The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant as the Starting Point for Paul

In two places, Paul initiates a theological point  by placing the foundation of his doctrine before time. In Ephesians 1:4, he tells us of the choosing of the elect "in Him," that is, in Christ, "before the foundation of the world." And again in II Timothy 1:8-10, he tells us that the elect are the objects of His calling "before the ages began," but which has now been manifested. We see similar phrases used by John in John 17:24 and Revelation 13:8, and by Peter in I Peter 1:20. 

In each case, we see the salvific purposes of God exercised in time, in history, but based on decisions made before time and history. If it was before creation, then in what context did God work out these plans? Within the fellowship of the three Persons of the Trinity, co-eternal and co-equal. Paul tells us of the plan among the Father (such as verses 3 and 5), the Son (verses 3,4, and 5), and the Holy Spirit (verse 13). Thus Paul displays to us that his soteriology is inherently trinitarian; God's purposes could be carried out only by the intimate involvement of all three of the divine Persons. 

I have shown the scriptural glimpses of this intra-Trinitarian covenant, or convenant of redemption, from the Old Testament (such as here and here), but we must also see that it underpins the theology of the New Testament. Among other things, it necessarily precludes any christological heresy denying the Trinity or any of the Persons, or their deity and preexistence, especially the heresy of modalism. But it also shows the step by step purposes of God in the redemption of His people, not for our sake, but because of the Father's love of the Son. Thus, it cannot fail or be undone. The intra-Trinitarian covenant provides a sound basis for the assurance of salvation. that again precludes most of the aberrant sects, who all maintain a fragility of their version of salvation, such that it can be lost at any time. 

Free Grace and the Creator-Creature Distinction

"Esteem not yourself the better for what you may carry with you. Think not to be accepted because of your present. It is not your money, Isaiah 55:1, John 7:37, nor your double money in your hand that will fetch you corn from above, though it may come from Egypt. Silver and gold, your own works and worthiness, are of no value at the mint of free grace. But there it is, and thence you must have whatever may hinder you welcome at the court of Heaven." -Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

People like to bargain. "If you do X, then I will do Y for you." That is part of our existence as creatures of a similar class. However, seeing our autonomy from our fellow creatures, we imagine that we have a comparable stand with our Creator, offering Him some good works, according to our own standards, in exchange for His forgiveness. 

However, our relationship with God is not of the same sort as that with our fellow creatures. We may be equal to them, and with the autonomous right to offer voluntary exchanges, but neither applies to our relationship as creature to our Creator. 

As our Maker, God retains an absolute right over His creatures. The Bible compares that relationship to that between the potter and his clay: "O House of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O House of Israel" (Jeremiah 18:6; see also Romans 9:21). And what does the lump of clay have that it can exchange with the potter to change its form? Nothing. 

That is why the justification of God's people can be only by His voluntary condescension. "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 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... So then, He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Romans 9:14-18). 

Honorable and Dishonorable Use According to the Mind of the Potter

"That the creatures have at times deviated from their first rules and settlement is no derogation from the doctrine of God's sovereignty, but rather an illustration of it, as showing that the creatures are still in His hand, as clay in the potter's. Hence we find their innate propensities to be sometimes suspended; at other times, overacted; and at times again quite contrary to the law of nature. And this [is] not casually nor by the force of created powers, nor yet for any private or self-concern, but to serve some special and superior end which their Lord had to be done" --Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

He doesn't quote it, but Coles alludes to a reference from Paul: "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:19-21). 

If a potter splits his lump of clay, and uses one part to make a decanter for the finest wine, and the other part for a chamber pot, is that not his power to do? Can the chamber pot pipe up that it, too, wishes to hold fine wine? Of course not! Paul uses such an obvious example to make plain that the objection to God's sovereignty is equally irrational. 

While Coles widens Paul's text to apply to all created creatures, I want to focus, as Paul did, on God's sovereignty over mankind. It is all one to Paul, whether we are speaking of the lesser animals or to man; sentience is not grounds for autonomy. The sentient creation is still under the legitimate rule of his Creator. 

In theology, this is the contrasting doctrines of election, God's choice unto salvation and glorification, and reprobation, God's choice unto wickedness and judgment. Paul applies this dichotomy to an example which the Jewish Christians would have known well, the Pharaoh in Moses's account of the exodus from Egypt: "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth'" (Romans 9:17, citing Exodus 9:16). 

Paul's point in both his potter analogy and in the account of Pharaoh is to show that election and reprobation are not punishments or rewards for men, i. e., not something to be claimed by an autonomous creature. Rather, they are determined by His primary purpose, which is to glorify Himself. Granted, that is a concept that the unbeliever and many professing believers find abominable. Which is exactly the point of Paul's choice of words: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (Romans 9:20).

The implied answer is that, "You are no one." 

Jesus the Shepherd and Effectual Calling

"That saying of Christ is much to our purpose: 'And other sheep I have, them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice' (John 10:16). This must imports a duty not to be dispensed with. He had 'received a commandment for it from the Father' (verse 18), and this shall [imports] that effectual working 'whereby He subdues all things to Himself,' and whereby they are made to believe (Eph. 1:19). The sheep of themselves lie as cross to this work as other men. 'What have I to do with Thee?' cries the possessed Gadarene (Mark 5:7), but, being His sheep, He must make them willing (Psalm 110:3)." - Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" (emphasis in the original). 

A common Arminian objection to the doctrines of grace is their claim that "God has given us free will." And by that phrase, they mean a level of sovereignty, such that each man is able to chose God for himself or to reject God for himself, and God takes a hands-off attitude toward that decision. 

First, there is no such sovereignty. On the contrary, it was a false offer of sovereignty that Satan made to Adam and Eve in the first temptation. Satan said that a declaration of independence would enable them to decide for themselves what is good or what is evil. Yet, somehow, Arminians are unconcerned that their claim is the same as that made by Satan, by which he deprived the first couple of their blissful existence in the garden of Eden. And second, nowhere does the Bible say that men have any such authority. It is God's authority alone to determine right and wrong. 

Notice the scriptural citations in the quote above from Puritan Coles. Jesus is the shepherd, and His people are sheep. In the anti-type of that metaphor, it is the shepherd who selects his sheep, not the sheep who choose a shepherd. So it is with Jesus's sheep. His flock consists of those given to Him by the Father in their prehistoric intra-Trinitarian covenant (John 6:37-37). And, as Coles notes, Jesus never left the result to the sheep. Rather, He declared His divine intent, one which must be achieved, and the means shall be arranged, and the sheep will be brought into their eternal fold. Not once does the divine shepherd express a mere hope that the sheep will agree or that His calling would achieve its end. Rather, He expresses an unfailing assurance that such will definitely be the case: "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" (John 6:39, see also John 17:24).

Grace and the Means of Election

"If grace be perfectly free in choosing, it must be answerably free in giving and applying the means to bring about the end it hath chosen us to. For if the effect of the means should depend upon something to be done by men, which grace is not the doer of, then works would put in for a share in the glory of men's salvation. and so, the grace of God would be dethroned, and be as if it were not." --Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty"

One will often hear the worst of the Arminians say that God has done "everything that He could" to save everybody. Then, they claim, it is up to the individual to accept or refuse what God has done. I have even seen a tract designed like a ballot: "Will you go to Heaven? God votes 'yes.' Satan votes 'no.' It's a tie! The deciding vote is yours." An example can be seen here. The blasphemy is appalling! As if the will of Satan or of a man is equal to God's will, or even has a veto over it! 

Instead, as Puritan Coles says above, election includes all of the means necessary for attaining its purpose. That is, God votes "yes" (or "no," as the case may be), and no other vote is entered. In prehistory, the Father chose a race to give to the Son to be redeemed and to the Holy Spirit to be regenerated unto new life. That choice isn't just for the first domino, with a hope that the rest of the dominoes will fall in the desired pattern. No, each domino is placed by the triune God, so that each step is infallibly achieved (John 6:27-39). The Puritans called this the Golden Chain of Redemption, from Paul's words in Romans 8:29-30: "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." Notice where the chain starts, that it is for the sake of Jesus, not of us. That is where Arminianism fails to address the Scriptures on this issue. The Arminian wants to reserve some level of autonomy for man, such that salvation is for man's sake. It isn't, because man isn't. God's plan is centered on Jesus, and the elect are a means to that end. God's Gospel is Christ-centered, while that of the Arminian is man-centered, and, therefore, false.

The Sovereignty of God Over the Days of Our Lives

"Your eyes saw my unformed substance; 

In Your book were written, every one of them, 

The days that were formed for me,

When as yet there was none of them." 

- Psalm 139:16 

In this verse, David praises God for that which so many modern evangelicals reject, His sovereign planning of the intimate details of our lives. In verse 6, he even says, "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me." But the American evangelical responds by squawking, "Free will! Free will! Free will!" with the same cadence and lack of thought as the seagull at the beach. If there were thought in their kneejerk response, they might recognize that their objection is the same that Satan offered Adam and Eve in their temptation (Genesis 3:5), i. e., the illusion of autonomy.

The problem for these devotees of their Saint Pelagius is that their holy invocation of "free will" is not biblical. The verse above is just one example to the contrary. Another that I like is, "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'" (Isaiah 46:9-10). And this verse provides the key, which is missed by too many professing Christians. The Bible includes God's absolute sovereignty in His nature as the unique living God. A god without sovereignty is not the God of the Bible, and, therefore, is a mere idol of men's fantasy. 

The Wonder of God's Sovereignty

                       

"Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them" (Psalm 139:16).

In poetic fashion, David here describes God's foreordination of all that comes to pass in the life of the believer. He refers to god's book, elsewhere (such as Revelation 13:8) called the book of life, in which God had purposed everything in our lives, even before our existence. Notice that David considers that foreordination to be a source of comfort, not the fatalism with which it is so commonly caricatured by today's anti-Calvinists. 

"Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it," David says (verse 6). "You formed my inward parts; You knotted me together in my mother's womb. I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth" (verses 13-15). 

The anti-Calvinist makes disparaging remarks, such as that God's absolute sovereignty makes men into mere robots. Yet, David here describes it as a matter of wonder and praise. That is why Calvinists get so exasperated when attacked by anti-Calvinists. We refuse to accept demonization because we have the same attitude as that expressed here by David. Rather, it is the anti-Calvinist who should be ashamed, for advocating the same human autonomy that Satan offered to Adam in Genesis 3:5. That autonomy, whether in the mouth of Satan or in the mind of the Arminian is a deception. God does not abdicate His throne for men or devil. 

Everyone Whom God Calls Will Hear the Call

There is a common claim among some semi-Pelagian groups, namely Mormons, universalists, and professed unbelievers, that there is something unfair in God's judgment of all unbelievers to Hell, because such a large portion of the world's population has never had an opportunity to hear the Gospel. How can He justly condemn those who are ignorant of His existence and requirements? 

That the challenge comes from various varieties of Pelagians is a clue to the answer: They don't believe that men deserve to be judged for sin. Therefore, they object to the judgment of some, because they reject the biblical truth that all men deserve that judgment. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). With all of the talk of equality in our modern culture, this is an equality that they want to deny. 

However, we have the hope given to us in the Gospel: "God shows His love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). For us, these people say, but what about those who don't know about that? 

Not understanding the sovereignty of God, the Pelagian cannot rationally connect two ideas: If God's love and wisdom could create a way to save His people, then that same love and wisdom can find a way to bring His people to a time and place in which they can hear of it. To the Calvinist, that logic is obvious; to the Pelagian, that logic is impossible. 

We see God's inspired description of that plan in the words of Paul at the Areopagus in Acts 17:26-27: "He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and, perhaps, feel their way toward Him and find Him." If we understand that God has planned all of history (Isaiah 46:10), then it is easy to conceive that He has organized that history, in part, to the end that all those for whom Jesus died would unfailingly come into contact with the gospel and to be converted (John 6:37-39; Acts 13:48). 

So the answer to the challenge of Mormons, universalists, and unbelievers, when they ask, "What about those who haven't had a chance to hear?", is that there are no such people. 

The Promises of God Defined by His Mercy

Isaiah 55:11 is a verse which is well-known among orthodox Protestants: "So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." And there is good reason for it to be well-known, because it powerfully teaches that the Bible is infallible and trustworthy. Where we are weak, the Scriptures are invincible!

However, there is another aspect to that verse that many such Protestants pass over: the Scriptures don't achieve what we plan, but what God plans. This is where orthodoxy stands against the so-called Prosperity Gospel - which is really no gospel at all - which claims that spouting some claim from anyone on the basis of his personal desire and interpretation guarantees that God is obligated to give it.

Where this is especially important is in evangelism. Paul tells us that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). That is, the preaching of the Word is God's usual means of converting unbelievers (see the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter X). Some people claim that means that we are just to proclaim the Word, and then every person has an equal ability to respond, based on his choice to believe or not. Yet, we know that not all believe, even when presented with the Gospel through the Scriptures. Doesn't this "choice" doctrine then imply that the promise of Isaiah 55:11 is false? or, at least, unreliable? God forbid such a blasphemous assertion!

Rather, such people ignore the third and fourth lines of the verse: "It shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." The promise of God never fails! The mere idea is impossible! Rather, it is effectual when He intends it, not us. As Paul also says: "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16; see also John 1:12-13).

More importantly, we have the assertion of Jesus: "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" (John 6:37-39). His promise here parallels the one in Isaiah, but is more explicit. To whom does the promise apply? To those who choose? No, it says no such thing. Rather, Jesus specifies that it applies to those whom the Father has given Him. Does He know who those people are? Of course. Can we know? Of course not. That is a part of the creator/creature distinction. Therefore, we are to proclaim the Word to whomever will hear us, knowing that those redeemed by Jesus will respond in faith, and the others will reject it (II Corinthians 2:16). What we must remember is that the promise of Isaiah is effectual, and that promise should stimulate us in our evangelism (Acts 18:10), knowing that God will apply that word to the conversion of all whom He intends (Acts 13:48).

If God Has Determined All Things, Then Is He Responsible for Sin?

Let us be unequivocal: Scripture says that God has determined all things, from the beginning of the universe to eternity future. He Himself says, "I declare 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'" (Isaiah 46:10). We also read this: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand" (Proverbs 19:21). Short of being deliberately obtuse, we cannot miss the meaning here. God has determined all things according to His own plan, not according to ours. 

OK, so He has determined all things. Does He change course midway, whether because He has thought of a better way or because men have not approved of His plans? "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for He is not a man, that He should have regret" (I Samuel 15:29; see also Numbers 23:19). To claim that God would change His mind is to make Him like us, to bring Him down to man's level. And Scripture says that any such attempt is based on a false view of God. 

Then comes the question, what of the wicked acts of men? God could not have predetermined them, because that would make God responsible for sin, right? Well, no, not right. First, let us say that Scripture affirms that God has predetermined even the wicked acts of men: "Truly in this city [i. e., Jerusalem] there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place" (Acts 4:27-28). So, in a prayer to God, Peter and John, while addressing God, confess that He had planned all of the events around the suffering and death of Jesus, even in planning the evil actions of Herod and Pilate. But what was the goal in those actions? The atonement of God's people. In other words, our salvation is dependent on God's predestining the evil actions of particular men! 


Look also at Paul's words in Romans 3:7: "If through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?" Using the words of a hypothetical unbeliever, Paul has that unbeliever confess that his lies, his sins, glorify God. "However," the unbeliever pleads, "then I shouldn't be punished for them." The first part is true. His wickedness glorifies God, both through His justice to the unrepentant unbeliever and by His mercy to the repentant elect sinner. However, that wasn't the purpose when the sinner committed his wicked acts, just as Herod and Pilate planned nothing good by their murder of Jesus. That is why God is still just in bringing them under judgment. His bringing about good from their evil is to His praise, not theirs.

And it is also why God cannot be said to be the author of sin.

Logic, Fairness, and the Anti-Calvinist

When I run into someone who wants to rail against the doctrine of election - something which happens frequently - he usually takes one of two approaches, one of which is to argue that  it is unfair to discriminate, and the other is to invent a caricature that it means that God refuses salvation to someone who wants it. The caricature is refuted simply by its supposition of an impossibility (John 6:44).

In response to the first, I don't believe that anyone holds such a blatantly humanistic attitude. After all, I don't know of any serious Christian who holds that "fairness" is a biblical value. Besides which, the Scriptures contain an explicit answer to that very argument: "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 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...  So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and he hardens whomever He wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:14-16, 18-21). Paul tells us that God acts according to His sovereign will. In response, he describes a hypothetical opponent who complains that God is unfair in then judging the sinner to whom God chooses not to extend mercy. Without even giving that argument credence, Paul answers that God, as Creator, has the right to treat His creatures as satisfies Him, not us.

 

I think the real problem is that the opponent of Calvinism doesn't really believe that men deserve judgment to Hell. He will say it under other circumstances, that the unbeliever will go to Hell if he fails to repent. But, at the same time, he secretly believes that the unbeliever deserves to be given repentance, whether he wants it or not.

The answer is not found just in Scripture, but also in reason.

"Out of this race of guilty and polluted sinners, thus justly condemned, God graciously and eternally elected some to life and happiness and glory, while He left the rest in their state of wretchedness and ruin, and determined to inflict upon them the punishment which they justly deserved. The reason why He elected some and passed by others, when all were equally undeserving, is to be referred wholly to Himself - to the counsel of His own will or to His mere good pleasure" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation," emphasis mine).

Thornwell gives the right answer here. It is true that election is not fair. But fairness would send all of the wicked, that is, every member of the human race, to Hell as his deserved judgment. That is really what the anti-Clavinist seeks with his argument. Not that he would admit it, of course. But logically, the conclusion is unavoidable.

Esau and Jacob: The Holy Discrimination of God

 I have mentioned before that anti-Calvinists have certain verses which they consider "trump verses" against Calvinism. No matter how many verses a Calvinist cites in support of the doctrines of grace, his opponent will plunk out one of these trump verses and congratulate himself for, supposedly, ending all debate. Of course, the number one verse is John 3:16, which I have addresses here and here.

In this post, I want to address the phrase, "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). Supposedly, this verse says that God does not discriminate between any two people. And in isolation, it might be taken that way, as is the wont of isolated prooftexts. However, doing so ignores the actions that God says that He has taken, making distinctions between people, both as individuals and as groups.

The obvious example, of course, is Romans 9:6-13 (referring back to Malachi 1:2-3): "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: 'About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.' 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.'" This is clearly a discrimination between two people, the twin brothers Esau and Jacob (see, in passing, Genesis, chapters 18-33). God claims the right to choose between Esau and Jacob, even before they were born, before they had done anything good and evil. On what basis? "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion " (Romans 9:15; see also verse 16). That is sovereign election, and God feels no compunction to explain beyond that.

When the anti-Calvinist cites Acts 10:34, he should also look at Acts 15:8-9: "God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us, and He made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith." Peter is expressing the surprise of the disciples upon learning that God has extended salvation even to the Gentiles, on the same basis as the Jews, i. e., by faith alone. The disciples were astonished at this, because the Jews had always though of God and the Messiah-to-come as their special reserve, not for the unclean Gentiles.

And this explains how God does and does not discriminate between men. He shows no concern for the characteristics which men value, such as wealth or physical beauty. His standard is His own will alone, the ultimate in justice. He tells us this explicitly in His choosing of David to replace the line of Saul on the throne of Israel: "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart" (I Samuel 16:7).

Thus we see that God is certainly discriminatory, and the plunking down of Act 10:34 to claim otherwise is to ignore the message of Scripture for debate points.

Opposition to Gracious Election and the Kingship of Jesus

In Matthew 21:5, Jesus refers to himself as "king," using  Zechariah 9:9. And, indeed, this is closely followed by the royal welcome he received to Jerusalem in the immediately following verses. Under the influence of Dispensationalism, Christians have mostly stopped talking about the kingly office of Christ, though it carried great significance to our ancestors. For example, we can look at the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king? Answer : Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to Himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which He visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon His elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for His own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

We also have the words of Jesus, as He portrayed the nature of His kingship in a parable: "As for these enemies of Mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before Me" (Luke 19:27). As king, He will by right judge unbelievers to destruction for their rebellion against His proper rule over them. 

That parable is the New Testament parallel to Psalm 2, which is the promise of the Father to the then-preincarnate Son. Verses 1-3 is the gloating of the rebels: "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." These are the same ones described in Luke 18 as refusing to submit to their rightful ruler. However, the Father is unimpressed by their bluster: "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill'" (verses 4-6). So, He says to the Son, "The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel" (verses 7-9). 

We have a concept in our modern society that religion is a voluntary thing, that believing in Jesus or not is a person choice, and either one is equally valid. Well, we can tell ourselves that, but it is not what God says. Unbelief is rebellion, and is, therefore, under the judgment of God. This error is even found among professing evangelicals, who have adopted the cultural assumption of religious freedom binding even on God. He rejects that claim, and even tells us of His sovereign choice of who shall be a sheep, i.e., a valued citizen of His kingdom, and who shall be a goat, i. e., a rebel (John 10:27-29). One sign of who is which is their response to this doctrine.

"There is much violent and bitter opposition to that account of it [i. e., election] which places a crown of absolute sovereignty on the head of Jehovah, and prostrates man in entire dependency upon His will" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

The Justice of Reprobation

There is a hard verse in Scripture. Not just hard, but hard.  It is Romans 9:21: "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" In this verse, God refers to Himself figuratively as a potter, who has made mankind from a lump of clay (Genesis 2:7). He looks at this lump as after the Fall, the mass of sinful humankind. As formed from one lump, every human is by nature equivalent to every other. Yet, as the potter, God chooses to form some lumps for honorable use, i. e., the elect, making them honorable, and some for dishonorable use, i. e., the reprobate. All men are by nature dishonorable. Yet, upon some He chooses to be merciful, and others are left condemned.

Even among Christians, this verse is blanked out, or explained away by semantic acrobatics. Why? Because there can be no greater ax laid to the pride of men than to be told that God is in absolute control, and men are absolutely without sovereignty.

One of the worse ways that men fight against this truth of God's sovereignty is by the creation of caricatures. For example, I have been told by actual opponents that this means that some men would be begging to be saved, to be forgiven, yet God will refuse them because they are not among the number of the elect.

That caricature is demonstrated to be humanistic drivel by one simple truth: it describes an impossibility. The Scriptures tell us that no man of himself seeks God: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God" (Romans 3:10-11). We even have the words of Jesus Himself: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). So, even the proposition of this caricature is to claim that Jesus and Paul were mistaken about the nature of men. 

Furthermore, all objections to the doctrine of reprobation erroneously assume that men deserve to be saved. They deny the sinfulness of sin. They deny that all sinners deserve the judgment of Hell. Yet these same evangelicals will quote the answer in other circumstances: "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Therefore, "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16). The objector to God's sovereignty has the truth reversed. It is the reprobate who receives justice. He only gets what his sins have earned him. The elect receives mercy, not what he deserves. No one ever receives injustice.

"None but a sinner can be a suitable subject of reprobation, and men are reprobated only as sinners; but one man is passed by and another elected, not because one was a greater sinner than the other, but because God saw fit to do so" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

The Canons of Dort versus the Haters of God's Sovereign Grace

In the Canons of Dort (First Head of Doctrine, Article 7), the Synod, the first and only universal council of the Reformed Protestant churches, defines election in this way: "Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath, out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His word and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His Son, finally, to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy and for the praise of His glorious grace..."

I love the doctrine of election. I know my own wayward heard (Jeremiah 17:9), so I am conscious of the fact that I would never have submitted to God out of any original motion of my heart. It took the sovereign intervention of God to change my heart (Ezekiel 36:26-27) and will (Philippians 2:13) to save me from the dominion of sin and Satan. "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16).

Yet, there are men who hate the doctrine of election. They hate it so much that they make up evil caricatures of it, because their biblical arguments are so unconvincing. I have had anti-Calvinists tell me that the doctrine of election means that people can plead with God to save them, but He will shut them away because they aren't elect. Really? Where does the Bible describe any such person? Rather, the Bible asserts just the opposite: "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" (Romans 3:10-12). So, the Bible says that not even one person, of himself, seeks after God. Jesus also addressed this subject: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44). So, this hypothetical situation invented by the anti-Calvinist is something that the Bible says is impossible. Yet, the same caricature is repeated ad nauseum.

However, what these verses do tell us is that there would be no one saved without election. That is the world preferred by the anti-Calvinist. Better that no one be saved than that God choose those who will be saved. 

To my mind, that makes the anti-Calvinist evil, not the sovereign God described by the Canons.

The Synod of Dort

Election and Reprobation: Treating Biblical Truths as Shameful

Regarding the hesitancy to preach on election, Southern Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell wrote, "This squeamish timidity is no less dishonoring to God [than is to be inquisitive and speculative], as it supposes that He has communicated some truths, in a moment of unlucky forgetfulness, which it would have been better to conceal, and flatly and palpably contradicts the assertion of Paul that all Scripture is 'profitable' [II Timothy 3:16]" (Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Thornwell is correct to identify Paul's words as the issue here: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (II Timothy 3:16). This verse is fundamental to the Christian attitude toward the Bible. First, it is literally the word of God, not given directly, but through the instrumentality of men. Therefore, as God is necessarily incapable of error, then, too, His word is necessarily free from error. Second, Paul tells us that this origin with God, and as given to men, is profitable, "that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (verse 17). God gave His word that His people may be trained for the work that He has given us to do. Therefore, there can be nothing in it that is harmful or irrelevant. Yet, there are many men in the pulpit who avoid dealing with the myriad passages that discuss the doctrines of grace.

I had this experience once. I had moved to a new community, and needed to find a new church. There was a Presbyterian congregation - I won't specify, but each was of an orthodox denomination, though not the same one - at about equal distance north and south of my house. To help in choosing between them, I asked the minister of one whether he would preach on predestination if it were a natural part of whatever text he was using. His response, word for word, was, "Oh, no! That would offend too many people!" I went to the other church and never looked back.

Is that not a rebuke to God, as Thornwell says? Is such a refusal not telling God, "You screwed up by putting this in Your word, so I have to fix your mistake"?

Here is the instruction from the Westminster Confession of Faith III:8, to which this minister had committed his subscription: "The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel." Handling with prudence does not mean don't handle at all.

The Knowledge of Election: Avoiding the Effort to Be Wise Above What is Written

When dealing with even professed Christians on Facebook, I get a continuous stream of questions about hypothetical issues. Today someone asked, "What if Noah were really the Archangel Gabriel?" I am not making that up. 

This is especially true when discussing the doctrines of grace with people not from a Reformed background. They are constantly demanding an answer -  i. e., one that will satisfy them - as to why God chooses one person over another. Other than according to mercy alone (Romans 9:16) for His glory alone (Ephesians 1:6), Scripture does not give us an answer. Rather, we are given this rebuke: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:20-21). The answer is simple, Paul tells us. God makes His decision on the basis that he chooses because He is God and we are not, so stop prying into things above your station!

And Paul is answering on the basis of a longtime Biblical tradition, going back to Moses: "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29; see also Paul's remarks in I Corinthians 4:6 and Colossians 2:8). Moses tells us that God has given us everything we need to know for salvation and sanctification in the Bible. Beyond that revelation, whatever imaginations arise from our inordinate curiosity are to be cast aside. "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" (Westminster Confession of Faith, I:6).

"Men of inquisitive and speculative minds are apt to forget that there are limits set to human investigation and research, beyond which it is impossible to pass with safety or satisfaction. To intrude with confidence unto the unrevealed secrets of God's wisdom and purpose manifests an arrogance and haughtiness of intellect which cannot fail to incur the marked disapprobation of heaven, and should always meet the prompt reprobation of the pious.Whatsoever is useful to be known, God has kindly and graciously revealed, and it argues no less ingratitude than presumption to attempt to be 'wise above what is written'" (I Corinthians 4:6, James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Sovereign Grace, the Trinity, and the Christian Life

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the

sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you."

- I Peter 1:1-2 

This is the opening salutation from Peter's first epistle. Notice that it is not written to men in general but specifically to Christians, whom he identifies as the true Israel (compare Romans 9:8, Galatians 3:7, 6:16, etc.), gathered by the sovereign grace of God. 

And when I say God, I don't mean in a vague, generic sense. Rather, Peter identifies our election as the work of the triune God of the Bible: the foreknowledge of the Father, the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, and the obedience of the Son, applied, figuratively speaking, by the sprinkling with His blood, an image from the Old Testament sacrifices (such as Leviticus 7:2 and 14:7). Peter does not contemplate a unitary deity, whether of the Arian type or the Sabellian. 

Nor does Peter contemplate any sort of works religion, as is taught by those pseudo-Christian sects. Rather, he tells us that the Father chose us, the Holy Spirit changed us, and the Son fulfilled all righteousness for us, that it might be imputed to us. In just these two verses, Peter teaches us to see our reunion with our God as fully trinitarian and fully by His sovereign grace, which is why he could add, in verse 4, that we have "an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you." The same sovereign, trinitarian grace that saved us also keeps us secure until we reach our heavenly goal."I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Philippians 1:6).

Calvinist Peter on Election and Perseverance

I continue to see people who claim that the distinctive doctrines of Calvinism aren't biblical. However, as I have demonstrated frequently, those doctrines are distributed all over Scripture, in both Testaments, and even in the words of Jesus Himself.

Here is another example: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (I Peter 1:1-5). 

This is the opening salutation of the epistles of Peter. Notice to whom he is speaking, "those who are elect." So, he is not speaking to men, in general. In particular, those words preclude the unconverted from Peter's message. Moreover, he is speaking not merely to believers, but to those whom he calls the elect, emphasizing the sovereign grace by which we have been made believers. That is the "U" in "TULIP," "unconditional election." Elected by whom? By the Father. By what means? By the Holy Spirit. To what end? To believe in Jesus. Thus, Peter sees believers to be such by a cooperative effort of each Person of the Trinity. Peter could not be describing the deities of the Arian or the Sabellian, but only the triune God of orthodox Christianity. 

On our experiential end, what was the effect of the Father's election of us? To be caused to be born again. "Caused" necessarily implies that the origin of our rebirth is outside of ourselves. On what basis? Was it our foreseen faith? No, Peter tells us that it was out of His mercy alone. Furthermore, that rebirth has brought us into an inheritance that can never be lost, because its keeping isn't in our hands, but is rather preserved in Heaven, by God's power (compare John 10:28-29). That is perseverance of the saints, the "P" in "TULIP." 

Finding such obvious expressions of the Calvinist soteriology throughout Scripture continues to make me wonder at the claims of Arminians to be Bible-believing. Closing one's eyes to what the Scriptures say is not believing them. 

A Priori Sovereign Grace

When discussing the doctrines of grace, also called the Five Points of Calvinism, I am often told that the Calvinist soteriology depends on a few isolated prooftexts taken out of context. I am always flabbergasted by that assertion, because each of the doctrines is seen all over Scripture. Rather, I see it as a problem of the Arminian's deliberate overlooking these doctrines, because they are inconsistent with his theological presuppositions.

Let's look at one of the verses that never comes up in those discussions, II Thessalonians 2:13: "We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."

Here we see Paul's addressing the brothers explicitly, not mankind in general. We would have known that anyway, because the entire epistle is written to Christians (II Thess. 1:1). However, Paul reinforces that introduction with a second address to believers here. He tells these believers that God chose them, not that they chose God. For what were they chosen? Three things: to be the firstfruits of those who would be saved, to be sanctified, and to believe in the truth. Contrary to the commonly stated assertion of the Arminians, these believers were not chosen because of those things, but unto them. This precludes the possibility of the reactive predestination that Arminians often claim, that God predestines those whom He knows would believe.

That there are such plain statements of the sovereignty of God's grace is clear proof that free-will theology is imposed on Scripture, not derived from it.