tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66984482024-02-19T21:49:55.089-08:00An Introspective of an Arminian Christian Striving to be ... Consistent ... Conservative ... Orthodox ... Evangelical ... Protestant ... ChristocentricA.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.comBlogger358125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-66605476007482870642019-05-19T09:25:00.000-07:002019-05-19T10:24:04.297-07:00<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;"></span></span></div>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="font-size: 20px; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.25em; padding-bottom: 4px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://travelah.blogspot.com/2010/11/consistent-conservative-orthodox.html" style="display: block; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 22px;"></span></a><h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.4em; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.25em; padding-bottom: 4px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<a href="http://travelah.blogspot.com/2010/11/consistent-conservative-orthodox.html" style="display: block; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;"></a><a href="http://travelah.blogspot.com/2010/11/consistent-conservative-orthodox.html" style="display: block; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #b45f06;">Consistent, Conservative, Orthodox, Evangelical, Protestant, Christocentric</span></a></h3>
<div class="post-header-line-1" style="color: black; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" style="color: black; line-height: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 1em; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">
</div>
</div>
</span></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Under the heading of this personal space I have six adjectives identifying the characteristics of what I deem to be a properly centered evangelical Arminian. Certainly other Arminians of differing stripes and convictions will differ but from the seat I occupy, these six qualities represent what is best strived for in meeting the expectations of a biblical and evangelical Arminian Christian.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">First is consistency, a rather bland expectation since everybody views themselves as consistent. However when pressed to examine oneself, it is near certain inconsistencies are revealed sometimes by our own introspection and often by the pointed observations of others. Perhaps the inverse of this is hypocrisy. None of us wish to be hypocrites yet every one of us falls into the category at some time or another. So to strive toward consistency from the perspective of Christian edification is very much an effort through faith and submission to Christ for the purpose of weeding hypocrisy out of our lives. If I decry and look with disdain the haughty declarations of God's judgment by liberal and emergent sympathizers against those who disagree, I had better not be shouting the same judgments against them for holding positions opposed to my own. I had better not be the hypocrite and instead be consistent with my embraced Christianity.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Next is for the evangelical Arminian to be conservative. This is not the mistaken conservatism opposed by the reactionaries in the liberal seminaries who brand everything conservative as fundamentalist and bibliolatry. It is instead a conservatism that stands fast against swaying winds and suspect doctrines and understanding that God is not doing a "new thing" every time a theologian publishes a new book and a new fad sweeps the church. Conservative evangelicalism recognizes an unwavering commitment to biblical truth rather than relevant truth that, just as Paul described" another Gospel", is really no truth at all. Jesus was born of a virgin girl and for purpose. Jesus did live a perfect life in the eyes of God. Jesus was put to death at Calvary and on the morning of the third day, did rise in resurrection. He is God in the flesh, LORD of Lords. The Bible is not a mythology to be taken in its "good" parts and dismissed as irrelevant for its "hard" teachings. Conservative evangelicals accept the Bible as true and infallible in all its parts and not subject to the whims of modern social mores.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Third is orthodoxy. By this I mean to point to the maxim presented by Vincent of Lerins, <em>Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus credituni est. </em></span></span><em><span style="font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"> This is an orthodoxy that has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. That is not stated in a hyper literal sense for we each differ on the fringes in how core doctrines should be presented and emphasized. Instead it is to state that orthodoxy, for example, defines for us how it is that man is depraved and how he came to be such. It declares the deity of Jesus Christ through the machinations of the scriptures, the apostles, the pillars of the church and the ecumenical consensus of truth. We cannot look at the doctrines of Calvinist predestination or the Methodist position of second blessings as truly orthodox in the sense presented here. Such teachings may or may not be heterodox but we cannot hold they have been the instruction throughout the church witnessed by scripture and the Holy Spirit. The consistent and conservative evangelical should embrace orthodoxy rather than follow the paths that crumble both consistency and conservatism.</span></span></em></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<em><span style="font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></em></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<em><span style="color: black; font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Fourthly, one is to be evangelical. This seems obvious at first glance but there is more to this than just a word. I have come to view this term in the sense that to be evangelical is to embrace piety over ecclesiastics with regard to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My purpose and others as well, is not to bring souls into the Methodist or Presbyterian or Baptist church. It is to understand and express the simple truths that souls enter into Christ by the grace of God through faith and that the church has many members and parts that encompass its whole, singular body. The body politic of the outward church is not the satisfaction sought by the evangelical Christian. It is souls won to Christ on the mission field.</span></span></em></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<em><span style="color: black; font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></em></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<em><span style="color: black; font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">The next attribute of the evangelical Arminian is a natural progression from the fourth. We are Protestant; not in the Lutheran sense but in our embrace of the early 15<sup>th</sup> and 16<sup>th</sup> century fight against the suffocations of anti-evangelicals. In a very real sense we should state that Evangelicals were birthed out of the German Protestant movement and in union with them advanced what we refer to as the Reformation. It has a declaration commonly shouted in the past as </span></span></em><em><span style="color: black;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda</span></span></em><em><span style="color: black; font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">. This is the church reformed and always reforming. Moving away from that declaration is to remove oneself from Protestantism and sound doctrine.</span></span></em></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<em><span style="color: black; font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></em></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<em><span style="color: black; font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Lastly and most importantly we are Christocentric. That is our faith, our Christianity is not centered upon dogma, ecclesiastics, social comfort or denomination. It is grounded in a faith, a particular faith, trust in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ. All else could wax cold and distant but if one's faith remains grounded in our Holy LORD, we know we stand on a firm, unshakable ground. As such we are Christian.</span></span></em></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<em><span style="color: black; font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></em></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<em><span style="color: black; font-style: normal;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">Putting these together we become a consistent, conservative, orthodox, evangelical, Protestant and Christ centered Christian, oriented within the Arminian perspective.</span></span></em><span style="color: black;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-12799073847105885412016-04-02T10:50:00.000-07:002016-04-07T20:46:11.873-07:00J. Matthew Pinson - “Individual Election, Corporate Election, and Arminianism”<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<img border="0" height="347" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEid0raWTbhoBhEagZik7Lvoatw0GIw9Da-7nHOVrSP2wz-DQk1hVNlL7Dp_Sr3tVCKo4wyi8o3qk5wlzRtFEI6-2URuolRPtLIaAdalwIV43OjdxYGYI68pQd-ENSldy45GEUOdRA/s400/MP.JPG" width="400" /></div>
<a href="http://www.fwbtheology.com/individual-election-corporate-election-and-arminianism/">"Individual election, Corporate election, and Arminianism</a>A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-74539936905514725332015-11-29T09:20:00.000-08:002015-11-29T10:22:22.051-08:00The Sine Qua Non of Conservative Evangelicalism<div class="MsoNormal">
In layman terms, what do we consider the essential hallmark doctrines of an evangelical Christian? If liberalism, emergence or radicalism in its various forms e.g. liberation theology were to determine this, perhaps there would be no set definition of what constitutes the biblical Christian. If broad, overly inclusive ecumenism is the deciding worldview, there does not seem to be a need to define the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sine qua non </i>of evangelical Christianity. In the latter view, there is no ecclesiastical authority, no boundary that can be established, no deciding factor that determines whether one is evangelically true to the doctrines of God and the Good News of Jesus Christ. It is a welcoming body regardless of grace or leaven. But is it true?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Even those who advocate a boundary-less evangelical Christianity with all the trappings of an almost limitless ecumenism establish boundaries of their own with regard to the criteria of legitimate evangelicalism. Whether it is a list of other "isms" or spelled out simply as the necessity of being born again, trusting the Bible to be the revealed word of God, engaged in Christ's commission and having a faith focused on the person and finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary, every one of us regardless of where we sit on the evangelical spectrum establish boundaries. Confusion sets in when any of us proclaim one thing in the support of one "ism" and intellectually assent to the very opposite position when pressed to identify the essentials. An essential position defies the logic of advocating the lack of essentials. To analogously borrow from the Apostle Paul, we cannot be all things for all people if we are not true to who we are and what we believe.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Looking around at the church world, we can see the wreckage of liberal, emergent and radical elements affecting much of what once were sound and orthodox pillars of evangelical Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we pay attention, we can fish the lukewarm waters of overly broad ecumenism and find complicity through advocacy to embrace the very "movements" that are at the root of this wreckage. The United Methodist Church as an example has suffered terribly through the misguided efforts to embrace radical liberalism, feminism and open acceptance of homosexuality not only in the pews but most damningly in the messages emanating from the pulpits. They pursued wide open ecumenism and kissed the world as a result. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly this does not argue against the ecumenical embrace of all the body of Christ. We are instructed to have unity in the essentials, speaking the same things (1 Co 1:10). Yet to have such unity and remain in agreement, the essentials have to be defined. That requires identifying boundaries for determining what constitutes evangelical Christianity.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The conservative evangelical recognizes the need for boundaries, for identified essentials regarding who and what we are. The Bible IS the word of God. Calvary IS important. Being born of the Spirit and rising in a newness of life is an essential. We agree with the ecumenical creeds and councils of the church truly in spirit and mostly in word even if we might craft another prose. The conservative evangelical rejects the notion that ecumenism is good in its own right if the essentials of our faith are left void by a whim. Perhaps most importantly, we agree that the following words of the Apostle Paul as relevant today as when first scribed.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." (Eph 4:11-16 AV)</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While the conservative evangelical might struggle with some non-essential doctrines and allow ecclesiastical dogma to shade his judgment, the liberal or emergent ecumenicist<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>turns a blind eye outwardly to the essentials of the faith while personally harboring agreement with the very elements he opposes in conservatism… <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a couple of words, doctrine matters.</div>
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-59517043919237055372015-11-28T10:02:00.000-08:002015-11-28T12:51:21.889-08:00Arminius on Grace and Free Will<span xmlns=""></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><em>Every time I turn to the writings of Arminius I am ever more thankful for God's grace worked in the life of this man. Besides, the words of Arminius send the false accusations of the ignorant zealot scrambling every time. <a href="http://wesley.nnu.edu/arminianism/arminius/u.htm">Here are his comments</a> on God's grace and the free will of man.</em></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 10pt;">GRACE AND FREE WILL</span></span></div>
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 10pt;">Concerning grace and free will, this is what I teach according to the Scriptures and orthodox consent: Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace. That I may not be said, like Pelagius, to practice delusion with regard to the word "grace," I mean by it that which is the grace of Christ and which belongs to regeneration. I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good. It is this grace which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the actions, and bends the will to carry into execution good thoughts and good desires. This grace goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and co-operates lest we will in vain. It averts temptations, assists and grants succor in the midst of temptations, sustains man against the flesh, the world and Satan, and in this great contest grants to man the enjoyment of the victory. It raises up again those who are conquered and have fallen, establishes and supplies them with new strength, and renders them more cautious. This grace commences salvation, promotes it, and perfects and consummates it.</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 10pt;">I confess that the mind of a natural and carnal man is obscure and dark, that his affections are corrupt and inordinate, that his will is stubborn and disobedient, and that the man himself is dead in sins. And I add to this — that teacher obtains my highest approbation who ascribes as much as possible to divine grace, provided he so pleads the cause of grace, as not to inflict an injury on the justice of God, and not to take away the free will to that which is evil.</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana"; font-size: 10pt;">I do not perceive what can be further required from me. Let it only be pointed out, and I will consent to give it, or I will shew that I ought not to give such an ascent. Therefore, neither do I perceive with what justice I can be calumniated on this point, since I have explained these my sentiments, with sufficient plainness, in the theses on free will which were publicly disputed in the university.</span></span><br />
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-56201363179877324002015-11-26T09:14:00.000-08:002015-11-26T09:28:23.308-08:00Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation (repost)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI9IVQYVSmYWanJYliWFO19bP1SuQ3F-Su4TSME7EIkFtSoDqAXf8eV3Hx-_x_MB51Tj8B7XBMw_Ru4eaJMCmd0Mi2ngsgaiwwE2VxyTk66ZvVs0PiLxsSancu1T5wjefwl6-N5g/s1600/Lincoln.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhI9IVQYVSmYWanJYliWFO19bP1SuQ3F-Su4TSME7EIkFtSoDqAXf8eV3Hx-_x_MB51Tj8B7XBMw_Ru4eaJMCmd0Mi2ngsgaiwwE2VxyTk66ZvVs0PiLxsSancu1T5wjefwl6-N5g/s320/Lincoln.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial";">By the President of the United States of America.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial";">A Proclamation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial";">Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial";">By the President: Abraham Lincoln</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial";">William H. Seward,<br />Secretary of State</span>A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-27268339826455413562015-11-26T07:53:00.000-08:002015-11-26T09:32:36.284-08:00Thanksgiving Day Proclamation in 1789 and President George Washington's Address (repost)Thanksgiving Day Proclamation in 1789 and President George Washington's Address<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family: "arial"; font-size: medium;">Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor - and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."<br /> Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be – That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks – for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation – for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war –for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed – for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.<br /> And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions – to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually – to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed – to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord – To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us – and generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.<br /> Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.</span></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family: "arial"; font-size: medium;">- George Washington</span></div>
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-12008781251505398502015-05-06T08:40:00.000-07:002015-05-06T08:53:36.043-07:00Bitter Orange<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="line-height: 12.2666673660278px;">Re-post from Dec 30, 2010 ...</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; line-height: 115%;">We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. </span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The 2<sup>nd</sup> Council of Orange met to stir the pot of contention. Well, perhaps they didn't think of it like that but looking back at the canon pronouncements that came out of that council in 529 AD, they covered considerable controversial ground. Prevenient grace, total depravity, semi-Augustinianism, semi-Pelagianism, strict determinism, baptism, free will and all the questions swirling around these topics continue to generate a lot of controversy today. Perhaps the most notable contribution of 2<sup>nd</sup> Orange was its affirmation of the total depravity of man in his natural state and the necessity of prevenient grace to give any impetus to natural man to accomplish or perform any good. The council determined that faith itself and every aspect of salvation is by grace and not through any innate capability of men. These decisions form the basis for western orthodox understandings of total depravity as it regards fallen man and present the case against the predilections of the Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. As orthodox Arminians, we can be grateful for the distinctions made by this council and turn to the document to refute misplaced allegations made against us by the Neo-Reformed in accusing us of the errors of Pelagius and his close follower, Caelestius.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is the allegations made by Neo-Reformed polemicists that raise the hackles of non-Calvinists and give cause to question their knowledge of the document they brandish. Along with the challenges to the doctrines of man's fallen condition via the semi-Pelagians, 2<sup>nd</sup> Orange also addressed the aberrant teachings of some who took Augustine's predestination teachings to infer that the LORD predestined all men, some to salvation and others to eternal reprobation. Such teachings were regarded by the elders of the church to have God foreordaining or predestining men to sin and were abhorred as such. Essentially, double predestination was deemed to be anathema and equivalent of making God to be the effecter or author of sin. Today's moderate Calvinists strenuously object to the implication made by this examination while some of their harsher advocates make little effort to distance themselves from the hard determinism that brought about this anathematizing. None of this would really matter were it not for the abuse of 2<sup>nd</sup> Orange against non-Calvinists through the accusation of Pelagianism. These accusations have always rung hollow but they continue even to this day, among those that intellectually know better than to repeat the charges. Oddly, every time the Calvinist swings his accusing club relying on Orange, he receives a doubly disabling return blow by his own hand. Every instance of shouting "free will Pelagian" gives the retort of "damnable heretic" if the canons of 2<sup>nd</sup> Orange are his weapon of choice. Eventually, the Calvinist clubs himself senseless, rhetorically speaking. The following provide further links and information on this matter.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.crivoice.org/creedorange.html">The Canons of the Council of 2<sup>nd</sup> Orange</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.xliv.html">Philip Schaff's Account in his History of the Christian Church</a></div>
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-33441733455790393662015-04-28T08:42:00.000-07:002015-04-28T10:14:08.278-07:00Arminius on Faith in God and Christ<span xmlns=""></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><em>I have reposted this entry in coordination of exploring the relationship between faith and regeneration as it pertains to Arminius' soteriology. This was originally posted on Sept 04, 2010.</em></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><em><br /></em></span>
<span xmlns=""><em>The following comments reflect Arminius' thoughts regarding faith in God and the person and work of Jesus Christ.</em></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><strong>DISPUTATION 44 ON FAITH IN GOD AND CHRIST</strong></span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">1. In the preceding disputation, we have treated on the first part of that obedience which is yielded to the vocation of God. The second part now follows, which is called "the obedience of faith."</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">2. Faith, generally, is the assent given to truth; and divine faith is that which is given to truth divinely revealed. The foundation on which divine faith rests is two-fold — the one external and out of or beyond the mind — the other internal and in the mind.</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="color: navy;">(1.) </span><span style="color: black;">The external foundation of faith is the very veracity of God who makes the declaration, and who can declare nothing that is false.</span></span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="color: navy;">(2.) </span><span style="color: black;">The internal foundation of faith is two-fold — both the general idea by which we know that God is true — and the knowledge by which we know that it is the word of God. Faith is also two-fold, according to the mode of revelation, being both legal and evangelical, of which the latter comes under our present consideration, and tends to God and Christ.</span></span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">3. Evangelical faith is an assent of the mind, produced by the Holy Spirit, through the gospel, in sinners, who, through the law, know and acknowledge their sins, and are penitent on account of them, by which they are not only fully persuaded within themselves that Jesus Christ has been constituted by God the author of salvation to those who obey him, and that he is their own Savior if they have believed in him, and by which they also believe in him as such, and through him on God as the benevolent Father in him, to the salvation of believers and to the glory of Christ and God.</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">4. The object of faith is not only the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but likewise Christ himself who is here constituted by God the author of salvation to those that obey him.</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">5. The form is the assent that is given to an object of this description; which assent is not acquired by a course of reasoning from principles known by nature; but it is an assent infused above the order of nature, which, yet, is confirmed and increased by the daily exercises of prayers and mortification of the flesh, and by the practice of good works. Knowledge is antecedent to faith; for the Son of God is beheld before a sinner believes on him. But trust or confidence is consequent to it; for, through faith, confidence is placed in Christ, and through him in God.</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">6. The author of faith is the Holy Spirit, whom the Son sends from the Father, as his advocate and substitute, who may manage his cause in the world and against it. The instrument is the gospel, or the word of faith, containing the meaning concerning God and Christ which the Spirit proposes to the understanding, and of which he there works a persuasion.</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">7. The subject in which it resides, is the mind, not only as it acknowledges this object to be true, but likewise to be good, which the word of the gospel declares. Wherefore, it belongs not only to the theoretical understanding, but likewise to that of the affections, which is practical.</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">8. The subject to which [it is directed], or the object about which [it is occupied], is sinful man, acknowledging his sins, and penitent on account of them. For this faith is necessary for salvation to him who believes; but it is unnecessary to one who is not a sinner; and, therefore, no one except a sinner, can know or acknowledge Christ for his Savior, for he is the Savior of sinners. The end, which we intend for our own benefit, is salvation in its nature. But the chief end is the glory of God through Jesus Christ.</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">COROLLARY</span></span><br />
<span xmlns=""><span style="color: black; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt;">"Was the faith of the patriarchs under the covenants of promise, the same as ours under the New Testament, with regard to its substance?" We answer in the affirmative.</span></span><br />
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-6697625184266344582015-04-15T15:45:00.000-07:002015-04-15T15:45:17.603-07:00Why Hyper-Calvinism Is Consistent Calvinism - Roger E.Olson<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmR7wj5__G1k6-oCDpOkG3Be4iTqWTRjmScgquzOuh961Xo7rlrzjmUdbUdnBrx9E_fEzPcEZhgX4hPpUiopIzCnIz21WWbuZ3uFZzoY10ZAX4N8yuZVLmy9JfH6I2lHjw6Cn0cA/s1600/6point.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmR7wj5__G1k6-oCDpOkG3Be4iTqWTRjmScgquzOuh961Xo7rlrzjmUdbUdnBrx9E_fEzPcEZhgX4hPpUiopIzCnIz21WWbuZ3uFZzoY10ZAX4N8yuZVLmy9JfH6I2lHjw6Cn0cA/s1600/6point.jpg" height="267" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<b>Why Hyper-Calvinism Is Consistent Calvinism</b></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
I know, I know. I will be accused of being “uncharitable” simply for deconstructing Calvinism. Apparently what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. I have at least twenty-five volumes about Calvinism by leading Calvinist theologians on my bookshelf (and these are only examples of contemporary Calvinism!). All contain attempted deconstructions of Arminianism—attempts to demonstrate its inner contradictions and its ultimate illegitimacy as biblical theology. I don’t consider that “uncharitable” so long as the authors do not misrepresent Arminian theology—which they often do. Even then I don’t consider it uncharitable unless I suspect they knew better or should have known better. I do consider it uncharitable when they say things like “Arminians are Christians—just barely” and “Arminianism is on the brink of heresy” and the best explanation for Arminianism is “demonic deception” and “one can no more be an ‘Arminian evangelical’ than a ‘Catholic evangelical’.” I don’t take offense or consider it uncharitable when a Calvinist says Arminianism is “profoundly mistaken” or that Arminians are guilty of a “felicitous inconsistency.” I disagree but do not take offense or consider such claims “uncharitable.”</div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><br /><br />Read more: <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/04/why-hyper-calvinism-is-consistent-calvinism/#ixzz3XQ8NWr88" style="color: #003399; text-decoration: none;">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/04/why-hyper-calvinism-is-consistent-calvinism/#ixzz3XQ8NWr88</a></span>A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-70008664379091564642013-11-20T05:46:00.003-08:002013-11-20T05:48:22.796-08:00Just the F.A.C.T.S.<a href="http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/">http://evangelicalarminians.org/the-facts-of-salvation-a-summary-of-arminian-theologythe-biblical-doctrines-of-grace/</a><br />
<br />
Dr. Brian Abasciano has done a superb job with this.A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-69692089932355286762013-08-11T13:36:00.000-07:002013-08-11T13:36:42.842-07:00Jerry Walls Refuting Calvinist Soteriology<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qzWN0Kw3Bl0" width="480"></iframe>A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-20592838562935517632013-08-11T11:07:00.000-07:002013-08-11T11:09:53.139-07:00J. Matthew Pinson, Arminius' Position on the Atonement of Christ<i>One of the frequent misrepresentations made by our interlocutors in their zeal to challenge Arminian doctrine is the charge that Arminians are by default subscribers to the Governmental theory of the Atonement of Christ. While this theory does have a substantial ground among our Wesleyan-Methodist brethren, it is not the common position of classical or Reformed Arminians, Free Will Baptists or several other groups that share aspects of our soteriology. As with all atonement theories, they are just that, theories developed to express a theological perspective of the intricacies of Christ's work at Calvary. None of us hold a lock on such understanding and all of us might be and are likely to be wrong on some aspect of whatever theory we subscribe to. Nonetheless, it is prudent to keep the record clear on what we as classical Arminians do subscribe to. The following essay was published a few years ago by the President of Free Will Baptist Bible College in Nashville, TN, J. Matthew Pinson, himself a noted Arminian scholar. The link to the original article is noted below.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>THE NATURE OF ATONEMENT IN THE THEOLOGY OF JACOBUS ARMINIUS</b><br />
J. Matthew Pinson<br />
<br />
Jacobus Arminius is one of the best known and least studied theologians in the history of Christianity. His writings have been neglected by Calvinists and Arminians alike. Calvinists have disliked him because of his opposition to scholastic predestinarian theology. Most Arminians have neglected him because what little they have read of him reminds them more of Calvinism than they like. Arminius scholar Carl Bangs is correct when he says that most modern treatments of Arminius assume a definition of Arminianism that does not come from Arminius. Bangs states that most interpreters of Arminianism<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>begin with a preconception of what Arminius should be expected to say, then look in his published works, and do not find exactly what they are looking for. They show impatience and disappointment with his Calvinism, and shift the inquiry into some later period when Arminianism turns out to be what they are looking for—a non-Calvinistic, synergistic, and perhaps semi-Pelagian system.</i> </blockquote>
<br />
This is the approach many scholars have taken toward Arminius regarding his doctrine of atonement. For example, the Calvinist scholar Robert L. Reymond has said that the Arminian theory of atonement is the governmental theory, which “denies that Christ’s death was intended to pay the penalty for sin.” He claims that the governmental theory’s “germinal teachings are in Arminius.” Similarly, well-known Wesleyan-Arminian scholar James K. Grider states: “A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred<br />
in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism.”<br />
<br />
Recent scholars have taken one of two positions on the soteriology of Jacobus Arminius. One group says that his theology was a development of the Dutch Reformed theology of his day, while the other says that it was a departure from those Reformed categories. Scholars such as Carl Bangs and John Mark Hicks fall into the first category, while Richard Muller is a recent example of scholars who fit the second.<br />
<br />
This article is representative of the first perspective. It argues that Arminius’s concept of the nature of atonement was consistent with the theology of atonement that characterized Reformed theology in the seventeenth century. This conclusion is not surprising, given Arminius’s description of himself as a Reformed theologian and his repeated affirmation of the Belgic Confession of Faith and Heidelberg Catechism. He made this clear in a letter to the Palatine Ambassador, Hippolytus a Collibus, in 1608: “I confidently declare that I have never taught anything, either in the church or in the university, which contravenes the sacred writings that ought to be with us the sole rule of thinking and of speaking, or which is opposed to the Belgic Confession or to the Heidelberg Catechism, that are our stricter formularies of consent.” Given the dearth of scholarship on Arminius’s theology of atonement and the current debates on the nature of atonement in the evangelical community, an understanding of Arminius’s doctrine of atonement provides fresh and valuable insight.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/53/53-4/JETS_53-4_773-785_Pinson.pdf">Read the full published article here.</a>A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-60364160811576349172013-05-04T20:12:00.000-07:002013-05-04T20:14:53.467-07:00Dr. Michael Brown vs. Dr. James White Concerning PredestinationThe entire recent debate between these two men is available at SEA for no cost.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://evangelicalarminians.org/dr-michael-brown-vs-dr-james-white-on-predestination-election-and-the-will-of-god/">http://evangelicalarminians.org/dr-michael-brown-vs-dr-james-white-on-predestination-election-and-the-will-of-god/</a>A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-76504483136217960172013-04-19T18:37:00.001-07:002013-04-19T18:37:07.946-07:00The Goodness of God ... The Root of Arminian TheologyThe following passage is a concise summation of what could be the defining principle of Arminian theology. It is certainly representative of my embrace of classical or Reformation Arminianism.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
... It is clear that Arminius holds to a so-called "classical" doctrine of God. Within the simplicity of the Triune life, God is infinite goodness. Arminius understands this conviction to be grounded in the biblical revelation and articulated in the Christian tradition with the use of scholastic categories. It is utterly bedrock for his theology, and as we will see, it is particularly important for his doctrines of providence and predestination. Within the simplicity of the divine life, there are no parts or pieces -- thus there can be no competing wills within God. Within the perfection of divine aseity, God can lack nothing and can have no need -- not even the need for glorification through the display of justice or wrath. It is, for Arminius, literally unthinkable that the God of perfect, simple goodness and holy, unalterable love might create humans in his image for the purpose of destruction. On the contrary, humans can begin to glorify God by understanding that the divine purposes and the divine actions are perfectly in accord with the pure and simple goodness of the divine nature...<i> <u>Jacob Arminius, Theologian of Grace</u>, Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall Oxford University Press, NY, 2012, p. 81</i></blockquote>
<br />
This orthodox and ancient position is such a contrast to that of our Calvinist friends and their hyper-sovereignty and divine determinism doctrines. This exploration of Arminian theology is a must read in my opinion and I expect Stanglin and McCall's efforts will become a modern definitive work on the "root underpinnings" of classical Arminian theology.A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-9349164600774506572013-04-07T13:13:00.003-07:002013-04-07T13:13:51.847-07:00Renowned Commentator Albert Barnes on the Extent of the AtonementFrom the SEA website.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="-webkit-hyphens: auto; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Lato, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21.984375px; margin-bottom: 1.25em;">
Albert Barnes (1798-1870), who was a graduate of Princeton Seminary and a long-time Presbyterian pastor (in New Jersey and then Philadelphia), is well known for his <em>Notes: Explanatory and Practical</em>, which covers the entire New Testament and portions of the Old Testament. Despite being from a Calvinist denomination, he was a proponent of unlimited atonement, which only underscores how obviously scriptural the doctrine is–even many Calvinists affirm it.</div>
<div style="-webkit-hyphens: auto; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Lato, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21.984375px; margin-bottom: 1.25em;">
Here are some comments from Barnes in favor of unlimited atonement:</div>
<div style="-webkit-hyphens: auto; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Lato, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21.984375px; margin-bottom: 1.25em;">
On 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: “For the love of Christ constraineth us<br />because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and<br />that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto<br />themselves but unto him which died for them and rose again.”–</div>
<div style="-webkit-hyphens: auto; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Lato, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21.984375px; margin-bottom: 1.25em;">
“The phrase ‘for all’ (huper panton) obviously means for all<br />mankind; for every man. This is an exceedingly important expression in<br />regard to the extent of the atonement which the Lord Jesus made; and while<br />it proves that his death was vicarious, that is, in the place of others,<br />and for their sakes, it demonstrates also that the atonement was general,<br />and had, in itself considered, no limitation, and no particular reference<br />to any class or condition of men, and no particular applicability to one<br />class more than to another. There was nothing in the nature of the<br />atonement that limited it to any one class or condition; there was nothing<br />in the design that made it, in itself, any more applicable to one portion<br />of mankind than to another. And whatever be true in regard to the fact as<br />to its actual applicability, or in regard to the purpose of God to apply<br />it, it is demonstrated by this passage that his death had an original<br />applicability to all, and that the merits of that death were sufficient to<br />save all.</div>
<div style="-webkit-hyphens: auto; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Lato, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21.984375px; margin-bottom: 1.25em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-hyphens: auto; background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Lato, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21.984375px; margin-bottom: 1.25em;">
Read the rest<a href="http://evangelicalarminians.org/renowned-commentator-albert-barnes-on-the-extent-of-the-atonement/"> here</a>.</div>
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-84782813760449035112013-03-30T18:21:00.002-07:002013-03-30T18:23:03.237-07:00Arminius on the Nature of God<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12.5pt;">DISPUTATION
4-On The Nature Of God</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Respondent: James Arminius — when he
stood for his degree of D.D. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 12pt; text-indent: -12pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">I. The very nature of things and the Scriptures of God, as well as
the general consent of all wise men and nations, testify that a nature is
correctly ascribed to God. (Gal. iv, 8; 2 Pet. i, 4; Aristot. De Repub. 1. 7,
c. 1; Cicero De Nat. Deor.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 12pt; text-indent: -12pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">II. This nature cannot be known a priori: for it is the first of
all things, and was alone, for infinite ages, before all things. It is
adequately known only by God, and God by it; because God is the same as it is.
It is in some slight measure known by us, but in a degree infinitely below what
it is <i>in</i> itself; because we are from it by an external emanation. (Isa.
xliv, 6; Rev. i, 8; 1 Cor. ii, 11; 1 Tim. vi, 16; 1 Cor. xiii, 9.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 20pt; text-indent: -20pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">III. But this nature is known by us, either immediately through
the unclouded vision of it as it is. This is called "face to face,"
(1 Cor. xiii, 12,) and is peculiar to the blessed in heaven: (1 John iii, 2.)
Or mediately through analogical images and signs, which are not only the
external acts of God and his works through them, (Psalm xix, 1-8; Rom. i, 20,)
but likewise his word, (Rom. x, 14-17,) which, in that part in which it
proposes Christ, "who is the Image of the Invisible God," (Col. i,
15,) as "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his
person," (Heb. i, 3,) gives such a further increase to our knowledge, that
"we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are
changed into the same image from glory to glory." (2 Cor. iii, 18.) This
is called "through a glass in an enigma," or "darkly," and
applies exclusively to travelers and pilgrims who "are absent from the
Lord." (2 Cor. v, 6; Exod. xxxiii, 20.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 20pt; text-indent: -20pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">IV. But there are two modes of this second perception from the
works and the word of God. The First is that of Affirmation, (which is also
styled by Thomas Aquinas, "the mode of Causality and by the habitude of
the principle,") according to which the simple perfections which are in
the creatures, as being the productions of God, are attributed analogically to
God according to some similitude. (Psalm xciv, 9, 10; Matt. vii, 11; Isa. xlix,
15.) The Second is that of Negation or Removal, according to which the relative
perfections and all the imperfections which appertain to the creatures, as
having been produced out of nothing, are removed from God. (Isa. iv, 8, 9; 1
Cor. i, 25.) To the mode of Affirmation, (because it is through the habitude of
the cause and principle, to the excellence of which no effect ever rises,) that
of Pre-eminence must be added, according to which the perfections that are
predicated of the creatures are understood <i>to be</i> infinitely more perfect
in God. (Isa. xl, 15, 17, 22, 25.) Though this mode be affirmative and positive
in itself, (for as the nature of God necessarily exists, so it is necessarily
known,) in positively and not in negation; yet it cannot be enunciated or
expressed by us, except through a Negation of those modes according to which
the creatures are partakers of their own perfections, or the perfections in
creatures are circumscribed. Those modes, being added to the perfections of the
creatures, produce this effect, that those which, considered without them, were
simple perfections, are relative perfections, and by that very circumstance are
to be removed from God. Hence it appears, that the mode of Pre-eminence does
not differ in species from the mode of Affirmation and Negation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 12pt; text-indent: -12pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">V. Besides, in the entire nature of things and in the Scriptures
themselves, only two substances are found, in which is contained every
perfection of things. They are Essence and Life, the former of them
constituting the perfection of all existing creatures; the latter, that of only
some them, and those the most perfect. (Gen. 1; Psalm civ, 29, 148; Acts xvii,
28.) Beyond these two the human mind cannot possibly comprehend any substance,
indeed, it cannot raise its conceptions to any other: for it is itself
circumscribed within the limits of created nature, of which it forms a part; it
is therefore incapable of passing beyond the circle which encloses the whole.
(Rev. i, 8; iv, 8; Dan. vi, 46.) Wherefore in the nature of God himself, only
these two causes of motion, Essence and Life, can become objects of our
consideration. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 12pt; text-indent: -12pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Let the following be
our problems</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Have a corporeal Essence, and a
vegetative and sensitive Life, any analogy to the Essence and Life of God,
though such analogy be less than a spiritual Essence and an intellectual Life? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">If they have this analogy, how are body
and senses removed simply from God? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">If they have not this analogy, how has
God been able to produce this kind of Essence and Life? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">VI. But in God both these are to be considered in the mode of
Pre-eminence, that is, in excellence far surpassing the Essence and Life of all
the creatures. (Psalm cii, 27; 1 Tim. vi, 16.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The essence of God</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 20pt; text-indent: -20pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">VII. The Essence of God is that by which God exists; or it is the
first cause of motion of the Divine Nature by which God is understood to exist.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 20pt; text-indent: -20pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 24pt; text-indent: -24pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">VIII. Because every Essence, which is either in the superior or in
the inferior nature of things, is distributed into spiritual and corporeal,
(Col. i, 16;) of which, the former notes simply perfection, the latter a
defection or defect from this perfection. On this account we separate corporeal
Essence from God according to the mode of removal, and at the same time all
those things which belong to a corporeal Essence as such, whether it be simple
or compound — such as magnitude, figure, place, or parts, whether sensible or
imaginable. Whence also He cannot be perceived by the corporeal senses, either
by those which are external or by the internal, since he is invisible,
intactable, and incapable of being represented. (Deut. iv, 14; 1 Kings viii, 1
Luke xxiv, 39; John iv, 24; 1 Tim. i, 17.) But we ascribe to Him a spiritual
Essence, and that in the mode of preeminence, as "the Father of
Spirits." (Heb. xii, 9.) Therefore, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 24pt; text-indent: -24pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(1.) We reject the dogma of the
Anthropo-morphites, <i>those who maintained that "the uncorruptable
God" had a form or body "like to corruptible man,"</i> and the
intolerable custom of the Papists, which they constantly practice, in
fashioning a <i>supposed</i> likeness of God’s Essence. (Deut. iv, 15, 16; Rom.
i, 23; Isa. xl, 18; Acts xvii, 29.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(2.) When bodily members are attributed
in the Scriptures to God, that is done on account of the simplicity of those
effects, which the creatures themselves usually produce only by the aid and
operation of those members. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">IX. As we ought to enunciate negatively the mode by which the
Essence of God pre-eminetly both is and is spiritual, above the excellence of
all Essences, even of those which are spiritual; so this may be done first and
immediately in a single phrase, "he is, anarcov kai anaitiov without
beginning and without cause either external or internal." (Isa. xliii, 10;
xliv, 8, xxiv, ; xlvi, 9; Rev. i, 8; Rom. xi, 35, 36; 1 Cor. viii, 4-6; Rom.
ix, 5.) For since there cannot be any advancement in infinitum, (for if there
could, there would be no Essence, no Knowledge,) there must be one Essence,
above and before which no other can exist: but such an Essence must that of God
be; for, to whatsoever this Essence may be attributed, it will by that very act
of ascription be God himself. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 12pt; text-indent: -12pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">X. Because the Essence of God is devoid of all cause, from this
circumstance arise, in the first place, Simplicity and Infinity of Being in the
Essence of God. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 12pt; text-indent: -12pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XI. Simplicity is a preeminent mode of the Essence of God, by
which he is void of all composition, and of component parts whether they belong
to the senses or to the understanding. He is without composition, because
without external cause; and He is without component parts, because without
internal cause. (Rom. xi, 35, 36; Heb. 2, :10; Isa. xl, 12, 22.) The Essence of
God, therefore, neither consists of material, integral and quantitive parts, of
matter and form, of kind and difference, of subject and accident, nor of form
and the thing formed, (for it is to itself a form, existing by itself and its
own individuality,) neither hypothetically and through nature, through
capability and actuality, nor through essence and being. Hence God is his own
Essence and his own Being, and is the same in that which is, and that by which
it is. He is all eye, ear, hand and foot, because he entirely sees, hears,
works, and is in every place. (Psalm cxxxix, 8- 12.) THEREFORE, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Whatever is absolutely predicated about
God, it is understood essentially and not accidentally; and those things,
(whether many or diverse,) which are predicated concerning God, are, in God,
not many but one: (James i, 17.) It is only in our mode of considering them,
which is a compound mode, that they are distinguished as being many and
diverse; though this may, not inappropriately, be said, because they are
likewise distinguished by a formal reason. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 20pt; text-indent: -20pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XII. Infinity of Being is a preeminent mode of the Essence of God,
by which it is devoid of all limitation and boundary, (Psalm cxlv, 3; Isa.
xliii, 10,) whether from something above it or below it, from something before
it or after it. It is not bounded by anything above it, because it has received
its being from no one. Nor by anything below it, because the form, which is
itself, is not limited to the capacity of any matter whatsoever that may be its
recipient. Neither by any thing before it, because it is from nothing
efficient: nor after it, because it does not exist for the sake of another end.
But, His Essence is terminated inwardly by its own property, according to which
it is what it is and nothing else. Yet by this no limits are prescribed to its Infinity;
for by the very circumstance, that it is its own being, subsisting through
itself, neither received from another nor in another, it is distinguished, from
all others, and others are removed from it. (Isa. xliv, 9; Rom. xi, 36; Prov.
xvi, 4.) THEREFORE, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 20pt; text-indent: -20pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Whatsoever is predicated absolutely
about God, is predicated concerning Him immediately, primarily, and without <i>respect
to</i> cause. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XIII. From the Simplicity and Infinity
of the Divine sense, arise Infinity with regard to time, which is called
"Eternity"; and with regard to place, which is called
"Immensity"; Impassability, Immutability, and Incorruptibility. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XIV. Eternity is a pre-eminent mode of
the Essence of God, by which it is devoid of time with regard to the term or
limits of beginning and end, because it is of infinite being; it is also devoid
of time with regard to the succession of former and latter, of past and future,
because it is of simple being, which is never in capability, but always in act,
(Gen. xxi, 33; Psalm xc, 9; Isa. xliv, 6; 2 Tim. i, 9.) According to this mode,
therefore, the Being of God is always the universal, the whole, the plentitude
of his essence, closely, fixedly, and at every instant present with it,
resembling a moment which is also devoid of intelligible parts, and never flows
onward progressively, but always continues within itself. It will be lawful,
therefore, for us, with Boetius, to define Eternity in the following manner,
after changing, by his good leave, the word Life into that of Essence: "It
is an interminable, entire and at the same time, a perfect possession of
Essence. But it seems that I may by some sort of right require this change to
be made, because Essence comes to be considered in the first moving cause of
the Divine Nature, before Life; and because Eternity does not belong to Essence
through Life, but to Life through Essence. THEREFORE, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Whatsoever things are predicated
absolutely concerning God, they belong to Him from all eternity and all
together. It is certain that those things which do not from all eternity belong
to Him, are predicated about Him not absolutely, but in reference to the
creatures, such as, "He is the Creator, the Lord, the Judge of all
men." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XV. Immensity is a pre-eminent mode of
the Essence of God, by which it is void of place according to space and limits:
being co-extended space, because it belongs to simple entity, not having part
and part, therefore not having part beyond part. Being also its own encircling
limits, or beyond which it has no existence, because it is of infinite entity:
and, before all things, God alone was both the world, and place, and all things
to himself; but He was alone, because there was nothing outwardly beyond,
except himself. (l Kings viii, 27; Job xi, 8, 9.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XVI. After creatures, and places in
which creatures are contained, have been granted to have an existence, from
this Immensity follows the Omnipresence or Ubiquity of the Essence of God,
according to which it is entirely wheresoever any creature or any place is, and
this in exact similarity to a <i>mathematical</i> point, which is totally
present to the entire circumference, and to each of its parts, and yet without
circumscription. If there be any difference, it arises, from the Will, the
Ability and the Act of God. (Psalm cxxxix, 8- 12; Isa. lxvi, 1; Jer. xxiii, 24;
Acts xvii, 27, 28.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XVII. Impassability is a pre-eminent
mode of the Essence of God, according to which it is devoid of all suffering or
feeling; not only because nothing can act against this Essence, for it is of
infinite Being and devoid of an external cause; but likewise because it cannot
receive the act of anything, for it is of simple Entity. THEREFORE, Christ has
not suffered according to the Essence of his Deity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XVIII. Immutability is a pre-eminent
mode of the Essence of God, by which it is void of all change; of being
transferred from place to place, because it is itself its own end and good, and
because it is immense; of generation and corruption; of alteration; of increase
and decrease; for the same reason as that by which it is incapable of
suffering. (Psalm cii, 27; Mal. iii, 6; James i, 17.) Whence likewise, in the
Scriptures, Incorruptibility is attributed to God. Nay, even motion cannot
happen to Him through operation; for it appertains to God, and to Him alone, to
be at rest in operation. (Rom. i, 23; Isa. xl, 28.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XIX. These modes of the Essence of God
belong so peculiarly to Him, as to render them incapable of being communicated
to any other thing; and of whatever kind these modes may be, they are,
according to themselves, as proper to God as His Essence itself, without which
they cannot be communicated, unless we wish to destroy it after despoiling it
of its peculiar modes of being; and according to analogy, they are more
peculiar to Him than his Essence, because they are pre- eminent, for nothing
can be analogous to them. THEREFORE, Christ, according to his humanity, is not
in every place. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XX. Since Unity and Good are the general
affections of Being, the same are also to be attributed to God, but with the
mode of pre-eminence, according to the measure of the Simplicity and Infinity
of his Essence. (Gen. i, 31; Matt. xix, 17.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXI. The Unity of the Essence of God is
that according to which it is in every possible way so at one in itself, as to
be altogether indivisible with regard to number, species, genus, parts, modes,
&c. (Deut. iv, 35; 1 Cor. viii) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXII.
It appertains also to the Essence of God, to be divided from every other
thing: and to be incapable of entering into the composition of any other thing:
while some persons ascribe this property to the Simplicity and others to the
Unity of God’s Essence, several attribute it to both. But on reading the
Scriptures, we find that Holiness is frequently ascribed to God, which usually
designates a separation or setting apart; on this account, perhaps, that very
thing by which God is thus divided from others, may, without any impropriety,
be called by the name of Holiness. (Josh. xxiv, 19; Isa. vi, 3; Gen. ii, 3;
Exod. xiii, 2; 1 Pet. ii, 2-9; 1 Thess. v, 23.) THEREFORE, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">God is neither the soul of the world,
nor the form of the universe; He is neither an inherent form, nor a bodily one.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXIII. The Goodness of the Essence of
God is that according to which it is, essentially in itself, the Supreme and
very Good; from a participation in which all other things have an existence and
are good; and to which all other things are to be referred as to their supreme
end: for this reason it is called communicable. (Matt. xix, 17; Jas. i, 17; 1
Cor. x, 31.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXIV. These modes and affections are so
primarily attributed to the Essence of God, that they ought to be deduced
through all the rest of those things which come under our consideration in the
latter momentum of the Divine Nature. If this deduction be made, especially
through those things which appertain to the operation of God, then the most
abundant utility will redound to us from them and from our knowledge of them. This
benefit, however, they will not perform for us, if they be made subjects of
consideration only in this momentum in the Divine Nature. (Mal. iii, 6; Num.
xxiii, 19; Lament. iii, 22; Hosea xi, 9.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">On the life of God</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXV. The Life of God, which comes to be
considered under the second <i>momentum</i> cause of motion in the Divine
Nature, is an act flowing from the Essence of God, by which his Essence is
signified to be in action within itself. (Psalm xlii, 2; Heb. iii, 12; Num.
xiv, 21.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXVI. We call it "an act flowing
from his essence"; because, as our understanding forms a conception of
essence and life in the nature of God under distinct forms, and of the essence
as having precedence of the life; we must beware lest the life be conceived as
an act approaching to the essence similar to unity, which, when added to unity,
makes it binary or two-fold. But it must be conceived as an act flowing from
the essence, which advances itself to its own perfection, in the same manner as
a <i>mathematical</i> point by its flowing moves itself forward in length, <i>§
14.</i> It is our wish, that these things be understood only by the confined
capacity of our consideration, who are compelled to use the words of our
darkness, in order in any degree to adumbrate or represent that light to which
no mortal can approach. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXVII. We say "that the Divine
Essence is in action by means of the life"; because the acts of God, the
internal as well as the external, those which are directed inwards and those
directed outwards, must all be ascribed to His life as to their proximate and
immediate principle. (Heb. iv, 12.) For it is in reference to his life, that
God the Father produces out of his own essence his Word and his Spirit; and in
reference to his life, God understands, wills, is able to do, and does, all
those things which He understands, wills, is able to do, and actually does.
Hence, since blessedness consists in action, it is with propriety ascribed to
life. (1 Tim. i, 11; Rom. vi, 23.) This also seems to be the cause why it was
the will of God, that his oath should be expressed in these words, "THE
LORD LIVETH." (Jer. iv, 2.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXVIII. The life of God is his essence
itself, and his very being; because the Divine Essence is in every respect
simple, as well as infinite, and therefore, eternal and immutable. On this
account, to it, and indeed to it alone, is attributed immortality, which,
therefore, cannot be communicated to any creature. (1 Tim. i, 17; vi, 16.) It
is immense, without increase and decrease; it is one and undivided, holy and set
apart from all things; it is good, and therefore communicable, and actually
communicative of itself, both by creation and preservation, and by habitation
commenced in this life, to be consummated in the life to come. (Gen. ii, 7;
Acts xvii, 28; Rom. viii, 10, 11; 1 Cor. xv, 28.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXIX. But the life of God is active in
three faculties, in the understanding, the will, and the power or capability
properly so called. In the Understanding, inwardly considering its object of
what kind soever, whether it be one <i>with it</i> or united to it in the act
of understanding. In the Will, inwardly willing its first, chief, and proper
object; and extrinsically willing the rest. In the Power, or capability
operating only extrinsically, which may be the cause of its being called by the
particular name of capability, as being that which is capable of operating on
all its objects, before it actually operates. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">On the understanding
of God</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXX. The understanding of God is a
faculty of his life, which is the first in nature as well as in order, and by
which He distinctly understands all things and every thing which now have, will
have, have had, can have, or might hypothetically have, any kind of being; by
which He likewise distinctly understands the order which all and each of them hold
among themselves, the connections and the various relations which they have or
can have; not excluding even that entity which belongs to reason, and which
exists, or can exist, only in the mind, imagination, and enunciation. (Rom. xi,
33.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXXI. God, therefore, understands
himself. He knows all things possible, whether they be in the capability of God
or of the creature; in active or passive capability; in the capability of
operation, imagination, or enunciation. He knows all things that could have an
existence, on laying down any hypothesis. He knows other things than himself,
those which are necessary and contingent, good and bad, universal and
particular, future, present and past, excellent and vile. He knows things
substantial and accidental of every kind; the actions and passions, the modes
and circumstances of all things; external words and deeds, internal thoughts,
deliberations, counsels, and determinations, and the entities of reason,
whether complex or simple. All these things, being jointly attributed to the
understanding of God, seem to conduce to the conclusion, that God may
deservedly be said to know things infinite. (Acts xv, 18; Heb. iv, 13; Matt.
xi, 27; Psalm cxlvii, 4; Isa. li, 32, 33; liv, 7; Matt. x, 30; Psalm cxxxv, 1
John iii, 20; 1 Sam. xvi, 7; 1 Kings viii, 39; Psalm xciv, 11; Isa. xl, 28;
Psalm cxlvii, 5; 139; xciv, 9, 10; x, 13, 14.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXXII. All the things which God knows,
he knows neither by intelligible images, nor by similitude, (for it is not
necessary for Him to use abstraction and application for the purpose of
understanding;) but He knows them by his own essence, and by this alone, with
the exception of evil things which he knows indirectly by the opposite good
things; as, through means of the habitude, privation is discovered. Therefore, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(1.) God knows himself entirely and
adequately. For He is all being, light and eye. He also knows other things
entirely; but excellently, as they are in Himself and in his understanding;
adequately, as they are in their proper natures. (1 Cor. ii, 11; Psalm xciv, 9,
10.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(2.) He knows himself primarily; and it
is impossible for that which God understands first and by itself, to be any
other thing than his own essence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(3.) The act of understanding in God is
his own being and essence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXXIII. The mode by which God
understands, is not that which is successive, and which is either through
composition and division, or through deductive argumentation; but it is simple,
and through infinite intuition. (Heb. iv, 13.) THEREFORE, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(1.) God knows all things from eternity;
nothing recently. For this new perfection would add something to His essence by
which He understands all things; or his understanding would exceed His essence,
if he now understood what he did not formerly understand. But this cannot
happen, since he understands all things through his essence. (Acts xv, 18;
Ephes. i, 4.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(2.) He knows all things immeasurably,
without the augmentation and decrease of the things known and of the knowledge
itself. (Psalm cxlvii, 5.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(3.) He knows all things immutably, his
knowledge not being varied to the infinite changes of the things known. (James
i, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">17) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 16pt; text-indent: -16pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(4.) By a single and undivided act, not
being diverted towards many things but collected into himself, He knows all
things. Yet he does not know them confusedly, or only universally and in
general; but also in a distinct and most special manner He knows himself in
himself, things in their causes, in themselves, in his own essence, in
themselves as being present, in their causes antecedently, and in himself most
pre-eminently. (Heb. iv, 13; 1 Kings viii, 39; Psalm cxxxix, 16, 17.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(5.) And therefore when sleep,
drowsiness and oblivion are attributed to God, by these expressions is meant
only a deferring of the punishment to be inflicted on his enemies, and a delay
in affording solace and aid to his friends. (Psalm xiii, 1, 2.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXXIV. Although by one, and that a
simple act, God understands all things, yet a certain order in the objects of
his knowledge may be assigned to Him without impropriety, indeed, it ought to
be for the sake of ourselves. (1.) He knows himself. (2.) He knows all things
possible, which may be referred to three general classes. (i.) Let the first be
of those things to which the capability of God can immediately extend itself,
or which may exist by his mere and sole act. (ii.) Let the second consist of
those things which, by God’s preservation, motion, aid, concurrence and
permission, may have an existence from the creatures, whether these creatures
will themselves exist or not, and whether they might be placed in this or in
that order, or in infinite orders of things; let it even consist of those
things which might have an existence from the creatures, if this or that
hypothesis were admitted. (1 Sam. xxiii, 11, 12; Matt. xi, 21.) (iii.) Let the
third class be of those things which God can do from the acts of the creatures,
in accordance either with himself or with his acts. (3.) He knows all beings,
whether they be considered as future, as past, or as present; (Jer. xviii, 6;
Isa. xliv, 7;) and of these there is also a threefold order. The first order is
of those beings which by his own mere act shall exist, do exist, or have
existed. (Acts xv, 18.) The second is of those which will exist, do exist, or
have existed, by the intervention of the Creatures, either by themselves, or
through them by God’s preservation, motion, aid, concurrence and permission.
(Psalm cxxxix, 4) The third order consists of those which God will himself do
or make, does make, or hath made, from the acts of the creatures, in accordance
either with himself or with his acts. (Deut. 28). This consideration is of
infinite utility in various heads of theological doctrine. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXXV. God understands all things in a
holy manner, regarding things as they are, without any admixture. (Psalm ix, 8;
1 Thess. ii, 4.) On this account He is said to judge, not according to the
person or appearance and the face, but according to truth. (Rom. ii, 2.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXXVI. The understanding of God is
certain, and never can be deceived, so that He certainly and infallibly sees
even future contingencies, whether He sees them in their causes or in
themselves. (1 Sam. xxiii, 11, 12; Matt. xi, 21.) But, this certainty rests
upon the infinity of the essence of God, by which in a manner the most present
He understands all things. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXXVII. The understanding of God is
derived from no external cause, not even from an object; though if there should
not afterwards be an object, there would not likewise be the understanding of
God about it. (Isa. xl, 13, 14; Rom. xi, 33, 34.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXXVIII. Though the understanding of God
be certain and infallible, yet it does not impose any necessity on things, nay,
it rather establishes in them a contingency. For since it is an understanding
not only of the thing itself, but likewise of its mode, it must know the thing
and its mode such as they both are; and therefore if the mode of the thing be
contingent, it will know it to be contingent; which cannot be done, if this
mode of the thing be changed into a necessary one, even solely by reason of the
Divine understanding. (Acts xxvii, 22-25, 31; xxiii, 11, in connection with
verses 17, 18, &c., with xxv, 10, 12; and with xxvi, 32; Rom. xi, 33; Psalm
cxlvii, 5.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XXXIX. Since God distinctly understands
such a variety of things by one infinite intuition, Omniscience or All-Wisdom
is by a most deserved right attributed to Him. Yet this omniscience is not to
be considered in God according to the mode of the habitude, but according to
that of a most pure act. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XL. But the single and most simple
knowledge of God may be distinguished by some modes, according to various
objects and the relations to those objects, into theoretical and practical
knowledge, into that of vision and of simple intelligence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XLI. Theoretical knowledge is that by
which things are understood under the relation of being and of truth. Practical
knowledge is that by which things are considered under the relation of good,
and as objects of the will and of the power of God. (Isa. xlviii, 8; xxxvii,
28, xvi, 5.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XLII. The knowledge of vision is that by
which God knows himself and all other beings, which are, will be, or have been.
The knowledge of simple intelligence is that by which He knows things possible.
Some persons call the former "definite" or "determinate," and
the latter "indefinite" or "indeterminate" knowledge. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XLIII. The schoolmen say besides, that
one kind of God’s knowledge is natural and necessary, another free, and a third
kind middle. (1.) Natural or necessary knowledge is that by which God
understands himself and all things possible. (2.) Free knowledge is that by
which he knows, all other beings. (3.) Middle knowledge is that by which he
knows that "if This thing happens, That will take place." The first
precedes every free act of the Divine will; the second follows the free act of
God’s will; and the last precedes indeed the free act of the Divine will, but
hypothetically from this act it sees that some particular thing will occur.
But, in strictness of speech, every kind of God’s knowledge is necessary. For
the free understanding of God does not arise from this circumstance, that a
free act of His will exhibits or offers an object to the understanding; but
when any object whatsoever is laid down, the Divine understanding knows it
necessarily on account of the infinity of its own essence. In like manner, any
object whatsoever being laid down hypothetically, God understands necessarily
what will arise from that object. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XLIV. Free knowledge is also called
"foreknowledge," as is likewise that of vision by which other beings
are known; and since it follows a free act of the will, it is not the cause of
things; it is, therefore, affirmed with truth concerning it, that things do not
exist because God knows them as about to come into existence, but that He knows
future things because they are future. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XLV. That kind of God’s knowledge which
is called "practical," "of simple intelligence," and
"natural or necessary," is the cause of all things through the mode
of prescribing and directing, to which is added the action of the will and
power; (Psalm civ, 24;) although that "middle" kind of knowledge must
intervene in things which depend on the liberty of a created will. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XLVI. God’s knowledge is so peculiarly
his own, as to be impossible to be communicated to any thing created, not even
to the soul of Christ; though we gladly confess, that Christ knows all those
things which are required for the discharge of his office and for his perfect
blessedness. (1 Kings viii, 39; Matt. xxiv, 36.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">On the will of God</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XLVII. By the expression "will of
God" is signified properly "the faculty itself of willing," but
figuratively sometimes "the act of willing," and at other times
"the object willed." (John vi, 39; Psalm cxv, 3.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XLVIII. Not only a consideration of the
essence and of the understanding of God, but also the Scriptures and the
universal agreement of mankind, testify that a will is correctly attributed to
God. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XLIX. This is the second faculty in the
life of God, <i>§ 29,</i> which follows the Divine understanding and is
produced from it, and by which God is borne towards a known good. Towards a
good, because it is an adequate object of his will. And towards a known good,
because the Divine understanding is previously borne towards it as a being, not
only by knowing it as it is a being, but likewise by judging it to be good.
Hence the act of the understanding is to offer it as a good, to the will which
is of the same nature as the understanding, or rather, which is its own
offspring, that it may also discharge its office and act concerning this known
good. But God does not will the evil which is called that of
"culpability"; because He does not more will any good connected with
this evil than He wills the good to which the malignity of sin is opposed, and
which is the Divine good itself. All the precepts of God demonstrate this in
the most convincing manner. (Psalm v, 4, 5.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">L. But Good is of two kinds — the Chief
Good itself, and that which is different from it. (Matt. xix, 17; Gen. i, 31.)
The order which subsists between them is this: the latter does not exist with
the Chief Good, but has its existence from it by the Understanding and the Will
of God. (Rom. xi, 36.) Wherefore the Supreme Good is the primary, the choicest,
and the direct object of the Divine Will; that is, its own infinite Essence,
which was alone from all eternity, infinite ages prior to the existence of
another good; and therefore it is the only good. (Prov. viii, 22-24.) On this
account it may also be denominated, without impropriety, the peculiar and
adequate object of the Divine Will. Since the Understanding and the Will of God
were, each by its own act, borne towards this <i>Essence</i> they found such a
plenitude of Being and Goodness in it, that the Understanding gave its judgment
for commencing the communication of it outwards: and the Will approved of this
kind of communication, after that method; whence the existence of a good, of
what kind soever it was, which was different from the Chief Good. It cannot,
therefore, be called an object of the Divine Will, except an indirect one,
which God wills on account of that Chief Good, or rather He wills it to be on
account of the Chief Good. (Prov. xvi, 4, .) Therefore, The Will of God is the
very Essence of God, yet distinguished from it according to the formal reason. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LI. The act by which the Will of God
advances towards its objects, is (1.) most simple: for as the Understanding of
God by a most simple act understands its own Essence, and, through it, all
other things; so the Will of God, by a single and simple act, wills its own
goodness, and all things in its goodness. (Prov. xvi, 4.) Therefore, the
multitude of things willed is not repugnant to the simplicity of the Divine
Will. (Isa. xliii, 7; Ephes. i, 5-9.) (2.) This act is Infinite: for it is
moved to will, neither by an external cause, by any other efficient, nor by an
end, which is out of itself; it is not moved even by any object which is not
itself. (Deut. vii, 7; Matt. xi, 26.) Nay, the willing of the end is not the
cause of willing those things which are for the end; though it wills those
things which are for the end to be put in order to that end. (Acts xvii, 25,
26; Psalm xvi, 9.) It is no valid objection to this truth, that God would not
will or do some things unless some act of the creature intervened. (1 Sam. ii,
30.) (3.) It is Eternal; because nothing can de novo either be or appear good
to God. (4.) It is Immutable; because that which has once either been or seemed
good to Him, both is and appears such to Him perpetually; and that by which God
is known to will any thing, is nothing else but this, his immutable entity.
(Mal. iii, 6; Rom. xi, 1.) (5.) This act is likewise Holy: because God advances
towards his object only on account of its being good, not on account of any
other thing which is added to it; and only because his Understanding accounts
it good, not because feeling inclines <i>him</i> towards it without right
reason. (2 Tim. ii, 19; Rom. ix, 11; 12, 4; Psalm cxix, 137.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LII. As the simple and external act by
which the Divine Understanding knows all its objects, has not excluded order
from them; so likewise may we be allowed to assign a certain order, according
to which the simple and sole act of the will of God is borne towards its
objects: (1.) God wills his own Essence and Goodness, that is, himself. (2.) He
wills all those things which, by the extreme judgment of his wisdom, He hath
determined to be made out of infinite beings possible to himself. (Prov. xvi,
4.) And, First, He wills to make them. Then, when they are made, He is affected
towards them by his Will, as they have some similitude to his nature. (Gen. i,
31; John xiv, 23.) (3.) The third object of the Divine Will are those things
which God judges it to be right that they should be done by creatures endowed
with understanding and free-will: and his act of willing concerning these
things is signified by a precept, in which we likewise include the prohibition
of that which He wills not to be done by the same creature. (Exod. xx, 1, 2,
&c.; Micah vi, 8.) We allow it to remain a matter of discussion, whether
counsels can have a place here, provided those things about which the
consultations are held be not considered as <i>things</i> of supererogation.
(4.) The fourth object of the Divine Will is the Divine permission, by which
God permits a rational creature to do what He forbade, and to omit what he
commanded; and which consists of the suspension of an efficacious impediment,
not of one that is due and sufficient. (Acts xiv, 16, 17; Psalm lxxxi, 13; Isa.
v, 4) (5.) The fifth object of the Divine Will are those things which,
according to his own infinite wisdom, God judges to be done from the acts of
rational creatures. (Isa. v, 5; 1 Sam. ii, 30; Gen. xxii, 16, 17.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LIII. But though nothing from without be
the cause of God’s volition, yet, since he wills that there should be order in
things, (which order is placed principally in this, that some things be the
causes of others,) just so far as God’s volition is borne towards those
objects, it is as if it were the cause of itself as it is borne towards others:
(Hosea ii, 21, 22.) Thus the cause why He wills the condemnation of any one,
this, because he wills the order of his justice to be observed throughout the
universe. (John vi, 40; Deut. vii, 8.) Neither do we therefore deny, but that
an act of a creature, or the omission of an act, may be thus far the occasion
or primary cause of a certain Divine volition, that, without any consideration
of that act or its omission, God might set it aside by such a volition. (1 Sam.
ii, 30; Jer. xviii, 7, 8.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LIV. Through his own Will, and by means
of his Power, God is the cause of all other things; (Lam. iii, 37, 38;) yet so
that when he acts through second causes, either with them or in them, he does
not take away their own peculiar mode of acting with which they have been
divinely endued but he suffers them according to their own mode to produce
their own effects, necessary things necessarily, contingent things
contingently, free things freely: and this contingency and freedom of second
causes does not prevent that from being certainly done, or coming to pass,
which God in this manner works by them; and therefore, the certain futurition
of an event does not include its necessity. (Isa. x, 5, 6, 7; Gen. xlv, 5, 28;
Acts xxvii, 29, 31.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LV. Though God by a single and undivided
act wills all the things which he wills; yet his Will, or rather his Volition,
may be distinguished from the objects, by a consideration of the mode and order
according to which it is borne towards its objects. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LVI. The Divine Will is borne towards
its object, either according to the mode of Nature, or according to the mode of
Liberty. According to the mode of Nature, it tends towards a primary and proper
object, one that is suitable and adequate to its nature. According to the mode
of Liberty, it tends towards all other things. Thus, God by a natural necessity
wills himself; but He wills freely all other things; (2 Tim. ii, 13; Rev. iv,
11;) though the act which is posterior in order may be bound by a free act
which is prior in order. This may be called "hypothetical necessity,"
having its origin partly from the free volition and act of God, partly from the
immutability of his nature. "For God is not unrighteous," says the
Apostle, "to forget the work and labour of love" of the pious;
because he hath promised them a remuneration, and the immutability of his
nature does not suffer him to rescind his promises. (Heb. vi, 10, 18.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LVII. To this must be subjoined another
distinction, according to which God wills something as an end, and other things
as the means to that end. His Will tends towards the end by a natural affection
or desire; and towards the means by a free choice. (Prov. xvi, 4) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LVIII. The will of God is also
distinguished into that by which he wills to do or to prevent something, and
which is called "the will of his good pleasure," or rather "of
his pleasure"; (Psalm cxv, 3;) and into that by which he wills something
to be done, or to be omitted, by creatures endued with understanding, and which
is called "the will which is signified." The latter is revealed; the
former is partly revealed, and partly hidden. (Mark iii, 35; 1 Thess. iv, 3;
Deut. xxix, 29; 1 Cor. ii, 11, 12.) The
former is efficacious, for it uses power, either so much as cannot be resisted,
or such a kind as He certainly knows nothing will withstand: (Psalm xxxiii, 9;
Rom. ix, 19.) The latter is called "inefficacious," and resistance is
frequently made to it; yet so that, when the creature transgresses the order of
this revealed Will, the creature by it may be reduced to order, and that the
Will of God may be done on those by whom his Will has not been performed. (2
Sam. xvii, 14; Isa. v, 4, 5; Matt. xxi, 39-41; Acts v, 4; 1 Cor. vii, 28.) To
this two- fold Will is opposed the Remission of the Will, which is called "Permission,"
and which is also two-fold. The one, which permits something to the power of a
rational creature, by not circumscribing its act with a law; and this is
opposed to "the revealed Will." The other is that by which God
permits something to the capability and will of the creature, by not
interposing an efficacious hindrance; and this is opposed to "the Will of
God’s pleasure" that is efficacious. (Acts xiv, 16; Psalm lxxxi, 13.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LIX. The things which God wills to do he
wills (1.) either from himself, not on account of any cause placed out of
himself, whether this be without the consideration of any act which proceeds
from the creature, or solely on occasion of the act of the creature: (Deut.
vii, 7, 8; Rom. xi, 35; John iii, 16.) Or (2.) He does it on account of some
other previous cause laid down on the part of the creature. (Exod. xxxii, 32,
33; 1 Sam. xv, 17, 23.) In regard to this distinction, some work is said to be
proper to God, and some foreign to Him and his "strange work." (Lam.
iii, 33; Isa. xxviii, 21.) This is also signified by the church in the
following words: "O God! whose property is, ever to have mercy and to
forgive," &c. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LX. Some persons also distinguish the
will of God into that which is antecedent, and that which is consequent. This
distinction has reference to one and the same volition or act of the rational
creature, which if the act of the Divine will precedes, it is called the
"antecedent will of God"; (1 Tim. ii, 4;) but if it follows, it is
called his "consequent will": (Acts i, 25; Matt. xxiii, 37, 38.) But
the antecedent will, it appears, ought to be called velleity, rather than will.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXI. There is not much distance between
this distinction, and another, according to which God is said to will some
things "so far as they are good when absolutely considered according to
their nature"; but to will other things "so far as, after an
inspection, of all the circumstances, they are understood to be
desirable." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXII. God also wills some things in
their antecedent causes; that is He wills their causes as relatively, and
places those causes in such order, that effects may follow from them; and, if
they do follow, that they may of themselves be pleasing to him. (Ezek. xxxiii,
11; Gen. iv, 7.) He wills other things not only in their causes, but also in
themselves. (John vi, 40; Matt. xi, 25, 26.) incident with this, is the
distinction of the Divine Will into Conditional and Absolute. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXIII. Lastly. God wills some things per
se or accidentally. He wills per se, those things which are simply and
relatively good; (2 Pet. iii, 9; accidentally, those which are in some respect
evil, but which have such good things united with them as He wills in
preference to the respective good things which are opposed to those evil ones:
thus, He wills the evils of punishment, because he would rather have the order
of justice preserved in punishment, than suffer an offending creature to go
unpunished. (Jer. ix, 9 Psalm i, 21; Jer. xv, 6.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Let the following be
problems to us</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(1.) Is it possible for two
affirmatively contrary volitions of God to tend towards one and the same
uniform object? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">(2.) Is it possible for one volition of
God to tend towards contrary objects? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">lxiv. In this momentum of the Divine
Nature, come under consideration those attributes which are ascribed to him in
the Scriptures, either properly or figuratively, according to a certain analogy
of affections and moral virtues in us; such as are love, hatred, goodness,
mercy, desire, anger, justice, &c. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXV. Those things which have the analogy
of affections may be commodiously referred to two principal kinds. So the first
can embrace those which we may call primary or principal; the second, those
which are derived from the primary. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXVI. 1The first or principal are Love,
(whose opposition is Hatred,) and Goodness; and with these are connected Grace,
Benignity and Mercy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXVII. Love is an affection of union in
God, the objects of which are God himself and the good of justice or
righteousness, the creature and its felicity. (Prov. xvi, 4; Psalm. xi, 7; John
iii, 16; Wisdom xi, 24-26.) HATRED is an affection of separation in God, the
object of which are the unrighteousness and misery of the creature. (Psalm v,
5; Ezek. xxv, 11; Deut. xxv, 15, 16, &c.; Isa. i, 24) But since God
primarily loves himself and the good of justice, and at the same moment hates
iniquity; and since He loves the creature and its happiness only secondarily,
and at the same moment dislikes the misery of the creature; (Psalm xi, 5; Deut.
xxviii, 63;) hence it comes to pass, that he hates a creature that
pertinaciously perseveres in unrighteousness, and He loves its misery. (Isa.
lxvi, 4.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXVIII. Goodness in God is an affection
of communicating his own good. (Rev. iv, 11; Gen. i, 31.) Its first object
outwards is nothing; and thus necessarily the first, that, on its removal,
there can be no outward communication. The First advance of this goodness is
towards the creature as it is a creature; the Second is towards the creature as
it performs its duty, to communicate good to it beyond the remuneration
promised. Both these procedures of the Divine goodness may appropriately
receive the appellation of "Benignity." The Third advance is towards
a creature that has sinned, and that has by such transgression rendered itself
liable to misery. This advance is called Mercy, that is, an affection for
affording succour to a person in misery, sin itself presenting no obstacle to
its exercise. (Rom. v, 8; Ezek. xvi, 6.) We attribute these advances to the Divine
Goodness in such a manner, that in the mean time we concede to the love of God
towards his creatures its portion in these advances. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXIX. Grace seems to stand as a proper
adjunct to Goodness, and to Love towards the creatures. According to it, God is
disposed to communicate his own good, and to love the creatures, not of merit
or of debt, nor that it may add anything to God himself; (Psalm xvi, 2;) but
that it may be well with him on whom the good is bestowed, and who is beloved.
(Exod. xxxiv, 6; Rom. v, 8; 1 John iv, 7.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXX. The affections which arise from the
primary ones, <i>§ 65,</i> are special, as being those which are not occupied
about Good and Evil in common, but specially about Good as it is present or
absent. We distinguish these affections according to the confined capacity of
our consideration, as they have some analogy either in Concupiscibility or in
Irascibility. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXI. In the Concupiscible we consider,
first, Desire and that which is opposed to it; and, afterwards, Joy and Grief.
We describe Desire, in God, as an affection for obtaining the works of
righteousness which have been prescribed to creatures endued with
understanding, and for bestowing on them "the recompense of reward":
(Psalm lxxxi, 13-16; v, 3-5; Isa. xlviii, 18, 19.) To this is opposed that
affection according to which God abhors the works of unrighteousness, and the
omission of a remuneration. (Jer. v, 7, 9.) Joy is an affection arising from
the presence of a thing that is suitable: such as the fruition of himself, the
obedience of the creature, the communication of his own goodness, and the
destruction of his rebels and enemies. (Isa. lxii, 5; Psalm lxxxi, 13; Prov. i,
24-26.) Grief, which is its opposite, has its origin in the disobedience and
the misery of the creature, and in the occasion given by his people for
blaspheming the name of God among the Gentiles. Nearly allied to this is
Repentance, which, in God, is nothing more than a change of the thing willed or
done, on account of the act of a rational creature. (Gen. xv, 6; Jer. xviii,
8-10.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXII. In the Irascible we place Hope,
and its opposite, Despair, Confidence and Anger, and we do not exclude even
Fear, which, by an Anthropo-pathy, we read, as attributed to God. (Deut. xxxii,
27.) Hope is an attentive expectation of a good work due from the creature, and
by the grace of God capable of being performed. It may easily be reconciled
with the certain fore-knowledge of God. (Isa. v, 4; Luke xiii, 6, 7.) Despair
arises from the pertinacious wickedness of the creature, who is "alienated
from the life of God," and hardened in evil, and who, after "he is
past feeling," his conscience having been "seared with a hot
iron," has "given himself over unto lasciviousness, to work all
uncleanness with greediness." (Jer. xiii, 23; Ephes. iv, 18, 19.) What in
God we call Confidence or Courage, is that by which He with great animation
prosecutes a good that is beloved and desired, and puts away and repulses an
evil that is hated. Anger is an affection of depulsion in God, through the punishment
of the creature who has transgressed his law; by which He brings upon the
creature the evil of misery for his unrighteousness, and takes the vengeance
which is due to Himself, as an indication of his love of righteousness and his
hatred of sin. When this is vehement, it is called "Fury." (Isa.
lxiii, 3-5; Ezek. xiii, 13, 14; Isa. xxvii, 4; Jer. ix, 9; Deut. xxxii, 35;
Jer. x, 24; 12, 13; Isa. lxiii, 6.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXIII. We attribute these affections to
God, on account of some of his own which are analogous to them, without any
passion, as He is simple and immutable; and without any inordinateness,
disorder and repugnance to right reason; for He exercises himself in a holy
manner about all things which are the objects of his will. But we subject the
use and exercise of them to the infinite wisdom of God, whose office it is
previously to affix to each its object, mode, end, and circumstances, and to
determine to which of them, in preference to the rest, is to be conceded the
province of acting. (Exod. xxxii, 10-14; Deut. xxxii, 26, 27.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXIV. Those things in God which have an
analogy to moral virtues, as moderators of these affections, are partly general
to all the affections, as Righteousness; and partly concern some of them in a
special manner, as Patience, and those which are moderators of Anger and of the
punishments which proceed from Anger. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXV. Righteousness or Justice in God,
is an eternal and constant will to render to every one his own: (Psalm xi, 7)
To God himself that which is his, and to the creature what belongs to it. We
consider this righteousness in its Words and in its Acts. In all its Words are
found veracity and constancy; and in its Promises, fidelity. (2 Tim. ii, 13;
Num. xxiii, 19; Rom. iii, 4; 1 Thess. v, 24) With regard to its Acts, it is
two-fold, Disposing and Remunerative. The former is that according to which God
disposes all the things in his actions through his own wisdom, according to the
rule of equity which has either been prescribed or pointed out by his wisdom.
The latter, <i>remunerative righteousness,</i> is that by which God renders to
his creatures that which belongs to it, according to his work through an
agreement into which He has entered with it. (Heb. vi, 10, 17, 18; Psalm cxlv,
17; 2 Thess. i, 6; Rev. ii, 23.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXVI. Patience is that by which God
patiently endures the absence of a good that is loved, desired, and hoped for,
and the presence of an evil that is hated; and which spares sinners, not only
that He may through them execute the judicial acts of his mercy and justice,
but that he may likewise lead them to repentance; or may punish with the
greater equity and more grievously, the contumacious. (Isa. v, 4; Ezek. xviii,
23; Matt. xxi, 33- 41; Luke xiii, 6-9; Rom. ii, 4, 5; 2 Pet. iii, 9.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXVII. Long-suffering, gentleness,
readiness to pardon, and clemency, are the moderators of Anger and Punishments.
Long- Suffering suspends anger, lest it should hasten to drive away the evil as
soon as ever such an act was required by the demerits of the creature. (Exod.
xxxiv, 6; Isa. xlviii, 8, 9; Psalm ciii, 9.) We call that Gentleness, or
Lenity, which attempers Anger, lest it should be of too great a magnitude; nay,
lest its severity should correspond with the magnitude of the wickedness
committed. (Psalm ciii, 10.) We call that Readiness To Pardon, which moderates
Anger, so that it may not continue forever, agreeably to the deserts of
sinners. (Psalm xxx, 5; Jer. iii, 5; Joel ii, 13.) Clemency is that by which
God attempers the deserved punishments, that by their severity and continuance
they may be far inferior to the demerits of sin, and may not exceed the
strength of the creature. (2 Sam. vii, 14; Psalm ciii, 13, 14.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">On the power of God</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXVIII. By the term "The Power Of
God," is meant not a passive power, which cannot happen to God who is a
pure act; nor the act, by which God is always acting in himself through
necessity of nature; but it signifies an active power, by which He can operate
extrinsically, and by which he does so operate when it seems good to himself. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXIX. We describe it thus: "It is
a faculty of the Life of God, posterior in order to the Understanding and the
Will, by which God can, from the liberty of his own Will, operate extrinsically
all things whatsoever that He can freely will, and by which he does whatsoever
He freely wills." Hence it appears, that Power resembles a principle which
executes what the will commands under the direction of knowledge. But we wish
Impeding or Obstruction to be comprehended under the operation. (Psalm cxv, 3; Lament.
iii, 37, 38; Psalm xxxiii, 9; Jer. xviii, 6.) Therefore, <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">From this we exclude the power or
capability of generating and breathing forth, because it acts in a natural
manner and intrinsically. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXX. The measure of the Divine
Capability is the Free Will of God, and indeed this is an adequate measure.
(Psalm cxv, 3; Matt. xi, 25-27) For whatsoever God can will freely, He can
likewise do it; and whatsoever it is possible for Him to do, He can freely will
it; and whatever it is impossible for Him to will, He cannot do it; and that
which He cannot do, He also cannot will. But He does, because He wills; and He
does not do, because He does not will. Therefore, He does the things which He
does, because He wills so to do. He does them not, because He wills them not;
not, on the contrary. Hence the objects of the Divine Capability may be most
commodiously, and indeed ought to be, circumscribed through the object of the
Free Will of God. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXXI. The following is the manner:
Since the Free Will <i>of God</i> rests upon a Will conducting itself according
to the mode of <i>his</i> nature, and both of them have an Understanding which
precedes them, and which, in conjunction with the Will, has the very Essence of
God for its foundation; and since God can freely will those things alone which
are not contrary to his Essence and Natural Will, and which can be comprehended
in his Understanding as entities and true things: it follows, that He can do
these things alone; nay, that He can likewise do all things, since the Free
Will of God, and therefore, his Power also, are bound by those alone. And since
things of this kind are the only things which are simply and absolutely
possible, all other things being impossible, God is deservedly said to be
capable of doing all things that are possible. (Luke i, 37; xviii, 27; Mark
xiv, 36.) For how can there be an entity, a truth, or a good, which is contrary
to His Essence and Natural Will, and incomprehensible to his Understanding? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXXII. The things thus laid down <i>as
described in the last clause of the preceding Thesis</i> are indeed confessed
by all men; and they are generally described in the schools as things
impossible, which imply a contradiction. But it is asked in species, "What
are those things?" We will here recount some of them. God cannot make
another God; is incapable of being changed; (James i, 17;) he cannot sin;
(Psalm v, 5;) cannot lie; (Num. xxiii, 19; 2 Tim. ii, 13;) cannot cause a thing
at the same time to be and not to be, to have been and not to have been, to be
hereafter and not hereafter to be, to be this and not to be this, to be this
and its contrary. He cannot cause an accident to be without its subject, a
substance to be changed into a pre-existing substance, bread into the body of
Christ, and He cannot cause a body to be in every place. When we make such
assertions as these, we do not inflict an injury on the power of God; but we
must beware that things unworthy of Him be not attributed to his Essence, his
Understanding, and his Will. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXXIII. The Power of God is infinite;
because it can do not only all things possible; (which are innumerable, so that
they cannot be reckoned to be such a number, without a possibility of their
being still more;) but likewise because nothing can resist it. For all created
things depend upon the Divine Power, as upon their efficient principle, as the.
phrase is, both in their being and in their preservation; whence Omnipotence is
deservedly attributed to Him. (Rev. i, 8; Ephes. iii, 20; Matt. iii, 9; xxvi,
53; Rom. ix, 19; Phil. iii, 21.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXXIV. Since the measure of God’s Power
is his own Free Will, and since therefore God does anything because he wills to
do it; it cannot be concluded from the Omnipotence of God that anything will
come to pass, <i>or will afterwards be,</i> unless it be evident from the
Divine Will. (Dan. iii, 17, 18; Rom. iv, 20, 21; Matt. viii, 2.) But if this be
evident from the will of God, what He hath willed to do is certain to be done,
although, to the mind of the creature, it may not seem possible. (Luke i, 19,
20, 34-37.) And that the mind must be "brought into captivity to the
obedience of faith," is a truth which here finds abundant scope for
exercise. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXXV. The distinction of Power into
absolute, and ordinary or actual, has not reference to God’s Power so much as
to his Will, which uses his Power to do some things when it wills to use it,
and which does not use it when it does not will; though it would be possible
for it to use the Power if it would; and if it did use it, the Divine Will
would, through it, do far more things than it does. (Matt. iii, 9.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXXVI. The Omnipotence of God cannot be
communicated to any creature. (1 Tim. vi, 15; Jude. 4.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">On the perfection of
God</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXXVII. From the simple and infinite
combination of all these things, when they are considered with the mode of pre-
eminence, the Perfection of God has its existence. Not that by which He has
every single thing in a manner the most perfect; for this is effected by
Simplicity and Infinity: but it is that by which, in the most perfect manner,
he has all things which denote any perfection. And it may fitly be described
thus: "It is the interminable, the entire, and, at the same time, the
perfect possession of Essence and Life." (Matt. v, 48; Gen. xvii, 1; Exod.
vi, 3; Psalm l:10; Acts xvii, 25; James i, 17.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXXVIII. This Perfection of God
infinitely exceeds the perfection of all the creatures, on a three-fold
account. For it possesses all things in a mode the most perfect, and does not
derive them from another. But the perfection which the creatures possess, they
derive from God, and it is faintly shadowed forth after its archetype. Some
creatures have a larger portion <i>of this derived perfection</i> than others;
and the more of it they possess, the nearer they are to God and have the
greater likeness to Him. (Rom. xi, 35, 36; 1 Cor. iv, 7; Acts xvii, 28, 29; 2
Cor. iii, 18; 2 Pet. i, 4; Matt. v, 48.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">LXXXIX. From this Perfection, by means
of some internal act of God, his Blessedness has its existence; and his Glory
exists, by means of some relation of it extrinsically. (1 Tim. i, 11; vi, 15;
Exod. xxxiii, 18.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">On the blessedness of
God</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XC. Blessedness is through an act of the
understanding: is it not also through an act of the will? Such is our opinion;
and we delineate it thus. It is an act of the life of God, by which he enjoys
his own perfection, that is fully known by his Understanding and supremely
loved by his Will; and by which He complacently reposes in this Perfection with
satisfaction. (Gen. xvii, 1; Psalm xvi, 11; 1 Cor. ii, 9, 10.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XCI. The Blessedness of God is so
peculiar to himself, that it cannot be communicated to a creature. (1 Cor. xv,
28.) Yet, in relation to the object, he is the beautifying good of all
creatures endued with understanding, and is the Effector of the act which tends
to this object, and which reposes with satisfaction in it. In these consists
the blessedness of the creature. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">The Glory of God</span></u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XCII. The Glory of God is from his
Perfection, regarded extrinsically, and may in some degree be described thus:
It is the excellence of God above all things. God makes this glory manifest by
external acts in various ways. (Rom. i, 23; ix, 4; Psalm viii, 1.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">XCIII. But the modes of manifestation,
which are declared to us in the scriptures, are chiefly two: the one, by an
effulgence of light and of unusual splendour, or by its opposite, a dense
darkness or obscurity. (Matt. xvii, 2-5; Luke ii, 9; Exod. xvi, 10; 1 Kings
viii, 11.) The other, by the production of works which agree with his
Perfection and Excellence. (Psalm xix, 1; John ii, 11.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">But ceasing from any more prolix
discussion of this subject, let us with ardent prayers suppliantly beseech the
God of Glory, that, since He has formed us for his Glory, He would vouchsafe to
make us yet more and more the instruments of illustrating his Glory among men,
through Jesus Christ our Lord, the brightness of his Glory, and the express
image of his Person. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-9716073537348104192013-03-27T10:52:00.000-07:002013-03-27T09:09:48.792-07:00The Long Lost Sola? (reposted)<span xmlns=""></span><br />
<br />
<span xmlns="">A sister in the LORD spurred these thoughts this afternoon … Our Calvinist friends are quick to tout their embrace of the five SOLA of the Reformation. I don't blame them at all for we Arminians also embrace the same five SOLA. Some Calvinists have even suggested dropping the TULIP in favor of promoting Five SOLA instead. I am not sure what they would think to accomplish by doing such because it would take away one of their war clubs. How does a Calvinist reply after touting Five Sola only to hear "So what? We do too"? Only Scripture, Only Faith, Only Grace, Only Christ, Only God's Glory … yeah that sounds about right although I have wondered how you can have five "only's" and still be true to any of them. It is kind of like being faithful to your only wife, all five of them. However, I think we are missing the most important Calvinist SOLA of all. This is the one that lets them declare a secret will at odds with the revealed will of God. You know, that SOLA that let's God take no pleasure in the death of the wicked but takes pleasure in what follows for an eternity. Of course, I can only be thinking of that great Calvinist SOLA … the one that occurs when the Calvinist tries to cover up the implications of his theology … SOLA Eclipse!</span>A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-19782348494191596352013-02-13T09:12:00.003-08:002013-02-13T09:12:19.642-08:00Thoughts on Hyper-CalvinismJustin Taylor recently published a post on his blog discussing a few thoughts on the subject of<a href="http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/02/08/hyper-calvinists-are-not-the-same-as-hyper-calvinists/?comments#comments#comment-113187"> "Hyper-Calvinism" </a>that interest me. It is an easy label to throw around for some just as some Calvinists are equally adept at accusing Arminians of being Pelagians or semi-Pelagians. I don't know if there is a corresponding label of Hyper-Arminian that would be comparable to the Hyper-Calvinist application. Arminianism is in many ways a reaction to Calvinism and in that regard I suppose an Arminian who would deny that Calvinism is within the pale of orthodoxy and salvation could be defined as a Hyper-Arminian. However, such a denial is not a hyper-extension of any particular Arminian doctrine so I would suggest the "Hyper" label is inappropriate. With the Calvinist, it is not quite as easy to dismiss.<br />
<br />
As Taylor points out in his post, Calvinists themselves have defined what constitutes a "Hyper-Calvinist". Phil Johnson stated as such several years ago <a href="http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm">with his own definitions</a> (generally accepted among most Calvinists). Others have done so as well. What is still in question however is whether the church at large is bound by the definitions set by Calvinists in what might appear as a self serving defense. Personally, I have few qualms with Johnson's definitions and I am more than willing to have Calvinists define themselves as they wish. Others have expressed different opinions on the matter with a common objection being that the Hyper-Calvinist is the only consistent Calvinist. It is an understandable and logical conclusion but such a suggestion focuses only on the unique distinctions of the Calvinist faith i.e. TULIP or Calvinist predestinarianism as it was once referred to in the early years of these disputes. It ignores the reality that with regard to most doctrines of orthodox Christianity (at least western Protestant orthodoxy), the Calvinist is well within the pale of orthodoxy along with his Arminian, Lutheran and General Baptist brethren. The Hyper-Calvinist, on the other hand, denies the same fellowship to anybody who rejects the Calvinist dogma. In that sense, I do not believe it is fair to state that the only consistent Calvinist is a Hyper-Calvinist.<br />
<br />
Johnson identified five versions of the Hyper-Calvinist. As mentioned above I have no problem with his definitions although one in particular does raise some questions. He states with regard to his first version or variety ... "Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear". Many Calvinists would claim that since regeneration must occur first in order to "hear", that not all "hear" in the sense of being witness to the preaching of the Cross e.g. the message not efficaciously intended for all who physically hear. In that sense, the Calvinist who believes such can excuse himself from Johnson's definition by defining "hear" to match his theological dogma. It is similar to the common Calvinist objection of "world" being applied universally in John's Gospel. (Since Calvin can be reasonably argued as having been a proponent of unlimited atonement, he would not fall into that slippery slope of association).<br />
<br />
I agree with Taylor and Johnson that Hyper-Calvinism, as they define it, undermines the Gospel and should be actively opposed. Then again, I also believe the unique doctrines of mainstream Calvinism undermine the Gospel and attack the very character of God and should be actively opposed. In that I am a consistent Arminian.A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-39440569313385003382013-02-12T10:11:00.000-08:002013-02-12T10:07:38.304-08:00A Born Again Jesus: Does the Word-Faith Religion Understand The Grievous Error Of Their Ways? (reposted)<br />
<div>
This topic surfaces frequently among those who argue their apologetic on either side of the fence with regard to orthodoxy vs. Word-Faith. The doctrine of a Born Again Jesus was originally presented by E.W. Kenyon in his book entitled "What Happened From The Cross To The Throne". Since then many others of this new Word-Faith religion have essentially parroted the same doctrine, most prominant among them being Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer and Creflo Dollar among others. As a fundamental doctrine of this religion it is the basis for much of the aberrant theology that has swallowed so many people enamoured of this wrong-headed faith. There can be no "equality with God" if Jesus is not born again. There can be no Übermensch among men if the LORD Jesus Christ cannot be brought down to our level. In the Word-Faith mindset, the born again man must be on an equal footing with Jesus Christ if we are to command the heavens and dictate the promises of our own words. It is a doctrine that seeks to denigrate the holiness of Jesus and exalt the supposed holiness of man.<br />
<br />
Given the Word-Faith lack of understanding who Jesus is (for there can be no clear understanding at all if Jesus is to be a born again man in their eyes) the question must be asked "Why must a man be born again?". The answer to this question, a simple question among saints patient in the LORD, is that we are fallen creatures. We were born into this world of a woman in a natural condition tainted by the sin of Adam. We were spiritually dead in our sins, created in iniquity as the Psalmist wrote. John Wesley framed it best in my opinion. In his sermon on the new birth he wrote:<br />
<br />
<em><strong>And in Adam all died, all human kind, all the children of men who were then in Adam's loins.</strong> The natural consequence of this is, that every one descended from him comes into the world spiritually dead, dead to God, wholly dead in sin; entirely void of the life of God; void of the image of God, of all that righteousness and holiness wherein Adam was created. Instead of this, every man born into the world now bears the image of the devil in pride and self-will; the image of the beast, in sensual appetites and desires. This, then, is the foundation of the new birth, -- the entire corruption of our nature. Hence it is, that, being born in sin, we must be "born again." <strong>Hence every one that is born of a woman must be born of the Spirit of God.</strong> (my emphasis) (1)</em><br />
<br />
The last sentence carries with it a great importance that must be returned to the first sentence of this quote. Jesus Christ was certainly born of a woman yet was not born of Adam. Christ was never of Adam's loins and instead is referred to as the last Adam. As Wesley rightly pointed out, fallen man, born of a woman (a natural birth) must be born of the Spirit of God meaing born from above, born again as we often phrase it. How did Jesus come into this world? Certainly as one born of a woman. We can also rightly state that Jesus came into this world born of the Spirit of God. It was the Holy Spirit who overshadowed His mother Mary. It was one born of the Spirit of God carried in the womb who gave cause for another babe to leap in his womb just from the presence of Holiness.<br />
<br />
<em>“And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.” (Luke 1:41-44 AV)</em><br />
Of course the Born Again Jesus doctrine carries with it other doctrines that have been developed to buttress it. Jesus assumed the nature of Satan according to the same fellows. We are gods equivalent to Jesus Christ according to these imaginations. Jesus made Himself a curse in the minds of a few. Jesus became wickedness for these doctrines to stand. The Jesus Died Spiritually doctrine of the Word-Faith religion is an essential accompaniment of a Born Again Jesus scenario and I will address that particular foul doctrine at a later time. In any event we can rest assured that if we realize that Jesus always was, is and will be Holy, the sin of teaching a Born Again Jesus will never give cause for our self-exaltation and the deliberate denigration of Christ give us cause to shout in the words of Creflo Dollar "We are exactly like Jesus Christ and equal to God". (2) God Forbid such blasphemy.<br />
<br />
<br />
(1) The New Birth, Sermon 45, John Wesley <a href="http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-045.stm">http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-045.stm</a><br />
(2) I am provinding the words as I recall them from a television program of Creflo Dollar's, the series entitled <em>The Righteousness of God</em>.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-63666946072754805552013-02-11T14:57:00.001-08:002013-02-11T14:57:19.832-08:00The LADitesThe LADite cult has been stopping by recently. Hey fellahs, why don't you leave a pamphlet or two so I can stay current on your evolving Calvinistic Messianic Sabbatarian Kosher Reformed faith and gain a greater understanding of the anti-Christ Jesuit tainted Haganite Sunday BBQ worshippers? (There is a new acronym in there somewhere)<br />
<br />
tyfyt<br />
<br />
(this is only in jest, wink wink)A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-43411286575378939552013-01-23T10:12:00.000-08:002013-01-23T10:12:41.162-08:00Is Atheism a Religion?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The question of whether or not atheism constitutes a
religion appeared in a discussion today. I responded with a comment I want to
capture here.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background: #FAFAFA; color: #333333; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Who is to state that
religion must incorporate a supernatural deity? Religion is a belief system
dependent on some form of "faith". The atheist places his trust or
faith in himself in insisting that God does not exist. He then postulates on
his supposed moral compass that is assumed on the basis of faith. There is no
evidence of an atheist morality yet every atheist will claim a moral standard.
By faith he accepts moral guidance. By faith he denies any other god but
himself. Atheism is truly a religion of a particular faith, faith in oneself.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Perhaps I have taken it upon myself in an inappropriate
manner to define “religion”. I have always been intrigued by atheist claims of
a moral compass or guidance, that all humans have a sense of morality that is
innate to our species. This is clearly an expression of faith. I would think
that rational non-believers would prefer the agnostic approach than the hard
and fast, committed atheist stance with its faith driven absolutism.</div>
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-56668967897525400982013-01-15T20:28:00.000-08:002013-01-16T09:39:00.713-08:00Elect in the Son, Robert Shank<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Elect-Son-Robert-Shank/dp/1556610920"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE2ol6Ur2KxJAGbHAvtikH1u8L5pWedmI4mfUArU78XTttJTod0a8D0l6rLCf2OEcieDD5emEjgh7eWHozZ3bXkChHXyCBwueZ9TUr1llBX9E6Ezbnqd01BHEdCI1p5ttDk_TcPw/s1600/Elect.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>It has been nearly forty
three years since Robert Shank published his seminal work,<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Elect-Son-Robert-Shank/dp/1556610920"> <u>Elect in the Son</u></a>,
and that being ten years following his examination of perseverance, <u><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-Son-Robert-Shank/dp/1556610912/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y">Life in theSon</a></u>. Both are books that I have previously read in years past and recently
the topic of election sparked a renewed interest, on my part, of Shank’s
contribution. Dr. Shank suffered great rejection and whispered condemnation
among many of his Baptist brethren when he first published “Life”, made all the
more remarkable by the lack of any substantial repudiation of his exegesis and
conclusions. To this day I have not found a credible rebuttal of his work and I
hope that opinion is not shaded by any excessive Arminian sympathies on my
part. To that end I have undertaken a re-reading of both volumes. During the
first introduction to Dr. Shank, I was quite firmly in the Wesleyan camp and
his conclusion reinforced much of the theology I was accustomed to. Since then,
the classical Arminian position holds a greater sway theologically and this new
exploration of these great books should
give me an opportunity to better evaluation the conclusions and exegesis
presented.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>As I started reading “Elect
in the Son”, the first chapter captured my attention for a couple of readings and
I want to record it here for future reference and consideration. The comments
struck as profound and worthy of meditation.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>“Thy Kingdom Come”<sup>1</sup><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a day when the foundations of society are crumbling, a
day of gathering storm and deepening gloom, a day of unprecedented peril in
which thoughtful men speak of the collapse of civilization and the possible
annihilation of cities and nations – even of mankind, the sovereignty of God is
an unfailing encouragement that lights the path of the just and affords
assurance to all the faithful, who take great comfort in the words of James in the
historic council of the church at Jerusalem: “Known unto God are all His works
from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
God, who has “declared the end from the beginning and from
ancient times things not yet done,” has said, “My council shall stand, and I
will do all my pleasure” (Isa. 46:10). He who “works all things after the council
of His own will” is at work in the world in these momentous times, moving inexorably
toward fulfillment of an eternal purpose that antedates creation and gives
meaning to human history. History, by divine appointment, is teleological, and the
sweep of human events, whatever the sound and fury, moves toward the appointed
end: “Thy kingdom come.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nothing in the course of events can alter the appointed
outcome. The unfolding of the days and years, whatever their number, ultimately
will issue in all that was foretold by the prophets of old, by our LORD, and by
His Apostles. The witness of history past, confirming “the prophetic word made
more sure” (2 Pet. 1:19), attests that the human events ever move toward the
inevitable denouement on which creation itself is predicated: “the coming of the
kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is, of course, a sense in which the kingdom of God is
eternally present rather than prospective, coexistent with Him who “before the
mountains were brought forth or ever He had formed the earth and the world,
even from everlasting to everlasting, is God” (Ps. 90:2). But the kingdom of
God, as proclaimed and anticipated by both Jesus and the Apostles and the
prophets of old, is yet future and awaits its manifestation at the end of the age,
to appear in a moment of spectacular divine intervention at the coming of
Christ in power and judgment … but appearing also as the consummation of a long
process, as implied by many of our LORD’s parables<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why a long process? Why not, instead, instant kingdom? Could
not God, in the act of a moment, have created the everlasting kingdom He
purposed from eternity? Are not all things possible with God?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All things are indeed possible for God, but only within the limitations
of consistency with His own nature and being. God cannot lie, for example, nor
can He change, nor can He deny Himself. We may reverently assume that, for the kind
of kingdom He intends, God is following the only possible course: the process
of human history.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The process comprehends all that God has done, beginning
even before His mighty acts of creation when He “laid the foundations of the earth
and the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy”
(Job 38:4,7). It comprehends the creation of man in the image and likeness of
God and the entrance of sin into human experience in the disobedience of man to
the world and will of his Creator.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The process comprehends the moral self-discoveries and the redemptive
revelations and encounters experienced by the patriarchs of old and all the faithful
of their generations. It comprehends the experiences of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
and a nation descended from them, and the judges and kings and prophets who
appeared among them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The process comprehends the redemptive mission of Jesus,
unfolded in His incarnation, life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension,
and ultimate return in righteous judgment. It comprehends the labors of the Apostles
and the witness of the Church to Christ and His saving Gospel in all
generations until the coming of the King and the kingdom.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The process whereby God is creating the kingdom which He
purposed before the world began comprehends “all nations of men … on all the face
of the earth” (Acts 17:26) and involves every man. Human history in its
totality is the milieu in which the everlasting kingdom is being wrought … and
in which the election determined by God from before creation – an election
wholly identified with the kingdom – is being realized.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Thy kingdom come” – the kingdom which was the concern of
Jesus in the days of His flesh, the burden of His preaching, the subject of
splendid promises and solemn warnings, and the central theme of all His
teachings from the beginning of His ministry to the time of His ascension (Acts
1:3). Thy kingdom come!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole
earth be filled with his glory. Amen, and Amen – Psalm 72:19<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>1 Elect in the Son,
Robert L. Shank, Bethany House, Bloomington, MN 1970, 1989, pp 21-23<o:p></o:p></i></div>
A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-29598894902121967242013-01-10T08:45:00.001-08:002013-01-10T08:45:50.554-08:00Coo Coo For Cocoa Puffs<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coo%20coo%20for%20cocoa%20puffs">Urban Dictionary</a> defines Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs as ... <span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 19px;">a strictly medical term, used to describe a patient or person that has delved into a realm of irrational, illogical and/or crazy thought processes; Affected with madness; insane to an exceeding degree characterized by weakness or feebleness; decrepit; broken; falling to decay; shaky; unsafe; foolish</span><br />
<div class="example" style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-style: italic; line-height: 19px; margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-top: 5pt;">
See that guy trying to put that square peg into that round hole? I think he's gone coo coo for cocoa puffs!</div>
I think William Lane Craig has provided another potential use of the phrase with his comments regarding Calvinist divine determinism that might look something like this.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; font-style: italic; line-height: 19px;">See that guy trying to square his universal divine determinism with scripture and sound reason? I think he's gone coo coo for cocoa puffs!</span><br />
<br />
From Craig's Website:<br />
<em style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif; font: inherit; line-height: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Universal causal determinism cannot be rationally affirmed</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif; line-height: 16px;">. There is a sort of dizzying, self-defeating character to determinism. For if one comes to believe that determinism is true, one has to believe that the reason he has come to believe it is simply that he was determined to do so. One has not in fact been able to weigh the arguments pro and con and freely make up one’s mind on that basis. The difference between the person who weighs the arguments for determinism and rejects them and the person who weighs them and accepts them is wholly that one was determined by causal factors outside himself to believe and the other not to believe. When you come to realize that your decision to believe in determinism was itself determined and that even your present realization of that fact right now is likewise determined, a sort of vertigo sets in, for everything that you think, even this very thought itself, is outside your control. Determinism could be true; but it is very hard to see how it could ever be rationally affirmed, since its affirmation undermines the rationality of its affirmation.</span><span style="border: 0px; font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif; font: inherit; line-height: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /><br />Read more: <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism#ixzz2Hal0jd9x" style="border: 0px; color: #003399; font-size: 16px; font: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: initial; vertical-align: baseline;">http://www.reasonablefaith.org/molinism-vs-calvinism#ixzz2Hal0jd9x</a></span><br />
<br />
<br />A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-75627067493931268712013-01-09T18:23:00.000-08:002013-01-09T18:23:41.654-08:00God doesn't make mistakes<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JA8VJh0UJtg" width="560"></iframe>A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6698448.post-55426761369481399902013-01-08T09:28:00.000-08:002013-01-08T09:31:18.254-08:00So Little Time ..."<i>You worship the God of Humanism</i>". That's what Johnny Calvinist said to me. If he changed just the last three letters of his profound statement he might have impressed me. "<i>I worship the God of humanity</i>", I reply. I think that stumps him and he returns to the 3rd round of the UFC championship bout. He will be back to ensure his victory. I wait with bated breath.A.M. Malletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17354778419074793522noreply@blogger.com2