect from the
foundation of the world.
J. Another problem arises regarding this point. Can we say to all men, God loves you and
Christ died for you? Some higher Calvinists deny this; others insist that it is of the essence of
the Gospel. Correctly explained, this formula can be preached. There certainly is a sense in
which God loves all men - we call it common grace. And there is a sense in which Christ died for
all men. But we must not preach this formula in such a way that explicitly or implicitly says that
God loves them as a doting grandfather who is never angry with them, or that they will
necessarily be saved by the cross regardless of faith.
K. This needs to be balanced with the Biblical teaching on the nature of saving faith. True faith
includes the persuasion, whether implicitly or explicitly, that Christ died for me (cf. Gal. 2:20). If
so, then evangelism must be able to say in some sense, Christ died for our sins (I Cor. 15:3).
This statement is not only for believers, but is a call to unbelievers to trust Christ.
L. The fourth point, irresistible grace, can be applied to evangelism by again looking at the
Come and dine parables. The king laid out a dinner and sent servants to invite men in. They
refused to come and dine. Brethren, try as you might, you cannot force them to come in and
dine. Yet the parable continues, the king sent them again to compel men to come in. Now, that
cannot merely mean evangelism. What then is it that compels some sinners to come in? Free
will? No, it is the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in irresistible grace. So, we invite all but
compel none. Arminians invite and cajole and manipulate. How much better to preach and leave
the results to the Spirit, who alone can truly compel.
M. Earlier we showed that this point also includes the doctrine of the two calls. We give the
external call, which can be resisted. The Spirit gives the internal call, which cannot be resisted.
Note also how it relates to faith. We call men to exercise faith. Of course, they cannot. It must
be given to them. So we tell them that faith is a gift. Do we then tell them, Ask for the gift of
faith? No, for they cannot ask without faith in the first place (James 1:6-7). Nor do we say, Wait
for God to give you the gift, if He so pleases. Rather, we should follow the examples of Christ
and the Apostles. When sinners cried out to Peter on the day of Pentecost, What shall we do to
be saved?, he did not reply, Do? You cannot do anything. Just wait for God to give you faith, if
he is so disposed. Not at all. Rather, Peter commanded them to repent (Acts 2:38). When
faced with a similar question, Paul replied, Believe (Acts 16:31). Remember, faith is

537

sovereignly bestowed, but it is always given through the same and only means - the Word of
God. Giving the Word of God is evangelism.
N. One more thing needs to be clarified. When we tell a sinner the way of salvation, we must be
clear on the conditions. We must tell him to repent and believe (Mark 1:15). We must not say
things like, Open the door to your heart, Let go and let God, and the like. And we must never
even tell the sinner that he is to give himself the new birth. God alone gives regeneration.
Furthermore, we cannot give a sinner the new birth. But remember, like with faith, regeneration
is given by God through a certain means - the Word of God. We cannot give the new birth, but
we can give sinners the means of the new birth. Thats evangelism.
O. As to the fifth point of Calvinism, we need to keep both aspects in balance when we witness.
First, we must preach the Gospel in all its fullness. That means setting forth the cost of
discipleship. We should not call for a quick moment of faith, but for a lifetime commitment of
faith. Calvinism abhors easy believism, which is an abomination that Arminianism imported
from papal Rome.
P. But this needs to be balanced with the assurance of preservation. Therefore, we can invite
sinners to come to Christ and give them the promise that none who come to Christ will ever be
cast out (John 6:37) but will be eternally secure (John 10:35). This is more likely to draw true
believers than those who come in response to a weak and tentative invitation based on a
doctrine of temporary and conditional security.

4. Arminian Abuses Which Calvinism Avoids.

A. Now, there are several abuses of evangelism that Arminian theology engenders, but which
Calvinists avoid (or should avoid). Most are based upon the Arminian error of free will. The main
one is the notion of decisional evangelism. This says that we are to appeal to the free will of
sinners to make a decision. It supposes that sinners are neutral and that God will not intrude
upon the will. Both are incorrect. Sinners are not neutral; they are enemies of God. God does
not leave them alone; He intervenes in the wills of the elect and efficaciously draws them to
Christ. Moreover, they should not be told things like, You must open the door to your heart.
Christ is a gentleman and will not kick the door down. Sinners bolt and nail the door shut and
sit guard with a shotgun. But Christ overpowers them and makes them willing by grace.
B. There are many tricks and gimmicks, which non-Calvinists use to try to manipulate sinners to
come to Christ. They are all wrong. One is the use of emotions as the incentive. How often have
we heard tear-jerking stories by Arminian evangelists, or sordid condemnations of delicate
sins? By contrast, the Calvinist first preaches to the mind, and then to the will and only lastly
affects the emotions.
C. Then there are such things as asking the sinner to repeat a prayer after you. Sometimes this
is justified by calling it the sinners prayer with a cursory reference to Luke 18:13. Point is, the
Arminians usually add much to that simple prayer, like, Lord, I open the door to my heart. I now
ask you to come in, etc. we have neither example or command to ask. Sinners to repeat a
prayer after us. Such nonsense came from Roman Catholicism, not from Holy Scripture. By the
way, who led the publican in Luke 18:13 in the sinners prayer? No man, only the Holy Spirit.
Such gimmicks usurp the role of the Spirit, and a Christian should never do that, even in
evangelism. Christians cannot bring them over the line. Arminians sometimes say that it
primes the pump; we reply that it poisons the well. They say the sinner wouldnt otherwise know
what to pray; we reply that correct evangelism will instruct him in what to pray. In effect, getting
someone to repeat a prayer after you smacks of hypnotic suggestion. Lastly, it does no good to

538

defend it by saying, as one leading evangelist has said, It cant hurt. Where will it send them, to
Hell Number 2? What nonsense! Such fools fail to see that it breeds false assurance in
unbelievers. In fact, it may actually be sending them to the Hell, which it purportively saves them
from.
D. The same is true with the altar call. Some Arminians seem to think that there is no true
evangelism with it. What do they do with those in the Bible? There are no altar calls in the Bible,
nor commands to give them. Whitefield and Spurgeon gave no altar calls. It is an Arminian
sacrament probably invented by the Semi-Pelagian, Charles Grandison Finney. It is an
unbiblical device that presupposes the error of free will. It is actually a kind of sacrament,
implying that a physical act can guarantee a spiritual blessing. Those who practice it stringently
deny that walking the aisle saves or that one cannot be saved without it. But then they turn right
around and say things like, Five hundred came to Christ last night, referring to those who
came forward. This obviously breeds false assurance in those who come forward. Many of
these false converts are later hurt and angry, feeling that they have been manipulated and
raped in their religious emotions.
E. Several Calvinists have written against this gimmick, such as Iain Murray, Enroll Hulse and
Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Few Calvinists employ it. A few, such as Ernest Reisinger and R.T.
Kendall, have written in support of it. They have not convinced many Calvinists. One of
Kendalls main arguments is that it is a public pledge. Calvinists such as Hulse reply that
baptism, not the altar call, was instituted as the public pledge. Incidently, the same principles
apply to other gimmicks such as asking the sinner to sign a decision card, etc.
F. Underlying all such practices is the Arminian obsession to collect notches on his Gospel gun,
scalps on his Arminian belt, trophies for which he can boast. The Calvinist, by contrast, knows
that all glory must go to God alone. We cannot justify such erroneous practices by an appeal to
zeal.

5. Special Weaknesses Which Calvinists Face.

A. Lest we expend all our attention opposing Arminian errors, it is meet that something be said
about those particular weaknesses to which Calvinists are prone in evangelism. One of them is
Hyper-Calvinism. Calvinists must always be on their toes lest they over react against
Arminianism and back into Hyper-Calvinism. Such was the fate of Calvinists such as John Gill,
Joseph Hussey, John Brine, William Huntington, William Gadsby, J.C. Phil pot and Herman
Hoeksema. This tendency was probably best illustrated in the reported incident where J.C.
Ryland, Sr. rebuked young William Careys proposals for foreign mission work: Sit down, young
man. When God wants to convert the heathen, hell do so in His own good time without any help
from you or me. The truth of this anecdote has been questioned, but its spirit is representative
of the Hyper perspective. Soon after this incident, the Calvinist Andrew Fuller dealt a heavy
blow to Hyper-Calvinism with his book, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. But Hyperism is
still with us, rare as it is. And there is also the mood and spirit Of Hyperism among many of
those who deny being Hyper. And there is practical Hyper-Calvinism as well.
B. The Hypers say that we can preach to all but offer to nobody. In practice, this usually
means that they preach to only a few and ignore the rest. Historic Calvinists firmly believe in the
free offer of the Gospel. We preach, offer, explain, warn, plead, witness and exhort. Moreover,
we invite all to come to Christ, whereas Hyper-Calvinists usually invite only so-called sensible
sinners(i.e., those under conviction of sin). This misunderstands a good principle. True,
Calvinists preach the Law first to explain what sin is and to convict sinners, thus driving them to

539

Christ (Gal. 3:24). But then we also invite them all to come to Christ in faith and repentance.
C. Then the Hyper-Calvinist denies free offers because of total depravity and election: How
can you offer what may not be his to receive, and for which he has no ability to receive? We
reply that inability does not negate their duty to believe. Nor does election nullify free offers.
Simply because only some are elected does not mean that we do not invite everyone. Scripture
says, Many are called, but few are chosen. Hypers would call few or none, not many.
D. Another error must be avoided by Calvinists, and that is the notion that Calvinism is of such
importance that those who deny it are not saved persons. Some have thus denied that
Arminians are Christians. This ought not to be. Even Whitefield accepted that John Wesley was
a believer in the same Christ.
E. The Calvinist should also be honest enough to admit that he does not evangelize as much
as he could or should. Granted, neither do Arminians or anyone else. But my point is that too
many Calvinists fail to evangelize because they use Reformed excuses. Lets investigate.
F. Most Calvinists were once Arminians. And they usually did more evangelism when they were
Arminians than they have done since becoming Calvinists. This cannot be summarily dismissed
with the excuse, Well, everyone witnesses a lot as a new Christian, but slows down later on,
even the Arminians. Granted, there is truth in this, but it is not a valid excuse. They once had
the zeal, but have misused Reformed knowledge as an excuse not to witness. Rather than
evangelize unbelievers, too many Calvinists prefer to proselytize Arminians.
G. There are several reasons for this syndrome. One is laziness and apathy, though some call
it trusting in the sovereignty of God. Christ commands, Go, and some reply, Whatever will
be, will be. Then there is the misuse of grace. It would not be incorrect to suggest that many
Calvinists are greedy with Gods grace, too stingy to want to share it with others. In a strange
way, they over-emphasize Special Grace and minimize if not eliminate Common Grace. A
brother once rightly rebuked me with the words, Curt, you are not the only one God loves.
H. May we not be like those of whom it was said, They go down deep, stay down long, come
up dry. But they never go out to bring anyone in. Like the Apostles in Acts 1 who were rebuked
for prying into Gods secrets of eschatology, so some Calvinists need to be rebuffed for an overobsession with the Secret Will of God to the detriment of the Revealed Will in evangelism.

6. Why Evangelize?
A. Unlike the Arminian, the Calvinist has to deal with a difficult problem, namely: If men are
totally depraved and God has already chosen who will be saved, then why do we need to
evangelize? The answer is so utterly simple that many miss it. Why evangelize? Because God
commands us to. The Secret Will has determined who will be saved, where and when and how.
But the Revealed Will is that all who hear the Gospel believe and be saved.
B. God most certainly is sovereign, but Man is also responsible. Historic Calvinism insists that
these be maintained in balance. And here is the rub. Sinners are not only responsible to believe
the Gospel, but saved sinners are responsible to preach the Gospel to every creature. Too
many Calvinists seem to be preoccupied with solving the paradox, instead of getting on with
their duty. But in reality, the doctrines of grace have become a handy excuse for lack of
evangelistic zeal.
C. Two more truths must be borne in mind by the Calvinist. First, we have shown that there is
no salvation for those who never hear the Gospel. This should not be perverted into a cheap

540

excuse not to support missionaries. One of the shames of Hyper-Calvinism is that it actually
opposed the Great Awakening and the Great Missionary Movement. And other Calvinists shirk
their duty by not supporting missions today, though they do not openly oppose them.
D. Secondly, Calvinists need to reread the awesome warnings of Ezek. 33:1-6. Those who fail
to warn sinners of Hell have blood on their hands, and that includes Calvinist hands. The
greatest Reformed theologian of all time, the Apostle Paul, was also the great evangelist. Who
said, I am free from the blood of all men for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole
purpose of God (Acts 20:26-27).

7. Conclusion.
A. While it is often true that Arminians evangelize more but Calvinists evangelize better, we
should not leave it there. We who are Reformed should be the ones who evangelize both more
and better. We must also be careful lest we build memorials to great evangelical Calvinists of
the past (such as Whitefield), while not emulating their evangelistic examples. We have the best
incentive in the world to preach the Gospel. May future Calvinists look back to us as a
generation of Calvinists who were aflame with evangelism. May we preach the Gospel?

Recommended Reading
Kuiper, R.B. God-Centered Evangelism. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Packer, J.I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press.
Spurgeon, C.H. The Soul Winner. Pasadena: Pilgrim Publications; and Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans,
Good, Kenneth. Christs Teaching on the Theology of Evangelism. Rochester: Backus Books.
Chantry, Walter. Todays Gospel. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Fuller, Andrew. The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, in The Works of Andrew Fuller.
Harrisonburg: Sprinkle Publications.
Hulse, Erroll. The Great Invitation. Welwyn: Evangelical Press.
Reisinger, Ernest. Todays Evangelism. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Dabney, Robert Lewis. Discussions, vol. I, pp. 282-313. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Murray, John. The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. I, pp. 119-162. Carlisle: Banner of
Truth.
Bonar, Horatius. Words to Winners of Souls. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; and Garland:
American Tract Society.
LIoyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Evangelistic Sermons. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Blanchard, John. Right With God. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Dallimore, Arnold. George Whitefield. 2 vols. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Adams, James. Decisional Regeneration. Canton: Free Grace Publications.
Murray, Iain. The Invitation System. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.

541

Boston, Thomas. The Art of Man-Fishing. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Samuel, Leith. How to Share Your Faith. Welwyn: Evangelical Press.
Miller, C. John. Evangelism and Your Church. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.
Chapman, John. Know and Tell the Gospel. Colorado Springs: NAV Press.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. I, pp. 344-432; vol. II, pp. 3-12, 5171, 257-277. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Alleine, Joseph. A Sure Guide to Heaven. Carlisle: Banner of Truth. (Formerly entitled An Alarm
to the Unconverted.)
Baxter, Richard. A Call to the Unconverted. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.

542

Chapter 73. The Practical Applications of

Calvinism.
1. Introduction.
A. Earlier in this series we discussed the practical implications of the doctrine of election. We
will not repeat here what we said there. The applications are the same, but here we will look at
several, which pertain to all five of the points of Calvinism and to the sovereignty of God in
general.
B. It would, however, be appropriate to repeat one thing from our earlier discussion. It is this:
doctrine comes first, then practice (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Thus far we have examined the history
and theology of Calvinism. Now we must look at how to live what we have learned. However,
these studies are primarily doctrinal, not practical; therefore we will not go into the same length
or depth. Lastly, since this is a series on Calvinism, we will concentrate on how the Biblical
truths known as Calvinism are to be put into practice. We will not, for example, explore
practicalities of those doctrines, which Calvinists share with non-Calvinists.

2. A Reformed Worldview.
A. Christians need to have a Biblical worldview, or what is called in German weltanschauung
(world and life system). This is especially true with Calvinist Christians. No practical philosophy
is complete unless it has a general blueprint. Is there, then, a distinctively Reformed worldview?
B. Yes, there is. The subject has been discussed off and on among Calvinist theologians, and
the most mature contributions to the subject have been made by those of the, school of
Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper, you may recall, was the leading Reformed theologian and preacher
from about 1880 to 1920 in the Netherlands. Much of his work has been translated into English,
and far more remains in Dutch. Perhaps his major contribution to Calvinist theology has been
his constructing a distinctively Calvinist worldview. His views are best summed up in his handy
little Lectures on Calvinism. Note, for example, the titles of those lectures: Calvinism a Lifesystem, Calvinism and Religion, Calvinism and Politics, Calvinism and Science, Calvinism
and Art, and Calvinism and the Future.
C. Kuyper was certainly a theological genius. But he was not abstract and theoretical; he put
them into practice. In this he serves as a good example. He did not only lecture and write on
these subjects; he also worked towards their implementation in his own life, and in the life of his
church and society. You may recall that his influence spread so far that he became prime
minister of Holland.
D. Basically, a Calvinist worldview first sees things as they are from the perspective of God who
is sovereign. Calvinists, then, see that God is ultimately in charge of the universe. This is Gods
universe. It does not belong to a god called Chance. Nor does it belong to sinful Man. Man is
only the appointed caretaker of part of the universe. This does not mean that the sovereign God
has relinquished all involvement in His creation. No, of course not, otherwise we are in the
darkness of Deism. God rules His universe through Providence.
E. One of the means of Providence that Kuyper especially investigated was Common Grace.

543

Because of Gods general love and gifts to all men as His creatures, there resides in the
universe a frame of reference for carrying out the Cultural Mandate of Gen. 1:28. Man, though
totally depraved, is still to subdue the Earth and use it to Gods glory. Fallen Man, however, is
incapable of doing so properly. Sure, Common Grace keeps the machinery working, but only
Special Grace can guide it to its proper end. Christians are the elect, who have received Special
Grace. They therefore have the added edge in carrying out the Cultural Mandate in spheres
such as science, art, and politics.
F. Christians should use the gifts of Common Grace under the guidance of Specialgrace to use
Creation to the glory of God. In practice, this means that Christians should bear Christian
witness in the arts, for instance, by employing Biblical principles of art. Such as? Well, true art
must glorify God, not Man. It must not tempt Man or blaspheme God. Sheer realism is not
enough. Realist art must be painted with Biblical paintbrushes; otherwise it is not reality as God
sees it.
G. As should already be obvious, the one controlling principle in this worldview is that
everything in life is to be done With a view to the glory of God. If one! Is a scientist, then let him
be a godly scientist. That means more than simply praying before he enters the laboratory or
saying a few things about Christ to his co-workers at lunch. No, it is far more. Non-Calvinists
can do as much. We need to show by our words and works that we look at things from Gods
perspective. Now apply this to the sovereignty of God. Why does one plus one equal two? The
Calvinist says it is because the sovereign God made it so. What keeps the laws of physics
regular so that we can live and think and operate in this universe? Because the sovereign God
is a God of order, not of chance or chaos. Sinful Man, not God, is the spring of chaos. One more
useful principle: though the Bible is primarily a textbook on spiritual matters, this does not mean
that it has nothing at all to say about scientific matters. In fact, the Calvinist will argue that
Biblical principles of science take precedence over the so-called Scientific Method, that is,
empirical experimentation. Van Til, following Kuyper, was especially fond of developing this.
You may remember that Satan first tempted Eve by saying that empirical experimentation took
precedence over Special Revelation, and that to live in this world she must prove the facts to be
true by empirically experimenting with the data available to her. Or, in more familiar terminology,
Satan said that God had lied and that she should eat the forbidden fruit and find out for herself
the facts outside of Gods Word. Thus, Calvinism stresses that even science is subject to the
Bible, even as General Revelation is Subject to the confirmation of Special Revelation and not
human experience. Why? Because God is God and is to be trusted as our sovereign.
H. This Calvinist principle applies to all other spheres of society in a truly Christian worldview.
Take work as another example. What does the Bible say about labor, and specifically what do
Calvinist Christians say and do? Well, there was a well-developed work ethic long before
Kuyper, and it had many hallmarks of a Calvinist methodology. It generally goes by the title of
the Protestant Work Ethic (also called the Puritan Work Ethic, for the Puritans developed and
practiced it more consistently than their non-Reformed Protestant brethren). This ethic was not
only formed as the Biblical alternative to the Roman Catholic work ethic, but as a rejection of all
non-Christian work principles. In place of merely secular work principles, the early Calvinists put
Biblical principles. This had drastic ramifications on labor in 16th-century Europe and thereafter.
I. This had, of course, been well known among those who adhered to it, such as the Pilgrim
Fathers in America. Skeptics poured scorn on it. They still do. One non-Calvinist who had a
more favorable appreciation of it wrote an epochal study early in the 20th century which caught
the attention of non-Christian sociologists and historians. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism, Max Weber showed that more than, anything else, it was the theological
worldview of Calvinism that created the system of capitalism, or free enterprise. This non-feudal
economic system was not only different from non-Christian systems, but also different from

544

Roman Catholic and non-Reformed Protestant theories. Its abuses are not due to the errors of
the system, but to misunderstandings of the theory or misapplications of the principles it
espouses.
J. What are these principles? Without going into all of them, there was one vital one that
seemed to stand out. The Calvinists taught that the carpenter in his shop is every much a priest
unto Gel as the minister in the pulpit. The preacher is obviously ordained of God, and is to
proclaim Special Revelation to the world. But the Christian in the shop is also a priest. He
exercises that priesthood in several ways, such as faith in Christ through the Gospel, the true
partaking of the Lords Supper, and worship of the sovereign God. But there is more. God
ordained that Man use Creation to glorify God, and in so doing act as a priest in the realm of
work. Work is not just a curse of Gen. 3; work was commanded of Adam in Gen. 1:28. The Fall
did not annul that.
K. How, then, does redeemed Man exercise this priesthood in the workplace? By employing
Biblical principles of work. By so doing, he brings all things into submission to God and thereby
furthers the glory of God. Again, this is far more than simply saying that we glorify God at work
when we pray silently while turning the lathe or when we refrain from arguing with out fellow
worker. No, the Calvinist worldview says that God is glorified by principles of work that follow the
Word of God. The Calvinist Christian, more than any other, knows that good work glorifies God.
Hence, over the factories and schools and art studies should be written the words, Soli Deo
Gloria - to God alone be the glory. But, and this is crucial, those words are not to be written
merely with ink or paint, but with the living witness of Christians who live in the world by the
principles of the sovereign God.

3. Pitfalls Peculiar to Calvinists.

A. Calvinists are not to be so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good. They are to be
heavenly minded, to be sure. But there are several pitfalls to which Calvinists are prone. These
prevent them from glorifying God in the world.
B. One of them is pride. Of course, where is the Calvinist that admits it? I am not speaking of
pride in general, for non-Calvinists have that affliction as well. Rather, I am talking about
Calvinist pride, or pride in being a Calvinist. This rank disease has several symptoms. One of
them is personal pride. After all, one reasons, am I not one of the elect? Did not God choose me
and not the reprobate? Original Sin takes over and further spreads the lie that one must have
been special for God to choose him. But this is all wrong. It is evidence that the Calvinist is still
imperfect in his experience. A believer who makes sure of his election (2 Pet. 1:10) has no
reason to boast. He is one of the elect, but not one of the elite. He was not chosen because he
was special. God is the special one, not him. He was chosen out of sheer grace, and therefore
cannot boast. If Eph. 2:8-9 leaves us no room for boasting because of salvation by grace, then
Eph. 1:4-6 leaves us no room for boasting because of election by grace. Paul says, What do
you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not
received it? (I Cor. 4:7). Therefore, Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord (I Cor. 1:31). To
God alone be the glory, fellow Calvinist!
C. This TULIP-flavored pride takes other forms as well. One is that Calvinists too frequently
look down their noses at their non-Reformed brothers in Christ. We place ourselves above
them. We are the elite; we know more about the deep mysteries than they do. What good men
we are. All such attitudes are proud. Then this shows in the way we too often disparage those
brethren with whom we have the most serious disagreements. In a word, some Calvinists go too

545

far in their animosity to Arminians. Note that I did not say animosity to Arminianism, for error
cannot be hated too much. But Calvinists are not to hate Arminians, nor are we to be obsessed
with an anti-Arminian inquisition. We chuckle to hear about the Puritan farmer who lost his
temper with his mule, and called him an Arminian because that was the worst thing he could
think of. But this is serious. Learn the lesson of Whitefields great love for Wesley the Arminian.
When asked if he would see Mr. Wesley in heaven, Whitefield reportedly replied that he would
not. Wesley, he said, would be so much closer to the throne of Christ than himself that he would
not be able to see him. Though the exact theology of this may not be precisely correct, the
sentiments are on target. One need not be a Calvinist to be saved, and many Arminians
outshine us in holiness,
D. The Calvinist should always see himself as a Christian first and only secondly as a Calvinist.
We ridicule the Roman Catholic who sees himself as a Catholic first and a Christian second, but
are not Calvinists prone to this as well? One way in which this evil disease crops up is in the
Calvinist Second Blessing. It is ironic that Calvinists usually denounce all theologies that
promote a second blessing, such as Pentecostal ism. But we are too often guilty of it when we
speak more of our coming to know the Doctrines of Grace than our coming to know Christ in
salvation. We get more excited when we tell people how the grand truths of election and
sovereign grace opened our eyes and we have never been the same. Some Calvinists describe
it in almost mystical terms. But this ought never to outshine our personal testimonies of
conversion. We should always be more moved to speak of how the Savior saved us from sin by
sovereign grace than we are to describe how He later explained sovereign grace to us. Such a
second blessing panders to pride and looks disparagingly on those poor souls who have not
been so enlightened. Away with such a thing! We need no Reformed Gnosticism.
E. Then there is the pitfall of Calvinist intellectual ism. Too often we Calvinists spend more time
discussing the Doctrines of Grace than living the grace of the doctrines. We have already shown
how this is done in the area of evangelism. To be more precise, Calvinists sometimes mistake
knowledge for spirituality, as if one could somehow gauge spiritual growth by how much one
knows about the finer points of Calvinism, such as the order of the decrees. But knowledge
alone puffs up (I Cor. 8:1). Unless our Calvinism is put into practice, then even Reformed
theology becomes staid and proud.
F. This in turn is related to another pitfall, that of Reformed apathy and lethargy. This is seen,
for example, in the reluctance to evangelize because, After all, God has His elect out there and
He will call them to Himself in due time. It is also seen in the over-emphasis on the Secret Will
to the detriment of the Revealed Will of God. When a Calvinist is more interested in election
than in practical living, then it will show up in a low level of personal spirituality. The sad thing is
that he does not realize it.
G. Similarly, some use the Doctrines of Grace to excuse their laziness. This is a kind of
antinomianism that masquerades as Reformed faith. Trusting in God is meant to be active, not
passive. Some Calvinists somehow have the erroneous notion that the pinnacle of spirituality is
to be achieved by passively resigning themselves to what God is doing. As we shall see later,
Christians are to submit; but an impersonal apathy is Stoicism, not Christianity.
H. And this leads to the almost obsessive anti-emotionalism found in some Reformed quarters.
Granted, emotionalism is wrong, but that does not mean that emotions do not have any place in
the life of the Calvinist Christian. Admit it, brethren; have you not heard the accusation that
Calvinists are personally cold and unapproachable, even distant? Sometimes they call us the
frozen chosen. Well, many are cold but few are frozen. In any case, he who says he knows
what grace is should show in his heart and life the warmth of grace.
I. Another odd pitfall that characterizes some Calvinists is chronic introspection. Now, I do not

546

mean normal self-examination (2 Cor. 13:5). I mean the sort that goes too far. This sort seems
to glory in introspection without the proper results. What do I mean? True self-examination
should lead to renewed faith and love and obedience. False introspection leads to more
introspection, and actually less faith. It produces more doubt, not faith. For example, some
worry that they might not be among the elect. But this does not lead them to put faith in Christ. If
that is the result, then it is not true self-examination.
J. This is often seen especially among Hyper-Calvinists, which is another pitfall, which we need
to beware of. Arminians are not prone to the disease of Hyper-Calvinism. Let us beware that we
do not over-react against Arminianism and back into Hyper-Calvinism. That syndrome occurs
when the Calvinist over-emphasizes the Secret Will of God over the Revealed Will, and places
more importance on the sovereignty of God than on the responsibility of Man. The results are
not only theologically imbalanced, but also practically stagnating. Be careful.

4. The Truly Reformed Attitudes.

A. Instead of succumbing to these pitfalls, Calvinists should strive to use their knowledge of the
Doctrines of Grace to develop certain attitudes. The first of these is humility. When the Calvinist
understands the doctrine of Total Depravity, it smites his pride and brings him down to his
knees. He abhors himself. The same is true with the wellspring of Calvinism, the sovereignty of
God. A.W. Pink well wrote, A true recognition of Gods sovereignty humbles us as nothing
does or can humble, and brings the heart into lowly submission before God, causing us to
relinquish our own self-will and making us delight in the perception and performance of the
divine will.
B. Thus humbled, the Calvinist will truly submit to God. This is not Stoic apathy, the sort that
says, Whatever will be, will be. No. True submission says, It is the Lord. Let Him do what
seemeth good to Him (I Sam. 3:18. Cf. 2 Sam. 15:26). It does not gripe; it submits without
argument. After all, do we Calvinists not say that the sovereignty of God means that God does
whatever He pleases (Psa. 115:3)? This is not a grudging submission, either, but a joyful
submission to the One who knows more than we do and cares for us more than we can
imagine. It is not a Stoic resignation to the inevitable. It is childlike trust in a loving Heavenly
Father, not resignation to blind fate.
C. And then there is the comfort of Calvinism. It is far better than the anxiety of Arminianism.
This affects two things. First, afflictions. The Calvinist realizes that even his problems were
predestined by God. But if the God who foreordained the afflictions is also the God who elected
us to glory, then we are assured and comforted in the knowledge that God works all things
together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28).
This lovely verse sparkles with comfort, but without an appreciation of the sovereignty of God it
is nothing. Moreover, even those afflictions are blessings in disguise. As Arthur Custance wrote,
Now surely, one of the most comforting things about any faith in the absolute sovereignty of
the grace of God ought to be the assurance we derive from that faith that God is still on the
throne even in our most dismal defeats and that the clouds we so much dread are waiting to
pour only showers of blessing on our head.
D. We see this everywhere in the Bible. Look at Joseph, who knew the sovereignty of God
centuries before Augustine or Calvin. His brothers sold him into slavery. But he had the faith to
read the providence of that affliction. Later when he met those same brothers in Egypt, he told
them, It was not you who sent me here, but God... you meant evil against me, but God meant it
for good (Gen. 45:8, 50:20).

547

E. The Calvinist is persuaded that if God elected him, then God will see him through to the end
in spite of all obstacles. Even his own sins cannot hinder him anymore. This is the perseverance
of the saints. The Calvinist knows that he will make Heaven. He need not worry as the Arminian
does. He can rest assured in the promises of God. He can do more than rest, too. He can have
bold confidence. How? It works like this. We know that we are eternally loved by Gods
sovereign grace. This produces security. And that security in turn produces confidence. Who is
more confident than the one who knows that, no matter what else happens to him, he is still
loved by God? And who is more secure than such a one? What security, then, is afforded by
this Calvinism? As Toplady wrote, the saints in Heaven are happier but not more secure than
the saints on Earth. Therefore, we know that we shall persevere to the end. What hope! What
encouragement!
F. What should be our attitude toward God in light of His sovereign grace? Three in particular
are most important, and without all three our Calvinism is worthless. First there is thankfulness.
He who knows his depravity is humbled, and such a humbled one should sing the loudest
thanksgiving to God for electing him. Fellow Calvinist, have you ever taken time to thank God
for choosing you?
G. Second, love. We should love Him because He first loved us (I John 4:19). Our non-Calvinst
brethren admit as much, but with our appreciation of the eternality of that unconditional,
sovereign grace we should have even greater love for Christ. Fellow Calvinist, do you love your
Christ, who chose you to be His bride?
H. Third, worship. Too often Calvinists worship less than other saints, which is pitiable in light of
our recognition of the Doctrines of Grace. Our Calvinism should move us to greater praise, and
when Calvinism is properly grasped then it shall move us to greater worship. If it does not, then
one has not really grasped these truths at all. One way in which we worship God is by
magnifying His wisdom. He understands the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, when we do not, and for that we should give Him great praise. Calvinists can and should
worship Him for His awesome sovereignty, infinite power, and overwhelming grace. Fellow
Calvinist, do you really worship God?
I. This, then, is the summary of the practical applications of Calvinism: whatever you do, do all
to the glory of God (I Cor. 10:31). Soli Deo Gloria!
Recommended Reading
Martin, Albert. The Practical Implications of Calvinism. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Pink, A.W. The Sovereignty of God, pp. 123-160. Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Leith, John H. John Calvins Doctrine of the Christian Life. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Calvin, John. The Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 327-362. Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed.
Custance, Arthur C. The Sovereignty of Grace, pp. 227-274. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed.
Cunningham, William. The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, pp. 525-608.
Carlisle: Banner of Truth.
Adams, Jay. Counseling and the Five Points of Calvinism. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and

548

Reformed.
Adams, Jay. Lectures on Counseling, pp. 59-72. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Packer, J.I. A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. Westchester:
Crossway Books.

549

Chapter 74. The Future of Calvinism.

1. Reformed Eschatology.
A. As we wrap up these studies on Calvinism, we need the proper perspective for the future.
We first briefly covered the history of Calvinism up to the present. Then we went through the
main headings of Reformed theology, concluding with two studies on how to apply the Doctrines
of Grace in the present. It is meet, then, to extend this line into the future.
B. The first matter is the question of eschatology. Is there a distinctively Reformed
eschatology? Is there an official Calvinist position? Yes and no. In studying those who have
written on the subject, one finds a general scheme, but not a detailed one that has gained
credence among Calvinists so much that one can speak of a distinctively Reformed
eschatology. Dispensationalist books are usually filled with prophecy charts, but Calvinists
usually prefer to chart matters like the order of the decrees or the order of salvation.
C. If the views of the great Reformed confessions and theologians are an indicator, then we
can see a general pattern. We agree with Evangelical Protestants in general on last things. We
believe in the second coming of Christ as a literal, physical and historical event in the future.
After that, Christ will officiate at the Last Judgment. The elect will be ushered into the
glorification for which they were predestined, and the reprobate will be cast into the final
damnation for which they were reprobated. We have already discussed these inconsiderable
detail already.
D. Historic Calvinists have believed in both Heaven and Hell. Only in the recent past has this
come under fire in any substantial way. Some Neo-Calvinists have tended towards a sort of
Reformed Universal ism, while others have come out in favor of a Calvinistic Annihilationism.
Karl Barth was the main proponent of the former, while Arthur Custance and Philip Edgcombe
Hughes are probably the two more well known advocates of the latter. All three of these
theologians are now deceased and have been corrected of their errors.
E. Naturally, no Calvinist has seriously considered such aberrant heresies as Reincarnation or
Purgatory, or even the notion of a second chance after death. We do, however, teach the
physical resurrection of all men. As we saw in our studies on the destiny of the elect and the
reprobate, the elect will receive perfect glorified bodies and the reprobate will receive imperfect
corrupt bodies. The elect then glorify God forever in both body and soul in eternal joy, and the
reprobate glorify God in both body and soul in eternal torment.
F. Now that is the general picture. When we seek for more details, then there are increasing
disagreements among Calvinist writers. For example, virtually all of the Reformers and Puritans
and Calvinists until about 1900 agreed on the identity of the Antichrist: the Papacy. For
example, the Westminster Confession, in a paragraph edited out of more recent versions,
averred that, There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope
of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of
perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God (XXV: 6).
But there is not at all unanimity among Calvinists in the twentieth-century on this. Generally
speaking, the more historically minded Calvinists agree with this estimation, while others do not.
G. Then there is the question of the Millennium. As we saw earlier in our study on the Church,
mainstream Calvinism equates the Church and the Kingdom of God, or at least so closely
associates the two that where one is the other is as well, in some sense. However, all Calvinists
agree that there is a sense in which the consummation of the Kingdom is yet future. But here is

550

where disagreement becomes evident. Is there an official Reformed doctrine of the Millennium?
No, there is not.
H. There is, on the other hand, a pattern to be observed. Probably half of all Reformed
theologians have been Amillenialists, such as Louis Berkhof, Anthony Hoekema, and Cornelius
Van Til. Then perhaps another third or more have been Post-Millenialists, such as Charles
Hodge, B.B. Warfield, J. Marcellus Kik, Loraine Boettner, Iain Murray and all the Theonomists.
Calvin scholars still debate whether Calvin was Amillenial or Post-Millenial. Some Post-Millenial
Calvinists lay great stress on the future revival among physical Israel, while others do not.
Some, such as Jonathan Edwards, thought that the world was on the very verge of a worldwide
revival that would usher in this great Millennium preceding the return of Christ. In fact, Edwards
thought that the Great Awakening was the spark that would ignite this revival. Many of the
leaders in the Great Missionary Movement, such as Andrew Fuller, were Post-Millenial and
hoped that that movement would do the trick. It did not.
I. A relatively small minority of Calvinists have been Pre-Millenialists, such as Horatius Bonar,
Donald Gray Barnhouse, James Montgomery Boice and S. Lewis Johnson. One or two, such as
John Gill, attempted an unusual combination of Pre- and Post-Millennialism by positing a great
worldwide revival lasting for centuries preceding the return of Christ, after which Christ would
set up His literal millennial kingdom in person.
J. Lastly, there have been almost no Dispensational Calvinists. Granted, some major
Dispensational theologians have been more Calvinist than Arminian. Lewis Sperry Chafer, for
example, was a Presbyterian who sought to reconcile Dispensational eschatology with the
Westminster Confession. He was vigorously opposed by Oswald T. Allis and others. Moreover,
Chafers Calvinism was exceptionally Low. Not only did he teach a strictly unlimited
atonement, but he made other modifications on- the other four points as well. For instance, he
believed that faith preceded regeneration, and differed with historic Calvinism on the Reformed
insistence that the fifth point included both perseverance and preservation. Chafer taught only
preservation, not perseverance. Warfield and others took him to task on the matter. Chafer was
rather representative of other Dispensational semi-Calvinists on these and other matters.
K. The only definite and undisputed Calvinist who was also Dispensational was Arthur W. Pink,
and even that only for a few years. The early Pink (1915-1925) was both Dispensational and
Five Point. This can be seen in the books he wrote in this period, such as The Sovereignty of
God and The Redeemers Return. But in the 1920s, Pink saw the inconsistency of the two, and
so jettisoned his Dispensational views. For the rest of his ministry he was Amillenial, though in a
few places he may have been Post-Millenial.
L. Donald Gray Barnhouse and his successor, James Montgomery Boice, may also be in this
category, but it is difficult to tell. They are both undisputed Calvinists and Pre-Millenialists. But it
is not that clear - to me, at least - whether either were also Dispensationalists. Not all PreMillenialists are Dispensationalists; many, such as myself, are Historic Pre-Millenialists.
M. There has also been much disagreement among Calvinists regarding the interpretation of
the Book of Revelation. Calvin, you may recall, wrote no commentary on it. Some Calvinists
interpret it as speaking mainly of the early Church before the Fall of Jerusalem. This view has
received considerable revival in recent years among the Theonomist Calvinists, especially
David Chilton and Kenneth Gentry (both are Post-Millenialists). Others see Revelation as a
continuous overview of the history of the Church, or what is known as the Historicist Theory.
Few hold to this today, though at one time it was probably the most popular theory among
Calvinists. Some Calvinists take Revelation as all future. More recently, William Hendricksons
symbolical-cyclical theory has gained much popularity in Reformed circles.

551

2. Future Calvinist Debates.

A. Leaving the subject of eschatology, let us make a few tentative predictions regarding the
future of Calvinism before the return of Christ. It takes no genius to prognosticate that the
debate between Calvinism and Arminianism will continue. The Five Points will always be in
dispute. We can expect new variations in the theologies of those who claim to be Reformed but
are less than truly Reformed. For instance, one hears of Three Point Calvinists, Two-and-ahalf Point Calvinists, and even Four-and-three-quarter Point Calvinists. The divisions and
combinations are not always the same. More will certainly follow.
B. Within Calvinist circles, there will probably be increased debate on certain aspects of the
Five Points. I expect there to be more innovations on the Single Predestination deviation from
historic Reformed Double Predestination. In other words, the hard question of reprobation will
always be debated, and new theories will be put forth in place of the old ones. Then there is the
perennial controversy regarding the extent of the atonement, which has probably been the
hardest of the Five Points to accept and which has received the most discussion and
differences of opinion among historic Calvinists. The old debate will continue on what Calvins
views were, as well as what specifically are the universal aspects and what are the particular
aspects of the one atonement.
C. Common Grace has especially been a hot topic in the twentieth-century, especially in the
Dutch Reformed community. The Hyper-Calvinists and Theonomists have contributed new
factors to this discussion. Also, the Perseverance/Preservation controversy will certainly
continue. This age-old debate has gained momentum in recent years in Dispensational
quarters, and it is possible that some quasi-antinomian views on the subject will filter into
Reformed circles.
D. Related to those two issues is the question of Law and Grace. This has been a major issue
among the Reformed Baptists. In Presbyterian circles, it mainly revolves around the question of
Theonomy - which is almost certain to increase in influence in Reformed quarters. This debate
in turn touches on the ongoing Dispensationalism vs Covenant Theology debate. New aspects
of this have arisen in recent years, and it would be safe to say that yet newer aspects and
attempted compromises will be put forth in the future.
E. The debates between Calvinism and Lutheranism have simmered down considerably in this
century compared with the first hundred years or so of the Reformation. One reason is that
Lutheranism has become so utterly and predominantly Liberal in its theology. It is possible,
however, that the more traditional wing of Lutheranism will one day again take up the cudgels
with Calvinists on such issues as the ubiquity of the humanity of Christ and Consubstantiation.
F. More likely, however, is the prospect of interaction between paedo-baptist and believers
baptist Calvinists. As seen in Great Britain, for example, Baptist Calvinists have been a major
current in the Reformed river. That was true after the Puritan era and is again true today.
Perhaps a new approach will be suggested one day. Perhaps, as in the post-Puritan era, the
two will see their differences as minor compared with their differences with non-Reformed
paedo-baptists and baptists. Tom Nettles and Ernest Reisinger are working for a revival of
Calvinism among Southern Baptists, but such a prospect is unlikely.
G. Presbyterian Calvinists are currently debating the issue of paedo-communion. This debate
will probably spend itself out, though perhaps not. Infant Communion has always been a rare
theory among Calvinists and probably always will be.

552

H. Other areas to be on the lookout for concern what I term Left-wing Calvinism and Rightwing Calvinism. Left-wing Calvinism is that variety of Low Calvinism that verges towards Arminianism and especially Liberalism. Barth, whose shadow will lurk around Calvinists for
decades to come, has probably been the most extreme example of this deviation. More
moderate has been G.C. Berkouwer. Others in this school include Hendrickus Berkhof and Otto
Weber and the left wing of the Christian Reformed Church. Historic Calvinists need to keep an
eye on this dangerous tendency.
I. Less dangerous is Right-wing Calvinism, or Hyper-Calvinism. Hyperism is mainly something
of the past. But it is still there. It received a shot in the arm from Herman Hoeksema, the last
major Hyper-Calvinist. Unless another commanding figure such as Hoeksema or Gill arises, the
movement will continue to be a minor one. A Hyper uprising is possible, but unlikely. The issues
involved, however, need to be addressed and re-addressed in every generation.
J. Dooyeweerds movement will probably peter out, but Van Tillian Presuppositionalism will
certainly continue to increase. Just as there have been past variations (e.g., Schaeffer) and
alternatives (e.g., Clark), so there will likely be new ones. I would go so far as to say that this
movement will gain steadily as it matures to the point of being a major aspect of Reformed
theology.
K. Then there are the errors regarding Hell that will also infiltrate Calvinist circles, as evidenced
by Barth, Custance and Hughes. The Annihilationist theory is gaining influence in Evangelical
quarters in general and is slowly becoming a nuisance to Calvinists. The day may come when it
will be a major controversy within Reformed churches.
L. One other area of debate will almost certainly continue: the Calvin vs Calvinism question. It
has gone on for centuries and shows no signs of abating. The major areas are the order of the
decrees, the extent of the atonement, the assurance of faith, and theological method.
M. As society changes, new issues will arise which need to be addressed by Christians from a
distinctively Reformed perspective. Some will be practical, others more philosophical. Some will
be brand-new, such as the ethical implications of new technology; others will be variations on
old themes.
N. Another recurring pattern is sure to occur. The Reformed denominations and individual
churches seem to go through a definite cycle. First there are the firm believers in the doctrines
of grace, who share a great affinity with Calvinists of the past and a love for the confessions and
books of the past. But then they begin to grow cold in their hearts, causing a reaction among
others who are thereby tempted to seek out alternatives to the old theologies of Calvinism. They
are lured into new fads, which appear fresh and exciting -some, such as Neo-Orthodoxy,
claiming to be a rediscovery of Calvin. In no time at all these deviations produce more radical
deviations, until the name Reformed is attached to the shell, with no real Calvinist substance.
This is blatantly evident in mainline Presbyterianism today. Many of their theologians consider
themselves in the pure line of Calvin, when nothing could be further from the truth. If Calvin
were to come back from the grave, he would abominate the whole thing. Brethren, do not take
your Calvinism for granted.
O. This is where future Calvinists need to be vigilant. On the one hand, they will need to be on
their constant guard against new innovations claiming to rediscover Calvin or the like. They
would do well to heed the advice of Charles Hodge who defended the old paths and admitted
that he never had an original theological thought in his life. On the other hand, Calvinists need
also heed the advice of Archibald Alexander to keep the right balance of Calvinist head and
Calvinist heart, lest the coolness of the heart cause one to succumb to a warm semi-Calvinism
and then a pseudo-Calvinism. Remember Princeton.

553

3. The Rediscovery of Calvinism.

A. As some Calvinists have been leaving for what they think are greener pastures, others from
those very pastures are taking their place. It is interesting to see them meet each other as they
cross from opposite directions. What I mean is, that we can expect God to raise up more
Calvinists in the future.
B. Let me quickly go through a few suggestions for Calvinists of the present and future.
Because of the influence of good Reformed literature, I will start there. In every generation there
are new popular presentations of the Doctrines of Grace. This is good. There need to be more.
There also need to be more good books on specific topics, which have been, treated only
slightly, such as the question of Supralapsarianism, the extent of the atonement, Calvinistic
Antinomianism, and the ordo saiutis. We still await the definitive history of Calvinism (McNeill is
small and has serious deficiencies). Likewise, in spite of the many small biographies of John
Calvin, the only really big biography is old and locked up is French (Emile Doumergues large
Jean Calvin, Les Hommes et Les Choses de Son Temps, in 7 volumes). Perhaps it will be
translated, revised or superseded in the years to come. Another desideratum is a large history
of Reformed theology, of which Richard Mullers recent trilogy comes closest.
C. Similarly, there is a definite need for a large and up-to-date Reformed systematic theology.
The great large ones are all good but in need of updating. The time has come for a truly
Reformed systematic theology on the massive scale of Karl Barths 13-volumed Church
Dogmatics. Likewise, there is a need for more Calvinist Bible commentaries. The New
Testament Commentary by William Hendricksen and Simon Kistemaker is excellent, but what
about the Old Testament?
D. Then there is the need for more research into the great Calvinists, such as a large biography
of Spurgeon. John Gerstner is completing a massive theology of Jonathan Edwards. This
leads to the ongoing cry among Calvinists for more printed editions of the unpublished works of
Edwards. Combining all previous collections of his works still totals less than a third of what is
still in unpublished manuscript. This is an outrage to Calvinists.
E. New books still keep coming out from past Calvinists, such as Lloyd-Jones. Slowly others
are being translated, such as the huge corpus of Calvins sermons in French. Francis
Turretines Institutio is being translated and will give a big boost to Reformed theology for
decades to come. But there are others every bit as important, such as the remainder of the
Dutch of Kuypers Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology and Bavincks Reformed Dogmatics. And,
of course, Kuypers masterpiece has never been translated even in part - his large Common
Grace. Serious Reformed students are also crying out for translations of Bezas Theological
Tracts, Bucers commentaries on Ephesians and Romans, and works such as the rest of
Zanchius Absolute Predestination. The translation of Calvinist masterpieces such as these
would do the Reformed movement more good than can be imagined.
F. The Banner of Truth has been a major force in the Reformed movement mainly through its
reprints of old Puritan books. This rediscovery of the Puritans has been long overdue and we
hope it is here to stay. Other smaller publishers specialize in reprinting old Calvinist books, and
several major Christian publishers print old and new Reformed books. But there remain still far
more that need to be reprinted, such as The Works of William Perkins and the Common Places
of Peter Martyr Vermigli. There is also the need for a multi-volumed collection of all the
Reformed creeds, confessions and catechisms.
G. The Meeter Center for Calvin Studies, located at Calvin College and Seminary in Grand

554

Rapids, will be a major boost to research into John Calvin. Among their many projects is a plan
to translate into English all the hitherto untranslated books and sermons of Calvin. More
Calvinist scholars are needed in the field of Calvin, Calvinism, theology, history and Bible.
H. There is also the crying need for more Calvinist evangelism. I do not merely mean more
Calvinist missionaries or evangelists such as John Blanchard. I mean the need for Calvinists of
today to become the George Whitefields of the future in their families, churches and cities. The
subject of true revival has loomed large in many Calvinist quarters, and by Gods grace we pray
and wait and work on.
I. The sleeping giant of Calvinism has yet to truly awake and retake its place as a major
influence in the Church. Slowly there are glimmerings that his time may come. But even so,
there are rumblings. God raises up new Calvinists in every generation to replace others. The
torch is passed on from every generation to each new one. Many of the new torchbearers come
from non-Reformed backgrounds and frequently have more fire than those from Calvinist roots.
Why, there are even small signs of a possible breakthrough in some Pentecostal churches.
J. Brethren, we need a true God-sent revival of Biblical Calvinism! We need to work for it, pray
for it, wait for it. We need to preserve what we have and strive for more. Every now and then
one hears the call for a New Reformation. Listen carefully to the accent in those calls. Some
have Barthian accents, and their speech doth betray them. But there are others who call for a
truly Biblical Reformation and revival. An even bigger one may yet come our way, if the Lord
wills.

4. Conclusion.
A. Arminians and Liberals have sung the dirges and pronounced the eulogies on the supposed
death of Calvinism for centuries. But, as Churchill remarked, Reports of my death are greatly
exaggerated. Calvinism is here to stay. God raises up new believers in His sovereignty in every
generation, and we have every reason to believe that this will continue - if not also increase - in
the future. When one sees the erosion of spineless Evangelicalism, one can agree with the
words of Abraham Kuyper: Calvinism not only has a future, it has the future. Everything else
crumbles and melts away.
B. What is the future of Calvinism? The future looks good, for God is sovereign. As Christ
prepares His bride for His return, we can expect Him to bejewel her increasingly with the
rediscovery and appreciation of the Doctrines of Grace, which shine as so many pearls. It is
especially just this very truth, the sovereignty of God in all things that gives the Calvinist a
certain glimmer in his eye as he looks to the future.
C. And what is the final goal? The bottom line of it all is just what Calvinists have insisted on all
along - the glory of God. The elect will glorify God in Heaven and the reprobate will glorify God
in Hell. And Heaven radiates with Gods glory, in the hues of the Doctrines of Grace. The elect
will understand these truths even more then. In fact, we will understand the paradox of divine
sovereignty and human responsibility, as we never could here on Earth. That too will glorify
God.
D. There will be only Calvinists in Heaven. That does not mean that only Calvinists enter.
Rather, all who enter will realize that the truths of Calvinism were Biblical all along. James
Arminius and John Wesley are now Calvinists.
E. So, then, we sum up what Calvinism points to: the glory of God. This is the great eschaton,
the end of all things. For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the

555

glory forever. Amen (Rom. 11:36). Soli Deo Gloria!

Recommended Reading
Boice, James Montgomery. The Future of Reformed Theology, in Reformed Theology in
America, edited by David F. Wells, pp. 299-311. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Kuyper, Abraham. Lectures on Calvinism, pp. 171-199. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
McNeill, John T. The History and Character of Calvinism, pp. 426-439. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hoekema, Anthony. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

556

Heroes of The Reformation

1. Theodore Beza (1519-1605). Switzerland and France. French-born, studied law wrote Latin
poetry before conversion. Became right-hand man and successor of John Calvin. Principal of
the Geneva Academy and Moderator of the Geneva Company of Pastors .A leading Greek
scholar of the day: edited 9 editions of the Greek New Testament (which underlay the KJV),
discovered the famous 5th-century Codex Bezae N.T. manuscript (which he donated to
Cambridge University). Also a leading Latin scholar: translated the Greek N.T. into an important
Latin translation, etc. Wrote Tractationes Theologicae (Theological Tracts), a large series of
studies on the vital theological issues of the day; several catechisms and confessions of faith;
biography of Calvin; a commentary on the whole N.T. plus several others. In his influential De
Jure Magistratu (On the Civil Magistrate), said that lesser godly magistrates may lead rebellion
against higher ungodly magistrates and tyrants. The first Supralapsarian Calvinist and one of
the first and strongest advocates of limited atonement.
2. Martin Bucer (1491-1551). Germany and England. Former RC Dominican monk was one of
the first Reformers to marry- Ministered mainly in Strassbourg. Was often mediator between the
German Lutheran Reformation and the Swiss Zwinglian/Calvinist Reformation. Wrote several
large theological commentaries on Psalms, Ephesians, Romans, etc. Greatly influenced the
young Calvin. Was the originator of the Word and Spirit doctrine of Communion - Christ feeds
us at Comnunion not by anything in the elements, but by the Spirits quickening of the
accompanying Word. Later ministered at Cambridge at invitation of Cranmer. Six years after his
death, Romanists exhumed and publicly burnt his corpse.
3. Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575). Switzerland. Associate and successor of Zwingliat Zurich,
where he was something of a Reformed Bishop. Advocated a Reformed Erastianism (the civil
magistrate has authority over the Church), opposed Presbyterianism. Wrote a history of the
Swiss Reformation, a large and much-used commentary on the N.T., The Decades (a
systematic theology in 50 sermons), Conmon Places (another systematic theology), etc. Was
main author of the First and Second Helvetic Confessions, and with Calvin wrote the Consensus
Tigurinus, thus unifying the French- and German-speaking Swiss Reformations.With Olevianus,
helped lay the foundation for Covenant Theology.
4. John Calvin (1509-1564). Switzerland. French-born, studied law, fled France after his
conversion, was persuaded to stay in Geneva by Farel. Later both were exiled for 3 years from
Geneva, 1538-1541. Became the undisputed leader of the French-speaking Swiss Reformation,
based in Geneva. Married the widow of an Anabaptist, lost his only son in infancy. Welcomed
the Marian exiles from England and Scotland, thereby exerting great influence when they
returned. Started the influential Geneva Academy for training ministers. Influenced the French
Reformed Church and the Dutch Reformation. Testified against Servetus, who was executed for
heresy (1553). Taught two separate but related kingdoms: the Church and the State. Differed
with both Luther and Zwingli on Communion; like Bucer, taught spiritual eating of Christ is by
faith in the Spirit-quickened Word, which accompanies Communion. Wrote mainly in Latin,
preached mainly in French (300+ times a year). Wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion, in 5
editions, the standard Reformed systematic theology; commentaries on 49books of the Bible;
The Eternal Predestination of God and many other treatises; writing an average of 1,000 pages

557

a year for 30 years. With Luther, one of the two greatest heroes of the Reformation. The
greatest theologian since Paul.
5. Andreas von Carlstadt (1480-1541). Germany and Switzerland. Taught with Luther at
Wittenberg, defended Luthers 95 Theses in famous debate with Johann Eck. Was one of the
most extreme of the early Lutherans. With Luther, was excommunicated by papal bull.
Celebrated the first Protestant Communion, without vestments or elevation of the elements and
with no pretence of Transubstantiation, communicants received both elements for first time.
Opposed all uses of images and statues. Soon fell out with Luther, who called him Judas and
had him exiled from Wittenberg. Later became an Anabaptist, taught Zwinglian view of
Communion, mystic.
6. Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586). Germany. Studied under Melanchthon at Wittenberg, where
he taught for a while but mainly ministered as pastor. Closely followed Melanchthons theology.
Co-author of the Formula of Concord, an important Lutheran confession of faith. Also wrote
Examination of the Council of Trent (the fullest and most scholarly theological refutation of
official Roman Catholic dogma, in 4 large volumes of 2,500 pages). Also wrote The Two
Natures of Christ, defending the ubiquity of Christs human nature and body; and Loci
Theologici (Theological Places), a massive 10-volumed systematic theology based on
Melanchthon.
7. Miles Coverdale (1488-1568). England. Former R.C. Augustinian monk. An early English
Reformer, became Bishop in the Church of England. Had to flee persecution, went to Europe
and assisted Tyndale in Bible translation. Later was the major translator of the Great Bible and
assisted in the Geneva Bible.
8. Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556). England. The first Archbishop of Canterbury in the Church of
England (1533), and probably the most influential English Reformer. Close to Henry VIII,
supported and assisted in his divorce, but was too easily swayed by him. Was a major
contributor to the Book of Common Prayer. Later Convicted of heresy and treason by Queen
Mary Tudor (Roman Catholic) was forced to witness the executions of Latimer and Ridley.
Recanted of Protestantism, then recanted his recantation while being burned at the stake. Died
as martyr.
9. Guiilaume Farel (1489-1565). Switzerland and France. French-born, with Peter Viret brought
the Reformation to French-speaking Switzerland and convinced Calvin to stay in Geneva. Exiled
from Geneva with Calvin temporarily, returned but also ministered in southern Germany and
France. Considered the most powerful preacher of the Swiss Reformation, was mainly an
evangelist. At 69 married a young refugee.
10. John Foxe (1516-1587). England. Ordained a deacon by Ridley and a priest by Grindal.
Exiled by Queen Mary, lived and ministered for a while in Switzerland, later returned to England.
Calvinist in theology. Wrote 8-volumed Acts and Monuments of Matters Happening in the
Church, often abridged as Foxes Book of Martyrs, a stirring best-selling history of persecution
and martyrdom in church history, especially during the Reformation at the hands of Romanism.

558

11. Balthasar Hubmaier (1485-1528). Germany. Former Roman Catholic priest became a
leading Anabaptist. Condemned infant baptism as superstitious idolatry. Was convicted of
heresy by Austrian officials and burned at the stake.
12. John Hus (1372-1415). Bohemia (Czechoslovakia). Important Pre-Reformer who paved
the way for the Reformation. Professor at the University of Prague. Was much influenced by
John Wycliffe. Wrote The Church, etc. Opposed priestly celibacy, papal infallibility and the sale
of indulgences (which he denounced as trafficking in sacred things). Convicted of heresy, was
burned at the stake.
13. John Knox (1514-1572). Scotland. Former R.C. priest became the leader of the Scottish
Reformation. A fiery preacher and courageous opponent of Romanist apostacy and tyranny.
Spent 1 1/2 years as galley slave. Studied under Calvin (1553-1559). Main author of the Scots
Confession (1560). Wrote History of the Reformation, of Religion Within the. Realm of Scotland
and A Treatise on Predestination. Also wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the
Monstrous Regiment of. Women, arguing that female monarchs such as Mary Tudor, Mary
Stuart and Elizabeth I are unnatural, and unbiblical. Defended godly rebellion against ungodly
tyrants.
14. Hugh Latimer (1485-1555). England. Anglican Bishop, considered the finest preacher of the
English Reformation. A chief advisor to Henry VIII, though was imprisoned twice by him in the
Tower of London. Burned at the stake by Queen Mary Tudor. While dying, cried out to fellow
martyr Nicholas Ridley, Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day
light such candle by Gods grace in England as I trust shall never be put out!
15. Martin Luther (1483-1546). Germany. Former RC Augustinian monk, Doctor of Theology,
taught at Wittenberg University. On Oct. 31, 1517, posted his 95 Theses to the door of the
castle church, challenging debate on indulgences and Purgatory, effectively starting the
Reformation. Excommunicated by papal bull (1520), examined at the Diet of Worms (1521),
where he boldly refused to recant (Here I stand. I can do no other.). Translated the entire Bible
from Hebrew and Greek into German while holed up in Wartburg Castle, thus unifying the
competing German dialects. Married ex-nun Katherine von Bora. Opposed the Peasants
Revolt (1525). Heavy set, powerful preacher, called a wild boar by Pope Leo. Fell out with
Zwingli over Communion at the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), formulated the doctrine of
Consubstantiation - the Real Presence of Christ is in, with and under the physical elements.
Stressed that we are justified sola fide (by faith alone). Yet his teaching on baptism cams
dangerously close to baptismal regeneration. Composed A Mighty Fortress is Our God and is
usually credited with the first verses of Away in a Manger (it is also said he was the first to put
candles on Christmas trees). One of the most prolific writers ever: over 100 large volumes,
including his masterpiece The Bondage of the Will (against the semi-Pelagainism of Erasmus of
Rotterdam, the leading RC scholar of the day); Table Talk; Larger and Shorter Catechisms;
many Bible expositions (those on Galatians and Romans were especially important); The
Babylonian Captivity of the Church; Against the Antinomians; Against the Roman Papacy, an
Institution of the Devil (like all other Reformers, Luther considered the Papacy to be the
Antichrist) ; and many more. Taught the ubiquity (omnipresence) of Christs human nature and

559

body, contra the Calvinists. A man of God, indeed.

16. Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560). Germany. Luthers right hand man. Taught Greek at
University of Wittenberg from age 21. Wrote Loci Communes (Common Places) in 1521, the
first Protestant systematic theology and the most influential Lutheran one. Was the leading
figure at the Diet of Augsburg (1530) and the main author of the Augsburg Confession. Wrote
many Bible expositions. Was weak on the doctrine of free will and taught a kind of synergism
whereby the human will co-operates with grace in justification. Was usually weak where Luther
was strong. Often attempted reunion with Rome through theological and practical compromise.
17. Thomas Munzer (1490-1525). Germany. Originally a Lutheran, turned Anabaptist and
somewhat mystical, fanatical and eccentric. Associated with the Zwickau Prophets. Led the
semi-socialistic post-millenial Peasants Revolt that failed.
18. Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563). Switzerland and Germany. Ministered mainly in Bern and
Zurich. Close associate of Bullinger, defended his doctrine of State over Church against
Presbyterianism. Wrote Common Places, many commentaries. 1919. Johann Oecolampadius (1482-1531). Switzerland and Germany. Partner with Zwingli in
founding the Swiss Reformation, defended Zwinglis doctrine of Communion as merely a
memorial meal at the Colloquy of Marburg (1529). Died in battle.
20. Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587). Germany. French-born, studied under Calvin and Beza.
Co-author with Ursinus of the Heidelberg Catechism and co-leader of the German Reformed
Church. Formulated a kind of German Presbyterianism. Taught at Heidelberg. Helped lay the
foundation for Covenant Theology.
21. Peter Ramus (1515-1572). France. Philosopher joined the Reformation late in life.
Opponent of Aristotles philosophy, which prevailed in Roman theology. Taught that all things
and truths can be divided into two parts (Dichotomism), advocated the Simple Syllogism (If A =
B and B = C, then A = C) and a form of the Law of Non-Contradiction (A cannot equal non-A).
Martyred with thousands of others in the St. Bartholomew Days Massacre by officially
sanctioned Catholic fanatics.
22. Nicholas Ridley (1500-1555). England. Anglican Bishop of London, Chaplain to -Henry VIII
and Cranmer. Contributed to the Book of Common Prayer. Preached against Romanism, and
against social and civil evils. Burned at stake with Latimer.
23. Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498). Italy. Pre-Reformer. Dominican monk. Rebuked papal
immorality, denied papal infallibility, opposed civil and clerical corruption and worldliness.
Convicted, tortured, hanged and burned at the stake.

560

24. Menno Simons (1496-1561). Holland. A leading Anabaptist, founder of Mennonites.

Pacifist. Often had to flee persecution. Stressed idea of Christian community and separation
from worldliness and civil involvement. Emphasized literal interpretation of Scripture over
speculative dogmatic theology.
25. William Tyndale (1494-1536). England. First translator of whole N.T. from Greek into
English (1525) also translated Pentateuch and Jonah from Hebrew. Exiled from England by
Romanists, who chase him with spies all over Europe. Eventually caught and tried in Belgium.
Strangled and burned at the stake for translating the Bible. Once said, If God spare my life, ere
many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow should know more of the Scripture than thou
dost.
26. Zacarias Ursinus (1534-1583) Germany. Taught at Heidelberg, Neustadt and Breslau. Coauthor with Olevianus of the epochal Heidelberg Catechism, on which he wrote an extensive
commentary and systematic theology. Studied at Wittenberg, much influenced by Bucer and
Vermigli. A major leader in German Reformed Church.
27. Peter Martyr Vermigli (1500-1562). Germany, Switzerland and England. Italian by birth.
Friend of Calvin, associate of Bucer, former Augustinian monk. Based in Strassbourg, Germany
and later in Zurich, Switzerland. Taught briefly at Cambridge University. Like several other expriest Reformers, married an ex-nun. Wrote Common Places, a large systematic theology;
exposition of Romans; etc. Beza described him as a phoenix sprung from the ashes of
Savonarola. Taught that the Communion elements are visible words of God.
28. John Wycliffe (1330-1384). England. Pre-Reformer, called the Morning Star of the
Reformation. Powerful preacher, influential Oxford theologian and philosopher. Helped send a
team of preachers called Lollards all over England preaching the Gospel. With John Purvey,
helped translate most of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English - the first English Bible.
Denied Transubstantiation (as did all the Reformers). Critic of civil and clerical corruption taught
that the papacy was the Antichrist. After his death, his body was exhumed and burned by
Catholics, and the ashes scattered on the Swift River,
29. Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590). Germany. Italian-born. Taught mainly at Heidelberg.
Influential Palatinate theologian in the German Reformed Church. Wrote many important books
of theology, such as Absolute Predestination, an early treatise on unconditional foreordination
and election; plus several commentaries, such as a large one on Ephesians.
30. Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531). Switzerland. Former R.C. priest, founder of the Swiss
Reformation, the first Reformed theologian, the leading pastor of Zurich. Taught himself Greek
and Hebrew. Developed views parallel to Luther but independent of influence from him. Broke
with Luther at the Colloquy of Marburg (1529) over Communion, taught that Communion is
mainly if not entirely a memorial meal. Prolific writer: Commentary on True and False Religion;
On Providence, etc. Influenced the early Anabaptists, fell out with them, approved of the
drowning of some of them in Lake Zurich in 1527. Taught that the State should not have
authority over the Church. Killed in battle as army chaplain when Protestant Swiss cantons

561

warred with. Catholic Swiss cantons.

The Major English Puritans
1. Thomas Adams (1612-1653). Anglican. Writer of very popular devotional theology, including
a massive commentary on 2 Peter. Praised for mastery of English language.
2. Joseph Alleine (1634-1668). Presbyterian. Wrote the enormously best-selling An Alarm to
the Unconverted, a good example of Puritan evangelism.
3. Isaac Ambrose (1604-1662). Anglican, then Presbyterian. Renown for an exceptionally holy
life, such as spending one month a year in solitary meditation and prayer. Wrote numerous
devotional books, such as the popular Looking Unto Jesus.
4. William Ames (1576-1633). Anglican, then Presbyterian. Ministered in England as
Cambridge Calvinist and in Holland as pastor and professor and advisor at the Synod of Dort.
Closest disciple of William Perkins; greatly influenced American Puritans. Wrote The Marrow of
Theology, the standard Puritan systematic theology; and Cases of Conscience, important work
on Biblical ethics; many others. Supralapsarian.
5. John Ball (1585-1640). Presbyterian. Wrote A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, an early
and important work on Covenant Theology.
6. Richard Baxter (1615-1691). Presbyterian. By far and away the most prolific Puritan writer,
wrote on a host of subjects (systematic theology, ethics, politics, pastoral theology, ecclesiology,
devotionals, evangelism, history, etc.), such as The Saints Everlasting Rest; A Call to the
Unconverted; The Reformed Pastor; Aphorisms of Justification; The Christian Directory; and
over 100 other books, plus sermons, an autobiography, etc. One of Cromwells Chaplains.
Considered a model pastor. Irenic and conciliatory for true ecumenism, though he was a leading
opponent of Antinomianism. Founder of Neonomianism error. A 44 Point Calvinist. Helped in
the recall of King Charles II.
7. Paul Baynes (c.1560-1617). Anglican. An early Cambridge Calvinist and seminal
Experimentalist. Succeeded Perkins at Cambridge. Wrote Commentary on Ephesians.
Converted and taught Richard Sibbes, who became the next torchbearer.
8. Samuel Bolton (1606-1654). Became Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge- His brother Robert also
a major Puritan. Wrote The True Bounds of Christian Liberty against Antinomians.
9. Thomas Brooks (1608-1680). Independent. Studied at Cambridge, developed a devotional
Experimental ism in a sweet and pithy style. Wrote Precious Remedies Against Satans
Devices; The Mute Christian Under the Smarting Rod; Apples of Gold, etc. One of the most
quoted Puritans because of his masterful, proverbial English style.
10. Robert Browne (1550-1633). Independent. Studied at Cambridge. Originally Calvinist, but
decreasingly so. The first major Separatist, leader of the Brownists and early Independents.
Somewhat eccentric. More known as a preacher than a writer.
11. John Bunyan (1628-1688), Baptist. Soldier in the Civil War, became a tinker (metal-worker)
by trade. Four-point Calvinist. While imprisoned for 12 years for refusing to conform to the reestablished Church of England, Bunyan wrote Pilgrims Progress - not only hailed as one of the
greatest masterpieces of English literature, but also was destined to become the second bestselling Christian book of all time. He also wrote another allegory, The Holy War, plus many other
books, some of which are systematic theology or devotional, including his autobiography
entitled Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners.

562

12. Jeremiah Burroughes (1599-1646). Independent. Studied at Cambridge. One of the

Westminster divines. Wrote a massive Exposition of Hosea and the Experimentalist classic, The
Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment.
13. Edmund Calamy (1600-1666) Presbyterian. A Cambridge Calvinist and Westminster divine.
Helped recall Charles II the throne. His grandson of the same name wrote an important history
of the Great Ejection.
14. Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603). Presbyterian. Expelled from teaching at Cambridge for
advocating Presbyterianism. Imprisoned several times for his beliefs. The first major English
Presbyterian. Studied under Beza at Geneva.
15. Joseph Caryl (1602-1673). Independent. One of the Westminster divines. Succeeded John
Owen as pastor in London. Wrote a famous 13-volume exposition of Job.
16. Stephen Charnock (1628-1680). Presbyterian. Studied at Cambridge. One of Cromwells
chaplains. Wrote The Existence and Attributes of God, the fullest Calvinist theology of God ever
written, considered the definitive work in the field. Also wrote Discourses on Regeneration and
other theological and Experimental works.
17. Isaac Chauncy (1632-1712). Independent. The leading opponent of Neonomianism
Supralapsarian. Opened the door from semi-Antinomianism to Hyper-Calvinism.
18. David Clarkson (1622-1686). Independent. Studied at Cambridge. Assistant and immediate
successor to John Owen as pastor. Wrote on Experimental theology.
19. Tobias Crisp (1600-1643). Independent. Originally an Arminian, later became a
Supralapsarian Calvinist and the leading Calvinistic Antinomian. Exaggerated Christ made sin,
believers not under the Law, eternal justification before faith, immediate witness of the Spirit.
Much influenced the rise of Hyper-Calvinism. Wrote Christ Alone Exalted. Other Antinomians:
John Eaton, John Saltmarsh.
20. Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658). Independent. Represented Cambridge in Parliament.
Organized the New Model Army, which won the English Civil War. Powerful leader but tolerant
of other churches. Close friend of John Owen. Commissioned many leading Puritans to be his
chaplains. Reluctantly approved the execution of Charles II, but, refused the crown offered him
by Parliament; instead became Lord Protector (1653). Buried in Westminster Abbey, but at the
Restoration his corpse was exhumed and publicly hanged. Strong Puritan religious principles.
21. John Davenant (1576-1641). Anglican. Bishop of Salisbury. Delegate to Synod of Dort. A
leading 4 Point Calvinist (Christ died for all, especially the elect). Very low doctrine of
reprobation. Wrote The Death of Christ and a-much-hailed commentary on Colossians.
22. Edward Fisher (1627-1656). Little known about him; some reports say he was a barber or
surgeon. Famous for writing The Marrow of Modern Divinity, a dialogue on the leading
theological issues of the day with extensive quotes from leading Puritans. The Marrow would
cause a major controversy in the early 18th-century Scotland.
23. John Flavel (1630-1691). Presbyterian. Pastored in Dartmouth. Wrote Experimental and
systematic theology, such as The Method of Grace and The Fountain of Life.
24. Thomas Gataker (1574-1654). Anglican. Cambridge Calvinist and Westminster divine. A
leading anti-Antinomian and major contributor to the Westminster Annotations.
25. Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680). Independent. London pastor and President of Magdalen
College, Cambridge University. A leading Westminster divine and organizer of the Savoy
Declaration. One of the most important and precise Puritan theologians. Wrote The Holy Spirit;
Justifying Faith; Christ the Mediator; other works mainly in systematic theology. Supralapsarian.

563

Taught the sealing of the Spirit was a second work of grace bringing assurance of salvation.
26. William Gouge (1578-1653). Presbyterian. Studied at Cambridge. Very influential
Westminster divine, tie alternated as successor of Twisse as Prolocutor. Wrote a large
Exposition of Hebrews and contributed to the Westminster Annotations.
27. William Gurnall (1617-1679), Anglican. Studied at Cambridge. Wrote the classic The
Christian in Complete Armour based on Ephesians 6.
28. Joseph Hall (1574-1656). Anglican. Bishop. Delegate to Synod of Dort. Moderate Calvinist
like Davenant and Ussher. Famous devotional writer, such as his Contemplations Upon the
Principal Passages of the Old and New Testaments.
29. Matthew Henry (1662-1714). Presbyterian. Author of the best-selling commentary on the
Bible ever written, a standard devotional and Experimental work. Also wrote several other
devotional pieces. His father Phillip Henry was also a noted Puritan.
30. John Howe (1630-1705). Anglican, then Presbyterian. Briefly one of Cromwells chaplains.
Irenical and non-controversial. Wrote many popular devotional works,
31. Benjamin Keach (1640-1704). Baptist. Adapted the Westminster Confession and Shorter
Catechism for Baptists. The major organizer of Baptists after the Act of Toleration. Wrote
Tropologia (reprinted as Preaching from the Types and Metaphors of the Bible), the largest work
on Bible typology ever written. Later succeeded by John Gill and C.H. Spurgeon. Promoted
congregational hymn-singing.
32. Hanserd Knollys (1599-1691). Baptist. One of the major early Particular (i.e., Calvinist)
Baptists in England. Studied at Cambdridge. One of Cromwells chaplains.
33. John Lightfoot (1602-1675). Anglican, Presbyterian. Cambridge Calvinist. One of the most
important Westminster divines, he never missed a session. Famous as a scholar of ancient
Jewish customs, language and literature.
34. Thomas Manton (1620-1677). Presbyterian. One of the three scribes at Westminster
Assembly. One of the most famous Puritan preachers. Published an enormous number of
sermons, and popular expositions of James and Jude.
35. Joseph Mede (1586-1638). Anglican. Professor at Cambridge. Moderate Calvinist. A
leading scholar on many subjects. Especially noted for\a large commentary on Revelation, one
of the few espousing Pre-Millennialism. Somewhat mystical. :
36. John Milton (1608-1674). Anglican, then Presbyterian, then Independent. Moderate
Calvinist, then Arminian, then Arian. Wrote a systematic theology, but famous as a major
English poet: Paradise Lost; Paradise Regained; Samson Agonistones; etc. Went blind in 1651.
37. John Owen (1616-1683). Independent. Chaplain to Cromwell, London pastor, leader of the
Independents, Vice-Chancellor (President) of Oxford University. Entered Oxford at 12, earned
Masters degree at 19. Important in drawing up the Savoy Declaration. Often preached before
the Long Parliament. Second only to Perkins in influence, second to none in scholarship. Prolific
writer on systematic, Experimental and Biblical theology: Commentary on Hebrews (7 vols); The
Death of Death (the standard on limited atonement); The Holy Spirit; A Display of Arminianism;
The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded, others. Of Welsh ancestry. Often in
controversy with Baxter. Detailed, prolix writing style.
38. William Perkins (1558-1602). Anglican. The most influential of all Puritan theologians and
the leading Cambridge Calvinist. A close follower of Beza; Ames was his closest disciple.
Opposed by Arminius. Prolific writer on systematic and Experimental theology. His The Golden
Chain was the standard work on High Calvinism and the order of the decrees. A major

564

Supralapsarian. His famous charton the order of the decrees and of historical salvation was the
classic. Fervent opponent of Romanizing tendencies in the Church of England. Very logical
andordered, somewhat Scholastic. Wrote Cases of Conscience on ethics, Experimentalism.
39. Matthew Poole (1624-1679). Presbyterian, sympathetic to Anglicanism. Studied at
Cambridge. Wrote a very popular Commentary on the Bible, often reprinted, which sums up
Puritan exegesis. Also compiled the Latin Synopsis Bible commentary.
40. John Preston (1587-1628). Anglican. A leading Cambridge Calvinist and theological
Experimentalist. Wrote the important The Breastplate of Faith and Love.
41. John Rainolds (1549-1607). Anglican. President of Christ Church College, Oxford
University. An important early Puritan. One of the leading Bible scholars of the day and major
translators of the King James Version, died before its completion.
42. Edward Reynolds (1599-1676). Anglican. Bishop. Dean of Christ Church College, Oxford
University. Important Westminster divine.
43. Richard Sibbes (1577-1635). Anglican. A leading Cambridge Calvinist. Influenced by Paul
Baynes, in turn influenced Richard Baxter. Noted as preacher and theologian and especially as
Experimentalist. Wrote The Bruised Reed, others.
44. John Smyth (1554-1612). Baptist. Originally an Anglican, then Separatist and Se-Baptist
(he baptized himself). Started the first Baptist church in England. Originally a Cambridge
Calvinist then turned Arminian.
45. Robert Trail (1642-1716). Presbyterian. Originally Scottish, ordained and preached in
England. Supralapsarian. A close associate of Chauncy against Neonomianism. Wrote The
Throne of Grace, others.
46. John Trapp (1601-1669). Anglican with Presbyterian sympathies. Wrote a large and very
popular commentary on the Bible, famous for its pithy, quotable style.
47. William Twisse (1578-1646). Moderate Anglican. Prolocutor (president) of the Westminster
Assembly and influential divine. Wrote the definitive work on Supralapsarianism, The Riches of
Gods Love Unto the Vessels of Mercy. Tolerated Crisp against assaults. Of German ancestry.
48. James Ussher (1581-1656). Anglican. Archbishop. Irish. Invited to be divine at Westminster
Assembly, but did not attend. His Irish Articles were the basis for the Westminster Confession.
One of the leading scholars of the century, a prolific writer: A Body of Divinity; a work on
Gottschalk and predestination; Bible chronology (his date for Creation at 4004 BC is still
popular); others. A moderate Calvinist similar to Davenant, 4 Point Calvinist.
49. Thomas Watson (c. 1620-1686). Presbyterian. Studies at Cambridge. One of the most
famous Puritan preachers. Popular writer: A Body of Divinity (a systematic theology based on
the Westminster Shorter Catechism); The Lords Prayer; The Ten Commandments; The
Beatitudes; A Divine Cordial; Repentance; others.
50. Daniel Williams (1643-1716). Presbyterian, The leading Neonomian. Influenced by Baxter,
taught 4-point Calvinism with serious modifications. Taught that the Gospel is a new law,
obedience to which is justifying righteousness. Wrote The Gospel Truth. Wealthy, left his library
as the permanent Dr. Williams Library.
Other notable English Puritans:
Samuel Ward, Christopher Ness, Sir Richard Baker, William Bridge, Robert Bolton, John
Arrowsmith, John Downame, Richard Rogers, George Swinnock, Richard Greenham, Walter

565

Marshal, William Pemble, Ezekiel Hopkins, Vavasor Powell, Francis Roberts, John Eaton, John
Saltmarsh, Robert Towne, Obadiah Sedgewick, John Sedgewick, Thomas Taylor, Andrew
Willet, William Greenhill, Henry Scudder, Phillip Nye, William Jenkyn, Gen. Thomas Fairfax,
Matthew Mead, Elisha Coles, George Downame.

566

An Introduction to Calvinism
Curt Daniel

Introduction
Who rules the universe, God or Man? That is the basic question of theology. The system of
theology known as Calvinism answers without any apology or compromise, God is King.
Virtually all other systems of theology may say they agree, but upon closer scrutiny they place
Man on the throne with God, or even depose God completely and enthrone Man.
Perhaps you may have wondered just what this Calvinism is to make such a bold claim.
Obviously it is associated with the name of John Calvin, but its theology is much older. It is
taught in both testaments of the Bible. Many of the early church fathers taught it, especially the
great Augustine. Most of the Protestant Reformers were either Calvinists or in basic agreement
with its theology, such as Martin Luther. Then there were the English and American Puritans,
such as John Bunyan and Matthew Henry, almost all of whom believed in Calvinism. Later
Calvinist preachers and theologians include Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, Charles
Haddon Spurgeon, A.W. Pink, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and James I. Packer. Calvinism has
especially thrived in Britain, Holland and America.
Most Protestant denominations that originated in the Reformation are founded on official
confessions of faith that are clearly Calvinistic, such as the Westminster Confession
(Presbyterianism), the Canons of Dort (Reformed), the Thirty-nine Articles (Episcopalianism),
the Baptist Confession of 1689 (Baptists), the Savoy Declaration (Congregationalism), and
many others. Historic Lutheranism is very close to Calvinism. So, the theology of Calvinism is
quite old and has stood the test of time. It is not a theological fad.
Calvinism is a branch of Evangelical Christianity, holding to all the essentials of the faith, such
as the full authority of Scripture and the deity of Christ. Since the time of the Reformation,
Arminianism has been its chief rival within Evangelicalism. But while historic Calvinism has been
a bulwark against the inroads of rationalism and Liberalism, Arminianism tends to open the door
to Liberal theology. This is because Arminianism weakens the Godness of God and exalts the
humanity of Man, while Calvinism emphasizes over and over that God is God and Man is Man.
If one wanted to sum up the distinctives of Calvinism, then he need only learn the meaning of
the words, Sovereign Grace. All Evangelical theologies will agree that salvation is solely by
Gods grace, but Calvinism alone says that it is sovereignly given to whomever God chooses to
grant it. To fully understand the words, then, one must understand the Calvinist teaching on the
sovereignty of God and what we call the doctrines of grace. These are usually summed up as
the Five Points of Calvinism by the popular acronym TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional
Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. But, as we
shall see, it all gets back to the question of who rules the universe.
We might add that Calvinism stresses the five great doctrines rediscovered in the Protestant
Reformation, namely: Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Sola Fide
(faith alone), Solo Christo (Christ alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (to God alone be the glory). Since
we believe that all doctrines must be tested by Scripture (Acts 17:11; I Thess. 5:21; Isa. 8:20),
you are invited to search the Scriptures and see if Calvinism is indeed the teaching of the Word
of God.

567

The Sovereignty of God

To begin, we must go back into eternity past to when God alone existed. In the beginning, God
(Gen. 1:1). God has always existed and is self-existent (Rev. 1:8). God is therefore totally
independent of everything else. He alone is totally free and self-sufficient. He does not need
Man or anything in all Creation (Acts 17:25). He is perfect (Matt. 5:48) and is therefore perfectly
happy in Himself. God is so far above Man that we cannot even begin to comprehend Him of
ourselves (Isa. 57:15). In sum, God is God (Ex. 3:14).
Now we know that God created all things (Gen. 1:1). But have you ever wondered why God
created the universe? What moved Him to do that? Or even more, why does God do what He
does? God Himself tells us in His Word: Our God is in the Heavens. He does whatever He
pleases (Psa. 115:3. Cf. Psa. 135:5-6; Job 23:13; Eph. 1:11; Dan. 4:35). God does whatever
He wants to. This is the mere pleasure of God (Matt. 11:26). God does as He pleases, always
as He pleases, only as He pleases.
God willed to create a universe. But before He did the creating, He formed a plan (Jer. 49:20,
50:45). Scripture calls this His eternal purpose (Rom. 8:28, 9:11; Isa. 46:10-11; Eph. 3:11;
Acts 4:28; 2 Tim. 1:9). It is a blueprint for everything, as it were (cf. Luke 14:28-30). It is not
merely a wish or a command, but His decree that preprograms everything. He works all things
after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11. Cf. Psa. 33:11). Thus, it is absolutely essential to
see that God foreordained everything that will come to pass. He predestined everything that will
ever happen, down to the smallest detail. For from Him and through Him and to Him are all
things (Rom. 11:36).
Moreover, God will never change His mind on this eternal plan. His purpose shall stand forever
because God never changes (Jer. 4:28, 23:20, 30:24; I Sam. 15:29). Therefore, His purpose
shall most certainly come to pass exactly as He planned it. Nothing can prevent it (Psa. 33:11,
148:3; Tit. 1:2; Pro. 19:21; Isa. 14:27; Heb. 6:17; Job 42:1). Neither Man nor demon nor angel
can frustrate Gods eternal purpose from being accomplished, for all of their thoughts and
actions are included in that purpose. God did not consult with us, not even by foreseeing what
we would do or say. He consulted only with Himself within the Trinity (Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:34;
Isa. 40:13-14). With all this in view, then, we see that there is no such thing as chance, luck or
accidents. There are no coincidences; everything has been predestined. Why, God has even
determined in advance the flipping of a coin (Pro. 16:33; Jonah 1:7; Acts 1:24-26).
The Lord God omnipotent reigns (Rev, 19:6). God is King over everything that is, was or ever
shall be (Psa. 93:1, 99:1, 103:19). He is an absolute monarch, yea, the absolutest monarch of
all because He is King of Kings (Rev. 19:16), This is what we mean by the sovereignty of God.
He has 100% total authority over everything. The universe is not a democracy; it is a kingdom
ruled by God. And not only did He predestine all that happens in time, but in time He
sovereignly guides all things through Providence (Rom. 8:28, 11:36; Eph. 1:11). Lest somebody
object that this does not seem right, God reminds us that the universe is His property and He
can do whatever He wants to with it (Matt. 20:15). And He does just that - whatever He wants
to.
The question then arises, What is the final purpose for which God does all things? Though
God has not told us all the details of His secret plans (Deut. 29:29), He has granted us the
privilege of knowing the bottom line- What is it? The final goal of the whole universe is the glory
of God. From Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
(Rom. 11:36). He foreordained and created all things to display His glory, and everything will
give Him glory and praise at the end of time in eternity future (Pro. 16:4; Psa. 145:10; Phil. 2:11;
Rev. 4:11). God is the First Cause and Last End of all things. There is neither chance nor fate.

568

The universe has meaning, and so do we. We exist to give God glory.
This principle of the sovereignty of God must be clearly understood in order to grasp what
Calvinism is all about.

Total Depravity
God is sovereign, but He made Man a responsible being. This is a paradox. We must believe
both truths, for they are both taught in Scripture. Man is certainly accountable to God (Rom.
14:12; Eccl. 12U3-14). God created Adam and Eve as morally responsible persons. In fact, they
were created without any sin (Eccl. 7:29). But they fell into sin (Gen. 3). Since Adam was the
head of the race of humanity, and we are all descended from him, his sin affected the whole
human race (Rom. 5:12-19). Human nature ever since then is flawed by sin, and every human
being except Jesus Christ has inherited Original Sin (Psa. 51:5; Rom. 3). As a result, we all sin
by nature and by choice.
Man is born in sin with an evil and wicked nature (Eph. 2:3, Matt. 7:11). In fact, we share the
same evil nature as Satan (John 8:44). We sin because it is our nature to sin. Sin completely
fills every aspect of our beings from head to toe (Isa. 1:5-6). Our hearts (Eccl. 9:3) and minds
are filled with sin (Tit. 1:15; Eph. 4:17-19; I Tim. 3:8, 6:5). The heart is more deceitful than
anything else, and desperately wicked (Jer. 17:9). There is no good left in Man whatsoever
(Rom. 7:18). Man is basically evil, not good.
The Bible paints a grotesque picture of Man, far different than the beautiful idea Man imagines
of himself. Man is dead, not sick (Eph. 2:1; Col. 2:13). He is blind, not near-sighted (2 Cor.
3:14). His heart is as hard as stone (Ezek. 11:19; Jer. 23:29). By nature we are slaves of sin (2
Pet. 2:19; John 8:34; Rom. 6:16, 20) and slaves of the Devil (John 8:44; Eph. 2:2; 2 Tint. 2:26).
Calvinists utterly deny that Man has free will. How can it be free when Scripture so frequently
says that it is a slave? Man is enslaved to his sinful nature. Whats more, he is a willing slave
and does not want to be free. He would rather be a slave to sin than serve God as his king.
Theres more still. Because of the utter sinfulness of human nature, Man does not have the
moral ability to change his nature (Jer. 13:23). He cannot stop sinning or even want to stop
sinning (2 Pet. 2:14). Everything he does has a sinful motive behind it, even when he does what
outwardly appears to be good. The wickedness of Man was great on the Earth, and that every
intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen. 6:5). Man never obeys God.
He is unable any longer to truly obey God (Rom. 8:7-8; Matt. 7:18). He never seeks God (Rom.
3:11) and is unwilling to come to God for help (John 5:40). He is unwilling because he is unable
(John 6:44, 65).
Calvinism also denies that Man is ever morally neutral (Matt. 6:24, 12:20). Man is always set
against God. His will is not neutral or self-determining. He always wills in accordance with his
nature; since his nature is evil, his thoughts and motives are always evil. But this moral inability
does not annul his responsibility. Quite the contrary - it compounds his guilt. Remember, this
sinfulness is self-inflicted. God does riot cancel Mans debt simply because Man has
squandered the loan and is unable to pay God back. Marr is guilty and deserves to go to Hell
(Rom. 6:23). Granted, there are degrees of sin. Some sins are worse than others, and some
sinners are worse than other sinners (John 19:11). But even the least sinner is totally depraved
and morally unable to obey. At heart, all men love sin and hate God with all their hearts (John
3:19-20; Pro. 21:10; Matt. 6:24). He is totally without hope (Eph. 2:12), without strength to obey
(Rom. 5:6) and without excuse (Rom. 2:1).

569

No theology except Calvinism teaches the full truth about the sinfulness of Man.

Unconditional Election
Man cannot save himself in whole or in part. Only God can save Man. The good news of the
Gospel is that God has provided a way of salvation through Christ (I Cor. 15:1-4). But to
understand Gods way of salvation, we have to again go back to the eternal mind of God in
predestination.
Before all things were created, God foreordained to divide all mankind into two groups. Some
would be His people and the rest would be left in their sins (Rom. 9). First, let us look at what
the Bible teaches concerning the doctrine of election. In its simplest form, it is this: He chose
us (Eph. 1:4). He did this in eternity past, not in time (2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:4).
Those whom He chose are called the elect (Matt. 24:22, 31; Mark 13:20; Luke 18:7, etc.).
They are sinners who have been chosen to receive salvation (I Thess. 5:9; 2 Thess. 2:13). What
moved God to chose them in the first place? God chose them by sovereign grace alone (2 Tim.
1:9; Deut. 7:7-8). God elected them to receive mercy (Rom. 9:23), to go to Heaven (Matt.
25:34), to be made perfectly holy (Eph. 1:4), and to be totally glorified (Rom. 8:29-30). God
chose the elect in Christ (Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 16:13).
In a general sense, God wills all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4). But in another, higher sense, God
chose only some sinners to be saved. When He chose them, He wrote their names down in the
Book of Life (Luke 10:20; Rev. 13:8, 17:8). The Father chose them and gave them to Jesus
(John 17:2, 6, 9, 24). God chose the elect. Christ is also God, so He had a vital part in this
choice. What was it? Jesus chose His own bride from amonq the mass of humanity. This was
His right and privilege. He said, You did not choose Me, but I chose you (John 15:11). Nor did
He choose the elect on the basis of anything He foresaw in them, for all He foresaw in their
nature was sin. He foreknew the elect in the sense of knowing them in love from all eternity
(Rom. 8-29- I Pet 1-2 cf. Amos 3:2). Remember, Scripture says, He chose us (Eph. 1:4). He
did not choose us because He foresaw we would chose Him. Rather, He chose us solely out of
free grace. This election is personal. He chose the elect by name. And since it is unconditional
upon anything in us, it is absolutely sure that all the elect will be saved one day. Election is
irreversible. And when one comes to believe in Christ unto salvation, he then has the privilege
of knowing that he is one of the elect (2 Pet. 1:10).
But God did not choose all men. He did not choose Satan or any of the demons, and He did not
chose all sinful human beings. Some are elected, the rest were left in their sins (Rom. 9). This is
the doctrine of Reprobation, or non-election. Since they were not chosen to salvation but left in
their sins, they were foreordained to receive the due penalty for their sins - eternal wrath (I
Thess. 5:9; I Pet. 2:8; Pro. 16-4) Their names were not written in the Book of Life in eternity past
(Rev. 13-8, 17-8) nor were they ever known by Christ in the election of grace (Matt. 7:23). In
time, God leaves them in their evil nature and even hardens their hearts and further blinds their
minds (John 12:39-40; Rom. 9:18, 11:7; Deut. 2:30; Josh. 11:20). God is fattening them up for
the slaughter which they deserve.
Busiest anyone think this is unfair, God replies, Who are you, O Man, that answers Back to
God? (Rout. 9:20). No man can blame God, for Man is sinful Man and God is a holy God. No
man deserves to be elected; all deserve to be rejected. The wonder is not that God rejected
some sinners; the wonder is that He chose any sinners to be saved.

570

Limited Atonement
God, then, chose some sinners to be saved. This did not make them saved at that time. It only
guaranteed that they certainly would be saved in the end. Two more things needed to be done:
prepare the means for their salvation and apply it to them. First, we read in Scripture that God
foreordained that Jesus Christ would become a man and would die on the Cross as the means
of salvation (Acts 2:23, 4:28). Christ died as a substitute for others (I Cor. 15:3; Rom. 5:8). He
suffered the infinite wrath of God for sin, and satisfied that wrath. This is called propitiation (I
John 2:2, 4:10). Because Jesus was a perfect man and God in the flesh, His sacrifice had
infinite value. He did not pay an exact equivalent for our sins; He paid a super-abundant
payment infinitely above what we owed. All that He did would have been necessary had only
one sinner been chosen, but He would not have had to do any more had all sinners been
chosen.
Historic Calvinists teach that there are two aspects of this one atonement. The first is that there
is a sense in which Christ died for all men everywhere (John 1-29, 3-16 4:42, 6:33, 51; 2 Cor.
5:14, 19; I Tim. 2:4-6; I John 2:2; 2 Pet. 2:1). By His death on the Cross He removed all legal
barriers in case any man believes. His death for all men also purchased the common bounties
of life for all men. It also secured a delay of judgment for them, as it were, though not a
permanent one. All will one day be judged, but the fact that all. men are not already in Hell is
due to the atonement of Christ. Moreover, on the basis of this universal aspect of the
atonement, salvation is offered freely to all men: Come and dine, for all is ready! (cf. Matt.
22:2-14; Luke 14:16-24). Also, Christ died for all men in this sense in order to be Lord of all
men, whether alive or dead, elect or non-elect (Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:10-11).
Most Evangelicals will agree with this analysis so far, but Calvinists go yet further. We-teach
that the death of Christ is sufficient for all men, but is efficient only for the elect. There is a sense
in which Christ died for all, but there is a sense in which He died only for the elect. He died for
all, but especially for the elect (I Tim. 4:10). He purchased some blessings for all men, but all
blessings for some men. Since the elect are scattered throughout the world and mingled
together with the non-elect, Christ purchased the whole world with the special intent of owning
the elect (cf. Matt. 13:44). This special aspect-of the atonement is what is called Limited
Atonement. Some call it Particular Redemption.
Eph. 5:25 says, Christ also loved the Church [the elect] and gave Himself up for her. A man
loves all other persons, but has a special love for his wife and will do some things for her that he
will not do for all other persons. The same is true with Christ. He has a general love for all men
and did something for all men at the Cross because they were His creatures. But He has a
special love for His bride and did something special for her at the Cross. He died for her in such
a way as to guarantee that she would be saved, made perfectly holy and ready for Heaven (vs.
26).
There are other verses that indicate this special intent of the atonement. John 10:15, 17 and 18
say that Christ the Good Shepherd died for the sheep. Lest somebody think that this could
include all men everywhere, Christ goes on to say that some people are not His sheep (vs. 26).
Hence, there is a sense in which He died for the sheep (the elect) and not for the goats and
wolves (the non-elect). Later in John 15:13-14, Christ said that He would lay down His life for
His friends. But not all men are His friends. Isa. 53:8 prophesied that Christ would die for
Gods people, but not all men are Gods people - only the elect. Acts 20:28 says that Christ
purchased the Church with His blood, but not all men are the Church. Further, Rom. 8:32 says
that if God gave Christ to die for us, then He will surely give us all other things. Since He does
not give all these things of salvation to all men, then it follows that Christ was not given for them

571

at the Cross in this special way. Christ died so as to make possible the salvation of all men, but
He also died to make definite the salvation of the elect alone. It was designed for the elect.
Again, there are many objections to this truth, but they can all be answered by pointing out that
no man deserved for Christ to die for him. Actually, there is no dispute that Christ did not die for
Satan or the demons; the atonement is clearly limited there. But the non-elect are in the same
situation as Satan - none will be saved because none were elected. The thing to keep in mind is
that the atonement was designed for the elect.

Irresistible Grace
God chose the elect and Christ died for them in a special way, but this redemption must be
applied to them in order for them to be saved. This leads us to the Fourth Point of Calvinism.
First, let us get the general picture and then the precise focus. As we have shown, there is a
general sense in which God loves all men as His creatures (Matt. 5:44-45; Luke 6:35-36; Psa.
33:5, 145:9, 14-16). We call this Common Grace. God gives them the bounties of life on this
planet. Moreover, there is that sense in which God wills all men everywhere to be saved (I Tim.
2:4), and so He offers them salvation indiscriminately. We call this the Free Offer of the Gospel,
and it is seen in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). God issues a general call to all who
hear the Gospel (Matt. 22:14). All who hear are invited. But because all men are totally
depraved and hate God, they resist this call and the work of the Spirit (Acts 7:51).
Evangelicals agree so far, but again Calvinists go a step further. God has a special love for the
elect and will do more than simply give an external invitation. He does something that
guarantees that they will accept this invitation. He overwhelms them with what we call
Irresistible Grace. In addition to the general call to all men, God gives them a special call (Rom.
8:28-30; 2 Pet. 1:10), or what Paul describes as a holy calling (2 Tim. 1:9). It is a calling by
special grace (Gal. 1:15). God thereby draws the elect irresistibly to Himself with special loving
kindness (Jer. 31:1; Hoes. 11:4; Song 1:4). He causes the elect to come to Him (Psa. 65:4) by
turning our wills around (Pro. 21:1). This is irresistible, for God drags us to Christ (John 6:44)
and compels us by divine omnipotence to come (Luke 14:23). He actually changes our wills so
that we come willingly (Phil. 2:13; Psa. 110:3).
Now, exactly how does God do this? There is much mystery in how God works grace in the
hearts of the elect, but the Bible tells us some definite things about the process. God
sovereignly opens the dead hearts of the elect (Acts 16:14). It is not that they opened their
hearts to receive Christ; Christ opened their hearts that He might enter. Only as a result can it
be said that they opened the door. So, He opens our hearts, and with the doors of our hearts
being opened we can hear His voice (John 10:16, 27). This is not, of course, a literal voice but
rather the special call of Christ in Scripture. In the process, God sovereignly gives the elect the
new birth (John 3:1-8, 5:21; James 1:18). They did not regenerate themselves; they were
regenerated sovereignly by Gods free grace (John 1:13). No spiritually dead man can make
himself alive any more than a corpse can. Matter cannot create itself, and the new birth is a new
creation that is sovereignly given by Gods grace (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). It is spiritual
resurrection (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13).
The elect are not born again because they believe; rather, they believe because they have been
born again (I John 5:1). The new birth is a sovereign gift, and so is faith (2 Pet. 1:1; Eph. 2:8-9;
Phil. 1:29; John 3:27, 6:65; I Cor. 3:6, 4:7; Rom. 12:3). Repentance is also a free gift that is
sovereignly bestowed (2 Tim. 2:25; Acts 5:31, 11:18). Since, then, the elect now have faith, God
justifies them and they are saved.

572

The distinctive of Calvinism on this point is that, Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9). If any
man is ever to be saved, it is only by Gods free grace from first to last. Evangelicals in general
will agree that salvation is by grace and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9), but Calvinists go a step
further and state that this saving grace is sovereignly given to the elect. It is not merely offered,
for it is offered to all. It is sovereignly and irresistibly given to the elect and to them alone. It is
not given to the non-elect.

Perseverance of the Saints

God has sworn two blessings of salvation for the elect. First, He promised to keep them forever
and never forsake them. Second, He promised to work within them so that they will not fall away
from Him. Both blessings are expressly promised in Jer. 32:40.
The Fifth Point of Calvinism takes its title from Rev. 13:10 and 14:12, the perseverance of the
saints. God promised to preserve the elect, and once they are saved they most certainly are
preserved, kept and guarded by God Himself (Psa. 37:28, 66:9, 97:10, 145:14, 20; I Tim. 1:12).
God swore never to leave or forsake the elect (Psa. 94:14; Heb. 13:5). Jesus promised that He
would never cast out any who came to Him (John 6:37). The elect are kept in the same way in
which they were saved in the first place, namely, by the invincible power of God (I Pet. 1:5).
This is especially explicit in John 10:28, where Jesus says, I give them eternal life, and they
shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. The elect are eternally secure
in the hands of Christ and the Father. God keeps them safe from Satan (I John 5:18; John
17:11, 12, 15; 2 Thess. 3:3; Luke 22:31-32). It is true that the elect slip and fall into sin. But
when they do, God catches them when they fall (Deut. 33:27) and makes them stand again
(Rom. 14:4). Even when the elect let go of Gods hand, Gods hand does not let go of them
(Psa. 37:24).
So, the elect will always be saved. Why? Because they were eternally elected by grace (Rom.
8:29-30) and nothing can separate them from the grace and love of Christ (Rom. 8:35-39).
Christ loves His bride too much to let her go. He will not lose even a single one of those who
were chosen (John 6:39). Rom. 5:9-10 reasons that if Christ loved us enough to die for us, then
surely He will do as much to keep us saved (cf. 8:32). Scripture most clearly teaches once
saved, always saved. Salvation has a ratchet effect; it is irrevocable (Rom. 8:1, 11:29;-EccV.
3:14). Furthermore, when the elect are irresistibly drawn to Christ and regenerated by free
grace, they are sealed by the Holy Spirit as a guarantee that they will always be Gods
property (Eph. 1:13, 4:30).
Now, Scripture also says that one must persevere in faith and obedience to make it to Heaven
(Heb. 12:14). Those whose lives are not characterized by this are not saved persons, and they
will not make it to Heaven (I Cor. 6:9; Eph. 5:5). Only those who persevere to the end will be
saved (Matt, 10:22, 24:13). But the glory of it all is that the elect most certainly shall persevere
to the end (Job 17:9). They will continue in saving faith, for faith is a gift and Christ is the author
and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2). So, in reality, it is the perseverance of the Savior.
The true believer has received a new nature in regeneration, and so is not completely bound by
the total depravity in which he was first born. This new nature guarantees that he will not
(indeed, cannot) live in permanent, perpetual unbelief and disobedience (I John 3:4-12). Thus,
the elect shall bear fruit (Matt. 7:17-18) and shall continue in good works (James 2:14-26). God
guarantees that the elect will always eventually repent when they sin (Pro. 24:17). All this is
essential to the Fifth Point of Calvinism. The doctrine of eternal security totally excludes the
possibility of a regular life of sin for true believers. But the vital question is, How? The Calvinist

573

answers, The elect persevere because God perseveres in them. God promised to finish what
He began in the elect (Phil. 1:6; Psa. 138:8; I Cor. 1:8-9). He will preserve the elect and glorify
them in the end (Rom. 8:30).
Those who fall away by apostasy were never saved to being with. Had they been true
Christians, they would have persevered and been preserved (I John 2:19). This Fifth Point of
Calvinism, then, teaches both the preservation and perseverance of the saints by the sovereign
grace and power of God.

Conclusion
There have been, of course, many objections against the doctrines of Calvinism. Most of them
boil down to two. The first contends that these doctrines are not true, for the reason that God is
not totally sovereign. This objection is without foundation, for Scripture repeatedly states that
God is sovereign. The second objection is founded on the mistaken notion of Mans free will.
As we have shown, Man is responsible but not free. He is a slave to sin until freed by Christ.
Scripture teaches free grace, not free will. Underlying these objections is the secret [and
sometimes open) objection, Thats not fair! This is worst of all, for it is a direct accusation
against God. It mistakenly presupposes that Man has rights, when he has none. Man is a guilty,
totally depraved enemy of God Almighty. Those who offer these objections would do well to
read Rom. 9:20 and Ezek. 18:25.
The Doctrines of Grace have a twofold effect. First, they humble the sinner and encourage the
saint. They give Man his due place. Calvinism also invigorates the believer, who knows that if
the sovereign God is for him, who can be against him? (Rom. 8:31) The second effect is that
they give great glory to God. God is God, and He will not give His glory to another (Isa. 42:8,
48:11). Calvinism recognizes that Man is Man and God is God. We exist for Gods glory. And so
our song shall ever be, To God alone be the glory!

Recommended Reading on Calvinism

Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Carlisle: Banner of Truth; and Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House). Edwin palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House).
Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed). R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God (Wheaton: Tyndale House). Gordon Clark,
Predestination (Philiipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed). Arthur C. Custance, The Sovereignty
of Grace (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed). C- Samuel Storms, Chosen For Life (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House). John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols.
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press). David Steele and Curtis Thomas, The Five Points of
Calvinism (Phi 11ipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed). John T. McNeill, The History and
Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press). Louis Berkhof, Systematic
Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

574