So how else could God have saved sinners in a manner consistent with His justice? God is bound by His own nature, therefore, Paul says that He "cannot lie." God cannot save sinners by setting aside the demands of His justice; that is what the "god" of Islam and Judaism does.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

God's counsel is simple. God decreed sin, He decreed death to be the punishment of sin, and He decreed Christ to die in the place of elect sinners to save them from sin. One cannot speculate what God might have done differently in one aspect without calling into question the whole series of things decreed. It is "absolutely" possible that God could have forgiven sin by a mere declaration, but then it raises a series of questions respecting what else might have been differently decreed. It is better simply to adhere to Scripture, to what is, rather than ascend the ethereal realms in order to hypothesise what might have been.

Concerning this statement respecting the god of Islam and Judaism, I cannot see what relevance this has on a system which acknowledges decretal necessity. But I do detect in the statement the idea that God must do certain things in order to be God, which is as unreformed as both Islam and Judaism.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

God does have to do things. He has to punish sin as He is a just God. If God does not have to punish sin then He is unjust.

Anyway, enough philosophy for one night...I have a bed to go to.

I wish you a good night's rest.

This has been a very good discussion to read thus far.

As a general thought to throw out there, while I do know that some of the English Puritans did in fact believe in prophecy in a special revelation type of way, it is also true that the word was likewise used to sometimes refer to preaching, and the use thereof by the Spirit as a means of grace to convict the hearts and minds of believers and unbelievers alike, and bless the former. Could that sense of the word "prophecy" (preaching) have anything relevant to contribute to the current issue, including Rutherford's own use of the word, as well as the Divines' consensus on the issue in WCF 1?

Rev. Winzer, I found your initial post particularly helpful, where you talked about the different type of prophecy to which Rutherford referred, distinct from special revelation per se. Would you mind elaborating on just what he (and others) would have understood the nature of that to be. I think Wayne's recent post commenting on the article's characterization of the different "types" of supposed prophecies was likewise helpful in getting at some of that meaning. Would you characterize Rutherford's "prophecy" to fall into #2 (speaking on personal assurance of salvation; and also on illumination regarding Scripture's inspiration and content, as per the last sentence of WCF 1.5), or even one of those categories at all?

__________________
Chris


A passion to know and reflect Christ by living and demonstrating the truth and richness of the historic Reformed faith

Visit My Website Here

Christopher Blum
Member of Riveroaks Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Germantown, TN
Currently attending Trinity Presbyterian Church of Northern Kentucky (PCA) in Burlington, KY

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Well noted Matthew. It appears that Owen changed his mind on the subject between Death of Death and A Dissertation on Divine Justice. Why was this? The spectre of Socinianism seems mainly to be to blame.

__________________
Marty

From Creation to New Creation via Redemption

I've been waiting for a new book that touches on the topic of this thread:

G. H. Milne, The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation (London: Paternoster Press, 2007).

Amazon says it was due out in April, but it is now December and, alas, we're still waiting ...

Since inspiration and illumination (as we would call them) are the first two categories of revelation, that really places the third category somewhere in the vicinity of assurance. Obviously it is not the same as an assurance of an interest in Christ, but I think it can be demonstrated that it is functioning in the same way. What we have in this case are the general principles of the Word illuminating men who were wise observers of providence, zealous promoters of the cause of Christ, valiant in spiritual warfare, and fervent prayers in the Spirit. If a man has prayed importunately until he has received an assurance that God is going to answer his request, he will know something of the secret of the Lord.

This would certainly describe Scotsmen like George Wishart!

Would this assurance be along the same lines as the fleece of Gideon?

__________________

No, that was God's condescension to unbelief, and in no sense a pattern for today. The assurance of faith is grounded on the testimony of Scripture.

It appears to be in stock at Paternoster Press.

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"On land, at sea, at home, abroad, / I smoke my pipe and worship God." -- J.S. Bach

Matthew,
I need some clarification on the last two paragraphs you posted here.
When you say this;
When I read a statement like this respecting God's decree, I do not think it is "absolutely" possible that God could have forgiven sin by a mere declaration in that I have been taught that God has always decreed whatever was most Holy and wise, in His Infinite Knowledge.
Would not the events of the cross be the most wise,Holy, and just solution possible. In that I could agree with the last part of your statement
Then this part-
[/quote].

God's " must" can only be spoken of in terms of what He Himself has sweared to do.
Am I mis-reading the post? I am almost sure that i am missing something here.
I think the reference to God's immutability was not "in order to be God", but because He is God.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

Thanks, Anthony, for your post. I don't think you are missing anything. If we accept that God has decreed what is for His glory, this safeguards the doctrine of God's freedom from being misconstrued as any kind of arbitrariness. What He wills He wills freely, and yet He wills what manifests His glorious perfection.

We just need to be careful where we place the point of necessity. It cannot be in the things willed. He has not determined what shall come to pass because these things are wise and good in themselves, as if there is some standard outside of God which binds Him to act in this or that way. Rather, the things decreed are wise and good because the wise and good God freely determines them.

Sin and grace are the two main themes of holy Scripture. If we reflect for a little on these themes we will see that both preclude the idea of necessity in God's determination of whatsoever comes to pass. Sin can't be decreed necessarily, otherwise God would be the author of sin. Nor can grace be decreed necessarily, otherwise grace would cease to be distinguishing and would end up being nothing more than a divine obligation to seek the salvation of all.

Blessings!

Rev. Winzer, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, and I know the verse was referenced before -- I probably just didn't understand how it was addressed. In light of what you said above, could you expand more specifically on how you would explain the statement in Titus that refers to God as One 'that cannot lie', seemingly referencing His character as underlying and adding an additional force to His promise? (Is not His promise made before the world began His 'decree'? How can His character add force to His decree if there is no 'necessity' or assurance of anything outside of His decree? Surely He didn't 'decree' His being as truthful and unchanging? Would His constantly complete self-actualization reconcile His freedom and 'necessity' to some degree so that we can speak of things He 'cannot' do?)

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Mrs. Zartman, It is certainly the case that there are things which God cannot do. He cannot change and He cannot lie. He would not be God if He could do these things because these are characteristics of moral weakness. But there is a difference between saying God must be true and then saying He must act in this or that way in order to be true. In the former God is the standard of truth, whilst in the latter a second standard is being imposed upon Him.

To refer this back to the original thought concerning God's justice -- it is undoubtedly true that God cannot be unjust, but it is going too far to say that it would have been absolutely unjust of God to forgive sin without satisfaction. Such statements bind God to external standards and effectively create a "second" God. We know that God has decreed to manifest His justice by requiring a satisfaction for sin. This should content us.

Thank you, Rev. Winzer. Personally I'm more comfortable with affirming God's freedom and speaking in terms of what He has decreed than of what He 'had to' or 'might have' decreed.

I did have a further question though. You explained that 'there is a difference between saying God must be true and then saying He must act in this or that way in order to be true' and referred that back to His justice: we can say that God is just, as I understand it, but we cannot say that He 'has' to act this or that way in order to be just. Yet 'truth' in the sense of not being able to lie does necessarily mean (or there doesn't seem to be much content) some kind of action. I can say that God must not say something which is false or opposite of what He said previously because He can't lie. I don't know if I'm expressing this very well.... I was wondering where you would place the distinction between His truthfulness and His action in the sense that we can say He is truthful and this means He 'must not' lie?

[Also, do not many of the words we use to describe God in the catechism have no meaning apart from actions He must or must not do? Such His being immortal? Do we have very much approach to describing His Being apart from necessary action? Am I confusing two kinds of action?]

If we take the apostle's statement -- "Let God be true and every man a liar" -- as establishing a genuine antithesis between truth and falsehood, then the proposition "God is true" necessarily includes within it the converse proposition that "God cannot lie."

This principle applies to all His perfections. The fact that God is just necessarily implies He is no respecter of persons. But we cannot then argue that because God is just He is not able to confer saving grace on one and pass by another. Likewise, we have no grounds for arguing that because God is just He is not able to forgive a sinner without satisfaction being made for sin. In both instances there is a grave mistake being made. Both types of argument could only be correct if God were ONLY just. But the very idea of salvation in the first instance and forgiveness in the second instance supposes that God is BOTH just AND gracious. Hence He cannot be bound to an external standard which consists ONLY of justice.

It should follow from the fact that God is not ONLY just, but is BOTH just AND gracious, that He does not act out of some necessity of nature when He manifests either justice or grace, but such manifestations are free acts of His own will. What God has determined to do in the salvation and forgiveness of sinners is what pleases Him and brings praise to His glory.

The fact that God's Being is "simple" should also lead us to the same conclusion. Thomas Boston explains, "God’s attributes are God himself. Neither are these attributes separable from one another; for though we, through weakness, must think and speak of them separately, yet they are truly but the one infinite perfection of the divine nature, which cannot be separated therefrom, without denying that he is an infinitely perfect being." (Works, 1:57.) Now if this is so, then we ought not to conceive of God's attributes as parts of the whole. "Justice" and "goodness" are expressions of God's essence accommodated to our state of being. As such they can only be free acts of His will.

My copy of The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation: The Majority Puritan Viewpoint on Whether Extra-Biblical Prophecy is Still Possible arrived today. While I'm not prepared to analyze it yet, it looks fascinating. I'm looking forward to reading it very much.