The Staunch Calvinist

"Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God." - Jonathan Edwards


You searched for 'James White'

I've found 14 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 11: Of Justification - Commentary

...assive indicative. The reason that we love is because we were born of God. We do not become regenerate because we love. It is the opposite. See among many other places about love in John’s letter 1 John 4:8-12. Love is the effect, not the cause of regeneration.

Now we come back to 1 John 5:1. I believe that we have successfully argued from the similar use of the Greek construction in other passages by John that being “born of God” precedes and results in that one “believes that Jesus is the Christ”. 1 John 5:1 is definite and explicit upon the teaching that regeneration precedes faith.

See Dr. James White, 1 John 5:1, We are Born Again Then We Believe and 1 John 5:1, Regeneration, Faith, and Tradition Driven Eisegesis.

The Analogy and Other Considerations

The prime text for regeneration is John 3 and that is our Lord’s discourse with Nicodemus. There the Lord tells Nicodemus that he must be born again (John 3:3). What does that analogy mean? I believe it is the fulfillment of the promised New Covenant in Ezekiel 36:25-27. Regeneration is the secret act of God wherein He gives us a new heart and a new spirit. He basically makes us new creatures. That’s what regeneration is. Now, going back to the analogy. Nicodemus takes Jesus’ words in John 3:3 a little bit too literally when he says “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (John 3:4). But Nicodemus’s words express some important things. Although he misunderstood the nature of the new birth, his objection stands. His objection is basically, how can anyone cause himself to be born again? How can he enter into the womb and will himself to be born? Just like with our natural birth, we had nothing to do with it. In all of it, we were passive. We were conceived by our parents without our will being involved and we were born without our will being involved (cf. John 1:12-13). Now we transition to the spiritual realm. Those who believe that faith precedes regeneration would have us believe that people can choose to be spiritually reborn. The problem with this is the testimony of the Bible about unregenerate man’s condition:

  • dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13),
  • hates God (Rom. 1:30),
  • slave to sin and Satan (John 8:34-36, 44; Eph. 2:2-3; 2 Tim. 2:25-26; Rom. 6:16-17; Titus 3:3),
  • does not seek God (Rom. 3:11),
  • cannot believe in God (John 10:24-26; 12:37-41; ),
  • cannot come to Christ (John 6:44),
  • the desires and intentions of his heart are evil (Gen. 6:5; 8:21),
  • deceitful and desperately sick heart (Jer. 17:9),
  • all things he does are sinful (Rom. 14:23; Isa. 64:6),
  • cannot accept the things of the Spirit and is unable to understand (1 Cor. 2:14),
  • darkened in his understanding (Eph. 4:17-19),
  • cannot please God (Rom. 8:5-8).

You can find more verses in this Scripture List of Total Depravity or see chapter 6 of the Confession. This is a summary and not an exhaustive list of the biblical testimony about fallen man. 

Now back to the new birth. Those who believe that faith precedes regeneration must first deal with the explicit passages which deny that fallen man can do anything spiritually positive (e.g., Col. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-8; John 6:44). The question we must ask is, “Does God delight and is He pleased with repentance?” and then the negation of that in Romans 8:7-8. Fallen man, says Paul cannot—does not have the ability—to please God and submit to His Law. Is loving God above all else and your neig...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures - Commentary

...light of this, it is easy to see how textual variants have crept into the NT text. These textual variants are not hidden from the public but are well known. Most New Testament scholars know these variants and have a plausible explanation for how they might have crept into the text. But the fact remains, as Dan Wallace says, that although we have some errors (i.e. textual variants), we still have the original words there. It is like a puzzle of 1000 pieces, but we have 1100 pieces. You cannot go wrong. Furthermore, and contrary to popular opinion, these textual variants are insignificant and do not affect the doctrines of the New Testament. For more on this stuff check out Daniel Wallace and James White (his book The King James Only Controversy is likewise good) on YouTube.

Returning back to our discussion of inerrancy, we said that the original autographs are what were infallible, not the extant copies. But all scholars admit that the original autographs are no longer with us. Therefore, is it not a waste of time to talk about the inerrancy of Scripture? That will stand only on the supposition that the originals vary radically from the extant manuscripts, which is false. As we said above, we have not lost the original reading of the New Testament because when copies were made, the manuscripts from which the copies were made, were obviously not destroyed. So, although the scribe may have made some mistakes in his copy, we have not lost anything from the original text, but we have gained some textual variants. In other words, what we have is not 900 pieces for a 1000 piece puzzle, but 1100 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle. There is not a loss of data to the NT, but an addition of data, which means that the original is still in the body of New Testament manuscripts. Using various criteria of authenticity scholars are able to determine which readings belonged to the original writers of Scripture. There is not a variant which affects any doctrine of the New Testament. Therefore, the Christian should not be afraid to believe in the complete truthfulness of Scripture. Dr. Greg Bahnsen, in a very fine article, writes that

restricting inerrancy to the autographa enables us to consistently confess the truthfulness of God – and that is quite important indeed!  Inability to do so would be quite theologically damaging.  Only with an inerrant autograph can we avoid attributing error to the God of truth.  An error in the original would be attributable to God Himself, because He, in the pages of Scripture, takes responsibility for the very words of the biblical authors.  Errors in copies, however, are the sole responsibility of the scribes involved, in which case God’s veracity is not impugned.[5]

In light of this all, the infallibility of Scripture is that none of the inspired writers of Scripture affirmed or taught in their writings that which is false and contrary to fact. In other words, everything that they wrote down was completely true. This does not mean that the Bible is in error when it describes things from the observer’s point of view (e.g., the sun rising), or it rounds numbers, approximations and so on. Likewise, grammatical precision is not required by the doctrine of infallibility. Some statements may be grammatically inaccurate, though still communicate truth. It is not a problem or a challenge to the doctrine of inerrancy when the New Testament loosely quotes or alludes to the Old, without being precise, as we in the modern ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 2: Of God and of the Holy Trinity - Commentary

... word to use is still person with caveats and an explanation of what we mean by it. We do not mean “person” in the sense which is common to man. When we speak of “person,” we imagine people before us. This is not what the word means when used in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, by “person” we mean a distinct self-consciousness, will, and existence. The Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. All three have a distinct self-consciousness. They communicate with each other with “I” and “you,” which implies a separate identity and consciousness. 


James White defines the Trinity as:

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[32]

This definition is pretty basic and understandable. There is a distinction between the Being of God (what?) and the persons of God (who?). Wayne Grudem defines the Trinity thus:

God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.[33]

Simply said: God is one essence in three PersonsThere is One Being of God which is shared by three co-equal and co-eternal Persons. God is one in and three in B. The words Being and Person are not synonymous and they refer to different things concerning God, as explained above. Furthermore, the English word “Trinity”, originally from Latin, which is a word not found in the Bible, but what it teaches is all over the Bible, means “three-in-oneness.” The word Trinity contains in it both the three-ness and the one-ness of God. God is just one Being, but His existence is complex. This one Being exists as three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

To establish the doctrine of the Trinity as biblical, 4 things must be proven:

  1. The Father is Fully God;
  2. The Son is Fully God;
  3. The Spirit is Fully God;
  4. Monotheism – There is but one God.

As an extra, if it is not clear from the first four points, we add the distinction between the Persons of the Godhead.

The Deity of the Three Persons

In this paragraph, I am merely scratching the surface of what Christian theology since the resurrection has said on the doctrine of the Trinity. This is merely an introduction to the mysterious and glorious doctrine of the Trinity.

The Father is God

This is the easiest. No major non-Trinitarian group seems to deny the deity of the Father. Countless times is God the Father called God in the New and Old Testaments.

Phil. 1:2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Eph. 1:3 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, 

1 Cor. 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. 

John 6:27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 

Since this point is not controversial, we will be content with the little out of the many that is provided here.

The Son is God

John 1:1

Here is where the controversy starts. Heretics have oftentimes denied the full deity of the Blessed Son or have taught that He is not equal with the Father. There is no place where the deity of Christ is better taught than the gospel of Jo...

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


The point is, He was fully divine.

His self-emptying was not by laying aside His divinity, but rather as the text tells us—He emptied Himself by becoming man—by becoming one of the creatures that He Himself made. That is the humility of the Creator. The Creator entered His own creation and communicated with it. This is glorious. This humbling also manifested itself in His complete obedience to the will of God the Father (economic Trinity) to die on the cross. He went there like an obedient servant of God. Jesus was at the same time both God and the servant of God. This may sound a bit weird, but think about what Dr. James White has often said: if God becomes man would He be an atheist or an agnostic? Obviously, if God were to become man, He would be a believer. Furthermore, Christianity does not teach Unitarianism, but Trinitarianism as we sought to prove in chapter 2, which means that there are three distinct Persons within the One Being of God. Thus when the Lord Jesus would pray, His human side is not praying to His divine side, rather, He is communicating with and praying to the Father and the Spirit.

Because of His perfect obedience to the Father according to the Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity in eternity past (see chapter 7), the Father has been pleased to put His beloved Son on display. Everything that the Father demands of people they are also to do to His Son (John 5:23), so as to display the equality in the Trinity. The promise that every tongue will confess and every knee will bow comes from the Old Testament where the One speaking is Yahweh and He is demanding that for Himself (Isa. 45:23), therefore proving that Jesus is, in fact, Yahweh as Yahweh is the name of the divine Being as I sought to prove in chapter 2.

Therefore, in this passage, we see the beautiful truth of our Lord’s incarnation, His eternal divinity, and His humanity.

John 1:1, 14

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This passage is likewise glorious as Philippians 2. It points us to the divinity of Christ and also of Him taking on of flesh. Verse 1 is one of the clearest proofs of the Lord Jesus’ divinity. It is pretty straightforward and clear. It is good to understand that the first part of verse 1 speaks of the eternality of the Logos. The word ἦν (én, G2258) refers to a point even further back than “the beginning”. It is saying that even in the beginning, i.e., the beginning of time, space and matter, the Word “was.” Meaning, that the Word did not start at the beginning, rather even at the beginning He already existed. The Son of God existed from all eternity, indeed as John 17:5 testifies. See chapter 2 for our discussion of this passage. Albert Barnes infers from the first part the eternality of the Word:

In the beginning - This expression is used also in Gen 1:1. John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to “the Word” an expression which is there applied “to God.” In both places it clearly means before creation, before the world was made, when as yet there was nothing. The meaning is: that the “Word” had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which “became” a man, or was incarnate, Joh 1:14. The Hebrews, by expressions like ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 29: Of Baptism - Commentary

...m Ephesians 2:13 where they are so designated. The gospel came to the Gentiles through Peter in chapter 10 and they were baptized after they received the Spirit (Acts 10:44-48). This promise is available not only to Jews but also to Gentiles. There is a beautiful prophecy in Zechariah which speaks of “those who are far off shall come and help to build the temple of the LORD” (Zech. 6:15). The Gentiles along with the Jews will help to build the temple of God because they have become one in Christ. They are “being joined together” and growing “into a holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2:21; 1 Pet. 2:5).

Then there is the controlling clause which, as Dr. James White often says, we as Calvinists should directly recognize and see the sovereignty of God in it: “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts 2:39). This is the controlling phrase in Acts 2:38-39. It is also the limiting phrase for the identification of “you and...your children and...all who are far off”. It is God Who calls His people to Himself. They do not call themselves, but it is God Who effectually calls them to salvation by His Spirit. The “you”, the “your children” and the “far off” who will, in fact, receive the promise of the Holy Spirit are the ones whom “the Lord our God calls to himself.” This is the controlling phrase in the passage by which we may know what is meant by “you and for your children and for all who are far off”. This is the powerful call of God by which we are born again. This call of God is “by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ” as our Confession says (10:1; identical in Westminster 10:1). It is not an outward call merely. But it is a powerful and regenerating work which ingrafts one not merely in an outward visible membership, but into the heart of the New Covenant and the invisible church.

We do not deny that, often, children raised in Christian homes come to faith early on. Some get baptized before adulthood, I do not see a problem in that. But the fact is, they get baptized because they show signs of faith and signs of repentance, not because their parents are Christian and not because of a theology of “covenant children.” They get and they should get baptized because they are believers. The parents and the elders should see if it’s proper to baptize young people, but this is very different from baptizing an infant who knows nothing of the gospel on the basis of their parents’ faith. Baptism, in the New Testament, is an expression of one’s own faith (e.g., 1 Pet. 3:21, see also above on its significance).

It is interesting that this controlling clause, which restricts those who are called from the “you”, the “your children” and the “far off”, is treated as non-existent by an eminent exegete as John Calvin, although he is so bold to declare that “This place, therefore, doth abundantly refute the manifest error of the Anabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of the faithful, to be baptized, as if they were not members of the Church.”[20] No, brother John, it does not refute the Baptists, but now you know better. All the attempts to suppor...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 26: Of the Church - Commentary

... coming of the Spirit. But, this idea of a church was not unique to the New Covenant as Israel itself is often called a church in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word qahal is the equivalent of ekklesia in the Greek which is used in Matthew 16:18. See Acts 7:38 where Stephen speaks of “the church in the wilderness” (KJV). Christ’s Church is uniquely His and consists of His elect, beloved from eternity and drawn together in love.

For those who want to know more about the Papacy, the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and its understanding by the early church fathers, I recommend Dr. James White’s debate vs Father Mitch Pacwa. It is a very insightful and respectful debate.

The Whole Number Of The Elect

The Confession claims that the universal and invisible church “consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ” which undoubtedly includes believers prior to the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. But how is this the case? As we have argued and tried to show in chapter 7 on Covenant Theology, the Covenant of Grace, in 1689 Federalist understanding, is the New Covenant in promise form. It was not a formal covenant as the others were. The fact that all the saints, both prior to the physical coming of Christ and after the coming, are included in the universal church is seen in Hebrews 12:22-24. Here, the church on earth joins with the church in heaven. In worship, we come to the assembly or the church “of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven”. John Gill comments on this passage:

the church of God, consisting of all his elect, both Jews and Gentiles, and the meeting of them together: they met together, in the infinite mind of God, from all eternity; and in Christ, their head and representative, both then and in time; and at the last day, when they are all gathered in, they will meet together personally; and a joyful meeting it will be; and a very general one, more so than the assembly of the Jews, at any of their solemn feasts, to which the apostle may have some respect; since this will consist of some of all nations, that have lived in all places, and in all ages of time[8]

If it was the blood of Christ which saved all saints, in all ages and under all the covenants, then they belong to Christ and His assembly. He is their Mediator and He is the Mediator of only one covenant, the New Covenant in His blood. If He stood for them before God, He stood as the Mediator of the New Covenant or the Covenant of Grace on their behalf. Therefore, they had to be members of the New Covenant or people who have been chosen to be in the New Covenant for Christ to represent them. This was, in fact, the covenant that the believers under the Old Testament were called into (Heb. 9:15-17; see here also). Dr. Sam Waldron observes that

the church is the climactic earthly expression of the people of God. Thus language is frequently used which equates the church with all those in union with Christ. The church is the body and bride of Christ (Eph. 1:22; 4:11-16; 5:23-27, 29, 32; Col. 1:18, 24). Furthermore, the bride of Christ is composed in the last day of the saved from every age (Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:9-14; note also Matt. 8:11-12; John 10:14-17; Heb. 11:39-40). Thus the church will one day be composed of all the redeemed. As the people of God, the church does consist ‘of the whole number of the elect’.[9]

That the universal church consists of the elect may be seen in a few...

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

...pon the world in general. I thought that God was sovereign over salvation, but not so sovereign over everything outside of election. That was indeed a great inconsistency and error, but somehow election was easier to believe as I understood human depravity from the Scriptures. In laying a case for eternal unconditional election, it is not my goal to answer every objection brought against the doctrine or use every verse that supports the doctrine. But I will try, by the grace of God, to make a biblical case for Unconditional Election. Here are some more definitions of this doctrine. Dr. James White says:

God elects a specific people unto Himself without reference to anything they do. This means the basis of God’s choice of the elect is solely within Himself: His grace, His mercy, His will. It is not man’s actions, works, or even foreseen faith, that “draws” God’s choice. God’s election is unconditional and final.[20]

David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, and S. Lance Quinn define the doctrine of election as:

God’s choice of certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause, of God’s choice. Election, therefore, was not determined by, or conditioned upon, any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus, God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.[21]

The T Is First

In formulating the Doctrines of Grace or the Five Points of Calvinism, the Calvinists actually formulated these in answer to the five points of Arminianism. The five points stand and fall together. They are interconnected and dependent upon each other. Although some may object to the terms used, all the doctrines of the five points are indeed biblical, we believe. The five points are known with the acrostic TULIP:

  1. Total Depravity (see chapter 6)
  2. Unconditional Election
  3. Limited Atonement (see our case in chapter 8)
  4. Irresistible Grace (see chapter 10)
  5. Perseverance of the Saints (see chapter 17)

There is a logical direction toward which these doctrines move. First, people are depraved, cut off from the life of God and are unable to come to Him. That’s the way that God sees them and He has chosen them as fallen sons in Adam. That is unconditional election. Then comes the Son who pays their debt. The Spirit applies the work of the Son and they are kept forever for and by God. Total Depravity is defined as:

Because of the Fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free; it is in bondage to his evil nature. Therefore, he will not –indeed, he cannot—choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ. Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not salvation, but itself a part of God’s gift of salvation. It is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.[22]

The five points go from one who is utterly, radically depraved, to on...

A Short Review of Sam Waldron's Modern Exposition of 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith


Introduction to the Confession

It was a while back that I somehow came into contact (I don't remember how, maybe through James White?) with the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and I found myself at home in it. Though I did not study it very deeply. This time I have taken the time to go through it with Sam Waldron which I though he did a very good job.

Introduction to Covenant Theology

Before beginning my study of the confession, through a brother I got into the subject of Baptist Covenant Theology, I got the work of Pascal Denault The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology and Waldron's A Reformed Baptist Manifesto. Sometime later I got the recent Recovering a Covenantal Heritage volume. I have been more and more interested in this stream of Reformed Theology.

Introduction to Baptistic Convictions & Calvinism

I first became baptistic simply through reading the New Testament and finding no evidence of any infant baptism. I was baptized in the Armenian Church as an infant and was attending a Baptist church in Holland and was convinced that my baptism was no baptism. So on 14-06-2013[1] I was baptized after a profession of faith. At that time I was in the process of studying the Doctrines of Grace. Sometime later, by the grace of God I came to embrace and glory in them.

The Confession

The first and foremost thing that I love about this Confession is it's high, high, high view of God's sovereign freedom. I love it and that is exactly how I believe that God is, the Sovereign King over every molecule. 
I love the fact of the Baptists' deep commitment to the truth and the sole authority of the Bible and their appeal to the Bible. I could not really find any disagreements with the Confession, so I feel home in it and I'm not ashamed to identify myself as a Reformed Baptist.

What I loved about Dr Waldron's work is his way of explaining the Confession and going through the biblical evidence (as I have been reading Grudem, I would have loved it if Dr Waldron would cite portions of the passages that he was using as proof, rather most of the time, only references were given).

When I started studying the Confession I didn't realizes that a confession is actually a Systematic Theology! :)

Dr Waldron explained things very well, I especially liked his extensive treatment of chapters 29 (Of Baptism), 31 (of the state of man after death and of the resurrection of the dead) and 32 (Of the last judgment). There he interacted with the other side and provided some answers. With the explanations he went also through more detail.

During my study of the 1689 I left some comments about my thoughts on each paragraph that can be viewed here: 

Also I have opened a new section wherein I try to go in detail to explain why I agree with the formulation of doctrines in the 1689. The section is found here: 

Few minor problems with the book

One thing that was frustrating me, was the load of typos there. It's not that I'm a grammar nazi, but the quality of the work is so great that the multitude of the typos, wrong headings above pages (pages 103, 381), no spacing between words, wrong numeration really were the only downside, which could have been prevented. Hopefully, they will update it in the future, otherwise we'll just have to wait for James Renihan's exposition of the 16...

John Owen's Case For Particular Atonement

.... He is said to deliver us from “the present evil age” and not to try to deliver us by the self-giving of Himself for our wickedness (Gal. 1:4). Well…did He or did He not? Not only do we see the intention of the atonement in Scripture, but also its effects and application, which correspond to the intention of God in it.

The Work of the Trinity

Secondly, he enquires about the intention of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity in the work of redemption. What did the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit plan to accomplish through the death of Christ? This is still how many Calvinists at the present time argue for Definite Redemption (i.e. James White). What effect did God want the atonement to have, and is He able to bring it to pass?

  • God the Father (book I, chap. 3):
    1. “The sending of his Son into the world for this employment”:
      • John 3:16-17; 5:37; 10:36;  Rom. 8:3-4; Gal. 4:4-5; Isa. 19:20; 48:16.
      • An authoritative imposition of the office of Mediator:
        • Purpose: Ps. 2:7-8; 110:1, 4; Heb. 1:2; Rom. 1:4; 8:29.
        • Inauguration: John 5:22; Acts 2:36; Heb. 3:1-6; Dan. 9:24 [“anointing of the most Holy”]; Matt. 3:15-17; Heb. 10:5; 1:3; 2:7-8; Matt. 28:18; Phil. 2:9-11.
      • “entering into covenant and compact with his Son concerning the work to be undertaken”:
        • The Father’s promise to assist the Son in the accomplishment of redemption: Isa. 63:8-9; Zech. 13:7; Isa. 63:2-3 and 53:4-5; 49:2-3; Ps. 2:2, 4, 6; 118:22-23; Matt. 21:42; Isa. 28:16; Matt. 21:44.
        • The Father’s promise of “a happy accomplishment and attainment of the end of his great undertaking”: Isa. 49:5-6, 6-12; 53:10-12.
    2. “laying the punishment due to our sin upon him”:
      • Zech. 13:7; Matt. 26:31; Isa. 53:4, 6, 10; 2Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13.
  • God the Son (book I, chap. 4):
    1. The “agent in this great work”:
      • Heb. 5:6-7; Matt. 3:17; John 4:34; 6:38; 17:4; Luke 2:49.
    2. The Incarnation:
      • John 1:14; Gal. 4:4; 1Tim. 3:16 KJV; Heb. 2:13-14.
    3. His Sacrifice:
      • Heb. 9:14; Rev. 1:5; Eph. 5:25-26; Dan. 9:26 KJV [“but not for himself”]; John 17:19; Rom. 5:6; John 1:29; Isa. 53:7; John 10:17-18; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2; 1Pet. 2:24; Heb. 1:3; Matt. 26:28.
    4. His Intercession:
      • Ps. 2:8; John 14:2-3; Heb. 9:11-12, 24; 1John 2:1-2; John 17:9; 11:42; Heb. 7:25; Rom. 8:33-34; John 17:24; Heb. 10:14.
  • God the Holy Spirit (book I, chap. 5):
    1. The Incarnation of the Son:
      • Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35.
    2. The Sacrifice of the Son:
      • Heb. 9:14; Rom. 1:4; 1Pet. 3:18.
    3. The Resurrection of the Son:
      • Rom. 8:11.

Some of the proof-texts provided may be strange and that’s why they have to be read as Dr. Owen explains them and thereby we will be able to see the reasonableness of using these references. I have tried to provide most if not all the references he provides.

We see that in this inquiry, Dr. Owen tries to establish the purpose and work of the Trinity in the plan of redemption. Thereby we can establish what the purpose of God is. Each Person of the Trinity has a unique role in the work of redemption, to the glory of the Triune God.

Sacrifice and Intercession

In chapters 7-9 of the first book, Dr. Owen deals with a most important and neglected point about this discussion, namely, the relation of the intercession of Christ to His sacrifice. For whom does Christ intercede? We Calvinists ...

Unconditional Election, Sovereign Grace - Scripture List

..., despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

2Pet 1:1-2 Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained[7] a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

This content is taken from this document

[1] James White, The Potter’s Freedom (New Revised Edition 2009) p. 39

[2] “The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented” Ed. 2, pp. 6.

[3] C.f. Ps 41:9

[4] C.f. 1Kg 22:1, Mal 1:2

[5] C.f. Isa 65:1


  • G2975 λαγχάνω lagchano (lang-khan’-o) v.
  • 1. to lot, i.e. determine (by implication, receive) especially by lot
  • [a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is only used as an alternate in certain tenses]
  • KJV: his lot be, cast lots, obtain
  • Jonathan Kristen Mickelson’s Enhanced Strong’s Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries. Taken from the Bible software The Word.

[8] Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved..