[Hypothetical Universalism] betrays not just a few but several core features of Reformed soteriology, and cannot make good on its own claim upon the efficacy of Christ’s death for the elect. But why should that be surprising given the intricate nature and interdependence of Reformed Christian doctrines?

An entailment of the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement is p:
If Christ died for S, then S will be saved.
Therefore, if p is true, S’ salvation is guaranteed by Christ’s death on behalf of S. Which is to say, it is impossible that Christ’s death for S does not result in S’ salvation given p.
Davenant Hypothetical Universalism (HU) rejects p by affirming that (a) Christ died for all and (b) not all will be saved.
The force of the argument is, He who willed and ordained that Christ the Mediator should sustain the wrath of God due to the sins not of certain persons, but of the whole human race, He willed that this passion of Christ should be a remedy applicable to the human race, that is, to each and every man, and not only to certain individual persons; supreme power being nevertheless left to himself, and full liberty of dispensing and applying this infinite merit according to the secret good pleasure of his will.Death of Christ
Furthermore, HU alleges that it is truly possible that a non-elect adult freely (and savingly) believes:
The death of Christ is applicable to any man living, because the condition of faith and repentance is possible to any living person, the secret decree of predestination or preterition in no wise hindering or confining this power either on the part of God, or on the part of men. They act, therefore, with little consideration who endeavour, by the decrees of secret election and preterition, to overthrow the universality of the death of Christ, which pertains to any persons whatsoever according to the tenor of the evangelical covenant.Davenant, Loc. Cit.
If the only freedom that can account for moral responsibility and do justice to the Reformed doctrine of total depravity is compatibilist freedom, then it is not possible for a non-elect person to believe freely and responsibly unless it is also possible for God to incline a person’s will to Christ after he has determined not to do so. Consequently, unless God can deny himself by acting contrary to his decree, HU consigns itself to incompatibilist freedom, which entails an implicit denial of the need for effectual grace to cause one to believe freely.*
Philosophically speaking, incompatibilism, which is not a Reformed position, does allow for the possibility of a non-elect person to believe by exercising libertarian free will. Consequently, HU implies libertarian freedom given HU’s axiom that “the condition of faith and repentance is possible to any living person.”
An Ironic Twist:
Only incompatibilism makes room for the possibility of saving faith for the non-elect. Or as Davenant would have it, the decree of predestination “is in no wise hindering or confining this power either on the part of God, or on the part of men.”
What must be grasped is that libertarian freedom cuts two ways. If it is truly possible that a non-elect living person freely believes the gospel, then it is equally possible that an elect adult will forever freely reject the gospel. (In which case, saving faith is uncaused and according to resistible grace.) Consequently, HU cannot consistently maintain that Christ’s death is effectual for the elect given the possibility of an elect person not believing according to libertarian freedom. In other words, the libertarian freedom that is required for the possibility of the non-elect to believe and be saved ends up undermining the need for effectual grace upon the free will of anyone who would believe. Therefore, by establishing the possibility of a non-elect person believing, Christ’s death cannot be effectual for the elect when there is nothing left to causally guarantee the requisite faith that’s needed to appropriate the benefits of Christ’s death. Or, more generally stated, (a) the metaphysical assumptions entailed by the possibility of any living person freely believing undermines (b) the causal guarantee that any living person will certainly believe.
If we try to introduce the necessary condition of irresistible grace for any living person to believe, then the possibility of any non-elect living person freely believing is confounded along with HU! That’s because the non-elect, after having been passed over in the eternal decree, cannot possibly be the recipients of irresistible grace, which in Reformed theology is a particular bestowal upon the elect that is, also, necessary for the efficacy of the cross.
Read More
Related Posts:

This passage belongs to the coming of the kingdom, but it is emphasizing a certain aspect of this kingdom that comes in various stages. And part of this kingdom is judgment, particularly judgment upon Jerusalem and the nation of Israel. In light of this, the most plausible understanding of this passage is that it is a reference to Jesus coming in a form of judgment upon Israel—specifically in AD 70. Jesus repeatedly foretold the judgment that would befall Israel in the Gospel of Matthew (21:1-22; 21:28–22:14; 23:29-36; 23:37–24:1),[21] and it seems that this fits that theme. Jesus is referring to the fact that He would come and bring destruction upon the nation that rejected Him.

One of the more challenging passages in the New Testament is Matthew 10:23, where Jesus tells His disciples:
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (ESV)
This verse is rooted in the context of Jesus sending out the twelve. So the question arises—to what time was Jesus referring? There have been a variety of exegetical conclusions made about this passage, and the purpose of this article will be to look at the different understandings and provide our own analysis of the text.
Contextual Background
Matthew 10:23 places us in the middle of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. In the beginning of chapter 10, Jesus commissions the twelve disciples and sends them out by twos to minister without Him. They are given instructions not to go outside of Galilee or the Jewish people (Matthew 10:5-6).[1] The purpose for the restriction to only the Jewish people, the “house of Israel” (οἶκου Ἰσραήλ), seems to be redemptive-historical.[2] Jesus limited the disciples’ mission for a time, but He Himself went deliberately to the Gentile areas in order to prepare His disciples for their later universal mission.[3]
The content of the disciples’ message was the proclamation of the kingdom of heaven by which they would call men to repentance and confirm their message by various signs and wonders (Matthew 10:8). They were to be supported by those to whom they ministered, and they were not required to bring additional provisions for their journey. Jesus instructed them to bless the houses that welcomed them but to shake the dust off their feet when they were rejected. Those who would reject them were unworthy of the gospel of the kingdom, and the disciples did not have to cast their pearls before such swine.[4]
In Matthew 10:16-23, Jesus expands His discussion not only to the immediate mission, but to the universal mission of the church. In this text, He prophetically warns His followers of the severe opposition and rejection they will face. They will be delivered over to the courts, flogged in the synagogues, and dragged before governors and kings to bear “witness before them and the Gentiles” (10:18). These prophetic warnings were amply fulfilled in sacred church history (Acts 4:1-22; 5:17-41; 6:12-8:3; 12:1-19; 16:19-40; 21:27-28:31), as well as later church history. Jesus encouraged the disciples to not worry in those times because He would give them the Holy Spirit who would speak through them. They would not be left without a comforter and guide. The Spirit of God would empower them to proclaim the gospel boldly. Jesus’ discussion on division within families (Matthew 10:21-22) describes a scene where things get progressively worse, where followers of Christ will be pressured from all sides to deny the Christ. And it is here in this immediate context that we come upon this peculiar text where Jesus tells his disciples that they will not finish going through the towns of Israel until He comes (10:23).
Different Interpretations of Matthew 10:23
In his commentary on Matthew, D. A. Carson lists at least seven different interpretations of this passage. It is not our purpose here to interact with all of them but to briefly survey some of the most popular views.
First, there are some who have advocated that Jesus is simply telling the disciples that they would not go through all of the cities until He came back to them. In other words, Jesus was referring to the moment that He would rejoin them after the immediate mission.[5] However, this view is problematic at least for two reasons. First, although Jesus discusses the immediate mission of the disciples in 10:6-15, verses 16-22 discuss a broader scope of mission. These verses include persecution and other themes that suggest a time beyond the immediate mission of the twelve. To place verse 23 back into the discussion of the immediate mission is to misplace it contextually. Second, to follow this line of reasoning (that verse 23 is a reference to Jesus’ rejoining the disciples after the immediate mission), then it is hard to see how verses 16-22 of chapter 10 are fulfilled. There is little, if any, evidence to suggest that the disciples faced extreme persecution during that mission.[6] The flow of the context, and the fact that no indication of persecution took place during this time, renders this view unlikely.
Second, others have interpreted this “coming of the Son of Man” as a reference to Jesus’ public identification as the Messiah at the resurrection. John Calvin connected Jesus’ coming to His aiding the disciples in their mission to Judea by the power of the Holy Spirit.[7] It is true that Jesus does discuss His “coming” through the work and power of the Holy Spirit—particularly in the Gospel of John (see John 14:18; 16:16, 22). However, this view does not seem to be the best interpretation. It does consider the persecution to some degree, but it fails to address the urgency in the text—“truly I say to you” (ἀμήν γάρ λέγω). In addition, the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples at Pentecost, which occurred before much of the persecution of the disciples took place—effectively arguing for the opposite of what Matthew 10:23 says, that persecution would come first and then the Son of Man would come. Finally, it is important to note that the person of the Holy Spirit is not a major theme in the Gospel of Matthew, thus making this interpretation less likely to be correct.[8]
A third and prominent view of this passage is to look at it from a future eschatological perspective, so that in some way Jesus was referring to His second coming. Some advocates would actually see a double fulfillment, in that Jesus was speaking in a form of prophetic shorthand. There is certainly some warrant for this interpretation because we have numerous examples in the Old Testament prophets of this kind of prophecy.[9] However, just because there are examples of double fulfillment does not mean that every passage in question must be viewed in this way. It is difficult to infer that this is the case here. For one thing, Jesus is speaking to the disciples and their experience when they are enduring persecution.
Read More
Related Posts:

Seeking the presence of God encourages the filling of the Spirit that pushes out the deeds of the flesh. Don’t miss that, it’s key: What flows in, flows out. Arguments, complaining and gossip all happen when we’re filled with work more than we are filled with worship. You can once again refuel the fire of the Spirit by taking time today to repent of a cold and callous heart. Let His presence become your pursuit. The more you seek Him the more you’ll find Him.

Although God is everywhere, or what theologians call omnipresent, there is a marked difference between a believer who is dry spiritually and dead inside compared to one who is full of passion, desire and fire.
The corridors of church history are filled with stories of Christians being spiritually dead but then coming alive.
What changed? What happened? In short, they pursued God like never before. They abandoned their idols, repented of their lukewarmness and sought God — His presence was their pursuit. When you seek God, you will find Him. (Jer. 29:13)
Are You Thirsty?
The pursuit of God is what holds everything together — from finding peace and joy to overcoming the enemy and finishing strong. Sadly, many believers do not finish well because their pursuit of God gets pushed to the side.
Seeking the presence of God must be your all-consuming passion. Moses cried, “Show me Your glory!” Joshua lingered in the tent with the presence of God (Ex. 33:11); Isaiah said that he saw the King (Isa. 6:5); and the Disciples waited in the upper room for His presence. (Acts 1:13)
These were life-changing moments, and you can have one as well. Are you thirsty? It all begins here: “Let anyone who is thirsty come to Me and drink.” (John 7:37)
The Cost of Intimacy
Mark 14:3 tells us that Jesus was at Bethany reclining at a table when a woman with an alabaster flask of very costly ointment broke the flask and poured it over His head. It is here, and in many other places in Scripture, that we realize that intimacy has a cost.
God must be a priority even when we don’t feel like pursuing Him. Pursuing His presence doesn’t always mean that we feel His presence. That’s why Hebrews 11:6 is so important: “He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Your perseverance will eventually be rewarded.
No Accident
We also read in Mark 14:4-5 that there were some present in Bethany who scolded her with these words, “Why was the ointment wasted like that? For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.”
Read More
Related Posts: