Early Arminian Baptist Thomas Grantham on God's Permission vs Decree (1678)

Here is early English Arminian Baptist church planter and preacher Thomas Grantham on God’s providence and permission, from his 1678 work Christianismus Primitivus (bold mine):

Sect. XIII.

Nothing can be done without God's Providence, though contrary to His Will.

How much the holy Will of God is contradicted, by the instigation and actions of devils and wicked men, is so notorious throughout the Word of God, and the whole world, that it needs no demonstration, seeing it is impossible for Him that is perfectly good to Will any wicked thing. Jer. 2:5, “What iniquity have your fathers found in me?”. Jam. 1:13-14, “God tempts not any man, but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.” It is granted, by those that hold the secret Will of God dissonant from us (which because secret we shall not dispute):

1. that the revealed Will is good, because it commands good only, and makes us good, and leads us to the everlasting good, even heavenly blessedness.

2. It is acceptable, because nothing is pleasing to God which is not agreeable to His Will; and that does highly please Him, which accords with His Law and Gospel.

3 . Perfect, because it contains all things belonging to perfection, &c.

To all this we willingly subscribe. But to call God's permission his “Will” we suppose to be dangerous, for though He permit or suffer men to do evil, yet He in no wise “Wills” it, but Wills the direct contrary; as appears in His severe threatening of Adam, and in him all mankind, with death if he did contrary to His Will (Gen. 2:17). The like to Noah and his sons (Gen. 9) and in them all generations of men that were to succeed them. How frequently does He rebuke His ancient people the Jews for this, and would divert them from that which is contrary to His Will (which yet He permitted) with great entreaty: Jer. 44:4, “O do not this abominable thing, which I hate”. To which agrees the consent of all Holy Writers resulting in this, “that this is the Will of God, even your sanctification; and that you abstain from fornication”, 1 Thess. 4:3.

2. When we say that nothing comes to pass without God's providence, we do not mean (as some) that “God hath eternally determined, and that unalterably, all things to be that have been, and that all things are determined by Him which are; and that all things shall be”. For who dare once imagine that God should unchangeably decree, or decree at all, the manifold acts of villainy that have been, are and will yet be done in the world: this must unavoidly make Him the author of sin, and men and devils the executors only of His decrees, which God forbid.

And though it is true, that a sparrow falls not to the ground without His providence, i.e. not without His permission; yet has He not decreed eternally that it shall be at such or such a time, or in any cruel way, as it often falls out directly contrary to His Will (Deut. 22:6). It has pleased God so to constitute the creation, especially mankind, as that he is capable of doing well or ill, and has left him to a certain kind of liberty and power in his actions; and how he will exercise the same is not unknown to God; yet man is not inevitably compelled (ordinarily) to do this, or forcibly restrained from doing that.

We therefore say that the providence of God, without which nothing is done, is only His fore-knowledge and permission in respect of all the wickedness which is done, and after that manner may He only be said to determine in cases of that nature; that is, He determines not to hinder by his restraining such iniquity, knowing how to advance His Glory another way, even by punishing the disobedient: Lev. 26:23-24, “And if you will not be reformed by me, by these things, but will walk contrary unto me; then will I also walk contrary unto you, and punish you yet seven times for your sins”.

But in all good actions the case is far otherwise: for He does not only Will and command them to be done, but also co-operates to the doing thereof: “It is he that works in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure”. Isa. 26:12, “O Lord, thou will ordain peace for us, for thou has wrought all our works in us”.

“I can do all things through Christ strengthening me”. Heb. 12:1-2, “He is the Author and Finisher of our Faith”. John 15, “For without me you can do nothing”. And therefore to Him alone is the Glory due of all that is done well. But on the contrary, the dishonour of all evil actions is due to Satan and wicked men, the authors and actors thereof. 1 Sam. 24:13, “Wickedness proceeds and comes forth from the wicked, as faith the proverb of the ancients”. John 8:44, “You are of your father the Devil; and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks it of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it”.

The full book is available in its original English here (I have updated some of the language in the above for readability).

About Thomas Grantham

I first heard of Thomas Grantham through J Matthew Pinson's article, Thomas Grantham’s Theology of the Atonement and Justification. In his introduction of Grantham, Dr Pinson writes: 

Grantham recalled that the “Lord wrought faith and repentance” in his heart when he was around fourteen or fifteen years of age, and at age nineteen (1653), he joined a small General Baptist church in Boston, Lincolnshire, and was baptized by immersion, as had been the practice of the General Baptists since approximately 1640. Three years after his baptism, in 1656, Grantham was chosen as pastor, which involved him in preaching in his own town as well as neighboring villages. This activity brought persecution upon Grantham and others. 

[...M]any General Baptist leaders soon found themselves imprisoned. Grantham himself was in and out of jail during the 1660s, which occasioned his tract The Prisoner Against the Prelate (1662). In 1666 he was elected a messenger “by the consent of many congregations, and ordained . . . by those who were in the same office before [him],” in essence a roving minister who helped plant churches, gave counsel to local churches and associations, and assisted in the ordination of ministers. Grantham then began to establish himself as an author, debater, and pamphleteer. He debated Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Quakers, Presbyterians, and Particular Baptists, and gained a reputation as an able and articulate spokesman for the General Baptists.

Further Reading:

• Dr Robert E Picirilli, “Toward a Non-Deterministic Theology of Divine Providence”;
• Arminian Perspectives, “John Piper on God Ordaining All Sin And Evil Part 1: An Arminian Response to Piper’s First ‘Question’”;
• Dr Greg Boyd, "Resignation to Evil: Not an Option";
• Dr Roger Olson:
• “God’s Will” In Calvinism and Arminianism;
• Does God Foreordain and Render Certain Sins? (And Why Some Questions Annoy Me); and
• What Did Charles Hodge Say about “The Decrees of God?” (Part 2).

Related Posts:

• Thomas Grantham, "Christ did, in the place and stead of mankind, fulfil the Law by which the whole World stood guilty before God";
• Highlighting an Arminian response to John Piper: Did God decree every sin you commit?.

Thomas Grantham, "Christ did, in the place and stead of mankind, fulfil the Law by which the whole World stood guilty before God"

In an earlier post (Link) I provided a short quote from Thomas Grantham on the extent of the atonement, which I first read in J Matthew Pinson's article, Thomas Grantham’s Theology of the Atonement and Justification.  Here is the full section from Thomas Grantham's 1678 work, Christianismus Primitivus [1]:

Sect. V.

According to the Will of God, and his Eternal Wisdom, Christ did, in the place and stead of Mankind, fulfil that Law, by which the whole World stood guilty before God. 

How deeply Mankind stood indebted to the Righteous God of Heaven and Earth, and how unable he was to pay that score; and how consequently he must inevitably undergo the eternal displeasure of God, with the malediction of his Righteous Law, is excellently set forth, Rom. 3. 9, &c. Are we better than they?  No in no wise: for we have before charged both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, there is none Righteous, no not one.—They are all gone out of the way, they are altogether unprofitable, there is none that doth good, no not one. — Now we know, that what things soever the Law saith, it saith to them that are under the Law; that every Mouth may be stopped, and all the World may become subject to the Judgment of God. Therefore by the Deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in the sight of God; for by the Law, is the knowledge of Sin. So then, we see there is a Law, by which the whole World stands Guilty; and upon that account, subject to the Judgment of God. It matters not then for the Mode, or Circumstances, under which the Law is given, they both fall short before God. He hath therefore shut up all in Unbelief, or concluded all under Sin; and surely we may conclude, it is, that he may magnify his Mercy unto all, even to the whole World in this case, as well as to the Jews, Rom. 11. 32. 

And as he, even so we, have reason to ascribe Wisdom to God, for it hath appeared Wonderfully; he having designed to magnify his Mercy in Christ, as the only Physician to Cure the Malady of Mankind, would certainly provide a Plaister commensurable with the Sore, that none may cry out and say, I am undone, I am wounded with the unavoidable wound of Mankind: And there is no Balm for me, the Physician hath made the Plaister too narrow, that Thousands, and ten Thousands, cannot possibly have Healing by it; nay, he hath determined to see us perish without any Remedy. Alas! there is none to save us, neither could we come whole and sound into the World; we are born to be destroyed, and destroyed we must be. To quell which hideous (and indeed most just) complaint (if indeed God had not in his Wisdom provided Relief for them): Behold, thus saith the Lord, Isa. 45.22. Look unto me, and be ye saved all the ends of the Earth: for I am God, and there is none else. Therefore seek to me, and none but me, and ye shall be saved: for I am God; even such a God as delight to save, but not to destroy. Ezek. 18. 23. Have I any pleasure at all in the death of the Wicked? This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all Men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth, I Tim. 2.3,4. 

When we are bid to behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the Sins of the World, John 1.29. are we to except any Person in the World, or the greatest part of the World?  God forbid. Are they all become guilty per force (except Adam) and have none to justify them? Where is then the Lamb?  Behold, here is Fire, the Wood, and the Knife, but where is the Sacrifice, may many say, if indeed the Lamb of God died not for them?  But the Holy Ghost resolves the Query to the full, 1 John 2.1. He is the Propitiation for our Sins, and not for ours only, but also for the Sins of the whole World. 

Acts 17. The Apostle speaking of Mankind, indefinitely declares that they are all the Off-spring of God. And can we think that he will harden himself (like the Estridg) against his Off-spring, as though they were not his?  We which are evil by Nature, would not so deal with our Off-spring; and surely God transcends us in all Goodness whatsoever.  

Under the Parable of the Creditor, and the two Debtors, Luke 7.40. may fitly be understood Jew and Gentile, even whole Mankind; and some Expositors do take it so. Now they were both in one Predicament in this; they had nothing to Pay, though the Debt was not equal. Now the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to him that takes an account of Persons thus engaged, Mat. 18.21. to 28. Now, saith our Saviour, when they had nothing Pay, he frankly forgave them both, viz. caused the Bond to be cancelled by which they stood obliged, nailing it to his Cross; requiring them in their Capacity, to do likewise one unto another, and to love him.  

And from hence, that all Men are bound to love Christ, as their indispensable duty, under pain of Anathema, or Execration; Maran-atha, till the Lord come (or, as some) even for ever, I Cor. 16. 22. Hence we justly infer, that God in Love gave Christ for all Men, even to bless them, in turning every one of them away from their Iniquities, Acts 3. ult.  And shew me the Man which ought not to love Christ, and then I will shew the Man whom Christ did not love.  But if all Men are bound to love him, then it’s certain the Will of God was, that his Love should extend to them: For we love him, because he first loved us. And herein is Love, not that we loved God, but God loved us, and sent his Son to be a Propitiation for our Sins, I John 4. 10, 19. And again, herein perceive we the Love of God, because he laid down his Life for us. The result is this, whom God loved, them Christ died for.  All that Christ died for, ought to love him; but all Men ought to love him. Ergo, God loved, and Christ died for all Men, who hath therefore obliterated the condemning power of the Law, by which they were indebted to him; so that according to the Will of God, and his Eternal Wisdom, the Door of Salvation is opened to them, and they exhorted to enter therein with thanksgiving, Psal. 100. 1, 2, 3, 4.

Endnotes:

[1] Thomas Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus: or, The ancient Christian religion, in its nature, certainty, excellencey, and beauty (internal and external) particularly considered, asserted, and vindicated, from the many abuses which have invaded that sacred profession (London, 1678), Book II, 62-64, (online: Link). I have updated some of the spelling for readability.

Related posts:

• "The Complete List of Dr David Allen's Chapter-by-Chapter Review of From Heaven He Came and Sought Her"
• "Zach Hoag, Jesus shows me that God is a Father I can trust"

The Complete List of Dr David Allen's Chapter-by-Chapter Review of "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her"

On the question, “For whom did Christ die?” the answer, “for the sins of the whole world” usually needs little defence.  As early English General Baptist theologian Thomas Grantham put it in 1678:

When we are bid to behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the Sins of the World, John I. 29. Are we to except any Person in the World, or the greatest part of the World? God forbid. Are they all become guilty per force (except Adam) and have none to justify them? Where is then the Lamb? Behold here is Fire, the Wood, and the Knife, but where is the Sacrifice, may many say, if indeed the Lamb of God died not for them? But the Holy Ghost resolves the Query to the full, I John 2. 2. He is the Propitiation for our Sins, and not for ours only, but also the for Sins of the whole World. [1]  

Still, despite such clear statements from Scripture as John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2, 5-point Calvinists embrace the view called Limited Atonement (the “L” in TULIP, also known as Definite Atonement or Particular Redemption).  To get around these passages, Calvinists will stretch the language of God's Word as far as they need to.  For example, when explaining 1 John 2:2 (as quoted above) leading Calvinist John Piper teaches, “The ‘whole world’ refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world” (Link). Of course, there are other Calvinists who would disagree.  Charles Spurgeon, for example, argued against the usual Calvinistic reinterpretation of 1 Timothy 2:3-4, teaching:

What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." [...] My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. [...] So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Does not the text mean that it is the wish of God that men should be saved? The word "wish" gives as much force to the original as it really requires, and the passage should run thus—"whose wish it is that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." As it is my wish that it should be so, as it is your wish that it might be so, so it is God's wish that all men should be saved; for, assuredly, he is not less benevolent than we are.  (Link)

More recently, Calvinists have published what they have called “the definitive study”[2] on Limited Atonement titled, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective.  An excellent chapter-by-chapter review of this work was written by Dr David Allen, Dean of the School of Theology and Professor of Preaching at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and co-editor of the book Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism (to which he also contributed the chapter on the atonement).  This review was posted on his blog between June and October, 2014.  I have included the full link list below.  

These reviews were very helpful to me when I first left Calvinism.  I recommend paying special attention to chapter 17, “Does Penal Substitution Entail Limited Atonement?”, and 18, “Limited Atonement & the Double Payment Argument”. These are common arguments, and were some of the first brought to me by my Calvinist friends, who insisted, for example, that if I didn’t believe in limited atonement I would have to give up penal substitution too.  Of course, as Dr Allen demonstrates, this is not the case. 

Another to read carefully is the two part review of John Piper’s closing chapter on preaching limited atonement.  Here is an excerpt:

1. Piper says what is offered is offered to the “world, to everyone who hears the gospel.” 

2. What is offered is not something “designed” for all. 

3. What is offered to the whole world is the “absolute fullness of all that Christ achieved for his elect.” 

How, by any stretch of logic, can that which Christ designed and achieved only for the elect be offered to everyone in the world? 

Piper’s conclusion, “And thus definite atonement turns out to be the only ground of a fully biblical offer of the gospel,” is totally unwarranted. 

This claim is astounding to me. Piper thinks that all Calvinists and non-Calvinists who affirm unlimited atonement do not have grounds for offering the gospel in a “fully biblical” manner.
Piper turns from a consideration of the validity of the universal offer to the genuineness of that offer (661-64). 

First, Piper mentions those who appeal to God’s foreknowledge as problematic for the sincerity of the gospel offer. I do not know of a single Calvinist or non-Calvinist who makes the argument that the offer of salvation to all cannot be sincere since Christ knows who will accept and who will not. 

The reason the offer cannot be sincere on a definite atonement scheme is because the non-elect are being offered something that does not, in fact, exist for them. 

Second, Piper states that the “bottom line objection” is not what God knows, but what God desires. Piper takes the position of most Calvinists by arguing that God is able to desire something sincerely, yet nevertheless decide that what he desires will not come to pass. 

But again, Piper engages in a subtle shift away from the issue at hand. The issue is not the question of God’s two wills as many affirm in Reformed theology. The issue is our offering something to the non-elect which does not exist for them to receive. 

Piper never answers this question. He rather engages in futile evasions. His argument here is off point and is simply a red herring. 

I might also add that it is ultimately incoherent to argue that we do not offer people the possibility of salvation. Even on the Reformed understanding of salvation, salvation for the elect is both possible and inevitable because of election and efficacious calling. Unless one wants to argue for justification in eternity or justification at the cross (Hyper-Calvinist errors), then one has to affirm Christ’s death make’s possible salvation until the point of faith when that salvation is applied to the elect.

Reviews (external links):

Introduction: Review of “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective” – Part 1

Chapter 1: “Sacred Theology and the Reading of the Divine Word” -- Review of “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective” – Part 2

1. Definite Atonement in Church History

Chapter 2: Michael Haykin, “We Trust in the Saving Blood: Definite Atonement in the Ancient Church,” -- Review of “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective” – Part 3

Chapter 3: David S. Hogg, “Sufficient for All, Efficient for Some: Definite Atonement in the Medieval Church,” -- Review of “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective” – Part 4

Chapter 4: Paul Helm, “Calvin, Indefinite Language, and Definite Atonement” -- Review of “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective” – Part 5

Chapter 5: Part 6: Note: Raymond Blacketer, “Blaming Beza: The Development of Definite Atonement in the Reformed Tradition,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

Chapter 6: Review – Lee Gatiss, “The Synod of Dort and Definite Atonement,” From Heaven He Came and Sought Her – Part 7

Chapter 7: Review Part 8 – From Heaven He Came and Sought Her – Amar Djaballah on Amyraut

Chapter 8: Carl Trueman on John Owen, the Covenant of Redemption, and Definite Atonement – Review 9, From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

II. Definite Atonement in the Bible

Chapter 9: Review of Williamson, “Election, Atonement, and Intercession in the Pentateuch” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her – Part 10

Chapter 10: Isaiah 53 and Limited Atonement – Review of Motyer’s chapter in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her – Part 11

Chapter 11: Is the Atonement Limited in the Synoptics and John? Review of Harmon’s Chapter in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her – Part 12

Chapter 12: Does Paul Teach Limited Atonement? Review of Gibson’s Chapter 12 in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

Chapter 13: Review of Jonathan Gibson’s Chapter on Pauline Soteriology and Limited Atonement in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

Chapter 14: Review of Schreiner’s Chapter “Problematic Texts for Definite Atonement in the Pastoral and General Epistles” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

III. Definite Atonement in Theological Perspective

Chapter 15: Review – Donald Macleod, “Definite Atonement and the Divine Decree,” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

Chapter 16: Limited Atonement & The Trinity – Review of Letham’s Chapter in “From Heaven He Came & Sought Her”

Chapter 17: Does Penal Substitution Entail Limited Atonement? Review of Williams’ Chapter 17 in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

Chapter 18: Limited Atonement & the Double Payment Argument – Review of Williams’ Chapter in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

Chapter 19: Review of Wellum’s Chapter “The New Covenant Work of Christ” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

Chapter 20: Review of Henri Blocher, Chapter 20, “Systematic Theology of Definite Atonement” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her

IV. Definite Atonement in Pastoral Practice

Chapter 21: Review of Daniel Strange’s Chapter on Those Who Never Hear the Gospel in “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her”

Chapter 22: Review of Sinclair Ferguson’s Chapter on Limited Atonement & Assurance in “From Heaven He Came & Sought Her”

Chapter 23, part 1: Review of John Piper’s Chapter in “From Heaven He Came & Sought Her,” Part 1

Chapter 23, part 2: Review of John Piper’s Chapter in “From Heaven He Came & Sought Her” – Part 2

Also See:

• Video Lecture: David L. Allen, “The Extent of the Atonement and Preaching, Evangelism, and Missions”, from the Biblical Studies Symposium at Liberty University.

Endnotes:

[1] As quoted in J Matthew Pinson, Thomas Grantham’s Theology of the Atonement and Justification.

[2] This quote is from David Wells' endorsement.

Related posts:

• “Thomas Grantham, Christ did, in the place and stead of mankind, fulfil the Law by which the whole World stood guilty before God”