Monday, November 17, 2025

Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 13 - Sanctification

A Study on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 13 – Of Sanctification

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) provides a rich, biblically grounded definition of sanctification. Chapter 13 emphasizes both the definitive and progressive aspects of sanctification, rooting the entire work in the finished work of Christ and the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit. The section highlighted captures the heart of this doctrine—its foundation, process, struggle, and ultimate hope.

Below is a detailed theological and pastoral study of this chapter.

1. Sanctification Begins With Effectual Calling and Regeneration

“They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them…”

Meaning

Sanctification does not begin with human effort. It begins with God’s sovereign work in salvation. Those whom God effectually calls (WCF Ch. 10) are regenerated by the Holy Spirit (WCF Ch. 10.2), given:

A new heart (Ezek. 36:26)
A new spirit (Ezek. 36:27)
New desires and affections oriented toward God
Spiritual life where there was previously death (Eph. 2:1–5)

Definitive Sanctification

The confession emphasizes that believers are first made holy in principle by God’s act of regeneration. They are set apart as God’s own.

This foundational change is:

Real
Lasting
Impossible to reverse
The beginning of all true spiritual growth

Without this definitive sanctification, no progressive sanctification—daily growth in holiness—is possible.

2. The Source and Power of Sanctification

“…are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection.”

Christ as the Source

Sanctification is not merely moral improvement or behavior modification. It is rooted in the virtue (power, efficacy) of:

Christ’s death – which breaks sin’s dominion (Rom. 6:6–7)
Christ’s resurrection – which brings new life and the power to obey (Rom. 6:4, 11)

This echoes Paul’s statements in Romans 6: our union with Christ means we truly participate in His death to sin and His resurrection life.

Real and Personal

Real – not imagined, symbolic, or merely legal
Personal – not mechanical, distant, or abstract

Sanctification touches the whole person: mind, will, affections, body, desires, and habits.

The Holy Spirit’s Application

The Spirit continually applies Christ’s work to believers, forming Christ in them (Gal. 4:19), empowering obedience (Phil. 2:13), and producing spiritual fruit (Gal. 5:22–23).

3. Sanctification Is Throughout Yet Imperfect

“This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part…”

Throughout the Whole Person

Sanctification affects every aspect of human nature:

Intellect (renewing of the mind – Rom. 12:2)
Will (inclined toward holiness – Phil. 2:13)
Emotions (new affections – Col. 3:2)
Physical body (instruments of righteousness – Rom. 6:13)

Nothing is left unchanged.

Yet Imperfect in This Life

Even though the whole man is sanctified, the work is not perfected before death.

There remain “remnants of corruption”:

In thoughts
In desires
In motives
In habits
In bodily appetites
In actions

This realistic assessment guards us from:

Perfectionism (thinking believers can be sinless in this life)
Despair (thinking we must never progress)

The Christian life includes both substantial renewal and ongoing struggle.

4. The Continual and Irreconcilable War

“…whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.”

The Conflict Described

Sanctification does not eliminate spiritual conflict; it creates it.

Before regeneration, there is no battle—sin reigns uncontested.
After regeneration, the believer experiences:

A new nature that loves God
An old nature that resists Him

This results in an internal, lifelong conflict (Gal. 5:17).

The War Is:

Continual – no ceasefire
Irreconcilable – no peace treaty with sin
Dual-sided – flesh vs. Spirit

Pastoral Insight

Feeling this conflict is a sign of spiritual life.
A believer struggling with sin is not failing at sanctification—he is participating in it.

5. The Outcome: The Regenerate Part Overcomes

“In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome.”

Realistic: Corruption May Prevail for a Time

This acknowledges that Christians may:

Experience seasons of defeat
Stumble into serious sin
Feel cold, weak, or discouraged
Battle entrenched patterns

Yet these seasons are temporary for true believers.

Hopeful: The Spirit Ensures Ultimate Victory

The confession is clear: sin may win battles, but it cannot win the war.

Why?

Because believers receive:

A continual supply of strength
From the sanctifying Spirit
Who applies the victory of Christ
To the regenerate nature, which ultimately grows, perseveres, and overcomes

Victory Is Guaranteed

The Spirit ensures:

Growth (2 Cor. 3:18)
Perseverance (Phil. 1:6)
Final triumph (Rom. 8:13)
Conformity to Christ (Rom. 8:29)

Our confidence rests not in our faithfulness, but in His.

6. Summary of Westminster’s Teaching on Sanctification

Sanctification Is:

Rooted in regeneration – new heart, new spirit
Grounded in Christ’s death and resurrection
Real, personal, and transformative of the whole person
Lifelong and imperfect — remnants of sin remain
A continual war — flesh vs. Spirit
Ultimately victorious — by the power of the Spirit

7. Devotional and Pastoral Implications

For Assurance

Struggle is not evidence against salvation; it is consistent with it.
Desiring holiness—even imperfectly—is itself the work of the Spirit.

For Humility

We cannot sanctify ourselves. Every advance in holiness is grace-driven.

For Hope

Christ will finish the work. The Spirit’s sanctifying presence is unceasing, invincible, and effective.

For Repentance

Because sin remains, repentance remains a normal part of the Christian life—not a mark of failure but a mark of growth.

Sunday, November 9, 2025

Exegesis Ephesians 1:5

“He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.”

1. Context within Ephesians 1:3–14

This verse is part of Paul’s long doxology—a single Greek sentence (vv. 3–14)—praising God for every spiritual blessing in Christ. It focuses on God’s eternal plan of salvation, moving from election (v. 4), predestination (v. 5), redemption (v. 7), revelation (v. 9), and inheritance (v. 11), culminating in the praise of His glory (v. 14).

So, verse 5 develops the thought of verse 4:

“He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world …”
leading to how and to what purpose that choosing was directed—to adoption as sons.

2. Key Greek Terms and Grammar

**a. “He predestined” — προορίσας (proorisas)**

From proorizō (“to decide beforehand, determine in advance”).
Indicates God’s sovereign initiative and purposeful determination—not random fate.
The verb is aorist participle, implying a completed act in God’s eternal counsel.

**b. “For adoption to sonship” — εἰς υἱοθεσίαν (eis huiothesian)**

Huiothesia literally means “placing as a son” (from huios = son, thesis = placing).
In Roman culture (which shapes Paul’s metaphor), adoption granted full legal status, inheritance rights, and family name to one not born into the family.
Spiritually, this refers to believers being given the full rights and privileges as children of God—not merely forgiven servants, but family heirs (cf. Rom 8:15–17; Gal 4:4–7).

c. “Through Jesus Christ” — διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

Jesus is the mediator and means of adoption.
Through union with Him, believers share in His sonship (John 1:12; Rom 8:29).

d. “According to his pleasure and will” — κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ

Eudokia means “good pleasure, delight, favorable intention.”
This phrase underscores that God’s predestining act springs not from human merit but divine grace and loving intent (cf. v. 9).

3. Theological Meaning

Paul affirms that God’s plan for salvation was:

Intentional — not accidental or reactionary.
Relational — aimed at making believers His children.
Christ-centered — accomplished through Christ’s redemptive work.
Gracious — rooted in God’s pleasure, not human worth.

The emphasis is not on who is excluded, but on the purpose of inclusion: to be God’s sons and daughters, reflecting His glory.

4. Major Interpretive Views

A. Reformed / Calvinist View

Predestination refers to God’s eternal decree choosing specific individuals to salvation.
Adoption is the outworking of God’s sovereign election “before the foundation of the world.”
God’s “pleasure and will” emphasize His freedom and grace, not conditioned on foreseen faith.
Supported by Rom 8:29–30, which links predestination with calling, justification, and glorification.

B. Arminian / Wesleyan View

Predestination is corporate and conditional.
God predestines “the plan” (that believers in Christ will be adopted), not individual fates apart from their response to grace.
God’s “pleasure and will” refer to His desire that all be saved (1 Tim 2:4), but adoption applies to those who freely believe.

C. Eastern Orthodox View

Stresses theosis (divinization): adoption means participation in the divine life through Christ.
Predestination is viewed not as deterministic, but as God’s foreordained purpose to make humanity His children in Christ—a purpose offered universally but received personally.

D. Roman Catholic View

Similar to the Augustinian/Reformed emphasis on God’s initiative, yet balanced with human cooperation (synergism).
Predestination is to grace and glory but does not negate free will.

5. Heretical Distortions Historically Arising

a. Fatalism / Determinism (Extreme Predestinarianism)

Some have wrongly concluded that God arbitrarily chooses some for heaven and others for hell (double predestination), denying human responsibility.
This distorts Paul’s teaching by portraying God as capricious rather than loving.
Rejected as heretical by many Church Fathers and councils (e.g., Council of Orange, 529 AD).

b. Pelagianism

Denies original sin and teaches humans can achieve adoption by moral effort.
Opposes the clear emphasis on divine initiative and grace.
Condemned as heresy (Council of Carthage, 418 AD).

c. Universalism (in its heretical form)

Some use “He predestined us” to claim all humanity is automatically adopted and saved.
While God’s will is universal in scope, Scripture balances this with the need for faith and repentance (John 1:12).

6. Pastoral and Devotional Implications

Security: Adoption means believers are fully accepted and secure in God’s family.
Identity: Christians live as beloved children, not as slaves or outsiders.
Purpose: God’s predestining plan motivates holiness (v. 4) and praise (v. 6).
Humility: All is by grace; no room for boasting.

7. Summary

Phrase	Meaning	Theological Emphasis
“He predestined”	God’s eternal, sovereign decision	Divine initiative
“For adoption to sonship”	Entrance into God’s family	Relationship and inheritance
“Through Jesus Christ”	Mediated by Christ’s redemption	Christ-centered
“According to his pleasure and will”	Rooted in God’s love and grace	Purposeful grace

In essence:
Ephesians 1:5 celebrates not a cold decree, but a warm, fatherly purpose. From eternity, God lovingly planned that through Christ we would be His children—secure, cherished, and reflecting His glory—“to the praise of His glorious grace” (v. 6).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Interpretation by the Early Church Fathers

A. John Chrysostom (c. 349–407 AD)

Context: Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, was a strong preacher and exegete, emphasizing moral transformation and divine grace without veering into deterministic predestination.

His understanding of Ephesians 1:5:

Chrysostom saw “He predestined us” as an expression of God’s foreknowledge and benevolent purpose, not arbitrary selection.
He wrote that God “foreknew who would believe, and on that account predestined them,” emphasizing divine foreknowledge joined with human response.
On “adoption,” Chrysostom stressed the honor of believers: we are not merely forgiven but elevated to the status of sons and daughters.

“He not only freed us from our sins, but has made us sons; He has given us great things, even to be called and to be made sons of God.”
He viewed this as evidence of God’s philanthrōpia (divine love of humanity).

Summary:
Chrysostom taught that predestination flows from God’s foreknowledge and loving purpose, intended to lead believers to holiness and sonship, not to exclude others.

B. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–253 AD)

Context: Origen, an early theologian and biblical scholar, emphasized the spiritual interpretation of Scripture and the freedom of the human will.

His interpretation:

Origen viewed “He predestined us” as God’s providential ordering toward the good, grounded in His omniscient foreknowledge.
He rejected the idea that God forces salvation or condemnation, teaching that souls freely respond to divine grace within God’s foreordained plan.
For Origen, “adoption” pointed to spiritual transformation and participation in the divine nature (theosis).

“We are made sons by imitation of the Only Begotten, being conformed to His image.”
He linked this adoption to the believer’s ongoing moral and spiritual ascent toward likeness with God (cf. Rom 8:29).

Summary:
Origen’s focus was not on fixed destiny but on God’s eternal purpose to bring all rational beings into filial communion through Christ—a process realized through free cooperation with grace.

C. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)

Context: Augustine, bishop and theologian, formulated much of the Western doctrine of grace and predestination, especially in response to Pelagianism.

His interpretation:

Augustine saw “He predestined us” as proof of God’s sovereign, unconditional election—a decision made apart from foreseen merit.

“The grace of God does not find men fit to be chosen but makes them so.”
He contrasted divine grace with human inability: we are adopted solely because of God’s merciful choice.
For Augustine, “adoption through Jesus Christ” highlighted the believer’s new status: not by nature sons, but made sons through the Mediator.
“According to His pleasure and will” underscored that this adoption was entirely gracious and loving, not coercive.

Summary:
Augustine emphasized sovereign grace—God’s predestination of believers to adoption reflects His eternal will to save, not human merit. Yet this election manifests in history through faith and perseverance given by grace.

9. Comparative Summary: Early Church Perspectives

Church Father	View of Predestination	View of Adoption	Key Emphasis
Chrysostom	Based on foreknowledge; God’s plan considers human response	Honor and transformation of believers into God’s family	God’s benevolence and moral transformation
Origen	Rooted in divine providence; harmonizes foreknowledge with free will	Spiritual ascent and participation in divine life	Freedom and theosis
Augustine	Unconditional election; God’s will alone determines adoption	Legal and relational status granted through Christ	Sovereign grace and divine initiative

10. Development and Theological Legacy

Pre-Augustinian Fathers (like Origen and Chrysostom) generally emphasized synergy—God’s grace working with human freedom.
Augustine introduced a stronger monergistic (God-alone) view, stressing that even the will to believe is a gift of grace.
This divergence became foundational for later debates between:
- Pelagianism (human-centered) → condemned as heresy.
- Semi-Pelagianism (cooperation between will and grace).
- Augustinian / Reformed Theology (grace as sole cause of salvation).

Despite differences, all Fathers agreed:

Adoption through Christ is central to salvation.
Predestination reflects divine love and purpose, not mere fate.
The aim is always transformation into Christ’s likeness and praise of God’s glory (Eph. 1:6).

11. Concluding Synthesis

Ephesians 1:5 encapsulates a grand vision of salvation:

God the Father lovingly chose believers before time,
through Jesus Christ, the true Son,
to bring them into familial relationship with Himself,
in perfect harmony with His good pleasure and sovereign will.

The early Fathers—whether emphasizing divine sovereignty (Augustine), divine foreknowledge (Chrysostom), or divine cooperation (Origen)—all saw this verse as the heartbeat of the Gospel: that humanity is not merely redeemed but adopted into God’s eternal household through Christ.

N.B.: Perichoresis represents the relationship between members of the trinity.

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

Uniting the Worlds: Mysticism, Science, and the Quest for Meaning

Lisa Grunwald’s The Theory of Everything presents a compelling narrative about Alexander Simon, a thirty-something physicist who believes he is on the verge of discovering a theory that will unify all of scientific understanding—the “Theory of Everything.” But Grunwald is less interested in the mere attainment of scientific triumph than in exploring what that quest costs—emotionally, spiritually, philosophically—and how the search for ultimate truth forces him to confront the deeper, less quantifiable elements of his life: love, loss, mysticism, the ghosts of his past.

One of the central metaphors in the novel is that of alchemy, especially the idea of “prime matter” (or prima materia)—the raw, fundamental substance from which all things derive, in alchemical tradition, the essence that alchemists sought, symbolizing both physical, spiritual, and metaphysical unity. Alexander’s scientific quest parallels the alchemical: he seeks not just the equations that unite the forces of nature, but something deeper, something that’s as much about the soul as about the atom.

Character Studies

Here are the major characters and their roles in Alexander’s journey, particularly in relation to the search for prime matter and what “everything” means.

Character	Role / Personality	Relationship to Alexander	How they contribute to the theme of prime matter / union of opposites
Alexander Simon	A brilliant physicist, rational, ambitious, somewhat emotionally repressed. He is deeply committed to science, but haunted by childhood, by longing, by gaps in his understanding of self and life.	He is the protagonist; much of the internal conflict of the novel is his conflict — between what science demands and what life demands; between what can be measured and what cannot.	Alexander’s search for his scientific “Theory of Everything” becomes inseparable from his need for personal reconciliation — with his past (especially his mother’s absence), with whether belief / mysticism have a place in his life. The prime matter is not just atomic, but moral, emotional, spiritual.
Alice	Alexander’s mother, who abandoned the family when he was young (age 11), but who instilled in him ideas of ghosts, guardian angels, the mystical. She is charismatic, elusive, somewhat irresponsible in a conventional sense.	Alice is both inspiration and wound: she leaves, but her absence shapes Alexander’s psychic landscape; she returns later, complicating his life.	Alice embodies the mystical side: the guardian angel, the ghost, the hint of prime matter not in equations but in human relationships. Her presence forces Alexander to confront that what he seeks in science—unity, fundamental truth—must also come from his emotional life. She is like the “prima materia” to which he must return to complete his inner alchemical process.
Cleo	Alice’s friend; a “seductive and hilarious blond,” deeply involved in mysticism: palmistry, crystals, numerology, astrology. She is an emissary of the spiritual / magical realm.	Cleo’s return into Alexander’s life (when Alice returns with her) draws him into mysticism and emotion, and away (temporarily) from pure science. She becomes a foil to Alexander’s rationality.	Cleo represents the temptations and possibilities of non-scientific truth. She helps Alexander understand that prime matter can’t be contained in formulas alone; that there are dimensions of experience—beauty, belief, myth—that science either ignores or can’t fully capture. She awakens in him a longing for something less quantifiable.
Linda, Sam, Harold	Note: These characters are not central, or well-emphasized, in the textual summaries / review. The main characters beyond Alice, Cleo, and Alexander are lesser in profile. We do see Alexander’s girlfriend, Linda, playing a role. There may be supporting characters (Sam, Harold, Linda) but they do not appear prominently.	Given lack of strong details, they probably fill supporting roles: friends, colleagues, or romantic interests, perhaps reflecting Alexander’s world of relationships, commitments, emotional tension.	Even minor characters matter: they represent the “real life” that Alexander often neglects in pursuit of theoretical perfection. They serve to contrast or mirror what he seeks: stability, love, ordinary truth vs extraordinary insight. If “Linda,” “Sam,” “Harold” exist in the novel, they may concretize the personal world he risks failing, or losing, in his quest.

The Search for “Prime Matter” as Significance

To understand the significance of the search for prime matter in The Theory of Everything, we need to unpack its symbolic layers in the narrative.

Scientific vs Mystical Tradition

On one side, Alexander’s physics is rigorous, demanding, mathematical. He is trying to unify scientific theories: gravity, quantum mechanics, electromagnetic force, etc. This quest is external, measurable.
On the other, he has been influenced by Alice and by mystical traditions: angels, spirits, alchemy. These are internal, subjective, paradoxical. Prime matter in alchemy is a symbol of the undifferentiated substance before form—a kind of unified substrate of being. Alexander’s journey suggests that the unified substrate he seeks is not only in the cosmos, but in himself.

Personal Reconciliation

Alexander’s childhood underlies everything: his mother’s abandonment leaves him with unresolved emotional needs. The scientific quest can’t in itself heal that. But the return of Alice, and the presence of Cleo, force him to integrate what he has held apart: love, longing, belief, possibility.
In alchemy, prime matter is often thought to be hidden, to require purification, transformation. Similarly, Alexander must undergo a kind of internal purification—face fears, vulnerability—if he is truly to live what he theorizes. The journey is as spiritual as intellectual.

Thresholds and Paradox

The quest for a “Theory of Everything” is itself paradoxical: by defining everything you must include the unmeasurable. By being totally rational, you might exclude essential parts of being. Grunwald does not resolve the paradox; instead, she shows how Alexander, at his edge, must live with tension.
The prime matter is not just stuff; it’s threshold: between the known and unknown, between what can be spoken and what can only be felt.

Symbolic / Poetic Resonance in the Novel

There is correspondence in the novel between the four forces in physics and the classical elements in alchemy (earth, air, fire, water). Alexander’s obsession with the four physical forces is counterbalanced by the four elements of alchemy.
The prime matter is thus woven into the structure of meaning in the novel: the dualities, the multiplicities, the need for a unifying ground. It renders the novel philosophical as well as emotional.

Alexander’s Journey: From Theory to Wholeness

Putting together character, symbolism, and plot, here is how Alexander’s journey unfolds with respect to his search for prime matter / a Theory of Everything.

Beginning: Alexander is successful in his scientific work; he believes the answer is near. But his personal life is fragmented. There is distance between him and his girlfriend; there is unresolved baggage around his mother Alice's abandonment, combined with beliefs she instilled (ghosts, angels) that he outwardly disavows or ignores.
Catalyst: Alice returns after many years, bringing Cleo with her. This return reopens old wounds and old hungers. It forces Alexander to confront the longing and questions he has tried to suppress. Cleo’s presence amplifies the tension: she offers something that science cannot quantify but which Alexander secretly craves.
Conflict: Alexander is torn. On the one hand, science demands clarity, proofs, measurement. On the other, emotion and mysticism demand faith, ambiguity, surrender. The search for prime matter becomes a metaphor for his need to reconcile the two—that maybe the foundation of everything is not strictly scientific, nor strictly mystical, but something that includes both, something that is lived. His mental and emotional state becomes a crucible.
Resolution or Partial Resolution: Without spoiling for those who haven’t read it, Grunwald does not give a neatly packaged answer. Alexander does not simply choose science over mysticism, or vice versa. Instead, the novel suggests that true wholeness requires embracing the mystery; that the “Theory of Everything” is not static or final but always in flux—between known and unknown, seen and unseen, measurable and mystical. The prime matter is less a thing to be discovered than a condition to be approached: integrity, acceptance, connection.

Why This Matters

Grunwald’s novel is philosophically rich in that it asks: What is the point of understanding the universe if you can’t understand your own heart? The search for prime matter invites readers to think about what foundations we stand on: scientific, rational, mystical, emotional, spiritual. It proposes that to live fully, one must negotiate among these, not subordinate one to another completely.

In the scientific age, novels like The Theory of Everything matter because they remind us that knowledge is not merely about quantifiable facts; it’s also about context, meaning, and what we do with what we know. Alexander’s journey suggests that every theory—even the grandest—must answer the question of self.

Sunday, October 12, 2025

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 10

The Grace That Calls: Understanding Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 10

1. Introduction: The Voice That Awakens the Dead

Chapter 10 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), titled “Of Effectual Calling,” addresses one of the most profound mysteries in Christian theology—the divine initiative by which God brings sinners from spiritual death to life in Christ. The chapter opens with these words:

“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ...” (WCF 10.1)

Here the Westminster divines affirm that salvation is not the product of human initiative, but the fruit of God’s sovereign grace. It is a calling not merely external—such as the hearing of a sermon—but internal and efficacious, the supernatural work of the Spirit making the sinner both willing and able to respond.

2. Effectual Calling and the Grace of God

The doctrine of effectual calling distinguishes between the general call of the gospel (heard outwardly by all who receive the Word) and the special call that results in genuine conversion. While many hear the gospel externally, only those whom God regenerates respond with faith and repentance. The calling is thus “effectual” because it effects the very faith it commands.

The Confession’s emphasis on divine agency—“by His Word and Spirit”—echoes passages such as John 6:44 (“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him”) and Romans 8:30 (“Whom He predestined, these He also called”). Election and calling are intimately related: calling is the manifestation in time of God’s eternal choice.

This view stands in deliberate contrast to both Arian and Arminian interpretations of divine calling.

3. Contrasting Views: Arianism, Arminianism, and Reformed Orthodoxy

Arianism: A Created and Conditional Call

Arianism, the 4th-century heresy condemned at Nicaea, denied the full divinity of Christ and viewed salvation as a moral ascent patterned after a created being (the Logos). For Arians, the divine “call” operates more as an ethical summons—an exhortation to imitation—than as a transforming act of sovereign grace. Since Christ was seen as the highest creature rather than the eternal God, salvation was attainable through moral effort and participation in divine wisdom, not by the Spirit’s regenerating power. In this view, the call is external, rational, and conditional, not effectual.

Arminianism: A Resistible Grace

The Arminian tradition (from Jacobus Arminius, 1560–1609) maintained that prevenient grace is given to all, restoring free will sufficiently for the sinner to choose or reject salvation. Grace is universal but resistible. God “calls” all people sincerely, but the decisive act lies in human cooperation with grace. The Spirit assists, but does not determine, conversion. Thus, calling is potentially effectual, depending on the human response.

Reformed Orthodoxy: An Irresistible Grace

In contrast, the Reformed view—enshrined in Westminster’s Chapter 10—affirms that effectual calling is God’s special and irresistible grace. It is not a persuasion but a resurrection. God’s call does not merely offer life; it creates it. The sinner’s consent is not coerced but renewed. The will, previously in bondage, is liberated by divine power to choose God freely and joyfully. As the Confession states, God “enlightens their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God” and “renewing their wills, by His almighty power, determines them to that which is good” (10.1).

Thus, the Reformed tradition sees the difference between the elect and the non-elect not in their response, intelligence, or disposition, but in the gracious decree and operation of God.

4. Election and Those Who Cannot Be Outwardly Called

Westminster Confession 10.3–10.4 extends divine grace beyond ordinary means:

“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit... so also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”

This statement avoids dogmatic speculation but affirms that God’s election is not bound by outward means. The Spirit, who “blows where He wills” (John 3:8), can apply the benefits of redemption to infants and those mentally incapable of receiving the gospel message. This affirms both the sovereignty and tenderness of God. Salvation remains by grace alone, yet God’s mercy reaches those unable to respond outwardly.

The divines avoided universalism—they spoke of elect infants, not all infants—but they emphasized that the same gracious power operative in adults can work secretly in those without capacity. Thus, divine election and effectual calling transcend the limits of human understanding and ecclesial administration.

5. Those Not Elected Yet Outwardly Called

A sobering corollary appears in the Confession’s recognition that some may be called outwardly— even to the ministry—yet not effectually called to salvation. Judas Iscariot exemplifies this tragic reality: called to apostleship, empowered to preach, yet spiritually dead. The Confession (10.4) affirms that “others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word... can never truly come to Christ.”

This underscores that ordination and external religious activity do not guarantee salvation. One may speak for Christ without ever having been born of the Spirit. Such individuals receive the general call but not the inward grace. Their inability to be saved arises not from divine cruelty but from the mysterious justice of reprobation—God’s decision to leave some in their sin for the demonstration of His righteousness and mercy toward the elect (Romans 9:22–23).

6. Divine Election and the Euthyphro Dilemma

The doctrine of election often provokes philosophical challenges about the nature of divine goodness. The Euthyphro dilemma, posed by Plato, asks: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? If the former, divine goodness seems arbitrary; if the latter, God appears subordinate to a moral standard above Himself.

The Reformed answer, following Augustine and Calvin, is that the dilemma is false when applied to the biblical God. God’s will and nature are identical—He is not subject to external law, nor does He act arbitrarily. Goodness is what it is because it expresses God’s nature. Election, therefore, is not morally indifferent but a manifestation of perfect wisdom and holiness. God’s decree of election is good because God Himself is good.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), writing after the Westminster era, refined this idea by asserting that God chooses “the best of all possible worlds.” For Leibniz, divine election operates not by sheer will but by perfect reason—God chooses a world-order that maximizes goodness, harmony, and moral development. While Westminster theologians would hesitate to speak of “possible worlds” in the same way, both views affirm that divine choice is not irrational. Election flows from the intrinsic moral perfection of God, not caprice.

Thus, divine election stands not as a threat to goodness but as its deepest revelation: the unmerited love that saves sinners for the glory of God alone.

7. Conclusion: Called to Glory and Virtue

The Westminster Confession’s doctrine of effectual calling defends the majesty of divine grace. It asserts that salvation is not the reward of human striving, but the overflow of God’s eternal mercy. Whether through the preaching of the gospel, the secret work of the Spirit in infants, or the mysterious callings of providence, every salvation story begins with God’s initiative.

In the end, effectual calling reminds us that faith itself is a gift, not an achievement. The elect are not those who found their way to God, but those whom God found and raised from death. As the Apostle Paul writes, “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made His light shine in our hearts” (2 Cor. 4:6).

That is the essence of effectual calling—the creative voice of God saying once again, “Let there be light.”

Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 9)

Free Will and Divine Grace in the Westminster Confession of Faith: A Theological Exploration

The question of free will has stood at the crossroads of theology and philosophy for centuries, inviting profound reflection on the nature of human choice, divine sovereignty, and moral responsibility. Chapter 9 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)—titled “Of Free Will”—addresses this issue within a distinctly Reformed framework. While affirming that man possesses the natural capacity for choice, the Confession insists that this freedom is conditioned by his moral and spiritual state: created innocence, fallen corruption, regenerating grace, and final glorification. The Confession thus sketches a dynamic view of human will across redemptive history, situating it within the overarching sovereignty of God.

I. The Westminster Confession, Chapter 9: An Overview

Chapter 9 of the Westminster Confession opens with an affirmation that God has endowed man with a will that is “neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.” In other words, human beings act voluntarily, according to their own inclinations, not under external compulsion. Yet, subsequent sections clarify that this freedom is not absolute but varies according to one’s spiritual condition:

In the state of innocence, man had the freedom and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God, yet mutably, so that he might fall.
In the state of sin, man has lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; as a natural man, he is “dead in sin” and cannot, of his own power, convert himself.
In the state of grace, God frees man’s will from bondage to sin, enabling him to will and to do that which is spiritually good—though not perfectly, for remnants of corruption remain.
In the state of glory, man’s will is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone.

This progression mirrors the classic Augustinian and Reformed understanding of the human condition: creation, fall, redemption, and glorification. It provides a theological anthropology that balances divine sovereignty with a meaningful conception of human agency.

II. Non Posse Non Peccare vs. Posse Non Peccare

The Latin theological formulae non posse non peccare (“not able not to sin”) and posse non peccare (“able not to sin”) succinctly capture the contrasting states of fallen and unfallen humanity.

In the state of innocence before the fall, Adam and Eve were posse peccare (able to sin) and posse non peccare (able not to sin). Their wills were genuinely free but mutable.
After the fall, humanity became non posse non peccare—not able not to sin. The will, though still functioning in natural matters, is morally bound to sin in spiritual matters.
Through regeneration, the believer regains posse non peccare—the restored ability to resist sin by the grace of God.
In glory, the saints will attain non posse peccare—not able to sin, a state of perfected freedom.

This schema harmonizes with the Westminster view that man’s freedom is real but relative, dependent upon his moral condition. True freedom, paradoxically, is found not in autonomy but in holiness—when the will is fully aligned with the good.

III. Luther’s Bondage of the Will and Edwards’ Freedom of the Will

Two landmark works—Martin Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio (The Bondage of the Will, 1525) and Jonathan Edwards’ Freedom of the Will (1754)—represent distinct yet complementary Reformed treatments of this paradox.

Luther: The Will as Bound in Sin

Luther, responding to Erasmus, argued that the fallen human will is in “bondage” to sin and incapable of choosing God apart from grace. To him, the supposed “freedom” of the natural man is an illusion. The will follows the heart’s desires, and since the heart is corrupt, its choices are necessarily opposed to God. For Luther, only divine grace, working through the Word and Spirit, can liberate the will to love and obey God. Freedom, then, is not the ability to choose between good and evil, but the ability to act in accordance with one’s renewed nature.

Edwards: Freedom as Acting According to One’s Greatest Motive

Edwards, building on a more philosophical framework, defined freedom as the power to act according to one’s strongest motive or inclination. A person is free if he acts voluntarily, not if he can act contrary to his own nature or desires. Edwards thus reconciled divine sovereignty and human responsibility by distinguishing between natural ability (the capacity to act as one wills) and moral ability (the capacity to will the good). Fallen humanity retains natural ability but has lost moral ability. This mirrors Westminster’s statement that fallen man “cannot of his own free will convert himself.” For Edwards, as for Luther, grace is not a supplement to free will but its resurrection.

IV. The Fall and the Translation into Grace

The Westminster Confession carefully traces the contrast between man’s fall into sin and God’s translation of man into a state of grace. In the fall, human will becomes enslaved to corruption, leading inevitably to death. The “bondage of the will” is not mere limitation but moral captivity: the sinner freely chooses sin, yet cannot choose righteousness without divine intervention.

In regeneration, however, the Spirit renews the will, enabling a truly free response to God’s call. The Confession’s language—“when God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin”—echoes Pauline themes from Romans 6: “Being made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Grace does not abolish freedom but restores it. In the state of grace, believers experience a freedom that is both moral and spiritual: the liberty to do good willingly and joyfully, though imperfectly.

The culmination of this divine work occurs in glorification, where freedom and righteousness are made immutable. Here the tension between will and sin disappears altogether—freedom and holiness become one.

V. Conclusion: True Freedom as the Gift of Grace

The Westminster Confession’s doctrine of free will rejects both determinism and libertarian autonomy. It affirms a freedom that is always creaturely, conditioned by moral and spiritual states, and ultimately perfected only in union with God. The human will is never self-sufficient; it is either enslaved to sin or liberated by grace.

In this light, the Latin axiom servire Deo regnare est — “to serve God is to reign”—captures the Reformed paradox of freedom. The freest will is the one most perfectly conformed to divine goodness. Thus, the Confession offers a vision of liberty grounded not in independence from God but in communion with Him—the transition from non posse non peccare to non posse peccare is nothing less than the story of redemption itself.

Sunday, October 5, 2025

Chapter 8 of the Westminster Confession of Faith: “Of Christ the Mediator.”

Of Christ the Mediator: The Person and Work of the Redeemer

Chapter 8 of the Westminster Confession of Faith stands as one of the most theologically rich and Christ-centered portions of the entire document. It presents Jesus Christ as the sole Mediator between God and man—the only means by which fallen humanity can be reconciled to a holy God. In doing so, it unfolds the majesty of His divine and human natures, His threefold offices as Prophet, Priest, and King, and His redemptive work accomplished through obedience, suffering, death, and intercession. The chapter affirms that salvation rests entirely upon the person and work of Christ, who fulfills the eternal plan of redemption with perfect sufficiency and divine authority.

The Mediator Between God and Man

The Confession begins by establishing that it was the eternal purpose of God the Father to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator and Redeemer of His people (Section 1). Christ was “set up from everlasting” as the One who would bridge the infinite divide caused by sin. This mediatorial role means that Christ stands between God and humanity—not merely as an example or teacher, but as the appointed representative who reconciles the two.

Unlike the prophets or priests of old, who served in limited, anticipatory capacities, Jesus is the one true Mediator who fully satisfies divine justice and restores peace between God and man. The Confession explicitly rejects any other mediator, human or angelic, affirming Paul’s declaration: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).

The Union of Divine and Human Natures

Sections 2 and 3 of the chapter emphasize the mystery and necessity of the Incarnation. The eternal Son of God, “the second person in the Trinity,” took upon Himself a true human nature, with all its essential properties and common infirmities, yet without sin. Thus, in the one person of Christ are united two distinct natures—divine and human—without confusion, change, division, or separation.

This union is crucial for His mediatorial work. As God, Christ possesses infinite power, wisdom, and holiness to accomplish redemption; as man, He can truly represent humanity and bear its penalty. The divine nature ensures the infinite value of His atoning sacrifice, while the human nature ensures His genuine identification with those He redeems. The Confession reflects the Chalcedonian balance: Christ is “very God and very man,” two natures in one person, forever.

Christ’s Offices: Prophet, Priest, and King

Section 1 introduces Christ’s threefold office—Prophet, Priest, and King—a framework that runs throughout Reformed theology and expresses the comprehensive nature of His mediatorial work.

As Prophet, Christ reveals the will of God for our salvation. He is the ultimate Word of God, the fulfillment of all prophecy, and the One through whom divine truth is made known. His teaching, both in His earthly ministry and through His Spirit, brings light to those who sit in darkness.

As Priest, He offers Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile sinners to God. In His priestly office, He both makes atonement for sin and continually intercedes for His people. The Confession stresses that His once-for-all offering is sufficient and complete—no further sacrifice is needed. His intercession ensures that believers are preserved in grace and brought to final glory.

As King, Christ rules over all creation and governs His Church. He subdues the hearts of His people to Himself, protects them from their enemies, and orders all things for His glory and their good. His kingship is both sovereign and saving—He reigns with authority over the universe and with love over His redeemed people.

The Work of Redemption

Christ’s redemptive work is the central theme of Chapter 8. As the Mediator, He voluntarily undertook the task of redemption, fulfilling all righteousness and perfectly obeying the law on behalf of His people. The Confession highlights both His active and passive obedience: His active obedience in perfectly fulfilling God’s law, and His passive obedience in submitting to suffering and death.

By His death, Christ endured the wrath of God, satisfied divine justice, and reconciled His people to God. His sacrifice was not merely a moral example but a substitutionary atonement—He bore the penalty of sin in the place of sinners. The result of His redemptive work is full and certain salvation for all those whom the Father gave Him from eternity (Section 8).

Furthermore, the Confession underscores that Christ’s resurrection, ascension, and continual intercession are integral to His mediatorial office. His resurrection is the proof of His victory over sin and death; His ascension marks His exaltation to the right hand of the Father; and His ongoing intercession ensures the application of His redemption to believers by the Spirit.

The Significance of His Suffering and Sacrifice

The sufferings of Christ are central to His role as Mediator. In His humanity, He endured temptation, sorrow, pain, and ultimately death on the cross. Yet His suffering was not merely human tragedy—it was the divine means of salvation. By bearing the curse of the law, Christ removed the guilt of sin and secured eternal redemption.

The Confession insists that this atoning work is both sufficient and effectual: it not only makes salvation possible but guarantees it for those whom He represents. His death fulfills the covenant of grace, ensuring forgiveness, reconciliation, and eternal life for believers.

Christ’s Intercession and the Application of Redemption

Christ’s mediatorial work did not end at the cross. The Confession teaches that He now intercedes for His people in heaven, applying the benefits of His redemption through the work of the Holy Spirit. He continually pleads for their pardon, upholds them in faith, and secures their final salvation. His intercession is not a repetition of His sacrifice but its ongoing efficacy—He is the living High Priest who “ever lives to make intercession” (Hebrews 7:25).

Conclusion

Chapter 8 of the Westminster Confession of Faith presents a complete and majestic picture of the person and work of Christ. As the Mediator between God and man, He alone fulfills every aspect of salvation—revealing divine truth as Prophet, reconciling sinners as Priest, and reigning over all as King. His divine and human natures unite in one glorious person, perfectly suited to accomplish redemption.

Through His obedience, suffering, death, resurrection, and continual intercession, Christ has fulfilled the law, satisfied divine justice, and secured eternal peace for His people. The believer’s confidence and hope rest entirely in Him—“the only Mediator between God and man,” whose grace and glory will be the song of the redeemed forever.

Friday, October 3, 2025

Contract, Covenant, and Compact: Distinctions of Binding Agreements

Human society depends on agreements. These can be legal, political, or spiritual in nature, each carrying its own character and degree of enforceability. Three terms—contract, covenant, and compact—appear often in discussions of law, governance, and theology. While they overlap in function, they diverge significantly in scope, enforceability, and context.

Contracts: Legal Agreements Enforceable by Law

A contract is a legally binding agreement between two or more parties, enforceable in a court of law. Its foundation lies in offer, acceptance, consideration (something of value exchanged), and mutual intent to be bound. Contracts are transactional by nature and often limited in scope: a business exchange, a lease agreement, an employment contract.

Enforceability: Strictly legal; breach of contract leads to remedies such as damages or specific performance.
Situations: Primarily economic or professional; designed to regulate transactions, employment, sales, and services.

Covenants: Sacred or Relational Commitments

A covenant is broader and deeper than a contract. Rooted in biblical and theological traditions, covenants involve not only human parties but often God as a witness and enforcer. A covenant emphasizes relationship, loyalty, and moral obligation, not merely the exchange of goods or services.

Biblically, covenants such as those with Abraham, Moses, and David bound God’s people in relationship with Him, involving blessings for obedience and consequences for disobedience. In human contexts, covenants appear in solemn oaths—such as marriage vows or religious pledges—that transcend ordinary contracts.

Enforceability: Moral and spiritual, though sometimes upheld by religious or communal institutions. Breach carries not just legal but relational and spiritual consequences.
Situations: Marriage, church membership, sacred oaths, or treaties invoking divine witness.

Compacts: Political Agreements Among Equals

A compact generally refers to an agreement between political bodies or communities, particularly in the context of governance. Unlike contracts, which are private and transactional, or covenants, which are relational and sacred, compacts are political tools.

A famous example is the Mayflower Compact (1620), where Pilgrims established a framework for self-governance under God. Compacts often involve mutual promises to maintain order, establish rules, or preserve peace, without necessarily invoking divine enforcement in the way a covenant would.

Enforceability: Political; upheld by consensus, institutions, or community pressure rather than court systems alone.
Situations: Foundational political charters, intergovernmental agreements, or constitutions in early stages of civil society.

Sin and the Breaking of Covenant

In Hebrew, one of the primary terms for sin is ḥaṭṭā’th (חַטָּאת), derived from a root meaning “to miss the mark.” In covenantal terms, sin represents not merely the breaking of a rule but the violation of a relational bond with God.

When Israel sinned, it was more than disobedience to a law—it was a breach of covenant fidelity. This breach was personal and communal, likened to marital unfaithfulness (e.g., Hosea). Unlike a contract, which can be dissolved or compensated for, a covenant violation disrupts trust, requiring repentance and reconciliation rather than mere restitution.

Thus, in covenantal theology:

Sin = breach of relationship, not just law.
Consequences = spiritual estrangement and the need for atonement.
Restoration = renewal of covenant through forgiveness and grace.