William
Greenough Thayer Shedd (1820-1894). Some
Calvinists consider Shedd’s Dogmatic
Theology only second to that of Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology. Shedd has gained popularity in Calvinistic
circles from such works as The Doctrine
of Endless Punishment, Commentary on
the Epistle to the Romans, and Calvinism:
Pure and Mixed.
The
following quotes are from Calvinism: Pure
and Mixed (1999 reprint from The Banner of Truth Trust):
"Revision is inexpedient,
because the Westminster Standards already make full provision for those
exceptional cases, on account of which revision is claimed by its advocates to
be needed. It is said that there are some true believers in the Lord Jesus
Christ, who cannot adopt all the
The "tender consciences of good
men" have scruples which cause them to stumble at
predestination? Does a regenerate child of God say in one “blessedly
inconsistent” breath, "Why does He yet find fault, for who resists
His will?"? and "God be merciful to me a sinner"?? Those
professing Christians who echo the sentiment of the Apostolic critic certainly
have the "root of the matter in them"--the root of enmity against
God, and the matter of rebellion against the Godhood of God that Paul
rebukes with the following:
"You will then say to me, Why does He
yet find fault? For who has resisted His will? Yes, rather, O man, who are you
answering against God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it,
Why did You make me like this? (Romans 9:19-20)
Is Paul rebuking a Christian with a tender
conscience whose scruples he is certainly NOT respecting, since he just
rebuked them sharply, contrary to the advice of Shedd? Or, rather, is Paul
rebuking a guile-filled unbeliever whose "tender" conscience
"will not have this Man to reign over him" and who exhibits “wonderful
confusion” concerning the creature/Creator distinction?
In view of certain objections, it must be
asked whether or not Paul was contradicting his own advice he gave in 1 Timothy
2:24-25. Of course he was not. All Scripture is God-breathed and
non-contradictory. What Paul is contradicting is the unbelieving worlds’
definition of words like “gentle,” “forbearing,” and “meekness.” Paul is
refusing to conform to this God-hating worlds’ definitions and ideas of what
constitutes meekness and proper conversational etiquette.
“There is sometimes a
misconception at this point. We have seen it stated that the membership of the
Presbyterian Church is not required or expected to hold the same doctrine
with the officers; that the pastor, elders, and deacons must accept the
Confession of Faith 'as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy
Scriptures', but that the congregation need not. But this error arises from
confounding the toleration of a deficiency with the endorsement of it. Because
a church session tolerates in a particular person, who gives evidence of faith
in Christ, an error respecting foreordination, or even some abstruse point in
the Trinity, or the incarnation, it does not thereby endorse the error. It does
not sanction his opinion on these subjects, but only endures it, in view of his
religious experience on the vital points of faith and repentance, and with the
hope that his subsequent growth in knowledge will bring him to a final
rejection of it. The Presbyterian Church tolerates theatre-going in some
of its members: that is to say, it does not discipline them for it. But it does
not formally approve of and sanction theatre-going. A proposition to revise the
Confession by inserting a clause to this effect, in order to meet the
wishes and practice of theatre-going church-members, would be voted down by the
presbyteries.” (p. 9)
Shedd said that the Presbyterian Church
tolerates theatre-going in some of its members. Presumably most (if not all)
going to the theatre would be watching sin--that is, setting a wicked thing
before their eyes (Psalm 101:3). If this was the case--and if the theatre-going
in the late 1800s was similar to the movie-going today--then the Presbyterian
“church” was tolerating sin in its members. But that “if/then” scenario aside,
since the Presbyterian Church holds to the WCF, it tolerates adultery in its
members by allowing remarriage while the former spouse is still living. Shedd
had said that toleration of something does not imply endorsement of that
something. If the sin of adultery is tolerated and not disciplined, then it is
being endorsed. If one says he does not approve but nevertheless tolerates,
then the professed “disapproval” is mighty shallow. Of course, due to their
blindness, many who endorse adultery do so in the culpable ignorance that tells
them that a legitimate application of Romans 7:1-3 is: “as if the offending
party were dead.”
“The position that the officers
of a church may have one creed, and the membership another, is untenable. No
church could live and thrive upon it. A Trinitarian clergy preaching to an
Arian or Socinian membership, would preach to unwilling hearers. And although
the difference is not so great and so vital, yet a Calvinistic clergy
preaching to an Arminian membership, or an Arminian clergy to a Calvinistic
membership, would on some points find unsympathetic auditors. Pastor and
people, officers and members, must be homogenous in doctrine, in order to a
vigorous church-life.” (p. 9)
All of the typical and popular religionists
mentioned above are essentially homogenous in doctrine: They all hold to
varying degrees of salvation conditioned on the sinner's efforts. And since
they all believe in salvation conditioned on the sinner's efforts, they also,
in varying degrees of explicitness, deny the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
For salvation is accomplished and applied by a triune God. The Father gives to
the Son a people to save, and the Spirit applies the Son’s efficacious work to
them in time.
Here is an especially interesting comment
by Shedd:
“A Trinitarian clergy preaching
to an Arian or Socinian membership, would preach to unwilling hearers. And
although the difference is not so great and so vital, yet a Calvinistic
clergy preaching to an Arminian membership, or an Arminian clergy to a
Calvinistic membership, would on some points find unsympathetic auditors.” (p.
9)
The difference is not so great and so
vital, he says. Right. And thus the lost Calvinists and Arminians are guilty of
causing schism in their respective Synagogues (Revelation 2:9).
“The revision of a denominational
creed is a rare occurrence in ecclesiastical history. Commonly a denomination
remains from first to last upon the base that was laid for it in the beginning
by its fathers and founders. And when revision does occur, it is seldom in the
direction of fullness and precision. Usually the alteration is in favor of
vague and looser statements." (pp. 10-11)
The WCF is in need of much revision, since
a full-subscriptionist position necessarily entails subscription to heresy.
Here is W.G.T. Shedd commenting on the
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, section 3:
"In the third place, the
Scriptures and the Confession teach that the Divine Spirit exerts his
regenerating grace, to some extent, within adult heathendom, making use of
conscience, or 'the law written on the heart', as the means of convicting of
sin preparatory to imparting the new divine life; and that in the last day a
part of God's elect 'shall come from the east and from the west, and from the
north and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God' (Luke
13:29). These are all regenerated in this life. And since regeneration in
the instance of the adult immediately produces faith and repentance,
a regenerate heathen is both a believer and a penitent. He feels sorrow for
sin, and the need of mercy. This felt need of mercy and desire for it is
potentially and virtually faith in the Redeemer. For although the Redeemer has
not been presented to him historically and personally as the object of
faith, yet the Divine Spirit by the new birth has wrought in him the sincere
and longing disposition
to believe in him. With the penitent and believing man in the Gospel, he says,
'Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?' (John 9:36). Such a man is 'regenerated and saved by Christ through
the Spirit', and belongs to that class of 'elect persons who are incapable of
being outwardly called by the ministry of the word' (Conf. x. 3)." (pp.
128-129)
Shedd says that the elect heathen who have
never even heard the gospel of Christ, are nevertheless regenerate
believers in Christ. Well, actually, since he uses words such as
"potentially" and "virtually" to qualify this so-called
"faith,” one would think that Shedd would call them potential believers
in Christ, or virtual
believers in Christ. He does not do this. For he had said this:
“And since regeneration in
the instance of the adult immediately produces faith and repentance,
a regenerate heathen is both a believer and a penitent.”
Shedd also says that the supposedly
regenerate heathen elect have the "disposition" to believe in
Christ. You would think that a "disposition to believe in Christ" is
NOT actually believing in Christ at all. But I suppose that Shedd thinks
that a mystical felt need of some undefined concept of mercy and a deadly
ignorance of the sole grounds of mercy is close enough (cf. Romans
10:1-4). What exactly is a disposition to believe in Christ anyway? The
main point of Shedd’s damnable heresy is that he believes that a person who has
been regenerated by the Spirit remains ignorant of the righteousness of Jesus
Christ revealed in the gospel. The last part of Romans 10:3 says, “they did not
submit to the righteousness of God.” Shedd’s regenerate heathen does not know
of this righteousness, and one cannot be submitted to something they don’t know
about. Another verse that contradicts Shedd’s gospel-denying blasphemy is
Romans 1:16-17:
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of
Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing,
both to Jew first, and to Greek; for in it the righteousness of God is revealed
from faith to faith; even as it has been written, "But the just shall live
by faith" (Romans 1:16-17).
Shedd and the WCF Satanically deny
that the gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to EVERYONE BELIEVING.
For they make exceptions to this Biblical rule. Shedd and the WCF say that
those regenerate heathen elect who are 'incapable of being outwardly called by
the ministry of the Word' are nevertheless 'regenerated and saved by
Christ through the Spirit.'
"For everyone, whoever may call on the
name of the Lord will be saved. How then may they call on One
into whom they have not believed? And how may they believe One of whom
they have not heard? And how may they hear without preaching? And how may they
preach if they are not sent? Even as it has been written, How beautiful the
feet of those preaching the gospel of peace, of those preaching the gospel of
good things. But not all obeyed the gospel, for Isaiah says, Lord, who has
believed our report? Then faith is of hearing, and hearing through the
Word of God" (Romans 10:13-17).
And how may they believe One of whom
they have not heard? Good question. Shedd and the WCF answer it by
saying, "Well, there are at least some who can sorta believe in One
whom they have not heard. You see, those sun-worshipping,
animal-sacrificing heathens feel a need of mercy, and this is virtually faith
in the Redeemer."
The WCF Chapter 10, section 4 says the
following regarding what has been referred to as "inclusivism":
"...much less can men, not
professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be
they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature,
and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that
they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."
Well, what does Shedd's elect regenerate
heathen profess to believe? What is the religion that the elect regenerate
heathen professes to believe? Christianity? No. For this heathen cannot believe
in the One of whom he has not heard. Does this heathen believe
the report of the good news that God promises to save His people
conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone? No.
How can he? For faith is of hearing, and hearing through the Word of God
(Romans 10:14-17). This heathen that Shedd calls saved has heard
nothing--though he has experienced some sort of mystical felt need.
So, what's the difference between the type
of 'inclusivism' that Shedd endorses in section 3 of the WCF, and the kind of
'inclusivism' that is rebuked in section 4?
III. "Elect
infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the
Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other
elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of
the Word."
IV. "...much less
can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way
whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the
light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert
and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested."
Shedd would deny that he teaches that a man
can "be saved in any other way whatsoever." But the exception put
forth in section 3 regarding the elect regenerate heathen who is 'saved by
Christ' despite his not knowing who Christ is, shows that Shedd and the authors
of the WCF are in fact the ones who ought to labeled as
detestable and pernicious.
"Larger Catechism,
95, declares that 'the moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the
holy nature and will of God; to convince them of their disability to keep it,
and of the sinful pollution of their nature; to humble them in the sense of sin
and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of
Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.' But what is the
use of showing every man his need of Christ, if Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for
every man? What reason is there for convincing every man of the pollution of
his nature, and humbling him for it, unless God is for every man 'most loving,
gracious, merciful, long-suffering, forgiving iniquity, transgression and
sin?' The doctrine taught in this section, that all men are to be convinced
of sin, like the doctrine that all men are to repent and to pray, supposes that
God sustains a common benevolent and merciful relation to them all." (p.
26)
The atonement of
Jesus Christ is only sufficient for the elect. What’s the use preaching to all
men without exception, to show “every man his need of Christ,” if Christ’s
sacrifice is not sufficient for every man without exception? The use is to
preach the truth that Christ’s sacrifice IS sufficient to save all whom He
represented at the cross. How do we know that it is sufficient? We know that the
atonement is sufficient by observing its effects in the Scriptures, and the
Scriptures teach that the work of Christ is absolutely efficacious to save
every last person for whom Christ died. And since the sacrifice of Jesus IS
efficacious--and therefore truly sufficient--not one person for whom Christ
died will perish. Everyone for whom Jesus died will go to heaven, and everyone
for whom Jesus did NOT die will go to hell. This is the good news--Jesus Christ
can actually save! Shedd wants a sacrifice that is “sufficient” for those who
ultimately perish so that those who are said by Shedd to not perish can save
the supposedly sufficient sacrifice of Christ from failing to accomplish its
supposed “special intent.” A sacrifice that doesn’t save is not sufficient for
salvation. But that’s the kind of “sacrifice” men like Shedd crave. Why is
that? Romans 10:1-4 gives a concise answer.
Shedd engages in
illogical reasoning when he says that since all men without exception are
commanded to repent, then that supposes that God “sustains a common benevolent
and merciful relation to them all.” Get thee to Romans 9, Shedd, so that you
may see the striking contrast between Jacob and Esau and between Moses and
Pharaoh.
“The first characteristic of the Confessional statement that we
mention is, that it brings sin within the scope, and under the control of the
Divine decree. Sin is one of the 'whatsoevers' that have 'come to pass', all of
which are 'ordained.' Some would have the doctrine that sin is decreed stricken
from the Confession, because in their view it makes God the author of sin. The
Confession denies this in its assertion that by the Divine decree 'violence is
not offered to the will of the creature, nor is the liberty of second causes
taken away, but rather established.' In so saying, the authors had in mind the
common distinction recognized in Calvinistic creeds and systems, between the
efficient and the permissive decree, though they do not use the terms here.”
(p. 31)
So, to Shedd and the WCF men, the true God of Scripture is doing
“violence to the will of the creature” and therefore cannot find fault with the
creature's rebellion if God is actively hardening them unconditionally.
Who
makes the “permissive decree” certain in the blinded eyes of Shedd and the
WCF? The creature, of course. To them, God "allowed" the creature to
make the “decree” certain by “allowing” the creature to sin and do as he
pleased. But wait a minute. I thought the Bible taught that it was God--and not
the creature--who did as He pleased.
“When God executes his decree that Saul of Tarsus shall be a
'vessel of mercy', he works efficiently within him by his Holy Spirit 'to will
and to do'. When God executes his decree that Judas Iscariot shall be 'a vessel
of wrath fitted for destruction', he does not work efficiently within him 'to
will and to do', but permissively in the way of allowing him to have his own
wicked will. He decides not to restrain him or to regenerate him, but to leave
him to his own obstinate and rebellious inclination and purpose; and
accordingly 'the Son of man goeth, as it was determined, but woe unto that man
by whom he is betrayed' (Luke 22:22; Acts
2:23).” (p. 31)
Simply put, in the view of Shedd, Judas was not efficiently fitted by God
as a vessel of wrath. No, no. For that would be doing violence the creature's
rights, right? For Shedd and the WCF, Judas was not fitted by God; Judas fitted
himself. The pot was not fitted by the Potter; the pot fits itself. Libraries write
themselves and houses build themselves evidently as well.
“The two Divine methods in the two cases are plainly different, but
the perdition of Judas was as much foreordained and free from chance, as the
conversion of Saul. Man's inability to explain how God can make sin certain,
but not compulsory, by a permissive decree, is no reason for denying that he
can do it or that he has done it.” (pp. 31-32)
“Compulsory,”
huh? "He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His
servants" (Psalm 105:25). So, if God actively causes someone's heart
to hate His people, then it follows that God is “compelling” or
“forcing” them to do so? Well, for Shedd and the WCF men, the sin of
the Egyptians was made certain, but not compulsory, by God supposedly
“allowing” their hearts to so turn all by themselves. Also, Shedd and the
WCF men have no inability or problem explaining their God-hating, idolatrous
notion of how God apparently fulfills His purposes in this world.
“It is sometimes
argued that the Confession excludes the tenet of the permissive decree, by its
declaration that the 'providence of God extendeth itself even to the first
fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission' (Conf. v. 4). The 'bare permission'
which the Assembly rejects here is that of the Tridentine theologians, who
asserted that sin arises from the 'mere permission' of God. The Reformed
theologians understood this to mean, that in respect to the fall of angels and
men God is an idle and helpless spectator (deo otioso spectante), and that sin
came into the universe without any positive decision and purpose on his part. This kind
of 'permission' implies that God could not have prevented sin had he so decided,
and is really no permission at all; because no one can properly be said to
permit what he cannot prevent.” (p. 32)
You would think, by a cursory glance over this part of the WCF, that they
were denying the heterodox view of the “permissive decree” and affirming the
orthodox view of “active causation” in explaining how God brings about His
eternal decree.
“In order to exclude this view of 'permission', the Assembly assert 'such [a permission] as
hath joined with it a most holy, wise, and powerful bounding and otherwise
ordering and governing of [the sins of
angels and men], in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so as the sinfulness thereof
proceedeth only from the creature, not from God, who neither is nor can be the
author of sin'. This last clause declares that God's relation to the
sin which he decrees, is not that of efficiency, but permission.” (p. 32)
“Permission” is the Calvinistic gloss to cover their free will submission
in things pertaining to sin. They say they deny the Arminian version of free
will. And they certainly like the idea that God would enable--even “actively
and efficiently enable”--them to meet conditions for salvation. But when they
hear of God “actively and efficiently hardening” men in their sin, they do not
like that one bit. For as they say, if God does this, then He is doing violence
to their wills and is the “author of sin.” In other words their gripe is “Why doth
He yet find fault?”
“For if God worked directly and efficiently in angel or man 'to will',
when he wills wickedly, the 'sinfulness of sin' would 'proceed from God', and
God would be 'the author of sin'.” (p. 32)
That is a blasphemous non sequitur, Shedd. For just because God
actively caused the Egyptians to hate His people, it by no means follows that
the “sinfulness of sin proceeds from God” and/or that God is “the author of
sin.” Shedd asininely assumes that if God actively causes the Egyptians to hate
His people, then He is thereby the “author” (actual performer) or “approver” of
this sin.
“The permissive decree is taught also in Larger Catechism, 19. 'God by
his providence permitted some of the angels, willfully and irrevocably, to
fall into sin and damnation, limiting and ordering that, and all their sins, to his own glory'”(p. 32)
I just wanted to add to this that Shedd, in
order to "prove” permission, cites (KJV) Acts 14:16, Acts 17:30,
Psalm 78:29, and Psalm 106:15. He then says regarding these passages:
"This phraseology is never
employed when holiness is spoken of. The Bible never says that God permits man
to be holy, or to act righteously. He efficiently influences and actuates him
to this." (p. 33)
Okay. Acts 14:16. Now how does God “allow”
a nation to go its own way? Look at Isaiah 10 to see how God “allowed” the
Assyrian Axe to swing itself.
"The doctrine of the
permissive decree has great value in two respects: (a) In taking sin out of the
sphere of chance. (b) In explaining the tenet of preterition, or
'foreordination to everlasting death.'" (p. 36).
So, in this view, God does not foreordain men to everlasting death.
Rather, He “permits” them to foreordain themselves. Again, this reminds me of
something the old serpent said in the garden. Now how did that go again? Oh,
yeah. “You shall be as God.”
"If God could permissively
decree the fall of Adam and his posterity without being the cause and author of
it, he can also permissively decree the eternal death of an individual sinner
without being the cause and author of it. In preterition, God repeats, in
respect to an individual, the act which he performed in respect to the race. He
permitted the whole human species to fall in Adam in such a manner that they
were responsible and guilty for the fall, and he permits an individual of the
species to remain a sinner and to be lost by sin, in such a manner that the
sinner is responsible and guilty for this." (p. 37).
To Shedd, the whole human species is not responsible and guilty for the
fall if God ordained and caused the fall. Likewise to Shedd, an individual of the
species is apparently not responsible and guilty if God has prepared him as a
vessel of wrath--and thus obviously WANTS this individual to remain a
sinner and to be lost by sin--so that He can show His wrath and power in him
and make known to the vessels of mercy the riches of His glory. God did not
ordain the fall in the manner Shedd would have liked Him to. So I guess that
means that man is not responsible—THIS is Shedd’s reasoning.
"In that wonderful
description of his being and attributes which he gave to Moses, among other
declarations he says, 'I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will
shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy' (Ex.
33:19). In this solemn pronunciamento with which he prefaced the whole work
of human salvation, he distinctly declares that he is under no obligation to
redeem sinful men, but that whatever he does in the premises is of his own
unobliged, free, and sovereign mercy and decision. Still more explicitly, in
what is perhaps the most terrible passage in all Scripture, God asserts that he
will pass by and leave in their sin some who have refused his common call, and
frustrated his common grace" (pp. 72-73). [Shedd
then proceeds to give proof of this by quoting Proverbs 1:24-27. --CD]
Shedd once again asserts the heresy that
God surrenders some of His sovereignty by “passing men by.” He also asserts the
heresy of common grace.
"...it [the
Divine glory --CD] is also manifested when God in the
exercise of his holiness and justice leaves some sinners to their own free
will, and permits them to go down voluntarily to eternal death...That God
intends from all eternity to display his mercy in pardoning a sinner, is
unobjectionable; but that he also intends from all eternity to display his
justice in punishing a sinner, is vehemently opposed." (pp. 77-78).
Shedd’s view of the atonement of Jesus
Christ is that it is in “some sense” offered in the stead of the reprobate. And
thus for Shedd, it is an exercise of "holiness" and
"justice" to permit those for whom Christ died to voluntarily go down
to eternal death. To Shedd, it is a display of "justice" to punish a
sinner for whom Christ died. Shedd's concept of "justice" is clearly
NOT justice at all. It is a perversion. Also, Shedd's "mercy" is
displayed in pardoning sinners on GROUNDS OTHER THAN the work of Christ ALONE
since this SAME WORK was done on behalf of the reprobate.
"Without the sin there
could be no redemption from sin, and if there had been no redemption from sin
that marvelous union and combination and harmonizing of mercy with justice in
the vicarious sacrifice of God incarnate and crucified, could have had no
manifestation whatever." (p. 80).
To Shedd, the above is the "best reason
that can be suggested for the permission of sin." Apart from Shedd’s
heretical view of permission, the above quote is true. God actively caused the
fall so that He could redeem the elect from sin. The harmonizing His mercy with
justice is seen in the efficacious cross-work of Jesus Christ which demands and
ensures their salvation. God’s justice is seen in His punishing eternally those
for whom Christ did NOT die. God’s mercy is seen in saving everyone for whom
Christ died. Justice in the case of justifying the elect is seen at the cross--God
justifies His people on the sole basis of the work of Christ.
In Shedd’s wicked idea of an atonement for
all without exception (albeit in different senses), he has “mercy” being shown
to the “elect” on grounds other than that of Christ’s work alone; he has
“justice” being poured out on those who supposedly had a “sufficient
satisfaction” made in their place; he has God “justifying” sinners on the
ground of their own “spirit-enabled” efforts.
"The election and non-election,
and also the numbers of the elect and non-elect, are all alike a matter of
sovereignty and optional decision. At the same time it relieves the solemnity
and awfulness which overhang the decree of reprobation, to remember that the
Scriptures teach that the number of the elect is much greater than that of the
non-elect. The kingdom of the Redeemer in this fallen world is always described
as far greater and grander than that of Satan. The operation of grace on earth
is uniformly represented as mightier than that of sin. 'Where sin abounded,
grace did much more abound.' And the final number of the redeemed is said to be
'a multitude which no man can number', but that of the lost is not so magnified
and emphasized." (p. 81).
Shedd's idea of "reprobation" is
certainly awful. For the sinner supposedly reprobates himself by not
making the optimal decision of yielding to God's supposed
“well-meant-by-virtue-of-common-grace-offer.”
Regarding Shedd's quote of Romans 5:20 and
grace as mightier than that of sin: Shedd likes to appeal to numbers, but he is
ignorant of the fact that it is not about the numbers per se, but
about Christ's death demanding the salvation of ALL the numbers of those whom
He represented at the cross. Indeed, the Scriptures teach that the GRACE
of God in Christ is mightier than that of sin brought in through Adam. But in
Shedd’s view, sin IS mightier than grace, for the imputed sin of Adam demands
death for all whom he represented, and yet somehow the righteousness of Christ
does not demand life for all whom He represented--and this is because Shedd
universalizes the atonement and makes the imputation of Christ’s righteousness
conditional rather than free.
"For if by the deviation of the one
death reigned through the one, much more those who are receiving the abundance
of grace and the gift of righteousness shall rule in life by the One, Jesus
Christ" (Romans 5:17).
For Shedd, death reigns through Adam, BUT
life does NOT reign or rule
through Christ, since, according to dead-in-his-sins Shedd, some for whom
Christ was an “in some sense” Substitute do not rule in life by
Him--but in spite of this remain yet in death. Those who will undergo
the second death are obviously not ruling and reigning in "life by the
One, Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:17). Shedd believes that there are some for
whom Christ died who will undergo the second death. So much for “grace much
more abounding,” Shedd.
Shedd denies the absolute Sovereignty of
God by denying that God actively causes sinful acts:
"In these two ways of efficiency and permission, God
‘foreordains’ and makes certain two things that unquestionably ‘come to pass,’
namely, the everlasting holiness and life of some men, and the everlasting sin
and death of some men; ‘yet so as thereby God is not the author of sin;
nor is violence done to the will of the creature; nor is the liberty of second
causes taken away, but rather established’. When God predetermined from
eternity not to restrain and prevent ‘Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the
Gentiles, and all the people of Israel’, from crucifying his beloved Son, but
to leave them to their own wicked inclination and voluntary action in the case,
he made this crucifixion a certainty, but not a necessity, as is evinced by the
‘woe’ pronounced upon them by the Son of God. Luke 22:22. Men with hearts
and dispositions full of hatred toward the Saviour of the world, if left to
themselves are infallibly certain to cry, ‘Crucify him; crucify him’. John 19:
6-15.”(pp. 89-90)
Shedd says that God from eternity decided not
to "restrain" Herod et al. from crucifying His beloved Son.
So, if He is not "restraining" Herod and company, then He is
"permitting" them to do what they did. And if He is restraining and
permitting, He obviously is not actively controlling and causing. And if He is
not actively controlling and causing them to crucify His Son, then
ultimately God is just "allowing" them to crush
His Son. "But Jehovah pleased to crush Him" (Isaiah 53:10).
Will Shedd have the passage read, "Jehovah permitted Herod and Company to
crush His Son, and also restrained the Roman soldiers from breaking just one of
His bones, so that prophecy would be fulfilled"? What Shedd says is so
Satanic and diabolical. I mean, who's running things here? The creature or the
Creator? Shedd is bereft of the true knowledge of God. Shedd prays to an idol
who cannot save (Isaiah 45:20).
Since the crucifying of the Son of God on
the part of man is an evil act, Shedd and others like him will say that God did
not cause this aforementioned act of the crucifixion of Christ. They assume
that since God causes a certain evil event, that He must also approve of it.
This does not follow, of course (Isaiah 53:10); yet regarding any who were
among the reprobate that crucified Christ, God is NOT pleased with their
actions and will punish them for the very sins which He caused them to do (the
specific sin here being the crucifying of His beloved Son). Many think this
makes God the author of sin. On the contrary, it makes God the author of
holiness who desires to show His wrath and make His power known. And He shows
His wrath and makes His power known by fitting out vessels of wrath for
destruction. What people don't get is that it is the holy wrath of God that is
causing the reprobate to do the things and to think the thinks that they do.
"Why have the nations raged and the
peoples are meditating on vanity? The kings of the earth set themselves; yea,
the rulers have plotted together against Jehovah and His Anointed, saying,
We will break their bands in two, and throw off their cords from us. He who
sits in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall mock at them" (Psalm
2:1-4).
Shedd says regarding Herod, Pontius Pilate,
and the Gentiles, that God left them to their own wicked inclinations and
voluntary actions. “He turned their
heart to hate His people, to deal craftily with His servants” (Psalm 105:25).
And since "hating His people" is a wicked inclination, Shedd must say
that God just left them to their own voluntary actions. But is that what it
says? No indeed. Is TURNING their hearts leaving them alone to their own
inclinations? I’d say not.
Those who hold to "permissive
will" and "restraint of sin" say that God permits and restrains
the evil or sinful actions of men. But whatever they would deem "good
actions of men" they would not say that God permits or restrains. To them,
if God actively causes them to do "good actions," all is well. But if
God ALSO causes them to do what they call "bad actions," then all is
not well to them, for then why does God yet find fault with their "bad
action," for they could not resist His will in doing said "bad
action." Is this not like a half or semi-deistic view regarding God's
sovereignty? Indeed.
You may have heard the
"watchmaker" analogy regarding deism, where God supposedly winds up
the watch of the whole universe and then just lets it run on its own. The
popular Calvinist watchmaker controls some parts of the watch, while other
parts of the same watch, he lets, permits, and allows to run on their own. And
at other times, he restrains the watch from running too fast. Hence the
term, “semi-deistic.”
"The distinction between
common and special grace is closely connected with the Calvinistic doctrine of
election and preterition. If it is denied or explained away, it is impossible
to hold the Calvinistic view on these latter points. This will appear by
considering the distinction as taught in Scripture, and formulated in the
Westminster Standards.” (p. 92)
It is true that in the Calvinistic scheme--NOT
in the Biblical scheme—“common” and “special grace” are closely connected to
the Calvinistic doctrines of election and preterition. In Calvinism, “special
grace” enables the elect sinner to engage in self-salvation by meeting
conditions for justification. This is
NOT grace at all (see Romans 11:6). Calvinists like Shedd profess to believe in
unconditional election, but their doctrine of “unconditional election” includes
the elect sinner meeting foreordained--in distinction to the Arminian foreseen--conditions
for salvation. The Biblical doctrine of unconditional election is that the
elect sinner does NOT meet any conditions for his salvation, whether foreknown
or foreordained. Why is that? Because Jesus Christ met all the conditions for
their salvation by His atoning blood and imputed righteousness.
Preterition is the demonic doctrine that
teaches that God “lets go” of some of His sovereignty and “passes by” the
non-elect. Preterition is connected with common grace, since Shedd would
abominate the Biblical idea that God does not show the non-elect grace at the
expense of His justice and so unconditionally and actively hardens them for
destruction. Since Shedd would deny this, he must concoct a theory which has
God “withdrawing common grace” and “permitting” sinners to go their own way
instead of actively hardening non-elect sinners in His wrath and actively
causing them to go their own way. The insidious irony in the view of Calvinists
like Shedd is that the more God “withdraws his gracious restraints,” the less
sovereign God is, and the more sovereign the creature becomes. Does the phrase,
“you shall be as God” ring a bell? Yes, I know. I’ve rung this bell before. How
long do I have to ring it before someone actually hears it?
“Common grace is a lower degree
of grace than special. The latter succeeds in overcoming the enmity of the
carnal mind and the opposition of the sinful will; the former does not succeed.
Says John Howe, 'When divine grace is working at the common rate; then it
suffers itself oftentimes to be overcome, and yields the victory to the
contending sinner'. This was the case with the people of
Calvinists like Shedd chide their brothers
in Satan, the Arminians, for holding to a view of resistible common sufficient
grace--a “grace” which admits of no degrees but flows “at the common rate” for
all men without exception. They chide because the Calvinist sees the Arminian
god being baffled, bewildered, and thwarted in his impotent desire to save all
sinners without exception. Now the Calvinist has his own version of resistible
grace in common grace. But his “god” is stronger than the Arminian “god” and
follows up the common grace with the special grace. The Calvinist is more
subtle and less honest than the Arminian, though. The Calvinist wants to say
God is not being thwarted ultimately, and the Calvinist also wants to say that
he is not letting God save him by ceasing from resisting like the Arminian. So
he just says that God, in effect, “tries harder” by increasing the grace up to
the “special rate” which is up from the “common rate.” At the end of the day,
though, the Calvinist “god” is “powerfully” and “ultimately irresistibly” enabling
sinners to save themselves by meeting conditions for salvation.
Back
to Genuine Historical Calvinism Roster