'Theology Discussion Group'

A Biblical-theological understanding of the unfolding character of the history of redemption will see new songs and hymns composed with each chapter of God’s plan. When God executes His wrath or grace, it is time to compose new songs which celebrate these covenantal acts of God. This is why new songs are to be found in the historical books, before the Psalms and in the prophetic books after the Psalms. The mighty acts of God in every generation were put to music and sung. The people of God had the freedom to write new songs to praise God; they were never restricted to the Psalms. a. What did the people of God do before David was born? They composed songs as Miriam (Exod.15:20), Moses (Ps. 90) and Deborah (Judg. 5) did to celebrate the acts of God in their generations. b. How did David come to write the Psalms? There was no divine command for him to write the Psalms for worship services. Many of the Psalms were written for David’s personal edification when he was yet a shepherd boy. He had musical gifts and he had the freedom to exercise them in the public worship of God. If a sole psalmist would have been present when David introduced a few of his original songs into the worship service, he would have rejected David’s songs because Moses’ Psalm (Ps. 90) was the only Psalm which could have been sung. c. The presence of other authors included in the Psalms suggests that whoever had the gifts could exercise them for the good of God’s people. (See 1 Chron.15:22, where David hires a song writer, or 1 Chron.16, where David encouraged the priests to compose original vocal and instrumental music to praise God. d. After David, songs were composed to celebrate God’s mighty acts in each generation. (For example, see lsa. 5:1; 26:1; 42:10; Lamentations, etc.) To be sure, the people of God did not forget all the acts of God in ages past; they continued to sing all the old songs and hymns and Psalms from every generation. e. Even a careful reading of the Psalms will discover some Psalms which were written long after David. Some are even from the post-exile period. If the people of God were limited to David’s Psalms, why do we find Psalms from later periods included? The only answer is that the Psalms of David were not viewed as being the finalized hymnbook for the church. f. Finally, where in the Old Testament do we ever find a divine command to sing only the Psalms? There are examples of psalm singing but God never said to restrict ourselves to the Psalms. We are told to remember the acts of God in past generations but also we are told by God to sing new songs to celebrate the acts of God in our own generation (Pss. 33:3; 96:1; 98:1; etc.). The History of Redemption in the New Testament has the same unfolding character as the Old Testament. 1. The angels open up the age of the New Covenant with new songs, not old Psalms (Luke 2:13-14). These new songs celebrate the incarnation and the redemptive work of God the Son. It is apparent from the very beginning that the New Covenant will generate new songs of praise. 2. Mary celebrated God’s work within her by composing a glorious song of faith and confidence (Luke 1:46-55). Thus we begin the New Testament with original songs composed to celebrate the new acts of God in Christ Jesus. 3. Did not the crowds compose a new song to celebrate the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Luke 19:37-38)? 4. Do we not find portions of several hymns recorded in the New Testament which show us that the early Christians composed new songs to celebrate the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ? (cf. 1Cor 13; Eph 5:14; Col 1:15-20; 1Tim 3:16; 2Tim 2:11-14; Jam 1:17; Rev 1:5, 6; 15:3; etc.) 5. Did not the Corinthian Christians compose their own distinctively Christian songs when they shared with their fellow saints in public worship (1 Cor. 14:26)? 6. As the New Testament begins with angelic songs, so it closes with heavenly songs. It is important to ask, Are they singing only the Psalms? No! They sing new songs to God (Rev. 4:11; 5:9-14, etc.). The New Testament people had the freedom to compose new songs to celebrate the covenantal acts of God in their own generation. 7. Are we told in the New Testament to restrict ourselves to singing the Psalms in church services? No. There is not a single verse in the New Testament where we are-told to sing the Psalms, and only the Psalms, in the public worship of the gathered church.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Here's a quote from the web site Stan referenced, and found in their 'Essentials of Tres Dias'

TRES DIAS is based on the principles, the method, and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Cursillo movement initially proposed by Bishop Juan Hervas, Eduardo Bonnin and their fellow Christians. Each candidate goes through three phases of the TRES DIAS movement: the pre-weekend, the three-day weekend1 and the Fourth Day. TRES DIAS is a Christian ecumenical movement.

Enough said? hahaha

In His Grace, Pilgrim

One major thing that differs between God's 'plan' for the elect and His 'plan' for the reprobate, is that 'all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.' Within this 'all things' is also meant our Sanctification. We are always being 'conformed to the image of Christ' (Rom 8:29), made 'partakers of the divine nature' (Joh 1:12; 2Pet 1:4), and are destined to receive 'the inheritance of the saints' (Col 1:12; cf. Eph 1:11, 14, 18; Heb 9:15; 1Pet 1:4). In other words, after we have been made 'right' for heaven (Justification), we are then made 'fit' for heaven (Sanctification). :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

So here we are again debating the untenable position of Exclusive Psalmody. :-) You want to base your view on two particular passages of Scripture, namely Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. From Greg Price's writings, you assert that Paul was referencing the Scriptures from the LXX; delineating between three 'groups' of psalms rather than three 'types' of songs. First of all I think it must be noted that 'the Reformers, the English Puritans, and the best modern Reformed commentators such as Hodge and Wm. Hendriksen all reject this interpretation of these two passages and including James 5:13. John Calvin, for example, said this on Col. 3:16:

Moreover, under these three terms he (Paul) includes all kinds of songs. They are commonly distinguished in this way: a psalm is sung to the accompaniment of some musical instrument, a hymn is properly a song of praise, whether it be sung simply with the voice or otherwise; an ode contains not merely praise, but exhortation and other matters. He wants the songs of Christians to be spiritual, and not made up of frivolities and worthless trifles. (emphasis is mine). Another example can be drawn from Scripture itself. Is the reference to 'songs' in Rev.5:9 therefore to be understood as referring to the O.T. 'Psalter'?

Now let's move on the one of the passages in question, e.g., Eph:519 which reads:

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

For this text to teach 'Exclusive Psalmody' it must first speak directly concerning the public worship of God by the gathered church. The question therefore is, Does it do so? If it was speaking strictly of the public worship of the saints then what are we to make of the preceding verse which commands us 'to be filled with the Spirit'? Is this then to be restricted to the public worship? What about 'giving thanks'? (vs. 20). And what about 'Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.'; are wives only to submit themselves to their husbands during the public worship, and are free from offering submission when they leave the assembly? It seems clear that Paul is referring to all of life and not just to the public worship of God. 'Does this verse refer exclusively to public worship? Verse 19 primarily concerns personal edification just as verse 18 refers to personal filling, verse 20 to personal thanksgiving, and verse 21 to private mutual fellowship. The remainder of the passage concerns personal obedience in the home (22-6:4) or at work (6:5-9). Exclusive Psalmodists allow hymns and songs to be used for personal edification, but then point to Eph. 5:19 as proving exclusive psalmody. If this verse actually taught exclusive psalmody, it would mean that only the Psalms are to be sung in private for personal edification. But this position is unacceptable to nearly everyone.' Again, Eph 5:19 does NOT speak narrowly of only the public gathering and worship of God, but rather to the everyday life of all Christians. 'Notice also that the apostle said, 'Speaking to yourselves in Psalms and hymns an spiritual songs.' If this verse refers to exclusive psalmody in public worship, then not only must singing be done by the Psalms, but all speaking as well. All sermons, prayers, and lessons must be restricted to quotations from the Psalms if this verse teaches exclusive psalmody.'

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Very few Reformed people would ever argue against the use of Psalms in public worship. In fact, most all have argued for their inclusion. On the Regulative Principle, however, I would have to strongly disagree that it is to be limited ONLY to public worship, but rather in is an all encompassing principle that affects all of life; public worship being but one of its applications, albeit a very important one. The Puritans who developed this Principle surely applied it to their everyday lives as no one can contest. At the time of the Reformation, the Reformers established the basic principle that so far as the public worship of God is concerned, whatever is not commanded by Scripture is forbidden. This principle was necessary in order to give a clear reason for the exclusion of the mass, prayers for the dead, prayers to the saints, rosary services, etc. The Reformers wanted to re-establish the pure worship of the apostolic church. The regulative principle was their main instrument by which they sought to do this. Since nearly all Reformed Christians accept this principle, it is surprising that exclusive psalmists claim that the regulative principle of worship forbids the introduction of uninspired hymns in New Testament church services. 'If it is not commanded, it is forbidden' is thought by them to be the main argument for exclusive psalm singing in the church. But this principle in no way gives support to the sole psalmists' argument, as will be seen by the three following reasons. A. The Reformers and the Puritans who established this principle and fought for it, never understood it to mean the exclusion of uninspired hymns from church worship.

1. Did not Calvin include uninspired hymns in the Geneva Psalter? Yes. 2. Did not the first Scottish, English and Dutch Psalters include uninspired hymns? Yes. 3. Did not the Puritans who developed this principle actively engage in the writing of hymns (Baxter, Henry, Bunyan, etc.) and publish them (Owen)? Yes. 4. Even the great lights of the Evangelical Awakening were not opposed in principle to the singing of uninspired hymns in the services, (Whitefield, Romaine, Wesley, Toplady, Williams, etc.).

If the very framers and the greatest expounders of the regulative principle never derived exclusive psalmody from the regulative principle, this casts suspicion that the present use of the principle for exclusive psalmody is based upon a misunderstanding of the principle itself. B. This misunderstanding arises out of a confusion between the essence of the act of worship and the circumstances attending worship. Dr. J . I. Packer has pointed out this distinction as being fundamental to the Puritan concept of the regulative principle of worship. 1. Scripture alone tells what makes up the essence of worship. God has revealed to his people that there is to be (1) a gathering together for (2) the preaching and teaching of the Word, (3) the administration of the sacraments, (4) church discipline, (5)prayers, (6) singing, (7) fellowship, and (8) collection of offerings. The Romanists sought to add the Veneration of the Saints, worship of Mary, masses for dead, adoration of images, auricular confession, penance, candles, rosaries, etc. The Reformers and Puritans refused to add any of these things to the essence of worship. Nothing is to be added except it be a rule of Scripture. This is the clear teaching of Chapter XXI in the Westminster Confession of Faith. 2. On the other hand, the circumstances of worship are a matter of Christian liberty and practicality. The early churches met in the temple and in synagogues until driven out by the Jews. Then the home was the place of the churches until the congregations grew too large; then they had to go into the fields to worship. When Christianity was legalized, believers built places of worship. The design of the building, the presence of pews and organs, even the clothing of the minister belongs to the circumstances of worship. The vestment controversy of Owen's day was not over the issue of whether or not a minister could wear vestments, but whether or not the minister must wear vestments as part of the essence of worship. Whether or not you have musical instruments accompanying your singing, or whether you sing the Psalms or uninspired hymns are issues belonging to the circumstances of worship. C. Even if we were to grant that regulative principle of worship will dictate the material to be sung in the worship service, where do we find in Scripture any explicit commands concerning congregational singing? Even if we were willing to grant that Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16 did directly and exclusively refer to public worship, these passages clearly include hymns and songs as well as the Psalms. D. I must agree with the Reformers, the Puritans, and the best Reformed commentators in their understanding of the regulative principle of worship, i.e. that the regulative principle cannot be used to establish exclusive psalmody.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

In the first attempt to rebut my arguments, you have not offered any convincing argument at all. I still maintain, being in complete agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith, that the 'Regulative Principle' is two-fold in its application. This is nothing more than restating Sola Scriptura. The 'Regulative Principle' has NEVER been restricted to the aspect of public worship but rather it has been applied to ALL OF LIFE. Do you really think that Chapter XX 'Of Christian Liberty, and Liberty of Conscience' was exempt from the 'Regulative Principle'? Hardly! What you are positing, is a very narrow definition and use of 'Regulative Principle' that is to be restricted only to public worship, and then switch over to the Lutheran position for everything else (whatever is not forbidden is allowed). Sorry, brother, but this is inconsistent and hypocritical and self-serving. I don't buy it, and neither has the Reformed churches historically. This is something you and your little 'group' have been trying to foister on us and it hasn't worked. :-) 1) A non sequitur argument! 4) Are John and Charles Wesley, in your estimation, Reprobates? If not, then why are they to be excluded from the history of the true church? Although I admire Jonathan Edwards and have read most all that is publicly available of his writings, he is not the 'all and all' source of infallible truth. The Scriptures are 'sole and final authority in ALL matters of faith and practice.' B) Psalms ARE to be sung in the churches! Again, no one should argue with this tenet and I certainly am not. The issue is whether or not the SCRIPTURES teach that ONLY Psalm singing is permitted in the public worship of God's people. The 'proof' of this has not been made by you or anyone else that has been incontrovertible as history shows. As to the 'Directory for Publick Worship' it is non-binding, being an uninspired document. And this again is another example of your 'group's' attempt to bind the consciences of men by documents written by men that are not necessarily normative for all the people of God. NO 'covenant' and/or document written by men is able to bind the consciences of men, as the WCF itself states clearly. The fact that it 'fails to mention other songs' is no argument against them being sung in the public worship. The point being made was that the INSPIRED songs need to be carefully used so as not to 'add or subtract' from them. C) You clearly missed the point here concerning Col 3:16 and Eph 5:19. I was pointing out your hypocrisy in trying to use them in contradictory ways. If they do teach, which they don't, that 'Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs' are ONLY a triad designation for the O.T. Psalter, there is nothing in these texts that restrict them to public worship. It's an either/or, brother, not 'both/and' as you have tried to use them for your purposes. D) Another instance of hypocrisy on your part, if I may say so? All along you have been making reference to 'so and so' said this, and this, etc. about the use of Psalms only in public worship, but NO exegesis of a text yourself to prove your position. Whereas I certainly did offer an exegesis of Eph 5:19 to show that it does NOT teach that the singing of 'the Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs' are but the O.T. Psalter nor is there any reference to public worship in that text whatsoever, and cannot be. I mentioned, for example, William Hendriksen who was a solid Dutch Calvinist and more than able and highly respected N.T. scholar. It was to his EXEGESIS of these texts that I was referring to. I think that one must refute his exegesis from Scripture to be a valid argument, and not simply making a presumptive deduction from something Matthew Henry wrote. Lastly, I object to your accusation that I am being 'dishonest' in my argumentation. This indeed is an attempt to cast a dark shadow upon my personal integrity. Ad hominem arguments generally result in the opposition of what was intended by them. I would suggest that at this time there just isn't going to be any 'proof' that will convince you that your position is in error. What you are not willing to allow is that there have been, are and will be many very conservative, biblically minded and godly men and women who will disagree with Exclusive Psalmody, who are just as convinced that it is wrong as you are they it is correct. This of course begs a more important question: 'What of those who disagree with you?' 'How do you view, therefore, those who reject the Exclusive Psalmody? Is there salvation in question?' It seems to me that Scripture would encourage the singing of Scripturally derived New Testament songs. The Psalms, albeit legitimate songs to be sung, are yet 'types and shadows' of the reality of the Lord Jesus Christ and His atoning work. It would seem rather strange that God would restrict the church from singing the name of Jesus and/or the completion of His redeeming work. Again, Rev. 5:19 does clearly show that the 'saints' sing this type of song. No doubt that one's eschatological position has some bearing on this matter. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim

From the quote you offered by Matthew Henry, I see NOTHING that would even hint that he held to the view that psalms only should be sung in public worship. To use your quote,

the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture, and suited to special occasions, instead of their lewd and profane songs in their idolatrous worship. Religious poesy seems countenanced by these expressions and is capable of great edification. But, when we sing psalms, we make no melody unless we sing with grace in our hearts, unless we are suitably affected with what we sing and go along in it with true devotion and understanding. . . etc.

Henry used the conjunction and to distinguish between 'the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the Scripture. If anything, to the first-time reader, Henry is making mention of three types of songs, of which the Psalms are but one type. Secondly, there is absolutely no mention whatsoever about using Psalms exclusively in public worship in this quote. This is assumed by you and yet to be proven. The fact you chose to quote Matthew Henry where he is making commentary on Col 3:16, is a blatant contradiction on your part is it not? For in a previous reply, you were more than clear that Eph 4:5:19 and Col 3:16 did NOT address public worship. But here you quote Henry in an attempt to show that Col 3:16 does in fact make reference to public worship. You can't have it both ways. Paul in Col 3:16 either is referencing the singing of Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs for public worship or he does not. My contention, and exegesis shows that it is the later, and it is quite clear that Matthew Henry's comments do not restrict the singing of 'Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs' to the public worship of God. Further, to imply that Matthew Henry is saying that anything but Psalms is therefore 'lewd and profane songs in their idolatrous worship' is to totally misconstrue what the man is actually saying. Here, Henry having established that it is proper to sing 'the Psalms of David, and spiritual hymns and odes, collected out of the scripture,' he compares these to what the heathen Colossians in their pagan worship sing, i.e., 'lewd and profane songs'. The comparison is NOT between the Psalms and all other uninspired songs. Lastly, in like manner, he (Henry) says, 'But, when we sing psalms, we make no melody unless we sing with grace in our hearts, . . .' he is not making a bifurcation between the Psalms of David and 'other' songs, but simply he is saying that whatever is sung, it must be sung from a heart that is moved by the grace of God unto a transformation of life that bespeaks of godliness. If one were to press yet even further and for the sake of argument agree that he is isolating the Psalms, it proves too much. For he doesn't just make mention of 'the Psalms' but rather the Psalms of David. Without question, the O.T. Psalter consists of far more than the songs written by David. Thus would we then have to conclude that even the large remainder of the inspired songs in that book could not be included for either worship or personal edification, if the 'odes and spiritual songs' were in fact nothing more than 'the Psalms of David'?

In His Grace, Pilgrim

I agree that such information would be very helpful. Since my time is very much taken up with other things, I really can't afford to dig through my library for specific instances to give you. However, I would offer you these bibliograhpic references which cover these details to a great extent: Benson, Louis F. 1910-1914. The Hymnody of the English Speaking Churches. Princeton Theological Review (July, 1910; 1912-1914). Benson, Louis F. 1915. The English Hymn: Its Development and Use in Worship. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press. Reprint. 1962. Benson, Louis F. 1926. The Hymnody of the Christian Church. New York. Reprint. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1956. Benson, Louis F., DD., The hymns of John Bunyan, Published: New York city, The Hymn society, 1930. Benson, Louis F. in the following articles in the Princeton Theological Review c. 1915f:

'Development of English Hymnody'. X:39 'English Hymnody, Its Later Development'. VIII:353 'Hymnody of the evangelical Revival'. XII:60 'Hymnody of the Methodist Revival'. XI:420 'Liturgical Use of English Hymns'. X:179 'Watts Renovation of Psalmody'. X:399, 606; XI:85.

In these books and articles, Benson documents a plethora of instances of hymns being written and used in the Church from the period of the Reformation onward. Further, the very early Church also wrote and sang uninspired hymns which also can be documented by several notable Church historians, eg., Kenneth Latourette. I know where this volume is in my library, so I can supply quotes for you later on if you are interested. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim

Oooooops! I think that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of the MOST essential doctrines of the Christian Faith which is 'inherent' in the faith given at regeneration. The newly regenerated sinner might not know much at all about the Trinity; economic relationships, etc. but one thing that MUST be embraced in the heart is that faith in the Lord Christ INCLUDES the FACT that the LORD Jesus Christ is God incarnate. (cf. the Athanasian Creed). In the case of Isaac Watts, of whom I know little other than the hymnody that he wrote, this man was more than capable intellectually of comprehending what the doctrine teaches. And this man was surrounded by men who fully embraced and taught the doctrine of the Trinity. In other words, he wasn't your average, run-of-the-mill 'pew sitter'! Thus, there is no excuse why he should not have embraced it. Whether or not he denied it is still to be determined here at least! :-) Let's not make the fatal mistake of throwing out ALL doctrine as being necessary unto salvation. A truly regenerate man/woman may not articulate verbally 'doctrine', but the heart surely embraces it, for the person and work of Christ MUST be known to a certain degree else one would never BELIEVE on Christ. The regenerate person, by virtue of that regeneration is convicted of sin, acknowledges the supremacy of God, the deity of Christ, the sufficiency of His atoning sacrifice and the need of His righteousness to be his own; [this is NOT the same as 'putting one's trust in the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness'].

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

The Highway web site is getting quite expansive, over 420 pages at last count and I thought it was about time to add a Search Engine to the home page to facilitate browsing the site. Now you can simply type in a subject, title, author, etc. in the Search window and presto, the results will be displayed much like Yahoo, Excite or any of the major search engines. The use of 'quotes' is recommended if you are looking for something that contains more than one word, eg., 'rock music' or 'false gospel', etc. I hope this addition will aid you in finding many articles which previously have been unknown to you on The Highway. ENJOY!

In His Service, Pilgrim

Amen, brother! The problem is indeed that men refuse to accept the testimony of the Spirit against them, but 'exchange the truth for a lie'! What lies at the bottom of men's refusal to accept God's indictment against them and HIS evaluation of their true nature is that men just can't take the insult. 'Surely,' they say, 'we can't be ALL bad!? Their MUST be some good thing in me!' And even such statements like this are testimony enough of man's inherent wickedness in that they dare question the Almighty Who knows us better than even we ourselves. This even contrives against the gospel of the grace of God in Christ, for God, knowing how destitute fallen men are; that they possess no godly inclination whatsoever, that He Himself is dishonored and profaned in the lives of the best of men, that all men see themselves as having the power and knowledge of God (Gen 3:5) and therefore have no need of a Sovereign LORD to rule over them, even though He is most merciful and full of grace. God, knowing full well our hopeless condition determined to save a remnant of us poor needy sinners and took upon Himself the incomprehensible task and humiliation to suffer in our stead, thus paying the infinite demand of the law and enduring the incomprehensible punishment due us. Why, if there was the slightest 'chance' that even one solitary man could redeem himself; even if he was able to incline himself to receive God's grace, would the Son of the Most High have suffered the eternal wrath of His Father so as to save him? Many years ago, I had the privilege of hearing the late Dr. John Gerstner give a lecture on the depravity of man. He began by making an apology to the audience for what some others have been known to say in that they compared fallen man to that of a rat! He said that was indeed an unpardonable insult and that he begged forgiveness for these men for having denigrated the good name of all rats! He went on to compare fallen man to the deceased man Lazarus who laid four days in the tomb, and whose body was decomposing in the hot Israeli sun. Quoting George Whitefield, he said,

'In other words, you STINK in the nostrils of Almighty God! And I have only one thing to say about George Whitefield; he was guilty of understatement. I try to be as insulting as I possibly can when I describe the fallen condition of man. And if I have succeeded in insulting any of you today with my descriptions, then you can only draw one conclusion; you haven not been genuinely regenerated. For it is impossible to describe just how fallen man really is. But if you do begin to comprehend just how bad man really is, and just how deep a pit he has fallen into, you will be just like Martin Luther who said he would believe in Unconditional Election even if it WASN'T taught in the Bible! For there is just no other way man could be saved!'

The more a person is convicted of his sinfulness the more he will come to comprehend the grace of God and live unto righteousness out of a heart of untold praise. Soli Deo Gloria!!

In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim

Ain't that the truth, though?!

In 'Amazing Grace' many new hymnals have eliminated 'saved a wretch like me' and substituted a far more 'self appeasing' euphemism. They say the old terminology was too abasing and didn't promote a 'positive self image'! hahaha

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

It is many times the case that people confuse the doctrine of 'Total Depravity' with 'Utter Depravity' and thus reject it out of hand. The doctrine of 'Total Depravity' simple means that the totality of man's being has been affected by the Fall. Man is not as bad as he could be, but is capable of deprovement. It is the providential restraint of God that keeps men from falling into 'utter depravity', which will be withdrawn after the Judgment and the reprobate are cast into the Lake of Fire. Another error that people make is failing to understand that the 'Total' aspect of 'Total Depravity' refers to the MORAL part of man (the ability to good), not the physical. As John rightly stated from the teaching of Scripture, 'There is none that doeth good, no not one.' (Ps 14:1-3; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Rom 3:10-18; Eph 4:17-19; et al). In other words, EVERYTHING the natural man thinks, feels and does is sinful because he is alienated from God, having inherited a corrupt nature (Eph 2:1-5; Rom 5:12f). But this corruption of nature did not eradicate the uniqueness of man in that he was created with the 'imago dei' (image of God). It is just because man is created with the image of God which is corrupted with sin that makes him so odious in the sight of God. It is true that man is capable and does relative good, i.e., there are many things which men do that benefit other men and the creation. On the 'horizontal plane' man does 'good' in this sense, but nevertheless, those 'good deeds' are sinful and damnable because they are done apart from a heart that 'loves the Lord God' so that they are not done out of 'fiducia' (a lively faith and dependence) upon God, but out of self. Augustine, who opposed Pelagius on this matter; that there is any good within man in his natural state, spoke of this 'relative goodness' of man as 'the splendid vices of the heathen'. These 'vices' only show that man is in fact made in the image of God and all the more damnable in that not only are these things done apart from true motives; for the glory of God but also there is an inherent denial that all goodness belongs to Him and Him alone, and that apart from Him nothing can be done nor can they be even called good. Isaiah, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit says of our 'good deeds':

'But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.' (Isa 64:6, 7).

If one is to use an analogy of the condition of man after the Fall, one might better think of a glass of pure water that had a drop of deadly poison added to it. The poison permeates the entire contents and thus renders it undrinkable. Although to the naked eye it might 'appear' to be clean, yet it is contains a fatal potion that would result in certain death to anyone who might drink it. There is no part of the water that can be safely consumed without also ingesting the poison and suffering the consequences from it.

In His Grace, Pilgrim

You wrote: 'The truth is, the Fall was the entire reason He created us. Or so it seems to me.' And you mused 'God could be thinking, 'Boy, are you batting zero.'. Well, the first statement is far afield! But the second is probably more correct! :-) Nowhere has God revealed to us in His Word that the Fall was the ultimate purpose for the creation of mankind! The truth is that God created man so that His glory might be known and that we might 'enjoy Him forever' (cf. Westminster Larger Catechism: Q&A #1). To better show forth His glory in mercy and grace and to facilitate the creatures appreciation of His majesty, the Fall was designed and decreed. Thus it is just the reverse of what you said. :-) As to the 'wrath' of God, this is surely inherent in His being and not a 'reaction' to that which is contrary to His nature. You have implied something very important here, and that is that 'love' is NOT that attribute from which all of His other attributes flow out of. God is thrice HOLY and if any of God's attributes can be said to be 'above' any other, it is that He is Holy. One must seriously question why 'love' would be elevated to a position over and above any other attribute in the Godhead. (cp. Ex. 34:14; Ezra 9:15; Ps 11:7; Lev 11:44; Is 47:4; 1Pet 1:16; Ex 3:14; Ps 111:9; Jer 23:6; Amos 5:8; etc.) The LORD God is NOT 'the sum of His parts'

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

In all fairness, most Supralapsarians categorically deny that God is the Author of sin, and therefore His 'initial' decree to create some for destruction and others for salvation in Christ is not contrary to His nature. :-) The Supra position is the most 'logical' and both can easily be derived from Scripture. Personally, I hold to a combination of the two, hahaha, ala Herman Bavinck (cf. The Doctrine of God transl. by William Hendriksen: Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI.).

Rom 11:33 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.'

In His Grace, Pilgrim

You are right, of course, that God graciously gave us His Word, and actually condescended to put it into comprehensive language so that men/women/children, by His Spirit would be able to apprehend and apply it. I love Calvin's statement concerning the perspicuity of the Word, where he said that 'God lisped so that we might know Him in His Word'. But I think it is important to not give the wrong impression that ALL of God's children are given the same 'ability' by the Spirit to comprehend the Word to the same degree. The Spirit, Eph 4:7 'But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. . . . 16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.'. There have been and will continue to be those who have been gifted with more 'response-ability' within the Body of Christ for the purpose of serving the Church. Now I realize that there are many today who would posit that we are all 'equal' etc., but this simply isn't true according to the Scriptures. However, the common 'sheep' is not left to the mercy of those 'gifted' to serve in the ministry of the Word as if they are to bow before every 'wind of doctrine' that blows their way. But rather, EVERY teaching is subject to the fundamental and perspicuous teachings of God's Word. For example, there is no doubt that the Scriptures teach that God possesses the 'Big 3' Omni's; Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience. Thus if someone should come along with a 'deeper truth' that he/she has discovered by diligent study and the 'revelation' of the Spirit which contradicts any or all of these three 'Omni's', then that person is simply wrong. There are No contradictions within the Godhead, nor in His written Word, and the Church has always recognized this from the beginning, confessing that God's inscripturated Word is 'Infallible and Inerrant'. No child of God is to fear that he/she can be led down a wrong path, at least for very long, when they have the Scriptures as the 'light of their path.' Thus it is incumbent upon ALL believers to be faithful disciples of the Lord Christ and 'continue in the Word' (Jh 8:31). This 'check and balance' created within the Church is a marvelous thing and thus we are to be 'subject to one another'(1Pet 5:5). Personally, I am always suspicious of anyone who says they adhere to 'No creed but Christ! No doctrine but life!' Granted there are various 'Confessions' which the denominations from the Reformation wrote for themselves, but if one takes a good look at these historic Confessions, they only differ on the 'non-essentials', e.g., the recipients and mode of baptism, etc. But as to the essentials of the fundamental doctrines, which are known as the 'Doctrines of Sovereign Grace,' they are ALL in agreement. In my younger days, when I was overflowing with enthusiastic energy, hehehe, I read through Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom and was amazed that there was so much unity within the diversity of the various denominations which came out of the Reformation. Today however, these Confessions are ignored, rejected and in many quarters, ridiculed. They are seen as 'binding' rather than 'unifying'; 'detrimental' rather than a sure 'guard' against the heretical teachings of the wolves. Okay.... done! hahaha

In His Marvelous Grace, Pilgrim

The Pil

Nope, you got it all wrong my friend!.... TOTALLY wrong! The Infralapsarian view NEVER says God decreed ANYTHING after He created the worlds. The 'decrees' in both views stem from ETERNITY! It's the ORDER of the decrees that is at issue, NOT when! :-)

Pilgrim

Nope, you got it all wrong my friend!.... TOTALLY wrong! The Infralapsarian view NEVER says God decreed ANYTHING after He created the worlds. The 'decrees' in both views stem from ETERNITY! It's the ORDER of the decrees that is at issue, NOT when! :-)

Pilgrim
---
OK, OK, no need to yell. :) The word 'order' seemed to imply some sort of temporal sequence, which may be what confused me...

Nope, you got it all wrong my friend!.... TOTALLY wrong! The Infralapsarian view NEVER says God decreed ANYTHING after He created the worlds. The 'decrees' in both views stem from ETERNITY! It's the ORDER of the decrees that is at issue, NOT when! :-)

Pilgrim
---
OK, OK, no need to yell. :) The word 'order' seemed to imply some sort of temporal sequence, which may be what confused me...
---
Chrystostomos,

I wasn't 'yelling', hehehe but rather EMPHASIZING! :-) We as finite creatures do have this tendency to try and comprehend an infinite GOD in 'time modes', and thus your reply, 'The word 'order' seemed to imply some sort of temporal sequence, which may be what confused me...'. This is understandable, but simply wrong. Since the LORD God is endowed with the attribute of 'Infinity' (having no beginning nor end) and is the Creator of time itself and thus is not subject to it. As Rod initially commented, this is a very difficult subject, and I think mainly because of our limitations as time-bound creatures. But as I have come to understand the decrees of God, they existed as one in His infinite 'consciousness'. Thus for us being finite, we speak of the 'order' of the decrees or perhaps better said, the 'sequence' in which God's infinite counsel and will was to be applied in time. [Got a headache yet?] For an introductory article I would refer you to The Decrees of God by Arthur Pink.

In His Grace, Pilgrim

Well that certainly is a far cry from what you initially posted! :-) However, could you expand just a bit on what you mean by: 'God actively decreed the sinful actions of man'? This is now getting into the area of 'Double Predestination' which is a sub-topic of the Decrees. God 'Foreordains' ALL things, even the sins of men. Yet no man is compelled against his will to rebel against the Almighty and transgress His laws. All men sin as naturally as rain falls from the sky and thus I agree with you that God's direct 'action' in the affairs of men is more in the way of 'restraint'. Yet this does not negate the fact that ALL THINGS are 'Foreordained' by God. Is He therefore morally and legally culpable for the sins of men? Mae genito 'God forbid!'. And this is one of those 'mysteries' which finite minds are unable to comprehend, and I suspect never will. :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim