Christmas 2025

 Wishing all our readers a happy and blessed Christmas season. 

  

Hell and the Fate of the Wicked

 

For many years, I have wrestled with hell. By that I mean the doctrine of the final state of the wicked.

There are a spectrum of views, of course, on this subject, but in my view it comes down to two main views among evangelicals. A third view, that ultimately everyone will be saved (known as "universalism") is not supported by more than a tiny minority of those claiming to be evangelical. That leaves two views among evangelicals.

First, there is what is known as the traditional view that the final state of the non-saved is eternal conscious torment and punishment in hell. This view is almost inconceivable for the human mind to comprehend. For a person to experience punishment and, in some sense, pain, for all eternity is an idea so horrific that I think few of us want to even contemplate it. The exact details are sketchy at best biblically - darkness, fire, pain, torment, certainly much less detailed than the vivid medieval depictions of the likes of Dante in writing and Bosch in art.

Nevertheless, it is the most common view held by Reformed and evangelical Christians and there are a number of strong biblical arguments in its favour. It is also the view taught in the Reformed confessions.

Several verses are difficult to reconcile with the idea that the punishment in hell is only temporary in duration.

Matthew 25:46 is one such verse where Jesus himself says: "These [the wicked] shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Notice he does not say "eternal death" in contrast to eternal life, but "eternal punishment". At least on the face of it, if eternal life is never ending, it would appear that eternal punishment may be never ending also.

A second verse of relevance is Revelation 14:10-11, speaking of those who worship "the beast": "He also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshippers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."

"The smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever" does not sound like annihilation to me. 

A third relevant passage is Revelation 20:10 and 15. "The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are also. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.... If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire."

Again, on the face of it, it could be argued that since the lake of fire seems to inflict torment forever, and all the wicked are thrown in there, their suffering would be eternal.

The second view has several different names, but in essence it is that while there is punishment in hell for the wicked, at some point the conscious torment ends and the person in hell ceases to exist. This view is sometimes called "Conditional Immortality" or "Annihilationism". It is sometimes portrayed as if this view teaches that when the wicked die, they immediately cease to exist. There may be some who teach that, but the mainstream of this view is that the wicked are punished in hell for a period of time related to the punishment they deserve for their sins, but that this punishment does not continue forever, but eventually they cease to exist.

In the first view, if a sinner is tormented in hellfire for a million years, he is no nearer the end of his infinite punishment than when he first entered hell. In the second, if the just punishment is punishment for a million years, at the end of this time, the sinner ceases to exist and the active punishment ends, though the sentence of eternal death remains effective forever. 

Like many theological disputes, and perhaps more than most, there are good biblical arguments on both sides. Anyone who thinks that the opposite side in this discussion does not have good arguments, simply does not understand the best arguments of the other side.

It is unlikely we will ever be able to be certain about which view is correct this side of eternity. I admit that I cannot really conceive what eternal active punishment looks like. For that matter, I can hardly conceive what everlasting life looks like either. Part of me hopes that annihilationism is true. There may be people I love in hell after all. Eventual non-existence seems more attractive than eternal existence in suffering. As many have pointed out, how can the saints fully rejoice in heaven, knowing their loved ones are writhing forever in the pain of hell?

Yet we must not let our emotions guide our doctrine, but the teaching of the Word of God. And as we have seen, there are certainly verses that point in the direction of eternal conscious punishment. 

All I can say is: "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25). Whatever God does with the wicked will be the right thing in the end and it will be marvellous in our eyes (Psalm 118:23) because the fate of the wicked whatever else it is, will be according to divine justice.

More Than One Reformed Approach to Many Texts

It's important to recognise that there is not only one way to interpret many texts in Reformed theology. There is a breadth within Reformed theology that leaves enough room for each person to have room to explore their own views while being on the inside of the circle of Reformed theology.

One important example of this that I've had in mind for some time are the Reformed approaches (plural) to the interpretation of a well-known verse such as John 3:16.

We need hardly quote what is surely the most famous verse in the whole Bible, but it reads of course, something like this:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16, ESV).

There are broadly two main Reformed approaches to this verse. My view, explored in some length in my book, The World of John 3:16 could be considered the more restrictive Calvinist view. I interpret the word "world" to mean "sinners from all nations" (i.e. Jews and Gentiles) and that it refers by extension to God's elect from the nations. One of the reasons for taking this view is that the love of God mentioned in this verse seems to me to be the highest type of love in God, his redeeming and electing love that achieves its aim of saving "the world" (see John 3:17). This is the view of many Calvinists—many older Calvinists it is probably fair to say, such as John Owen, Francis Turretin, Samuel Rutherford, John Gill and Arthur W. Pink.

However, I recognise that my interpretation may be incorrect and that there is a second broad interpretation which is every bit as Reformed. The other view interprets "world" as meaning "the human race" or "all of humanity". This view shares with our Arminian brothers and sisters the view that the world is all-inclusive, meaning every human being without exception. However, in this view, the love of God for the world is not the highest type of electing, saving love that God has for his people, but a more general benevolence encompassing everyone, and showing them that he is a God of compassion with what D. A. Carson calls "a salvific stance" towards everyone. 

This simply means that his revealed will shows that God has some kind of intent towards the salvation of everyone who hears the gospel on the condition that they would believe. This is the view of many modern Calvinists, but also people in history, arguably John Calvin himself, Thomas Boston and the Marrow Men, and contemporary Calvinists such as R. C. Sproul, John Piper, D. A. Carson, and John MacArthur as far as I can make out.

There are some good arguments for this wider view, though I am not personally convinced by them. That's not to say I deny that other parts of Scripture do indeed teach that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and would have everyone who hears the gospel accept it and be saved in accordance with his revealed or preceptive will, though not in the sense of it being God's decree or we would need to be universalists. It's only that I do believe that John 3:16 is correctly viewed as a text of this type.

Similar arguments could be applied to a number of other texts about which Reformed Christians may take different views. These include what might be called the "Arminian" proof texts such as Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4 and 4:10, 1 John 2:2, and 2 Peter 3:9. On all these some Calvinists interpret them in a more restrictive sense, others accept the wider sense, yet deny that they undermine the doctrines of grace taught in Calvinism.

The Reformed Faith is not a monolith. And I believe it is all the richer for it.

 

 

Advent 2025

 

Yesterday was the first Sunday of Advent. It marks the beginning of a new Christtian year and the start of the period of Advent leading up to Christmas.

Advent comes from the Latin "adventus" which means "coming" or "arrival". It refers to the period of waiting for the coming or arrival of Jesus Christ, both in terms of his first coming as a baby born in Bethlehem and his second coming in glory at the end of the world. A third sense, which we do not often focus on, is the coming of Christ to live in the hearts of believers through the Holy Spirit.

The long run up to Christmas, much longer in the world of modern commerce than in the church calendar, is one of my favourite seasons of the year.

The great advent hymn, "O come, O come, Emmanuel" can be sung with any of the three senses of the coming of Christ in mind.

I was very interested to learn recently that though the words and music of this great hymn are ancient, they were not joined together until the 19th century, when John Mason Neale translated a medieval Latin text into English in 1851 and then got his friend Thomas Helmore, who used a French medieval sacred tune and reharmonised it to work with Neale's words. For many years there was doubt as to whether had actually composed the tune and only claimed to have "discovered" it. However, in 1966 it was established that it was an ancient French tune. The tune is known as VENI EMMANUEL after the Latin text's opening words.

The resulting text and tune combine to make one of the greatest of advent carols. I could not imagine going through advent without singing this great hymn at least once.

 

The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism (in New Testament Textual Criticism)

Codex Sinaiticus, 4th Century Greek Manuscript

Few topics stir as much debate among Christians, historians, and biblical scholars as the question of how we determine the original text of the New Testament. I am certainly no expert on textual criticism, but I have been interested in the subject for many years and here are where my thoughts on this subject have taken me so far.

Let's start with a few facts that are not in dispute. The books of the New Testament were originally penned by the apostles and the originals they produced are called the autographs. In God's wisdom, we no longer possess the original autographs—all have been lost in time, and so none can be venerated by Christians. We do not possess the autographs, but we do possess over 5,800 Greek manuscripts and thousands more in ancient translations, especially Latin. 

The sheer abundance is a blessing and vastly exceeds the manuscript evidence for any other work of antiquity. Yet this abundance of manuscripts also presents a challenge. Prior to the advent of the printing press in the Renaissance period, every copy of the New Testament had to be laboriously copied by hand. As a result, all manuscripts differ in places with every other manuscript in thousands of ways. Most of these are tiny and largely inconsequential such that they would not even show up in an English translation (spellings, word order, etc.). However, there are hundreds of places where the manuscripts' differences do affect the text—none are so significant that they seriously affect any doctrine—but they do result in potentially different readings within the New Testament. These are known as "textual variants". In modern bibles, you will find them on most pages of the New Testament, where the main text reads one way, but footnotes present alternative possibilities. 

The question is: How do we decide which reading is most likely the original?

There are a number of different schools of thought among scholars as to how best to answer this question. 

The most widely used and academically respected approach today is known as reasoned eclecticism. This method stands behind the standard critical editions that lie behind almost all mainstream English translations. These are called the Nestlé-Aland 28th Edition and the United Bible Societies 5th Edition (known as NA28 and UBS5).

While no method is perfect, reasoned eclecticism offers the most balanced and historically sensitive way to reconstruct the earliest recoverable and most likely original text.

Though not an essential part of reasoned eclecticism per se I think it is also worth stating that my personal view is that the text of the autographs, the actual words of the apostles that are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), have not been lost, but are to be found in the manuscript evidence God has providentially preserved. The true reading is to be found either in the main printed text or the footnotes of our bibles.

The other thing I would want to add is that there are sometimes when I believe the academic consensus on what the most likely original reading is may be incorrect. Reasoned eclecticism leaves it open to each person to study the evidence, consider the arguments, and make up their own mind. Some may complain this leaves uncertainty as to the original text, but I would simply reply that it is the existence of textual variants in the text that creates this uncertainty. Reasoned eclecticism simply embraces the facts. Other approaches seem to want to trade truth for certainty and may end up with neither.

The following are the main reasons why I believe that reasoned eclecticism is the best approach to New Testament textual criticism.

1. Reasoned Eclecticism Uses ALL the Manuscript Evidence, Not Just Part of the Evidence

Some approaches prioritize the numerical majority of extant manuscripts (known as the Majority Text or Byzantine Priority Approach), and others almost exclusively privilege a single text type (as in some Alexandrian-priority arguments). Reasoned eclecticism avoids both extremes.

It considers:

• External evidence: the age, geographical distribution, and textual relationships of manuscripts.
• Internal evidence: what scribes tended to do, and what an author is likely to have written.

By drawing from the full spectrum of available data: papyri, uncials, minuscules, versions, and patristic citations. It avoids the tunnel vision that comes from using only one subset of the evidence.

Reasoned eclecticism makes the simple but essential claim: the original reading is more likely to survive in the oldest manuscripts, all other factors being equal. Thus the witness of a few oldest sources is at least if not more valuable that a large majority of later manuscripts. Fundamental to this approach is the recognition that manuscripts must be weighed and not just counted. Secondly, where the external evidence is not clear-cut, we must examine the internal evidence and a judgment is needed to assess which reading is (a) least likely a scribal error or addition and (b) is the variant that most likely explains the existence of the other variants.

2. Reasoned Eclecticism Recognises That Manuscript Numbers Alone Cannot Determine Originality 

Most New Testament manuscripts were copied in the Byzantine Empire after the 9th century. They are numerous not because they preserve the earliest form of the text, but because Byzantine copying was prolific and stable. A reading supported by a thousand manuscripts from AD 1000 may be historically inferior to a reading supported by two manuscripts from AD 200.

Reasoned eclecticism therefore avoids the fallacy that “more manuscripts = more original.” Instead, it asks: Which manuscripts stand closer to the earliest recoverable stages of transmission? Often, the early papyri from Egypt represent earlier streams of copying, even if they are fewer in number.

Quality, not quantity, is what matters then sifting the available evidence.

3. Reasoned Eclecticism Acknowledges Scribal Habits (Both Errors and Expansions)

Copyists made predictable mistakes. For example, they tended to:

• Expand names and titles for clarity (“Jesus Christ” → “the Lord Jesus Christ”).
• Simplify grammar or wording.
• Harmonize parallel passages (both in the Gospels and in Paul's Letters).
• Add explanations to difficult verses or soften verese thought to be too hard.
• Add marginal notes into the body of the text for fear of leaving out anything important.

Reasoned eclecticism takes these tendencies seriously. A reading that is more awkward, shorter, or harder is often more likely to be original because scribes typically smoothed and expanded rather than created difficulties. No other method consistently accounts for this behaviour by those who copied the New Testament by hand.

4. Reasoned Eclecticism Takes Account of Authorial Style and Context

Not every variant is best explained by scribal habits alone. Sometimes one reading simply fits better with the vocabulary, theological themes, or narrative flow of the author.

For example, Johannine vocabulary is distinctive. If a variant reading uses terms foreign to John’s style, reasoned eclecticism recognises that it may be secondary. Likewise, if a variant disrupts the flow of argument, that too must be weighed.

Reasoned eclecticism gives us the freedom to integrate literary and contextual insights alongside manuscript evidence.

5. Reasoned Eclecticism Avoids Rigid Formulas and Instead Balances Probabilities

Some text-critical methods operate with simplistic rules, such as “prefer the shorter reading,” or “prefer the reading with majority support.” Reasoned eclecticism explicitly rejects such wooden approaches. Instead, it weighs evidence case by case, instance by instance, recognising that real historical transmission is complex.

This does mean scholars sometimes disagree. But disagreement is not a weakness—it’s a sign that the method is flexible, honest, and evidence-driven rather than ideology-driven.

Far from being a weakness, the fact that some conclusions have to be tentative and open to correction is a strength of the approach.

6. Reasoned Eclecticism Helps Explain Why Some Famous Passages are Disputed

Reasoned eclecticism is the method behind scholarly discussions of passages such as:

• Mark 16:9–20 ("The Longer Ending of Mark")
• John 7:53–8:11 ("The Pericope Adulterae"
• The Ending of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6
• John 5:4 (The Pool of Bethsaida) 
• Luke 2:14 
• 1 Timothy 3:16
• Romans 8:1 
• 1 John 5:7-8 ("The Comma Johanneum") 

And many other passages. 

In each case, reasoned eclecticism weighs early manuscripts, later manuscripts, scribal habits, authorial style, and historical plausibility. Sometimes the result is that a well-known reading is judged secondary. That can be uncomfortable, but it is honest.

The methodology also allows scholars and readers to judge the evidence and make up their own mind. No one is forced to accept the majority opinion on any of these variants. 

A method that never challenges traditional readings is not a historical method; it is a theological one. Reasoned eclecticism prioritises evidence over tradition while still respecting the beliefs of the Christian community.

Again, we would point out that no doctrine relies solely on a particular variant in the manuscript tradition.

7. Reasoned Eclecticism Underlies All Modern Critical Editions of the Greek New Testament 

The NA28 and UBS5 — the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament used worldwide — are both products of reasoned eclecticism. These editions are the basis of almost every major modern translation (NIV, ESV, NRSV, CSB, NASB, and others). They represent over a century of collaborative international scholarship.

No other method has produced texts as widely accepted, rigorously tested, and transparently documented.

8. Reasoned Eclecticism Aligns with How Historians Approach Other Ancient Literature

Classical scholars who edit texts like Homer, Plato, or Tacitus also use eclectic principles: they weigh manuscript age, geographic spread, internal coherence, and scribal tendencies. Reasoned eclecticism places New Testament textual criticism within the mainstream of responsible historical method, not outside it.

This does not mean that Christians do not acknowledge a vast difference between Scripture and all other writings. Of course we acknowledge the New Testament is theopneustos ("God-breathed") and as such is inerrant and infallible.

Yet, the robust process of seeking out the original text from the manuscript evidence, and showing that it can be done to an extraordinary level of certainty, is immensely helpful apologetically when engaging with non-Christians. We do not rely on bare claims of faith when establishing the text of Scripture. It can be done using principles that are valid whether the textual critic is a believer or not. This means that the text of Scripture can be accepted as accurate by anyone coming to it honestly. The truth is that 94-95% of the text of the New Testament is beyond doubt original and certain. All major doctrines and practices are clearly taught whatever Greek Text we use. The question of which text is more likely original only has a bearing on 5-6% of the text, and of these perhaps only 1-2% have any real significance at all beyond spellings and word order or saying the same thing in slightly different words.

Conclusions 

Reasoned eclecticism is not perfect—no method is—and it does not claim to be. But it is the approach that most responsibly engages with the full range of available evidence. It avoids the pitfalls of majority-based methods, sidesteps the rigidity of one-text-type theories, and resists simplistic rules. By considering external evidence and internal probabilities together, it offers the most historically plausible reconstruction of the earliest recoverable New Testament text.

In short, reasoned eclecticism gives us the best chance of hearing the New Testament as the earliest Christian communities heard and read it.

Great Theologians 5: Charles Hodge

 

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)

Charles Hodge is one of the most significant Reformed theologians of the 19th century. From 1851-1878 he was the principal of Princeton Theological Seminary, which was in those days a bastion of Reformed orthodoxy.

Hodge was the epitome of the conservative Presbyterian. It was said that his boast about Princeton seminary during his tenure was that "nothing new is taught here".

Born in Phildadelpia in 1797, Hodge's father Hugh had been a military surgeon in the Revolutionary War. The family had originally come from Northern Ireland and Hodge's grandfather, Andrew Hodge, was a successful businessman when he emigrated to the still colonial North America.

Hodge himself graduated from the then fairly new Princeton Seminary in 1819 and spent a year or two asa kind of missionary preacher in various parts of Pennsylvania before being ordained in 1821. In the mid 1820s he toured Europe to improve his education. Unlike many who did similar European excursions, Hodge returned to the United States with his orthodox Reformed beliefs entirely intact. He then entered the main period of his career as a seminary lecturer then professor.

Hodge did not shy away from the controversial matters that affected the American church in the 19th century. Despite being a northerner, Hodge believed the Bible allowed for the institution of slavery. On the other hand, he supported the prosecution of the Civil War by the Union forces. On Darwinism and evolution, Hodge believed Darwinism was simply a form of atheism.

Hodge wrote a number of important works still in use today. His Commentary on Romans (1837) and his Commentary on Ephesians (1856) are still useful evangelical commentaries. His magnum opus is his three-volume Systematic Theology (1872-73) which covers the whole field of systematic theology in near exhaustive detail.

Although Hodge was faithful to the Westminster standards in his beliefs and in his Calvinism, he sometimes opposed traditional understandings of some doctrines where he felt the church was not following the Scriptures, but human philosophy. Two examples are Hodge's modified views of divine simplicity (in contrast with the church fathers such as Augustine, Aquinas and Scotus) and of a strict view of divine impassibility (that God does not have any emotions). Hodge, by contrast, believed that when the Scripure speaks of God's love, this is a genuine feeling in God, and not merely an anthropopathism. 

At the other end of his writing spectrum, his short book The Way of Life (1841) is a guide to Christian doctrines designed for use in Sunday schools.

The Difficult Doctrine of the Will of God

Some years ago, Don Carson wrote a short and important small book called The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. In that book he explains how what may appear to be the most straightforward of doctrines, that the God of the Bible is a God of love is, in fact, quite a difficult doctrine once we explore its various implications. 

If Dr Carson was so inclined, I'm sure he could write another book called The Difficult Doctrine of the Will of God.

God's will is an area of theology that might appear to be straightforward at first glance. Isn't the will of God simply what God wants? Well yes, but it is a lot more complicated than that. Whatever else it is, the doctrine concerning God's will is actually far from simple or straightforward once we begin to explore the subject in some depth. And even as simple a definition as 'what God wants' requires much exploration and careful balancing of various parts of the biblical evidence to create a rounded doctrine of the will of God.

The Will of God is One 

The first point that needs clarified is that God truly has but one will. God does not have two separate or conflicting wills. He is not divided in himself. Not only does this truth flow from the simplicity of God, but it also from the express truths of Scripture.

The Appearance of Two Wills in God

Although in himself God only has one will, yet in appearance to his us, his creatures, God's will is customarily discussed as having two senses.

The theologians discuss these two senses of God's will in a number of different ways, each of which is valid and useful. They all view the same distinction in the will of God in similar ways; yet, each has a distinct element also.

1. The Secret Will and the Revealed Will (Voluntas Arcana and Voluntas Revelata)

2. The Decretive Will (Will of Decree or The Sovereign Efficacious Will) and the Preceptive Will (Will of Precept or Command)

3. The Will of Good Will (Voluntas Beneplaciti) and the Will of Sign (Voluntas Signi)

4. The Will of God's Purpose and the Will of God's Delight (also called the Will of Good Pleasure (Eudokia) and the Will of Complacency (Euarestia).

There is a similarity between each of these types of distinction. They all involve the word "will" being used in different senses.

In some ways the secret/revealed will distinction is the least useful or accurate. The secret will is God's sovereign will which is always accomplished. The revealed will is what God wants us to do in order to please him. So, for example, God's revealed will is clear that he does not want us to murder; yet his secret will permits murders to happen every day. The main issue for me with this terminology is that God has revealed that he has a secret will (i.e. that he has a sovereign decree) and so although the details of it may be secret prior to events happening, the fact that he has such a will is no secret. 

For this reason, I prefer the distinction between a will of decree and a will of precept or command. This makes the same point as the secret/revealed will distinction, but in a clearer more accurate manner.

God's will in one sense is what his commands and prohibitions say. Do not steal is God's will. Preach the gospel to every creature is God's will—in the preceptive sense. But in the decretive sense, God's will is what ordains everything that comes to pass. Both types of will ultimately spring from the character and attributes of God, though the will of decree includes within it things that God chooses to permit that he does not approve of, for a greater purpose.

The distinction between the Voluntas Beneplaciti and the Voluntas Signi is very similar, with the former being the decree and the latter being the will of command.

Likewise, the will of God's purpose is the decree and the will of God's delight is his preceptive or revealed will.

All of these distinctions recognise that although God's will is one, there are two senses in which Scripture talks of the will of God. 

In all instances, in one sense, God's will is what he decrees to take place, what his purpose represents, and it is all encompassing, including things which God does not like or approve of. He permits sin to occur for his own purposes, including ultimately to manifest his own glory in the display of his justice and wrath. All things that happen are God's will in this sense. Yet we may not utilise the fact that something happened to conclude that it is God's will in the other sense of being something God approves of, delights in, or enjoys.

If we want to get an idea of what God likes, delights in, approves of, or wants us to do. If we would seek to please God by our actions, then we must look to the revealed will, the preceptive will, the will of the sign, the will of God's delight. We dare not try to extract this from analysing God's decree, since it includes both what God delights in, and what God detests. The revealed will of God is our guide for how God wants us to live.

If God's word commands us, guides us, invites us or asks us, we can be sure that such an action as complies with God's word pleases him. Likewise, if God's word commands us not to, warns us, forbids us, then we can be sure than doing what God commands us not to do will displease God and refraining from any prohibition pleases him.  

The Simple and the Complex Sense

Another useful distinction made by theologians regarding God's will is known as the simple and complex (or compound) senses. The Reformed theologian, Francis Turretin, deals with this in his Institutes.

As I understand the concept, the simple sense involves looking at an event in isolation, as an event in itself. The complex or compound sense involves looking at the thing in relation to everything else.

The value of this insight is obvious when we look at some examples. Take for example the murder of a person. In the simple sense, God clearly condemns and opposes the unlawful taking of a human life. However, in the complex sense, God does permit murders to take place for his own ultimate purposes. Similarly, in the simple sense God wills that everyone who hears the gospel would respond in faith and find salvation in Christ. Yet in the compound sense, God wills only to save his chosen ones, the elect, and not to save everyone who hears the gospel. This is not mere double-talk. We must remember that the simple sense looks at each event as a thing in itself where the complex sense looks at the overall picture, including all things.

This approach is essentially that adapted by John Piper, who talks about looking at God's will in a narrow lens and a wide-angled lens. God can, in this way, be said to desire the salvation of all, viewed in the simple or narrow lens, but only to desire the salvation of the elect in the wide-angled sense, because although in a sense God desires to save all, his desire to glorify himself in the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the reprobate is his highest motivation.  

Delight, Desire and Wishes

A final distinction worth mentioning is another important one. The distinction is between God's constitutional attitudes and God's volitions. The former are part of God's nature but need not be part of God's actual will. The latter also stem from God's nature but are also part of God's volition, his will.

The distinction recognises that God may have delight in certain things, and desires or wishes for certain ends that stem only from his constitution or nature but are not part of his sovereign or decretive will, though such desires may find expression the revealed or preceptive will. 

Conclusions

It will be clear from these descriptions that there is a close relationship between what has alternatively been called God's constitutional attitudes in his nature, the simple sense and "revealed" or "preceptive" "will" of God. Likewise there is a correlation between God's volitional choices, the complex or compound sense, and God's sovereign will or the will of decree.

Bearing these distinctions in mind helps us safely and accurately chart a course through the Bible and all that the Scriptures teach concerning the will of God. When we forget these distinctions or blur them or flatten them out we will run into serious theological errors if not heresy. This is one of the false trails that all those who deny God's decree take. They oversimplify and fail to take into account all the Scriptures teach. 

Reformed theology, on the other hand, gives full scope to the entirety of Scripture regarding this difficult doctrine of the will of God. 

A Calvinist Exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1

This paper seeks to exegete a single verse in Peter’s Second Epistle, namely 2 Peter 2:1. This verse presents, on the face of it, a difficulty for the Calvinist doctrine of particular redemption.[1] The difficulty, in essence, is that the verse seems to indicate, according to one interpretation, that Christ’s atonement was on behalf of people who are not truly Christians, and therefore by implication, his atonement must be on behalf of every person—all without exception.

We Calvinists understand the Scriptures, as a whole, to teach that Christ’s death was intended only to save the elect and so Christ did not die to redeem (or buy) the non-elect, such as the false teachers whom Peter mentions.

Issues of Translation and Meaning

 Let us begin by looking at the verse in question. Although the verse presents difficulties of interpretation, it does not present any real significant translation issues. The main English translations, across the theological spectrum, all translate the verse in a similar way. Here is a list of ten translations and their publication years, ranging from 1611 to 2017.

 

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (KJV – 1611)

 

But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (ASV - 1901)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (RSV – 1971)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. (NRSV – 1989)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (NASB – 1995)

 

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (ESV - 2001)

 

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. (NIV – 2011)

 

But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. (NLT - 2015)

 

There were indeed false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves. (CSB - 2017)[2]

 

As can be seen, the translations are all very similar, particularly in the key words found in the middle of the verse, which are essentially this: ‘even denying the Master/Lord/Sovereign Lord that/who bought them.’ Within this phrase, the two important words are the noun that most translations render ‘Master’ and the verb that all the translations render ‘bought.’

We begin by looking at these two words important words.

‘Master’ or ‘Lord’ or ‘Sovereign’ is a translation of the Greek word δεσπότης (despotés). It is the root of the English words ‘despot’ and ‘despotism.’ It carries the connotation of an absolute ruler or sovereign, having power without limitations or restraints, Let us begin by looking at the verse in question.  though without necessarily having a negative connotation (unlike the English word).

The word is not very common in the New Testament, occurring just ten times, both as a singular and a plural. The meaning is not really in dispute in any of the occurrences. Slightly more open for discussion is who Peter is referring to as ‘Master’ or ‘Lord.’

The word was used to refer to a human master, i.e. an owner of slaves, though this meaning is rare in the New Testament. Or the word may refer to either God (the Father) or Christ the Son.

Of the other nine occurrences, the word refers to God or God the Father in four places (Luke 2:29, Acts 4:24, 2 Timothy 2:21, Revelation 6:10), to human masters in four places (1 Timothy 6:1 and 6:2, Titus 2:9 and 1 Peter 2:18), and to Christ in one place (Jude 4).

Therefore, there is nothing inherent in the word that must mean Christ in 2 Peter 2:1. However, given that Jude 4 is probably the most important other reference, due to the close parallels between 2 Peter and Jude, this gives at least an indication that ‘Master’ in 2 Peter 2:1 may well refer to Christ himself.

The verse in Jude 4 reads: ‘For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ’ (ESV).

From the context, it is not certain whether Peter had in mind God the Father or Christ the Son as the ‘Master’ in this verse. We keep an open mind on that, but to make our task as difficult as possible from a Calvinist perspective, let us assume—in line with the Jude parallel—that Master means Christ here.

The second translational issue concerns the word ‘bought’ which is the Greek word ἀγοράσαντα (agorasanta), meaning indeed ‘having bought.’ It is an active aorist participle grammatically. It comes from the common verb ἀγοράζω (agorazo), to buy or purchase.  There can be no objection to the common English translations. It stems from the word for marketplace and from a person who goes to the marketplace.

A final brief word about the word ‘deny’ which is what these false teachers are said to do with their Master. The word is ἀρνούμενο (arnoumenoi), which is found in this form only here and in Jude 4 in the New Testament, but other forms of the verb are found at Matthew 10:33, Matthew 26:70 and 72, Mark 14:70, Luke 8:45 and Acts 3:14 among others. There is no dispute the word means ‘to deny’ or ‘to disown’ something or someone.

In terms of translation and meaning, therefore, the key phrase is relatively straightforward. The false teachers whom Peter identifies are said to ‘deny the Master who bought them.’

There is no dispute about the key phrase says. The issues, as we shall see, concern how we interpret this phrase.

Interpreting the Key Phrase

 We begin to explore the interpretation of 2 Peter 2:1 agreed on what the verse says and how it should be translated. The ESV rendering is a good representative and is our starting point:

 There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

 The meaning of the text seems clear enough. Peter says that the church will experience false teachers within its midst, similar to the way that false prophets plagued the people of Israel in the Old Testament. These false teachers will bring in ‘destructive heresies’ and they will even deny the Master who bought them. That much is clear.

Assuming the Master is Christ, then the false teachers will in one way or another deny Christ. Perhaps they will deny his deity, perhaps his full humanity, perhaps some aspect of his atoning death or his resurrection. Most Christians would have no issue with understanding that there may be false teachers in the church who will deny important truths about Christ.

The question really concerns the meaning of the words ‘who bought them.’ What does it mean that Christ somehow ‘bought’ these false teachers.

For Arminians and others who affirm a universal atonement, there is no difficulty. For them, Christ died with the intention of saving all, the false teachers as much as the true believers within the church. The little phrase ‘who bought them’ would simply mean that even though Christ died to save them, they denied him.

Calvinists, who maintain the doctrine of limited atonement or particular redemption, cannot interpret the verse this way. In our view, the intention of the atonement was to save God’s elect and according to our view the atonement is entirely effective in its intent. In other words, all those for whom Christ died to save are saved by him.

It is not our aim in this article to argue for the doctrine of limited atonement. The resources arguing for the truth of this doctrine are many and thorough.[3] Instead, for our purposes, we are going to assume its truth and then show why 2 Peter 2:1 presents a problem uniquely for Calvinism and offer a solution to that problem.

The apparent difficulty is obvious. If Christ’s death was a definite atonement (or particular redemption) made for the elect—those chosen for salvation and who are actually saved—then why would Peter talk about these false teachers denying the Master who bought them? The verse is clear that the end of these false teachers is not salvation, but rather ‘destruction,’ a form of the noun ἀπώλεια (apólia), which means in this context spiritual or eternal destruction, ruin or loss.

In essence, the interpretative difficulty boils down to this: if Christ died only with the intention of saving the elect, and the atonement is always successful in its divine intent, how can Peter say that Christ ‘bought’ these false teachers if their fate is ‘swift destruction’?

The advocates of unlimited or universal atonement do not only find this verse easily comprehensible according to their view, but use the verse to argue against definite or limited atonement.

How does the Calvinist respond?

As we have seen, the meaning and interpretation of most of the verse is simple. These false teachers are not ultimately saved, but rather will be destroyed. And they deny the Master, whom we accept likely refers to the Lord Jesus Christ himself. The only real room for interpretative variation concerns the meaning of ‘bought’ in this verse. Does it refer to the atoning death of Christ and if so in what sense can Christ be said to have ‘bought’ these false teachers who are not saved? Or does ‘bought’ have some other meaning here that is plausible?

Based on the understanding that Christ’s atonement was specifically and definitely made with the intention of saving only the elect, Peter saying the false teachers were ‘bought’ must either refer to the atonement in some other way than that Christ died with the intention of saving these false teachers or must refer to ‘bought’ in some sense other than the atonement altogether.

This, we find are the precise lines of argument that Calvinists have indeed taken on the interpretation of this verse.

In precise form we find the verb participle ‘having bought’ in this verse, there are no other occurrences in the New Testament. Apart from the verse in question, there are some 29 other occurrences of the verb in various forms in the New Testament. Of these, 23 are instances where buy or bought is used in connection with the ordinary purchase of goods, land or services.[4] More significantly for our purposes, a further six occurrences relate to redemption or the atonement. The following are all the relevant verses with the key words marked in bold:

 

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,  for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.’ (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, ESV)

 

You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:23, ESV)

 

I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. (Revelation 3:18, ESV)

 

And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.’ (Revelation 5:9-10, ESV)

 

And they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-4, ESV)

 

These verses are instructive in their way but do not settle the matter of interpreting 2 Peter 2:1. The two instances in 1 Corinthians clearly refer to the atonement, but as they seem to refer to those saved by it, they cast no light on the verse in question. The same can be said of three of the instances in Revelation 5 and 14. The verse in Revelation 3:18 falls neither under the verses referring to the atonement nor the larger group referring to normal purchases. In that verse, Christ himself speaks to the church at Laodicea to buy (metaphorically) from Christ what they need. Again, the verse does little to help our discussion.

In no other verse does ‘buy’ or ‘bought’ refer to individuals or groups that are not saved. Therefore, they cannot settle the matter of the use of ‘bought’ in 2 Peter 2:1.

Given the evidence in favour of limited or definite atonement, what could ‘bought’ mean in this verse then? If indeed the atonement is intended to be effectual only for the salvation of the elect, in what sense can Christ be said to have ‘bought’ the false teachers who are destined for swift destruction?

There are three main Reformed interpretations of this verse that seek to interpret it in a manner that harmonises with the truth of particular redemption.

The first interpretation, advocated by many Reformed theologians,[5] is that ‘bought’ may refer to the external and apparent ‘redemption’ of the visible church, of which the false   were a part, though not a part of the saved elect of God. In this view, by being outwardly part of the people of God, even these false teachers could be said to have been ‘bought’ by their association with the church, though not truly a part of it. They may even have received certain covenant blessings as being in outward covenant with God’s people, though not the blessing of salvation.

This view is supported by verses in the Old Testament, which speak of God having redeemed or bought Israel as a nation, even though the nation contained both believers and unbelieving Jews.[6]

The second interpretation regards ‘Master’ as referencing God the Father rather than Christ.[7] The basis for this view is that despotes more often refers to the Father than it does to Christ (see Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24). In this view, the ‘bought’ refers to God’s deliverance of his people, again of whom the false teachers professed to be a part. The nation of Israel was said to be delivered or redeemed from slavery in Egypt, even though the nation included non-believers. Despite the pedigree of the exegetes who have taken this view, I do not consider it a convincing argument, particularly since the close parallel in Jude 4 clearly refers to Christ and not the Father.

The third interpretation sees ‘bought’ as applying to the professed faith of the false teachers.[8] It is as if Peter in a sense grants the false teachers profession. If they had believed in Christ, he would indeed have bought them and saved them. It is as if he is being ironic here. The false teachers deny the very Master they claimed had bought them.

Both interpretations one and three are similar and there is considerable overlap between them, in that Peter’s description applies to the outward profession and the visible church membership of these false teachers, rather than their true state before God, which was outside of salvation and heading for destruction in hell. It is no different to any preacher addressing a church congregation as the redeemed and saved, even though there may be false professors within the congregation.

Whether we take a pure form of interpretation one or three, or a blend of both, the important point is that it is perfectly consistent with the text to argue that Peter here is merely referring to matters from the point of view of outward covenant membership and profession of faith and not regarding the effectual, substitutionary redemption that only the actual elect enjoy.

This is not a case of special pleading for 2 Peter 2:1. In fact, throughout the Scriptures, there are numerous examples of places where the whole nation of Israel is spoken of as though they were God’s covenant people who enjoy salvation, even though the nation contained many unbelievers and only a faithful remnant.

Relevant verses include Deuteronomy 7:6-8 and Exodus 19:5-6 which speak of the whole nation being a ‘chosen people’ and ‘holy nation’ and as those ‘redeemed’ from Egypt, even though many were not truly in a saving relationship with God. The principle is that it is possible to be spoken of as ‘redeemed’ and ‘holy’ through outward covenant membership while remaining spiritually unregenerate.

Likewise, the covenant sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-14) marked out a Jewish male as being in covenant with God, yet the Bible is clear that not all who are outward Israelites truly belong to God’s true Israel (Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9:6-8).

In the New Testament, the same broad principle of a distinction between outward appearance and inward reality persists. The case of Judas Iscariot is significant in that Jesus chose him to be as apostle and appointed him with the others in the Twelve to mission, yet Judas was never saved (see Matthew 10:1-8 and compare John 6:70-71).

Also, in Jesus’ Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, both believers and non-believers are shown to co-exist in the visible or outward manifestation of the kingdom (Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43).

The distinction between the outward or visible church consisting of all who profess the faith (and also their children) and the invisible church consisting of the elect only is taught in the Reformed confessions, including the Westminster Confession chapter 25.

To conclude, therefore, 2 Peter 2:1 does not require the abandonment of the doctrine of definite or limited atonement. It is fully consistent in the Reformed faith to speak of false professors of faith as being part of the visible church, the redeemed community, and so in that sense ‘bought’ by Christ, while acknowledging that they are part of the invisible church, the elect, or actually redeemed by Christ.

 

---

[1] Particular redemption is also frequently called ‘limited atonement’ or ‘definite atonement’ in Reformed theology, but the

[2] The translations are the following: KJV is the King James (or Authorised Version), ASV is the American Standard Version, RSV is the Revised Standard Version, NRSV is the New Revised Standard Version, NASB is the New American Standard Bible, ESV is the English Standard Version, NIV is the New International Version, NLT is the New Living Translation, and CSB is the Christian Standard Bible.

[3] Some works arguing for the truth of limited atonement include classic works such as The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen, For Whom Did Christ Die? by R. B. Kuiper, and The Potter’s Freedom by James White. The most comprehensive large-scale work on the subject is From Heaven He Came and Sought Her edited by David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson. In addition to these, any work on the Five Points of Calvinism including those by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, Edwin H. Palmer, W. J. Seaton, Robert Lewis Dabney, or John Piper. The relevant chapters of any Reformed systematic theology text such as those by Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, Wayne Grudem, John Frame, Robert Letham or Robert Reymond also cover the subject.

[4] These include: Matthew 13:44 and 46; Matthew 14:15; Matthew 21:12; Matthew 25:9 and 10; Matthew 27:7; Mark 6:36 and 37; Mark 11:15; Mark 15:46; Mark 16:1; Luke 9:13; Luke 14:18 and 19; Luke 17:28; Luke 22:36; John 4:8; John 6:5; John 13:29; 1 Corinthians 7:30; Revelation 13:17; Revelation 18:11.

[5] This is the view put forward by John Owen and John Gill among others.

[6] See Exodus 15:16, Deuteronomy 32:5. Also see Romans 9:6.

[7] This is the view of John Murray and Robert Reymond among others.

[8] This is the view of John Calvin and Francis Turretin among others.

It’s Time to Take a Stand Against Catholicism’s Push for Unity (YouTube)

Great Theologians 4: Herman Bavinck

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921)

 

Herman Bavinck was perhaps the most significant Dutch Reformed theologian of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, along with Abraham Kuyper and his almost exact contemporary, the American Presbyterdian, B. B. Warfield. He was deeply influential among future generations of both Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian theologians, preachers and believers.

Bavinck was born in the small town of Hoogeveen on 13th December 1854. His father was from Germany and was a minister in the Christian Reformed Church, a conservative and separatist denomination in the Netherlands.

He studied at Kampen and Leiden and wrote his dissertation on the ethics of the Swiss Reformed, Ulrich Zwingli. He was ordained as a minister and appointed as Professor of Theology at Kampen and then later at the Free University of Amsterdam, working alongside Abraham Kuyper. Bavinck died on 29th July 1921, aged 66.

His major theological work is a massive, four-volume Reformed Dogmatics published between 1895 and 1901. Known for its thoroughness in dealing with all areas of theology and engaging with other theological positions and traditions as they existed in Bavinck's time, it remains a high point of Reformed scholarship.

Bavinck took a classic Dutch Reformed stance on many issues, but was not afraid to make his own contributions. For example, Bavinck rejected both supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism in the area of predestination, and insisted that all God's decrees are inseparable, even logically. Bavinck was also a major theologian of the doctrine of common grace, realising that any good in this world among sinful humanity can only be as a result of God's kindness and love in operation. In 1909, he also published a one-volume condensed and simplified version of his dogmatics designed to tbe read by ordinary Reformed believers. Originally entitled Our Reasonable Faith it was later published as The Wonderful Works of God.

Bavinck's work on Reformed Ethics are still being translated into English and being published in various volumnes now.

Amyraldianism, Marrow Theology and Free Offer of the Gospel

I think it was the Princeton theologian, A. A. Hodge, who said that the free offer of the gospel was the point where the opponents of Calvinism have rightly focused their main attack. 

The reason for this is obvious. The distinctive of Reformed theology is particularism. Reformed theology teaches that God chooses some people for salvation, not everyone (unconditional election), that Christ died with the intention of saving only the elect and not everyone (limited atonement/particular redemption), and that God irresistibly or effectually calls only some by his grace to receive saving faith.

The problem with this particularism, true to Scripture though it is, is that it would seem to be in conflict with other Scriptures that teach that, at a minimum, the gospel call is to be made to all indiscriminately—elect and non-elect alike, and that there would seem to be some sense in which God wishes or desires everyone to heed the gospel invitiation and be saved.

This apparent tension has been addressed in numerous ways by theologians.

The Arminians address it by denying the Reformed truths of unconditional election, particular redemption and irresistible grace and thereby fall outside the sphere of Reformed theology. Since they maintain a sincere gospel offer to all, they conclude that there is no sovereign decree choosing some for salvation and not others, that Christ's death was an attempted atonement for everyone, and that God's grace tries to draw all the salvation. The definining element between the saved and the lost therefore becomes the human free will, the choice to believe or not.

At the other extreme, Hyper-Calvinism, addresses the tension by denying that the free offer of the gospel is for all, elect and non-elect alike. Instead, in one way or another, the Hyper-Calvinist restricts the gospel offer to the elect only.

Arminianism and Hyper-Calvinism are the most extreme ways of meeting the apparent tension between Reformed theology's particularism of salvation for the elect alone and a free offer of the gospel for everyone. In a sense, both are rationalistic solutions to the apparent inconsistency of insising that both are true. They solve the "problem" by denying one side or the other in the tension.

Within the broad sweep of Reformed theology, there have been other attempts to explain or handle this tension. Two are of special interest, and in this author's view, one is deeply problematic, while the other is in harmony with the Reformed confessions.

Amyraldianism 

Amyraldianism is a deformed type of Reformed theology, named after a French theologian, Moise Amyraut, who taught at Saumur in the 17th century. Sometimes misleadingly called "Four Point Calvinism," Amyraldianism attempts to "soften" Reformed orthodoxy in the doctrines of unconditional election and especially particular redemption. 

First, as regards the doctirne of God's decree, Amyraldians suggest that there is a twofold aspect to the decree, whereby God first decreed hypothetically to save everyone without exception on the condition of faith in Christ, then recognising this would actually save none, God decreed to save the elect unconditionally or absolutely.

Second, Amyraldians hold to an unlimited atonement (i.e. that Christ's death was intended to make a universal provision for the salvation of all (in accord with the first decree) and it is only the application of salvation that is for the elect. 

Obviously, this view is at odds with orthodox Reformed theology, although it does hold to a form of uncondtional electon by adding a former conditional decree to save all and making the atonement universal. 

Amyraldianism is a kind of unstable half-way house between Calvinism and Arminianism and contrary to the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dort, which know nothing of a hypothetical decree to save all and teach that Christ's death was intended only to save the elect.

The seeming rationale behind Amyraldianism is to make a genuine free offer of salvation possible to all because the atonement is viewed as made by Christ for all without exception. But as we will see, it is perfectly possible to hold to particular redemption and make a full and free offer of the gospel to sinners, as the Marrow Men demonstrated in Scotland in the 18th century.

Marrow Theology 

The famous Marrow Controversy in the Church of Scotland of the early 18th century touches on some of the same issues in theology. Named after a Purtian book, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645) by Edward Fisher, it split theological opinion in the Scottish Presbyterian church. From my perspective, I would tend to side with the Marrow Men and against their opponents. 

They were right to oppose the legalism and preparationism found in the Church of Scotland of the day. They were right to insist on the distinction between law and gospel. And they were right to preach the free offer of the gospel to all sinners. They did so while remaining orthodox, five point Calvinists.

However, the Marrow theology did introduce what A. A. Hodge termed some 'novelties' into Reformed theology and these are not beyond criticism. In particular, the Marrow theology can be said to have introduced a kind of twofold reference in the atonement, making it both a general gift to all humanity as well as particular gift to save only the elect. Such confusion is not helpful and could be seen as watering down the particularism of Dort and the Westminster Confession. 

The Marrow approach to the free offer in Fisher's book, later endorsed by the likes of Thomas Boston and the Erskine brothers, can be summarised in two well-known phrases in the Marrow that I would focus on in this regard. Fisher wrote:

The Father hath made a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind, that whosoever of them all shall believe in his Son shall not perish, but have eternal life.

The Marrow Men and Fisher used John 3:16 to support this view. Most Reformed theologians prior to this viewed the love of God in John 3:16 has God's saving love, lavished only on God's elect. The Marrow Men instead saw the love God is said to have for the world as being less than the saving, electing love that leads to the savlation of all the elect. The Marrow Men saw instead that the love of John 3:16 was genuinely for all sinners, and the giving of Christ was as God's appointed Saviour for mankind, offered to all who believe. 

A similar view, that the love of God for the world in John 3:16 extends to everyone, would appear to be the majority view among contemporary Reformed theologians. 

The old view, of the likes of John Owen and Francis Turretin that the 'world' in John 3:16 means Gentiles and Jews—everyone without distinction rather than everyone without exception, and with some kind of reference to the elect of all nations—now appears to be the minority view among Calvinists. 

Along similar lines is the second famous (or infamous) quotation from the Marrow:

Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him, Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him.

The Marrow Men believed in particular redemption, that Christ died with the intention of saving only the elect. Yet alongside this, they accepted the rather strange language (not found in Scripture) that Christ is dead for all sinners who hear the gospel. So Christ did not die for all, but Christ is dead for all, by which they meant that not only was the message of Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2) was to be preached to all sinners in the free offer, but that God has a non-saving kind of love in the realm of salvation for al sinners without exception.

As with the "deed of gift and grant" language, it seems clear—at least in Boston's reading of the Marrow that the phrase means no more than that when the gospel offer is preached, the question is not whether a person is elect so that they know if the atonement was made for them, but rather that they know they are a sinner and that if they come to faith in Christ they will be saved no matter what they have done. That's what was meant by "Christ is dead" for sinners.

The trouble is that the Marrow theology comes perilously close to a kind of Amyralianism of its own. In other words, in teaching that there is in the gift of Christ for the world a divine intent (albeit a non-efficacious intent) not merely to save elect sinners, but to save all sinners.

In is excellent work on The Atonement, A. A. Hodge was critical of these aspects of the Marrow Men's theology. He found fault in what he calls a "double reference" in the Marrow doctrine of the atonement. Some of the language used in the Fisher's book can only be called misleading at best and simply in error at worst. Here I'm thinking of a phrase used that "Christ has taken upon himself the sins of all men". As a Calvinist, I do not believe that is true. While it is true that the atonement was of infinite value and sufficient to atone for all the sins of all humanity, it is also true, as the Westminster Confessions teaches that "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only" (WCF 3.6).

Hodge was also critical of some of the terminology used. Although accepting that Thomas Boston and the other leading Marrow Men stayed within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy, Hodge was also clear that some of the Marrow language was not helpful or felicitous.

He wrote: "All their forms of expression were confused and their laborious distinctions utterly profitless. What is the significancy of making a special head of that 'giving love' which makes an actual grant of salvation upon conditions known to be absolutely impossible, and which makes no provision for its application, and which never intended the salvation of its objects?"

Quite.

He continues: "What real idea is signalized by the verbal distinction between the bona fide offer of the gospel to all, and the "Deed of Gift" of Christ upon which it is said to rest? What is the virtue of a 'Deed of Gift or Grant' which actually conveys nothing, and which was eternally intended to convey nothing?"

Indeed, we cannot disagree with Hodge here, nor when he maintains that God's "giving love" is "that highest and most wonderful form of love which 'spared not his own Son' [Romans 8:32] and not merely a kind of general benevolence towards the whole of humanity, even those destined not to be saved.

Hodge calls consistent Calvinists to reject any kind of double reference in the atonement, a general atonement for all on condition of faith, and a particular atonement for the elect. He recommends rejecting such "novelties" including these elements of the Marrow language.

The Free Offer of the Gospel

The final question then is what is the correct approach in Reformed theology, to warrant the full and free offer of the the gospel to all sinners? If it does not proceed from Amyralianism's hypothetical universalism nor from Marrow theology's universal deed of gift and grant of Christ to all?

The answer is that the free offer depends not on a universal atonement in one sense or the other, but on the sufficiency of the atonement, on the suitability of the atonement perfectly adapted for all sinners, on God's command and invitation expressed in the gospel offer, and in the promise made to all hearers of the gospel that if they believe in Jesus Christ they will be saved. To this we can safely add the comfort and encouragement that it is God's revealed will that he does not delight in the death of sinners, but rather desires that they would turn to him and live.

None of these require us to abandon or blur the teaching that on the cross Christ died to save his people from their sins and thereby save the world and that in doing so he fully achieved his intended aims, as John 3:17 plainly states: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him" (ESV). 

  

Why I am Not a Molinist (Part 2)

We explained what Molinism means in Part 1 of this article and listed a number of objections to this theological model and view of divine sovereignty and human free will. In this post, we will explore nine objections raised to Molinism in more detail. 

The points made are not much more than brief summaries. For much greater detail on many of these points, the reader is invited to delve into a vast literature on the subject. Perhaps the single best place to start, would be either to read the relevant sections of Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology, particularly Topic 4 (The Knowledge of God), Questions 9-11. For a moden discussion, Paul Helm's book The Providence of God is a good read. 

The weight of these objections constitute the reasons why I am not a Molinist.

Objection 1: Molinism Denies God's Absolute Sovereignty and His Exhaustive and Unconditional Decree

Fundamentally, Molinism denies that God has an exhaustive and unconditional divine decree. According to Molinism, there are a multitude of possible worlds which are not feasible for God to create. He is only able to actualize worlds which are in line with the contents of middle knowledge. Suppose God knows that there are no circumstances that he could bring about in which person A will freely choose to do act B at time C. God is therefore constrained. There is no way for the God of Molinism to ordain that A will do B at time C according to Molinism.

This is in sharp contrast, it seems to me, with the God revealed in Scripture, who can do anything he desires and no one can stop him. This would include ordaining that A does B at C. The only restrictions on what God can ordain in Calvinism are things which are logically impossible (such as making a four-sided triangle) or things which are inconsistent with God's own being and character (God cannot turn the Trinity into a Quadrinity or will himself out of existence).

The following verses are deeply problematic for a Molinist understanding of providence, since they seem to admit of no restrictions on God's absolute sovereignty, whereas Molinism is built around a very significant delimiting factor in what middle knowledge makes feasible .[1]

'But our God is in the heavens. He does whatever he pleases.' (Psalm 115:3)

'Whatever Yahweh pleased, that he has done, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.' (Psalm 135:6)

'But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? What his soul desires, even that he does.' (Job 23:13)

'I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be restrained.' (Job 42:2) 

'All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he does according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and no one can stop his hand, or ask him, “What are you doing?”' (Daniel 4:35)

'Yahweh has made everything for its own end—yes, even the wicked for the day of evil.' (Proverbs 16:4) 

'A man’s heart plans his course, but Yahweh directs his steps.' (Proverbs 16:9) 

'The king’s heart is in Yahweh’s hand like the watercourses. He turns it wherever he desires.' (Proverbs 21:1)

'Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other. I am God, and there is none like me. I declare the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done.
I say: My counsel will stand, and I will do all that I please.' (Isaiah 46:9-10)

'In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.' (Ephesians 1:11, ESV) 

'For of him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen.' (Romans 11:36)

The fundamental objection to Molinism is that the God it presents and how his providence works does not reflect the power and glory of the God of the Bible. 

Objection 2: Molinism Teaches a Type of Creaturely Independence and Contradicts Divine Aseity

Molinism teaches a form of Creaturely Independence which contradicts Divine Aseity. God's aseity is self-existence and total independence from the creation. The eternal God is dependent on no one for anything. However, in Molinism, God's choices are restricted by the content of middle knowledge, which delimits the feasible worlds that God could create.

As we will see, it is incoherent at best where the content of middle knowledge comes from. To argue that it restricts what God can do, and that God is somehow beholden to the choices of human beings contradicts this attribute of God. 

Objection 3: Molinism Requires Libertarian Free Will, Despite Lack of Biblical Evidence

Molinism relies on libertarian free will. Indeed, Molinism was created by Molina in an attempt to show that God's sovereignty could be harmonised with libertarian free will. Yet the Bible teaches that even human free choices are under the control of God's sovereign choice. Some of the verses we have already quoted clearly teach that human choices are under God's control.

An excellent article called 'Eleven (11) Reasons to Reject Libertarian Free Will' by John Hendryx explains the many problems with libertarian free will from a Christian point of view.

Libertarian Free Will is simply the view that when a person chooses to do something, at that moment, he could have chosen to do otherwise and that there is nothing determining the choice, not the circumstances, nor our desires, nor even our own affections. 

The problem with building a theological system around libertarian free will is that it is a philosophical concept and not one derived from Scripture. Rather the Scriptures presuppose that though we are free to make choices, such choices are not outside the scope of God's sovereignty. 

Objection 4: Molinism Teaches a Kind of Semi-Pelagianism 

Molinism smuggles in a kind of semi-Pelagian anthropolgy whereby sinners are able to do good, including saving good, in response to God's grace merely if put in the right set of circumstances, without the internal changes that Scripture describes, wrought in the sinner by the Holy Spirit. 

As human beings are dead in sin prior and unable to do good, prior to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, it would not matter what circumstances a person was placed in, they would still not have faith in Christ. The key action, the monergistic work of the Holy Spirit in imparting spiritual life to a sinner, is not something Molinism would typically accept. 

Objection 5: Molinism Undermines Divine Simplicity and Immutability 

Molinism undermines divine simplicity and immutability. It makes God's knowledge partly dependent on his creation and makes his decree reactive to imagined human choices, rather than eternal and simple acts of the divine will. 

Objection 6: Molinism Weakens God's Providence and Efficacious Grace 

Molinism weakens God's providence and efficacious grace. God is restricted and can only select from feasible worlds one which matches his desires as closely as possible rather than the biblical view that God's sovereign decree reflects God's own desires perfectly and the world perfectly matches God's desires and wishes.

Objection 7: Molinism Teaches a Type of Conditional Election which is Impersonal 

Election in Molinism can only be a kind of conditional election, in that God chooses those he knows will believe when put in certain circumstances. This is not the unconditional election taught in the Scriptures.

Molinism usually teaches that God choose to actualise the world in which the maximum number of people are saved, but that there were feasible worlds in which any other people would be saved, though no feasible worlds in which everyone is saved. Thus, person A's election in the real world does not rest on God's sovereign choice primarily, but on the fact that A was part of the maximum number of saved people in this world. On the other hand person B, might have been saved in another world, but he is lost in the real world merely because the world in which he would have been saved did not deliver as many saved people overall. This seems ridiculous compared with the Calvinist view that in the real world God saved everyone for whom he has saving love and desires to actually save.

Objection 8: Molinism Rests on the Concept of Middle Knowledge Not Found in Scripture 

Molinism rests on the concept of middle knowledge, which is not found in the Scriptures. It is merely a clever philosophical speculation. Calvinism does a better job of reconciling divine sovereignty, which is absolute, and human free will and responsibility, which is derived from God's decree and is compatible with God's determining all things.

The supposed evidence for middle knowledge usually cited by Molinists is scant at best and can clearly be explained as part of God's natural knowledge of possibilities. In fact there are only two passages cited, which indicates the weakness of the scriptural data in favour of Molinism.

Matthew 11:23 - "You, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, you will go down to Hades. For if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in you, it would have remained until today."

For one thing, the Molinist view requires Jesus' words here to be taken hyperliterally and not regard them as rabbinical hyperbole, which is a more natural reading of the text and a vivid way of saying that the people of Capernaum are morally no better (or even worse) than the people of Sodom. Secondly, even if the words are to be taken literally, this does not prove middle knowledge as understood in Molinism. It merely proves that God has knowledge of couterfactual possiblities, which Calvinsm does not deny via God's natural knowledge.

The second passage is 1 Samuel 23:11-13, in which David asks God two questions about what would happen if he remained in the town of Keilah. God asks if Saul will come there and God answers yes. David then asks if the men of Keilah will give him up to Saul if he stays there and God again answers yes. David then leaves Keilah. Again, this proves God has knowledge of counterfactuals (what if questions) but in no way does this prove Molinist middle knowledge. God would know all possibilities and counterfactuals from his natural knowledge and even in his free knowledge insofar as God would have decreed that David would ask these questions and receive truthful answers from God himself. 

To have only two passages that even hint at middle knowledge is not enough in my view to built such a weighty doctrinal scheme upon, especially when the passages are easily and fully explained without invoking the Molinist concept. 

Objection 9: Molinism is Unable to Present an Adequate Explanation for Why God Has Supposed Middle Knowledge (The Grounding Objection) or Where Middle Knowledge Comes From

The grounding objection has never been satisfactorily answered by Molinism. The grounding objection states that the central claim of Molinism is either completely incoherent or impossible. There is nothing in Molinism that explains (or grounds) why God possesses such knowledge of what people would freely choose to do in any circumstance in which they were placed.

In Calvinism, by contrast. God foreknows what a person will choose because God has ordained it.

For God to know what a person will freely choose in the libertarian sense of free will is both inexplicable and incoherent.

To give an example. Imagine a scientist builds a simple robotic car and places it in a complex maze. He says that the robot is not controlled by him in any way. It makes it's own decisions. At any junction in the maze, the car decides for itself whether to turn left or right or head straight on. If that it true, would we not conclude that it would be impossible for the scientist to know the precise route the robot car would take through the maze? Now suppose the scientist claimed that the robot car was free to make any choice, but he was able to predict the car's path precisely—how it would first turn left, then go straight on, then right, left, etc. Would we not, with good reason, assess that in some way the scientist is controlling the car to know with certainty what it's choices will be at each junction?

Likewise, in Molinism for God to know with certainty what all free choices will be is either an impossibility or there is signiciantly more control being exercised than the Molinist will allow. 

Interestingly, the open theist takes the first option and says such foreknowledge of free choices is impossible; the Calvinist takes the second option and says that free choices are compatible with God's overall control of events via the divine decree.

Closely linked to this, Molinists cannot explain where middle knowledge comes from as it comes from creatures with free will before God has decreed to create such creatures. Middle knowledge comes across as a series of brute facts about the universe with no explanation of why such facts or truths exist as they do not come from God's will, not from the creatures.

To conclude, we have to agree with Turretin's assessment of Molinism, back in the 17th century: "The fiction of middle knowledge (scientiae mediae) devised to maintain the idol of free will cannot be approved. It destroys the independence of God’s knowledge, subjects it to the creature, and makes it dependent upon the free determination of man.” (Institutes IV.10.6)

Notes

[1]  Unless otherwise stated, quotations are from the World English Bible, in the public domain.