Search

You searched for 'Free Will'

I've found 24 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 9: Of Free Will - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 17,841 views | 16,462 words | 1:25:57 hours | 04 March 2015 21:41

...!DOCTYPE html

Chapter 9: Of Free Will

I would like to take a look at the freedom of will endued to us by God. Is it a libertarian Free Will, which most of the non-Reformed find essential for love? Is it another kind of freedom? Does our freedom mean that God is not sovereign? Does God ordain our free actions? These are some questions that we’ll have to wrestle with. For this study and my position on it, I am greatly indebted to the following authors:

Jonathan Edwards – The Freedom of the Will
R.C. Sproul – Willing to Believe (see review)
Thaddeus J. Williams – Love, Freedom, and Evil: Does Authentic Love Require Free Will?
Scott Christensen - What about Free Will?: Reconciling Our Choices with God’s Sovereignty

Calvinists have always been leveled the charge that our understanding of God’s absolute micro-managing sovereignty makes men as puppets and robots. One wonders what the reason was for the Westminster, Savoy and 1689 to offer a chapter on Free Will if they thought that people were merely puppets and robots as many critics like to mock Calvinism.

In section 1, we will have our longest discussion of the will. There, I hope, with Edwards’ Freedom of the Will, to lay the understanding of the human will as believed by many Calvinists, which I believe happens to be biblical and logical. I have chosen to do this for two purposes: 1) I want to understand Edwards’ position better first hand from him. Edwards is difficult to read and understand and sometimes you have to read sentences and paragraphs over and over or look somewhere for an explanation to understand what he’s getting at. 2) And I would like you to understand Edwards’ position on the will which is the commonly held view by many Calvinists. Edwards is obviously not without critique, especially on his speculations about the Fall. But some Reformed people also disagree with him on Free Will, claiming that his view is too mechanistic and deterministic. His discussion clarifies many things for me and from the people I benefited from, who are mentioned above, I’ve not read their criticism on Edwards beside his speculations on the Fall. I mention this so that you know that not every Calvinist agrees with Edwards, though a majority does. Some resources on this subject are found at Reformed Books Online.

In the following sections, we will try to lay some things concerning man’s will in the four states, from innocence until glory.

§1 God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice

God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. 1
1. Matt. 17:12; James 1:14; Deut. 30:19^[1]

The will of man, by definition and nature, is endued...with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice. This is also one of those things which set us apart from the lower creation. Paragraph 1 does not speak about Adam’s will before the Fall; paragraph 2 will do that. Rather, in paragraph 1, the will of man is spoken of generally without reference to it being enslaved to righteousness or sin. It is by nature free. What does this freedom consist of? That is is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil. Man is not a robot as many non-Calvinists like to caricature Calvinism. No one has done something because they were forced by God in their wills to do so. Rather, they...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 36,948 views | 75,562 words | 6:40:27 hours | 04 March 2015 21:39

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Exposition Reformed Baptist Chapter 8 Christ The Mediator Prophet Priest King Definite Redemption Limited Atonement Arminianism Universal Atonement Hypostatic Union Humanity Of Christ God-Man

...:28). The problem for the Arminian view of the atonement is that it has Christ dying in the same way for both elect and reprobate. In the non-Calvinistic view, the atonement does not provide the condition for its enjoyment, namely, faith. According to the non-Calvinistic view, the Lord Christ on the cross bore the sins and took the place of the reprobates even as He took the place of those who were chosen from before the foundation of the earth. Alas! Even though the Lord died in the same way for the elect as well as the reprobates, one group will believe but the other will not. It is obvious that in this scheme the deciding factor does not lie with the Lord, but with the Free Will of man. The atonement is not effectual in and of itself, but requires the assistance of man. Even if a reply would come to us that the faith of man will count only for 1% or even less, the fact is clear: without that 1%, the atonement, which was made on your behalf, is useless. Furthermore, this atonement does not provide the condition for its enjoyment but leaves that to the wretched sinner himself.

Dr. Owen in his own words:

The very phrases of “dying for us,” “bearing our sins,” being our “surety,” and the like, whereby the death of Christ for us is expressed, will not stand with the payment of a ransom for all. To die for another is, in Scripture, to die in that other’s stead, that he might go free; as Judah besought his brother Joseph to accept of him for a bondman instead of Benjamin, that he might be set at liberty, Gen. 44:33, and that to make good the engagement wherein he stood bound to his father to be a surety for him. He that is surety for another (as Christ was for us, Heb. 7:22), is to undergo the danger, that the other may be delivered...And this plainly is the meaning of that phrase, “Christ died for us;” that is, in the undergoing of death there was a subrogation of his person in the room and stead of ours...But concerning the word ἀντί, which also is used, there is no doubt, nor can any exception be made; it always signifieth a commutation and change, whether it be applied to things or persons: so Luke 11:11, Ὄφις ἀντὶ ἰχθύος, “A serpent instead of a fish;” so Matt. 5:38, Ὀφθαλμὸς ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ “An eye for an eye;” so Heb. 12:16; — and for persons, Archelaus is said to reign ἀντὶ Ἡρώδου τοῦ πατρός, “instead of his father,” Matt. 2:22. Now, this word is used of the death of our Saviour, Matt. 20:28, “The Son of man came δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν,” — which words are repeated again, Mark 10:45, — that is, to give his life a ransom in the stead of the lives of many. So that, plainly, Christ dying for us, as a surety, Heb. 7:22, and thereby and therein “bearing our sins in his own body,” 1 Pet. 2:24, being made a curse for us, was an undergoing of death, punishment, curse, wrath, not only for our good, but directly in our stead; a commutation and subrogation of his person in the room and place of ours being allowed, and of God accepted.^[56] (Book III, chapter 10)

If these things are true, how can it be said that Christ died in the stead of all men without exception? Why would God lay the sins of those whom He knew certainly to be damned upon Christ, to make Him their mediator and representative Who fails to achieve His work? Did Christ die in the stead of those who were long damned or not?

Particular Texts (Arg. XVI)

The last general argument is made by brief comments on several texts of Scripture.

Matthew 7:23

...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 3: Of God's Decree - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 30,607 views | 38,059 words | 3:19:02 hours | 04 March 2015 20:58

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 3 God's Decree Predetermination Predestination Sovereignty Compatibilism Reprobation Unconditional Election Calvinism

... moves the way it does because God from all eternity has willed that it be so. From eternity past to eternity future nothing will occur to the mind of God which He didn’t already know and ordain. He possesses all knowledge, actual and possible (chapter 2:2). The Confession doesn’t go into the Hyper-Calvinistic error of disregarding man’s will and responsibility, but rather affirms that the liberty of second cause agents (men) are established because of God’s decree. The liberty here discussed is obviously not the mythical libertarian Free Will. There is no such thing as libertarian Free Will. Libertarian Free Will says that one can go against all inclination and nature, which is impossible and ridiculous. Jonathan Edwards, in his The Freedom of the Will, shows the absurdity and impossibility of such a will. Rather, moral agency or Free Will, biblically defined, would be the freedom to do whatever one desires. The Bible speaks about a limitation upon the desires and inclinations of the natural man; this limitation is our sinful natures from which sinful actions are born. See !--cke_bookmark_600S--!--cke_bookmark_600E--chapter 9 for our discussion of man’s Free Will, moral inability, moral necessity, and libertarian Free Will.

God orders every event in such a way that He is sovereign over every step, yet at the same time, the second cause agent is not being coerced to do anything against their desire, but out their own desires and freedom carries whatever God has from all eternity decreed. We may not understand how this is done, but I believe that such is the testimony of Scripture. It is not for me to understand how the two work together, rather, it is for me to believe that it is such if I see both in Holy Writ. On a personal level, there is no truth that I cherish more than knowing the Triune God and knowing Him as the only Sovereign. It is not merely “in the head” doctrine, but it is a doctrine that I praise God for, cherish and find comfort in daily.

Some years ago, I came across the Doctrines of Grace through the Facebook page called Reformed Memes Daily and I remember seeing something from Romans 9:18. I was amazed that the Bible had such things to say and wanted to study this issue. Apparently, I had not read that passage before. It was not easy, but I promised God that I would believe anything that His Word teaches, no matter how painful. Through my study, I tried to collect as many verses as possible in regard to God’s sovereignty as are relevant and that I could find from daily Bible reading and other books. More about my journey can be read here. The document where I put these verses was the reason that this website was made; it is found here.

What I will seek to provide below is a case for God’s absolute control of everything, thus justifying paragraph 1 of this chapter. Here we will touch on issues that are relevant to chapter 5 (Of God’s Providence), but we will direct the interested reader from chapter 5 back to paragraph 1 of chapter 3. Under the section General Sovereignty, I will deal with texts which speak of God’s sovereignty over history and His counsel. Under Particular Sovereignty, I will try to deal with God’s sovereignty over specific things such as evil and human actions. By no means is this an extensive case or discussion of God’s absolute sovereignty, but I believe that it is nonetheless a decent biblical case for it.

General Sovereignty

First, let’s start with verses about God’s Lordship over the w...

A Review of RC Sproul's Willing to Believe & Thoughts on Free Will

Simon Wartanian | 7,988 views | 3,709 words | 0:19:03 hours | 22 February 2015 00:23

RC Sproul Willing To Believe The Controversy Over Free Will Free Will Predestination Election Sovereignty Compatibilism Calvinism Arminianism Pelagianism Semi-Pelagianism Augustine Martin Luther John Calvin Jonathan Edwards Book Review

...

R.C. Sproul – Willing To Believe

The Controversy Over Free Will

Although read in Dutch^[1] I’ve was motivated to get this work by watching RC Sproul’s teaching series on the book called Willing to Believe^[2]. It helped understand the issues surround the question of human freedom and sovereignty. I remember that it was not much later than that I was studying Jonathan Edwards’ The Freedom of the Will, which was somewhat difficult.

In this great work this master theologian gives a historical theological study of important theologians throughout the history of the Christian church on the question of human freedom. He goes through some Christian heroes and giants of the faith like Augustine, Edwards, Luther and Calvin. Also some who were non-Christian and anti-Christian in their theology and thinking like Charles Finney and Pelagius. Lastly, theologians who belong more to the in house debate between Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism and Calvinism, like Jacob Arminius himself.

The Pelagians

Pelagius was a British monk living in the fifth century and he is known to have a huge dispute with Augustine on the nature of man and Free Will. Pelagius reacted to a seemingly harmless prayer of Augustine which said: Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire. Harmless doesn’t it? Well, that’s not what Pelagius thought. He thought it outrages, because it showed man’s total dependence on God to graciously grant the ability to obey Him. Pelagius believed that commandment presupposes ability. What many nowadays believe. He said that God would never command something that man was not able to do. Therefore, everything that God commands man is able to do. So, away with Romans 8:7-8.

He further taught that Adam was in no sense the federal head of the human race. Adam was created mortal and would have died even if he didn’t sin. All men are born in the state that Adam was in. Adam gave man bad influence, not a sinful nature otherwise known as Original Sin.

He taught that the nature of man was basically good and that sinning didn’t effect that basic goodness of man.

Man has a Free Will to do good or evil and to obey God in all things.

Jesus’ death was not substitionary, but it was as an example for us.

People can live sinless lives, and in fact some have lived sinless lives.

The grace of God is important, but not essential. What I mean is that it would be awesome if one uses the grace of God for obedience, it will make things much easier, but it is even possible to obey without the grace of God.

This among other things are the things that he believed. I think, for any serious Bible student, they must conclude that this places him outside of Christian orthodoxy. Pelagius and his teachings were condemned in 418 and you would think that it will be the last thing heard of Pelagius, but then arises Charles Finney many centuries later in America.

Charles Finney

Charles Finney taught things very similar to Pelagius. In fact, he was more Pelagian than Pelagius.

He rejected the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which is the heart of the Gospel message.

He rejected the penal substitionary atonement of Christ in place of the believers. He posed the Governmental and Moral Influence theories of the atonement. He taught that all that was needed for conversion was good argumentation and persuasion. His influence is seen in the decisional evangelism/regeneration of our day, when people are told to make a ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 21: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 12,939 views | 6,372 words | 0:32:47 hours | 06 March 2015 19:19

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Confession Study Reformed Baptist Chapter 21 Christian Freedom Liberty Liberty Of Conscience Antinomianism

!DOCTYPE html

Chapter 21: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience

Are Christians free? How are Christians free? What does this liberty consist of? Are we free to sin?

§1 The Liberty Which Christ Hath Purchased For Believers Under The Gospel

The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and curse of the law, 1 and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, 2 from the evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation: 3 as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind. 4
All which were common also to believers under the law for the substance of them; 5 but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of a ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of. 6
1. John 3:36; Rom. 8:33; Gal. 3:13^[1]
2. Gal. 1:4; Eph. 2:1-3; Col. 1:13; Acts 26:18; Rom. 6:14-18; 8:3
3. Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 15:54-57; 1 Thess. 1:10; Heb. 2:14-15
4. Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Rom. 8:15; 1 John 4:18
5. John 8:32; Ps. 19:7-9; 119:14, 24, 45, 47, 48, 72, 97; Rom. 4:5-11; Gal. 3:9; Heb. 11:27, 33-34
6. John 1:17; Heb. 1:1-2a;7:19, 22; 8:6, 9:23, 11:40; Gal. 2:11f.; 4:1-3; Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 10:19-21; John 7:38-39

The freedom and liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in the freedom from the dominion of sin, the punishment for sin and the free access (Eph. 2:18; 3:12), which we received through Christ, to God. Furthermore, our obedience to God and His commandments is not out of slavish fear (1John 4:18), but a child-like love and willing mind (Rom. 8:14-15). We obey because we love our Father and not because we are afraid of how He might punish us. In our obedience there is reverence, but no fear of punishment or condemnation. All these things were common also to believers under the law although those living under the law were still under the yoke of a ceremonial law (e.g. Col. 2:16-17), which believers under the New Testament are not. With the doing away of the ceremonial law, we have a greater boldness of access to the throne of grace (Heb. 4:16) now that we know what Christ has accomplished and what it means for us. The Spirit of God is more fully communicated to us with His gifts and graces than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of (John 7:38-39). There are no believers without the Holy Spirit, but under the New Testament, there is a fuller communication of the free Spirit of God.

The Children Of God Are Freed From

Oh, brothers and sisters, how thankful should we be to our Lord for the many liberties which He has blessed us with as His children. The Confession mentions ten things which we have been freed from. As His children and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, we are slaves to no one, but God. Paradoxically, true freedom comes from slavery to none other than Christ. We belong to Him and we are called to walk in freedom (Gal. 5:1). We are under grace and are free, but our freedom does not consist in doing our own will, but the will of the Father and seeking His good p...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 19: Of the Law of God - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 34,287 views | 77,737 words | 6:42:45 hours | 05 March 2015 19:46

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 19 Law Of God Law Of Moses Law Of Christ Moral Law Decalogue Ten Commandments Thomas Watson John Calvin Robert Dabney Westminster Standards Catechism Civil Law Judicial Law Ceremonial Law Threefold Division Of The Law

!DOCTYPE html

Chapter 19: Of the Law of God

Introduction

What is the relationship between the Christian and the Law? Do we have to obey the Law? What is the threefold division of the law? Are we saved by the Law? What are the threefold uses of the Law? What is the moral law and is it binding on all people? What are the Ten Commandments? Were the Ten Commandments known before Sinai? What is the relationship between the believer and the Ten Commandments? What is the doctrine of the Law and the gospel?

There is a lot of work to be done in this chapter and I think that this is a crucial chapter, one that I want to study myself. I do believe what is confessed here, but I do also want to be able to make a biblical case for it. The case that I will lay down is obviously convincing to me, I will not be able to address every objection that may come up. What I want to lay down here is the binding authority and nature of the Decalogue on all people, whether saved or unsaved; what the relationship of the Christian is to the Law and such questions.

Defining Our Terms

Natural Law

The Natural Law is the Law of God as revealed in creation and which man knows by virtue of the fact that he’s a creature made in the image of God (see here on the image of God). Natural Law may be discovered by reason and innate knowledge. The Reformed Baptist theologian Richard Barcellos writes the following concerning the substance and form of the Moral Law:

Protestant Scholasticism taught that the Decalogue summarily contains the Moral Law and is the inscripturated form of the natural law, as to its substance. A distinction was made between substance and form. Substance is one; form (and function) may vary. For example, when the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 98 says, “The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments,” it refers to the fact that the substance (i.e., the underlying essence) of the Moral Law is assumed and articulated in the propositions of the Decalogue as contained in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The form (and function) fits the redemptive-historical circumstances in which it was given. The substance, or underlying principles, are always relevant and applicable to man because he is created in the image of God. The application may shift based on redemptive-historical changes, such as the inauguration of the New Covenant, but its substance and utility never changes.^[1]

Moral Law

The Moral Law, on the other hand, is the Law which is revealed and summarized by God in the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue, which is the substance of the Natural Law. Richard Muller is quoted in Barcellos on the definition of the Moral Law, saying:

specifically and predominantly, the Decalogus, or Ten Commandments; also called the lex Mosaica …, as distinct from the lex ceremonialis …and the lex civilis, or civil law. The lex moralis, which is primarily intended to regulate morals, is known to the synderesis [the innate habit of understanding basic principles of moral law] and is the basis of the acts of conscientia [conscience–the application of the innate habit above]. In substance, the lex moralis is identical with the lex naturalis …but, unlike the natural law, it is given by revelation in a form which is clearer and fuller than that otherwise known to the reason.^[2]

And then Dr. Barcellos adds:

As noted above, the Moral Law is summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, not exhausted by it. Though the formal promulgation of the De...

A Review of Perspectives on the Doctrine of God

Simon Wartanian | 1,250 views | 2,894 words | 0:14:58 hours | 14 May 2022 21:35

Theology Proper Arminianism Calvinism Open Theism Review

...

This book sets to explore the doctrine of God, especially of His knowledge, immutability, and sovereignty from a Christian perspective. There are four positions, which could be sub-categorized as two Calvinist positions and two Free Will theism positions.

The classical Calvinist position

This book is a little...bittersweet. I am a Reformed Baptist and thus I agree with the classical position as articulated by Paul Helm, but I must agree with the criticism given by the other contributors that Helm’s chapter was more about predestination than about theology proper and God’s relation to the world. Helm’s claim that his position is the historical (whether true or false) was met with a lot of snarkiness and set an unprofessional tone to the book and responses, which was disappointing. Even as a Calvinist, I acknowledge that divine determinism or unconditional election is not the mainstream or default teaching of Christianity. I believe it is absolutely biblical, but it is something else to say that it is simply the default view. But were Dr. Helm’s chapter on classical theism and God’s relation to the world, then his statement would have fully been justified. The responses made even moderate statements by Dr. Helm to be absolute and extreme. This was unhelpful. Dr. Helm even spends a lot of pages preemptively responding to various views which he thought would be represented in this book. He even discusses middle knowledge and the views of William Lane Craig on that in his section on Arminianism (Arminians usually reject middle knowledge). This space could have been used to focus more on the subject of the book.

Dr. Helm focused on the A-Team—Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, and provided citations from them on their views on predestination, especially as related to Romans 9 and Ephesians 1. His claims could be perhaps substantiated by his A-team, but it was disappointing for me to think that the book would have been more upon the classical attributes such as simplicity, impassibility, immutability, divine eternity, but to find out that the bulk of his chapter was about predestination. Certainly predestination says something about God, but it seems to me to have been better to not make predestination a major point in his chapter.

The modified Calvinist position

Dr. Bruce A. Ware presents the modified Calvinist view. Dr. Ware presents a good case for his modified model, which modifies the Reformed understanding of doctrines such as divine eternity and immutability, as well as employing middle knowledge (p. 77). His modified understanding is also related to how God relates to the world. In the classic understanding, God’s relation in a sense is one-sided. It is the world that changes its relation to God, but God does not change neither acquires new relation toward the world (to protect His aseity and pure actuality). God relation to the world is a relation of reason (not a relationship, a word which classical theists are not fond of). These three doctrines are not irrelated: “Both God’s relationship to time (divine eternity) and God’s relation to change (divine immutability) need some reconsideration and reformulation to demonstrate that the God who made us chooses to live in relationship with what he has made” (pp. 85-86).

Concerning divine eternity, the classical tradition has taught that God exists outside of time and “possesses the whole of His being in one indivisible present” (Louis Berkhof). Dr. Ware suggests we und...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 36,903 views | 65,864 words | 5:42:00 hours | 04 March 2015 21:27

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 7 God's Covenant 1689 Federalism Westminster Federalism Presbyterian Covenant Theology Covenant Of Works Covenant Of Redemption Covenant Of Grace Nohaic Covenant Abrahamic Covenant Mosaic Covenant Old Covenant Davidic Covenant New Covenant

...7:14; 19:16, He directly is called the King of kings and the Lord of lords. From the Bible, we learn that God does whatever He pleases (Ps. 115:3; 135:6). God is unstoppable (Dan. 4:35; Job 42:2; Prov. 21:30; Isa. 43:13). God works all things according to His pleasure (Isa. 46:8-11; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 1:3). God is King over the world (Ps. 10:6; 29:10; 93:1; 145:13; 146:10; Isa. 33:22; Jer. 10:10; Lam. 5:19; Dan. 4:34; 6:26; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:15-16). He is sovereign over the affliction of His people (1 Pet. 3:17; 4:19; Gen. 50:20; Acts 21:11-14). He is sovereign over their adversaries and He can stop them, yet He does not. Not because He is powerless to do anything, nor because He must respect the Free Will of man or some other nonsense, no. It is because He has morally sufficient reasons to decree their sufferings. Those who suffer according to God’s will and love Him are assured that all things work together for their good (Rom. 8:28-30; Gen. 50:20).

Jesus is King Now!

Many of our Dispensational brothers and sisters will not agree with the fact that Jesus is King now upon David’s throne. Often they say that Jesus will be King finally in the Millennium where He will visibly reign. I heartily disagree and argue that Jesus reigns now as King of kings and Lord of lords and further, upon the throne of David! Jesus will not be King; He is the King.

All authority

Before His glorious ascension, the Lord Jesus tells the following to His disciples:

Matt. 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

So, why are we to go and get all the world for King Jesus? Because all authority, not only in heaven but also on this earth, is given to Him. He reigns and all things are given to Him. He, as God and Lord, is in control of all things. All authority means every single power and authority, whether in the glorious heaven or on this cursed earth is given to Him. Heaven and earth are under His power and word. The Lord Jesus, further, even before the cross, claims to already have all authority!

Matt. 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

See also: John 3:35; 5:27; 13:3; 17:2.

Not only the salvation of people is in His hands, but everything that God the Father exclusively controls (all creation) is handed over to Him! As a last example of King Jesus having all authority is a prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14.

Dan. 7:13-14 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

This concerns the ascension of our Lord when He came into Heaven again as the conquering Lord and Savior. He was rewarded by the Father for His perfect work in His humiliation on the earth and the bearing of God’s peoples’ sins upon Himself and in obeying the Father in every poi...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 17,318 views | 7,955 words | 0:42:14 hours | 04 March 2015 21:18

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 6 Fall Of Man Sin Condemnation Total Depravity Total Inability Original Sin Federal Headship

...overeign decree, but in it. It pleased God to “permit” it, why? Because He had “purposed to order it to his own glory.” In what way? By displaying a wider range of His attributes: by putting His wrath on display and by putting His grace on display; by conquering evil and getting glory over it; by saving His elect from the world; by becoming man in the process of saving the world. All these glorious things could not have happened if God had not decreed the Fall.

The first sin may be the most difficult question to answer as to how it could have been that a perfectly good being like Adam or Satan could rebel and fall. What would cause them to do that? Free Will has no explanatory power. We do not believe that it sufficiently answers the question. That’s why the Fall and every sin needs to be recognized as ordained by God of old and is purposed to display His glory. Sin is never outside of God’s control. It is indeed mysterious why would or how would a “very good” (Gen. 1:31) creature rebel against God. I reject the notion that there is no freedom without the opposite, that is, man must have the ability to obey and disobey to be truly free (see chapter 9 on Free Will). The Persons of the Blessed Trinity have always obeyed each other and never done anything contrary, yet God is most free and sovereign. The Lord Jesus has only done what the Father pleases, but that does not mean that He is not free because He cannot but love and obey His Father.

When God created, He consciously created Adam as a type of Christ. Adam did not become a type after the Fall, or when Paul wrote Romans, but he was, in fact, created as a type, he did not become one.

Rom. 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

This would mean that Adam was created to point to Christ and display Christ. But this also means that Christ came to do that which Adam was supposed to do. When we look at what Christ accomplished, we can also look back to Adam and see what he was supposed to accomplish had he obeyed God in his time of probation. We can learn about the type from the antitype and vice-versa.

The fact that God predestines us to be holy and blameless presupposes that we would not be holy and blameless, and that God had purposed to permit the Fall. Therefore, God, before the creation of the world, predestined people to be sinless:

Eph. 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

For more on these things, see chapter 3 (God’s Decree), chapter 5 (Divine Providence) and chapter 9 (Free Will).

§2 Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness

Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: 1 all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. 2
1. Gen. 3:22-24; Rom. 5:12ff; 1 Cor. 15:22-22; Ps. 51:4-5; 58:3; Eph. 2:1-3; Gen. 8:21; Prov. 22:15
2. Gen. 2:17; Eph. 2:1; Titus 1:15; Gen. 6:5; P...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 24,849 views | 43,749 words | 3:48:12 hours | 05 March 2015 19:18

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Perseverance Of The Saints Preservation Of The Saints Assurance Of Salvation Eternal Security Apostasy Falling Away. Hebrews 6

...quo; If the Son is always obedient to the Father, will He fail at this point? Is it possible for the Son to lose those who are entrusted into His care, disobey the Father and therefore sin? We are talking here of regenerate, justified and in-Christ believers. We are not talking about those who professed to be believers and have rejected that profession. We are talking about those who have been drawn by God to the Son and they were not cast out by the Son. Is it possible for them to be lost? I don’t believe that is possible at all. The issue for me here is not at all about the supposed Free Will of man or any other thing, the issue is about the glory of God. Will Christ be disobedient to the Father and be unable to fulfill the Father’s will contrary to John 8:29? That is the issue! The focus is upon God, not man even in this subject.

4. The Son is not to lose the elect who were given by the Father, but rather He should raise them up. So, not only is the charge given to the Son that He should not lose them. Rather, the charge is given also that He should preserve them unto the last day of resurrection. This portion about perseverance is not spelled out literally in the passage, but could be seen from the fact that we are given assurance that we will not be cast out when we come to the Son, which is the beginning of salvation and the Son is given the charge to raise the elect up on the last day. What about the in-between? It seems clear to me that the Son has also received the charge to preserve them if He has received the charge to raise them up. This expression of raising up is only used in John 6:39, 40, 44, 54 and refers to the resurrection of the believers on the last day (see John 5:29; 11:24).

5. We observe also the fact that in v. 40 a mention is made about the faith of the believer. The Reformed doctrine of Perseverance does not, contrary to false caricatures, teach that the elect can do whatever they want and it doesn’t matter since they’re elect. Rather, we teach that the elect will persevere through faith as the Scriptures teach. If someone claims to be elect, but has no abiding, everyday faith in the Lord Jesus and repentance toward God, then his claim is simply false, for the fruit of election is faith and repentance. We are not saved by election, rather we are saved by faith alone in Christ. Election is merely God’s choice from all eternity to select out people whom He will in time give that faith which justifies.

6. Lastly, we see that a connection is made between v. 39 and 40 about the ones given and the ones now (present tense) believing. Those who were given by the Father in v. 39 are the ones looking (present tense) to the Son and believing (present tense) in Him. Their being given by the Father ensures that they will have abiding faith through which they will be saved. Furthermore, in v. 40 we see the free offer of the gospel. The gospel is proclaimed to all creation and everyone is called to behold and believe in the Son, knowing also from the Scriptures about the truth of Total Depravity that no one will seek the Son. But we know also that whoever looks upon the Son and believes in Him, will do so as a result of being given by the Father to the Son, and not as a result of human will or effort. Therefore, v. 40 is a call to everyone to look and believe in the Son, and not to say in the state of unbelief, “I don’t see evidence of election in me” or “I don’t think I’m elect, so it doesn’t matter”. Rather, the c...