“There is no contradiction here, ‘as if God should will the damnation and salvation of Judas both at one time,’ for Preston is adamant that ‘it is most possible for a man to will and nill one and the same thing upon the same object if it be in different respects’” [Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 133; John Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” page 422. A Note from Jonathan Moore: “Preston has implicitly adopted Harsnett’s interpretation (Arminian) of 1 Timothy 2:4 over against that of Perkins (particularist, Calvinist].
I do not like contradictions. The word “contradiction” itself comes from two words, “contra” (against) and “diction” (speaking). To “contradict” something is to “speak against” it, whatever the thing may be. For example, to say that “I DO like chocolate” and then turn around and say “I DO NOT like chocolate” is to speak against the previous statement, “I do like chocolate.”
Contradictions, then, are illogical; and the only thing that can resolve paradoxes (or contradictions) is to qualify the opposites. For example, let’s look at the example from above:
“I do like chocolate”
AND
“I do not like chocolate”
How do we resolve the contradiction here? We qualify the terms:
“I do like chocolate IN THE SUMMERTIME”
And
“I do not like chocolate IN THE WINTER”
The resolution is not the best one, but it is a good idea of how to resolve the contradiction (by stating seasons in which chocolate is favorable and seasons in which chocolate is not favorable).
Taking this concept into John Preston’s theology, we can see that he is right when he says that “it is most possible for a man to will and nill ONE AND THE SAME THING upon the same object IF IT BE IN DIFFERENT RESPECTS.” What Preston is saying here is, “Qualify the contradictory phrases”!
Preston then provides an example for us:
“A father will not have his son drunk, if he tie him up in a chamber he will not be drunk, yet he will not take such a course, though he hath a will his son should not be drunk, so God though HE DO WILL THAT MEN SHOULD BELIEVE AND REPENT AND BE SAVED, yet HE WILL NOT BE SAID TO USE ALL MEANS FOR THE EFFECTING OF IT IN ALL MEN, because He will glorify his justice as well as his mercy” (Moore, 133; Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” page 422).
There are problems with Preston’s statement here. First, the example never tells us why the father does not lock the son up in a chamber to prevent his drunkenness. Preston gives us no reason why; but when it gets to God not saving everyone, Preston provides an answer: “He will glorify his justice as well as his mercy.”
Next, in his statement on God, we see that, although God is responsible for making men and women come to faith, He will not effectually draw all to faith. And why?
“Because he will glorify his justice as well as mercy.”
In short, God has a “greater good” to which He has committed Himself, apart from the salvation of the world: that is, to display His justice.
But if God “must” display His justice with the damnation of many lives only God could have saved, then what about Calvary? Wasn’t the Atonement the ULTIMATE display of God’s justice and mercy? Didn’t God fully pour out His wrath on Christ on the Cross?
What does John tell us about Christ’s atonement?
“For God DID NOT SEND HIS SON INTO THE WORLD THAT HE MIGHT CONDEMN THE WORLD, but that THE WORLD MIGHT BE SAVED THROUGH HIM” (John 3:17, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
So God sent the Son into the world with the intention of saving every creature. John is clear when he says that the purpose for Christ’s coming was not “that He might condemn the world.” God had no purpose of condemning anyone in Christ; therefore, the reason why anyone is condemned is because they do not believe in Christ (John 3:18).
And what about Paul’s words in Romans, which state that because of Christ’s righteousness “there is life-giving justification FOR EVERYONE” (Rom. 5:18, HCSB)? Or Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians that the message of reconciliation states that “in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, NOT COUNTING THEIR TRESPASSES AGAINST THEM” (2 Cor. 5:17)? If God sent Christ so that He could forgive the world of its trespasses, then doesn’t this mean that God has provided a way for every single soul to be saved, should he or she believe on Christ’s name?
The Scriptures portray a different God than does John Preston’s theology; rather, Preston’s theology doesn’t accurately portray the God of the Bible. If God has provided a way for the world to be saved, and His desire in sending Christ was to purchase the salvation of every single person, then how could God turn around and decide not to save every person? The problem with Preston’s theology is that he refuses to give up his Calvinism, with its doctrines of irresistible grace and unconditional election. As a result, he now has to come up with an answer for why the atonement “was not enough” to save the world---why, instead, the world now needs to see the damnation of souls to comfort the elect in their salvation. But doesn’t this provide “an addendum to Calvary?”
I shudder to think that the work of Christ on the cross was not enough to save every single person in the world. The Lord makes it very clear in His Word that He never created hell for any human, but the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). If this is true, then God has never outright intended to damn anyone apart from their rejection of Christ’s atonement and saving grace. God didn’t do a half-job at the Cross; rather, He completely purchased the redemption of the world. He has already judged the world for its sin in Adam; now, He need only judge the world for its rejection of the purchased salvation in Christ.
Showing posts with label John Preston. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Preston. Show all posts
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Revealed and Secret Wills in John Preston's Theology
For the last several posts, I have been covering John Preston and his theology, called “English Hypothetical Universalism.” Preston held to four-point Calvinism, the exception to the points being that he held to “Unlimited” instead of “Limited” atonement.
As a result of Preston’s view of unlimited atonement, his theology has been labeled that of “hypothetical universalism”: Jesus “could have” died for every person, but in actuality, He only died for the elect few.
Before I get started, I just wanna announce that I’ve added a link to a biography of John Preston as well as his works (free in the public domain) to the right hand side of the main blog page. For those who desire to do further study of Preston, please click on the link “Works of John Preston” to find all and more that you desire to know.
In this post, I wanna take a look at Preston’s view of the revealed and secret wills and how it ties in with his hypothetical universalism. Moore writes:
“Preston is well aware that he is getting himself into deep water at this point. Yet he is confident that he can make ‘stand together’ the fact that on the one hand ‘God desires that men should believe and live’ and ‘expresseth in...Scripture such an earnest desire to have men live and not die,’ while on the other hand, although ‘he hath it in his power to make them to believe...yet will not’” (Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 132).
Here’s how Preston resolves the seeming paradox in his theology:
“The parable of the prodigal son ‘expresseth how willing God is to receive Sinners.’ Secondly, ‘there is a double consideration of the will of God.’ Considered ‘simply,’ ‘God being Holy and pure must needs be delighted in the faith and repentance and obedience of his creature.’...yet THIS IS OVERRULED BY ‘A SECRET WILL OF GOD,’ WHEREBY ‘FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF’ HE HAS MERCY ON SOME AND HARDENS OTHERS. Nevertheless God does pursue the salvation of the reprobate in the free offer” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 132; John Preston, “Sermons preached before His Majestie,” page 149 and “Riches of Mercy,” page 4).
So let me get this straight: In Preston’s theology, God has both a revealed will and a secret will. The revealed will shows that God desires the salvation of every human being, but the secret will shows that God only desires the salvation of some (since He only chooses some and not all). But if this is the case, then shouldn’t the “secret” will be the “revealed” one? I mean, If God reveals truth about Himself, and He only saves some, then doesn’t that mean (in Preston’s theology) that God should sincerely reveal His desire to save some? But what about His revealed desire in the Scriptures to save “every creature” (Mk. 16:15)? If God has revealed His desire to save every person, then why is this will “hidden” and the secret will of limited atonement revealed? This seems to make the words “revealed” and “hidden” mere psychobabble, since “revealed” can mean “hidden” and “hidden” can mean “revealed” at any time.
Secondly, it seems that Preston is at a crossroads in his theology: either give up the idea of universal atonement, or give up the idea of “irresistible grace.” If Preston strongly holds to irresistible grace and God “effectually” drawing the elect, then he needs to reinterpret certain passages he held as referring to “universal atonement” as showing "limited atonement" in order to show consistency in his theology.
There are special problems I have with the secret will itself. The one main problem I have with it is tied to what I wrote above about “revealed” and “hidden”: if these two words are synonyms and are interchangeable at any time, then how can we know that what is revealed is not deceiving us? Take the Incarnation, for example. If what is “revealed” is truly that which is “hidden,” then when Jesus states “The one who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 11:9, Holman Christian Standard Bible), how can we believe Him? If Preston’s theology is right, Jesus does not reveal who the Father is; rather, the Father has a “hidden” identity. Jesus’ identity and claims to Godhood are nothing more than a “divine distraction” from the actual state of affairs. Jesus then, served as one whose identity “keeps us from finding out” the Father’s true identity. I don’t know about you, but I just refuse to believe that the Scriptures teach falsehood. I believe they teach truth in everything they report. The thought of God saying one thing but meaning something “hidden” is unsatisfactory if not downright heretical.
Preston has more to say about the salvation of some and the damnation of others...but I’ll reserve that for another post.
As a result of Preston’s view of unlimited atonement, his theology has been labeled that of “hypothetical universalism”: Jesus “could have” died for every person, but in actuality, He only died for the elect few.
Before I get started, I just wanna announce that I’ve added a link to a biography of John Preston as well as his works (free in the public domain) to the right hand side of the main blog page. For those who desire to do further study of Preston, please click on the link “Works of John Preston” to find all and more that you desire to know.
In this post, I wanna take a look at Preston’s view of the revealed and secret wills and how it ties in with his hypothetical universalism. Moore writes:
“Preston is well aware that he is getting himself into deep water at this point. Yet he is confident that he can make ‘stand together’ the fact that on the one hand ‘God desires that men should believe and live’ and ‘expresseth in...Scripture such an earnest desire to have men live and not die,’ while on the other hand, although ‘he hath it in his power to make them to believe...yet will not’” (Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 132).
Here’s how Preston resolves the seeming paradox in his theology:
“The parable of the prodigal son ‘expresseth how willing God is to receive Sinners.’ Secondly, ‘there is a double consideration of the will of God.’ Considered ‘simply,’ ‘God being Holy and pure must needs be delighted in the faith and repentance and obedience of his creature.’...yet THIS IS OVERRULED BY ‘A SECRET WILL OF GOD,’ WHEREBY ‘FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIMSELF’ HE HAS MERCY ON SOME AND HARDENS OTHERS. Nevertheless God does pursue the salvation of the reprobate in the free offer” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 132; John Preston, “Sermons preached before His Majestie,” page 149 and “Riches of Mercy,” page 4).
So let me get this straight: In Preston’s theology, God has both a revealed will and a secret will. The revealed will shows that God desires the salvation of every human being, but the secret will shows that God only desires the salvation of some (since He only chooses some and not all). But if this is the case, then shouldn’t the “secret” will be the “revealed” one? I mean, If God reveals truth about Himself, and He only saves some, then doesn’t that mean (in Preston’s theology) that God should sincerely reveal His desire to save some? But what about His revealed desire in the Scriptures to save “every creature” (Mk. 16:15)? If God has revealed His desire to save every person, then why is this will “hidden” and the secret will of limited atonement revealed? This seems to make the words “revealed” and “hidden” mere psychobabble, since “revealed” can mean “hidden” and “hidden” can mean “revealed” at any time.
Secondly, it seems that Preston is at a crossroads in his theology: either give up the idea of universal atonement, or give up the idea of “irresistible grace.” If Preston strongly holds to irresistible grace and God “effectually” drawing the elect, then he needs to reinterpret certain passages he held as referring to “universal atonement” as showing "limited atonement" in order to show consistency in his theology.
There are special problems I have with the secret will itself. The one main problem I have with it is tied to what I wrote above about “revealed” and “hidden”: if these two words are synonyms and are interchangeable at any time, then how can we know that what is revealed is not deceiving us? Take the Incarnation, for example. If what is “revealed” is truly that which is “hidden,” then when Jesus states “The one who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 11:9, Holman Christian Standard Bible), how can we believe Him? If Preston’s theology is right, Jesus does not reveal who the Father is; rather, the Father has a “hidden” identity. Jesus’ identity and claims to Godhood are nothing more than a “divine distraction” from the actual state of affairs. Jesus then, served as one whose identity “keeps us from finding out” the Father’s true identity. I don’t know about you, but I just refuse to believe that the Scriptures teach falsehood. I believe they teach truth in everything they report. The thought of God saying one thing but meaning something “hidden” is unsatisfactory if not downright heretical.
Preston has more to say about the salvation of some and the damnation of others...but I’ll reserve that for another post.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
"The Pot and the Kettle," Pt. II: John Preston's Somewhat "Hypocritical" Stance
“For according to Arminius, though God did heartily desire the conversion of such a man, and offered him al the meanes of Grace that could be, yet it is stil in the free choise of his wil to convert, or not to convert; Their onely answer here is, that seeing God hath made a Decree, that man shal be a free Agent, though he doe most earnestly desire the conversion of such and such men, yet because he cannot disannul his Decree, he doth, and must leave it to the liberty of the Creature to doe contrary to even that himselfe desires. BUT WHAT IS THIS ELSSE BUT TO PUT GOD INTO SUCH STREIGHTS AS DARIUS WAS IN, WHO WOULD FAINE HAVE SAVED DANIEL, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS DECREE HE COULD NOT?...[W]hat is this else but to attribute griefe unto God, and so to detract from his Blessednesse?” (John Preston, “Plenitudo Fontis,” pp. 9-10; quoted by Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 129).
In my last post, I focused a great deal on what Preston had to say regarding Arminius’s theology. He accuses Arminius of “limiting” God’s power and ability to achieve His purposes. I denied that this is what Arminius’s theology is actually doing and stated that God refusing to do contradictions is rather a good thing---the fact that “He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13) shows how dependable and trustworthy our God really is. The fact that He never changes is reassuring for us believers who live in an uncertain world where everything changes around us all the time. Even the psalmist wrote, “Therefore we will not be afraid, though the earth trembles and the mountains topple into the depths of the seas” (Psalm 46:2, Holman Christian Standard Bible). And why would the writer not fear? Because “God is our refuge and strength, a helper WHO IS ALWAYS FOUND in times of trouble” (Ps. 46:1). Because God is always a refuge for His own, His children know what to do when trouble hits---that is, run to the Lord, whose name is a strong tower.
In today’s post, I wanna focus on Preston’s theological hypocrisy---that is, I wanna spend time looking at Preston’s own words to show that his theology places God in as “unpopular” a light as he believed Arminius’s theology does. Truth be told, he also “limits” God in his theology as well.
Jonathan Moore writes:
“Although he [Preston] attacks Arminius for detracting from God’s blessedness by implying a frustrated will in God, Preston, INCONSISTENTLY or otherwise, IS FOUND DOING THE VERY SAME THING. He states that ‘Christ offers himselfe, we make offer of him, when we preach the Gospell, in the Sacrament he is offered, he is made like a common dole, all may come that will, and certainly all that hunger doe come.’ However, some do not respond to this offer, and to such Preston says, referring to Matthew 23:37, ‘thou art one of them, whom he would gather, and THOU WILT NOT.’...the reprobate within the visible church who reject the free offer ‘take the grace of God in vain’ by ‘FRUSTRATING THE END of’ the ‘manifestion’ of God’s riches” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 134).
Look at Preston’s words. The reprobate in the church who rejects Christ is guilty of “frustrating the end” or frustrating the goal of God’s riches of mercy. But, didn’t he say, “What is this else but to PUT GOD INTO SUCH STREIGHTS AS DARIUS WAS IN, WHO WOULD FAINE HAVE SAVED DANIEL, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS DECREE HE COULD NOT?” (quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, page 129) Didn’t he say in the quote from page 134 above that “thou art one of them, whom HE WOULD GATHER, and THOU WILT NOT”? In the Arminian system, God cannot “force” a person to be saved; but isn’t God limited as well in that sense in Preston’s theology (“he would gather, and thou wilt not”)?
In either the Arminian system or Preston’s, God still cannot coerce a person into receiving Christ. While He can certainly draw them and compel them to come to Him, He can do nothing more. Preston’s theology, in some way, becomes an indirectly “Arminian” theology, whether he realized it or not.
Preston continues:
“When we preach the Gospell, and offer Christ, we are friends of the Bridegroom: our businesse is, to present you as a pure Virgin of Christ...Christ comes and tels a man, I will have thee...I am willing to marry thee. When this is done on the holy Ghosts part, & WE ON OUR PART COME TO RESOLVE TO TAKE HIM, now the match is made betweene us, and this is faith indeed’” (quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, page 135; John Preston, “The Breast-plate,” I:197-198).
According to Preston, the Holy Ghost woos men and women, and then “we on our part” make a decision to come to Christ. Wait a minute, though! Doesn’t the Lord “irresistibly” draw some to Himself? According to Moore,
“Despite his hypothetical universalism...Preston describes the gospel promise in STRICTLY PARTICULAR TERMS. This is because PRESTON IS STILL DESIROUS TO DEFEND THE ‘IRRESISTIBLE WORKING’ OF ‘quickning Grace.’ Indeed, in the face of a rising Arminianism, Preston, in his treatise ‘Irresistiblenesse of converting Grace,’ goes so far as to say that in one sense ‘QUICKNING GRACE’ IS NOT EVEN ‘OFFERED TO ANY, BUT THOSE IN WHOM IT IS EFFECTUALL’” (Moore, 128; John Preston, “Irresistiblenesse of Converting Grace,” page 14).
The question for you, the readership, is this: how can man be responsible for failing to come to Christ if Christ draws people to Himself by “irresistible” grace?
Here’s a syllogism:
Premise #1: God draws people by irresistible grace.
Premise #2: Irresistible grace is grace that cannot be resisted.
Premise #3: No human is able to fight against such magnetic grace.
Conclusion: Those who come to Christ are “made willing” by irresistible grace.
If no human can fight irresistible grace, and God only draws some with this kind of grace, then how could the others be responsible for a grace that was never extended to them? There is only responsibility for such stubborn persons IF grace itself can be resisted, and is only “enabling” grace, not “enforcing” grace. Once again, Preston’s theology is inconsistent.
Before I continue, let me just state that no proper theology can have a grace that is BOTH irresistible and resistible at the same time. This is why believers once resisted the grace of God before salvation, and in many ways, continue to resist the grace of God in our moments of temptation and sin. While we are being daily conformed to the image of God’s Son, we still battle our human depravity, like it or not; and our human depravity influences us at times to resist God’s work in our lives. If grace were truly irresistible, sin would not be sin (rather, it would be annihilated).
In another place, Preston uses the imagery of Christ knocking on the door in Revelation 3:20---
“God awakens sinners, but what kinde of awakening is it? With such awakening that they fall asleep againe. God may send many messengers of wrath to knocke at the doore of their hearts, which perhaps disquiets and troubles them a little, but they returne to their rest againe. And this God may not onely doe outwardly, but he may cast many sparkes of his displeasure into their hearts, which may there lye glowing for a time, but they last not, they goe out in the end. And this is the condition of most men” (Moore, 136-137; John Preston, “Saints Qualification,” I:22).
But notice what he says about God and the work of the Spirit:
“But when ‘wee cannot deny his knocking at our doores, and yet wee will not come in,’ then in his wrath he will destroy such, saying ‘I WOULD HAVE PURGED THEE, and THOU WOULDEST NOT BE PURGED, therefore thou shalt never be purged till my wrath light on thee.’ It is then that ‘GOD WITH-DRAWES FROM A MAN HIS SPIRIT AND SPECIALL PROVIDENCE, BECAUSE HE LOATHES HIM’” (Moore, 137; John Preston, “Saints Qualification, I:21; this is Preston’s own translation of Ezekiel 24:13).
In Preston’s own words, God knocks at the door of every human heart; but when the person refuses to open up their heart and accept Christ, God “withdraws His Spirit...because He loathes him.” Preston makes God sound here as if He gets very angry and hurt when someone does not receive Him. Jonathan Moore says it best when he writes:
“While loathing the god of the Arminians, therefore, Preston was not afraid of almost giving THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION OF A FRUSTRATED WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” (Moore, pp. 137-138).
To sum up John Preston: on one hand he could say “the heart of every man by nature is so shut up against Christ...unless God himselfe shake off the bolts, and open the gates...we will not admit him, but keepe him out” (Moore, 138; Preston, “The Breast-plate,” I:160); but then, he could turn around and say, “open thy heart and let him in” and think nothing of it (Preston, “Riches of Mercy, pg. 177; Moore, 138).
I think Preston has shown us contradictory theology at its best. When one examines his theology, he seems to be an English Arminian who wanted to hang on to Calvinism in any form. What is most appalling about Preston’s theology is that it still exists today in four-point Calvinist and Molinist systems. Take Molinism, for example: it desires to have a genuine universal atonement, but it also includes a predetermined “unconditional” election. How there can be a genuine atonement with a cold hard predetermined election is anyone’s guess...
There is more on John Preston to come.
In my last post, I focused a great deal on what Preston had to say regarding Arminius’s theology. He accuses Arminius of “limiting” God’s power and ability to achieve His purposes. I denied that this is what Arminius’s theology is actually doing and stated that God refusing to do contradictions is rather a good thing---the fact that “He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. 2:13) shows how dependable and trustworthy our God really is. The fact that He never changes is reassuring for us believers who live in an uncertain world where everything changes around us all the time. Even the psalmist wrote, “Therefore we will not be afraid, though the earth trembles and the mountains topple into the depths of the seas” (Psalm 46:2, Holman Christian Standard Bible). And why would the writer not fear? Because “God is our refuge and strength, a helper WHO IS ALWAYS FOUND in times of trouble” (Ps. 46:1). Because God is always a refuge for His own, His children know what to do when trouble hits---that is, run to the Lord, whose name is a strong tower.
In today’s post, I wanna focus on Preston’s theological hypocrisy---that is, I wanna spend time looking at Preston’s own words to show that his theology places God in as “unpopular” a light as he believed Arminius’s theology does. Truth be told, he also “limits” God in his theology as well.
Jonathan Moore writes:
“Although he [Preston] attacks Arminius for detracting from God’s blessedness by implying a frustrated will in God, Preston, INCONSISTENTLY or otherwise, IS FOUND DOING THE VERY SAME THING. He states that ‘Christ offers himselfe, we make offer of him, when we preach the Gospell, in the Sacrament he is offered, he is made like a common dole, all may come that will, and certainly all that hunger doe come.’ However, some do not respond to this offer, and to such Preston says, referring to Matthew 23:37, ‘thou art one of them, whom he would gather, and THOU WILT NOT.’...the reprobate within the visible church who reject the free offer ‘take the grace of God in vain’ by ‘FRUSTRATING THE END of’ the ‘manifestion’ of God’s riches” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 134).
Look at Preston’s words. The reprobate in the church who rejects Christ is guilty of “frustrating the end” or frustrating the goal of God’s riches of mercy. But, didn’t he say, “What is this else but to PUT GOD INTO SUCH STREIGHTS AS DARIUS WAS IN, WHO WOULD FAINE HAVE SAVED DANIEL, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS DECREE HE COULD NOT?” (quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, page 129) Didn’t he say in the quote from page 134 above that “thou art one of them, whom HE WOULD GATHER, and THOU WILT NOT”? In the Arminian system, God cannot “force” a person to be saved; but isn’t God limited as well in that sense in Preston’s theology (“he would gather, and thou wilt not”)?
In either the Arminian system or Preston’s, God still cannot coerce a person into receiving Christ. While He can certainly draw them and compel them to come to Him, He can do nothing more. Preston’s theology, in some way, becomes an indirectly “Arminian” theology, whether he realized it or not.
Preston continues:
“When we preach the Gospell, and offer Christ, we are friends of the Bridegroom: our businesse is, to present you as a pure Virgin of Christ...Christ comes and tels a man, I will have thee...I am willing to marry thee. When this is done on the holy Ghosts part, & WE ON OUR PART COME TO RESOLVE TO TAKE HIM, now the match is made betweene us, and this is faith indeed’” (quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, page 135; John Preston, “The Breast-plate,” I:197-198).
According to Preston, the Holy Ghost woos men and women, and then “we on our part” make a decision to come to Christ. Wait a minute, though! Doesn’t the Lord “irresistibly” draw some to Himself? According to Moore,
“Despite his hypothetical universalism...Preston describes the gospel promise in STRICTLY PARTICULAR TERMS. This is because PRESTON IS STILL DESIROUS TO DEFEND THE ‘IRRESISTIBLE WORKING’ OF ‘quickning Grace.’ Indeed, in the face of a rising Arminianism, Preston, in his treatise ‘Irresistiblenesse of converting Grace,’ goes so far as to say that in one sense ‘QUICKNING GRACE’ IS NOT EVEN ‘OFFERED TO ANY, BUT THOSE IN WHOM IT IS EFFECTUALL’” (Moore, 128; John Preston, “Irresistiblenesse of Converting Grace,” page 14).
The question for you, the readership, is this: how can man be responsible for failing to come to Christ if Christ draws people to Himself by “irresistible” grace?
Here’s a syllogism:
Premise #1: God draws people by irresistible grace.
Premise #2: Irresistible grace is grace that cannot be resisted.
Premise #3: No human is able to fight against such magnetic grace.
Conclusion: Those who come to Christ are “made willing” by irresistible grace.
If no human can fight irresistible grace, and God only draws some with this kind of grace, then how could the others be responsible for a grace that was never extended to them? There is only responsibility for such stubborn persons IF grace itself can be resisted, and is only “enabling” grace, not “enforcing” grace. Once again, Preston’s theology is inconsistent.
Before I continue, let me just state that no proper theology can have a grace that is BOTH irresistible and resistible at the same time. This is why believers once resisted the grace of God before salvation, and in many ways, continue to resist the grace of God in our moments of temptation and sin. While we are being daily conformed to the image of God’s Son, we still battle our human depravity, like it or not; and our human depravity influences us at times to resist God’s work in our lives. If grace were truly irresistible, sin would not be sin (rather, it would be annihilated).
In another place, Preston uses the imagery of Christ knocking on the door in Revelation 3:20---
“God awakens sinners, but what kinde of awakening is it? With such awakening that they fall asleep againe. God may send many messengers of wrath to knocke at the doore of their hearts, which perhaps disquiets and troubles them a little, but they returne to their rest againe. And this God may not onely doe outwardly, but he may cast many sparkes of his displeasure into their hearts, which may there lye glowing for a time, but they last not, they goe out in the end. And this is the condition of most men” (Moore, 136-137; John Preston, “Saints Qualification,” I:22).
But notice what he says about God and the work of the Spirit:
“But when ‘wee cannot deny his knocking at our doores, and yet wee will not come in,’ then in his wrath he will destroy such, saying ‘I WOULD HAVE PURGED THEE, and THOU WOULDEST NOT BE PURGED, therefore thou shalt never be purged till my wrath light on thee.’ It is then that ‘GOD WITH-DRAWES FROM A MAN HIS SPIRIT AND SPECIALL PROVIDENCE, BECAUSE HE LOATHES HIM’” (Moore, 137; John Preston, “Saints Qualification, I:21; this is Preston’s own translation of Ezekiel 24:13).
In Preston’s own words, God knocks at the door of every human heart; but when the person refuses to open up their heart and accept Christ, God “withdraws His Spirit...because He loathes him.” Preston makes God sound here as if He gets very angry and hurt when someone does not receive Him. Jonathan Moore says it best when he writes:
“While loathing the god of the Arminians, therefore, Preston was not afraid of almost giving THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION OF A FRUSTRATED WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT” (Moore, pp. 137-138).
To sum up John Preston: on one hand he could say “the heart of every man by nature is so shut up against Christ...unless God himselfe shake off the bolts, and open the gates...we will not admit him, but keepe him out” (Moore, 138; Preston, “The Breast-plate,” I:160); but then, he could turn around and say, “open thy heart and let him in” and think nothing of it (Preston, “Riches of Mercy, pg. 177; Moore, 138).
I think Preston has shown us contradictory theology at its best. When one examines his theology, he seems to be an English Arminian who wanted to hang on to Calvinism in any form. What is most appalling about Preston’s theology is that it still exists today in four-point Calvinist and Molinist systems. Take Molinism, for example: it desires to have a genuine universal atonement, but it also includes a predetermined “unconditional” election. How there can be a genuine atonement with a cold hard predetermined election is anyone’s guess...
There is more on John Preston to come.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
"The Pot and the Kettle": John Preston On the Reprobate and the Gospel Call
I’ve often heard statements about “the pot calling the kettle black.” Usually, people use this phrase when someone is saying something about someone else and accuses himself or herself in the process. The point of this response is to say that, should a person be guilty of something, they should first “pick the mote and beam out of their own eye” before trying to pick the log out of someone else’s.
Theologically, though, we find John Preston in the state of “the pot calling the kettle black.” If you look back at the posts on John Preston so far, you’ll notice that he separates the atonement of Christ from the intercession of Christ: while Christ atones for all, He only intercedes on behalf of the elect, His special chosen ones. So the question becomes, if Christ died for all, but only intercedes for some, then how could Christ have given all a genuine opportunity? It seems that, if He intercedes for some, then He only desires that “some” genuinely be saved. Why would He die for people that He would not intercede for?
John Preston, however, was staunchly opposed to Arminius and his theology. Regarding Arminius, Preston records the following:
“For according to Arminius, though God did heartily desire the conversion of such a man, and offered him al the meanes of Grace that could be, yet it is stil in the free choise of his wil to convert, or not to convert; Their onely answer here is, that seeing God hath made a Decree, that man shal be a free Agent, though he doe most earnestly desire the conversion of such and such men, yet because he cannot disannul his Decree, he doth, and must leave it to the liberty of the Creature to doe contrary to even that himselfe desires. BUT WHAT IS THIS ELSSE BUT TO PUT GOD INTO SUCH STREIGHTS AS DARIUS WAS IN, WHO WOULD FAINE HAVE SAVED DANIEL, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS DECREE HE COULD NOT?...[W]hat is this else but to attribute griefe unto God, and so to detract from his Blessednesse?” (John Preston, “Plenitudo Fontis,” pp. 9-10; quoted by Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 129).
Preston strongly disagrees with Arminius’s assessment of how God saves mankind. His reason? “What is this elsse but to put God into such streights as Darius was in...?” According to Preston, to claim that God could not “force” the creature to believe is to “limit God’s power” in such a way that God cannot ever be assured of achieving His purposes.
The apostle Paul answers John Preston’s response to Arminius in the book of Romans. In the beginning of Romans chapter 9, Paul is burdened for the salvation of his kinsmen, the Jews; but in verse 6, he answers his burden: “but it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants” (Rom. 9:6-7a, Holman Christian Standard Bible). The remainder of the chapter show’s that God “elects” some and not others. What is the means of election, though? Is it God’s arbitrary whim or faith? The Gentiles obtain salvation because they have obtained “the righteousness that comes from faith” (Rom. 9:30), while the Jews failed to obtain salvation because they were aiming to obtain salvation “as if it were by works” (v.31).
Romans 11 is the summation of Paul’s discussion of Romans chapters 9-11; as such, it mimics Paul’s words in chapter 9 that the word of God had not been nullified, despite the unbelieving majority of national Israel: “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26). Despite the unbelieving majority, the nation as a whole will be saved (even though every Jew in all of human existence will not). Here, corporate election is discussed, not individual election. This can also be seen in Hebrews 3-4, where the writer tells us that the wilderness generation (with the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb) failed to reach the Promised Land because the good news that was preached was not met with faith in the hearers (Heb. 4:2). While the corporate election of the nation is unconditional (as Rom. 11:26ff teaches), individual election is conditional upon faith (Rom. 9:30-32; Rom. 10:9-10).
Secondly, how is it “limiting God” to say that God will not renege on His word? God promised Noah that He would never flood the earth again with water (Gen. 9:11-17); does this somehow make God “less God” because He cannot flood the earth again with water? No! Rather, it shows that God is who He is---one who keeps His promises. What about the Jews inheriting the land of Canaan? According to Joshua, God kept every promise He made (Joshua 21:45; 23:14). God made the promises, and then He made good on them. Does this make God “less God” because He kept His word? No---rather, it proves, once again, that God is One who never changes (Malachi 3:6).
The Bible tells us that God will never deny His nature and character (2 Tim. 2:13). But in Preston’s theology, it is perfectly justified for God to say and do one thing and then turn around and take it back. Evidently, he never read Peter’s words that “The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay” (2 Peter 3:9).
Last but not least, the Atonement itself testifies to the consistency of God’s character. Why was Jesus sent to die? “to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25b). By sending Christ as the “propitiation” for our sins, or the atoning sacrifice (Rom. 3:25), God “would be righteous” (in His judgment) “and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus” (the one who trusts in the work of Christ on the cross), Rom. 3:26. But if God had not been just, but decided to take back His judgment on mankind made in the Garden of Eden (“you will surely die”), then He would have said, “if you eat you die; you have eaten of the forbidden fruit---but you will not die.” God would be “giving with the left hand what the right hand takes away,” so to speak. He would be saying, “you will die,” but then He would turn around and say, “you will not die.” How can “you will die” and “you will not die” make any sense in that imaginary scenario?
That day in the Garden, God “smoothed” out the seeming paradox: Adam and Eve “would die” a physical death but they “would not die” a spiritual one (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 16:20). Why? because justice and mercy would both meet in Jesus Christ, the unique Son and Lamb of God slain for the sins of the world (John 1:29).
In my next post, I will continue my discussion of John Preston and why he is rather hypocritical in his attack on Arminian theology. It truly is another instance of “the pot calling the kettle black.”
Theologically, though, we find John Preston in the state of “the pot calling the kettle black.” If you look back at the posts on John Preston so far, you’ll notice that he separates the atonement of Christ from the intercession of Christ: while Christ atones for all, He only intercedes on behalf of the elect, His special chosen ones. So the question becomes, if Christ died for all, but only intercedes for some, then how could Christ have given all a genuine opportunity? It seems that, if He intercedes for some, then He only desires that “some” genuinely be saved. Why would He die for people that He would not intercede for?
John Preston, however, was staunchly opposed to Arminius and his theology. Regarding Arminius, Preston records the following:
“For according to Arminius, though God did heartily desire the conversion of such a man, and offered him al the meanes of Grace that could be, yet it is stil in the free choise of his wil to convert, or not to convert; Their onely answer here is, that seeing God hath made a Decree, that man shal be a free Agent, though he doe most earnestly desire the conversion of such and such men, yet because he cannot disannul his Decree, he doth, and must leave it to the liberty of the Creature to doe contrary to even that himselfe desires. BUT WHAT IS THIS ELSSE BUT TO PUT GOD INTO SUCH STREIGHTS AS DARIUS WAS IN, WHO WOULD FAINE HAVE SAVED DANIEL, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS DECREE HE COULD NOT?...[W]hat is this else but to attribute griefe unto God, and so to detract from his Blessednesse?” (John Preston, “Plenitudo Fontis,” pp. 9-10; quoted by Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 129).
Preston strongly disagrees with Arminius’s assessment of how God saves mankind. His reason? “What is this elsse but to put God into such streights as Darius was in...?” According to Preston, to claim that God could not “force” the creature to believe is to “limit God’s power” in such a way that God cannot ever be assured of achieving His purposes.
The apostle Paul answers John Preston’s response to Arminius in the book of Romans. In the beginning of Romans chapter 9, Paul is burdened for the salvation of his kinsmen, the Jews; but in verse 6, he answers his burden: “but it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants” (Rom. 9:6-7a, Holman Christian Standard Bible). The remainder of the chapter show’s that God “elects” some and not others. What is the means of election, though? Is it God’s arbitrary whim or faith? The Gentiles obtain salvation because they have obtained “the righteousness that comes from faith” (Rom. 9:30), while the Jews failed to obtain salvation because they were aiming to obtain salvation “as if it were by works” (v.31).
Romans 11 is the summation of Paul’s discussion of Romans chapters 9-11; as such, it mimics Paul’s words in chapter 9 that the word of God had not been nullified, despite the unbelieving majority of national Israel: “all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26). Despite the unbelieving majority, the nation as a whole will be saved (even though every Jew in all of human existence will not). Here, corporate election is discussed, not individual election. This can also be seen in Hebrews 3-4, where the writer tells us that the wilderness generation (with the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb) failed to reach the Promised Land because the good news that was preached was not met with faith in the hearers (Heb. 4:2). While the corporate election of the nation is unconditional (as Rom. 11:26ff teaches), individual election is conditional upon faith (Rom. 9:30-32; Rom. 10:9-10).
Secondly, how is it “limiting God” to say that God will not renege on His word? God promised Noah that He would never flood the earth again with water (Gen. 9:11-17); does this somehow make God “less God” because He cannot flood the earth again with water? No! Rather, it shows that God is who He is---one who keeps His promises. What about the Jews inheriting the land of Canaan? According to Joshua, God kept every promise He made (Joshua 21:45; 23:14). God made the promises, and then He made good on them. Does this make God “less God” because He kept His word? No---rather, it proves, once again, that God is One who never changes (Malachi 3:6).
The Bible tells us that God will never deny His nature and character (2 Tim. 2:13). But in Preston’s theology, it is perfectly justified for God to say and do one thing and then turn around and take it back. Evidently, he never read Peter’s words that “The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay” (2 Peter 3:9).
Last but not least, the Atonement itself testifies to the consistency of God’s character. Why was Jesus sent to die? “to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed” (Rom. 3:25b). By sending Christ as the “propitiation” for our sins, or the atoning sacrifice (Rom. 3:25), God “would be righteous” (in His judgment) “and declare righteous the one who has faith in Jesus” (the one who trusts in the work of Christ on the cross), Rom. 3:26. But if God had not been just, but decided to take back His judgment on mankind made in the Garden of Eden (“you will surely die”), then He would have said, “if you eat you die; you have eaten of the forbidden fruit---but you will not die.” God would be “giving with the left hand what the right hand takes away,” so to speak. He would be saying, “you will die,” but then He would turn around and say, “you will not die.” How can “you will die” and “you will not die” make any sense in that imaginary scenario?
That day in the Garden, God “smoothed” out the seeming paradox: Adam and Eve “would die” a physical death but they “would not die” a spiritual one (Gen. 3:15; Rom. 16:20). Why? because justice and mercy would both meet in Jesus Christ, the unique Son and Lamb of God slain for the sins of the world (John 1:29).
In my next post, I will continue my discussion of John Preston and why he is rather hypocritical in his attack on Arminian theology. It truly is another instance of “the pot calling the kettle black.”
Monday, July 26, 2010
The Basis of Assurance: John Preston and the Conditionality of Discipleship
“It is not that the sinner is to be presented with no conditions whatsoever, but rather that THESE CONDITIONS ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS DUTIES THAT ARE TO FOLLOW FAITH. He insists that ‘there be conditions following after, though not going before faith.’ These conditions are, ‘you must serve him in all his commands, and leave all your sinnes.’ The gospel promise is unconditional, but FINAL SALVATION IS CONDITIONED UPON PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION. This side of the coin ‘is another part [of the gospel]’ and constitutes the covenant of grace expressed conditionally” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 127; quotes by John Preston, “A Liveles life,” I:76 and “Saints Qualification,” III:16).
I ended my last post with a discussion of John Preston and his theology regarding life in Christ. He argued that the promise of Christ (whoever should believe will be saved) is unconditional; however, the life in Christ after faith involves conditions that the believer must fulfill. In this post, I am gonna deal with an issue tied directly to life in Christ: that is, once I believe, how do I know that I am saved? How do I know that I stand in the Lord’s hands?
Many would say that our assurance is based on faith in Christ. Dave Hunt, internationally-known writer and lecturer as well as co-host of the radio program “Search the Scriptures Daily,” affirms faith as the basis of assurance:
“OUR ASSURANCE IS NOT IN BAPTISM, GOOD WORKS, OR DENIAL OF CHOICE. John declares, ‘These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life’ (1 John 5:13). BELIEVING IN CHRIST IS OUR ASSURANCE” (Dave Hunt, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 399).
Similarly, Ken Keathley writes:
“Like [Martin] Luther, I argue that A PERSON FINDS ASSURANCE WHEN HE TRUSTS THE JUSTIFYING WORK OF CHRIST ALONE” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 165).
James Arminius himself would affirm the same:
“I subjoin, that there is a vast difference between...(1)‘it is possible for believers to decline from the FAITH; and (2) ‘it is possible for believers to decline from SALVATION.’ For the latter, when rigidly and accurately examined, can scarcely be admitted;---IT BEING IMPOSSIBLE FOR BELIEVERS, AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN BELIEVERS, to decline from salvation. Because, were this possible, that power of God would be conquered which he has determined to employ in saving believers. On the other hand, IF BELIEVERS FALL AWAY FROM THE FAITH AND BECOME UNBELIEVERS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO OTHERWISE THAN DECLINE FROM SALVATION,---that is, provided they still continue unbelievers” (James Arminius, “Works,” I:741-742).
Arminius’s words sound like Paul’s to the Gentiles in Romans 11:20-22 and Peter’s words to the Jews of the Diaspersion in 1 Peter 1:5. To summarize his words above, we stand by our faith; however, should we throw off our “shield of faith, whereby we are able to quench the fiery darts of the wicked one,” we can do no other BUT fall from salvation (Eph. 6:16). He did agree, however, that faith is the basis of assurance. Faith is how we know that we are saved.
The words of John Preston in the starting quote of this post testify to salvation by faith alone. Preston writes,
“godly sorrow and grace followes [sic] faith, but are not required before it.”
However, it is not merely faith alone that builds one’s assurance in their salvation; bearing spiritual fruit (good works) can build one’s assurance of salvation as well. Regarding good works and assurance, Preston wrote:
“come to a beleever going out of the world, and aske him WHAT HOPE HE HATH TO BE SAVED, AND WHAT GROUND FOR IT? He will be ready to say, ‘I KNOW THAT CHRIST IS COME INTO THE WORLD, AND THAT HE IS OFFERED, AND I KNOW THAT I AM ONE OF THEM THAT HAVE A PART IN HIM; I KNOW THAT I HAVE FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS, as that I should not continue willingly in any knowne sinne, that I should love the Lord Jesus, and desire to serve him above all; I know that I have fulfilled these conditions, and for all this I have the word for my ground, if the ground whereon our faith is builded be the Word, then it is builded on a sure rocke” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology,” page 127; quote from John Preston, “Saints Qualification, III:16).
In Preston’s theology, coming to faith is the result of the divine promise (which requires no works), but remaining in the faith is a matter of the work of Christ and the work of the believer. This is why, after Preston quotes the work of Christ above in regards to assurance, he then goes into “I know that I have fulfilled the conditions,” etc. Why are conditions required for final salvation? Because “this side of the coin [works] is ‘another part [of the gospel] and constitutes THE COVENANT OF GRACE expressed conditionally” (Moore, 127). Here with Preston, we see him reconcile the words of not only Paul (“justified by faith”,” Romans 5:1), but also the words of James (“justified by works”, James 2:21).
I’ve explored Preston’s views on the atonement, and he is rather inconsistent when it comes to Jesus dying for all but only interceding as priest for “some.” However, here in his theology, I think he is most right. His words confirm those of James to the scattered Jewish believers:
“Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless? Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was ACTIVE TOGETHER WITH HIS WORKS, AND BY WORKS, FAITH WAS PERFECTED...you see that a man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE” (James 2:20-22, 24, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The basis of assurance (justification by faith or works?) has been one that has plagued the church since the first century until now. How then shall we answer the question, “What justifies a man: faith or works”? Should we answer, “faith alone,” we must negate works altogether; if we answer with “works,” then we nullify faith and create a different gospel. In order to reconcile “justification by faith” and “justification by works,” we must understand that “by works, faith [is] perfected” (James 2:22). Once we grasp this, we will have no problem affirming the necessity of BOTH faith and works for final salvation. As the writer of Hebrews wrote,
“So don’t throw away your confidence which has a great reward. FOR YOU NEED ENDURANCE, so that after you have done God’s will, you may receive what was promised” (Heb. 10:35-36, HCSB).
Does my response nullify the gospel? No, not at all. After all, are we not “His creation---created in Christ Jesus FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:9, HCSB)?
I ended my last post with a discussion of John Preston and his theology regarding life in Christ. He argued that the promise of Christ (whoever should believe will be saved) is unconditional; however, the life in Christ after faith involves conditions that the believer must fulfill. In this post, I am gonna deal with an issue tied directly to life in Christ: that is, once I believe, how do I know that I am saved? How do I know that I stand in the Lord’s hands?
Many would say that our assurance is based on faith in Christ. Dave Hunt, internationally-known writer and lecturer as well as co-host of the radio program “Search the Scriptures Daily,” affirms faith as the basis of assurance:
“OUR ASSURANCE IS NOT IN BAPTISM, GOOD WORKS, OR DENIAL OF CHOICE. John declares, ‘These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life’ (1 John 5:13). BELIEVING IN CHRIST IS OUR ASSURANCE” (Dave Hunt, “Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views.” Colorado Springs: Multnomah Books, 2004, page 399).
Similarly, Ken Keathley writes:
“Like [Martin] Luther, I argue that A PERSON FINDS ASSURANCE WHEN HE TRUSTS THE JUSTIFYING WORK OF CHRIST ALONE” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 165).
James Arminius himself would affirm the same:
“I subjoin, that there is a vast difference between...(1)‘it is possible for believers to decline from the FAITH; and (2) ‘it is possible for believers to decline from SALVATION.’ For the latter, when rigidly and accurately examined, can scarcely be admitted;---IT BEING IMPOSSIBLE FOR BELIEVERS, AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN BELIEVERS, to decline from salvation. Because, were this possible, that power of God would be conquered which he has determined to employ in saving believers. On the other hand, IF BELIEVERS FALL AWAY FROM THE FAITH AND BECOME UNBELIEVERS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DO OTHERWISE THAN DECLINE FROM SALVATION,---that is, provided they still continue unbelievers” (James Arminius, “Works,” I:741-742).
Arminius’s words sound like Paul’s to the Gentiles in Romans 11:20-22 and Peter’s words to the Jews of the Diaspersion in 1 Peter 1:5. To summarize his words above, we stand by our faith; however, should we throw off our “shield of faith, whereby we are able to quench the fiery darts of the wicked one,” we can do no other BUT fall from salvation (Eph. 6:16). He did agree, however, that faith is the basis of assurance. Faith is how we know that we are saved.
The words of John Preston in the starting quote of this post testify to salvation by faith alone. Preston writes,
“godly sorrow and grace followes [sic] faith, but are not required before it.”
However, it is not merely faith alone that builds one’s assurance in their salvation; bearing spiritual fruit (good works) can build one’s assurance of salvation as well. Regarding good works and assurance, Preston wrote:
“come to a beleever going out of the world, and aske him WHAT HOPE HE HATH TO BE SAVED, AND WHAT GROUND FOR IT? He will be ready to say, ‘I KNOW THAT CHRIST IS COME INTO THE WORLD, AND THAT HE IS OFFERED, AND I KNOW THAT I AM ONE OF THEM THAT HAVE A PART IN HIM; I KNOW THAT I HAVE FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS, as that I should not continue willingly in any knowne sinne, that I should love the Lord Jesus, and desire to serve him above all; I know that I have fulfilled these conditions, and for all this I have the word for my ground, if the ground whereon our faith is builded be the Word, then it is builded on a sure rocke” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology,” page 127; quote from John Preston, “Saints Qualification, III:16).
In Preston’s theology, coming to faith is the result of the divine promise (which requires no works), but remaining in the faith is a matter of the work of Christ and the work of the believer. This is why, after Preston quotes the work of Christ above in regards to assurance, he then goes into “I know that I have fulfilled the conditions,” etc. Why are conditions required for final salvation? Because “this side of the coin [works] is ‘another part [of the gospel] and constitutes THE COVENANT OF GRACE expressed conditionally” (Moore, 127). Here with Preston, we see him reconcile the words of not only Paul (“justified by faith”,” Romans 5:1), but also the words of James (“justified by works”, James 2:21).
I’ve explored Preston’s views on the atonement, and he is rather inconsistent when it comes to Jesus dying for all but only interceding as priest for “some.” However, here in his theology, I think he is most right. His words confirm those of James to the scattered Jewish believers:
“Foolish man! Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless? Wasn’t Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was ACTIVE TOGETHER WITH HIS WORKS, AND BY WORKS, FAITH WAS PERFECTED...you see that a man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE” (James 2:20-22, 24, Holman Christian Standard Bible).
The basis of assurance (justification by faith or works?) has been one that has plagued the church since the first century until now. How then shall we answer the question, “What justifies a man: faith or works”? Should we answer, “faith alone,” we must negate works altogether; if we answer with “works,” then we nullify faith and create a different gospel. In order to reconcile “justification by faith” and “justification by works,” we must understand that “by works, faith [is] perfected” (James 2:22). Once we grasp this, we will have no problem affirming the necessity of BOTH faith and works for final salvation. As the writer of Hebrews wrote,
“So don’t throw away your confidence which has a great reward. FOR YOU NEED ENDURANCE, so that after you have done God’s will, you may receive what was promised” (Heb. 10:35-36, HCSB).
Does my response nullify the gospel? No, not at all. After all, are we not “His creation---created in Christ Jesus FOR GOOD WORKS, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:9, HCSB)?
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Calvinist Betrayal
I mentioned, some posts ago, that I heard a sermon earlier this year regarding the Doctrine of Apostasy---which involves the issue of “Losing Salvation.” In the sermon, the preacher, whom I called “John,” stated that “we are not saved by anything we do.” He then used this statement as a “stepping stone” from which to say that “if we didn’t do anything to be saved, we can’t do anything to be unsaved. If our works don’t save us, then our works don’t unsave us.”
But then, John seemed to modify his position a little. He began to tell the congregation that we can’t just go live anyway we want to because we’re saved by grace; no---rather, we are supposed to live in accordance with godliness.
On Father’s Day, the pastor exhorted the congregation after one of the directors of the Men’s Ministry preached. His exhortation was, “Fathers, let us be the husbands and the fathers that God has called us to be; for these things are OF ETERNAL SIGNIFICANCE.”
Let’s stop here for a moment. That’s right: what you just read is what the pastor actually said! He told the men in the congregation that to be godly husbands and fathers was “of eternal significance.” But how? How can these things be of eternal significance if we are acquitted of all our sins (past, present, and future) by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? If none of our sins can stand against us on Judgment Day, then how can any of these human God-given responsibilities be of ANY eternal significance? This all sounds like double-talk to me.
In case you’re wondering, however, I’ll go ahead and tell you that such Calvinist argument is nothing new. “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 2:11). Calvinists have done the same thing the two preachers above did in their sermons: they have always “played both sides of the theological fence” when it comes to justification and sanctification. And John Preston fits right in with the ranks of other Calvinists, for he does the same.
In Moore’s chapter on “The Gospel Call,” he gives the reader Preston’s dichotomy between a “gospel covenant” and a “gospel promise.” The gospel promise is offered to all:
“Preston is quite clear that the gospel promise can, in one sense, be said to be general. Another example of God’s ‘generall promise’ is ‘Whosoever will beleeve, shall be saved.’ To the extent that Christ is thus ‘offered to every creature’ so far do the promises ‘belong unto him.’ Thus what Preston is at pains to communicate by saying ‘Gods promises are generall,’ or with the phrase ‘a generall pardon,’ is that it is ‘without exception of persons, or sinnes’” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 126; Preston, “A Liveless Life,” I:174; “Saints Qualification,” I:122; III:43).
For Preston, “the gospel promise is ‘free without any condition,’ in that it is wrong to ‘looke for sorrow and holinesse before thou takest Christ’” (Moore, 127). According to Preston, the only thing that the sinner can do is profess faith in Christ. It seems then, by the term “unconditional,” that he is referring to works of righteousness.
Let me say here that Classical Arminians agree with this. We do not deny Paul’s words when he says that “He saved us---not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy” (Titus 3:5a, English Standard Version). Contrary to popular belief, Classical Arminians do not argue works-righteousness in their theology. Rather, the only condition we argue is faith, to believe...which is not a “work of merit”; rather, faith is trusting in the merits of Christ, not our own (for we have nothing to boast or brag about, Eph. 2:9).
In case I seem heretical in my belief, let me note that scholars Ken Keathley (Molinist), Thomas Schreiner (Calvinist), Dave Hunt (Non-Calvinist), and Jacob Arminius himself (father of Arminianism) hold to the same definition of perseverance. Ken Keathley and Thomas Schreiner both refer to perseverance as “persevering IN FAITH” (see Ken Keathley’s “Salvation and Sovereignty,” page 185; see my section titled “Doctrine of Perseverance” to read Keathley’s quote of Schreiner and his affirmation of Schreiner’s definition); Dave Hunt refers to “faith” as the believer’s assurance (see “Debating Calvinism,” page 399, where Hunt states, “Believing in Christ is our assurance”); and Arminius himself stated that faith is the condition whereupon a person can either be joined to Christ or severed from him (Arminius’s “Works,” I:741-742).
Now, back to John Preston. Preston states that no holiness can be expected from someone who comes to Christ for the first time. By “condition,” Preston means “works of righteousness.” And to that, as I stated above, every Classical Arminian would agree. But notice his comments regarding life in Christ:
“However, as if fearing antinomian deductions from the unconditionality of the promise, Preston immediately in this same passage QUALIFIES THIS UNCONDITIONALITY. IT IS NOT THAT THE SINNER IS TO BE PRESENTED WITH NO CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER, but rather that THESE CONDITIONS ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS DUTIES THAT ARE TO FOLLOW FAITH. He insists that ‘there be conditions following after, though not going before faith.’ These conditions are, ‘you must serve him in all his commands, and leave all your sinnes.’ The gospel promise is unconditional, but FINAL SALVATION IS CONDITIONED UPON PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION. This side of the coin ‘is another part [of the gospel]’ and constitutes the covenant of grace expressed conditionally” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 127; Preston, “A Liveles [sic] Life,” I:176).
In case you missed Preston’s argument, please read this last quote of Jonathan Moore’s (and Preston’s) again. Preston says that there are no works of righteousness required BEFORE Christ; but works are required AFTER Christ. Of the entire quote above, this is the part I loved most:
“The gospel promise is unconditional, but final salvation is conditioned upon progressive sanctification.”
With this last sentence quoted, many people would deem me a semi-Pelagian, Pelagian, or a downright heretic (perhaps Preston would be labeled such as well). The bottom line is, that Preston read Scripture and came to the conclusion that works will play a role in one’s eternal destiny on the Day of Judgment. What must a person do in order to reach final salvation? “You must serve him in all his commands, and leave all your sinnes.” There is a lifestyle of response that God requires from us if we desire to obtain salvation, whether we like it or not.
Now here is where Molinist Ken Keathley will disagree with Preston (and my view, of course). In his view, there must be a distinction between justification and sanctification:
“The doctrine of forensic justification is crucial for assurance of salvation. ‘Forensic’ means that justification is the legal act where God declares a sinner righteous through Jesus Christ. This is in contrast to sanctification, which is the lifelong work of grace whereby God makes a sinner righteous. It is this distinction between justification and sanctification that liberated Martin Luther from the bondage of attempting to merit salvation. Luther tells of meditating on Rom 1:17 (‘For in it God’s righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith’) and coming to the realization that God’s righteousness was A GIFT GIVEN TO SINNERS rather than a standard that sinners must meet” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 165).
It is true that we are “justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1) and that sanctification is the work of the Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13); however, it is also the case that believers have a role to play in their sanctification as well (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4). While it is the Spirit who sanctifies, the Spirit will not sanctify a person who daily chooses to yield to the flesh instead of “denying himself.” Yes, we are saved by faith; but faith must be supplemented by works. When James wrote, “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17), James was not saying that faith without works is “nonexistent”; what James is saying here is that, in contrast to a faith that works, the dead faith is present but has no life in itself.
Imagine that you have an 8-pack of Duracell batteries in your possession, and that the goal of the batteries is to light your flashlight. So you put two batteries in the flashlight at once (it takes two for operation) and the light comes on. The batteries serve a purpose---that is, they provide you with light. But one day, the batteries stop working altogether. The batteries are, in a word, “dead.” The question now becomes, “Are the batteries non-existent because they don’t work? Did the batteries just “poof” out of existence? No! The batteries did not self-annihilate when they ran out of energy; rather, they still exist (materially), but they have no purpose (they are fit for nothing). According to James, our faith is the same: even though we may have faith, if it does not serve a purpose, it does no more for us than the person who has no faith at all. I wanna make a note here, however, that one who has faith is distinguished from one who does not; nonetheless, our faith does not work for us, should we have it and yet have no works to supplement it. In short, we are as “handicapped” spiritually as if we were unbelieving, should our faith be “ineffective.”
John Preston has more to say about final salvation and sanctification, so there are more posts to follow...
But then, John seemed to modify his position a little. He began to tell the congregation that we can’t just go live anyway we want to because we’re saved by grace; no---rather, we are supposed to live in accordance with godliness.
On Father’s Day, the pastor exhorted the congregation after one of the directors of the Men’s Ministry preached. His exhortation was, “Fathers, let us be the husbands and the fathers that God has called us to be; for these things are OF ETERNAL SIGNIFICANCE.”
Let’s stop here for a moment. That’s right: what you just read is what the pastor actually said! He told the men in the congregation that to be godly husbands and fathers was “of eternal significance.” But how? How can these things be of eternal significance if we are acquitted of all our sins (past, present, and future) by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? If none of our sins can stand against us on Judgment Day, then how can any of these human God-given responsibilities be of ANY eternal significance? This all sounds like double-talk to me.
In case you’re wondering, however, I’ll go ahead and tell you that such Calvinist argument is nothing new. “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 2:11). Calvinists have done the same thing the two preachers above did in their sermons: they have always “played both sides of the theological fence” when it comes to justification and sanctification. And John Preston fits right in with the ranks of other Calvinists, for he does the same.
In Moore’s chapter on “The Gospel Call,” he gives the reader Preston’s dichotomy between a “gospel covenant” and a “gospel promise.” The gospel promise is offered to all:
“Preston is quite clear that the gospel promise can, in one sense, be said to be general. Another example of God’s ‘generall promise’ is ‘Whosoever will beleeve, shall be saved.’ To the extent that Christ is thus ‘offered to every creature’ so far do the promises ‘belong unto him.’ Thus what Preston is at pains to communicate by saying ‘Gods promises are generall,’ or with the phrase ‘a generall pardon,’ is that it is ‘without exception of persons, or sinnes’” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 126; Preston, “A Liveless Life,” I:174; “Saints Qualification,” I:122; III:43).
For Preston, “the gospel promise is ‘free without any condition,’ in that it is wrong to ‘looke for sorrow and holinesse before thou takest Christ’” (Moore, 127). According to Preston, the only thing that the sinner can do is profess faith in Christ. It seems then, by the term “unconditional,” that he is referring to works of righteousness.
Let me say here that Classical Arminians agree with this. We do not deny Paul’s words when he says that “He saved us---not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy” (Titus 3:5a, English Standard Version). Contrary to popular belief, Classical Arminians do not argue works-righteousness in their theology. Rather, the only condition we argue is faith, to believe...which is not a “work of merit”; rather, faith is trusting in the merits of Christ, not our own (for we have nothing to boast or brag about, Eph. 2:9).
In case I seem heretical in my belief, let me note that scholars Ken Keathley (Molinist), Thomas Schreiner (Calvinist), Dave Hunt (Non-Calvinist), and Jacob Arminius himself (father of Arminianism) hold to the same definition of perseverance. Ken Keathley and Thomas Schreiner both refer to perseverance as “persevering IN FAITH” (see Ken Keathley’s “Salvation and Sovereignty,” page 185; see my section titled “Doctrine of Perseverance” to read Keathley’s quote of Schreiner and his affirmation of Schreiner’s definition); Dave Hunt refers to “faith” as the believer’s assurance (see “Debating Calvinism,” page 399, where Hunt states, “Believing in Christ is our assurance”); and Arminius himself stated that faith is the condition whereupon a person can either be joined to Christ or severed from him (Arminius’s “Works,” I:741-742).
Now, back to John Preston. Preston states that no holiness can be expected from someone who comes to Christ for the first time. By “condition,” Preston means “works of righteousness.” And to that, as I stated above, every Classical Arminian would agree. But notice his comments regarding life in Christ:
“However, as if fearing antinomian deductions from the unconditionality of the promise, Preston immediately in this same passage QUALIFIES THIS UNCONDITIONALITY. IT IS NOT THAT THE SINNER IS TO BE PRESENTED WITH NO CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER, but rather that THESE CONDITIONS ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS DUTIES THAT ARE TO FOLLOW FAITH. He insists that ‘there be conditions following after, though not going before faith.’ These conditions are, ‘you must serve him in all his commands, and leave all your sinnes.’ The gospel promise is unconditional, but FINAL SALVATION IS CONDITIONED UPON PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION. This side of the coin ‘is another part [of the gospel]’ and constitutes the covenant of grace expressed conditionally” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 127; Preston, “A Liveles [sic] Life,” I:176).
In case you missed Preston’s argument, please read this last quote of Jonathan Moore’s (and Preston’s) again. Preston says that there are no works of righteousness required BEFORE Christ; but works are required AFTER Christ. Of the entire quote above, this is the part I loved most:
“The gospel promise is unconditional, but final salvation is conditioned upon progressive sanctification.”
With this last sentence quoted, many people would deem me a semi-Pelagian, Pelagian, or a downright heretic (perhaps Preston would be labeled such as well). The bottom line is, that Preston read Scripture and came to the conclusion that works will play a role in one’s eternal destiny on the Day of Judgment. What must a person do in order to reach final salvation? “You must serve him in all his commands, and leave all your sinnes.” There is a lifestyle of response that God requires from us if we desire to obtain salvation, whether we like it or not.
Now here is where Molinist Ken Keathley will disagree with Preston (and my view, of course). In his view, there must be a distinction between justification and sanctification:
“The doctrine of forensic justification is crucial for assurance of salvation. ‘Forensic’ means that justification is the legal act where God declares a sinner righteous through Jesus Christ. This is in contrast to sanctification, which is the lifelong work of grace whereby God makes a sinner righteous. It is this distinction between justification and sanctification that liberated Martin Luther from the bondage of attempting to merit salvation. Luther tells of meditating on Rom 1:17 (‘For in it God’s righteousness is revealed from faith to faith, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith’) and coming to the realization that God’s righteousness was A GIFT GIVEN TO SINNERS rather than a standard that sinners must meet” (Ken Keathley, “Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach.” Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2010, page 165).
It is true that we are “justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1) and that sanctification is the work of the Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13); however, it is also the case that believers have a role to play in their sanctification as well (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4). While it is the Spirit who sanctifies, the Spirit will not sanctify a person who daily chooses to yield to the flesh instead of “denying himself.” Yes, we are saved by faith; but faith must be supplemented by works. When James wrote, “faith without works is dead” (James 2:17), James was not saying that faith without works is “nonexistent”; what James is saying here is that, in contrast to a faith that works, the dead faith is present but has no life in itself.
Imagine that you have an 8-pack of Duracell batteries in your possession, and that the goal of the batteries is to light your flashlight. So you put two batteries in the flashlight at once (it takes two for operation) and the light comes on. The batteries serve a purpose---that is, they provide you with light. But one day, the batteries stop working altogether. The batteries are, in a word, “dead.” The question now becomes, “Are the batteries non-existent because they don’t work? Did the batteries just “poof” out of existence? No! The batteries did not self-annihilate when they ran out of energy; rather, they still exist (materially), but they have no purpose (they are fit for nothing). According to James, our faith is the same: even though we may have faith, if it does not serve a purpose, it does no more for us than the person who has no faith at all. I wanna make a note here, however, that one who has faith is distinguished from one who does not; nonetheless, our faith does not work for us, should we have it and yet have no works to supplement it. In short, we are as “handicapped” spiritually as if we were unbelieving, should our faith be “ineffective.”
John Preston has more to say about final salvation and sanctification, so there are more posts to follow...
Friday, July 23, 2010
Hypothetical Universal Atonement
Before I start this post, I’d just like to take a moment to talk about some of the changes made around here at the site. The major change made recently involved the addition of an “I’m Currently Reading” section and a "Just Finished Reading" section here at the Center for Theological Studies. From now on, all my readers will now stay informed regarding my reading material. I want you all to know books on which I’m reading so that you may be able to know what good literature on theology is out there online and in bookstores alike. This way, you will not have to waste time reading through material that will be of no spiritual benefit. That’s right: I wanna save you the frustration of “weeding through” bad material.
I’ve been doing some work for the last few days on the Doctrine of the Atonement here at CTS. Surprisingly, the book that I’ve been reading on in the last few weeks involves John Preston and his view of “Hypothetical Universalism.” Now, in this respect, Preston stands in the ranks of the French theologian Moises Amyraut (known for his theological system of “Amyraldianism”). Amyraut, like Preston, held to four points of Calvinism but argued that there was some universality (although hypothetical, meaning “possible”) to the atonement for all humans. In this respect, such “four-point Calvinists” stand out to us all by showing us that inconsistencies have always existed within the Calvinist system. Calvinists just “cannot take the plunge” when it comes to affirming “Limited Atonement” (Jesus died for some). And that was no different with John Preston in seventeenth-century England.
First, just what is “hypothetical universalism”? It is a doctrine that teaches that, while it is possible that everyone could have been saved, Jesus only died for a few. In reality, then, only the special elect whom Jesus chose to be saved will actually receive the benefits of the atonement.
Let’s look at the words of John Preston to see this definition at play. In his sermons and writings, Preston noted that Jesus died for only a few, as Jonathan Moore notes:
“In his ‘opera’ Preston never explicitly states that Christ died ‘for the elect.’ Nowhere is there a ‘Perkinsian’ treatment of classic universalist texts involving ‘all’ or the ‘world.’ However, Preston does not hesitate to take up scriptural imagery of particular grace with regard to the death of Christ, and he does sometimes employ terminology associated with particular redemptionist formulations. Christ came ‘to take away the sinnes of his people; hee came to take away sinnes of all sorts.’ Christ ‘hath purchased his Wife with his owne bloud,’ and ‘such a relation there is between Christ and us,’ as ‘between the Shepherd and the Sheep; the Shepherd that gives his life for the sheep, and the sheep that are redeemed.’ Preston also taught that
‘as in the time of the Law, the Priest was to offer up sacrifices for the people in all humilitie, so Christ in the Gospell on the Crosse with a broken and a contrite spirit, offered a sacrifice FOR ALL HIS CHILDREN, and makes them acceptable unto God’” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, pages 98-99; Moore also quotes from Preston’s “The Breast-plate,” I:248, II:142, and “Remaines,” page 237).
In addition, Preston also argued that the atonement was efficient for believers and that God accomplishes His purposes:
“In broad terms Preston taught that Christ could never fail of his intent. For ‘WHATSOEVER THE LORDS END IS, HE NEVER FAILES OF.’ Because the Father ‘is not willing to have his Sonnes bloud spilt in vain,’ there must be an efficacy to Christ’s satisfaction, at least on one level or for some people...because ‘Christ came to redeem them for this end that they might be zealous,’ and ‘CHRIST WILL NOT LOSE HIS END,’ then ‘they that Christ will save shall be zealous’” (Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” pages 100-101; Preston quotes taken from Preston’s work “Saints Qualification,” II:20; Preston’s “The Golden Scepter,” I:275, and his work “Riches of Mercy,” page 90).
The question then becomes, “How can the atonement be for all if God only permits “some” to come to Him?” In Preston’s thought, Jesus could die for all on the one hand and some on the other hand because of a division between Christ’s work as redeemer (for all) and His work as intercessor (praying on behalf of the elect, see John 17:9). In the words of Jonathan Moore,
“Preston therefore drives a significant wedge between the twofold high-priestly work of Christ as atonement-maker and intercessor. The effectual source of the ‘golden chain’ is not Christ’s satisfaction itself, but an almost separate work of Christ, namely his intercession. The extent of the former can be totally different from that of the latter. Christ as High Priest makes satisfaction for all without exception, but Christ as High Priest makes intercession only for the elect. It would appear that the decree of election can be removed almost altogether from propitiation and lodged solely in the limited and discriminating intercession of Christ” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 102).
In John Preston’s theology, there is a dichotomy between the extent and intent: while the atonement extends to all, it is only intended for the elect. Christ as High Priest only prays for the elect (those He desires to be saved). What happens to the others? “Hypothetically” (for argument’s sake), they could be saved...but Christ will not save them. And somehow, he can still turn around and say that those who are not elect are non-elect because of their own fault:
“so it is in this offer of Christ, all is ready Christ is slain, and his blood is poured out, if you do not come and take it, YOU PUT AWAY FROM YOU THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, and so in as much as in you lieth YOU MAKE THE DEATH OF CHRIST OF NONE EFFECT, and so by consequence you shall be guilty of the blood of Christ...whosoever refuseth Christ is guilty of the spilling of his most precious blood” (Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” pp.427-28; quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 109).
This statement places blame for unbelief on the individual, not Christ.
In another place, Preston said:
“the death of Christ is like a medicine, that hath efficacy enough to heal all mankind, IF THEY WILL APPLY IT, now if men will not take it, and receive it, it is not out of defect in the thing itself, but out of the CONTEMPT AND STUBBORNESS OF THEIR OWN WILL” (Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” p. 423; quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 110).
One moment, Preston is saying that the individuals themselves must apply the medicine; the next, he is saying that only God can apply the medicine needed (that men are unable to do this at all). In short, men are “able” to save and “unable” to save all at the same time, in the same way.
If there is one sentence I could end with in this post, it would be a one-liner from the words of John Preston: “freely given to all, yet God intends him onely to the Elect” (Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 113; Preston, “The Breast-plate," I:9). One of the things that you, my readership, will discover as we plow through Preston is that Preston is speaking contradiction...and will soon come head-to-head with his contradiction and be forced to face himself. When he does, the reading of my posts will be so worth it. How exactly does he respond? Well, for the answer to that, you’ll just have to keep reading.
I’ve been doing some work for the last few days on the Doctrine of the Atonement here at CTS. Surprisingly, the book that I’ve been reading on in the last few weeks involves John Preston and his view of “Hypothetical Universalism.” Now, in this respect, Preston stands in the ranks of the French theologian Moises Amyraut (known for his theological system of “Amyraldianism”). Amyraut, like Preston, held to four points of Calvinism but argued that there was some universality (although hypothetical, meaning “possible”) to the atonement for all humans. In this respect, such “four-point Calvinists” stand out to us all by showing us that inconsistencies have always existed within the Calvinist system. Calvinists just “cannot take the plunge” when it comes to affirming “Limited Atonement” (Jesus died for some). And that was no different with John Preston in seventeenth-century England.
First, just what is “hypothetical universalism”? It is a doctrine that teaches that, while it is possible that everyone could have been saved, Jesus only died for a few. In reality, then, only the special elect whom Jesus chose to be saved will actually receive the benefits of the atonement.
Let’s look at the words of John Preston to see this definition at play. In his sermons and writings, Preston noted that Jesus died for only a few, as Jonathan Moore notes:
“In his ‘opera’ Preston never explicitly states that Christ died ‘for the elect.’ Nowhere is there a ‘Perkinsian’ treatment of classic universalist texts involving ‘all’ or the ‘world.’ However, Preston does not hesitate to take up scriptural imagery of particular grace with regard to the death of Christ, and he does sometimes employ terminology associated with particular redemptionist formulations. Christ came ‘to take away the sinnes of his people; hee came to take away sinnes of all sorts.’ Christ ‘hath purchased his Wife with his owne bloud,’ and ‘such a relation there is between Christ and us,’ as ‘between the Shepherd and the Sheep; the Shepherd that gives his life for the sheep, and the sheep that are redeemed.’ Preston also taught that
‘as in the time of the Law, the Priest was to offer up sacrifices for the people in all humilitie, so Christ in the Gospell on the Crosse with a broken and a contrite spirit, offered a sacrifice FOR ALL HIS CHILDREN, and makes them acceptable unto God’” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, pages 98-99; Moore also quotes from Preston’s “The Breast-plate,” I:248, II:142, and “Remaines,” page 237).
In addition, Preston also argued that the atonement was efficient for believers and that God accomplishes His purposes:
“In broad terms Preston taught that Christ could never fail of his intent. For ‘WHATSOEVER THE LORDS END IS, HE NEVER FAILES OF.’ Because the Father ‘is not willing to have his Sonnes bloud spilt in vain,’ there must be an efficacy to Christ’s satisfaction, at least on one level or for some people...because ‘Christ came to redeem them for this end that they might be zealous,’ and ‘CHRIST WILL NOT LOSE HIS END,’ then ‘they that Christ will save shall be zealous’” (Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” pages 100-101; Preston quotes taken from Preston’s work “Saints Qualification,” II:20; Preston’s “The Golden Scepter,” I:275, and his work “Riches of Mercy,” page 90).
The question then becomes, “How can the atonement be for all if God only permits “some” to come to Him?” In Preston’s thought, Jesus could die for all on the one hand and some on the other hand because of a division between Christ’s work as redeemer (for all) and His work as intercessor (praying on behalf of the elect, see John 17:9). In the words of Jonathan Moore,
“Preston therefore drives a significant wedge between the twofold high-priestly work of Christ as atonement-maker and intercessor. The effectual source of the ‘golden chain’ is not Christ’s satisfaction itself, but an almost separate work of Christ, namely his intercession. The extent of the former can be totally different from that of the latter. Christ as High Priest makes satisfaction for all without exception, but Christ as High Priest makes intercession only for the elect. It would appear that the decree of election can be removed almost altogether from propitiation and lodged solely in the limited and discriminating intercession of Christ” (Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology.” Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans, 2007, page 102).
In John Preston’s theology, there is a dichotomy between the extent and intent: while the atonement extends to all, it is only intended for the elect. Christ as High Priest only prays for the elect (those He desires to be saved). What happens to the others? “Hypothetically” (for argument’s sake), they could be saved...but Christ will not save them. And somehow, he can still turn around and say that those who are not elect are non-elect because of their own fault:
“so it is in this offer of Christ, all is ready Christ is slain, and his blood is poured out, if you do not come and take it, YOU PUT AWAY FROM YOU THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, and so in as much as in you lieth YOU MAKE THE DEATH OF CHRIST OF NONE EFFECT, and so by consequence you shall be guilty of the blood of Christ...whosoever refuseth Christ is guilty of the spilling of his most precious blood” (Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” pp.427-28; quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 109).
This statement places blame for unbelief on the individual, not Christ.
In another place, Preston said:
“the death of Christ is like a medicine, that hath efficacy enough to heal all mankind, IF THEY WILL APPLY IT, now if men will not take it, and receive it, it is not out of defect in the thing itself, but out of the CONTEMPT AND STUBBORNESS OF THEIR OWN WILL” (Preston, “Riches of Mercy,” p. 423; quoted by Jonathan D. Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 110).
One moment, Preston is saying that the individuals themselves must apply the medicine; the next, he is saying that only God can apply the medicine needed (that men are unable to do this at all). In short, men are “able” to save and “unable” to save all at the same time, in the same way.
If there is one sentence I could end with in this post, it would be a one-liner from the words of John Preston: “freely given to all, yet God intends him onely to the Elect” (Jonathan Moore, “English Hypothetical Universalism,” page 113; Preston, “The Breast-plate," I:9). One of the things that you, my readership, will discover as we plow through Preston is that Preston is speaking contradiction...and will soon come head-to-head with his contradiction and be forced to face himself. When he does, the reading of my posts will be so worth it. How exactly does he respond? Well, for the answer to that, you’ll just have to keep reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)