Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts

Sunday, 1 February 2026

Chosen in Christ (Book Review)

 

Chosen in Christ: Revisiting the Contours of Predestination by Cornelis Venema (Reformed Exegetical Doctrinal Series, Christian Focus, Fearn, Ross-shire, 2019) 

It's been a while since I've done a book review on blog, despite having read a number of excellent Christian books in the last year. So, I thought it was high time to do one and the book I have just finished, is well worth reviewing and recommending.

The difficult doctrine of predestination or election has long been of particular interest to me and Cornelis Venema's book on the subject is an excellent contribution to this area of doctrine, often regarded as being at the heart of Reformed theology. As might be expected, Venema takes a Calvinist point of view and endorses unconditional election. This is reflected both in his positive presentations of his view and in his critiques of other approaches to election and predestination.

The book reads like a collection of essays on topics concerning predestination rather than a single cohesive treatise or argument on the subject. 

The first part of the book takes a biblical theological tour of the Bible's teaching on election and predestination across three chapters that look at, in turn, the doctrine of election in the Old Testament, the doctrine of election in the New Testament (excluding Paul) and then the doctrine of election in Paul's epistles. This material takes up about a third of the book.

The remaining chapters take a more historical theology perspective, with chapters on election and predestination in Augustine, Reformation theology, Arminian conditional election, Karl Barth's doctrine of election, and what Venema calls "Neo-Arminianism" - more commonly called Open Theism. As expected, Venema's treatment of Augustine and Reformed theology is positive, while his assessment of Arminianism, Barthianism and Open Theism are negative critiques.

The final chapter is entitled Concluding Theological and Pastoral Reflections where the author presents his own reflections on some common objections to the Reformed doctrine of predestination, such as regarding evangelism and the gospel offer.

Election and predestination are scarcely the simplest of Christian doctrines and any treatment of them is bound to be somewhat complex. Venema's book is no exception. In my view, this is at least a semi-technical treatment, aimed at theology students and pastors more than a general Christian readership, I think many people would find it difficult to work through this book. It offers an in depth treatment, particularly of the various deviations from the Reformed doctrine. I would not recommend it as a first read on this topic by any means. For that, I would suggest various other works, whether one of the many books on the Five Points of Calvinism, or A. W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God or James White's The Potter's Freedom. In addition, the relevant chapters of a good Reformed systematic theology, such as Berkhof, would be worth reading before turning to this book from Cornelis Venema. 

The work is valuable for a more in-depth study of the subject, particularly as I said, for the historical analysis and context.

Tuesday, 26 November 2024

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.

Saturday, 23 November 2024

Supralapsarian Theologians

Although the minority view among Calvinists, the list of theologians who are supralapsarian with respect to the logical order of God's decrees (or more accurately, the order of the elements in God's single eternal decree) is an impressive one. The following people have been identified (or call themselves) supralapsarians:

  • Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562)
  • John Knox (1505-1572) 
  • Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590)
  • Theodore Beza (1519-1605)
  • William Whitaker (1548-1595) 
  • William Perkins (1558-1602)
  •  Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641)
  • William Ames (1576-1633)
  • Johannes Bogerman (1576-1637) - president of the Synod of Dort.
  • William Twisse (1578-1646) - prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly
  • Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676)
  • Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) 
  • Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)
  • Alexander Comrie (1706-1774) 
  • Augustus M. Toplady (1740-1778)
  • Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
  • Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949)
  • G. H. Kersten (1882-1948)
  • Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952)
  • Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965)
  • Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985)
  • Robert L. Reymond (1932-2013)

It is debatable whether the first generation of Reformers, Martin Luther (1483-1546), Huldrych Zwingli (1484-1531) and John Calvin (1509-1564) should also be regarded as supralapsarians., but a good case could be made that they were, along with their contemporaries such as Vermigli, Knox, Zanchius and Beza.

Wednesday, 20 November 2024

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 supralapsarian 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).  

Monday, 7 October 2024

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 supralapsarianism" as outlined here which seeks to take into account some of the infralapsarian criticisms of standard supralapsarianism.

"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. 

Monday, 22 January 2024

RC Sproul on Unconditional Election

This video with RC Sproul speaking on unconditional election is one of the clearest explanations of the Reformed doctrine I have come across.


 

The Five Points of Calvinism - 2. Unconditional Election

The second of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" is known in theology as unconditional election

Warning! This is long post.

Unconditional Election is often thought of as the central and distinctive doctrine of Calvinism. That is arguable, but it is certainly the first distinctive doctrine of the Five Points of Calvinism that clashes with Arminianism and other forms of Christianity.

The word "election" in theology is part of the more general doctrine of predestination and refers to God's choice of who will be saved, made prior to the beginning of creation. Election is plainly taught in Scripture and accepted by all Christians who accept biblical authority.

However, many Christians believe in what is called "conditional election." In simple terms this means that God's choice of who will be saved is based on a condition or action done by those who are saved. It is as if God, prior to creation, uses his foreknowledge to look through time and then those he sees as meeting the condition, he then chooses for salvation. The condition to be met is usually regarded as faith in Jesus Christ. So "conditional election" means God chooses those to be saved whom he foresees or foreknows will have faith in Jesus Christ.

The problem with his view is that it reduces God to choosing to save those he sees will choose him. The basis for the choice is not God, but the human being.

A second non-Calvinist view of election is known as "corporate election". This is the view that God chooses the group which is saved, for example God chooses to save the Christian Church, but whether an individual person is part of the favoured group or is excluded from it is up to the human being, not God's choice. This view is very similar to the conditional election view in practice.

For Calvinists, neither of these views does justice to the Bible's teaching about the sovereignty of God in general, and his sovereignty in salvation in particular.

Calvinists, therefore, believe in unconditional election, which means that the choice of who is saved is made solely by God. 

In negative terms, God's choice is not based on any condition (attitude, thought or action) that those who are chosen must meet or are foreseen as meeting. In particular, election is not based on God foreknowing who would believe, nor does election only relate the choice of a group for salvation, it relates to each individual chosen for salvation.

In positive terms, God's choice is made solely within himself, for his own glory and to display his grace on those chosen for salvation. It is this sovereign choice by God which is the ultimate cause of each person's salvation.

The Calvinist view, unconditional election, means, as theologian R. C. Sproul says: "Election rests on God’s sovereign decision to save whomever He is pleased to save." 

The disputed word between Calvinists and non-Calvinists is obviously "unconditional," but I believe the Bible strongly supports the view that God chooses individuals for salvation yet not based on any condition those chosen must meet. 

Unconditional election does not mean "arbitrary" or "capricious" election, though the opponents of Calvinism frequently paint it in that light. Election is made for good reasons as far as God is concerned; however these reasons are not to do with the fitness, character. actions or even foreseen faith of the elect. The reasons are God's reasons, primarily for his own glory.

Unconditional election also does not mean that God will save people irrespective of faith in Christ or irrespective of a how a person lives out their faith. Unconditional election is the reason some are brought to faith and it is the guarantee of the elect evidencing their saving faith in good works. As Ephesians 2:8-10 says: "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. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

Unconditional election simply means that God chooses the elect not on the basis of any characteristic or condition in those chosen, but for his own reasons, out of love for those who are chosen and for his own glory and praise.

Let's review the evidence, remembering that the discussion is not whether or not God chooses people for salvation—Scripture plainly teaches that much—but whether God's choice is based on something within those who are chosen (conditional) or based on nothing within those who are chosen (unconditional). Is there something about those who are saved that somehow made them more suitable for being chosen than others? The Arminian has to say "yes"—the elect are those who had more spiritual insight or less hostility because they believed in Christ where others in exactly the same position spiritually did not believe. Only the Calvinist says "no"—there was nothing about the elect that made them any more worthy of salvation than anyone else. When the Calvinist says we are saved by pure grace, he really means it.

The starting point for any discussion of unconditional election has to be the wider subject of the sovereignty of God. God is in control of the universe and does what pleases him without reference to anything outside his own will. 

Job 23:13 - "But he is unchangeable, and who can turn him back? What he desires, that he does."

Job 42:2 - "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted."

Psalm 115:3 - "Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Psalm 135:6 - "Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps."

Isaiah 46:9-10 - "Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose’."

Daniel 4:35 - "All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'"

Ephesians 1:11 - "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."

Once this point is understood, that God is God and he is the One who does whatever he desires and pleases with his creation, unconditional election is merely the application of this same doctrine of the sovereignty of God to the salvation of human beings.

The Bible is consistent from Genesis to Revelation that God is sovereign and he chooses those whom he wishes, without consultation or limitation, whether the choice is for salvation (which is our main concern) or for service.

Exodus 33:19 - "And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord’. And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy."

This verse makes it clear that God is in control of his grace and mercy. He has the sovereign right to show grace and mercy wherever he wishes. He also has the right to withhold grace and mercy when he wishes. Therefore, God is never obligated to save anyone, nor prevented from saving anyone either when he chooses. Paul quotes this verse in Romans 9:15 to show that God was neither obligated to save every ethnic Jew, nor prohibited from extending salvation to the Gentiles.

Deuteronomy 7:6-8 - "For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

This passage makes it clear that God's people, Israel, were not chosen because they met any criteria for being chosen. They were chosen because Yahweh set his love upon them. We can therefore speak of God's sovereign love being the reason he chooses some and not others, whether this be one nation over another or some individuals and not others.

Psalm 65:4 - "Blessed is the one you choose and bring near, to dwell in your courts! We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house, the holiness of your temple!"

This verse makes it clear that, contra those advocating for corporate election and not individual election, that God chooses individuals, not only nations or groups.

Matthew 11:25-26 - "At that time Jesus declared, 'I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.'"

Here Jesus is speaking directly about htose who would accept or reject him. It is remarkable that his reflection on this is not firstly about human free will or autonomy, but about the Father's purpose, will, and choice.

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..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 10:14-15, 25-30  - "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep...I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 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."

These passages from John's Gospel, the direct teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, are among the strongest and clearest teachings on unconditonal election in the whole Bible. Not only is the order of salvation clear in John 6, that the Father chooses first and gives a people to the Son, all of whom he will save, but Christ makes a distinction later in John 10 between those who are his (his flock) and others who are not his flock. Most strikingly he does not say to some "You are not part of my flock because you do not believe" which is what we would maybe expect from an Arminian Jesus, but rather "You do not believe because you are not part of my flock" or in other words, because they were not given to him by the Father. The concept of unconditional election is central to the argument of these passages.

John 15:16 - "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."

This verse is important in making the point that the choice of the disciples was completely unconditional. Christ chose those whom he wanted. It is quite foreign to the concept of election in the Bible to read into it conditionality. Christ never said, far less implied, that he chose the disciples because he knew in advance they would say "yes". The reverse is true, they would say "yes" because he sovereignly chose them.

Arminians sometimes make much of the fact that the choice here is strictly speaking to be disciples and apostles. They try to drive a wedge between election to salvaiton and election to service. Such a distinction is man-made and not derived from Scripture. In choosing these men to lead the church this was merely an extension of them being chosen for salvation, because the eleven here (Judas had already left the room - John 13:29-30) were all elected for salvation and to serve as church leaders.

Acts 13:48 - "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

This one of the strongest verses on unconditional election or sovereign election in the New Testament. The order of events is the opposite of Arminian claims. It is those who were appointed ("ordained" - KJV) for eternal life who believed, not those who believed who were appointed for eternal life. An Arminian would never write this verse the way Luke wrote it.

Before we move on to look at the apostle Paul's teachings on election, it is perhaps worth noting that some people believe that unconditional election is a peculiarly Pauline concept. It is worth recognising that hitherto we have only examined the writings of Moses, the Psalms, Matthew and John mainly quoting Jesus himself, and Luke in Acts. Unconditional election is clearly established by these and many more non-Pauline texts. Paul only writes more extensively and explicitly but holds to the same teaching as the other biblical writers and the Lord himself.

Romans 8:28-30 - "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 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."

This passage is a wonderful testimony to unconditional election when read properly and in context.

Perhaps in passing we might first note how difficult it is to conceive how God can make all things work together for good to those who love him (v.28) in a world where everyone has libertarian free will outside God's control, but we will let that pass.

The main point is about the "golden chain" of salvation here in verses 29 and 30. The order given by Paul is foreknown > predestined > called > justified > glorified.

In this context "whom he foreknew" cannot refer to pre-knowledge of facts or things about people (i.e. it cannot refer to God foreknowing who would believe) for the simple reason is that since God is omniscient, he knows all things about all people. It would make no sense to talk about "those whom he foreknew" as a distinct group if the Arminian view is correct since God foreknows everything about everyone. No, this has to be referring to "knowing" in the biblical sense of intimacy and love. Those who are foreknown here are "foreloved". This is knowing in the same way as Jesus meant when he said to the damned "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:23).

The rest of the "chain" is clear, from God's choice through to final glory. None are lost along the way (cf. John 6:37). All who are foreknown and predestined are justified and glorified.

All actions are God's. He accomplishes these things. It totally disrupts the nature of the apostle's thoughts, and the beauty of the picture of grace presented, to insert human free will as the determining factor and upon which God's choice is supposedly dependent.

Romans 9:10-13, 15-16 - "And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'...For 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."

Paul further expands on his teaching on sovereign election in Romans 9. The whole chapter should be carefully read. Paul goes as deep as any human being ever has into the mind and purposes of God (see Romans 9;19-24). The teaching is clear. Paul contrasts God's purpose of election with human actions (v.16). The fact that God's choice of Jacob over Esau was before they were born or had done anything good or evil strongly suggests that election is not conditional on foreseeing who would believe.

1 Corinthians 1:27-29 - "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God."

Here again Paul's argument, reminiscent of Jesus' words in Matthew 11:25-26 we looked at already, does not sound like someone who believes God's choice is based on anything in those who are chosen. If that were so, his argument would fall apart. The argument is that God chose those who are least likely to be chosen, precisely to glorify himself and rule out human boasting.

Conditional election does not achieve this. Instead those who are chosen do have something to boast about—that God foresaw they would believe where others would not. It is impossible to avoid the saved in Arminianism seeing that they are somehow better than those who are lost. In Calvinism by contrast, the saved have nothing to boast about whatever as even God's choice was not based on any difference between the saved and the lost.

Ephesians 1:4-5 - "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will."

Paul is explicit in this great passage in Ephesians 1 that predestination flows from love and that the choice was "according to the purpose of his will" not according to him foreseeing who would believe.

2 Timothy 1:9 - "[God] who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began."

Once again, Paul's thought is fully explicable if election is unconditional, but difficult to explain if God's choice of us is logically preceded by our choice of God. He explicitly says we were saved and called not on the basis of anything in us ("our works") but because of God's sovereign will ("his own purpose and grace"). And all this happened before the ages began!

Unconditional election may be the most hated doctrine of all because it glorifies God and humbles man more than any other doctrine. Unconditional election proclaims that God is indeed God. The Calvinist welcomes this and says "Let God be God". All other views cannot accept this and in one way or another make God's purpose dependent on human free will, a concept of which the Scriptures know nothing.

Friday, 3 November 2023

Modified Supralapsarianism

I have recently been thinking about the order of God's decrees and after much thought, I have decided that the correct view is probably what I would term a modified form of supralapsarianism. Though infralapsarianism is certainly the view taught in the Reformed confessions, such as the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession, it is also true that these confessions, particularly the Westminster Confession, certainly leave room for supralapsarianism as well, particularly as I will outline it in this post.  

As we will consider, there are significant problems with aspects of both the standard infralapsarian presentation and the standard supralapsarian view. As a result, I propose a modified view, which we will now discuss as a modified form of supralapsarianism which builds on the best points of both infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism.

It was only after forming this view independently that I came to understand that something very like the view presented here was held historically by some who identify as supralapsarians such as the Dutch theologian, Peter van Mastricht (as explained here by Geerhardus Vos).

The differences between the two views should not be overemphasised anyway. Both infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism agree that the creation, fall, election and reprobation are all included within God's all-encompassing decree. The only differences concern the logical order of the elements within the eternal decree, not a chronology as such. In both views, all the parts of the decree—creation, fall, election and reprobation—are eternal.

The view advocated here suggests a pre- or supralapsarian aspect to God's decree, a discrimination in the mind of God, so to speak, between one group who would ultimately be saved and another who would ultimately be lost, prior to the logical decision to create or permit the fall, but this is combined with a post- or infralapsarian view of the election of individuals into the two groups, the elect for salvation in Christ and the preterition or rejection of individuals and the decision to punish them for their sins.

The standard infralapsarian order of the decrees (or of the logical moments with a all-encompassing decree) is as follows:

  • Decree to create humanity 
  • Decree to permit the fall 
  • Decree to elect some of the fallen mass of humanity to salvation and decree to reprobate the remainder of humanity to condemnation 
  • Decree to provide and accomplish salvation for the elect in Christ.

This order tracks the same order as the events play out in time and history beginning with creation then fall then election then salvation.

Though this is by far the most common presentation among Calvinists, it has significant problems, which we can list as follows:

  1. The planning of God appears to follow exactly the same as the historical order plays out in time, but in planning a final goal the end point is decided first and then the steps to reach the end goal. A analogy would be a baker. He first decides to bake a cake and then assembles the ingredients, weighs them out, mixes them before putting the mixture in the oven to achieve the final aim. He does not take out ingredients and begin to mix them up and then finally decide to bake a cake!
  2. What is the purpose of God in creation and permitting the fall if the decree of salvation only comes in after these two decisions have already been made? The normal infralapsarian order does not account for why God permitted the Fall to take place.
  3. This order of decrees does not include the overarching purpose of all things being for the glory of the triune God in the display of his attributes of justice and grace.

The most common supralapsarian order of the decrees is as follows, and though this helps answer these questions, it is not without issues of its own difficulties: 

  • Decree to provide and accomplish salvation for the elect in Christ.
  • Decree to elect some for salvation and reprobate others to condemnation
  • Decree to create the elect and the reprobate
  • Decree to permit the fall
This answers the problems of infralapsarian. Here creation and fall serve a prior and higher purpose to have elect to save and reprobate to condemn which will bring God glory. Here the order is the reverse of the historical playing out of the decrees. This order ties in better with God’s primary concern to display his own glory and the final state of the elect and the non-elect is foremost in God’s mind. However, the traditional supralapsarian scheme also has its own significant problems.
  1. If the decree to create comes after the decree of predestination of individuals, how can there be individuals to elect or reprobate if their creation has not even been contemplated. This would seem to be a significant problem. Yet if the separation of elect and non-elect only happens after contemplation of their creation, then their creation must have been contemplated with another purpose in mind which seems contrary to the spirit of supralapsarianism.
  2. The supralapsarian view has more difficulty avoiding charges of God creating people and then predestining them to damnation without first regarding them as sinful, indeed without any reference to sin, potentially making the purpose of God unjust, which cannot be.
  3. The supralapsarian view tends to see creation merely as a means to an end, rather than having any independent divine purpose for the display of the divine glory in its own right.
  4. The supralapsarian view posits a divide between elect and reprobate individuals that precedes and overrides any other consideration. This can make it difficult for supralapsarians to account for biblical passages that speak of God's love and goodness for all shown in common grace and mercy.
  5. The supralapsarian view can sometimes be presented in a way that lacks nuance in presenting the elect as the recipients only of grace and the reprobate the recipients only of wrath and justice, when the reality of the divine decree is that the elect were children of wrath as much as the non-elect prior to their conversion and the non-elect remain recipients of divine benevolence and goodness despite their rejection for salvation.

A modfied supralapsarian position, which seeks to take the best of both traditional positions, could be set forth as follows: 

  • Decree to glorify the triune God himself in the display of all his attributes and in the works of all persons of the Trinity in creaton, providence, the fall, salvation and condemnation.
  • Decree to have two groups of people, one in covenant with him through Christ and the Holy Spirit and receiving salvation and the other outside of covenant with him and receiving condemnation and punishment (but without any individuals in either group). 
  • Decree to create the world and humanity in God’s image – displaying God’s greatness, wisdom, glory, imagination, creativity, etc.
  • Decree to permit the fall. 
  • Decree to elect some individuals of the fallen mass of humanity to salvation and decree to reprobate the remainder of the individuals of humanity to condemnation (this part of the decree does concern individuals viewed as sinners)
  • Decree to provide and accomplish salvation for the elect in Christ.
It will be noted that the additional two points helps explain the purpose of the creation and the permission of the fall, while the remaining points follow the traditional infralapsarian order, all to God's primary purpose of glorifying himself and sharing the life of the Godhead with his image bearers in covenant with himself in supralapsarian manner. 
  
The key distinction in this scheme lies between God decreeing to have a saved covenant people and a non-saved group outside the covenant and this distinction and part of the decree is made prior to contemplating the fall and God determining which individuals will be elected for salvation, leaving others to be reprobated and condemned (which occurs only after the individuals are considered as fallen and sinful individuals). We could call this scheme a kind of hybrid with a kind of supralapsarian corporate election and reprobation, but a logically subsequent infralapsarian individual election of individuals and the reprobation only of sinful individuals. For this reason, I believe this remains a modified form on supralapsarianism, though it could equally be viewed as a modified form of infralapsarianism. It is distinct from either traditional presentation of the two views after all.

The fundamental objections to infralapsarianism are answered in this scheme without falling into the harshness of the traditional supralapsarian scheme because at the point individuals are elected or reprobated they are viewed in the divine mind as sinners, undeserving of salvation and deserving damnation:

  1. That creation and the fall do serve a prior purpose of God in glorifying himself, displaying certain of his attributes and bringing about individuals to be elected and reprobated.
  2. The order of events in time occur to bring about prior determined aspects of the decree (to have a covenant people in Christ and a non-covenant remainder of humanity to God's own glory)
  3. This view is clear that any individual is only elected to salvation or passed by and condemned when viewed as a sinner, not merely a creature.
  4. This view makes it clear that although there is double predestination, there is no equal ultimacy between the choosing of the elect and the reprobation of the non-elect. Election is a positive act; reprobation is a passive passing by and only an active judicial condemnation for sin.
  5. Although this view sees a distinction between two groups from the first, there is not reason to reject a universal love and common grace to all humanity under this scheme, nor does it affect the free offer of the gospel being made to all.

This view recognises that what the ultimate goal is first in logical order and then the steps to reach the goal follow in the plan in historical order. It recognises that in the planning, the planner must also consider what the correct historical order of events needs to be to reach the goal.

It will be interesting to see what other Reformed theologians have made of this issue where they are infralapsarian but seek to address some of the objections to this view. I know that the great Dutch Reformed theologian, Herman Bavinck, rejected both supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, believing that God's decree is one organic whole. I would agree with this to a point, except that it seems necessary to account within the single decree for the logical decisions God must have made. As with the previous cake analogy, it is difficult to see how God would not first choose the ends he wants and then the means to achieve those ends (this is the essence of the supralapsarian view of course), yet the cake recipe also requires the steps to be ordered in the correct way that leads from assembling and weighting ingredients to the final cake. Most importantly, this view is clear that God elects and rejects actual fallen individual human beings, not just created human beings. 

Therefore, though sovereign, God cannot be regarded as unjust or arbitrary. His grace and mercy to the elect is truly grace and mercy shown to undeserving sinners and His justice and wrath to the reprobabte is truly justice and holy wrath shown to hell-deserving sinners. Thus the harsher aspects of supralapsarianism are avoided, but also the weakness of the traditional infralapsarian view which struggles to explain God's purpose in the creation and the permission of the fall.

Saturday, 14 July 2007

The God of Israel

The following sermon was preached at an Evening service on Sunday, 8th July 2007.

When I started university, at the beginning of term, I received a list of books for each class that I would be expected to read by the end of the year. And like any new and enthusiastic young law student I headed off to the university bookshop with my list and picked up copies of all the books I would need to read. I could hardly carry them homeThe . When I got into the house I stacked the books up on a table and felt a horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach. The stack of books was about three feet high. I thought to myself “There’s no way you’re going to be able to read, never mind learn and remember all this by the end of the year.” The task seemed to big, so overwhelming that for a few days I couldn’t face reading them at all.

But then classes started and I had to start reading them. And bit by bit over the course of the year I did read them – or at least large parts of them – and I ended up remembering enough to pass my exams at the end of the year and progress through my course.

I learned that the key to tackling a big reading task is to do it a bit at a time and break it down into smaller, achievable targets.

In the Bible, a book as big and intimidating as the Prophecy of Isaiah can affect us the same way. Sixty-six chapters of prophecy sounds like tough going, doesn’t it? The prophet Isaiah ministered for about 50 years from the death of King Uzziah in 739 BC till the death of King Hezekiah in 686 BC and his book reflects the length and depth of his rich prophetic ministry to the people of Israel.

How will we get through it, never mind understand it. I think the same solution applies: we need to tackle it a little bit at a time.

In the three weeks we’ve got together we’re going to look at just one chapter of Isaiah’s prophecy, Isaiah chapter 44, which is a very typical Isaiah chapter many ways, in that it deals with some of the themes that Isaiah touches on time and again in his prophecy, including the sin of idolatry and the redemption that God would send to his people. But this week, in the first section from verses 1 to 8, we see some important things about the relationship between God and his people, so I’ve called tonight’s service “The God of Israel.”

It has some great things to teach us about God’s love and grace and mercy towards his people, how he cares for them, and it shows us how God expects his people to treat him in return.

Isaiah chapter 44 comes in the middle of the great fourth section of Isaiah’s prophecy which runs from Isaiah chapter 40 through to chapter 55. These chapters, though I believe written several hundred years before the events, address that dark period of Israel’s history when the people of God were taken in captivity in Babylon.

We need to remember that the captivity or exile came about as God’s punishment on his people’s sin. And in that exile, the people thought that their God had abandoned them. They thought that since they had broken their covenant with God, he was no longer their God and had left them to be exiled or destroyed at the whim of the heathen rulers of the world.

The message of Isaiah chapters 40 to 55 is very much a message of hope and comfort. They proclaim that God will not abandon his people. They assure Israel, broken-hearted in exile, that God’s covenant stands forever and will never be cast aside. His great covenant promise, “I will be your God and you will be my people” which is repeated dozens of times through both the Old and New Testaments, is a promise that God will never break. Even when his people disobey and desert him, the promise stands and God acts to purify his people, destroying the wicked and blessing and prospering the faithful remnant of true Israelites. Because of His covenant, He will deliver them from captivity, free them and save them.

In these prophecies, following generations of Jews and later Christians have seen a deeper significance in these prophecies than the delivery of the Jewish nation from exile in Babylon, for beyond those events, the prophecies point towards the coming of the Messiah and God’s deliverance and salvation of his people from sin, death and punishment in hell.

I should probably just say in passing that my way of interpreting the Old Testament is very much in the tradition of what’s known as “covenant theology.” In other words, I believe that God only has one covenant people throughout history, and in the Old Testament that was the Jewish nation of Israel, and in this New Testament age God’s covenant people is the Church. I believe that the blessings and privileged position of Israel under the Old Testament have been transferred to the new Israel, God's Church composed of Jews and Gentiles together, who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. In prophecy this means that I would tend to see prophecies directed towards Israel as now applying to the Church rather than to the Jewish nation, or “ethnic Israel”. It’s a big subject and I don’t want to get bogged down in the arguments surrounding this. Just be aware that when I talk about Israel, I’m not meaning that Israel as a nation is now the people of God nor am I saying the prophecies apply to the Jewish nation today; they apply to God’s covenant people, the Church. They apply to us!

Okay, I think that’s enough background, so let’s have a look at this passage in Isaiah chapter 44.

You’ll notice that in verse 1, the first words are “But now...” This immediately signals a change in emphasis from what has gone before. The verses at the end of Isaiah chapter 43 are in effect a terrible curse on the people of Israel for their persistent disobedience.

The chapter ends with the Lord saying to his people in Isaiah 43:27-28:

“Your first father sinned and your mediators transgressed against me. Therefore I will profane the princes of the sanctuary, and deliver Jacob to utter destruction and Israel to reviling.”

This comes after God lists a catalogue of the people’s sins including their failure to worship God, neglecting the sacrifices they should have made to him, and living lives marked by iniquity rather than righteousness. For these sins, God curses his own people and gives them up to a period of shame and reviling.

It is in this light that chapter 44 begins with the words, “But now...” which signals that God is not finished with his people. Despite allowing a period of punishment to fall on them, this is not the end of his dealing with his covenant people.

These words, “But now...” come as a ray of hope into what is otherwise a very bleak picture for God’s people.

It’s just the same for us today. By nature we are in a very bleak place regarding our standing before God. By nature we are “children of wrath” as Ephesians 2:1 says. We fail to obey God as we should and instead we disobey God’s laws. Everything we do by nature is tainted by sin, for none of what we do by nature is motivated by love for God, which Christ taught of course is the greatest commandment. We completely fail by nature at keeping the greatest commandment. So this “But now...” at the beginning of our passage is just as apt for us today as it was for the people in Isaiah’s day. Paul summed up human nature like this in Romans 3:10-12:

“None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

And in Romans 3:23 he says:

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

That’s where we stand before God unless we have God’s grace and salvation in Jesus Christ. That’s our “but now...”

Isaiah’s “but now...” is just as amazing – he’s making the same point in Old Testament language. Israel, you are a nation of sinners, he’s saying. You are in a hopeless situation before God if human merit or goodness is the standard of righteousness. Yet God reveals to his people in this passage the greatness of his grace and mercy that will overcome even the hopelessness of human sinfulness!

In effect the message of this passage could be summed up like this: Don’t despair Israel, despite everything, God has chosen you and God will save you. The focus shifts from the wickedness of the people to the greatness, the glory and the grace of God, and it’s as if the sun rises over the horizon and dispels the darkness in the brilliance of its light.

You might wonder, how could God in one verse say that he was going to punish Israel and destroy them for their sins and in the next breath say he is going to bless and save Israel. That’s a very important question, and until you understand the answer to it, a lot of the Old Testament will be quite confusing. The answer is that there are really two Israels. There is Israel the nation, Israel in outward covenant with God, which included every Jew, even those who were wicked in action and faithless in God. This is the Israel that God threatens with judgment. But there is also the true Israel – the spiritual Israel composed of those who have real faith in the God of Israel. This is the Israel God promises to bless and save.

Paul describes the difference between the two Israel’s in Romans 9:6 (NIV):

“It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.”

And in Romans 9:8:

“In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”

Even in Old Testament times this Israel included a few Gentiles. In the New Testament this true Israel includes many many Gentiles as well as those Jews who accepted God’s Messiah.

Paul makes it very clear who are members of the true Israel in Galatians 3:26-29:

“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

In Ephesians 2:12-13, Paul says to Gentile Christians:

“Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.”

And then in verse 19 he concludes: “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household.”

In other words, we Gentile believers are members of Israel, the true or spiritual Israel, as far as God is concerned. So what this passage says about the covenant relationship between God and Israel is absolutely true for us here today as well.

Let’s look at the different things these verses teach about God and his people.

Verse 1: “But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!”

Notice that as so often in the Bible, the foundation, the bedrock that everything else flows from is God’s sovereign election of his people. Israel was God’s people because he chose them to be so. It is God’s sovereign choice that is the ultimate cause of our salvation. Further back than that we cannot go. God chose his people before they were born, before the world existed, and he chose them not for any reason in them, but only because of his own sovereign choice. This is the doctrine of predestination that is so unpopular among so many people today that you rarely hear it mentioned in the church, but it is the very foundation of our salvation.

All the other blessings that God goes on to list in this passage, and absolute promise that despite their disobedience and sin, God will work to save his people from their sins, stems in history from the unbreakable covenant that God formed with his people through Abraham. But behind even that, it stems from God’s sovereign decree to save his elect in Christ, which is an eternal decree made before the world was made. In eternity God decided for his own glory, to choose for himself a multitude for salvation, because he loves them.

Back in Deuteronomy chapter 7 God comes closest to explaining why he chose Israel to be his people, and the same thing could be said of why he chose those individuals who make up his new covenant people, the church of Christ. This is Deuteronomy 7:6-8 (with Moses addressing the people of Israel):

“For you are a people holy [or set apart] to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the people who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all the peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and has redeemed you...”

You know there’s times when logical thought has to give way to theological thought! And this is one of them. In effect Moses is saying the reason the Lord saved you was because he loves you, and the reason the Lord set his love upon you is...because he loves you. He loves you “just because he does.”

To look further back that God’s eternal love for his people is absurd – he loved us from the first of time, he loves us to the last. And it is from that eternal, unbreakable, constant, stedfast love that God’s choice of his people comes and every other blessing to us flows. As Paul said in Romans 8, “nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus.”

So verse 1 emphasises that God covenant people are a chosen people.

Verse 2 then goes on to explain that they are a specially created people: “Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you form the womb...”

Of course God is the creator of the whole world and the creator of every person in the world. But I don’t think that’s really what God’s saying here. He’s not referring here to our creation as human beings, but our creation as a distinct people of God, a holy nation, created to serve and worship God. How amazing is it to think that God made us, designed us to be the people are, formed us from when we were embryos in the womb to be the people we are and to fit into his covenant community to play a part that only we were designed to play! We really are formed by God to be people who will glorify and enjoy him forever.

The picture here is of God’s great skill in creating his people and his great care from the womb onwards to bring them to maturity to be his and to serve him. Now although we might think we’re all grown up, in God’s eyes we’re not. In this life, we’re rather like little toddlers to God – absolutely dependent on him for everything, learning all the time and getting plenty of things wrong, occasionally cute, but mostly causing a stink and a mess. He knows what we are. But he also knows that by the time we reach heaven, we will become the people he always intended us to be, and there we can really start living life to the full.

The fact that God has chosen and specially created his people with the utmost care leads to great words of comfort from God: “Fear not,” he says. “Don’t be afraid of me. You have nothing to fear,” God assures his people. After all you are my chosen ones, my special creation, my treasures.

In verses 3 and 4 God goes on to point out that not only is Israel chosen and formed by God, but his people are also specially cared for and blessed by God.

God’s really saying to them, “Look, despite what has gone wrong in the past, the future is bright for you, Israel. You’re my chosen ones, and I’m not going to go on cursing you, I’m going to bless you abundantly. I’m going to save you.”

The image of life giving water being poured out on dry ground would have been especially poignant to the people of Israel living in the dry, hot climate of the Middle East. Notice that again it is God’s unilateral action that is stressed: he will bless the people, he will pour out his spirit on them and on their descendants. He will pour refreshing, life giving water on the dry ground, which I’m sure should be taken both literally and metaphorically – that God will look after the material needs of his people, but also their spiritual needs. The symbol of water, of course, often has a spiritual symbolism to do with giving life, the Spirit of God and cleansing from sin.

In effect God is promising that his people will always survive and indeed thrive from the overflow of blessings he will pour out on them. His people “shall spring up among the grass like willows by flowing streams.” They will be strong with deep roots drawing on God’s gracious blessings.

This verse is reminiscent of Psalm 1:

“Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked...his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.”

And people like that, God’s faithful people who respond to all he offers them with trust and faithful, thankful obedience will thrive. Verse 5 describes what they are like. In one word it could be described as “loyal” or “faithful” or “true” or “committed.” God.

“This one will say, I am the LORD’s, another will call on the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, “THE LORD’S” and name himself by the name of Israel.”

These outward signs of loyalty and commitment symbolise a strong inner faith and trust in the LORD.

That’s the kind of people God wants and that’s the kind of people God is gradually turning us into if we are on the path of faith with him. So we will trust him more, rely on him more, love him more and obey him more as we grow and mature as Christians.

In verses 6 and 7, God again reveals so much about himself to us. First of all, he is the LORD, and we need to remember that when we see that name printed in our English Bibles, it’s really a translation of God’s special, personal, covenant name, Yahweh, or Jehovah as it used to be known. And in that name is summed up so much of God greatness and character, and most of all that stedfast, constant love for his covenant people. That’s the God we worship, the God who speaks to us in Scripture, the God who sent his Son to be our Saviour. Not some impersonal spirit or cosmic force, but a personal God with a personal name. And this God, Yahweh, is according to verse six, the true King of Israel and Israel’s Redeemer. He is the leader, the potentate, the sovereign king, the shepherd of his people. And he is the one who saves them by redemption, by paying the price to set them free. That price was nothing less than his own blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ is Yahweh, Israel’s King and Redeemer incarnate, made flesh for our salvation.

Then in verse 7, we see our God described as the LORD of hosts, which is a title meaning that he is the Lord of the heavenly hosts – the supreme commander of all the angelic armies and cosmic powers. The poet Milton described God commanding the angels in these memorable words:

“Thousands at his bidding speed, and post o’er land and ocean without rest. They also serve, who only stand and wait.”

The forces that can assemble at his command make all the armies and navies and air forces that ever existed in this world seem like a drop in a bucket. Limitless power, directly by limitless love – that describes in a nutshell the LORD of hosts that we worship and serve.

He is also the eternal one according to verse 7: “I am the first and the last...” Outside the realm of time, he is the ever living God. His very name proclaims it: Yahweh means “I AM THAT I AM” – he is always in the present tense – I AM – “forever I existed, forever I will existed, forever I will be me” He is always “I AM.”

And after all these wonderful and unique attributes of God, the Lord concludes by saying, and “besides me there is no god” as if to hammer the point home. Only God is god and only God deserves to be recognised as God. Whenever we get that wrong, we are guilty of idolatry – but we’ll be looking at idolatry in more detail next week so I won’t say more about that now.

Finally in verse 8, God repeats his words of comfort, “Fear not, nor be afraid!” And the reason he gives this time is because he is the sovereign God in control of everything that happens in this, his world and his universe. The fact that he knows the future and can foretell what is going to happen before it takes place is the proof he brings forward to show that he is in sovereign control: “Have I not told you from of old and declared it?” he asks. Of course the reason God can foretell the future is because God has already ordained what will happen throughout time.

“Is there a God besides me?” he asks.

That’s a question for each of us to ponder. For you, for me, “Is there a God for us besides this glorious God who reveals himself in the pages of Scripture?” Is this your God? Or does your god not fit into this picture. Is your god remote, or powerless? Or maybe you struggle to believe there even is a god? Or do you believe in God, but can’t accept he chooses who is saved and who isn’t? Or maybe can’t you accept that he really is in control of the universe and not us or blind fate?

Well there’s good news. This God that Isaiah presents to us, is a God of grace, slow to anger and quick to forgive, a God who will show mercy even to the chief of sinners, when they come to him in repentance and faith. This God is calling you to turn from your sins, to turn from your past and come to him and embrace the future he wants you to have – a future of blessing and salvation.

Our passage ends with the words: “There is no Rock; I know not any.” And very much implied in those words is a silent “except the LORD”. The kind of rock that is meant here is huge – like Ayer’s Rock in Australia, or Castle Rock in Edinburgh – a high place where enemies cannot reach and where those taking refuge can live in safety.

That’s the kind of Rock our God is. Not a pebble, nor a boulder, but a mountain. For he is the Rock, the Rock his people can trust and rely on, the one they can cling to when all else fails, the Rock that no enemy can conquer, a Rock that can never be broken or defeated, the one who never moves or changes, the one fixed landmark in an ever changing world, from which all other bearings are marked.

David wrote in Psalm 18:

“I love you, O Yahweh, my strength. Yahweh is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. I call upon Yahweh, who is worthy to be praised, and I am saved from all my enemies.”

May each of us know God like that in our lives, this night and for evermore. Amen.