Another Christmas

I hope you had a very merry and blessed Christmas and were able to spend time with family and friends.

As I write this, Christmas Day was four days ago, and it's "all over" for another year. It is true the presents have been opened, the festive food and drink consumed, the carols sung, the Christmas servces attended. Soon our focus will move on to the New Year celebrations—always a strong tradition in my native Scotland—and the resolutions and plans for 2025.

Yet the thing is that Christmas cannot simply be "all over" or "put away" like the boxes of decorations until next December.

What we celebrate at Christmastime is that the birth of Jesus made the world different. It could never be the same again. 

If you are Christian, you understand this already. Anyone reading this who is not yet a Christian, I hope one day you will come to understand it soon.

The coming of Jesus to this world really does mean it is like Christmas every day (and not just in the words of a chessy Christmas pop song).

One of the titles given to Jesus is "Immanuel" which as Matthew 1:23 says (quoting from Isaiah 7:14), means "God with us."

His coming was not a temporary visit. He came to be with us and he is still with us now, in our hearts and by the Holy Spirit.

I pray that you will have Immanuel with you and in you, as we head into the new year in a few day's time.

Waiting for God

The season of advent focuses the Christian church on the need to wait for God. Waiting should be seen as a spiritual discipline. In our modern world, to deliberately stop and wait for something is a very countercultural act. As a culture we prioritise, maybe even idolise, speed and limitation, if not the elimination, of waiting.

During advent, we spend four weeks focusing on the wait. The wait of God's people for centuries for the Messiah to come in his birth at Christmas. We focus too on the wait of God's people for centuries for the Messiah to come again to judge the world and reign over a new heavens and new earth in the eternal Kingdom.

The Bible values waiting. Isaiah 40:31 reads: "They who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint."

In Psalm 130:5-6, we read: "I wait for the Lord, my soul waits, and in his word I hope; my soul waits for the Lord more than watchmen for the morning, more than watchmen for the morning."

I always find these verses among the most emotional in the Psalms, especially that use of repetition in verse 6. 

Are we waiting for the Lord this advent? Waiting not only for Christmas, which Lord willing, will surely come around again later this month. Waiting not only for the return of Jesus, which will surely come at the appointed time. But are we waiting on the Lord as the Psalmist waited, with hope in his word, and with a longing to be redeemed and see all our nation redeemed, set free to love and serve the living God.

I pray we are waiting with expectation and readiness, and more than watchmen waiting for the morning, more than watchmen waiting for the morning.

Election and Those Who Call on the Name of the Lord

In Romans 10:9-11, Paul writes these words: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' The verse quoted in verse 11 is Isaiah 28:16. Then in verse 13 he quotes from Joel 2:32: "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Some people see a contradiction between the Paul of chapter 10 and the Paul of the preceding chapter 9, which focuses on the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. In fact, there is no contradiction. None. It is simultaneously true and non-contradictory to say as Paul does in Romans 9:15-16 (quoting from Exodus 33:19), "He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" and then to state that everyone who wants to be saved and calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Unfortunately, some people seem to have this idea that there are people out there who want to be saved, who want to believe in Jesus, who want to love God, and the big bad Calvinist view of predestination somehow stops them. As if they were knocking at the door of heaven and they get turned away because they are not on the guest list drawn up before they were born.

Such a view is a caricature of the Reformed faith and an outright lie from the pit of hell.

According to this view, the group of the elect and the group of those who would like to be saved are like this diagram:

In this view the two circles represent the elect chosen for salvation (the blue circle) and sinners who want to be saved (the red circle). Notice that the two circles overlap, but there is a section of the red circle outside the circle of election. According to this false view, there are some people who want to be saved, want to believe in Christ and want to love God, but are prevented by God from being saved.

This view is utterly wrong. The truth is that outside the circle of election there is no one who wants to be saved, wants to follow Christ or loves God. Or to put it another way, there is no part of the circle of those who want to be saved outside the circle of the elect. The two groups are entirely coextensive. The true picture is found in this diagram:

Hopefully, once this truth is grasped, one of the lies told against Calvinism can be buried. There has never been anyone who called on the name of the Lord for rescue who was not rescued. There has never been anyone who believed in Jesus Christ who was not saved. There is no one who wants heaven—the reality of heaven and a covenant life with the triune God—but is not elect. Rather, the opposite is true, which is why the doctrine of election is a doctrine of comfort and help for believers and has been (and still is) considered by many to be a great spur for evangelism and mission. 

If you wish you were elect so you could be saved, this is surest sign that you are one of the elect. Never forget that, brothers and sisters.

Why Does God Choose Some and Not Others?

As ever, John Piper gives an excellent response to the question, "Why does God choose some and not others?" based on Romans 9.

 

 His book that he mentions, The Justification of God is an excellent exposition of Romans 9 as well.

Infralapsarianism Considered

Having previously provided some links to supralapsarian resources online, it only seems right to bring together some resources on the more common Reformed view of predestination, known as infralapsarianism.

Essentially, infralapsarianism is the view that the decree to elect some for salvation and reject others for salvation comes logically after the decision to permit humanity's fall into sin. Hence the term—infra (below, beneath or after) and lapsus (the fall).

This is by far the more common view among Reformed theologians, with some estimating that historically around 5% of Calvinists have been supralapsarians and 95% infralapsarians.

As with some other issues, it is difficult to neatly class John Calvin himself as either definitively infralapsarian or supralapsarian. The dispute among Reformed theologians that gave rise to these terms happened a generation or two after Calvin's death. However, at least in some passages, Calvin seems to view election as being from fallen mankind, which tends towards the infralapsarian view.

Likewise, some theologians seem to reject both infra- and supra- views, most notably Herman Bavinck, while Robert Lewis Dabney objected that the question had even been raised in theology. In the modern day, people like John Frame seem to reject having to choose between either option.

Others, such as Louis Berkhof and Robert Letham, do not decisively come down for infralapsarianism, seeing some logic to the supralapsarian stance, though they do not affirm it, they at least show some sympathy towards the other viewpoint.

The Canons of Dort are infralapsarian in their teaching. The Westminster Confession and Catechisms likewise tend towards the infrapsarianism held to by most of the Westminster divines, while being carefully enough worded that the supralapsarians in the Assembly could also support the chosen wording as far as it goes.

Some useful materials on infralapsarianism include the following:

"Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism" by Loraine Boetter: https://covenant-presbyterian.blogspot.com/2024/10/supralapsarian-links.html

"Divine Decrees" by Sam Storms: https://www.samstorms.org/all-articles/post/divine-decrees  

"Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Barry Cooper: https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/supralapsarianism-and-infralapsarianism 

 "Predestination and the Divine Decree" by Robert Letham: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/predestination-divine-decree/

 "Theological Primer: Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Kevin DeYoung: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/theological-primer-supralapsarianism-and-infralapsarianism/ 

 "Notes on Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Phillip R. Johnson: http://www.romans45.org/articles/sup_infr.htm 

Personally, I favour a modified infralapsarian view. The standard infralapsarian view is correct insofar as it goes. I just rhink there is more interconnectedness in the internal workings of God's decree than infralapsarianism usually allows for. Infralapsarianism has a decision to create, then (logically, not chronologically) a decision to permit the fall, neither of which's purpose can be explained before a third decision to elect and reprobate. I believe that behind these is an overarching purpose which these elements of the decree serve, namely for God to glorify himself in Christ, in all things, through having a covenant people to glorify and enjoy him forever in love, friendship and fellowship with him. This primary purpose is alluded to in Ephesians 1:5: "he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."

And this purpose or counsel of God ultimately is to the praise of his own glory. As Scripture describes God's purpose " The purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory" (Ephesians 1:11-12) and "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever" (Romans 11:36).  

Appearance of Age in Creation

Although I'm currently open-minded as to whether six-day young earth creationism is correct or not, I'm pretty sure that if God created the universe in six ordinary 24-hour days, then he certainly created a mature creation in that time. 

In other words, God created Adam and Eve as mature adults, not as babies, so if a scientist had been able to see them on the day they were made, every indication would be that they were 20-30 years old. The same would seem to hold for all the rest of creation: mature birds, fish and animals, full-grown trees in Eden, and so forth.

One of the main arguments against a young creation with a mature (i.e. much older) appearance has always been that this makes God deceptive in His creative acts.

I have to say that I find this one of the least convincing objections imaginable.

If God did create the universe that includes mature animals and plants in the way described in Genesis, how can God be accused of any deception? If this interpretation is correct, God has plainly stated the timescale of creation both in the Genesis accounts of chapters one and two and in the genealogies that follow in Genesis, and He has plainly stated that he made Adam and Eve as grown adults. Quite how this can be viewed as deceptive since God has explicitly explained creation in a way that demands a variance between appearance and actual chronological age I have never understood.

Deception would be to say he literally created in ordinary six days, but in fact took billions of years. (Note, this is not the same as arguing that the days are to be taken other than as literal history or are not ordinary 24-hour days). 

It is no deception to reveal He literally created in six days thousands of years ago if in fact He did so, even if the creation included an appearance of a history it never in fact had. How could a mature human being be created in an instant be otherwise? It is no more a deception than Jesus' miracle of turning water into wine at Cana could be considered deception, since the wine instantly created had all the appearance of having once grown as grapes, been picked, pressed, fermented, stored and matured, when it never had.

If I were going to be a young earth creationist, this would be where I would probably construct at least part of my argument for how it is possible to take the creation account literally without rejecting the claims of mainstream science. This is not a popular approach, even among young earth creationists, but I think the appearance of age must be at least part of the answer and can be arrived at on the face of the text in Genesis just as much as the days being 24 hours long.

I think the appearance of age view is a useful approach if a literal view of Genesis 1 and a young earth is advocated.

God's Natural Knowledge and His Decree

One of the most difficult areas of theology concerns the interplay between God’s knowledge (or foreknowledge) and what comes to pass in space and time. Every theological position comes at this issue in a different way, depending on their other theological commitments.

The specific issue is between the content of what is often termed "God’s Natural Knowledge" (also sometimes called "God's Necessary Knowledge") and everything that happens in reality from the first instant of creation through to the final consummation of all things in the new creation.

God’s natural knowledge could be defined as that part of God’s knowledge by which he perfectly knows himself, his very nature or essence. Since his essence is necessary, it follows that his natural knowledge includes all necessary truths. Since God's knowledge of himself must, by definition, include knowledge of everything God could do or permit in his creation, this knowledge includes knowledge of all possible creations, all possible creatures and all possible events that could happen to all those possible creatures. His natural knowledge contains every logically possible truth.

God's natural knowledge is often spoken of by Molinists, who distinguish between God's natural knowledge of possibilities and God's free knowledge of what will come to pass. Molinists also posit a third type of knowledge called "middle knowledge" which comes between the other other two and is God's knowledge of what free creatures would do in all feasible circumstances in which they could be placed.

Calvinists, by contrast only speak of God's natural (or necessary) knowledge and God's free knowledge of what will come to pass because God has decreed it.

Because Molinists often speak of natural knowledge, some of the best defintions of natural knowledge come from the Molinists. Here are some definitions:

“God knows all possibilities, including all necessary truths (e.g., the laws of logic), all the possible individuals and worlds he might create, as well as everything that every possible individual could freely do in any set of circumstances in which that individual found itself and everything that every possible stochastic [chance] process could randomly do in any set of circumstances where it existed…God knows his natural knowledge…as indispensable to his very nature, such that God could not lack this knowledge and still be God.” —Kirk R. MacGregor, Luis Molina: The Life and Theology of the Founder of Middle Knowledge (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, Kindle Edition, p. 92)

“With natural knowledge God knows everything that could logically happen.”—Max Andrews, An Introduction to Molinism (Kindle Edition, pp. 38-39)

“God’s natural knowledge includes knowledge of all possibilities. He knows all the possible individuals he could create, all the possible circumstances he could place them in, all their possible actions and reactions, and all the possible worlds or orders which he could create. God could not lack this knowledge and still be God; the content of God’s natural knowledge is essential to him.” —William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God.

The following quote is from the Reformed theological perspective:

“Natural knowledge is God’s knowledge of all necessary truths. What this means is that God’s natural knowledge includes those things that are impossible not to be true, such as the law of non-contradiction (LNC) and God’s attributes. For example, there is no possibility that an object while being a rock is not a rock (LNC), or that God can be other than holy (divine attribute). We might observe up front that objects of natural knowledge are true without God willing them to be so. Rather, objects of natural knowledge are true because they are grounded in God’s unwilled nature. In addition to these sorts of necessary truths, God also knows all possibilities according to his natural knowledge. From a distinctly Reformed perspective, God’s natural knowledge of all possibilities correlates to God’s self-knowledge of what he can do. Which is to say, God can actualize all possibilities, which is not a tenet of Molinism.” —Ron DiaGiamo, “The Reformed Doctrine of Divine Foreknowledge – A Call for A Coherent and Unified Voice (https://philosophical-theology.com/2024/07/01/the-reformed-doctrine-of-divine-foreknowledge-a-call-for-a-coherent-and-unified-voice/)

This is an excellent point. Everything that God could have decreed (i.e. absolutely everything you could ever imagine having been decreed that is not illogical) and God’s natural knowledge of all possibilities are two ways of looking at the same body of possibilities. One limitation of Molinism is that there may be no feasible worlds in which person A would freely do act B at time C. But, provided A, B and C are not illogical nonsense, there is always a possible world in which God could decree that A would do B at time C in a Calvinist paradigm where free will means compatibilist freedom. There is less constraint on God—thanks to compatibilist free will—in Calvinism than there is in Molinism.

Also of interest are Paul Helm’s views found in his blog article “Shunning Middle Knowledge” (http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2009/05/shunning-middle-knowledge.html)

Helm’s views have been influencing on me (as they have been on theologians like Terrance Tiessen I believe) that in Reformed theology with a determinative decree and compatibilist freedom, there is no need for the concept of middle knowledge at all. All we need is natural knowledge (the knowledge God has in himself by his own nature as God) and the free knowledge of everything that will be in line with what he himself has decreed.

I believe this is correct and I think some Calvinists muddy the waters by arguing that all counterfactual truths and possibilities are also part of the decree and are dependent for their existence on the decree. I can see no need why anything other than what comes to pass needs to be part of the decree.

Finally, look at Terrance Tiessen who seems to hold a view similar to what I am proposing: https://www.thoughtstheological.com/introducing-calvinism-and-middle-knowledge-a-conversation/

It is interesting that it seems to be always Molinists who talk about God’s natural knowledge. Why don’t Reformed theologians make greater use of this concept?

Linking God's natural knowledge of all possibilities by way of the eternal decree to God's exhaustive free knowledge of what will come to pass seems to me to be a very fruitful way of approaching subjects such as God's sovereignty over evil and his power to decree evil to occur without in any way being the author of sin.

If God has natural or necessary knowledge in himself of all possibilities, this means he has such knowledge of all possible evils, as well as all the matrices and nodes of secondary causation, free choices, and the circumstances that precede any evils as well as the impact or outcomes of any evils. If God has such knowledge, his ability to sovereignly decree evil to occur is entirely possible by a purely permissive decree. 

In other words, by way of natural or necessary knowledge of all possibilities and by a permissive decree, God can allow evil to certainly occur without in any sense having to be the author of sin. He merely has to let creatures act in ways of their own choosing. This concept destroys criticism of Calvinism from Arminians and others who mistakenly think that if God decrees an evil to take place this means God somehow has to positively bring that evil about. 

A "Calvinist" God who knows all possibilities and chooses to allow certain evils to take place is no more blameworthy than a "Molnist" or "Arminian" God who does the same thing.

I believe this approach is fully in line with the relevant teachings of the Westminster Confession of Faith as outlined in these excerpts:

WCF, II.2: “In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.”

WCF, III.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.”

WCF, III.2: “Although God knows 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 conditions.”

WCF, III.3: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”

WCF, V.1: “God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.”

WCF, V.2: “Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly: yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.”

WCF, V.4: “The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to His own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be, the author or approver of sin.”

I don’t think Calvinists make enough use of God’s natural knowledge in our theology. I have heard Calvinists say that the reason God knows what will happen is because God decreed it to happen. That is true as far as it goes, but it is like looking at a cropped picture. This is where I think natural knowledge, which is prevolitional and logically before the decree comes in.

God’s decree does decide what will happen. As the Confession says: “God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (WCF, III.1). But God’s decree does not simply come out of nowhere. God has natural knowledge logically prior to the decree and the decree flows out of God’s natural knowledge. We might even say that God’s natural knowledge of all logical possibilities includes knowledge of all possible decrees God could have put into effect. From all these, he chose one to be the decree that ordains everything in this world. 

I think the important point, in terms of God not being the author of sin, is that God does not have to actively decree anything evil to happen. He can decree is permissively, genuinely permissively, as long as he has natural knowledge that an actor will behave in a certain way in certain conditions. While this is similar in some respects to the Molinist explanation of foreordination via middle knowledge of libertarian choices, this Reformed providential mechanism is different because it is based only on natural knowledge of all possibilities along with a compatibilist view of freedom. Compatibilist freedom or free will is the view that free will and divine determinism are compatible. The explanation for this is because the view accepts a choice was made freely as long as (a) the actor did what he wanted to do, (b) he was neither forced nor coerced so to act.

If God has natural knowledge of all possibilities, this must include knowledge of what any creature would choose to do in any possible matrix of characteristics, desires, conditions and situations, and all causal linkages from the first nanosecond of creation. That knowledge, in combination with a compatibilist view of human free will, is enough to account for a providential model in which God can decree everything which comes to pass yet is in no sense the author of sin.

And this is the Reformed or Calvinist model of providence I believe best accounts for the entirety of scriptural teaching.

We Need Another Bible Translation

You might be forgiven for thinking that the last thing we need is ye t another Bible translation in English. There are already a plethora or committee and single-author translations of the whole Bible or the New Testament.

There are some 56 versions available on the Biblegateway website alone. There are estimated to be somewhere around 900 English translations in total of either the whole Bible or the New Testament.

There are translations of every stripe from the historical King James Version on the one hand to "The Message" paraphrase on the other.

There are MANY excellent mainstream translations widely available in print or online including the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Amercian Standard Bible, New King James Version, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation and others.

Why on earth would anyone claim we need another one?

I have one good reason why we could do with at least one more.

Of all the versions widely available today and produced by a translation committee as opposed to the work of a single individual, there are two based on the historic Textus Receptus Greek New Testament (this is the text published at the time of the Reformation and on which the King James Version is based - as well as similar translations in other languages such as Luther's Bible in German). These are the King James Version (1611) and the New King James Verion (1982). The Textus Receptus reflects the majority of Greek manuscripts most of the time, but also includes a number of "minority" readings, and a few with little or no Greek support at all.

All other modern committee translations are based on what is known as the "Critical text" of the New Testament. The critical text, in places where there are textual variants in the Greek, tends to follow a low number of the oldest manuscripts rather than vast majority of Greek manuscripts.

There are currently NO versions produced by a committee based entirely on what could be called either the Majority Text or the Byzantine Text. This Greek text reproduces the text which the great majority of Greek manuscripts contain. In most variants, the Byzantine Text represents 95% or more of the existing Greek manuscripts. The Critical Text tends to accept the evidence of a very small number of witnesses (sometimes as little as one or two manuscripts) and often under 5% of the manuscripts.

The difficulty is that the oldest manuscripts that tend to be given more weight by textual critics are few in number while the Byzantine Text has the support of the great majority of manuscripts, but these are later in date. Which one is favoured is a complex issue. The question is which text represents to original authentic text? Is the few earliest witnesses (1-5% of the Greek evidence) or the majority of later witness (frequently 95%+ of the Greek manuscripts)?

I have always found it difficult to accept that the correct original text lay largely undiscovered to the church at large for over a thousand years before being recovered in the 19th century and reconstructed over the course of 100 years from the 1880s onwards. Equally, I find it very difficult that when the manuscripts are examined, often 95-99% of manuscripts are deemed WRONG (even where they frequently agree with one another) and the correct text is deemed to be found in a small handful of early manuscripts. Yet all modern translations widely available are based on this Critical Text (except the NKJV as noted).

To give a couple of examples to show how the weight of the evidence is ignored in many modern translations, consider these examples from the Gospels:

Luke 2:14

NIV: "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favour rests."

ESV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased."

The NIV does not even footnote this, while the ESV footnote says that "some manuscripts" read "peace, good will among men."

The truth is that the ESV and NIV readings are based on around 0.4% of the manuscripts, and the "some manuscripts" represent 98.8% of the available evidence.

Here, the Textus Receptus underying the KJV follows the majority Byzantine text and reads in the familiar words:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Matthew 6:13

Most modern translations end the Lord's prayer at "deliver us from evil" (ESV) or "deliver us from the evil one" (NIV).

The NIV footnote says "Some late manuscripts" read "for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen"

The ESV says "Some manuscripts add" before quoting the familiar ending.

Note the choice of words - "some", "late" and "add".

In fact, 92.6% of manuscripts have the extended ending to the prayer and only 1.2% lack it. 90% of anything is not "some". At the very least the footnotes should say "most" not "some".

John 3:13

Here the NIV reads: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man."

ESV is similar: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

The footnotes here read in the NIV that "some manuscripts" read "the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

ESV footnote: "Some manuscripts add..."

Here only 1.1% of manuscripts omit the extra words and 97.6% of manuscripts support having the extra words.

The NKJV reads, following the Textus Receptus and by extension the Byzantine majority text:

"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

There are hundreds of such texts in the New Testament where we are told that "some" or "a few" manuscripts read something which really means the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts favour the footnoted text.

So beware the footnotes in most bibles, they can be misleading as to the balance of the evidence.

Yet my point is not really which Greek text is more likely to be the original. The point is that it would be very useful to have a good English translation of this Majority or Byzantine text that reflects what by far the most Greek manuscripts indicate.

There are some good one-man translations out there, but they have the limitations and biases of the translator, and are unlikely to have a large impact on the churches.

I think it would be good to have a formal equivalent translation of the Byzantine text produced by a qualified committee of translators and backed up with the resources needed to get the translation on the main bible websites as well as produce a range of hard copies such as we have from Crossway for the ESV or Zondervan for the NIV.

If you are interested in an English translation from the Byzantine text there is one I would recommend and that is the "The Text Critical English New Testament" translated by one man, Robert Adam Boyd. I am grateulf to Boyd's work which not only translates the Majority text but has extensive footnotes on how this compares to a number of other Greek texts including the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text. The percentages referred in my examples come from this NT edition.

I would recommend reading Boyd's version alongside either the New King James Version, which also has good textual notes though not fully comprehensive, and the NIV or ESV to see where the variations lie and the real percentages of evidence rather that the misleading notes too frequently used in our main translations.

Supralapsarian Links

The following is a list of links to supralapsarian resources online. It should not be presumed that I agree either with the contents of these links, far less with other things these authors may have written, but I think they are useful in seeing what supralapsarians really believe. My own views are what I term a kind of "modified infralapsarianism" as outlined here which seeks to take into account some of the supralapsarian criticisms of standard infralapsarianism.

"Supralapsarianism" by Bernard Woudenberg: https://sb.rfpa.org/supralapsarianism/

"Suprlapsarianism is not a dirty word": https://www.apostolictheology.org/2013/01/supralapsarianism-its-not-dirty-word.html 

"Why Is Supralapsarianism The Correct View": https://www.baptists.net/history/2022/08/21-bible-doctrine-why-is-supralapsarianism-the-correct-view/ 

"Why Is Supralapsarianism An Important Issue?": https://www.baptists.net/history/2022/08/22-bible-doctrine-why-is-supralapsarianism-an-important-issue/

 "Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Herman Bavinck: https://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html. Note that Bavinck gives pros and cons for each view and ultimately rejects both attempts to put the decrees in any order as all are eternal.

"Did God Foreordain Evil and Evil Doers?" by Al Baker: https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2010/did-god-foreordain-evil-and-evil-doers/

"Super Supralapsarianism" by Al Baker: https://banneroftruth.org/uk/resources/articles/2010/super-supralapsarianism/

"Supralapsarianism Preferable" by Herman Hoeksema: https://cprc.co.uk/articles/supralapsarianism/ 

"Supralapsarianism and Its Practical Implications" by Ward Fenley: https://www.pristinegrace.org/article.php?id=768 

"Supralapsarianism" by Vincent Cheung: https://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/05/11/supralapsarianism/ 

"The Counsel of God (11): Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism" by Herman Veldman: https://sb.rfpa.org/the-counsel-of-god-11-supralapsarianism-and-infralapsarianism/

A List of Supralapsarians: https://www.semperreformanda.com/theology/eschatology/list-of-supralapsarians-by-supralapsarian/

These links were working at the time this post was published. 

Why I Am Not an Arminian

Why I Am Not an Arminian
Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Williams
Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2004

This very useful book is written by two Reformed theologians, both professors of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St Louis, Missouri. The book's purpose is to explain in some detail the problems these scholars have with Arminian theology and, indeed, the problems Arminian theology has with the biblical testimony.

The authors say in the Introduction that they would have preferred to have written a biblical defence of Calvinism and entitled the book Why I Am a Calvinist but the publisher wanted a polemical work against Arminianism to counterbalance another book they published called Why I Am Not a Calvinist written by Jerry Walls and Joseph Dongell that was published around the same time. However, they state that the real answer to the question why are you not an Arminian is because they are Calvinists and so their treatment of the various subjects under discussion is to present the Arminian viewpoint as fairly as they can, to explain what's the problem with it, and thirdly to present a Calvinist alternative.

The book features a mixture of two types of chapters. Chapters Two and Five deal with historical theology, with Chapter Two exploring the fundamental difference between the theology of Augustine and Pelagius in the Fifth century AD, and Chapter Five exploring the 17th-century controversy between Jacob Arminius and the Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed churches, culminating in the Synod of Dort in 1618-19 which condemned Arminianism (though this happened some years after Arminius's death in 1609).

The remaining chapters cover subjects including predestination, perseverance, inability, freedom, grace and atonement in which they examine the problems with the Arminian view of each of these topics and explain the Calvinist view.

The authors are careful to present Arminian views carefully, often quoting from primary sources such as the writings of Arminius himself, as well as the likes of John Wesley, H. Orton Wiley, Carl Bangs, Ray Dunning, Kenneth Grider, and Clark Pinnock.

I also appreciated the gracious tone of the book as both authors affirm Arminians as fellow Christian believers. "We do not think of Arminianism as a heresy or Arminian Christians as unregenerate" (p.13) and "the Calvinist and the Arminian are brothers in Christ." Yet they are clear that "at certain points Arminianism presents a skewed picture of the gospel" (p.13)

Earlier, I said that the authors present a Calvinist viewpoint and I say so deliberately because there are places where not all Calvinists would agree with Peterson and Williams' views. For example, the authors clearly sympathise in some ways with Arminius's rejection of Beza's supralapsarianism, which they also seem to strongly reject, though of course they believe Arminius went too far. I'm also sure not every Calvinist would entirely agree with their treatment of how divine sovereignty and human responsiblity and free will co-exist.

Having said this, this remains a useful guide to the problems with Arminian theology and its shortcomings in the light of Scripture and in that regard, the criticisms are well explained and trenchant.

The Biblical Doctrine of Common Grace

Reformed theology is often regarded as a theology of particularism. We believe that God unconditionally elects a particular people for salvation. We believe Christ with the intention of saving only the elect. We believe the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect and that irresistible grace draws the elect to saving faith. The whole focus of our doctrine of salvation is on the saving grace of God shown to a particular people chosen by God from every nation, tongue and tribe on earth to be his own.

Yet in viewing the world as it is and the whole counsel of God in the Scriptures, Reformed theology also teaches the doctrine of common grace, to account for all the goodness God gives to people indiscriminately, elect and non-elect alike.

In this piece we have three objectives:

1. To define what we mean by common grace.

2. To explain the content of common grace

3. To present the biblical basis for common grace.

1. Defining Common Grace

Common grace is essentially the goodness and kindness God shows to all people, elect and non-elect alike, out of his love for them as his creatures, in this world.

I agree with the Presbyterian theologian, John Murray, who said that common grace is 'every favour of whatever kind or degree, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God.' (from 'Common Grace' in Murray's Collected Writings, Vol. 2).

Each part of Murray's definition is significant. Common grace covers every good things of any kind and to any extent that God gives to the world other than instant judgment and destruction. Yet the 'boundary' of common grace is, as Murray says, that these favours or gifts given by God are those 'falling short of salvation.'

The Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, provides a similar definition to Murray. Berkhof says that common grace is 'the natural blessings which God showers upon man in this present life, in sprite of the fact that man has forfeited them and lies under the sentence of death.' (Systematic Theology, p. 435).

The Reformed Baptist theologian, Wayne Grudem, makes the point that everything human beings receive from God other than immediate judgment must be considered gracious on God's part. He says:

Once people sin, God's justice would require only one thing—that they be eternally separated from God, cut off from experiencing any good from him, and that they live forever in hell, receiving only his wrath eternally. In fact this was what happened to the angels who sinned, and it could justly have happened to us as well. (Systematic Theology, p. 657)

Why didn't this happen? Grudem asks the pertinent questions: 'How can God continue to give blessings to sinners who deserve only death—not only to those who will ultimately be saved, but also to millions who will never be saved, whose sins will never be forgiven?' (p. 657).

The answer, of course, is common grace, which Grudem simply defines as 'the grace of God by which he gives people innumerable blessings that are not part of salvation.'

The pastor-theologian, Sam Storms, helpfully defines 'common grace' like this:

Common grace, as an expression of the goodness of God, is every favor, falling short of salvation, which this undeserving and sin-cursed world enjoys at the hand of God; this includes the delay of wrath, the mitigation of our sin-natures, natural events that lead to prosperity, and all gifts that human use and enjoy naturally. ("The Goodness of God and Common Grace" at The Gospel Coalition).

A world of fallen, totally depraved sinners would soon dissolve into absolute mayhem, chaos and wickedness without common grace. Life in such a world would be as the philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, put it, one of 'continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' (Leviathan, I. xiii. 9).

The fact that the world is not, in general, like this, is accounted for in Reformed theology by common grace. The Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, put it this way:

[Common grace] curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children of men. (Systematic Theology, p. 434)

Yet, common grace has limitations. As it does not provide saving benefits, it only consists of 'temporary benefits' in this life. Although that does not make God's goodness or kindness any less real, they merely cover a temporary postponement of God's justice to come in the future. As Thomas Boston put it, such blessings are 'a mere temporary and permissive right, as a condemned man has to nourishment, as long as it pleases the king to postpone the execution, but this is a very uncertain and sad possession' (quoted by G. H. Kersten in his Dogmatic Theology, p.75).

Kersten, a Dutch Reformed theologian, says common grace has a threefold purpose:

• It glorifies God in the goodness and kindness he continues to show to humanity as his creatures.
• It supports God's good pleasure and purpose in bringing forth God's elect for salvation
• It exalts the righteouness of God in his judgment of the wicked (so they are utterly without excuse in rejecting God).

Having reviewed this material, I offer the following definition of common grace. 

Common grace is all temporal blessings given to human beings as creatures, proceeding from the goodness and love of God, furthering God's purpose in saving the elect and consistent with God's purpose in rejecting the reprobate.

2. The Content of Common Grace

Since common grace encompasses everything humanity receives from God other than immediate judgment and condemnation, the content of common grace is hugely extensive and it is not possible to cover every conceivable instance of common grace.

Yet theologians have put forward a number of broad categories of common grace, which we will briefly summarise.

1. Sustaining Life and the World - since the death sentence on sinners is delayed on average for 70 or more years, every day of life given to human beings from their birth is common grace. Sustaining the existence of the world is also part of God's providential care, as are things necessary to life such as the water cycle, seedtime and harvest, sunshine and rain.

2. Providing Good Things - this would include giving us family and friends, resources such as food, shelter, work, money, enjoyment, work, leisure, which are all enjoyed by the elect and non-elect alike.

3. Providential Restraint of Sin - instituting civil government to promote good and punish evil, limiting sinful behaviour, maintaining civil order, peace, police and armed forces, giving people a conscience .

4. Providing Civil, Cultural and Scientific Advances - this would include music, art, medical, scientific and technological advances to improve human life and flourishing.

3. The Biblical Basis of Common Grace

There are many Bible verses that speak to the type of non-saving gracious goodness and kindness extended to all people, that we call 'common grace.' The following verses all speak to aspects of common grace and most of them can be listed without additional comment. All verses are quoted from the New Heart English Bible simply because it is a modern translation in the public domain.

Psalm 145:8-9: "The LORD is gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and of great loving kindness. The LORD is good to all. His tender mercies are over all his works."

Acts 14:16-17: "In the generations gone by [He] allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, in that he did good and gave you rains from the sky and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness."

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7: "Now you know what is restraining him, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way."

Speaking here of the "Man of Lawlessness," Paul states that God is restraining sin, which of one of the central aspects of common grace, which accounts for how a world of totally depraved sinners is not as evil as we might expect it to be.

Romans 2:4: ""Or do you despise the riches of his goodness [or "kindness"], forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness [or "kindness"] of God leads you to repentance?"

Romans 2:14-15: "For when the non-Jews who do not have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, since they show the work of the law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them."

These verses in Romans 2 make it clear that even pagan non-believers have a conscience which is a gift from God, a particular part of his common grace to restrain sin and leave everyone without excuse.

The following passage is part of Paul's sermon at the Areopagus in Athens. Among other points, Paul is clear that every in our lives, including our lives themselves, come from God. Agreeing with a pagan poet, Paul says "in him we live, and move, and have our being."

Acts 17:24-31: "The God who made the world and all things in it, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, neither is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself gives to all life and breath, and all things. He made from one blood every nation of the human race to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the boundaries of their dwellings, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live, and move, and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.' Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold, or silver, or stone, engraved by human art and design. The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked. But now he commands that all people everywhere should repent, because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained; of which he has given assurance to everyone by raising him from the dead."

Matthew 5:43-48: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbour, and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do than others? Do not even the non-Jews do the same? You therefore are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

This is one of the most relevant passages regarding common grace and is the direct teaching of Jesus himself. Clearly Christ links the command for us to love our enemies with the fact that God loves everyone and that from this love he sends good gifts to the righteous and unrighteous alike. This is practically the definition of what we mean by common grace. A similar but not identical version of Christ's teaching occurs in the next passage from Luke.

Luke 6:35-36: "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful."

Christ links us loving our enemies and doing good to them with being children of God—which includes being like God since "he is kind" to all, even the unthankful and evil.

1 Timothy 6:17: "Charge those who are rich in this present world that they not be haughty, nor have their hope set on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy."

James 1:17: "All generous giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, nor turning shadow."

The Five Points of Calvinism - 5. Perseverance of the Saints

The fifth of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" is known in theology as perseverance of the saints or sometimes as the preservation of the saints or the eternal security of believers.

Of the five points, two of them are widely accepted by evangelicals, even non-Calvinists. The two that many accept are total depravity and this doctrine, the perseverance of the saints. The three central points, the heart of Calvinism, are the three middle points—unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace. We therefore end this series with what is a fairly uncontroversial doctrine. 

The perseverance or preservation of the saints is the doctrine that those whom God has chosen for salvation and saved by Christ and who have been brought to saving faith, cannot lose their salvation, will persevere in faith and in the Christian life. It should come as no surprise that this doctrine is true, given the other doctrines we have already looked at. If God the Father chooses who is saved unconditionally, if Christ died to save them (not merely to make them savable), and if the Holy Spirit can irresistibly bring them to saving faith, then it is no leap to conclude that such people can never be lost. Their salvation is guaranteed since God has done everything to bring that salvation about. 

The doctrine is laid out in chapter 17 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, part of which reads as follows:

1. 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.

2. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

Sometimes this doctrine is caricatured as "once saved always saved," which is true as far as it goes, but can miss some of the subtlety of the doctrine.

There are two errors to avoid in proclaiming this great doctrine, First, perseverance of the saints does not mean that a genuine Christian cannot fall for a time into sin, even including the sin of unbelief, but only that they will never fully and finally reject God. Secondly, this does not mean that a person who has made a profession of faith can then live a life of constant, unrepentant sin and still be assured they are saved. The doctrine is perseverance of the "saints" which means God's holy ones.

Yet the doctrine is of tremendous assurance to all who do genuinely believe in Christ and seek to follow him can be assured they can never lose their salvation because they did nothing to achieve it in the first place. It is also a deeply reassuring doctrine since it means that God will ensure the true believer endures to the end, not only in faith but in the changed life brought about in the Holy Spirit.

There is an abundance of biblical material teaching that the elect cannot lose their salvation, but we do have to acknowledge their are also some verses and passages that seem to indicate a person can lose their salvation and so Reformed theology has to account for these passages as well.

John 6:37, 39-40, 44 -47 - "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out...And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day...No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

John 10:27-30 - "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one."

We have looked at these words of Jesus in John 6 and John 10 as relevant to several of the Five Points of Calvinism, but they are clearly relevant to this doctrine as well. Christ himself taught he would lose none of those given to him by the Father, but would raise them up on the last day and that none of the sheep would be snatched from his hand.

Romans 8:29-32 - "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?"

Another passage we have looked at before. The application here is obvious. How can there be a golden thread from foreknowledge and predestination to glorification if the thread can be broken by saved people becoming unsaved again? 

Romans 8:35-39 - "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, 'For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.' No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

This passage from a few verses later in Romans 8 could hardly be more clear. The "us" here is obviously the elect believers. For Paul, the answer to his rhetorical question "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" is "nothing in all creation." Nothing can separate the elect from the love of God in Christ. How could it then be that any of the elect could end up separated from God in hell?

Ephesians 1:13-14 - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory."

In this passage Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit is the guarantee we currently possess that we will one day acquire full possession of our inheritance.

Philippians 1:6 - "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."

This verse straightforwardly states that once God is at work in the life of a believer, he will (not might) bring it to completion when Christ returns ("the day of Jesus Christ"). 

Philippians 2:12-13 - "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

We quote these verses to show that although there are many exhortations in the New Testament as to how Christians are to have faith and live out their faith ("work out your own salvation with fear and trembling") alongside this Paul teaches that we can do these things because God is constantly at work in us so we can achieve what he calls us to be and to do.

2 Timothy 4:18 - "The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

This verse does not need much comment. Paul certainly believed that he would be brought "safely into his heavenly kingdom."

Hebrews 7:25 - "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."

Since Christ is alive and making intercession on his people's behalf and is "able to save to the uttermost" how could anyone be lost who has been saved?

1 Peter 1:3-5 - "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

Peter teaches that our inheritance is "kept in heaven for you" and not only that but we are guarded by God's power for salvation. This seems implicitly (and almost explicitly) that believers are secure in their salvation and cannot be lost.

1 John 3:9 - "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God."

This is an interesting verse in this discussion. The verse does not teach that Christians never sin. Not only do we know that experientially to be untrue, but earlier in the same letter, John wrote: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:8-9). Having clarified that, the verse does teach that Christians do not make a practice of sinning—it is no longer our way of life and when we sin we go against what we are in Christ—John then gives the reason why this is the case. It is because God's seed lives in us. If final apostasy is a sin (and it is) then this verse teaches that those who have been born again cannot make a practice of apostasy and therefore cannot fully or finally fall away from Christ and salvation.

Jude 24-25 - "Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever." 

Jude teaches that God is able to keep us from falling and can ensure we are presented blameless before the presence of his glory. It is difficult to reconcile Jude's words with the Arminian doctrine that a saved Christian can later fall away from the faith and be lost.

The Bible also makes it clear that there can be people who profess faith at one point and then fall away from the faith. However, Calvinism teaches that anyone in this category was never truly saved to begin with, as stated in this passage from John's First Letter:

1 John 2:18-19 - "Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

There are a number of passages in the Bible which seem to teach that Christians can fall away from the faith. We need to look at a representation selection of these verses and passages. If we remember John's teaching above that those who fall away were never truly part of us to begin with, the passages can be fully reconciled with the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

These are known as the so-called "warning passages," some of which are texts like these:

Matthew 7:21-23 - "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

Matthew 13:18-23 - "Hear then the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."

John 8:31-32 - "So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, 'If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'"

2 Corinthians 13:5 - " Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!"

1 Timothy 4:1 - "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons."

Hebrews 3:12-14 - "Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today', that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end."

Hebrews 6:4-6 - " For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt."

We believe that passages like these have a threefold purpose. First, the warnings are one of the ways God uses to ensure the elect remain faithful. In this sense they are warn of hypothetical consequences were the elect to reject Christ, which in turn draws the wavering Christian back towards Christ as he or she is under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, the passages encourages the elect to avoid complacency and pay heed to their Christian walk.

Thirdly, these passages genuinely warn any who profess faith appear to be Christians and then fall away. In effect the passages apply to reprobates in the visible church, or those whom Christ identified as "tares" sown among the "wheat" or "goats" amid the flock of "sheep".

What these passages do not teach is that someone who has been elected for salvation can lose his or her salvation.

The Five Points of Calvinism - 4. Irresistible Grace

The fourth of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" is known in theology as irresistible grace or effectual grace.

It is at this point that the theological rubber of total depravity, unconditional election and limited atonement meets the experiential road of the sinner's life in their regeneration and conversion to Christ.

The grace in irresistible grace refers to saving grace—God's attitude and decision to treat sinners not as they deserve, which is punishment in hell, but rather to love and save them. 

Reformed theology teaches that God's saving grace to the elect is irresistible or effectual because it is manifested in a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine means that having chosen (unconditional election) a certain number of sinners (total depravity) for salvation and having sent Christ with the intention of saving those sinners (limited atonement), when the time comes in God's plan for each of those people to be saved, his grace towards them cannot be resisted by mere human free will. Irresistible grace is precisely that: it leads to the salvation of the sinner through regeration, faith in Christ and repentance from sin and is always effectual in its saving purpose.

Arminians oppose this doctrine and teach instead that God shows saving grace to everyone. They call this prevenient grace or enabling grace, but such grace that draws people to Christ and enables them to have saving faith can always be resisted and rejected according to Arminianism. Having been endowed with libertarian free will, the final decision of whether someone is saved or not rests with the sinner themselves.

Sometimes irresistible grace gets caricatured by Arminians as God "saving people against their will" or even worse as God "dragging people, kicking and screaming, into heaven."

This is a total parody of the Reformed position. We do not teach that irresistible grace forces people to believe against their will, or even that people are coerced into faith. Rather the Reformed view is that at the time God chooses, an operation of the Holy Spirit on the person supernaturally changes their will, so that they become spiritually alive previously having been spiritually dead, they will is changed from being hostile to God to being drawn to God. They are, in John's language, born again and thus enabled to repent and believe the gospel. So it is not that they are saved irrespective of their desires or will, but rather that they are given a new heart so that they then want to believe in Christ and turn away from their old life of sin and unbelief.

As the Westminster Confession of Faith says on this subject (Chapter 10.1 "On Effectual Calling"): 

All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them 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.

And as the Canons of Dort also testify (Head III-IV, Art. 11):

Moreover, when God carries out this good pleasure in the elect, or works true conversion in them, God not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, God also penetrates into the inmost being, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. God infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant. God activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds.

The words of these Reformed confessions, careful and nuanced and deeply biblical, are what Calvinists believe, not the straw men and parodies of those who either misunderstand or deliberate distort what irresistible grace means.

The doctrine of irresistible grace is closely aligned with the doctrines of unconditional election and particular redemption. Let's say John Smith was elected by the Father for salvation in eternity past, and on the cross of Calvary, the Son died to save John Smith, taking upon himself the penalty for all John Smith's sins, how could it then be that the Holy Spirit would be unable to give John Smith the gifts of saving faith and repentance necessary for him to be saved? The very idea is absurd.

The biblical evidence in favour of irresistible grace is therefore formed not only from the verses directly touching on this doctrine, but from every passage we have already looked at in this series touching on the sovereignty of God, unconditional election or limited atonement. Some of the passages specifically supporting the doctrine of irresistible grace as we have outlined it are listed here. We will not comment on every verse, but only on as many as necessary to make the links clear between the verses and the doctrine of irresistible grace outlined in this post.

Deuteronomy 30:6 - "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live."

This verse in the Pentateuch speaks clearly about God's action on the human heart to bring about a change in the affections and will. It is difficult to reconcile this verse with libertarian free will (the concept of a human will that God cannot sovereignly control).

Jeremiah 31:33-34 - "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbour and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’, for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Again, this passage speaks clearly of God's sovereign actions on human hearts. The covenant itself is a sovereignly administered bond. The idea of God's covenant as a bilateral "agreement" or "contract" is without biblical support. God is the one who can "put his law" within us, and make us his people.

Ezekiel 36:26-27 - "And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."

This important passage in Ezekiel directly attests to the truth of irresistible grace. It is God who gives a new heart and a new spirit to people and this is clearly not an image meant to be interpreted as something done cooperatively between God and the sinner. It is a sovereign act of God that changes hearts. How then could God have to have the sinner's heart cooperating with him before he can put a new heart in that sinner? That would make no sense of the passage. The verse even goes as far as to state that God "causes" people to obey him. Utterly incompatible with the Arminian view of grace or the human will. 

John 1:12-13 - "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

This memorable verse in the prologue to John's Gospel speaks directly to the issue in hand. God's children are not born "of the will of the flesh nor the will of man" directly contrary to Arminianism. Opponents of Reformed theology teach that the new birth follows the act of saving faith. Reformed theology recognises that the new birth must precede saving faith. The concept of new birth—a supernatural act of God—preceding anyone coming to faith strongly implies the irresistibility of saving grace.

John 3:3, 5, 8 - "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God...Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God...The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

I cannot see how one can teach that being born again follows coming to faith in light of this passage. According to the Arminian, a person comes to faith, thereby entering the Kingdom of God, and then is born again by the Holy Spirit. According to Jesus, a person cannot even see let alone enter the Kingdom of God until he is born again. This strongly implies that faith follows the new birth. And this in turn then suggests that saving grace is irresistible. God does not consult dead sinners to see if they would consent to being born again. He no more does that than Christ consulted with Lazarus to ensure he consented to coming back from the dead. No, God commands dead sinners to come to life and believe, just as Christ commanded Lazarus from the grave (cf. John 11).

John 5:21 - "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will."

John 6:37-40, 44 - "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day...No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

This passage sets forth a kind of golden chain of salvation in the words of Jesus himself. It is clearly compatible with irresistible grace and incompatible with Arminian resistible grace.

The argument runs as follows. "All that the Father gives me will come to me." This implies that God's grace cannot be resisted by those given to Christ by the Father. "I should lose nothing of all that he has given me." Similarly, none of those given by Father to Son can be lost. How could Jesus claim this if the Father aims at saving everyone, but cannot ensure that anyone would believe? In Jesus' argument, that anyone comes to faith follows from the fact that they have been given to Christ by the Father. This is the exact opposite of the Arminian argument. Verse 44 is also an important verse. It not only teaches human inability, by implication it also teaches irresistible grace, since it implies that it is not everyone who is drawn by the Father here, but those who come to faith. Christ says the same thing about those drawn in verse 44 ("And I will raise him up on the last day") as he has already said about those given to him by the Father and those who believe. They are the one group. And none of them can resist God's saving grace.

Acts 11:18 - "When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, 'Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.'"

The verse teaches that repentance, that is the ability to repent, is something granted to people, not something they can produced in themselves.

Acts 16:14 - "One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshipper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul."

This verse speaks of an act of God on the heart on Lydia so that she would "pay atttention" and accept the gospel message.

Romans 8:30 - "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

In this golden chain of redemption, if there is an unbreakable link between predestination, calling and justification, then this calling must be effectual or irresistible. Otherwise it would be possible for some predestined for glorification to reject God's grace.

1 Corinthians 12:3 - "Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says 'Jesus is accursed!' and no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except in the Holy Spirit."

This verse teaches that for someone to genuinely believe "Jesus is Lord" requires a work of the Holy Spirit.

2 Corinthians 5:17 - "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come."

This verse is reminiscent of the Ezekiel 36 passage. Someone who is "in Christ" (i.e. a Christian) is a new creation, The process of regeneration or new birth is that radical. 

Ephesians 1:17-19 - "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power towards us who believe, according to the working of his great might."

This part of Paul's prayer for the Ephesian church. His prayer only makes sense if God can genuinely change hearts, have spiritual eyes opened, have minds changed, and so forth. It speaks of God's power to achieve these things. Again this is understandable from the point of view of irresistible grace, but not from the alternative where God's is dependent on what the sovereign human will decides. In that kind of world, there is no point in Paul praying as he does here.

Ephesians 2:8-9 - "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Philippians 1:29 - "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake."

Both of these verses teach that faith is not something produced by man, but it is a gift from God. In the Ephesians passage, the "gift" is the whole of salvation by grace through faith, but that includes faith as a gift. The Philippians verse says explicitly that faith is something "granted" or "given" to us, not produced merely from within us.