Calvinism/Arminianism – A History

I would like to start off by saying that this will not be an exhaustive study on Calvinism. No single paper or even post is able to do so. I will do my best to cover the main points and to give a Biblical understanding of the Scriptures. For a more comprehensive look, Amazing Grace, The History and Theology of Calvinism (not the movie about William Wilberforce) is an extremely good resource.

Pelagius

I would like to begin in this first post with the history of what is today commonly called Calvinism. The debate is not really about John Calvin, but rather about what some would call the Doctrine of Grace or the Doctrine of Election. The discussion really began with a man by the name of Pelagius (ca 354 – 420). Not much is known about the life and career of Pelagius until he started teaching a denial that we are all born sinners. He was born in England and later sent to Rome to study law. In his teaching he initially affirmed the teachings of the Nicene Creed and was praised even by Augustine.[1] He was fluent in Greek and Latin, was a very educated man and versed in theology. While he was an ascetic monk he was never a minister of the Gospel.

Pelagius believed that man is not born a sinner and that we by choice can either obey or disobey God and His commands. This is in direct denial of Rom 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Rom 3:10-12 (cf. Ps 14:1-3) “as it is written, ‘THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.’” And Isa 53:6 “All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.” Pelagius taught that Adam simply set a “bad example” and Jesus set a “good example” for us to follow.[2]

Augustine

As a result of this belief, Pelagius taught man is born, just like Adam was created, with an innocent nature and the ability to follow God’s laws perfectly. That is to say that we have the ability on our own accord and in our own actions to choose to obey God. He believed and taught that we have a “free will” to choose between right and wrong and that if we keep God’s laws perfectly then we don’t need the work of Christ on the cross. In teaching this he denied the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

The debate was further continued by Augustine (354-430). After living a very immoral life he turned to Christ and became a priest. Augustine taught that original sin is passed on to all humanity through the sin of Adam. Humans by nature are born sinners and do not have the freedom to respond to God without His divine grace. He believed that God’s grace is irresistible and those destined to believe cannot be lost. Augustine believed that man cannot do anything to contribute to his own salvation and that our salvation is completely a work of God.

These two believes came to a head and clashed in the Council of Carthage (418) where the teachings of Pelagius were challenged and denounced. The Council upheld the teachings of Augustine and declared Pelagius a heretic. Following the Council of Carthage those who followed Pelagius modified their view into what came to be called the Semi-Pelagian view. This view attempted to come to a balance between Pelagianism and Augustinianism. Semi-Pelagianism taught that man could make the “first move” toward God on our own without any action on God’s part and after we make the first move then God would cooperate with us in completing our salvation. This teaching was condemned at the Councils of Orange (529) which took place in Orange, France. At the second Council the teaching of Augustine was again upheld and the teaching of Pelagianism was again denounced as heresy. Even though denounced this is the teaching that the Roman Church tended to hold to and teach throughout the years.

These teachings again came to view during the Reformation. The Roman Church had come to teach a system of theology that was not consistent with the teachings of the Bible (purchase of indulgence for one). Martin Luther and others challenged these teachings as thus was born the Reformation (I know that this is a light treatment on the Reformation, but that is not the purpose of this post).

John Calvin

John Calvin (1509-1564) was one of the main people influential during the Reformation and taught that we are all born sinners and that there is nothing that we can do to earn the pleasure of God or our salvation. It is true that Calvin did not directly teach the “Five Points of Calvinism” as we title them, but he did teach them in concept, he just never put titles to them.

After the death of Calvin, a Dutch Reformed minister by the name of Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), who studied under Theodore Beza (the successor of Calvin at his teaching post) was asked to investigate the teachings of Dirck Coornhert who was teaching a Semi-Pelagian view of salvation. During the course of the investigation Arminius began to doubt his believes and eventually came to believe and espouse the Semi-Pelagian view as well. This view became known as “Arminianism” after Arminius. Arminius

Jacobus Arminius

taught that through universal prevenient grace man is able to accept Christ’s work on the cross. The prevenient grace is the grace that God gives to all men giving them the capacity to accept or reject Christ. It is through this grace that we are able to see the truth of salvation, but this grace does not “force” us to accept Christ’s work on the cross. This prevenient grace only gives us to “opportunity” to choose to obey God.

After the death of Arminius, his followers, known as the Remonstrance, became so numerous that the Church decided that they needed to confront the teachings of the followers of Arminius and investigate them in light of Scripture. This took place during the Synod of Dort (1618-1619). The followers of Arminius proposed five points:

1) Total Depravity – Arminius taught that all men were sinners and in this point agreed with Augustine and Calvin.

2) Conditional Election – Man has the final decision in his salvation and God only elects those who He foresees will choose Him. God looks into the future with His perfect knowledge of what decisions we will make and chooses us based on those decisions.

3) Unlimited (universal) Atonement – Christ’s blood on the cross paid for all the sins of everyone who ever lived. The blood of Christ was for all men and benefits all equally as we choose to accept Christ and then God chooses us based on His divine foreknowledge.

4) Resistible Grace – Man is able to resist the grace of God that leads to salvation.

5) Uncertainty of Perseverance – Those who believe on Christ can fall away from the faith and lose their salvation.

The Synod of Dort, a national assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church, unanimously rejected all of the points of the Remonstrance. In an answer to the five points that the Remonstrance espoused the Synod of Dort answered with their own five points which today we know as the Five Points of Calvinism.

1) Total Depravity – Man in a sinner and cannot come to God on his own. There is nothing in man that seeks after God without the Holy Spirit intervening in his life.

2) Unconditional Election – God elects those whom He desires to salvation. There is nothing in the heart of man that can do anything to earn this election or predestination. All who were elected were predestined before the creation of the world.

3) Limited Atonement – The work of Christ on the cross and His shed blood is for those who are predestined only and not for all of mankind.

4) Irresistible Grace – Those who are elect are unable to resist the saving grace of God. Those whom God calls will answer His call. This is sometimes called the “Effectual Call” verses the “General Call.” For a better treatment on the difference please see this Biblical Thought post.

5) Perseverance of the Saints – Those whom God predestined will never fall away from the faith, they will endure to the end. (We must make the distinction here between professing and possessing believers. There are many who profess to believe who in face were never elected to begin with and will one day turn from the faith)

This has been a very short treatment on the history of the Calvinism/Arminianism debate that really should be called the Augustinian/Pelagian debate. I will follow with more posts that cover the Scriptural bases for these.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

[2] http://www.theopedia.com/Pelagianism

Quote from John Owen

I was reading a sermon by the Prince of Preachers C.H. Spurgeon and read a quotation used by Spurgeon from John Owen and just had to pass it on.

“Redemption is the freeing of a man from misery by the intervention of a ransom.  Now, when a ransom is paid for the liberty of a prisoner, does not justice demand that he should have and enjoy the liberty so purchased for him by a valuable consideration?  If I should pay a thousand pounds for a man’s deliverance from bondage to him that detains him, who hath the power to set him free, and is contented with the price I give, were it not injurious to me and the poor prisoner that his deliverance be not accomplished?  Can it possibly be conceived that there should b e a redemption of men, and those men not redeemed? that a price should be paid, and the purchase not consummated?  Yet all this must be made true, and innumerable other absurdities, if universal redemption be asserted.  A price is paid for all, yet few delivered; the redemption of all consummated, yet few of them redeemed; the judge satisfied, the jailer conquered, and yet the prisoners inthralled!  Doubtless, ‘universal,’ and ‘redemption,’ where the greatest part of men perish, are as irreconcilable as ‘Roman’ and ‘Catholic.’  If there be a universal redemption of all, then all men are redeemed.  If they are redeemed, then are they delivered from all misery, virtually or actually, whereunto they were inthralled, and that by the intervention of a ransom.  Why, the, are not all saved?  In a word, the redemption wrought by Christ being the full deliverance of the persons redeemed from all misery, wherein they were inwrapped, by the price of his blood, it cannot possibly be conceived to be universal unless all be saved: so that the opinion of the Universalists is unsuitable to redemption.”

Man’s Responsibility in Light of God’s Sovereignty – pt 3

This is the last of this three part post.  The entire series can be downloaded at Sovereignty of God.

Objections

One objection to the complete sovereignty of God is many people believe that the only way that man can be held responsible for his own actions and sin is to have a “free will.” They believe that man’s “free will” enables us to make moral decisions apart from the decrees of God. They hold to the view that we are in control of our own decisions and thus are responsible for them. One of those who holds to this is Finis Dake. Dake writes:

“If man had no free actions concerning moral living and God alone had the choice in man’s actions, then He would be responsible for all evil and its effects. God would be responsible for sin and could not justly judge man for his actions. He would also be responsible for death, the penalty for sin, and could not rightly execute the sentence of the broken law.”[1]

Those who believe that man has a “free will” put themselves in the sovereign place in the world. As quoted earlier James White says “…since their wills and actions are ultimate; God becomes a mere servant of the creature, reacting rather than reigning.”[2] If we truly believe that man has complete control over his own decisions we put ourselves in the driver’s seat of our lives and place God in the passenger seat. By knowing what man is going to choose of his own free will God then makes His plans for the world. This leaves God reacting and having to make His plans around the decisions and “free will” of men. Thus God is not the sovereign God of the Bible who acts and no one can reverse it (Isa 43:13). A. W. Pink describes our “free will” or “liberty” best as “True liberty is not the power to live as we please, but to live as we ought to.”[3]

As James White writes commenting on Norman Geisler’s Chosen but Free, “Here is the basic arguments as to why free will must be true: 1) Without it, men are not responsible for their actions;[4] 2) it is part of the way God created man;[5] 3) The Bible teaches free will;[6] 4) Denial of free will makes God the author of sin.[7]”[8] Norman Geisler here gives another strong objection to God’s complete sovereignty. He believes that it makes God the author of sin. The scripture says that God is not the author of sin and tempts no one (Jas 1:13). Even here we must define what we mean by “author.” As Jonathan Edwards wrote:

“If by the author of sin, be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing; so it would be a reproach and blasphemy to suppose God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin; rejecting such an imputation on the Most High, as what is infinitely to be abhorred; and deny any such thing to be the consequence of what I have laid down. But if, by the author of sin, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin, and, at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted, or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow;—I say, if this be all that is meant by being the author of sin, I do not deny that God is the author of sin, (though I dislike and reject the phrase, as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense), it is no reproach for the Most High to be thus the author of sin. This is not to be the actor of sin, but on the contrary, of holiness.”[9]

A.W. Pink also says:

“Plainly it was God’s will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens except what God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a simple permission, for God only permits things that fulfill His purpose.”[10]

God is not the author of sin in that He is held responsible for sin. He does ordain all our actions, even the sinful ones. If this were not true then we would be back to a God that is not sovereign over our actions and having to react and adjust His plan according to our decisions as he would have had to do with Joseph (Gen 50:20). If God does not control all actions in the world, even the evil and sinful ones, what hope do we have that He can prevent them from happening? Dr. Morey states “If God were not in control of everything including evil would there be any of hope that we would escape the wrath of the devil? Could we pray deliver us from the evil one?”[11] Why would Jesus have taught His disciples to pray asking God to deliver them from the evil one (Matt 6:13) if God was not sovereign over evil? In closing I leave with a final quote from C.H. Spurgeon:

Opposition to divine sovereignty is essentially atheism. Men have no objection to a god who is really no God; I mean, by this, a god who shall be the subject of their caprice, who shall be a lackey to their will, who shall be under their control,—they have no objection to such a being as that; but a God who speaks, and it is done, who commands, and it stands fast, a God who has no respect for their persons, but doeth as he wills among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of this lower world, such a God as this they cannot endure.[12]

Bibliography

Dake, Fenis Jennings. God’s Plan for Man. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, Inc, 1998.

Edwards, Jonathan. Freedom of the Will. Vol. 1 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1957.

Frame, Dr. John. The Doctrine of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2002.

Geisler, Norman. Chosen but Free. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Deffinition of Antinomy. 2008. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antinomy (accessed October 25, 2008).

Morey, Robert. Free Will and God’s Sovereignty. CD. Faith Defenders. 2008.

Nosotro, Rit. William Carey. April 15, 2008. http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b3careyw.htm (accessed November 7, 2008).

Packer, J.I. Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. Downers Grove, Il: Inter Varsity Press, 1961.

Pink, A. W. The Sovereignty of God. Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos, 2008.

Spurgeon, Charles H. Spurgeon Quotes, Sovereignty of God. 1910. http://www.spurgeon.us/mind_and_heart/quotes/g.htm#sovereignty (accessed October 25, 2008).

—. Squrgeon Quotes, Human Responsibility. 1888. http://www.spurgeon.us/mind_and_heart/quotes/h2.htm (accessed October 25, 2008).

Webster, Noah. 1828 Dictionary. New Haven, CT: S. Converse, 1828.

Westminster Confession of Faith. Westminster Confession of Faith. 1647. http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html (accessed October 25, 2008).

White, James R. The Potter’s Freedom. Merrick, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2000.

---

[1] (Dake 1998, 660)

[2] (White 2000, 56)

[3] (Pink 2008, 165)

[4] (Geisler 2001, 25)

[5] (Ibid, 22)

[6] (Ibid, 32)

[7] (Ibid, 20-21)

[8] (White 2000, 94)

[9] (Edwards 1957, 399)

[10] (Pink 2008, 162)

[11] (Morey 2008)

[12] (Spurgeon, Spurgeon Quotes, Sovereignty of God 1910)

Man’s Responsibility in Light of God’s Sovereignty – pt 2

This is part 2 of our look at God’s sovereignty.  Part 3 will soon follow.

Positions

There are several views on the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. We will look at the perspectives that God is not sovereign and man is completely responsible, God is completely sovereign and man is not responsible at all for his actions, and God is completely sovereign and man is completely responsible at the same time.

First we will look at the position that man is completely responsible to the point that God’s sovereignty is diminished. According to Finis Dake “It is only when man becomes a free moral agent that he is held responsible.”[1] By this Dake holds that God is not sovereign over the actions of man, but man has the ability to make decisions free of God’s control. Dake says:

“Is man a free moral agent? This is the first question to settle, for if man is not a free moral agent then God can be held entirely responsible for all sin, rebellion, sickness, and all the effects of sin, as well as for the damnation of men and angels….”[2]

Dake claims that in order for man to be held responsible and held accountable for his actions then he must have a “free will.” Dake continues to describe “free will” in his book God’s Plan for Man:

“Free will is the power of choice concerning moral law. It is man’s faculty of choosing good or evil without compulsion or necessity. It was originally created in man, and he will have it in all eternity.”[3]

This is a very dangerous statement to make. If man has the power of choice free of the sovereignty of God and has this ability into all of eternity then man is able to make decisions even after death to be able to choose to obey God or reject God. Dake claims that “A saved man has the same power of choice as he had before salvation…. If he chooses to sin again he incurs the same death penalty and will be damned as much as if he had never been saved.”[4] By this we would then be able, even after death, to choose to accept God or reject God. This would allow everyone who is in hell to simply decide to accept and obey God and then be accepted into Heaven and those in Heaven to be able to sin and thus be cast out to Hell.

A second viewpoint can be described as “hyper-Calvinism.” Hyper-Calvinism swings the pendulum in the opposite direction of Dake. This point of view is that since God is completely sovereign then man is not responsible for his actions at all. This is also a dangerous point of view because if man is not responsible for his actions then why should we be condemned by God? Hyper-Calvinism also takes the view that, as Christians, we do not need to share our faith with others despite the direct command of Christ. Dr. Ryland once told a young William Carey when he publically shared his burden for spreading the Gospel in India “Young man, sit down! When God pleases to convert the heathen, he will do it without your help or mine!”[5]

The last view that we will discuss here is the view that God is completely sovereign and man is completely responsible for his actions. C.H. Spurgeon said it this way:

“From the word of God I gather that damnation is all of man, from top to bottom, and salvation is all of grace, from first to last. He that perishes chooses to perish; but he that is saved is saved because God has chosen to save him. Though some cannot make these statements agree, they are nevertheless equally true—“Thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thy help found.”[6]

We will endeavor to look at these points of view in light of Scripture and see what the Word of God has to say.

---

[1] (Dake 1998, 659)

[2] (Ibid, 658)

[3] (Ibid, 407)

[4] (Dake 1998, 659)

[5] (Nosotro 2008)

[6] (Spurgeon, Squrgeon Quotes, Human Responsibility 1888)

Man’s Responsibility in Light of God’s Sovereignty – pt 1

Over the next few posts I will be posting a paper I wrote.  I hope you enjoy.

Issue

Throughout church history there has been a dilemma of how to reconcile God’s complete sovereignty and the responsibility that we as humans have for our own actions. We still face this dilemma today. In our human mind these ideas seem to be at opposite ends of the spectrum and diametrically opposed to each other. The question is, if God is completely sovereign how can we as humans be held responsible for our actions? If God decrees what our actions will be how then can we be condemned for them?

We must first begin by defining what God’s sovereignty is and what human responsibility is. Let us first define sovereignty. Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines sovereign as “Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; as a sovereign ruler of the universe.”[1] God has created the universe and everything that is in it (Gen 1:1, Ps 24:1, Col 1:16). As Creator He is in control and has authority over everything that He has made (Rom 9:21) and He does whatever He wants for His own pleasure (Isa 46:10).

Now we must define human responsibility. Webster defines responsibility as “The state of being accountable or answerable.”[2] Dr. John Frame defines human responsibility as “…a consequence of God’s authority. God has made us according to his plan and for his purpose. That purpose is to glorify him, to please him.”[3]

We must work through the issue of God’s sovereignty and our responsibility prayerfully and thoughtfully. This is not a theological issue for the faint of heart, but it must be addressed. We must look at God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in light of Scripture.

---

[1] (Webster 1828)

[2] Ibid

[3] (Frame 2002, 119)

Praise God in Life’s Trials

No matter what is going on in your life you are always able to praise God.  My wife and I brought our son home for a 6 week stay in the hospital and during the entire time we were able to share the love of God to those who do not know Him as Lord.  We were also able to share His goodness to us with those who also share our faith.  It is so wonderful to see the goodness of God and His sovereignty in our lives.  We have been truly blessed these past weeks to have wonderful friends and family surround us in love and show us God’s love.  Blessed be God forever!

God’s Sovereignty in Life’s Trials

Because of some recent events in my life these Scripture passages have come back to me as a reassuring reminder.

Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.  (James 1:2-4)

As an example, brethren, of suffering and patience, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. Behold, we count those blessed who endured. You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord’s dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful.   (James 5:10-11)

In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ;  (1Peter 1:6-7)

No matter what life’s trials may be God is sovereign over all of them. Our God is the sovereign over all His creation.  He made the Earth and all that is in it (Gen 1).  He made us as a potter makes a vessel (Rom 9:21).  Since He made us He has the right to tell us what to do and He has the right to direct our lives.

We see from these verses that our trials should produce fruit in us as the chosen of God.  In our trials we are perfected in our faith, sanctified, and have an opportunity to witness to those around us as to the hope that is within us (1 Pet 3:15)

If you are facing cancer you have the opportunity to witness to the doctors when they are wondering why you are not in despair over your situation.  If you have lost a job you can witness to those who see you react in faith that God will supply all your needs (Phil 4:19 and Matt 6:26, 30)

We can rest assured that God is faithful in keeping His promises and never changes (Heb 6:17-18) and that He will complete His work in our lives (Phil 1:6).  God will also be faithful to work everything for the good of those who are called unto Him (Rom 8:28).  This does not mean that everything will be perfect for us here on Earth, but that in His sovereign will He will work for our sancification.  In fact we are promised that we will be persecuted if we desire to live a godly life (2 Tim 3:12).

Don’t waste an illness

This week I am reminded of something my pastor said when one of the members of our church was diagnosed with cancer “Don’t waste your cancer.”  By this he meant don’t miss the opportunity to witness to the hope that is within us.

This week my youngest son went into the hospital with some breathing problems.  While I desire nothing more that for him to be healed I am reminded that we should not miss the oportunity to witness to those around us and the chance for them to see a difference in our responses that the responses of those who do not have the hope of Christ.  On another blog that I participate on Biblical Thought I posted a prayer request and wanted to share one of the responses that was given…

Dear Glen~

We will pray for your infant son!

“Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.”–James 5:10-11

We agree with you for God’s perfect will…to His glory…

“In the same way the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will”.–Romans 8:26-27

God’s grace…

Thanks RM for your encouragement!

History: “It Is Well With My Soul”

Below is a hymn history that I did for Biblical Thought that they posted on their blog and I thought that it would be appropriate to publish it here as well.

This very familiar hymn was written by Horatio G. Spafford.  Mr. Spafford was born to his father, also Horatio Spafford, and his mother Oc­to­ber 20, 1828.  He studied as an attorney and started a practice that was very successful.  He was also a successful businessman in the Chicago area investing very wisely in real estate.  He and his wife had 5 children by 1873.  Their son, Horatio, died at the age of 4 from Scarlet Fever.

The Great Chicago fire in 1871 financially devastated the Spafford family.  Even though they suffered a great loss the Spafford family spent the next two years helping those who lost more in the fire.

In 1873 the Spafford family decided to take a vacation to England to assist with their friend and great evangelist Dwight L. Moody.  Horatio, his wife Anna, and their 4 daughters all went to New York in preparation for the trip to England.  Last minute business obligations kept Horatio from sailing with the family, but he saw no reason to keep the rest of the family from enjoying their trip.  He put his wife and daughters on the vessel S.S. Ville du Havre which set sail in November 1873 and Horatio return to Chicago to take care of the business obligations.  On the morning of 21 November 1873 the Ville du Havre was rammed by the British Lochearn. Anna was only saved by a plank that supported her unconscious body in the water.  She was pulled from the wreckage and when she reached England she sent a telegram to her husband which read “Saved alone…”

Horatio immediately set out for England to be with his wife.  When the ship he was on reached the point where the Ville du Havre sank the Capitan called him to the bridge and told him that they were over the spot where his children had perished.  He returned to his cabin and penned the words “When peace like a river attendeth my way…  It is well with my soul.”

Horatio and his wife did not cave or loose faith.  They returned to Chicago and in 1881 moved to Jerusalem and started a mission to the poor.  Mr Spafford died in 1888 of Malaria.

This hymn has been a great blessing to many over the years and has blessed me also.  I hope you enjoy this hymn as well.

It Is Well With My Soul

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Refrain

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

For me, be it Christ, be it Christ hence to live:
If Jordan above me shall roll,
No pang shall be mine, for in death as in life
Thou wilt whisper Thy peace to my soul.

But, Lord, ‘tis for Thee, for Thy coming we wait,
The sky, not the grave, is our goal;
Oh trump of the angel! Oh voice of the Lord!
Blessed hope, blessed rest of my soul!

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

Mediation on Psalm 1

I was reading and meditating on Psalm 1 over the last couple of weeks.

Psalm 1:1-6 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!  (2)  But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night.  (3)  And he will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water, Which yields its fruit in its season, And its leaf does not wither; And in whatever he does, he prospers.  (4)  The wicked are not so, But they are like chaff which the wind drives away.  (5)  Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.  (6)  For the LORD knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the wicked will perish.

Tonight it kind of hit me that verses 3-6 are a picture of things to come.  Verse 3 says that whatever a righteous person does will prosper.  This is not a proof text for the Name it and Claim it gospel.  We are not promised prosperity if we follow Christ.  Just the opposite, in 2 Tim 3:12 and other passages we are promised persecutions and trials.  Jesus even told us that we are blessed if we are persecuted for righteousness sake (Mt 5:10-12).

Verse 3 can be a picture of our final reward in Heaven.  We will be like a tree planted by streams of water.  As John Gill writes

…here such an one is compared to a tree “planted”; not to one that grows of itself, a wild tree, a tree of the wood; but to one that is removed from its native place and soil, and planted elsewhere; and so designs such who are broken off of the wild olive tree, and are grafted into the good olive tree; who are planted in Christ Jesus, and in the church, the house of the Lord…

As we can see a future reward for God’s elect we can also see a future punishment for the wicked in verses 4-6.  We see a word picture here of chaff.  If we think of Jesus’ parable of the wheat and tares we see a picture of the chaff being burned in the final judgement when all of our actions will be laid bare and Christ will judge us.