COLOSSIANS 1:18

Bondage Summary

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 23:54:57 +0000

Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will is a theological treatise written in 1525 in response to the teachings of Erasmus of Rotterdam. In it, Luther upholds the doctrine of predestination, arguing that human beings have no free will and that the only way to attain salvation is through faith alone. He rejects Erasmus’ idea of free will, claiming that if this were true, it would undermine God’s sovereignty and make Him no longer the omnipotent ruler of the universe. Luther suggests that if humans had free will, then they would be able to choose between good and evil, and this would put them in the same position as God. He also argues that human nature is corrupted by sin, and that only God is capable of freeing them from it. In addition, Luther insists that salvation is only possible through faith, not through works or human effort. Lastly, he states that God’s grace is given freely to all who accept it and that it is received through faith alone. Through this book, Luther sought to emphasize the importance of faith and to affirm the doctrine of predestination.

Freedom of the Will

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 23:53:16 +0000

Give a 12 sentence summary for Jonathan Edward's book Freedom of the Will.

Jonathan Edwards’ book Freedom of the Will is a theological treatise written in 1754. It is a response to the teachings of Arminianism, which argues that humans have free will and can choose between good and evil. Edwards counters this idea and instead asserts that humans are entirely determined by God’s will. He claims that God is the only one who is capable of determining our actions, and that He has preordained everything from the beginning of time. Edwards believes that humans are unable to choose between good and evil on their own and that their will is in bondage to God’s will. He also argues that God’s grace is necessary for salvation and that it is received through faith alone. Furthermore, Edwards states that humans have no control over their own sinful nature, and that they are completely dependent on God’s grace. The book ultimately emphasizes the importance of faith and the power of God’s will in the lives of humans.an beings have no free will and that the only way to attain salvation is through faith alone. He rejects Erasmus’ idea of free will, claiming that if this were true, it would undermine God’s sovereignty and make Him no longer the omnipotent ruler of the universe. Luther suggests that if humans had free will, then they would be able to choose between good and evil, and this would put them in the same position as God. He also argues that human nature is corrupted by sin, and that only God is capable of freeing them from it. In addition, Luther insists that salvation is only possible through faith, not through works or human effort. Lastly, he states that God’s grace is given freely to all who accept it and that it is received through faith alone. Through this book, Luther sought to emphasize the importance of faith and to affirm the doctrine of predestination.

Belgic : Our Justification Through Faith in Jesus Christ

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 23:51:53 +0000

Our Justification Through Faith in Jesus Christ

We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him, and seeks nothing more besides Him. For it must needs follow, either that all things which are requisite to our salvation are not in Jesus Christ, or if all things are in Him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith have complete salvation in Him. Therefore, for any to assert that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides Him, would be too gross a blasphemy; for hence it would follow that Christ was but half a Savior.

  Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith apart from works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits, and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits, which, when they become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.

Historic Creeds and Confessions, electronic ed. (Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997).  Belgic Confession Article 22.

Christ Fulfils the Covenant

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 23:50:26 +0000

How Does Christ Fulfil the Covenant of Grace for Us?

Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Grace through His life, death, and resurrection, thereby accomplishing the redemption and salvation of His people. His work can be understood in the following aspects:

-- 1. Incarnation: By taking on human nature and being born of the Virgin Mary, Christ united Himself with humanity, making it possible for Him to represent and redeem His people (John 1:14; Galatians 4:4-5).

-- 2. Perfect Obedience: Christ lived a sinless life in perfect obedience to God's law, fulfilling the righteousness required by God on behalf of His people (Matthew 5:17; Romans 5:18-19; Hebrews 4:15).

-- 3. Atoning Sacrifice: Christ's death on the cross served as a substitutionary atonement, satisfying the wrath of God against sin and providing forgiveness and reconciliation for those who believe in Him (Isaiah 53:4-6; Romans 3:25; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 2:2).

-- 4. Resurrection: Christ's resurrection from the dead confirmed His victory over sin, death, and the powers of evil, demonstrating His divine power and the efficacy of His redemptive work (Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:20-22; Colossians 2:15).

-- 5. Ascension and Intercession: After His resurrection, Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father, where He now serves as our High Priest and Advocate, interceding on our behalf and ensuring that the benefits of His redemptive work are applied to His people (Hebrews 7:25; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20-23).

-- 6. Final Consummation: Christ will return in glory to judge the living and the dead, bringing about the ultimate fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace as He ushers in the new heavens and new earth, where righteousness dwells and His people enjoy eternal life in His presence (Revelation 21:1-4; 2 Peter 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).

Through these aspects of His work, Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Grace, securing salvation for His people and establishing the basis for their eternal relationship with God.

We Proclaim the Word

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 17:57:37 +0000

We proclaim the Word. Until the Spirit works, it is only head knowledge. The Spirit may harden through that Word. The Spirit may regenerate through that Word. The Spirit may delay His work for years. We may never see the fruit. But your proclamation is still the Spirit’s chosen instrument.

You proclaim the Word. Until the Spirit works, it is only head knowledge. The Spirit may harden through that Word. The Spirit may regenerate through that Word. The Spirit may delay His work for years. You may never see the fruit. But your proclamation is still the Spirit’s chosen instrument.

I am to proclaim the Word. Until the Spirit works, it is only head knowledge. The Spirit may harden through that Word. The Spirit may regenerate through that Word. The Spirit may delay His work for years. I may never see the fruit. But your proclamation is still the Spirit’s chosen instrument.

Dread Not Evil Tidings

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 14:42:22 +0000

Christian, you ought not to dread the arrival of evil tidings; because if you are distressed by them, what do you more than other men? Other men have not your God to fly to; they have never proved his faithfulness as you have done, and it is no wonder if they are bowed down with alarm and cowed with fear: but you profess to be of another spirit; you have been begotten again unto a lively hope, and your heart lives in heaven and not on earthly things; now, if you are seen to be distracted as other men, what is the value of that grace which you profess to have received? Where is the dignity of that new nature which you claim to possess?

~Spurgeon

Evidence of Salvation/ Conversion

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 12:20:50 +0000

“Sense of sin and deep hatred of it, faith in Christ and love to Him, delight in holiness and longing after more of it, love for God’s people and distaste for the things of the world, – these are the signs and evidences which always accompany conversion.”

- J.C. Ryle

Assurance

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 06:14:53 +0000

"How may I be sure that my works have been “wrought in me” by God? Mainly by their effects. If you have been born again, you have a new nature within. This new nature is spiritual and contrary to the flesh—contrary in its desires and aspirations. Because the old and new natures are contrary to each other, there is a continual war between them. Are you conscious of this inward conflict?

If your repentance be a God-wrought one, then you abhor yourself. If your repentance be a genuine and spiritual one, then you marvel that God did not long ago cast you into hell. If your repentance be the gift of Christ, then you daily mourn the wretched return which you make to God's wondrous grace; you hate sin, you sorrow in secret before God for your manifold transgressions. Not simply do you do so at conversion, but daily do so now.

If your faith be a God-communicated one, it is evidenced by your turning away from all creature confidences, by a renunciation of your own self-righteousness, by a repudiation of all your own works. If your faith be “the faith of God's elect” (Titus 1:1), then you are resting alone on Christ as the ground of your acceptance before God. If your faith be the result of “the operation of God,” then you implicitly believe His Word, you receive it with meekness, you crucify reason, and accept all He has said with childlike simplicity.

If your love for Christ be the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:25), then it evidences itself by constantly seeking to please Him, and by abstaining from what you know is displeasing to Him: in a word, by an obedient walk. If your love for Christ be the love of “the new man,” then you pant after Him, you yearn for communion with Him above everything else. If your love for Christ be the same in kind (though not in degree) as His love for you, then you are eagerly looking forward to His glorious appearing, when He shall come again to receive His people unto Himself, that they may be forever with the Lord.

May the grace of spiritual discernment be given the reader to see whether his Christian profession be real or a sham, whether his hope is built upon the Rock of Ages or the quicksands of human resolutions, efforts, decisions, or feelings; whether, in short, his salvation is “of the Lord” or the vain imagination of his own deceitful heart."

~ Arthur Pink, "Experimental Salvation"

Grace Motivated

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:28:57 +0000

One of the most sinned-against biblical principles is that of the grace of God in the gospel as the pattern, motive and power for Christian living.

—Graeme Goldsworthy, Prayer and the Knowledge of God, 12

Calvin on Free-will (by Monergism).

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 11:15:46 +0000

by John Calvin

Editor’s Introduction

In The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, John Calvin responds to the Roman Catholic theologian Albert Pighius, who had attacked Calvin’s teaching on the bondage of the human will. Calvin’s concern is to show that the necessity of sin does not mean that sinners are externally forced to sin against their will. To make that distinction clear, he identifies four ways the will may be described: free, enslaved, voluntary, or coerced.

The following is a fresh translation from Calvin’s original Latin:

But since Pighius continually confuses necessity with coercion, and since it is of the greatest importance for the present question that we understand and carefully retain the distinction between them, we must observe how these four things differ from one another: a will may be free, enslaved, voluntary, or coerced.
By a free will people ordinarily understand—and Pighius likewise defines it in this way—a will that has it within its power to choose either good or evil.
A coerced will, properly speaking, cannot exist, since the two ideas contradict one another. Nevertheless, for the sake of instruction we must explain what is meant, so that it may be understood what coercion is. We therefore call that will coerced which does not incline this way or that of its own accord, or by an inward movement of choice, but is violently driven by an external force.
We call a will voluntary when it moves of its own accord in the direction in which it is carried, and is neither seized by force nor dragged unwillingly.
Finally, an enslaved will is one which, because of its corruption, is held captive under the dominion of evil desires, so that it can choose nothing but evil, even though it does so willingly and gladly, without being driven by any external force.
According to these definitions, we grant that man possesses choice and that his choice is voluntary, so that if he does anything evil, it must be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choice. We exclude coercion and violence, because these are contrary to the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it.
But we deny that the will is free, because through man’s inborn wickedness it is necessarily carried toward evil and can desire nothing but evil.
From this it may be seen how great the difference is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt, he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore necessarily wills what is evil. For where there is slavery, there is necessity. Yet it makes a very great difference whether that slavery is voluntary or coerced.
We locate the necessity of sinning nowhere else than in the corruption of the will; from this it follows that the will itself acts voluntarily.
Thus it is clear that voluntariness and necessity can exist together at the same time, despite Pighius’s attempt to evade this by supposing that man is free only if he does neither good nor evil necessarily.

Source: John Calvin, Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii, adversus calumnias Alberti Pighii Campensis, in Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss, vol. 6, Corpus Reformatorum 34 (Brunsvigae: C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1867), pp. 279–280, esp. p. 280.

Luther before Calvin

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 19:31:52 +0000

You might also find it strange, @DineshDSouza (many will surely find it ironic here) that Martin Luther—who championed the Reformation’s key idea that salvation is received by faith alone—preached God’s unconditional election of individuals to salvation years before John Calvin was even a Protestant.

Does this mean that Luther himself attacked the Reformation? That would be strange, wouldn’t it?

And yet, on August 19, 1527, a little over a month after Calvin’s 18th birthday, during the year by which his friends were acquainting him with Luther’s teachings for the first time, Luther preached the following on 1 Peter 1:1:

> “St. Peter declares that they are chosen. How? Not by themselves but according to God’s arrangement. For we shall not be able to bring ourselves to heaven or to create faith in ourselves. God will not admit all men to heaven; He will count His own very exactly. Now the human doctrine of free will and of our own powers no longer amounts to anything. Our will is unimportant; God’s will and choosing are decisive.”

> — *“Sermons on the First Epistle of Peter,” Luther’s Works (LW) 30:6.*

Calvin (1509–1564) was a young humanities student at the University of Paris’s Collège de Montaigu when Luther (1483–1546) preached this. He wouldn’t become a Protestant for another five or six years (late 1532 or 1533).

Luther, on the other hand, was still serving as Professor of Theology at the University of Wittenberg and as a preacher at the Wittenberg City Church:

- nearly 10 years after he posted the Ninety-Five Theses,

- going on 7 years since his clear declaration of justification through faith alone in *The Freedom of a Christian*,

- nearly 6½ years after his stand at the Diet of Worms,

- and coming up to 2 years after he published *The Bondage of the Will*, in which he referred to:

> “…that hidden and awful will of God whereby he ordains by his own counsel which and what sort of persons he wills to be recipients and partakers of his preached and offered mercy. This will is not to be inquired into, but reverently adored, as by far the most awe-inspiring secret of the Divine Majesty, reserved for himself alone and forbidden to us…”

> — *LW 33:139.*

And, of course, *The Bondage of the Will* was Luther’s contribution to the Luther-Erasmus debate you said you were studying 11 days ago, and as you scored it, “Luther wins on points” (although you said you’d “rather have dinner with Erasmus”).

Your remark here is interesting since *The Bondage of the Will* is an extended polemic against the notion that the fallen human will can do anything good, which includes having true saving faith, apart from a sovereign act of God’s supernatural grace. In it, Luther wrote:

> “Now take the saying of Christ in John 6[:44]: ‘No one comes to me unless my Father draws him.’ What does this leave to free choice? For he says that everyone needs to hear and learn from the Father himself, and that all must be taught by God. He plainly teaches here, not only that the works and efforts of free choice are fruitless, but that even the message of the gospel itself (which is what this passage is about) is heard in vain unless the Father himself speaks, teaches, and draws inwardly. ‘No one can come,’ he says, ‘no one’; and thus that power by which a man is able to make some endeavor toward Christ, or in other words, toward the things that pertain to salvation, is asserted to be no power at all.”

> — *LW 33:285–286.*

Thus, for Luther the only way a sinner can have true faith in Christ is if God gives it to him, and the only sinners He gives it to are those He’s chosen—the elect, or predestined.

So, is Luther “attacking” his own Reformation? Or is he perhaps just being inconsistent?

Neither, as far as he was concerned. In fact, he believed he was being eminently consistent because he considered sinful man’s total inability to be the actual heart of the matter concerning salvation, so much so that he was grateful to Erasmus for bringing it into the spotlight by challenging it:

> “Moreover, I praise and commend you highly for this also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wearied me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hunting for me without success.”

> — *LW 33:294.*

Yes, the same Luther who inspired the adage, “Justification is the article by which the church stands and falls” (though that’s not an exact quote of what he said) also repeatedly declared that the sinner’s inability to believe is an even more fundamental truth:

> “You and you alone have seen the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at the vital spot; for which I sincerely thank you, since I am only too glad to give as much attention to this subject as time and leisure permit.”

> — *Ibid.*

More people probably know that Calvin regarded man’s inability to believe as foundational than know that Luther affirmed the same view. Fewer probably know that Calvin used the same “hinge” metaphor that Luther uses here for that inability, except to declare the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone:

> “The theme of justification… is the main hinge on which religion turns…”

> — *John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.11.1, Battles translation, 1:726.*

This is because Calvin wasn’t “attacking” the Reformation any more than Luther was. He was getting right to the heart of the matter. Justification by faith alone is vital to true religion because it establishes the means of our right standing before God in Christ. The self-induced (and therefore totally culpable) Total Inability that results from our Total Depravity is foundational to understanding why God must give us that faith that justifies us in Christ.

It’s tragic how few long-time professing Christians today have even the slightest awareness of this.

Outshine

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 13:52:11 +0000

In the spotless robe of Christ, we outshine the angels.

Thomas Watson

The Word Answers

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:48:15 +0000

When the anxious soul asks: “Is Christ really for me?”

The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the doubting soul asks: “May I really come to him?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the guilty soul asks: “Will He really receive a sinner like me?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the weak believer asks: “Is my faith too small?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the troubled conscience asks: “What if I cannot find enough assurance in myself?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the suffering saint asks: “Will Christ really keep me to the end?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the church asks: “Will the King really come?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” And when faith can see nothing, feel nothing, and find nothing in itself upon which to rest, it can return again to that same sure ground: “Thus, he hath spoken.”

Spurgeon's Grandfather

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 12:22:25 +0000

James had the Puritanism.

James had the Calvinism. James had the preaching. James had the wit. James had the illustrations. James had the pastoral heart. And little Charles sat there watching it all. REV. JAMES SPURGEON Rev. James Spurgeon, 1776–1864, was the paternal grandfather of Charles Haddon Spurgeon and one of the strongest early influences on the future “Prince of Preachers.” He served for more than fifty years as an Independent, or Congregational, minister at Stambourne, Essex, firmly representing the Puritan, Calvinistic, Nonconformist tradition. He was known as a serious gospel preacher with strong convictions, pastoral warmth, and a lively sense of humor. Charles was sent to live with his grandparents while still very young and spent several formative years in the Stambourne manse. There he encountered preaching, sermon preparation, Scripture reading, family worship, theological books, prayer, and pastoral ministry firsthand. James was not merely his grandfather but one of his earliest spiritual teachers. Charles remembered his grandfather preparing sermons and spending time in prayer and meditation in a secluded place near the manse. To the young boy, that place seemed sacred because it was associated with James’s communion with God and preparation for preaching. Family worship was central to the household. Charles was allowed to read Scripture aloud and was encouraged to ask difficult questions. When he questioned the meaning of the “bottomless pit” in Revelation, James gave him a serious explanation of everlasting judgment that left a lasting impression. The family lived simply and without luxury, but Charles was surrounded by Scripture, prayer, preaching, books, Christian fellowship, and ministerial example. James’s combination of doctrinal seriousness and humor also left its mark. Charles would later display the same ability to proclaim weighty truths while engaging listeners with wit, illustrations, and familiar expressions. James further taught Charles that strong convictions need not produce bitterness. Though a Nonconformist, he maintained a warm friendship with the local Church of England minister, demonstrating that theological differences could coexist with mutual respect and cooperation in Christian work. After Charles became a prominent preacher, he and James sometimes shared the pulpit. On one occasion, James interrupted to add a few remarks; on another, he encouraged Charles by saying, “Tell them that again, Charles.” The moment reflected their relationship: the grandfather who had preached for decades was now listening with joy as his grandson proclaimed the same gospel. James Spurgeon gave Charles more than a family connection. He gave him an atmosphere, an example, a heritage, and an early vision of pastoral ministry. His Puritanism, Calvinism, preaching, wit, illustrations, pastoral heart, and life of prayer all helped shape Charles’s mind, theology, character, and preaching instincts. John Spurgeon provided Charles’s immediate ministerial heritage, but James Spurgeon helped form the spiritual and pastoral atmosphere in which the future Prince of Preachers was raised. This signature we obtained in our collection of the grandfather of C.H.Spurgeon

God loves you

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 05 Sep 2026 02:04:44 +0000

When your trial whispers that God does not love you, look at the cross. When your guilt says He cannot forgive you, look at the cross. When your suffering says He has abandoned you, remember the cross where He abandoned His Son so that He would never abandon you.

--found online

Help Me Remember

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 05 Sep 2026 01:27:13 +0000

Lord,

I worry because I forget your wisdom. I resent because I forget your mercy. I covet because I forget your beauty. I sin because I forget your holiness. I fear because I forget your sovereignty. You always remember me. Help me to remember you. Amen... —Tim Keller

Continual Warfare

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 01:40:08 +0000

"The holiest men have many a blemish and defect when weighed in the balance of the sanctuary. Their life is a continual warfare with sin, the world, and the devil; and sometimes you will see them not overcoming, but overcome."

— J.C. RYLE

His Father's Love Gift

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 16:08:40 +0000

When Jesus looks at you, He doesn't see a disappointment. He doesn't see a waste of time. He sees His Father's love gift to Him. You aren't what you will one day be. You might not be what you want to be, but God won't stop working in you until the glory of Christ is seen in you, in your own particular personality and beauty and glory. We're all different, all different sizes and shapes and colors and extroverts and introverts, and that'll not be eradicated. But the glory that's in you, your individuality, will be lifted to a level far beyond your wildest imagination.

-- Dr. Neil C. Stewart.

First Presbyterian Church An Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina

Pray all the More

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 29 Aug 2026 14:51:59 +0000

Do not allow the fact that you sin repeatedly keep you from prayer. Rather, 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦, since you are in need of forgiveness and strength, so that the grace of God may be glorified all the more. —

Wilhelmus à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 3:472

Abide in Prayer. John Owen.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 18:28:19 +0000

If we do not abide in Prayer, we will abide in Temptation. --- John Owen.

We are tempted without ceasing, so we must pray without ceasing. (??? Spurgeon???)

Christ is a Fountain

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 18:19:25 +0000

Christ is a fountain to wash us every day from those daily pollutions that befall us.

-- Thomas Goodwin

**Petals&Pillars**

WGT Shedd

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 12:18:14 +0000

Online Question: Are you saying that God allowing man to sin is the same thing as decreeing their sin?

Response Posted by Ron Henzel:
Reformed theologian W.G.T. Shedd (1820-1894):

‘The [Westminster] Confession (vi. 1; L[arger] C[atechism] 19) declares that God “permits” sin, but that it is not a “bare permission.” Con. v. 4. The permission that is adopted by the Assembly is one that occurs by a voluntary decision of God which he need not have made, had he so pleased. He might have decided not to permit sin; in which case it would not have entered his universe. The “bare permission” which is rejected by the Assembly means that God makes no voluntary decision at all in the case; that he could not have prevented the fall of angels and men, but stands “like an idle spectator,” having no control over the event which he witnesses.

Augustine makes the following statement in his Enchiridion, Ch. 100: “In a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to God’s will [of desire] does not defeat his will [of decree]. For it would not be done did he not permit it, and of course his permission is not unwilling, -p95- but willing; nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done except that in his omnipotence he can turn evil into good.” Calvin, adopting Augustine’s phraseology, concisely marks the difference between the two permissions in the remark, that “God’s permission of sin is not involuntary, but voluntary.” Inst. I. xviii. 3.

Both Augustine and Calvin had particular reference, in this connection, to the first origin of sin in angels and men. But their statement holds true of the continuance of sin in angels and men. When God passes by all the fallen and sinful angels, and does not regenerate and save any of them, it is by a positive voluntary decision that might have been different had he so pleased. He could have saved them. And when God passes by some fallen and sinful men and does not regenerate and save them, this also is a positive voluntary decision that might have been different had he so pleased. He could have saved them. To deny this option of God in either instance is to deny, 1st, the divine sovereignty in the exercise of mercy; and, 2d, the divine omnipotence in the control of creatures.’

‘¹ The permissive decree as related to the origin of sin presents a difficulty that does not exist in reference to the continuance of sin. The certainty of the continuance of sin in fallen man is easily explained, by merely leaving the fallen will to its self-determination. But merely leaving the unfallen will to its self determination would not make its apostasy certain; because it was endowed by creation with a power to remain holy as created, and there was no punitive withdrawal of any grace given in creation until after apostasy. How, under these circumstances, a permissive decree which does not operate by direct efficiency can make the fall of a holy being certain, is an inscrutable mystery.

Respecting it, Turretin (VI. vii. 1) makes the following remark: “Two extremes are to be avoided. First, that of defect, when an otiose permission of sin is ascribed to God. Second, that of excess, when the causality of sin is ascribed to him. Between these extremes, the orthodox hold the mean, who contend that the providence of God extends to sin in such way that he does not involuntarily permit it, as the Pelagians say, nor actively cause it, as the Libertines assert, but voluntarily ordains and controls it.”’

— William G. T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed: A Defence of the Westminster Standards, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 94–95. The italics style is in the original.

Earlier in the same book, Shedd dealt with the topic of the phrase “bare permission” in response to those who misinterpreted its significance in the WCF:

‘It is sometimes argued that the Confession excludes the tenet of the permissive decree, by its declaration that the “providence of God extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission” (Conf. v. 4). The “bare permission” which the Assembly rejects here is that of the Tridentine theologians, who asserted that sin arises from the “mere permission” of God. The Reformed theologians understood this to mean, that in respect to the fall of angels and men God is an idle and helpless spectator (deo otioso spectante), and that sin came into the universe without any positive decision and purpose on his part. This kind of “permission” implies that God could not have prevented sin had he so decided, and is really no permission at all; because no one can properly be said to permit what he cannot prevent.

In order to exclude this view of “permission,” the Assembly assert “such [a permission] as hath joined with it a most holy, wise, and powerful bounding and otherwise ordering and governing of [the sins of angels and men], in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, not from God, who neither is nor can be the author of sin.” This last clause declares that God’s relation to the sin which he decrees, is not that of efficiency, but permission. For if God worked directly and efficiently in angel or man “to will,” when he wills wickedly, the “sinfulness of sin” would “proceed from God,” and God would be “the author of sin.”

The permissive decree is taught also in Larger Catechism, 19. -p34- “God by his providence permitted some of the angels, wilfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation, limiting and ordering that, and all their sins, to his own glory.”

‘The permissive decree is supported by Scripture, in the statement that God “in times past suffered (εἴασε) all nations to walk in their own ways” (Acts 14:16); that “the times of this ignorance God overlooked” (ὑπεριδών) (Acts 17:30); that God “gave rebellious Israel their own desire (Psalm 78:29); that “he gave them their request” (Psalm 106:15). This phraseology is never employed when holiness is spoken of. The Bible never says that God permits man to be holy, or to act righteously. He efficiently influences and actuates him to this.

Accordingly the other Reformed creeds, like the Westminster, mark the difference between God’s relation to holiness and sin. The Second Helvetic, Ch. viii., says: “Quotiescunque Deus aliquid mali in Scriptura facere dicitur atque videtur, non ideo dicitur, quod homo malum non faciat, sed quod Deus fieri sinat et non prohibeat, justo suo judicio, qui prohibere potuisset, si voluisset [as often as God in the Scripture is said and seems to do some evil, it is not thereby meant that man does not commit evil, but that God does suffer it to be done, and does not hinder it; and that by his just judgment, who could hinder it if he would].”

The Belgic Confession, Art. 13, asserts that God’s “power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible, that he orders and executes his work in the most excellent and just manner even when the devil and wicked men act unjustly. We are persuaded that he so restrains the devil and all our enemies that without his will and permission they cannot hurt us.”

The Dort Canons, i. 15, teach that “God, out of his sovereign, most just, and unchangeable good pleasure hath decreed to leave some men in the common misery into which they have wilfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion, but permitting them in his just judgment to follow their own way, at last, for the declaration -p35- of his justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins.”’

— Shedd, ibid., 33–35.

Freedom in Our Souls

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 00:10:16 +0000

"There will be no freedom in our souls until we are persuaded of God's mercy, that, despite our unworthiness, He will receive us lovingly and graciously ... Though there is much that He could criticise, and many weaknesses, though we come limping to Him ... nevertheless, He accepts all of this. Why? Because He bears with us like a father with a son. This is the liberty in which we are to stand fast (Gal. 5: 1) ... When I approach Him, therefore, I can come with my head held high, having been acquitted and absolved through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ ... I cannot bring Him the perfection that He requires, nor even the hundredth part of it! Well, God bears with me, and still accepts that which is imperfect and weak, and even that which is mixed with sin."

≈ John Calvin's Sermons on Galatians.

Pink Pool of Quotes

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 01:01:01 +0000

"None will experimentally appreciate the righteousness of Christ until they have been experimentally stripped by the Spirit.

Not until the Lord puts us in the fire and burns off our filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), and makes us stand naked before Him, trembling from head to foot as we view the sword of His justice suspended over our heads, will any truly value "the best robe." 

Not until the condemning sentence of the law has been applied by the Spirit to the conscience does the guilty soul cry, "Lost, lost!" (Rom. 7:9, 10). 

Not until there is a personal apprehension of the requirements of God’s Law, a feeling sense of our total inability to perform its righteous demands, and an honest realization that God would be just in banishing us from His presence forever, is the necessity for a precious Christ perceived by the soul."

~ Arthur Pink, "The Doctrine of Justification"

"Those powerful natural affections which God placed in man when He made him have been misplaced by the fall, so that he now loves what he ought to hate (John 3:19), and hates what he should love (Romans 8:7). Hence the divine work of grace is to renovate and restore the disordered affections to their right center and fix them upon their proper objects. The one or the other will inevitably regulate and dominate the life." 
~ Arthur Pink, “Exposition of John's First Epistle

"The unregenerate do not really believe in the holiness of God. Their concept of His character is altogether one-sided. They fondly hope that His mercy will override everything else. "You thought that I was just like you" (Psalm 50:21), is God’s charge against them. They think only of a god patterned after their own evil hearts, hence their continuance in a course of mad folly."
~ Arthur Pink, "Gleanings in the Godhead - The Holiness of God"

HEART MUST YIELD

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 22 Aug 2026 00:45:39 +0000

7 TRUTHS ABOUT WHY FACTS ALONE RARELY CHANGE MINDS EVIDENCE MATTERS. THE HEART MUST YIELD.

01 Evidence can establish the truth; it cannot make a resistant heart welcome it. *John 5:39–40; John 12:37*

02 People often reject the truth not because the evidence is weak, but because the truth threatens what they love. *John 3:19–20; 2 Thessalonians 2:10–12*

03 The mind frequently becomes the heart’s defense attorney, inventing reasons to protect what the heart desires. *Romans 1:18, 21–25*

04 When a false belief becomes part of someone’s identity, correction feels less like enlightenment and more like personal annihilation. *Ephesians 4:22–24; Matthew 16:24–25*

05 Overwhelming evidence may harden resistance when accepting it would cost too much. *John 11:47–53; Acts 19:23–28*

06 Changing a mind requires more than receiving new information; it requires repentance—a willingness to become a different person. *Acts 2:37–38; 2 Timothy 2:25–26*

07 Ultimately, only God can open the heart to receive the truth the mind has heard. *Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14; 2 Corinthians 4:6*

Source : MONERGISM.