ST1 - Comparative Study - Ethan Smith

Comparative study and synthesis

ST1 – Comparative Study

Foreword / Introduction – This paper will be comparing and contrasting the two systematic theologians, Wayne Grudem (Calvinistic Baptist) and Louis Berkhof (Dutch-Reformed) on their views of the doctrines of Predestination, Baptism (Credo vs. Paedo) and the Millennium (part of the broad subject of Eschatology, Premillennial vs. Amillennial). Then I will do a synthesis on the different views; explaining my own personal positions. All quotations and page numbers from both theologians will be from the PDF versions of their Systematic Theology textbooks. All Scripture references (from me) will be from the NASB unless otherwise noted.Comparison of their views on Predestination

Commonality Grudem’s view Berkhof’s viewRegarding unconditional election Both clearly affirm the

Reformed doctrine of Unconditional Election; that God sovereignly predestined which sinners will be saved on the basis of His own freewill not on the basis of His foreknowledge of who would choose to have faith. Both agree that God’s sovereign decree of election doesn’t violate human freedom but is perfectly consistent with it.

“We conclude instead that the reason for election is simply God’s sovereign choice—he “destined us in love to be his sons” (Eph. 1:5). God chose us simply because he decided to be-stow his love upon us. It was not because of any foreseen faith or foreseen merit in us.This understanding of elec-tion has traditionally been called “unconditional elec-tion.” It is “unconditional” because it is not condi-tioned upon anything that God sees in us that makes us worthy of his choosing us.”1

“[The decree of election] is unconditional. Election does not in any way depend on the foreseen faith or good works of man, as the Arminians teach, but exclusively on the sovereign good pleasure of God, who is also the origina-tor of faith and good works, Rom. 9:11; Acts 13:48; II Tim. 1:9; I Pet. 1:2. Since all men are sinners and have for-feited the blessings of God, there is no basis for such a distinction in them; and since even the faith and good works of the believers are the fruit of the grace of God, Eph. 2:8,10; II Tim. 2:21, even these, as foreseen by God, could not furnish such a ba-sis.”2

Regarding reprobation Grudem and Berkhof

both affirm the doctrine of reprobation; that God

Grudem says, “Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass

Berkhof says, “Reprobation may be defined as that eternal decree of God

1 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 589.2 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 124. He also defines election/predestination unto salvation on p. 123 as, “that eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace and of eternal salvation.”


passes over certain sinners in order to manifest His glorious justice.3 They have almost the same definition of reprobation.

over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice.”4

Grudem adds “in sorrow” to his definition, making it more specific.

Grudem teaches, like John Piper, that God has a genuine desire for the salvation of all humanity and even grieves over the destruction of the wicked. Such is perfectly consistent with the five points of Calvinism.5

whereby He has determined to pass some men by with the operations of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice.”6

Berkhof doesn’t include “in sorrow” therefore providing a broader definition.

Berkhof is unclear in his chapter on predestination whether or not God grieves over the destruction of the wicked or has some desire for the salvation of the non-elect. But he states on p. 421, under the section The Nature of the Atonement, “Moreover, the idea of a universal Fatherhood of God, in virtue of which He loves all men with a redemptive love, is entirely foreign to Scripture.”

Regarding the universal offer of salvation / well-meant offer Grudem and Berkhof

both affirm God’s universal / well-meant offer of salvation to the world: salvation is

“When talking about our re-sponse to the gospel offer, Scripture continually views us not as mechanistic crea-tures or robots, but as gen-

Berkhof also affirms the universal offer and proclamation of the gospel, “It is not the duty of the preacher to harmonize the

3 If God chooses to save many and passes over the rest, does this make Him unfair? Take note of what Berkhof said, “[The decree of election] is not chargeable with injustice. The fact that God favors some and passes by others, does not warrant the charge that He is guilty of injustice. We can speak of injustice only when one party has a claim on another. If God owed the forgiveness of sin and eternal life to all men, it would be an injustice if He saved only a limited number of them. But the sinner has absolutely no right or claim on the blessings which flow from divine election. As a matter of fact he has forfeited these blessings. Not only have we no right to call God to account for electing some and passing others by, but we must admit that He would have been perfectly just, if He had not saved any, Matt. 20:14,15; Rom. 9:14,15.” Ibid, 125.4 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 595.5 John Calvin seems to agree: “Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish…” – Some of Calvin’s commentary on John 3:16. And: “So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost.” – Some of his commentary on 2Peter 3:9.6 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 126.


obtained by anyone who truly repents and believes.

Since Berkhof is not explicit about whether God grieves over the destruction of the wicked, they seem to differ slightly on their view of the “universal offer” of salvation.

uine persons personal crea-tures who make willing choices to accept or reject the gospel. Jesus invites ev-eryone, “Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).”7

secret counsel of God respecting the redemption of sinners with His declarative will as expressed in the universal offer of salvation. He is simply an official ambassador, whose duty it is to carry out the will of the Lord in preaching the gospel to all men indiscriminately.”8

Regarding double predestination Both affirm that there is

a God-glorifying reason for both salvation and damnation.

Both affirm that God’s decree/predestination unto salvation for the elect is active but the decree of reprobation is permissive for the non-elect.

Prefers not to use the phrase “double predestination”; finds it unhelpful and was probably more often used by the enemies of Reformed theology.9

Berkhof mentions “double predestination” a total of four times in his book10 in reference to Augustine, Calvin and Aquinas believing in it but never explicitly said he himself believes it. But I assume he does since he never says anything negative about it and seems to show favor towards it. He certainly denies the doctrine of “Equal Ultimacy.”11

Regarding common grace12

Both agree with the Grudem spends about eight Berkhof spends a whole 7 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 585. And adds on pg. 592, "This is the consistent pattern in Scripture: people who remain in unbelief do so because they are unwilling to come to God, and the blame for such unbelief always lies with the unbelievers themselves, never with God."8 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 439. Berkhof then quotes Dr. Shedd, “The universal offer of the benefits of Christ’s atonement springs out of God’s will of complacency, Ezek. 33:11.... God may properly call upon the non-elect to do a thing that God delights in, simply because He does delight in it. The divine desire is not altered by the divine decree of preterition.” - Dogm. Theol. II, p. 484.9 “However, the term double predestination is not a helpful term because it gives the impression that both election and reprobation are carried out in the same way by God and have no essential differences between them, which is certainly not true. Therefore, the term double predestination is not generally used by Reformed theologians, though it is sometimes used to refer to Reformed teaching by those who criticize it.” – Grudem, Systematic Theology, 581.10 All four occur on pages 118-119.11 Dr. R.C. Sproul labeled Equal Ultimacy as sub-Calvinism and/or it hyper-Calvinism. It is the doctrine that God equally (or symmetrically) and actively works in the hearts of the elect (unto faith and salvation) and the non-elect (unto unbelief and reprobation). In other words, it leads to the idea that God purposefully creates evil and faithlessness inside people, which is dangerously false. It is commonly confused with “double predestination” but it seems double predestination is defined differently from theologian to theologian.


doctrine of “common grace.”13 Common grace is certainly related to predestination and soteriology since it pertains to the character of God and His treatment of the non-elect / humanity in general. God is actually saving all of humanity temporarily from His just wrath.

pages on the subject of common grace. He sets the foundation by asking and answering the question, “How can God continue to give blessings to sinners who deserve only death—not only to those who will ultimately be saved, but also to millions who will never be saved, whose sins will never be forgiven?The answer to these ques-tions is that God bestows common grace. We may define common grace as follows: Common grace is the grace of God by which he gives people innumer-able blessings that are not part of salvation. The word common here means some-thing that is common to all people and is not restricted to believers or to the elect only.”14

chapter (with 12 pages worth) defending the doctrine of common grace.

Berkhof even argues that the Holy Spirit works and restrains the evil in people including the non-elect and references verses like Gen. 6:3, Is. 63:10 and Acts 7:51 to support this.15 He says, “Through the operation of common grace sin is restrained in the lives of individuals and in society.”16

Regarding Infra/supralapsarianism

12 Both theologians discuss common grace in different chapters than their chapters on predestination. But I saw it fitting to include it here and mention it briefly since it describes how God deals with the non-elect.13 The doctrine of common grace is affirmed by the majority of Calvinist scholars. “Grace” because it is favor and blessing lavished from God on undeserving sinners and “common” because it is given indiscriminately to elect and non-elect alike. In a nutshell, it teaches that God is merciful, patient and kind to all of humanity and even blesses them with temporal blessings (e.g. food, shelter, talents and money).14 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 57015 See p. 489.16 Berkhorf, Systematic Theology, 488.


Both don’t explicitly affirm one or the other and seem relatively open-minded. It seems Infralapsarianism is more popular amongst Reformed theologians.17

Grudem only compares the two briefly in a footnote to inform the reader of the nature of the dispute. He wrote, “The discussion is complex and highly speculative because there is very little direct biblical data to help us with it. Good arguments have been advanced in support of each view, and there is probably some element of truth in each one. But in the last analysis it seems wiser to say that Scripture does not give us enough data to probe into this mystery, and, moreover, it does not seem very edifying to do so.” He even directs the reader to Berkhof for further discussion for those who are interested.18

Berkhof goes into good detail comparing and contrasting the two and pointing out weaknesses in both theories. Robert L. Reymond wrote “Berkhof, who seems (only slightly) to favor the infralapsarian position..."19 and I would agree from the way I interpreted him. He even points out, “The analogy of the predestination of the angels would seem to favor the Supralapsarian position, for it can only be conceived as supralapsarian.”20 And, “Therefore the Supralapsarians can, while the Infralapsarians cannot, give a specific answer to the question why God decreed to create the world and to permit the fall.”21

Regarding the doxology for election They both exalt and

glorify God for this God-centered doctrine that leaves man no room for boosting because it is all to the praise of God’s glorious grace.

“By contrast, if election is solely based on God’s own good pleasure and his sovereign decision to love us in spite of our lack of goodness or merit, then certainly we have a profound sense of appreciation to him for a salvation that is totally undeserved, and we will

“The purpose of this eternal election is twofold: (1) The proxi-mate purpose is the salvation of the elect. That man is chosen or elected unto salvation is clearly taught in the Word of God, Rom. 11:7-11; II Thess. 2:13. (2) The final aim is the glory of God. Even the salvation of men is subordinate to this. That the glory of God is the highest pur-

17 Grudem nicely summaries the two as follows, “It does not concern something that happened in time, but rather it concerns the logical order of God’s thoughts. The question is whether, in logical order, (a) God decided first that he would save some people and second that he would allow sin into the world so that he could save them from it (the supralapsarian position), or whether it was the other way around, so that (b) God first decided that he would allow sin into the world and second decided that he would save some people from it (the infralapsarian position). The word supralapsarian means “before the fall,” and the word infralapsarian means “after the fall.”” – pg. 590 (footnote 12)18 Ibid.19 Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 481.20 Berkhorf, Systematic Theology, 131.21 Ibid.


forever be willing to praise his “glorious grace” (Eph. 1:6).”22

pose of the electing grace is made very emphatic in Eph. 1:6,12,14.”23

Comparison of their views on Baptism

Commonality Grudem’s view Berkhof’s viewRegarding the purpose of baptism Both affirm that baptism

is a sign of union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection and a sign of life commitment to Him. It is certainly not a means of salvation and does not bring regeneration.

Grudem is a Baptist and affirms Believer’s Only (or Credo) baptism. He believes baptism should only follow after a profession of faith and therefore the infants of believing parents shouldn’t be baptized (and is not true baptism).

Berkhof is American-Dutch Reformed and affirms Paedo or Covenantal baptism. He believes the Scriptures teach that the children of believing parents are sanctified in some sense and therefore it is proper to set them apart from the world by baptism (a covenantal sign parallel to Old Testament circumcision). This commits them to follow Jesus as they progress in age.

Regarding the baptismal formula Both favor the classic

triune baptismal formula based from Matthew 28:19.

Grudem doesn’t discuss the baptismal formula in his section on baptism. He doesn’t spend time proving what words we should say at any given baptism.

Berkhof is open to the possibility that the New Testament does not contain a specific baptismal formula24 but references the Didache, chapter VII (c. 100 A.D.) as evidence the triune formula was used in the early church.

Regarding the mode of baptism Both agree that

immersion is a valid mode of baptism.

Strongly suggests that baptism should be done by immersion and that the Greek word, βαπτίζω, baptizo, most naturally means “to plunge, dip, immerse”. And he

Suggests that the Greek word does not necessarily mean immersion in every occur-rence and promotes sprin-kling as a valid mode of bap-tism. He wrote, “The gener-ally prevailing opinion out-

22 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 588.23 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 125.24 “It is sometimes said with an appeal to such passages as Acts 2:48; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5, and also Rom. 6:3, and Gal.3:27, that the apostles evidently did not use the trinitarian formula; but this is not necessarily implied, though it is entirely possible since they did not understand the words of Jesus in the great commission as prescribing a definite formula.” – Berkhorf, Systematic Theology, 625.


references scholarship such as BDAG, Albrecht Oepke, LSJ, and TDNT.

Comments that Berkhof “indiscriminately mixes examples of βαπτίζω with a related but different word, βάπτω (G970).”25

side of Baptist circles is that, as long as the fundamental idea, namely, that of purifica-tion, finds expression in the rite, the mode of baptism is quite immaterial. It may be administered by immersion, by pouring or effusion, or by sprinkling.”26

A summary of their arguments in favor of their position of baptism

Says that the pattern of baptism in the N.T. is for only those who have actually exercised saving faith (Ac. 2:41, 8:12, 10:47).27

Says that when Jesus came up ‘out of’ the water (Mk. 1:10) this supports immersion and it doesn’t say He came away from the water which would be a different Greek term.28

References the plenty of water in John 3:23 and points out that it won’t take plenty of water to sprinkle people.29

References Philip and the eunuch in Acts 8 and them waiting for a body of water and both going into it and coming out of it.30

Finds it hard to believe that John the Baptist and the apostles literally immersed the large multitudes of people individually. Also finds it hard to believe that Paul, Cornelius, or the Philippian jailer each left to a different place where a pool or river was in order to be immersed.32

Argues that the Greek word can mean Philip and the eunuch went ‘to’ the water rather than ‘into’ the water and going ‘into’ the water does not necessitate immersion.

Argues that the covenant made with Abraham was a spiritual covenant and is still in force today and baptism has replaced circumcision as

25 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 848 (footnote 4)26 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 696. He goes on to say, “The Bible simply uses a generic word to denote an action designed to produce a certain effect, namely, cleansing or purifica-tion, but nowhere determines the specific mode in which the effect is to be produced. Jesus did not prescribe a certain mode of baptism. He evidently did not attach as much impor-tance to it as the Baptists do. Neither do the Biblical examples of baptism stress any particu-lar mode. There is not a single case in which we are explicitly told just how baptism was ad-ministered.”27 See p. 851.28 “Mark also tells us that when Jesus had been baptized “he came up out of the water” (Mark 1:10). The Greek text specifies that he came “out of” (ἐκ, G1666) the water, not that he came away from it (this would be expressed by Gk. ἀπό, G608).” - Grudem, Systematic Theology, 84929 “John’s gospel tells us, further, that John the Baptist “was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there” (John 3:23). Again, it would not take “much water” to baptize people by sprinkling, but it wouldtake much water to baptize by immersion.” – Ibid.


Says, “The symbolism of union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection seems to require baptism by immersion” and references Rom. 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12.31

the sign and seal of the covenant.

Argues that since children were not excluded in the old dispensation, their privileges cannot be reduced in the new dispensation either.33

Argues that church history is in favor of Infant Baptism and references Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, the Council of Carthage and Augustine in support that Infant Baptism was generally practiced in the early church.

Comparison of their views on the Millennium

Commonality Grudem’s view Berkhof’s viewRegarding the importance of studying the Millennium Both regard Eschatology

and one’s view of the Millennium as not essential to Reformed theology or the gospel but nevertheless important to discuss and define.

Grudem links its importance to the fact that Christians should be willing to suffer for their Lord: “It seems best to conclude, with the great majority of the church throughout history, that the church will go through the time of tribulation predicted by Jesus… This idea that Christians should be prepared to endure suffering is also seen in Paul’s words that we are fellow heirs with Christ… It is from the Savior who himself has suffered more than any of his children will ever suffer that we have the admonition, “Do not fear what you are about to

“There are some who connect with the advent of Christ the idea of a millennium, either immediately before or immediately following the second coming. While this idea is not an integral part of Reformed theology, it nevertheless deserves consideration here, since it has become rather popular in many circles. Reformed theology cannot afford to ignore the wide-spread millenarian views of the present day, but should define its position with respect to these.”35

30 He also wrote, “Apparently neither of them thought that sprinkling or pouring a handful of water from the container of drinking water that would have been carried in the chariot was enough to constitute baptism.” – Ibid.31 Ibid.32 See p. 698.33 See pp. 701-702.


suffer... Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10).”34

Regarding their millennial view

Grudem holds to historic Premillennialism like John Piper. He rejects the “pre-trib” (or secret) rapture teaching but still affirms that Christ will physically reign on earth for a thousand literal years. It is called premillennialism because it teaches Christ will return before the millennium begins.

Grudem also presents arguments against the pre-trib rapture and says...

Berkhof clearly favors Amillennialism but doesn’t seem to explicitly call himself an Amillennialist. He points out the “Objections to” Postmillennialism and Premillennialism but never to Amillennialism.36

It’s called Amillennialism because it teaches there is no future millennium since the millennium already began at Christ’s first coming with His death and/or resurrection (which was also the moment Satan was bound so he can’t prevent the gospel from reaching the entire world [i.e. “so that he would not deceive the nations any longer” – Rev. 20:3]).

Regarding the amount of resurrections Both agree that there

will be a resurrection of the godly and ungodly dead and judgment for all.

Grudem believes and defends the classic Premillennial teaching that there are two separate resurrections. The first resurrection occurs at Christ’s second coming and is the resurrection of all the dead people of God and the second one occurs after the Millennium and is a resurrection of the rest of mankind including the unbelievers from all human history. This then results in the final judgment.

Berkhof denies there being more than one resurrection and attempts to discredit such a teaching. Amillennialists teach that when Jesus Christ returns, that’s the end. The single and final judgment of everyone occurs and then comes the eternal state. He even says, “There is no positive Scriptural foundation whatsoever for the Premillennial view of a double, or even a three- or fourfold resurrection, as their theory requires, nor for

34 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 100535 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 785.36 See pp. 789 & 796


spreading the last judgment over a period of a thousand years by dividing it into three judgments.”37

Regarding the idea of the saints living with glorified bodies with unbelievers on earth during the Millennium

Grudem admits that the idea does sound strange now but points out that Jesus Himself lived on earth for 40 days with His disciples with a glorified, resurrected body. He even referenced Matt. 27:53 and said, “apparently there were many other Old Testament saints who lived with glorified bodies on earth during that time as well”38

Berkhof finds the idea too difficult accept: “The Premillennial theory entangles itself in all kinds of insuperable difficulties with its doctrine of the millennium. It is impossible to understand how a part of the old earth and of sinful humanity can exist alongside of a part of the new earth and of a humanity that is glorified. How can perfect saints in glorified bodies have communion with sinners in the flesh. How can glorified saints live in this sin-laden atmosphere and amid scenes of death and decay?”39

Regarding church history and their views

Doesn’t appeal to church history much but says, “the great majority of the church throughout history” say “that the church will go through the time of tribulation”.40

Claimed that Amillennialism has always been the majority view for Reformed/Calvinistic Christians. And has good support in the very early church. 41

A summary of their arguments against the

37 Ibid, 792.38 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 99039 Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 79240 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 100541 “Some Premillenarians have spoken of Amillennialism as a new view and as one of the most recent novelties, but this is certainly not in accord with the testimony of history. The name is new indeed, but the view to which it is applied is as old as Christianity. It had at least as many advocates as Chiliasm among the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, supposed to have been the heyday of Chiliasm. It has ever since been the view most widely accepted, is the only view that is either expressed or implied in the great historical Confessions of the Church, and has always been the prevalent view in Reformed circles.” – Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 785


other view on the Millennium42

Grudem argues that Amillennialists have to interpret Rev. 20 in an unnatural way.43

Claims that the Amillennial interpretation of ‘first resurrection’ (Rev. 20:5) is unconvincing and must mean a bodily resurrection rather than a spiritual one.44

A literal, physical millennium is glorifying to God in a variety of ways including the righteousness of God and the improvement of society: “In the millennium the beauty of God’s wisdom will show forth to his glory from all of these societal structures.”

Finds many of the implications of believing in a literal, physical reign of Christ on earth too amazing that he poses many questions against it.

Claims that other Scriptures contradict the Premillennial interpretation of Rev. 20:1-6.45

Also claims that their ‘literal’ interpretation is not consistently literal (e.g. the binding of v.2 is figurative, the ‘souls’ of v.4 become resurrected saints).

Says there is no indication that Christ and the saints reigned on earth.

SynthesisPredestination – Regarding unconditional electionSince late 2010 I have believed in the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election even though my parents rejected it. Every Christian should regard the freewill of God in salvation as much more important than the freewill of the sinner (Rom. 9:15-16). Can we charge God with injustice (see Rom. 9:14ff) for choosing particular people for salvation and rejecting others? No. Because God owes us nothing but punishment for our sin (Rom. 1:18, 3:9-10). If 100 men were on death row and the governor decides to mercifully pardon one of the guilty men, would we demand that the 99 be pardoned too? Was the governor unfair for passing over the 99?It’s amazing that God would choose anyone for salvation considering how holy He is and how unholy we are. If God were to be entirely and totally fair, He would send all

42 I.e. Premillennialism vs. Amillennialism.43 For example: “Finally, a major objection to amillennialism must continue to be the fact that it can propose no really satisfying explanation of Revelation 20.” – Grudem, Systematic Theology, 992.44 “Moreover, amillennialist interpretations of the phrase “first resurrection” are unconvincing. The word resurrection (Gk. ἀνάστασις, G414) never elsewhere means “going to heaven” or “going into the presence of God,” but rather signifies a bodily resurrection. This is the sense in which first-century readers would have understood the word.” – Ibid, 989.45 “The literal interpretation of this passage, as given by the Premillenarians, leads to a view that finds no supportelsewhere in Scripture, but is even contradicted by the rest of the New Testament. This is a fatal objection.” – Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 793.


of humanity to hell. He would be just to do so. We shouldn’t crave fairness from God, but mercy. It is also true and important to note that God’s sovereign choice in salvation towards His elect and His irresistible drawing of them to saving faith does not at all violate or negate the genuine freedom and will of man.46 As the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith says: "God has indued the will of man, by nature, with liberty and the power to choose and to act upon his choice. This free will is neither forced, nor destined by any necessity of nature to do good or evil."47

Regarding reprobationI agree with the doctrine of reprobation and see it as biblical (Jude 4, 1Pe. 2:8, Rom. 9:18, 22) but I don’t believe it is based on God’s foreknowledge (as some Arminians have suggested). I agree with Berkhof when he said reprobation logically follows if one affirms the doctrine of election.48 I don’t think Grudem should’ve added in his definition of reprobation “in sorrow” especially since not every Calvinist scholar would agree with him on that. It seems he was adding in his own personal bias at that point. Although I am fully open to the idea that God grieves over the destruction of the wicked and I certainly believe the words of God found in Ezekiel 33:11, “I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live”, I’m still unsure whether it is biblical. Ezekiel 33:11, however, doesn’t say God grieves over their death/destruction49 and 1Sam. 2:25 says “for the LORD desired to put them to death.” Do God and His saints grieve when His glorious justice is displayed? Or does this illustrate how awesome and amazing His grace is to His people who deserved the same fate?Regarding the universal offer of salvation / well-meant offerSome Calvinists reject the well-meant offer but this doesn’t necessarily make them hyper-Calvinists. They can still preach the gospel to everyone without discrimination. I certainly agree with the well-meant offer of God for salvation to everyone and see it as biblical (Ez. 18:32, 33:11, Rom. 10:21, Mt. 11:28, Rev. 22:17, Jn. 3:16, Ac. 17:30). This doctrine highlights the great love of God for mankind. He commands all men everywhere to repent and believe and have salvation and repentance and faith are pleasing to Him. Out of love and patience, He delays the judgment, waits and gives more time and offers the entire human race salvation in Christ (2Pe. 3:9).Regarding double predestinationI certainly reject the doctrine of Equal Ultimacy and would likely label it as a form of hyper-Calvinism. I believe God’s predestination unto salvation involves God actively moving and energizing His chosen people towards holiness and faith. The opposite effect cannot be said of God’s decree of reprobation (Ps. 5:4, Jam. 1:13). The idea that God equally and actively works sin and unbelief in the hearts of the non-elect 46 The elect still freely choose to love and obey Christ.47 Chap. IX, Sec. I (under ‘Free Will’).48 “The doctrine of reprobation naturally follows from the logic of the situation. The decree of election inevitably implies the decree of reprobation… If He has chosen or elected some, then He has by that very fact also rejected others.” – Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 127-12849 Although Mark 3:5 says Jesus “grieved at their hardness of heart”.


leads to God being the author of sin. Besides this, I would say it is unnecessary for God to do this since man’s corruption from original sin and the work of the great deceiver, Satan, is already enough to lead all of humanity towards hell. Why would God need to add more to this?50 The world, the flesh and Satan are already powerful enough to cause our total inability to exercise any meritorious good for salvation. I would agree with Grudem that the phrase “double predestination” is not helpful and is often misunderstood. It is unfortunate that it is commonly mixed up with Equal Ultimacy. God’s decree of election is not symmetrical to His decree of reprobation; the salvation of the elect involves positive action on the part of the triune God including the payment of Christ for their sin and the regeneration and sealing of the Holy Spirit. Such positive action can never be said of God’s decision not to save the rest of mankind. It’s important to note that all non-Calvinists have to agree that God decides not to save certain people for His own reasons.Regarding common graceI regard common grace as a beautiful doctrine, clearly based in Scripture (Deu. 10:18-19, Mk. 10:21, Lev. 19:9-10, Mt. 5:43-45). Some of my favorite theologians (e.g. John MacArthur, John Piper and James White) affirm it. It emphasizes God’s great love and mercy even for those who will never be saved. It illustrates that God’s love is not one dimensional but He has different types of love. I found it interesting that Berkhof said that Arminians believe common grace can lead people to salvation - meaning the common grace of God is related to Him convicting and drawing sinners to Himself (by “Prevenient Grace”). Berkhof makes the argument that John Calvin affirmed common grace and God’s restraint of man’s evil and the quotes he referenced do seem to prove it.51 Therefore ‘common grace’ is a Reformed doctrine.Regarding Infra/supralapsarianismI certainly lean towards Infralapsarianism but acknowledge the weaknesses in the theory as Berkhof pointed out. I agree with Grudem when he said there are likely elements of truth in both and Scripture doesn’t give us all the details. Supralapsarianism does seem to lead to some problems that are not as difficult for the Infralapsarian; especially in regards to the entrance of sin into the world. I’m 50 Although 2Th. 2:11-12 seems to support Equal Ultimacy: “For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” And Pro. 21:1, “The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.”51 Berkhof referenced Calvin’s Institutes II. 3,3 and III. 14,2: “But we ought to consider that, notwithstanding the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint… he only lays them under such restraint as may prevent them from breaking forth to a degree incompatible with the preservation of the established order of things… Thus God, by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure.” (Inst. II. 3,3) and “Hence this distinction between honorable and base actions God has not only engraven on the minds of each, but also often confirms in the administration of his providence. For we see how he visits those who cultivate virtue with many temporal blessings.” (Inst. III. 14,2).


thankful to Berkhof for pointing out that supralapsarians do generally believe that God takes man’s sinfulness into account in His decree of reprobation52 – that He’s not just decreeing the damnation of people He views as innocent as some have charged. And he also helped me see that supralapsarianism is different from Equal Ultimacy. These have helped me acknowledge the fact that supralapsarians are not necessarily hyper-Calvinists and I can easily call them my brothers in Christ.53 The decrees of God are certainly mysterious in many ways and we cannot claim to know all the details. This fact should humble us and cause us to submit it over to God.Regarding the doxology for electionI totally agree with Grudem’s quote which I put in this section. Unconditional election should humble us and cause us to praise God for His glorious grace (Eph. 1:6). We’re not saved because we were intelligent enough to choose Christ while others weren’t (1Cor. 1:18-31) – we willingly and freely put our faith in Christ because of the sovereign mercy of God in bestowing the gift of faith upon us (Php. 1:29) when we were totally unable (Jn. 6:65). The glory of saving grace is magnified even more when one affirms unconditional predestination unto salvation. What makes the difference in salvation from soul to soul? Something inside man? Or the sovereign, loving, drawing purpose of God (Eph. 1:4-5, Jn. 6:44)? The reason I’m in Christ is by grace alone (2Tim. 1:9, 1Cor. 1:30).Baptism –Regarding the purpose of baptismI agree with their commonalities on why someone should be baptized. I was encouraged while reading Grudem’s defense of Credobaptism and immersion. He presented an excellent case and it was very concise and simple. He even pointed out mistakes in Berkhof’s arguments. I was open minded about the Presbyterian view while studying it and testing it with Scripture. I see their points and have come to respect their practice but I just can’t see how it can be defended or proven biblically. Many excellent theologians including R.C. Sproul, B.B. Warfield, John Gerstner and Charles Hodge hold/held to Paedobaptism. But it does seem to me to be a tradition of the Reformed faith introduced by John Calvin rather than a result of sound exegesis of Scripture. But I will continue to study the evidence in favor of covenantal baptism.Regarding the baptismal formulaI found it interesting that Berkhof was open to the idea the New Testament may not necessarily contain a baptism verbal formula. Evangelicals / Protestants do have to 52 "Again, it is objected that Supralapsarianism makes the decree of reprobation just as absolute as the decree of election. In other words, that it regards reprobation as purely an act of God’s sovereign good pleasure, and not as an act of punitive justice. According to its representation sin does not come into consideration in the decree of reprobation. But this is hardly correct, though it may be true of some Supralapsarians. In general, however, it may be said that, while they regard preterition as an act of God’s sovereign good pleasure, they usually regard precondemnation as an act of divine justice which does take sin into consideration." Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 122.53 Especially if they deny Equal Ultimacy and affirm that the gospel must be proclaimed to everyone.


remember that we baptized for God rather than men. The baptismal formula is not extremely clear in Scripture especially in light of the baptisms in the name of Jesus throughout the book of Acts. But I believe the actual words said at any given baptism, even the mode, come secondary to glorifying God by obeying the command of Christian baptism. God looks at the heart. I was disappointed that Grudem didn’t defend the triune formula for baptism or spend time explaining what the book of Acts means when people were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). I take these to mean baptism into the person or character of Christ; being identified with the name and committing oneself to following Him - rather than saying ‘Jesus’ out loud.54

Regarding the mode of baptismI found some of the arguments and Scriptures from Berkhof in support of non-immersion quite interesting. I’m open to his idea that as long as purification is expressed in the rite it is a valid mode of baptism. As I said earlier, God looks at the heart. So He might not be too fussed about the exact mode. We should note, though, that Paedobaptists are forced to defend other forms of baptism like sprinkling since it’s dangerous to immerse infants in water. I agree with Berkhof’s statement, “There is not a single case in which we are explicitly told just how baptism was administered.” Perhaps God deliberately made baptism ambiguous in Scripture for His own purposes. Although I agree with Baptists that immersion best symbolizes our union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5): we die and are buried with Him when we go under the water and we are raised with Him when we come out of the water.A summary of their arguments in favor of their position of baptismGrudem presented a lot of strong Scriptural arguments in my opinion that were straightforward and flowed naturally from the text. Perhaps Berkhof had the presupposition that Paedobaptism is true therefore tried to support it with some theories. Admittedly, I still need to study more on Berkhof’s covenantal arguments with the Scriptures he gives and why these apparently support infant baptism. It’s definitely interesting that the early church apparently practiced infant baptism as a given. I would like to see how Baptists respond to this and if there is evidence to the contrary. It’s interesting that Grudem seems to equate the baptisms mentioned in texts such as Rom. 6:3-4, Col. 2:12 or Gal 3:27 as water baptisms by immersion when I see those texts as clearly referencing spiritual baptism resulting in our union with Christ and newness of life. Water baptism might be in the back of Paul’s mind when he wrote those but it is clear that we’re not literally water baptized ‘into Christ’ or ‘into His death.’ This is a spiritual union (see 1Cor. 12:13).The Millennium –Regarding the importance of studying the MillenniumI agree with them that one’s position on the Millennium is not essential to the gospel. Nevertheless it is still important to know and understand the different views 54 The ‘name’ of someone in Scripture can represent their identity, self-revelation, authority, family inheritance or even glory (see Acts 4:7, 18, 21:13, 19:17; Heb. 1:4, Mt. 10:41, Jn. 5:43).


and to choose the one you believe is most biblical. Admittedly, eschatology is a very difficult subject and I believe God made it mysterious in His Word deliberately so that we may search for the truth diligently and so that everything won’t be obvious when it happens. One’s view of the Millennium still influences their life and how they would preach the gospel. Therefore every Christian should be open-minded about being wrong in their eschatology and never assume that Christ is returning soon.55 As Grudem said, Christians should be willing to suffer for Christ and unfortunately the pre-trib rapture view has led some people to believe we will all be delivered from suffering altogether.Regarding their millennial viewI consider myself an ‘open-millennialist’ since I’m still studying the evidence for each view and am willing to embrace whichever one is biblical. As of now, I am in between Premillennialism and Amillennialism but lean more towards Amillennialism since it is the simplest view and has decent arguments to support it.56 Moreover, John Calvin believed it as well as R.C. Sproul and James White. Having said this, I wouldn’t be surprised if Premillennialism is true and it may be glorifying to God in a variety of ways as Grudem claims. I affirm Amillennialism as of now but still need to think about the surrounding implications of doing so especially in regards to the nation of Israel and God’s promises to them and the passages which seem to suggest a physical reign of Christ. Amillennialists can still affirm a personal Anti-Christ, a visible second coming and even the salvation of many Jews. And perhaps the idea of living on earth for 1000 years is unappealing to me because I’d rather be at home with the Lord in the eternal state straight away.Regarding the amount of resurrectionsSince I lean towards Amillennialism, I also lean towards there being only one bodily resurrection of the world. Scripture does seem to support only one physical resurrection of both the just and the unjust together at the same time (Acts 24:15, Jn. 5:28-29, 6:39, 11:24). But I recognize that the Greek word for ‘resurrection’ in Rev. 20:5,6 is never used for a spiritual resurrection (e.g. Eph. 2:5,6) but always pertains to physical resurrection. Some Amillennialists may regard this fact as the best argument for Premillennialism yet still find it unconvincing. One resurrection and one judgment is easier and more appealing for me to believe but I’m open about being wrong.

55 I’m aware that the Bible says Christ is coming soon/quickly. By ‘soon’ here I mean within a few years or our own lifetime. It’s dangerous to assume this and I know some people who have and were therefore not motivated about securing their future (i.e. life, career etc.).56 For example, the Reformation Study Bible says regarding the first resurrection in Rev. 20:5,6, “If this resurrection means bodily resurrection, it coincides with the Second Coming (1 Cor. 15:51–57; 1 Thess. 4:13–18) and the premillennialists are correct… On the other hand, the language concerning the second death in vv. 6, 14 and 21:8 suggests a contrast between the first death and the second. The first death is bodily death, but it is only preliminary, not ultimate. The second death is ultimate and spiritual in character. Likewise, the first and second resurrections may be preliminary and ultimate, respectively. The first is spiritual, the second is of the body. The first resurrection is then to be understood as coinciding either with spiritual new birth (John 5:24, 25) or with going to be with Christ at the time of bodily death (6:9, 10; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23).”


Regarding the idea of the saints living with glorified bodies with unbelievers on earth during the MillenniumI agree with both theologians that the idea is strange. This is one of the biggest problems for Premillennialism. How do saints in glorified bodies live and interact in society with unbelievers with aging bodies? I appreciate Grudem pointing out that Christ Himself stayed with His disciples for 40 days in His glorified, resurrected body. This helped me become more open to the idea. But I disagree with his interpretation of Matt. 27:53. I believe Christ remains until now the only human being with a glorified, imperishable body.Regarding church history and their viewsThe fact that Amillennialism has been and continues to be the prevalent view amongst my Reformed brethren, encourages me to embrace it.A summary of their arguments against the other view on the MillenniumBoth theologians presented excellent points against the opposing view. I admit that the Premillennial interpretation of Rev. 20 does seem more natural but I agree with Berkhof that we must interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear ones. It seems Amillennialism and Premillennialism have a ‘history.’ I’m unsure whether Premillennialism or Postmillennialism is more popular in Reformed circles. I will continue to study the biblical evidence and implications of all three views and may the Lord edify me in the process as I dive into His Word.


Bibliography

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.Copyright © 1994 by Wayne Grudem.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY by L. Berkhof.Copyright © 1939, 1941 by L. Berkhof.

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE ®Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. All rights reserved.

The Reformation Study BibleCopyright © 2005 by Ligonier MinistriesAll rights reserved.Bible Rights, Ligonier Ministries, 400 Technology Park, Lake Mary, FL 32746.

Documents

ST1 - Comparative Study - Ethan Smith