James Philip on The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter Three : “Of God’s Eternal Decree”

In his booklet, “The Westminster Confession Of Faith: An Exposition – Part 1, Chapters 1-8, James Philip, commenting on Chapter 3, “Of God’s Eternal Decree”, maintains that “the biblical testimony shows that there is not a direct correspondence between the saved and the lost.” He writes, “Consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:34 – ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’ This is predestination and election in their positive aspect/ But notice what He goes on to say to the others, ‘Depart from me’, not ‘ye cursed of my Father’ but ‘ye cursed unto everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels’ – not, significantly, ‘prepared for you’. This is not hair-splitting, but an extremely important distinction … Paul makes the same kind of distinction in Romans 9:22ff. In v. 25, he speaks of ‘vessels of mercy’ which are said to be prepared by God unto glory; but the ‘vessels of wrath’ are explicitly not said to have been prepared for destruction by Him. Again,this is not hair-splitting, but an important distinction, bearing witness to the incongruity between the two sets of ideas … We cannot say ‘the wrath of God comes upon men because God decreed it before the foundation of the world that they would be lost’. It comes, says Paul, upon ‘all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men’. A word needs to be said about Romans 9. Many people take this chapter to contain the classic expression of the doctrine of predestination and of the so-called ‘double decree’ … But the theme of this chapter is not so much election and predestination in general as God’s dealings with His chosen people, the Jews. Indeed, ‘reprobation’ in the strict sense of being unalterably destined to eternal loss does not really figure at all in the discussion, in spite of what Paul’s words seem to say, for the ‘vessels of wrath fitted to destruction’ in chapter 9 become ‘vessels of mercy’ in chapter 11. this is usually overlooked in most discussions of this subject. Furthermore, the controversial verses, 22, 23, which are said to speak of God predestinating men to destruction, prove to be less controversial when examined with care. All that Paul says is ‘What if God … ‘ He does not actually say that He does so. He is making the point for the sake of argument, and means, ‘Even if this were so, what grounds would man have on which to complain? ‘Hath not the potter power over the clay … ?’ It is significant that Paul nowhere states explicitly that this is what God does do. What the Apostle does, however, underline, is the patience and long-suffering of God. This is a very different idea from that of a tyrant God who sends men to hell, for His pleasure. The God of the Scriptures is a God who endures with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. We should bear in mind, in this connection, the words of Jesus concerning men who at the last day shall say, ‘Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name cast out devils … ?’ His reply was, ‘Depart from Me … I never knew you’. The Greek could be rendered, ‘I not at any time knew you’, as if to say, ‘All along I tried to get to know you, but you would not let Me, and now it is too late’ … The Bible speaks of ‘the mystery of iniquity’ and this is part of that mystery, that a man should look into the face of the holy, loving Son of God and finally say ‘No’. That is eternal loss, but it is not God who does this. Think of Judas Iscariot … If the idea of the double decree is valid, he could have been no more than a puppet in the story. He would never have had a chance from the first. But is this what we read in the New Testament? … The whole point about the incident in the Upper Room when Jesus handed him the sop at the table was that it was a special token and appeal from the heart of the Son of God to the black-hearted traitor, indicating that even at that late hour Jesus was pleading with his soul. … Judas was lost because he lost himself in the presence of the Son of God who loved him and gave himself for him. This is not to explain the mystery, but it does underline the fact that God is long-suffering towards the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction … It might be said that , to speak like this about Judas, is to call in question the power and sovereignty of God. This may be, but it is better to bow before that mystery and problem than accept a proposal which the Scriptures are intent on not committing themselves to. … there are too many silences in this particular question for us to be happy about accepting the possibility that God has foreordained some to everlasting death. Mystery there may be, and surely is, but it is better to bow in the presence of mystery unsolved, than to enter into a world of logical speculation and speak of a God who before all worlds damned men for His pleasure. Nothing that has been said on this matter undermines the doctrine of predestination itself, but it does call in question the validity of the ‘double decree’. Predestination is the very heart of the gospel. It simply means ‘God in action’, the hand of God stretching out from beyond to claim men for a destiny bright beyond all understanding and almost beyond belief.” (pp. 33-36).