The Reformed Christians Guide to Facebook:

Firstly, Facebook is not to be viewed as or treated by any Christian as a replacement for attending church on Sunday. This goes for every Christian.  Hebrews 10:24-25, “let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.”

To quote the Belgic Confession, “The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.” Simply, the sacraments cannot be administered on Facebook. Excommunication cannot be carried out on Facebook. You are not physically assembling with other Christians when on Facebook. Facebook is not a church service. You must attend a church.

However, Facebook can still be used as a helpful and edifying medium for theological fellowship, debate and discussion on Facebook. And, there is lovely international dimension to this – I have had the pleasure of meeting and praying for Christians from every continent (inhabited by mankind) through Facebook. So, here is a short guide to some of the better Reformed Groups on Facebook.

1.       Calvinism Fellowship, Debate, and Discussion

Undoubtedly the most active Calvinist group on Facebook. The group (CFDD) is actively moderated, and “exists primarily for dialogue and fellowship between Calvinists", though non-Calvinists are still welcome to join, learn and participate. If you obey the rules, you will learn some theology, and benefit from and enjoy the fellowship in this group, away from a lot of the nastiness in groups that are not moderated. The members mostly get along, so you might even have some fun … once you are up to date with the jokes.

2.       Reformed Christian Coffeehouse

A more relaxed version of CFDD (the group described above). Probably more theological diversity, but if you are Christian and respectful, chances are, you will be invited to have coffee with other Christian friends. This group is in many ways that scenario.

3.       Calvinism: The Group That Chooses You

Created in the aftermath of the closure of the original “Calvinism: The Group That Choose You”, due to controversies over Kinism [refutation of Kinism here]. This group is a new Kinist-free group, and a replacement of the original. Similar to CFDD, this group exists for moderated dialogue and fellowship between Calvinists, while allowing pleasant non-Calvinists to participate where appropriate.

4.       The Godly Home | Christian Parenting & Marriage

This group isn't so much a place for debating lapsarianism or eschatology – it is more for those who are already married with children or gearing towards that direction. If you are a high school student who just wants to debate baptism – this is not the place. The Godly Home is a closed group designed to “help Christian parents in their pursuit to train their children up in God's word as well as be a resource to encourage godly marriages.”

5.        The Book Club

I have never met an informed Calvinist who does not enjoy reading. Though not incredibly active, this is a group where Reformed Christians are able to discuss what they are reading. The books discussed are more likely to be out of print than on the New York Times best-seller list – so to those like-minded people who read mostly dead theologians – there is no need to worry.

6.       Reformed Covenant Theology

This is a closed group for dialogue and fellowship between Christians who understand the Bible by covenant theology.  This group is not incredibly active, but there are often worthwhile threads untangling deeper aspects of God’s covenantal relationships and dealings with His creation.

7.       The Reformed Steakhouse

Similar to Reformed Covenant Theology in some ways. Though the Reformed Steakhouse is not as active as it once was, there are still some threads well worth reading.

8.       Reformed Baptist Fellowship & Theology Forum

Another CFDD spin off. As the name suggests, this is a group exists primarily for dialogue and fellowship between Reformed Baptists, while allowing other Christians to participate on the side. Even as a Reformed Paedobaptist, there are many beneficial discussions in this Baptist group. They are not the Baptists who think Jesus only drank grape juice, or play antichrist guessing games.

9.       Presbyterian and Continental Reformed Fellowship and Discussion

Yet another CFDD spin off, and the Paedobaptist equivalent to the Reformed Baptist group. Even though you will likely disagree with either the Reconstructists or the Westminster Seminary-ites, this group contains many ‘iron sharpening iron’ discussions and debates on a variety of topics from perspectives within [Confessional] Reformed Theology.

10.   The Men of Calvinism Fellowship, Debate, and Discussion

CFDD is basically the Superman of Reformed Theology on Facebook. A lot of spin-offs, but all for different purposes.  The Men of CFDD is a closed version of CFDD, to discuss topics relevant to guys.  The group members are close, so unless you know someone in it, or are known by a member from elsewhere, you won’t be let in.

11.   The Women of Calvinism Fellowship, Debate and Discussion

Another off shoot of CFDD. Designed the same as the men's group, but for women, rather than men. I could not tell you what exactly is discussed in there - and even if I could, I probably wouldn't understand it.

12.   CFDD Prayer Request Group

And I’ll conclude with one final spin off of CFDD. This group, administrated by Calvinists, is a closed group deigned to be a place where Christians [Calvinist or not] can share prayer requests – the group is not for theological debate. Just as with the two previous groups, only Christians are allowed in the CFDD Prayer Request Group.

13.       Christians AGAINST the Heresy of Calvinism & TULIP

A place for Open Theists, Pelagains, Moral Government Theorists, Sinless Perfectionists and everyone else condemned by the early church to be united in misrepresenting Calvinistic Christians, despite being corrected about 237 times. A group to stay out of, in order to avoid formulaic straw-men and not waste time. My point is: use your time on Facebook wisely. You should have higher priorities. You should use theological interaction on Facebook for mutual benefit from Christian discussion and fellowship, not to waste time.

I hope that the Reformed Christians on Facebook find this useful and helpful. But even more so, I hope you all attend church this Sunday, and the Sunday after that.

©Jonathan Williams, December 2012.

Zacharias Ursinus on Common Grace

My intention in this post is to answer one question: Is the doctrine of common grace (including the free offer of the gospel) a Reformed Doctrine? Whether or not the author of the Heidelberg Catechism taught common grace in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism will decisively answer this question.

Did Ursinus teach Common Grace?

The following is a non-exhaustive collection of quotes from Zacharias Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism that will answer the question at hand. As his commentary explains and expounds on the actual Heidelberg Catechism, it goes without saying that his commentary conveys the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism.

“The wisdom of man reasons and concludes differently, as is evident from the objection which we often hear: He who withdraws, in the time of temptation, that grace, without which it is not possible to prevent a fall, is the cause of the fall. But God withdrew, from man, his grace, in the trial through which he was called to pass, so that man could not but fall. Therefore, God was the cause of the fall of man.

Ans. The major proposition is true only of him who withholds grace, when he is obligated not to withdraw it; who takes it from him who is desirous of it, and does not wilfully reject it; and who withholds it out of malice. But it is not true of him who is not bound to preserve the grace which he at first gave; and who does not withdraw it from him who desires it, but only from him who is willing for him so to do, and who, of his own account, rejects the grace that is proffered him; and who does not therefore, withhold it because he envies the sinner righteousness and eternal life; but that he may make a trial of him to whom he has imparted his grace. He who thus forsakes any one, is not the cause of sin, even though it necessarily follows this desertion and withdrawal of grace. And in as much as God withheld his grace from man in the time of his temptation, not in the first, but in the last manner just described, he is not the cause of his sin and destruction; but man alone is guilty for wilfully rejecting the grace of God.” (p. 34-35)

Ursinus speaks of a grace that is “withdrawn”, “not preserved” and “rejected”. This grace cannot be said to be the effectual saving grace given by God to only His elect.

“The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ.” (p. 106)

Ursinus called the sufficiency of the atonement “grace”. Also note, that Ursinus explicitly states that the “benefits of Christ [are] offered in the gospel” to those who “perish” and “reject”. Further, Ursinus believes that the offer of Christ in the gospel to the non-elect is an act of God’s grace.

“That all are, therefore, not saved through the grace of Christ, is to be ascribed to the unbelief of those who reject the grace that is freely offered.” (p. 107)

Again, Ursinus stated that the “grace of Christ” is “freely offered” to those who “reject that grace”.

“Hence the devils are said to tremble, because they do not apply to themselves what they know of God; that is, they do not believe that God is to them what they know him to be from his word, merciful, gracious.” (p. 114)

Ursinus stated that the devils do not believe what they know him to be to them from His word: merciful and gracious to them. They know that He is gracious to them, but they do not believe it.

“The evils of guilt as far as they are such, that is, sins, have not the nature of that which is good. Hence God does not will them, neither does he tempt men to perform them, nor does he effect them or contribute thereto; but he permits devils and men to do them, or does not prohibit them from committing them when he has the power to do so. Therefore these things do indeed also fall under the providence of God, but not as if they were done by him, but only permitted. The word permit is therefore not to be rejected, seeing that it is sometimes used in the scriptures. … (Gen. 20:6; 31:7. Ps. 105:14. Acts 14:16.)

But we must have a correct understanding of the word lest we detract from God a considerable portion of the government of the world, and of human affairs. For this permission is not an indifferent contemplation or suspension of the providence and working of God as it respects the actions of the wicked, by which it comes to pass that these actions do not depend so much upon some first cause, as upon the will of the creatures acting ; but it is a withdrawal of divine grace by which God (whilst he accomplishes the decrees of his will through rational creatures) either does not make known to the creature acting what he himself wishes to be done, or he does not incline the will of the creature to render obedience, and to perform what is agreeable to his will. Yet he, nevertheless, in the meanwhile, controls and influences the creature so deserted and sinning as to accomplish what he has purposed.” (p. 153-154)

Here, Ursinus attributed the restraint of sin to God’s grace. In permitting man to sin (providentially, not morally), God withdraws His grace; God’s grace cannot be withdrawn if it was never active. Ursinus believes that God’s providential restraints of sin are acts of His ‘grace’.

“Hence God does not will those things which are sins, neither does he approve of them, nor produce them, nor further or desire them, but merely permits them to be done, or does not prevent their commission, partly that he may exercise his justice in those who deserve to be punished, and partly that he may exhibit his mercy in forgiving others. The scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe; Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show forth my power in thee. (Gal. 3:22. Rom. 9:17.) It is for this reason declared in the definition of the doctrine of divine providence, that God permits evil to be done. But this permission as we have already shown, includes the withdrawal of divine grace by which God, 1. Does not make known to man his will, that he might act according thereto. 2. He does not incline the will of man to obey and honour him, and to act in accordance with his will as revealed.”(p. 160)

Once again, Ursinus attributed the restraint of sin to God’s grace. The referencing of Romans 9 puts it beyond doubt that the reprobates are included in Ursinus affirmation that it is of God’s grace that he providentially restrains sin in the non-elect.

Ursinus on the Free Offer of the Gospel and Related Doctrines:

I demonstrated above that Ursinus taught what is known as the free offer of the gospel, and further that he attributed the free offer of Christ to all men to God’s grace. The following quotes from Ursinus commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism further prove that Ursinus held to the fee offer of the gospel, and saw no problem with God desiring things that He did not decree:

“By the heart we are to understand the affections, desires, and inclinations. When God, therefore, requires our whole heart, he desires that he alone should be loved above everything else; that our whole heart should be stayed on him, and not that a part should be given to him and a part to another.” (p. 24)

“But it is not true of him who is not bound to preserve the grace which he at first gave; and who does not withdraw it from him who desires it, but only from him who is willing for him so to do, and who, of his own account, rejects the grace that is proffered him.” (p. 35)

“We deny the minor proposition, because God, although he punishes sin with eternal punishment, does nevertheless yield much as it respects his right. He exhibits great clemency, for instance, towards the reprobate, for he defers the punishment which they deserve, and invites them to repentance by strong and powerful motives. And as to the punishment which he will inflict upon them in the world to come, it will be lighter than they deserved. So he also exercises great mercy towards the faithful, for he has, from his mercy alone, without being bound by any law or merit on our part, given his son, and subjected him to punishment for our sake. We also deny the major proposition, if applied either to him who is endowed with such wisdom that he can discover a method of exercising mercy without violating his justice, or when applied to him who, whilst he executes his justice, does not rejoice in the destruction of man, but would rather that he be saved. As a judge, when he passes the sentence upon a robber that he deserves to be put to the torture, and yet does not take pleasure in his punishment, exhibits great equity and clemency, even though he seems to exact the most rigorous demand of the law, so God is far more equitable and clement, although, in his just judgment, he punishes sin, for he does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, (Ez. 18:23; 33:11.).” (p. 69-70)

“The reason why all are not saved through Christ, is not because of any insufficiency of merit and grace in him for the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made but it arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ.” (p. 106)

“That all are, therefore, not saved through the grace of Christ, is to be ascribed to the unbelief of those who reject the grace that is freely offered.” (p. 107)

“God s mercy appears in this: 1. That he wills the salvation of all men. 2. That he defers punishment, and invites all to repentance. 3. That he accommodates himself to our infirmity. 4. That he redeems those who are called into his service. 5. That he gave and delivered up to death his only begotten Son. 6. That he promises and does all these things most freely out of his mercy. 7. That he confers benefits upon his enemies, and such as are unworthy of his regard. Obj. 1. But God seems to take pleasure in avenging himself upon the ungodly. Ans. Only in as far as it is the execution of his justice.” (p. 127)

“The natural law, the knowledge of general principles natural to men, the difference between things honest and base, engraven upon our hearts, teach that there is a providence: for he who has engraven upon the heart of man a rule or law, for the regulation of the life, has a regard to the actions of men. God now has engraven such a rule upon the heart of man, and desires us to live in conformity thereto. Therefore he must also govern the lives, actions and events of his creatures. “The Gentiles show the work of the law written in their hearts.” (Rom. 2:15.)” (p. 148)

“There are four terms in this syllogism, for in the major proposition, the want of righteousness signifies the desertion and withdrawal of grace actively, which is a most just punishment of the creature sinning, and is thus from God; whilst in the minor it is to be understood passively, signifying a want of that righteousness which we ought to possess, which, when it is willingly contracted and received by men, and exists in them contrary to the law of God, is sin which is neither wrought nor desired by God.” (p. 159)

“Hence God does not will those things which are sins, neither does he approve of them, nor produce them, nor further or desire them, but merely permits them to be done, or does not prevent their commission, partly that he may exercise his justice in those who deserve to be punished, and partly that he may exhibit his mercy in forgiving others. The scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe; Even for this purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show forth my power in thee. (Gal. 3:22. Rom. 9:17.) It is for this reason declared in the definition of the doctrine of divine providence, that God permits evil to be done. But this permission as we have already shown, includes the withdrawal of divine grace by which God, 1. Does not make known to man his will, that he might act according thereto. 2. He does not incline the will of man to obey and honour him, and to act in accordance with his will as revealed.”(p. 160)

“God does indeed will that all should be saved, and that, both on account of the desire which he has for the salvation of all, and also because he invites all to seek salvation.” (p. 292)

“As the gospel is the savour of life unto life when it is believed, and is the savour of death unto death when it is despised, so Christ, when he is eaten, quickeneth, and when he is despised, judgeth. Christ now is despised, when he is offered to the unbelieving in the word and sacraments, and is rejected by their unbelief.” (p. 428)

“On account of the general command of God with respect to guarding against the profanation of the sacraments, both in the Old and the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God would not allow wicked and obstinate offenders to be included among the number of his people, but required them to be excluded from their fellowship. Much less would he permit them to come to the sacraments of his church. “The soul that doeth aught presumptuously, (whether he be born in the land, or a stranger,) the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall be utterly cut off” (Num. 15:30, 31.) God did indeed desire all to come to the Passover, that is, all the members of his church; but he did not regard the rebellious and obstinate as included in the number of those who were in covenant with him. Hence he commanded them to be excluded from his people.” (p. 442)

“Because he desired that the incestuous man “be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5) that is, he desired him to be dealt with in such a manner, that notwithstanding his life might be prolonged, and he repent, his flesh might be subdued by sincere contrition, the old man mortified, and the new man quickened. Hence he did not desire that he should be put to death.”(p. 458)

“There are four classes of things concerning which men give commandment. These are, first, divine precepts, which God desires, that men should propose unto themselves for their observance, not, however, in their own name, but by the authority of God himself, as being the ministers and messengers, and not the authors of these precepts.” (p. 519-520)

“Obj. 2. The Holy Scriptures attribute to God the different members of the human body, and thus declare his nature and properties. Therefore it is also lawful to represent God by images. Ans. There is a difference between these figurative expressions used in reference to God, and images; because in the former case there is always something connected with those expressions which guards us against being led astray into idolatry, nor is the worship of God ordinarily tied to those figurative expressions. But it is different in regard to images, for here there is no such safeguard, and it is easy for men to give adoration and worship to them. God himself, therefore, used those metaphors of himself figuratively, that he might help our infirmity, and permits us, in speaking of him, to use the same forms of expression; but he has never represented himself by images and pictures; neither does he desire us to use them for the purpose of representing him, but has, on the other hand, solemnly forbidden them.” (p. 527)

“Obj. 6. All that is necessary is, that men should not, by the preaching of the gospel, have images in their hearts. Therefore it is not necessary that they should be removed from our churches. Ans. We deny the antecedent; because God not only forbids us to have idols in our hearts; but also before our eyes, seeing that he does not merely desire us to be no idolaters, but to avoid even the appearance of idolatry, according as it is said; “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” (1 Thess. 5:22.).” (p. 534)

“The preface is contained in the words, Oar Father which art in heaven. This again consists of two parts: a calling upon the true God contained in the words, Our Father, and a description of the true God expressed by the words, Who art in heaven. Christ will have us to pray in this way, because God desires to be called upon with due honor, which consists, 1. In true knowledge. 2. In confidence. 3. In obedience. Obedience comprehends true love, fear, hope, humility and patience.” (p. 626)

“Neither ought the magistrate to whom it belongs to inflict punishment, to remit it except for just and weighty reasons; for God desires that his justice and law should be put into execution.” (p. 653)

“That which is good, and which accompanies afflictions and the cross, we should not pray for deliverance from; but afflictions and the cross itself, which are evil in themselves, being destructive to our nature, from these we should pray for deliverance, as Christ himself also prayed when he said, Let this cup pass from me, that is, let it pass from me in as far as it is a destruction and evil, in which sense the Father himself did not desire it. But in as far as the death of Christ was a ransom for the sins of his people, in so far both Christ and the Father desired it; ‘Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.’ (Matt. 26:39.)” (p. 656)

Conclusion:

There are more affirmations of common grace in Ursinius’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism; I did not even go into how common grace relates to the covenant and the sacraments in the theology of Zacharias Ursinus, and I only included quotes where the word ‘grace’ was explicitly used.

To answer our initial question: Is the doctrine of common grace (including the free offer of the gospel) a Reformed Doctrine? Yes. This is clearly demonstrated from Zacharias Ursinus commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.

Appendix:

Of course, Ursinus’ affirmation of common grace is completely in line with historic Reformed Theology; to give three examples:

John Knox said, "After these common mercies, I say, whereof the reprobate are often partakers, he openeth the treasure of his rich mercies, which are kept in Christ Jesus for his Elect. Such as willingly delight not in blindness may clearly see that the Holy Ghost maketh a plain difference betwixt the graces and mercies which are common to all, and that sovereign mercy which is immutably reserved to the chosen children.” (On Predestination, p. 87)

Westminster Divine, Robert Harris said, "There are graces of two sorts. First, common graces, which even reprobates may have. Secondly, peculiar, such as accompany salvation, as the Apostle has it, proper to God’s own children only. The matter is not whether we have the first sort of graces, for those do not seal up God’s special love to a man’s soul, but it must be saving grace alone that can do this for us."

John Calvin said, “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 3:3)

Limited Atonement

The death of the Passover Lamb is typological of the death of Christ (Matthew 17:19, 26:28). The Passover Lamb was sacrificed for God's chosen people, not for the Egyptians who were not chosen (Exodus 12). Consider three things:

(1) Who the Passover Lamb was sacrificed for is inseparably connected to who God chose. God chose to redeem a people in Christ. The intent and efficacy of the atonement is in virtue of the Covenant of Redemption: The Father gave all His elect to the Son who would willingly take their place. 

(2) Unbelieving Egyptians could partake of the Passover Lamb, as there was no deficiency in the sacrifice itself to exclude the Egyptians from partaking of the Passover Lamb. The sufficiency of the atonement is in virtue of the dignity of the Sacrifice. The atonement is infinite in value (sufficient for all) because Christ suffered as the Divine-human person.

(3) Adam did not sin a certain amount for one person, a certain amount for another person, and would have needed to sin more if more sinners were to be condemned in him. Similarly, how many people Christ died for is irrelevant to the sufficiency of the atonement. If Christ died for everyone, for one thousand people, or for only one person, the same Sacrifice of infinite value would be necessary.

The atonement is sufficient for everyone in virtue of who Christ is: for this reason we can say that whosoever trusts in Christ alone will be saved.  The atonement is intended for and efficient for only the elect in virtue of who God chose to redeem in Christ, who willingly took the place of those God chose. Limited Atonement means that the atonement was only intended for and is only applied to the elect. Christ’s atonement rendered certain the salvation of those the Father had given Him. Christ secured the salvation of the elect by His redemptive work, to be applied by the Holy Spirit.

© Jonathan Williams, March 2012.

John Calvin on Common Grace

Hyper Calvinists frequently make the false assertion that John Calvin rejected common grace. This compilation of quotes primarily from John Calvin’s “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” proves that Calvin affirmed common grace. For a scholarly exposition on Calvin’s doctrine of common grace, I recommend “Calvin and Common Grace”, written by Herman Bavinck, then later translated into English by Geerhardus Vos.

“Paul, accordingly, after reminding the Athenians that they “might feel after God and find him,” immediately adds, that “he is not far from every one of us,” (Acts 17:27); every man having within himself undoubted evidence of the heavenly grace by which he lives, and moves, and has his being.” - (Book 1, Chapter 5:3).

“Read Demosthenes or Cicero, read Plato, Aristotle, or any other of that class: you will, I admit, feel wonderfully allured, pleased, moved, enchanted; but turn from them to the reading of the Sacred Volume, and whether you will or not, it will so affect you, so pierce your heart, so work its way into your very marrow, that, in comparison of the impression so produced, that of orators and philosophers will almost disappear; making it manifest that in the Sacred Volume there is a truth divine, a something which makes it immeasurably superior to all the gifts and graces attainable by man.” – (Book 1, Chapter 8:1).

“The power of the intellect, secondly, with regard to the arts. Particular gifts in this respect conferred on individuals, and attesting the grace of God.” - (Chapter 2, Heading)

“In that some excel in acuteness, and some in judgment, while others have greater readiness in learning some peculiar art, God, by this variety commends his favour toward us, lest anyone should presume to arrogate to himself that which flows from His mere liberality. For whence is it that one is more excellent than another, but that in a common nature the grace of God is specially displayed in passing by many and thus proclaiming that it is under obligation to none.” – (Book 2, Chapter 2:17)

“But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” – (Book 2, Chapter 3:3)

“Still, the surest and easiest answer to the objection is, that those are not common endowments of nature, but special gifts of God, which he distributes in divers forms, and, in a definite measure, to men otherwise profane. For which reason, we hesitate not, in common language, to say, that one is of a good, another of a vicious nature; though we cease not to hold that both are placed under the universal condition of human depravity. All we mean is that God has conferred on the one a special grace which he has not seen it meet to confer on the other. When he was pleased to set Saul over the kingdom, he made him as it were a new man.” - (Book 2, Chapter 3:4)

“The reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy.  In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” – John Calvin (Book 3, Chapter 2:11)

“As by the revolt of the first man, the image of God could be effaced from his mind and soul, so there is nothing strange in His shedding some rays of grace on the reprobate, and afterwards allowing these to be extinguished.” – John Calvin (Book 3, Chapter 2:12)

“God is undoubtedly ready to pardon whenever the sinner turns. Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far as he wills repentance. But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though the external word only renders, those who hear it, and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself.” – John Calvin (Book 3, Chapter 24:15)

"For, since the fall of Adam had brought disgrace upon all his posterity, God restores those, whom He separates as His own, so that their condition may be better than that of all other nations. At the same time it must be remarked, that this grace of renewal is effaced in many who have afterwards profaned it" – John Calvin (Commentary on Deuteronomy 32:6)

“But prosperity, and the happy issue of events, ought also to be attributed to his grace, in order that he may always receive the praise which he deserves, that of being a merciful Father, and an impartial Judge. About the close of the psalm, he inveighs against those ungodly men who will not acknowledge God’s hand, amid such palpable demonstrations of his providence.” - John Calvin (Commentary on Psalm 107)

"That God indeed favours none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration, and that by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after his image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts. But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why he should not grant the reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of his light, why he should not give them some perception of his goodness, and in some sort engrave his word on their hearts." – John Calvin (Commentary on Hebrews 6:5)

“He is therefore rightly called the Spirit of grace, by whom Christ becomes ours with all his blessings. But to do despite to him, or to treat him with scorn, by whom we are endowed with so many benefits, is an impiety extremely wicked. Hence learn that all who wilfully render useless his grace, by which they had been favoured, act disdainfully towards the Spirit of God. It is therefore no wonder that God so severely visits blasphemies of this kind; it is no wonder that he shows himself inexorable towards those who tread under foot Christ the Mediator, who alone reconciles us to himself; it is no wonder that he closes up the way of salvation against those who spurn the Holy Spirit, the only true guide.” – John Calvin (Commentary on Hebrews 10:29)

“There are sons of God who do not yet appear so to us, but now do so to God; and there are those who, on account of some arrogated or temporal grace, are called so by us, but are not so to God.” - John Calvin (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p. 66)

There are more affirmations of common grace in John Calvin’s writings, but I resolved to limit myself to 1(6)00 words. However, these quotes undeniably prove that John Calvin affirmed the Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace.

Lastly, Common Grace has always been a Reformed Doctrine:

John Knox said, "After these common mercies, I say, whereof the reprobate are often partakers, he openeth the treasure of his rich mercies, which are kept in Christ Jesus for his Elect. Such as willingly delight not in blindness may clearly see that the Holy Ghost maketh a plain difference betwixt the graces and mercies which are common to all, and that sovereign mercy which is immutably reserved to the chosen children.” (On Predestination, p. 87)

The Westminster Divine, Robert Harris said, "There are graces of two sorts. First, common graces, which even reprobates may have. Secondly, peculiar, such as accompany salvation, as the Apostle has it, proper to God’s own children only. The matter is not whether we have the first sort of graces, for those do not seal up God’s special love to a man’s soul, but it must be saving grace alone that can do this for us."

John Calvin said, “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.”

© Jonathan Williams, February 2012.

Supralapsarianism and the Covenant of Redemption

What is Supralapsarianism?

The definition of supralapsarianism changed significantly during the time of Theodore Beza. With Beza, the question of lapsarianism came to regard the logical order of the decrees of God. Both infralapsarians and supralapsarians affirm that God freely ordained whatsoever comes to pass before anything was physically created – such doctrines are not debated.

What then is the lapsarian debate about? To quote Loraine Boettner, “When the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen? Were the objects of these decrees contemplated as members of a sinful, corrupt mass, or were they contemplated merely as men whom God would create?”

If you answered that question from Boettner by saying “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence men were considered unfallen”, or “the objects of these decrees were contemplated merely as men whom God would create”, then you are a supralapsarian. In the supralapsarian scheme, God decreed to elect some creatable men logically before He decreed the fall; supralapsarians believe that God’s decree of election logically preceded God’s decree of the fall.

The Covenant of Redemption:

The Covenant of Redemption is the intra-Trinitarian agreement between Father and the Son that occurred before the foundation of the world. The Covenant of Redemption is the agreement where the Father would give the Son as the head and redeemer of the elect, and the Son would voluntarily substitute for those whom the Father had given Him. God the Father gave all His elect to the Son who would willingly take their place. 

This is echoed in Chapter 8:1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith “It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.”

The Covenant of Redemption is likewise affirmed in Head 1, Article 7 of the Canons of Dort “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen 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. God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.”

How this Relates to Lapsarianism:

What does this have to do with lapsarianism? Calvinists on every side are probably thinking “I agree with everything you said above Jonathan. What is your point?”

Election and redemption are thoroughly covenantal, being grounded in the Covenant of Redemption. It is not disputed that in the Covenant of Redemption, the Son volunteered to be the head and redeemer of those the Father chose, to willingly substitute for those whom the Father had given Him.

The Son’s role in the covenant of redemption was to willingly redeem those the Father chose to give Him. It cannot be disputed that when the decree of redemption came into existence men were considered as fallen.

Lapsarianism and the Trinity:

The above biblical data creates a real problem in the supralapsarian scheme. In the covenant of redemption, the Father would be choosing unfallen people, while the Son would be redeeming fallen people. God the Father would be viewing the elect as unfallen, at the same time that God the Son is viewing the elect that He will save as fallen. In supralapsarianism, the Father gives the Son unfallen people to redeem, while the Son substitutes for the fallen people that God gave Him. The supralapsarian conception of the covenant of redemption has the Father electing unfallen people, while the Son is viewing those God gave Him to redeem as fallen.

As I outlined above, the supralapsarian scheme creates an impossible disharmony within the Trinity (God is one in essence), which would be further intensified if I also discussed the Holy Spirit (applies redemption). Supralapsarianism logically necessitates either a rejection of the Trinity, or a rejection of the covenant of redemption (actually, rejecting the Trinitarian nature of redemption completely). The simple solution to this is to reject supralapsarianism, and agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Canons of Dort instead.

The Reformed Confessions:

Chapter 3:7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith states “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.”

‘The rest of mankind’ are not ‘the rest of possible men’; they are ‘the rest of those human beings who constituted mankind’. According to the WCF, ‘the rest of mankind’ were ‘ordained to dishonour’ ‘for their sin’, which necessitates that mankind was contemplated as fallen “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence.”

People often say “Dort was explicitly not supralapsarianism, but it does not alter Calvinism”. As I have shown in this article, supralapsarianism does alter Calvinism. Earlier in this article, I quoted Head 1, Article 7 of the Canons of Dort, but omitted the sentences that explicitly countered the supralapsarian view.

The article states, “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has 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 has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.”

The Canons of Dort make two similar affirmations: (1) That God chose “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” (2) “This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.” The twin affirmations that ‘God chose people to redemption in Christ’ and that ‘God decreed to give people to Christ to be saved by Him’ rely on the affirmations that “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence, men were considered as fallen.” Such ‘contra-supralapsarianism’ statements are central to the covenantal understanding of election and redemption expressed in Dort.

Conclusion and Application:

In virtue of the Covenant of Redemption, Christians can be assured of God’s promise of salvation. Assurance of Salvation and Perseverance of the Saints are both covenantal and Trinitarian, being grounded (by decree) in the Covenant of Redemption. This is because of the inter-Trinitarian promise; the Father promised the Son that those for whom He substituted for will be given to Him by the Father. The Father promised the Son the elect in the Covenant of Redemption.

If you are a Christian, you can Christocentrically rest assured that God the Son redeemed you as your substitute. You belong to the Son, and because the Father will be faithful to His covenant promise to the Son to give the elect to Him, you will persevere to the end in Christ. We should be joyously awaiting going into everlasting life and receiving that fullness of joy in fellowship with Christ our redeemer, which should spur us to love, enjoy and serve Him. The Covenant of Redemption is the decreetive foundation to Christian hope and joy.

© Jonathan Williams, February 2012.

Loraine Boettner on Common Grace

The Argument:

Earlier this week, I received an email from a person claiming that Loraine Boettner rejected common grace. He claimed that Boettner’s rejection of common grace in ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’ proves that Common Grace is not Reformed.

He clearly did not read ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’ very carefully. The exact phrase ‘common grace’ appears no less than seventeen times in Boettner’s book, and always in the affirmative. There is even a heading affirmatively titled ‘Common Grace’, under the chapter on ‘Efficacious Grace’. To demonstrate the indisputable fact that Boettner embraced common grace, I have typed a run-down of his usage of the exact phase. An extensive treatment of Boettner’s affirmation of common grace is beyond the scope of this post.

Explicit Statements in Earlier Chapters:

“The unregenerate man can, through common grace, love his family and he may be a good citizen. He may give a million dollars to build a hospital, but he cannot give even a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of Jesus.” – Boettner (page 47)

“God's common grace would incline all men to good if not resisted.” – Boettner (page 109)

“Arminians hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only, and that His death had only an incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace. The meaning might be brought out more clearly if we used the phrase ‘Limited Redemption’ rather than ‘Limited Atonement.’ The Atonement is, of course, strictly an infinite transaction; the limitation comes in, theologically, in the application of the benefits of the atonement, that is in redemption.” – Boettner (page 110)

‘Common Grace’ – Boettner (page 124, 131)

“Apart from this special grace which issues in the salvation of its objects, there is what we may call ‘common grace,’ or general influences of the Holy Spirit which to a greater or lesser degree are shared by all men. God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust. He sends fruitful seasons and gives many things which make for the general happiness of mankind. Among the most common blessings which are to be traced to this source we may name health, material prosperity, general intelligence, talents for art, music, oratory, literature, architecture, commerce, inventions, etc. In many instances the non-elect receive these blessings in greater abundance than do the elect, for we often find that the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light. Common grace is the source of all the order, refinement, culture, common virtue, etc., which we find in the world, and through it the moral power of the truth upon the heart and conscience is increased and the evil passions of men are restrained. It does not lead to salvation, but it keeps this earth from becoming a hell. It arrests the complete effectuation of sin, just as human insight arrests the fury of wild beasts. It prevents sin from being manifested in all its hideousness, and thus hinders the bursting forth of the flames from the smoking fire. Like the pressure of the atmosphere, it is universal and powerful though unfelt.

Common grace, however, does not kill the core of sin, and therefore it is not capable of producing a genuine conversion. Through the light of nature, the workings of conscience, and especially through the external presentation of the Gospel it makes known to man what he should do, but does not give that power which man stands in need of. Furthermore, all of these common influences of the Holy Spirit are capable of being resisted. The Scriptures constantly teach that the Gospel becomes effectual only when it is attended by the special illuminating power of the Spirit, and that without this power it is to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles foolishness. Hence the unregenerate man can never know God except in an outward way; and for this reason the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is declared to be just no righteousness at all. Jesus said to His disciples that the world could not receive the Spirit of truth, ‘for it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him;’ yet in the same breath He added, ‘Ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and shall be in you,’ John 14:17. The Arminian doctrine destroys the distinction between efficacious and common grace, or at best makes efficacious grace to be an assistance without which salvation is impossible, while the Calvinistic makes it to be an assistance by which salvation is made certain.” – Boettner (page 131-132)

“Concerning the reformations which are produced by common grace Dr. Charles Hodge says” and “The following paragraph by Dr. S. G. Craig very clearly sets forth the limitations of common grace” – Boettner (page 132)

Explicit Statements in Latter Chapters:

“There is, in fact, no single member of this fallen race who is not treated by his Maker better than he deserves. And since grace is favor shown to the undeserving, God has the sovereign right to bestow more grace upon one subject than upon another. ‘The bestowment of common grace upon the non-elect,’ says W. G. T. Shedd, ‘shows that non-election does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven by Divine efficiency, because common grace is not only an invitation to believe and repent, but an actual help toward it; and a help that is nullified solely by the resistance of the non-elect, and not by anything in the nature of common grace, or by any preventive action of God. The fault or the failure of common grace to save the sinner, is chargeable to the sinner alone; and he has no right to plead afault of his own as the reason why he is entitled to special grace’.

If it be objected that God must give every man an opportunity to be saved, we reply that the outward call does give every man who hears it an opportunity to be saved. The message is: ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’ This is an opportunity to be saved; and nothing outside the man's own nature prevents his believing. Shedd has expressed this idea very well in the following words: ‘A beggar who contemptuously rejects the five dollars offered by a benevolent man, cannot charge stinginess upon him because after this rejection of the five dollars he does not give him ten. Any sinner who complains of God's passing him by in the bestowment of regenerating grace after his abuse of common grace, virtually says to the High and Holy one who inhabits eternity, 'Thou hast tried once to convert me from sin; now try again, and try harder.'” – Boettner (page 192-193)

‘Calvinism and Education’:

In diametric opposition to the indefensible claim that Boettner rejected common grace, Boettner’s views on Christian Education are thoroughly rooted in and shaped by common grace:

“The relationship which Calvinism bears to education has been well stated in the two following paragraphs by Prof. H. H. Meeter, of Calvin College: ‘Science and art were the gifts of God's common grace, and were to be used and developed as such. Nature was looked upon as God's handiwork, the embodiment of His ideas, in its pure form the reflection of His virtues. God was the unifying thought of all science, since all was the unfolding of His plan. But along with such theoretical reasons there are very practical reasons why the Calvinist has always been intensely interested in education, and why grade schools for children as well as schools of higher learning sprang up side by side with Calvinistic churches, and why Calvinists were in so large measure the vanguard of the modern universal education movement.” – Boettner (page 281-282)

Conclusion:

Loraine Boettner clearly affirmed common grace in ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’, which is the standard text on Calvinism. Hyper Calvinists are welcome to claim John Gill, Herman Hoeksema and John Robbins, none of whom have views that are Biblical or Reformed.

I will finish with a quote from John Calvin: “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” (Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 3:3). Both Loraine Boettner and John Calvin affirmed the Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace.

©Jonathan Williams, February 2011.

What is Van Tillian Presuppositionalism?

Van Tillian Presuppositionalism is the Reformed and therefore Biblical apologetic school. This method proves that man cannot prove anything unless the Triune God of Scripture is presupposed; said otherwise, the Christian worldview must be presupposed (the Christian) or borrowed from (the non-Christian) in order to know anything. An Intelligible argument cannot be formulated from any assumption that denies the Triune God of Scripture. Cornelius Van Til in summarising his method stated that “The only proof for the existence of God is that without God you couldn't prove anything."

Van Tillian Presuppositionalism presupposes the existence of the Triune God of Scripture. There is no neutrality between the Christian and the Non-Christian, as the Christian accepts the truth of God, while the non-Christian suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1). God’s existence is ontologically necessary, and because man’s knowledge is dependent on God’s knowledge, our reasoning and logic must be in subjection to Scripture. The Christian interprets facts in light of the self-authenticating Scriptures; therefore, because Scripture has its foundation in the all-embracing plan of God, this God must be presupposed.

The Christian worldview is the only self-consistent worldview, as the atheist cannot account for the existence of anything without borrowing from the Christian worldview. Thus, the Triune God of Scripture is proven by “impossibility to the contrary”. Because the atheist denies the source of everything (God), they cannot account for the existence of anything; therefore, whenever the atheist uses logic, reasoning, morality etc., they are borrowing from the Christian worldview in doing so. Unless the existence of the Triune God of Scripture is presupposed, it is impossible to prove anything, as God is the necessary foundation for proof itself.

The Christian communicates to the Non-Christian the truths they supress; the non-Christian will either 1) continue supressing the truth of God in unrighteousness (Bahnsen compared this suppression to denying the existence of air while breathing it) or 2) by the Holy Spirit accept the truth of God that they formerly suppressed. In both outcomes, God remains sovereign: the non-Christian will continue to supress the truth of God, unless God appointed that specific time to effectually call them by His word and Spirit to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ, monergistically enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God.

(C), J. Williams, July 2011.

The 10 Step Guide to Defeating the Cult of Calvin **sarcasm**

1)      Ensure that you bring up John Calvin as soon as possible. It is a great idea to get the audience on your side early, and what better way than accusing the opposition of “worshipping a man”. Bring up John Calvin before the Calvinist does. The debate becomes too theological if the Calvinist quotes Calvin theologically.

2)      Remember to... filter all of God’s attributes through His attribute of love. Keep the other attributes of God a secret. Remember to never let the Bible dictate your definition of God’s love: Christians can certainly learn a lot about love form Brangelina. Rob Bell’s new book “Love Wins” will help you here.

3)      When the Calvinist posts Bible verses, don’t fret… yet. Sometimes silence is good, therefore there can be nothing wrong with arguing from silence. If a verse makes you feel uneasy, it does not have to be true for you. “Doctrine divides” is a good slogan here: the alliteration makes it catchy too, which makes Christianity “hip and happening”.

4)      When occasions arise where the Holy Spirit used the wrong word, make sure you make this known. For example, Paul really meant “post-destination” rather than “predestination”, and “called” actually means that God shouted out and pleaded.  To avoid these words, it can be handy to pick up a children’s Bible or a paraphrase. Too much effort to flip the pages? Your personal experience will do fine!

5)      Always argue from emotion, try to avoid the Bible – even though “free will is all over the Bible”. After all we are to love God with our “…heart…”. “That wouldn’t be just”; “God would not predestine innocent babies to hell” and “God is not a tyrant” are some good lines for the modern man. They would bring a tear to Joel Osteen’s eye.

6)      Never study Genevan Politics. A wise man once said “what you don’t know can’t harm you”. If you make the error of studying Genevan Politics, it will be at your own peril. You will soon discover that John Calvin did not have the authority to order the execution of Servetus. Nonetheless, “Calvin is a murderer” is our best defence: ad hominen, guilt by association, ad nauseam and red herring in four words. Nice! Use this point as much as possible.

7)      Remember “no Bible student goes anywhere without a pen”. No! Not to take notes! Some parts of the Bible are quite confronting. The permanent marker works wonders in crossing out passages that you don’t like or cannot twist to refer to nationalistic Israel. With the strike of a pen you too can remove John 1:12-13 and Ephesians 2:8-9 from your Bible!

8)       It uses a lot of ink to remove whole chapters from Scripture such as John 6, Ephesians 1 and Romans 9. It is best to glue these pages together, or insert corrections: “I will draw all men to myself” clarifies John 6, and the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts forgot to add “just kidding” after “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated”.

9)      Remember to quote Dave Hunt. Let me correct that: never partake in an argument that does not quote Dave Hunt. This gives more ammunition to our emotional reasoning. When the Calvinist replies with verses, or by using the ‘c word’ (context) you must remember to keep accusing the Calvinist of worshipping men, despite the fact they have not yet quoted any.

10)   By this stage the Calvinist is becoming way too doctrinal. They are even using logic! Venomously defend the fact that “every person without exception from Judea and Jerusalem was baptised in Jordan”…I mean “that Christ died for all the sins of all people without exception: including unbelief”. Do not take no…I mean context for an answer! Always remember to finish with “well I guess God predestined me to oppose the cult of Calvin”. If the Calvinist replies with any more verses, keep repeating John 3:16!

(C), J. Williams, 2011.

The Five Points of Calvinism

The Five Points of Calvinism were formulated by the Synod of Dort in 1618 in reaction to Arminianism. Though the teachings of John Calvin agree with all five points, John Calvin did not invent Calvinism; in fact he was dead when the term Calvinism was coined. These doctrines are those held by the majority of theologians prior to the rise of Catholicism.

Total Depravity: At the fall, man fell completely. Every aspect of man is corrupted by sin; his mind (Genesis 6:5), emotions (Jeremiah 17:9) and will (Ephesians 2:3), the non-Christian is a slave to sin (John 8:34). Man’s will is in bondage to his sinful nature which cannot understand spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14), please God (Romans 8:7-8) or choose God (Romans 3:10-12).

Because no one can choose God, the only way someone can believe is if God draws them (John 6:44). People are born again by the will of God (John 1:12-13), as no one can come to God (John 6:65). God chose man; man did not choose God (John 15:16).

Unconditional Election: God chose whom he would save before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4-5). This is called election. God’s choice is based solely on His sovereign will (Romans 9:15-16), not on any faith or virtuous quality (Romans 9:11) foreseen in man. Those God sovereignty elected (2 Thessalonians 2:13), He brings through the power of the Holy Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ (Titus 3:5).

Limited Atonement: Christ died for only the elect (John 10:11, 15) - those chosen before the foundation of the world. Christ’s blood is sufficient to save everyone, in that if he wanted to save anyone else he wouldn’t need to die again, but Jesus only died for the elect so his death is only effective for the elect (Acts 20:28, Ephesians 5:25-27). Jesus death is a propitiation (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 4:10) which means ‘a sacrifice that turns God’s wrath into favour’. If Christ died for everyone, His wrath would be satisfied against everyone, so everyone would be saved, contradicting John 3:36.

Irresistible Grace: To the elect, God sends an internal call (2 Corinthians 1:21-22) to believe which cannot be resisted (John 6:37, Romans 9:19-21, Ephesians 2:4-5) because God is omnipotent (Acts 13:48, 1 Corinthians 1: 23-25). This call is by the Holy Spirit who regenerates the elect  bringing them to repentance whereby they come to God  (Ezekiel 36:26, Titus 3:5, Romans 9:16).

Perseverance of the Saints: You cannot lose your salvation (Jeremiah 32:40, Hebrews 6:11). Because salvation is entirely the work of God (Ephesians 2:8-9), those saved are eternally secure in Christ (John 6:37, Revelation 3:5). By the power of God you will preserve in faith from being sealed by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14) to the end (John 10: 27-28. 1 Corinthians 1: 8-9, Philippians 1:6).

Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not you own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
(c), J. Williams, 2008.