# The Fatherhood of God Over All Men



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 14, 2015)

For your growth in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, here are a bunch of historic reformed quotes demonstrating that the Fatherhood of God over all men has been part and parcel of reformed teaching ever since John Calvin:

Historic Reformed Quotes on the Fatherhood of God | Reformed Books Online


If you're interested in seeing this Biblical teaching proved from scripture, see this 21 page article here, analyzing and defending John L. Girardeau's articulation of the issue:

http://reformedtheologybooks.files....c-and-biblical-defense-by-travis-fentiman.pdf


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 14, 2015)

Travis,

I'm curious if you or those who contribute to you site have taken a basic course in hermeneutics?

If you have, can you please explain to me what it means that a word has a semantic domain and whether the term "father" in all these quotes is being used in the same way?


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 15, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Travis,
> 
> I'm curious if you or those who contribute to you site have taken a basic course in hermeneutics?
> 
> If you have, can you please explain to me what it means that a word has a semantic domain and whether the term "father" in all these quotes is being used in the same way?




Rich,

I am not sure what prompted your antagonistic reply, but to answer your questions:

(1) Yes, I have taken many courses in hermeneutics and have an MDiv from GPTS.

(2) A semantic domain refers to the different senses in which a word is capable of being used. Of course "father" is not being used in the same way in all of those quotes. See each quote for how it is being used, along with the larger context from the original source, if you desire. If you had read the paper I linked on Girardeau's doctrine of adoption, you would see that the Bible, Girardeau, and I, fully affirm different senses of God's fatherly dealings with his creatures, as well as most of the authors quoted.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2015)

Looks to me like a bunch of quotes are being gathered to make it seem like modern - and patently liberal - notions of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man are in fact part of our DNA. (I wonder if the application is that we can feel good about using the language of God as father in open discussion with God haters to make us seem sophisticated and urbane and cool and reasonable...) 

To use those 3 verses listed on that site seems, well, like grasping at straws. Malachi was written to the covenant people (of whom God can be said to be father). In fact, deal with the brute fact that all occurrences of the word father when it is applied to God are in contexts of the covenant people. Additionally: Acts 17:28 is used spuriously to support the idea of the universal "fatherhood of God." Being one's offspring does not automatically make the one from whom you were "sprung" your father. Hence the term: bastard. Many are offspring of a man without that man being their father. Paul's citation of the poet is not to demonstrate that God is their father (which is relational and legal), but in context of Acts 17 Paul simply points out that everyone was made by God in God's image, and as such, should abandon idolatrous notions that God is something of metal and wood. In other words, Paul is concerned with the _imago Dei_ and what this tells us about our maker. Thus, for the sake of argument he's pointing out that even their own poets understand God is our creator, not we his. Concerning the Luke 3 quote... interesting how that Lukan geneology traces the _covenant line_ back to Adam to show that Jesus stands covenantally in line with Adam to "undo" the works of our first Adam and thereby establish a "new humanity" in himself. 

If by father you simply mean "creator," then use that word.

Frankly, and hear my clearly now: I couldn't care less about that list of quotes from the alleged historic Reformed tradition. Why not? Because these were written before the advent of modern liberalism. In modern parlance, there are no "distinctions" in how the word "father" is used. To stand up and tell a group of people "God is your father" (when all I mean is "god is your creator and you owe him your existence") would be to do far more harm than good and indeed, in our present context, be so closely aligned with unChristian concepts that I would be flirting with deceit. Additionally, methinks that in at least many of these cases, these quotes don't mean what they are being collected to give the appearance of meaning.

No, I'll stand with Jesus who explicitly denies the fatherhood of God to his opponents and makes loving him a sign of having God as one's father (John 8:42). The Christian doctrine of adoption loses all significance if God is already the father of everybody. "No, wait! You don't understand... in adoption, God becomes our father in a fuller or more meaningful sense!" Hogwash. Adoption is a legal procedure in which one who was not a legal member of one's household, including possessing the right of inheritance, becomes a legal member. This affects not only legal standing but relationship. But vital to the notion of adoption is the legal component of one who is not becoming one who is.

Let's suppose that one of my teenaged fornications resulted in a child. Let's say this child sought me out. Let's say that for some reason I wanted to bring this person into my home. I could do that. But you know what I can't do? Adopt the child. Why? Because the child is mine. I might have to submit some paperwork to prove I'm the father, but this is not the same as adopting the person. Additionally, adoption is not about a prodigal returning home. Adoption is about someone with no legal standing to be in the family suddenly receiving legal standing to be in the family. 

But again, there's no such thing as adoption if one is the child of the other.

You cannot adopt one who is your child. God adopts us. Therefore, before the adoption we were not God's children. At that time, God was not our Father. This lines up with Jesus' words and Christian doctrine.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 15, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> I am not sure what prompted your antagonistic reply, but to answer your questions:
> 
> (1) Yes, I have taken many courses in hermeneutics and have an MDiv from GPTS.
> 
> (2) A semantic domain refers to the different senses in which a word is capable of being used. Of course "father" is not being used in the same way in all of those quotes. See each quote for how it is being used, along with the larger context from the original source, if you desire. If you had read the paper I linked on Girardeau's doctrine of adoption, you would see that the Bible, Girardeau, and I, fully affirm different senses of God's fatherly dealings with his creatures, as well as most of the authors quoted.



My reply was not antagonistic but trying to ascertain whether your use of quotes was borne out of ignorance or simply an inability to be precise in your formulations. It appears to be the latter.

I read the paper and it is not very coherent as to what point it is trying to get across. It spends a good portion of the paper arguing for treating adoption as something that happens logically after and distinct from regeneration but nothing about this is particularly controversial because the objects of adoption are the elect. There is some discussion then about whether or not mankind is in a broken Father/son relationship but that issue is not connected to the former. You mix the issues so as to confuse the discussion. I'm not sure if you're trying to demonstrate that some included adoption as regeneration or that there were some that believed God to be a father (of sorts) of all mankind. What you end up "proving" in the paper is not what your site notes (some kind of normative understanding that God is father of all mankind in some sense) but that it is not normative.

That said, even in those that want to say that mankind is in some sort of family relationship with God, it is universally acknowledge that that "Father-son" relationship is of a different type than the "Father-son" relationship that the elect have in Christ. It is as different as being "in Adam" is to "in Christ".

Using careful theological distinctions, one might have a meaningful conversation with a person like Girardeau (if he was still alive) and discuss whether fallen man's condition of being under wrath is as an estranged son (in some sense of the term differing than the adopted sense).

What you've done on your site is blurred all those distinctions and mashed together in some sort of mess of quotes where it is not at all clear what each intended by those quotes to simply proclaim: "Hey everyone, look how it's been the historical case that the Reformed have upheld the universal fatherhood of God...."

What?

The site is about as careful in its quotes as people who find quotes from Church fathers who use the word "Eucharist" and put a title on it that says: "Proof that transubstantiation has been believed and held by all Catholics since the early Church".

People who are careful with how words are used and understand semantic domain and the development of theology roll their eyes at such collections of quotes.

If you intention is to be scholarly on this site in any meaningful level then I suggest you start actually dealing not with turns of phrase that you like so you can try to erect some sort of point based solely on the ignorance of the reader but make a scholarly point demonstrating that every author really did intend to be saying something and, if they are saying something, putting them into some sort of coherent point.

As it stands you have a cacophonous list of quotes that makes no point at all to the learned.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 15, 2015)

Ouch! And to think I've been wondering if my own comments were a bit too harsh... 

Is that how you are with candidates?


----------



## earl40 (Jan 15, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> Ouch! And to think I've been wondering if my own comments were a bit too harsh...
> 
> Is that how you are with candidates?



Maybe the difference is between the Army and The Marines?  Hoo Ya


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 15, 2015)

SolaScriptura said:


> Ouch! And to think I've been wondering if my own comments were a bit too harsh...
> 
> Is that how you are with candidates?



No, because candidates don't come before my committee trying to teach the committee what the Reformed have always believed but we just didn't know it. 

Look, I appreciate that there is some nuance and difference in how many Reformed framed things or even some disagreement on some details. I just find it irksome when someone puts themselves forward as a site for historical Reformed research and puts that level of "scholarship" into it.

Add to that the author's predilection for coming in here to post articles in a similar vein that open him up for criticism and then he tries to lecture those who have done much more original source research that they don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 15, 2015)

Forgive me for being ignorant, but why would it be important for us to affirm that God is the father of all men? Obviously God is the creator of all men, but beyond this I just don't see why this would be an important distinction.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Jan 15, 2015)

Some things can be true in some weaker sense to the world and a much stronger to all believers...
1 Timothy 4:10 ''...who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.''
Eph 3:14-15 "...For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name...."

and in some sense Adam is described in Jesus genealogy as 
Luke 3:38 "... the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the Son of God."

Since savior and father are used in some sense of other than believers, it's important to consider in what sense it might be meant


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 16, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> That said, even in those that want to say that mankind is in some sort of family relationship with God, it is universally acknowledge that that "Father-son" relationship is of a different type than the "Father-son" relationship that the elect have in Christ. It is as different as being "in Adam" is to "in Christ".
> 
> Using careful theological distinctions, one might have a meaningful conversation with a person like Girardeau (if he was still alive) and discuss whether fallen man's condition of being under wrath is as an estranged son (in some sense of the term differing than the adopted sense).




That is my only point.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 16, 2015)

It's maybe better to say that God _was_ our Father, to emphasise what has been lost by the Fall.

We are now - as fallen - enemies of God, completely estranged from Him, and under His wrath. The blessed father/son relationship that Adam (and Eve) enjoyed has been completely broken by the Fall.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 16, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> That is my only point.





Travis Fentiman said:


> For your growth in the knowledge and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, here are a bunch of historic reformed quotes demonstrating that the Fatherhood of God over all men has been *part and parcel of reformed teaching* ever since John Calvin.



Really?


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 17, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> ...he tries to lecture those who...



Rich, 

I was unaware that I have previously lectured you or others on the Puritan Board. Though if I have, I pray you will forgive me for it (as it was not my intention) and overlook this in love. I am sorry the site and articles have not been helpful to you. 

May the Lord bless you richly.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 17, 2015)

Travis,

I truly wish the same for you. I'm a jerk being sanctified by Christ but I also do have a method to my madness. I think your desire is to be helpful but your posts of links to your sites evoke a reaction for a reason. People don't react to posts that claim that Rutherford taught the well-meant offer or that the fatherhood of God over all men has been a key feature of Reformed teaching "...since Calvin..." for no reason. They're not trying to protect turf but are reacting to massive equivocation of terms. Words mean things historically and in context. People reach back into Calvin and claim things he believed about "regeneration" without taking into consideration that theological development narrowed the meaning of that term in our modern context.

I'm not certain what you're trying to accomplish by your site but, if the intent is to truly edify, then you're better off posting less quotes rather than more, and making sure you give some explanation of how each teacher used terminology within his historical context rather than giving the impression that the words are used univocally. If you don't do this then you're not serving to edify anyone because you are not instructing the ignorant but confusing them.

Surely you understand this, do you not? Are you not training to faithfully exegete an ancient text to exposit not what people may think the text teaches on the surface but to exegete its meaning based on the tools you are being trained with. If all people need is quotes from a centuries old text with no context and exegesis then you are wasting your time equipping yourself. I think you know you are not so I would urge you to apply the same consideration to your website.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 19, 2015)

Rich, 

Thank you for your helpful and wise advice.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 19, 2015)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Forgive me for being ignorant, but why would it be important for us to affirm that God is the father of all men? Obviously God is the creator of all men, but beyond this I just don't see why this would be an important distinction.



Bill, 

One practical implication of this issue, I think, is whether one tells their non-Christian friend, "You have left off your Judge", or "you have left off your Father." It was the latter that brought the unbelieving, gentile, prodigal back to his Father (Luke 15:17-19).


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 19, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> It's maybe better to say that God _was_ our Father, to emphasise what has been lost by the Fall.
> 
> We are now - as fallen - enemies of God, completely estranged from Him, and under His wrath. The blessed father/son relationship that Adam (and Eve) enjoyed has been completely broken by the Fall.



Richard,

If one does affirm that Adam was a son before the fall, and God his Father, then the next question is if that relationship was wholly removed by sin?

Can a son who sins against his father, is excommunicated from the father's house, and under his legal displeasure, ever fully lose (by his own actions) that he is the natural son of his father? 

If it is of interest, I summarize Girardeau's response to these issues in p. 18-21 of the article linked in the original post.


----------



## Grant Van Leuven (Jan 20, 2015)

Just read the following statement today in R.C. Sproul's _Truths We Confess: A Layman's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith_, vol. 2 (pp 69-70), in his chapter on Adoption, where he deals with the idea of the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man as a development of liberal nineteenth century theology--so this thread caught my eye as timely and some of Dr. Sproul's words seemed worth sharing here:



> Adolf von Harnack, for example, wrote a book translated into English as _What Is Christianity?_ Harnack argued that the essence of Christianity is found in two principles, the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man. Ironically, those two principles are actually foreign to Christianity. God is not the father of everybody, except as their Creator. When the Scriptures speak of God's fatherhood, they describe a filial relationship that exists only between God and his redeemed children. Only those who are in Christ have the privilege of addressing God as Father … it is so insidious when people talk about the universal fatherhood of God. It is an extraordinary privilege that we [Christians] can address the Creator of heaven and earth in terms of filial and personal intimacy … The Bible speaks of a universal neighborhood, not a universal brotherhood. That is, every person is my neighbor, but only fellow Christians are the adopted children of God.



Perhaps it is also worth reflecting on the Scriptures that speak of Jesus Christ as "the only begotten son" "of God" and "of the Father" (John 1:8; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17--the comparison here to Abraham and Isaac seems quite relevant for a necessary disclaimer or distinction so as to not inadvertently equivocate; 1 John 4:9). Also, along with this reflection, perhaps also it is important to meditate on how Jesus speaks of His redeemed people assembled before the LORD (sanctified out of the rest of mankind) in worship as His "brethren" (Hebrews 2:12 of Psalm 22:22) for qualifying a different sense (and an important difference) to the relational expressions of God toward Adam as the Son of God in Luke 3:38 and to Jesus as the only begotten Son of God and the federal relation of each "son" to his "seed" and their inherently (and logically) different relations to God as "Father". We Christians were all "dead" in Adam with the rest of mankind, but only we Christians are "born again" in Christ, the "only begotten of the Father". Christ's sonship is an altogether different kind of sonship than that of Adam's (the type of the Messiah), thus there must be an altogether different sense of God's fatherhood toward the redeemed than to the non-redeemed. The LORD certainly esteems and treats Israel, His firstborn son (Exodus 4:22) and the other type of Christ and His brethren, in quite a different relationship than He does Egypt, for instance. The doctrine of adoption does seem a quite pertinent topic to interject, as has been well expressed above by others.

(I'm not on puritanboard much so please don't take a potential lack of further dialogue on my part as dismissal of potential follow up to these thoughts … just "passing through these parts".)


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 20, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> gentile, prodigal



Travis: 

Could you address the warrant here for your reference to the prodigal as a "gentile?" I think I know your answer, but I think that it might be helpful for you to make it explicit in this discussion. 

And it's interesting that you make the Judge/Father contrast in a thread speaking of going back to Calvin, when it's Calvin who contrasted God as our Judge before our Justification/Adoption with God as our Father after such. 

I appreciate that in this posting, as in the other sort that I've seen you post, you are wanting to highlight God's general benevolence, the free offer of the gospel and the like. I also think that more explanation of why you are posting (such as you give in #17) is helpful. By giving context and expositing (as Rich and Ben have called for), you both make clearer your position (and don't leave us to guess what that may be) and avoid the appearance of merely coming here to instruct. 

In other words, if you spell out just why you're doing what you're doing, it makes for dialog and seems less like you're coming here just to teach us all something. Plenty of teaching goes on here, but it needs to be done in such a forum in a dialogic and not merely a declamatory mode. This is true for us all and, as I said, I appreciate what I understand your intent to be. Your point is best made when offered as an interchange and discourse among brethren.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 22, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Could you address...




Alan et al.,

Thank you for the kind remarks and opportunity to clarify further (which I should have done at the beginning).


To clarify the questions at hand: (1) Does God bear a fatherly relation only to converted Christians, or does God have a fatherly relation to all people generally? (2) Has the doctrine of God's Fatherhood over all mankind been 'part and parcel', or a significant strain, in reformed history (and not just that of liberalism)?


As to part of the reason why I posted this topic, and what my motivation is behind it:

(1) In my understanding the Fatherhood of God over all people has been a solidly reformed teaching, and has been quite lost since the height of liberalism over a century ago. Almost no one knows of it because almost no one teaches it today. It is virtually unheard of in conservative churches. We have lost this perfectly good, Biblical and comforting doctrine to Liberalism. Some people are of the mind: some people abuse this doctrine, so lets not speak of it lest we are misunderstood. I, rather, see that people abuse this doctrine, therefore how much more do we need to affirm it, teach it, show it from scripture and be clear on it.

(2) I love the grace of God. The Fatherhood of God highlights his unfathomable grace to mankind. I hear a lot from reformed folk about how God is only angry with unbelievers, wrathful, and hates them, and that is why they are to turn to Him. While this may save some, by pulling them out of the fire, hating even the filthy clothes they are wearing (Jude 23), yet the rest will only be saved by "having compassion" on them (Jude 22).

Do we lead men to repentance the way God does? "the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance" (Rom. 2:4) Goodness, or "chrestos" in the Greek is elsewhere translated "kindness" (Luke 6:35) and "gracious" (1 Pet. 2:3). Do we use God's common graces as great enforcements and enducements for exiled sons to come to their loving Father? George Swinnock (Works, vol. 3, p. 342-346):

Have you never beheld a condemned prisoner dissolved into tears, upon the unexpected and unmerited receipt of a pardon, who all the time before was as hard as a flint? *The hammer of the law may break the icy heart of man with terrors and horror, and yet it may remain ice still, unchanged; but when the fire of love kindly thaws its ice*, it is changed and dissolved into water it is no longer ice, but of another nature.​
(3) This doctrine is needful for evangelism. Athens didn't have liberalism, but they were inculcated in their religious poetry. And Paul, when he is street preaching (Acts 17:28-29), AFFIRMS what is true in their corrupt religion, namely the Fatherhood of God of us all. It serves as a point of common ground between him and unbelievers, that we all have come from God and have Him as our Father (notice the emphatic 'we' throughout the passage). This emphasis of Paul on the Fatherhood of God makes his call for repentance towards the end of his preaching that much more forceful. ​
Regarding why I interpreted the prodigal in Luke 15 as a gentile: 

There are multiple possible interpretations of the passage, and I am not particularly jealous for any one of them, however a lot of commentators (most?) interpret the prodigal as speaking of the gentiles for these reasons:

(1) It would be wrong to interpret each parable in only its specific context and not in the larger context of Jesus teaching and parables, especially in their trajectory. Numerous other parables are about the rejection of the Jews and the coming in of the Gentiles. It would be odd if this parable has no design at all to the majority of the history of Church, being mostly gentile.

(2) Even when the immediate audience and context is largely Jewish, yet God's unfaithful covenant people often serve as a representative example of all natural mankind. It would be short-sighted to think the Sermon on the Mount (and many other parables) are so confined to God's covenant people that they do not have in scope and directly apply to non-covenant gentiles.

(3) The Fatherhood of God being true from other scriptures, it makes it hard to deny that the Fatherhood of God over all mankind, in its fundamental ethos, is not implicitly contained within the parable (given the emphasis on the Father in the parable).
​
All this said, I do not desire to draw more from the parable than what is legitimately there. However, if the parable is only directly bearing on the covenant-Jews:


It still disproves the God-is-only-a-Father-by-adoption hypothesis. If the parable is only speaking of unconverted visible church members, then it still shows that God has fatherly relations to those who are not regenerate and are not personally adopted. Once one admits this, it flings open the door to the possibility that all people are in some way God’s sons and daughters.​
Regarding Calvin: 


No doubt Alan is correct in pointing out that Calvin at times contrasts God being a Judge to persons before conversion and a Father after conversion. Calvin said different things. My hermenuetic in interpreting such writers is to assume that they meant both (unless otherwise indicated) in different senses. 

It is beyond a doubt clear that Calvin believed God is a father in some sense to the unconverted (see the link in the original post), as it is all over his writings, in various books, sermons, commentaries, and periods of his life. The quotes I collected are only a fraction of those throughout his writings. I got tired of collecting them after a while, which is why I stopped with only a few dozen. Why beat a dead horse, a horse that is obvious to all who read Calvin’s very warm and paternal Institutes?

The reason why Calvin and all the others I quoted in the link on the original post can say that God is a Father to those He is a Judge to, and is mad at, is because they understood that the moral government of a servant is compatible with the moral discipline of a child. I summarize Girardeau’s argument on this in p. 8-10 of the article linked in the original post. He shows very clearly from scripture that Christians are both sons and servants of God, as Christ was. If God is a Judge and Father to Christians, there is no reason why He cannot be a Judge and Father to non-Christians. The scriptures that Girardeau quotes were one of the lynchpins that brought me around to his and Calvin’s view. ​
Regarding reformed history affirming the Fatherhood of God over all people:


I do not claim, and never have, that it has been universal. Girardeau says (Discussions of Theological Questions, p. 430), 


“Until recent times, the consensus of commentators and theologians has, with but a few exceptions, been in favor of the doctrine that man was by nature, in some sense, a Son of God.” ​
In my reading of reformed folk in the 1500’s and 1600’s it has been about 50/50. Dr. Nick Willborn (who did his doctorate on Girardeau), professor of Church History at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, who I wrote the paper for, has also estimated about 50/50 occurrence in his “Adoption: Historical Perspectives with Evangelical Implications,” in _Sanctification: Growing in Grace_, ed. Pipa and Wortman (Southern Presbyterian Press, 2001).

However, if you were to ask the 50% that say man only becomes a child of God by conversion and adoption, if they think man is a child of God in any sense of the word by creation, they may have given a different answer. 

It seems to me that the systematic theological denial of God being in any sense a father to the unconverted during and after liberalism by Candlish, Dabney, Thornwell, the Hodges, etc. was a dramatic shift in reformed theology, that we are still (unfortunately) under the influence of today.

You will note that the Fatherhood of God over all people, as documented on the webpage I provided above, is in numerous confessions and catechisms, an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer by the father of puritanism, William Perkins, and in numerous systematic theologies. While they may differ in a lot of ways historically, subjectively, etc, they all agree that God is in some sense a Father over the unconverted.

Some are more off-hand references, such as Rutherford and others. This I think proves my case further. They simply assumed the doctrine and considered it non-controversial. They were not afraid of being misunderstood, or thought they had to defend themselves. Yet I do not hear such off handed references in sermons today. A striking difference.​
Regarding the paper I wrote on Girardeau: it was a seminary paper under a time crunch and essentially turned in for a grade. Hence the lack of literary finesse. I have not had time to revise it. However, for the reasons given above and more, and for its useful content that would be otherwise unknown to people, I decided to put it on the net.

Regarding the webpage documenting this teaching in reformed writers, in the last few days I added: John Knox, Vades’s Catechism, Edward Payson, Witsius from his Economy, and B.H. Carroll (for our reformed Baptist friends). 

In a day or two, Lord willing, I will add to the page: Willhelmus A’Brakel, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole, Francis Turretin, and John Dick. Please do check back in a couple years, as, Lord willing, the list will be 5 times as long.

Thank you for your patience in all of these things. May God bless you.


----------



## MW (Jan 22, 2015)

The Scripture speaks of God's fatherhood over all men, not in some general unspecified sense, but in specific terms of being a progenitor. Fatherhood of course is a moral term which involves much more than being an originating cause of human beings. The term "Father" as applied to God is used in Scripture in its full and proper sense to designate a special relation which is created by the gracious act of God in adopting reconciled sinners.

The fatherhood of God over all men, as describing a distinct and unique relation, is not a traditional reformed doctrine. One will find it mentioned from time to time in the course of explaining man's relations to God so as to properly focus attention on man's alienation by sin and the special gracious relationship which has been created by adoption. In contrast to liberal theology the reformed tradition has been very careful to avoid making a distinct doctrine of it.

The shape of theology changes with an acceptance of this teaching. First, there could be no covenant of works with a strict probation if man by nature was already instated in the relationship of a son to a father. According to Ps. 103 and Mal. 3, a father takes pity upon and spares his son. Secondly, there could be no fall in the official and personal sense in which the Scripture and Christian theology have defined it. Sonship is a relation which is permanent by nature, as is evident in the parable of the prodigal son. Thirdly, there could be no adoption in the proper sense of the term. There could only be the reaffirmation of an already existing relationship.

Candlish's Fatherhood of God and Kennedy's Man's Relations to God are important works to read and study on this subject. As these works demonstrate, there is simply no place for the doctrine of universal divine fatherhood in the reformed faith. Acceptance of such a doctrine would introduce a foreign entity into the system, and the system by nature works to oppose and expel the foreign entity.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jan 22, 2015)

If anyone is interested, the works mentioned by Rev. Winzer are available online:

_Man's Relations to God_ by John Kennedy (Internet Archive, Google Books)
_The Fatherhood of God_ by Robert S. Candlish (Internet Archive, ETS)


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 23, 2015)

Alan D. Strange said:


> By giving context and expositing (as Rich and Ben have called for), you both make clearer your position (and don't leave us to guess what that may be)...




I updated the collection of quotes webpage with a short introduction (which I appreciate the prodding for, as it needed it). Hopefully that serves to give some context to the unsuspecting web-surfer. Perhaps later I can make it longer and more full. 

I also added a very significant quote from Henry Bullinger's exposition of the Apostle's Creed, which interpretation has been fairly normal and common throughout church history. I also added William Ames, J.A. Alexander and Louis Berkhof.

In a day or two I will add: David Brown (for our Free Church of Scotland fans out there, William Arnot is already on there), Andrew Fausset, John Eadie, and for our reformed baptist friends, John Gill, James P. Boyce and Augustus H. Strong.

Hopefully, if I can find some time in the next few days, I'll be able to address some of the issues that Rev. Winzer brought up. Though, I do believe, Girardeau has already fully answered them in his _Discussions_.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jan 23, 2015)

Mr. Fentiman,
Are you interpreting Bullinger to mean that he regards the following as a universal reference to every man upon the earth?


> "God to us is both gentle, liberal, and merciful, who wishes us all things that are available to our health, and purposes nothing to us-ward but that which is good and wholesome"


If you are interpreting Bullinger's statement in this way, are you really comfortable with this statement yourself?


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 24, 2015)

I have limited time, and hope to get back later to others who have commented.

If it is of help in understanding the Fatherhood of God view, here is a drag race, off-the-cuff, informal sketch I recently wrote on the fly for someone in a different context who asked about it recently:




God is a father generally to all mankind by creation and is demonstrated in his fatherly providence and care for all the children of men. This 'fatherliness' of God is not saving, but is along the lines of general operations and common grace.

One of the main questions is whether Adam was a son by creation in the garden (see Luke 3:38). The angels were sons of God, simply by their creation (Job. 38:7; see also Job 1:6 and 2:1). I don't see how it is possible for God not to be a Father to any rational creature he makes, as He of his nature is good and could not be otherwise to his creatures. The concept of God being a God to his creatures inherently involves caring for them, blessing them, helping them, guiding them, protecting them, and loving them as one that is wiser and stronger. This in itself is the relation of Fatherhood.

Adam stood as a son (and servant) in the garden, though he was mutable, and liable to fall. If he had kept the Cov. of Works, he would have been legally adopted and confirmed as in good standing of a son forever upon his own works (as well as a servant, being justified by his own righteousness). However, upon disobeying God, he fell not only as a servant to God, but also as a son, and was legally excommunicated out of the house and the full beneficial relationship with God as his Father. Though he did not completely lose the image of God that is a part of him by creation (Gen. 9:6), nor did he fully lose his sonship, but became an estranged and guilty son, liable to be put to eternal death (Deut. 21:18-21).

We, guilty in Adam, retain the broken relationships he had, as part of the human family (Acts 17:26-29). Thus we remain God's 'offspring' (Acts 17:26-29; Heb. 12:9; see more verses on the webpage). Left to ourselves we are sons who hate our loving heavenly father (Luke 15:11-13) have forfeited any inheritance we would have had, and have become spiritual sons of the devil (John 8:44).

Only through monergistic regeneration are we given a new spiritual nature, to truly be spiritual sons of God, and faith is worked in us to return to our father, Lk. 15:18, upon which He receives us upon the atonement of Christ alone, legally and forever adopts us upon the merit of Christ, so that we never lose our standing with God again, and we are fully reconciled to our loving heavenly father.

Only through Christ and the gospel do attain the chief end: full spiritual communion with God, and being spiritually and eternally united to God the Son, are much better off than Adam ever was.

Hope this is helpful.

​


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 24, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Travis,
> 
> ...of how each teacher used terminology within his historical context rather than giving the impression that the words are used univocally... so I would urge you to apply the same consideration to your website.




I updated the introduction to the webpage of reformed quotes to include qualifying statements, so hopefully that is helpful in evaluating the excerpts. It was originally intended just to be a collection of church history quotes on the subject, uncommented on, but it now has turned into much more, though probably for the better.


John Murray, John Owen, John Brown of Haddington, Thomas Manton and many others will be coming early next week...


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 25, 2015)

Dearly Bought said:


> Are you interpreting Bullinger to mean that he regards the following as a universal reference to every man upon the earth?
> 
> 
> > "God to us is both gentle, liberal, and merciful, who wishes us all things that are available to our health, and purposes nothing to us-ward but that which is good and wholesome"
> ...




Bryan,

Thanks for the question. 

I do think Bullinger does regard that statement as referring to all creatures as God's creatures. I think this is pretty clear from the larger context, here:

https://archive.org/stream/decadesofhenrybu0102bull#page/124/mode/2up


As for how Bullinger reconciles that with God's punishing his creatures for sin, and otherwise decreeing and providentially bringing to pass sin in the creatures, see the Fourth Decade, Sermon 4, That God is the Creator of All Things, and Governs All Things by His Providence: Where Mention is Also Made of the Goodwill of God to Usward, and of Predestination:

https://archive.org/stream/decadesofhenrybu04bull#page/172/mode/2up


As for my comfort level with Bullinger's statement:


I am not entirely comfortable with it myself. Though I think he is trying to reflect Mark 10:18, "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." Bullinger's context qualifies it a bit, that he is talking about creaturely goods and providence (as quoted on the webpage): "and, last of all, that at his hand we receive what good soever we have, either bodily or ghostly."

He is no doubt speaking at the level of the revealed will, where God only brings evil to pass by withdrawing from the creature and permitting it (Ps. 81:11,12; Rom. 1:26, etc.). As far as God's decree of sin, there is a permissive aspect to it (see WCF 6:1 and LC #19), in addition to the positive ordaining of it (see WCF 5:4). There is also a permissive aspect to the execution of it in time, by Gods concurring providential power in bringing it to pass (as it is not the same as how God brings good things and grace directly and personally to pass). Thus, the reformed of the 1500's and 1600's often spoke of God's permissive willing of sin, and consequent judgment of it, as God's 'alien work' (see Isa. 28:21) to use the phrase given by Richard Muller in his Theological Dictionary of Latin terms under 'concurrence'.

As far as Bullinger's use of the word and concept 'wish', I am not going to give a wholesale defense of it this moment, but suffice it to say that the word and concept is found throughout historic, reformed writings. See this page for a bit of documentation of that (though a ton more could be quoted):

Calvin and Calvinism » Blog Archive Â» God Desires Compliance to his Will and Commands as Standard Reformed Doctrine


At the end of the day, I think the Bullinger quote is important, and I am not going to arbitrarily cut things in and out of it. And I have appreciation of the variety of ways reformed folk have expressed God's goodwill to his creatures, and think everyone else should too. If one reads historical theology, one is going to run into a lot of it.
​

Hope this is helpful Bryan. I appreciate all the work you do on experimental religion (in other places), and your Christian testimony and conduct. God bless you.


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2015)

John 8:42, "Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me."

George Hutcheson, in loc.: "None can justly pretend an interest in God as his children but they that love Christ, who, in his divine nature, is the express image of his Father, and in his office is employed by him; for so much doth Christ's assertion and argument hold forth."


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2015)

Samuel Rutherford, Christ Dying, 142: "Many cry, Father, to God, but lie; for they are not sons, and their words are equivocation. Thousands claim Fathership in God, where there is no Sonship, nor fundamentum in re, no ground in the thing itself."


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2015)

William Twisse, Dr. Jackson’s Vanity, 497: "if you say that God is the father of man, in as much as he hath created him, by the same reason he may be the father of the ignoblest creature that is. To say that God is the father of man, in as much as he made him after his own image, this is no more true of man than of Angels, even of the very Angels of darkness. And men also are born the children of darkness, and so continue until the time that God calleth them, and enlighteneth them."


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2015)

Robert Harris, Works, 88: “labour all you can to get him for your own; but how your own? First get God reconciled unto you, otherwise he is a consuming fire; not a Father, but a Judge; not a friend, but an enemy; he that hath not God for a Father, hath him for an enemy: and oh what an unequal match must that needs be, when mortality must wrestle with immortality."


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2015)

William Gouge, A Guide to Go to God, 12: "They only have this privilege to approach by Prayer into God’s presence, who can in truth call him Father: which none can do but they that believe in Christ. _For as many as received him_, _to them he gave power to become the sons of God_, _even to them that believe in his name_."


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2015)

Anthony Burgess, John Seventeen, 657: "Let therefore every wicked and ungodly man conclude, that while he abideth so, he cannot pray acceptably, he may not come to God as a Father. It’s blasphemy for such profane wretches to say to God, Thou art my Father. The Scripture tells us, That such are of their Father the Devil: See then if the Devil thy father will bless thee, if he will make thee happy: Oh that wicked men would but consider, what a woeful condition it is to lie in, that they cannot pray, that they cannot call God Father!"


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2015)

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 2, section 2: "...and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleaseth."

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 7, section 1: "The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 7, section 2: "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 7, section 3: "Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe."

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 12: "All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption: by which they are taken into the number and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God."

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 5, section 5: "The most wise, righteous, and gracious God does oftentimes leave for a season *His own children* to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon Himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends."

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 5, section 6, "As for those wicked and ungodly men whom *God, as a righteous Judge*, for former sins, does blind and harden, from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had, and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others."


----------



## MW (Jan 25, 2015)

Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity: "The case of the wicked is deplorable; if they are in misery, they have none to make their moan to; God is not their Father, he disclaims all kindred with them."


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 26, 2015)

*Thomas Watson
*

Body of Divinity, London 1807​
Of Adoption, vol. 1, p. 238​
Our sonship differs from Christ’s sonship; Christ was the Son of God by eternal generation, a son before time; *but our sonship is, 1. By creation, Acts 17:28, ‘We are his offspring.’ * This is no privilege; *men may have God for their father by creation, yet have the devil for their father.*​

Of the Preface to the Lord’s Prayer, “Our FATHER which art in heaven”, vol. 2, p. 35​
Question 1. *In what sense is God a Father?*

Answer 1. *By Creation; it is He that has made us, Acts 17:28, ‘We are his offspring,’ Mal. 2:10, ‘Have we not all one Father?’ Hath not one God created us?* But there is little comfort in this; for *so God is Father to the devils by creation; but He that made them will not save them*.​


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 26, 2015)

*Anthony Burgess*

Spiritual Refining, 1652, London, p. 238​
Thirdly, Consider that *we may be said to be the Sons of God* in three respects.​
1. *As we are creatures, having our being from him*: In which sense Paul sanctifies that verse of the Poet, *We are his off-spring, Acts 17:28. * What the Poet said of Jupiter, Paul applies to the true God. Thus *God is a Father by Creation; and all men, even wicked men are his children in this sense*; but this is no advantage, for *though a man be born of God in this respect, yet if he be no more, he shall never see the Kingdom of heaven.* He that made them, will not save them, says the Prophet, Isa. 27:11. Though ye are his creatures, yet having fallen from him to take the Devil’s character, He will deal no more with you as with his own.​


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 26, 2015)

*Thomas Goodwin*

The Works of Thomas Goodwin, vol. 1, p. 97​
Exposition of Ephesians 1​
Eph. 1:5,6​
Now, take notice of this difference, to see your privilege yet further, as you are in Christ. *Adam *was created holy, perfectly holy; and,* Luke 3:38, we read that he was the Son of God*, but nowhere that He was the Son of God by adoption through Christ. In the *38th of Job, the angels are called ‘morning stars’ and ‘sons of God;’* but nowhere are they called such by adoption through Christ. *They were sons indeed, per gratium creationis [by the grace of creation], because God made them, and in his own likeness, and so by creation was their Father.* But they are not sons per gratiam adoptionis [by the grace of adoption], especially not in Christo, vel per Christum [in Christ, or by Christ], as divines speak. They are not sons by the grace of adoption, nor sons-in-law of God by being married unto Christ. No, this is proper only to believers. ​


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 26, 2015)

*Thomas Manton*

The Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 1, reprinted 2008, SGCB, p. 41-43​
A Practical Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,​
“Our Father which art in heaven”​
But now let me distinguish again. *God is a father to mankind*, either:​
1. *In a more general consideration and respect, by creation*; or,

2. In a more special regard by adoption.​
First, *By creation God is a father*. *At first he gave a being to all things; but to men and angels he gave reason*: John 1:4, ‘And this life was the light of man.’ Other things had life, but *man had such a life as was light; and so by his original constitution he became to be the Son of God. To establish the relation of a father, there must be a communication of life and likeness. * A painter, that makes an image or picture like himself, he is not the father of it, for though there be likeness, yet no life. The sun in propriety of speech is not the father of frogs and putrid creatures, which are quickened by its heat; though there be life, yet there is no likeness. We keep this relation for univocal generations and rational creatures. Thus, *by creation, the angels are said to be the sons of God: Job 38:7*, ‘When He was laying the foundations of the earth, the sons of God shouted for joy;’ that is, the angels. And thus *Adam also was called the Son of God: Luke 3:38*. Thus, *by our first creation, and with respect to that, all men are the sons of God, children of God. * And (mark it) *in respect of God’s continual concurrence to our being, though we have deformed ourselves, and are not the same that we were when we were first created; yet still, in regard of some sorry remains of God’s image, and the light of reason, all are sons of God, and God in a general sense is a father to us*; yea, *more a father than our natural parents are*. For our parents, they concur to our being, but instrumentally, God originally. We had our being, under God, from our parents: *He has the greatest hand and stoke in forming us in the belly, and making us to be what we are*. Which appears by this: Parents, they know not what the child will be, male or female, beautiful or deformed; they cannot tell the number of bones, muscles, veins, arteries, and cannot restore any of these in case they should be lost and spoiled; so that *He that framed us in the womb, and wonderfully fashioned us in the secret parts, He is our Father: Ps. 139:14*. As the writing is rather the work of the penman than of the pen, so we are the workmanship of God than of our parents; they are but instruments, God is the author and fountain of that life and being which we still have. And again, consider,* the better part of man is of his immediate creation, and in this respect he is called ‘the Father of spirits:’ Heb. 12:9*. They do not run in the channel of carnal generation or fleshly descent, but they are immediately created by God. And it is said, Eccl. 12:7, ‘The spirit returneth to God which gave it.’

Well, then, you see how,* in a general sense, and with what good reason, God may be called our Father*. Those which we call fathers, they are bit subordinate instruments; the most we have from them is our corruption, our being depraved; but* our substance, and the frame and fashion of it, our being, and all that is good in it, that is from the Lord.*

*Now, this is some advantage in prayer, to look upon God as our father by virtue of creation, that we can come to Him as the work of his hands*, and beseech Him that He will not destroy us and suffer us to perish: *Isa. 44:8, ‘But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we are all the work of thine hand.’* *There is a general mercy that God has for all his creatures*; and, therefore, as He gave us rational souls, and fashioned us in the womb, we may come to Him and say, Lord, thou art our potter and we thy clay, do us good, forsake us not.

*What advantage have we in prayer from this common interest or general respect of God’s being a father by virtue of creation?*​
[1.] This common relation binds us to pray to Him. All things which God has made, by a secret instinct they are carried to God for their supply: Ps. 145:15, ‘The eyes of all things look up to thee.’ In their way they pray to Him and moan to Him for their supplies even very beasts, young ravens, and fowls of the air. But much more is this man’s duty, as we have reason, and can clearly own the first cause. And therefore upon these natural grounds the apostle reasons with them why they should seek after God: Acts 14:17

[2.] *As this common relation binds us to pray, so it draws common benefits after it*: *Matt 6:25-26*, ‘Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet *your heavenly Father feedeth them*.’ Where God hath given raiment, according to his good pleasure. *He does not cast off the care of any living creature He has made*, as long as He will preserve it for his glory. * Beasts have their food and provision, much more men*, which are capable of knowing and enjoying God.

[3.] It gives us confidence in the power of God. He which made us out of nothing is able to keep, preserve and supply us when all things fail, and in the midst of all dangers. Saints are able to make use of *this common relation*. And therefore it is said, 1 Pet. 4:19, that we should ‘commit our souls unto Him in well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator.’ The apostle speaks of such times when they carried their lives in their hands from day to day. They did not know how soon they should be haled before tribunals and cast into prisons. Remember, you have a Creator, which made you out of nothing. * Thus common relation is not to be forgotten, as He gives us our outward life and being: Ps. 124:8*, ‘Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth.’ As if the psalmist had said, as long as I see these glorious monuments of his power, these things framed out of nothing, shall I distrust God whatever exigence or strait I may be reduced to?​


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 26, 2015)

*William Bates* 1691

The Complete Works of William Bates, vol. 4, reprinted 1990, Sprinkle Publications, p. 298​
A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of Mr. Richard Baxter​
1. The relation of God to the saints. The title of Father is upon several accounts attributed to God.​
(1.) *He is a Father by creation*: *“O Lord, thou art our Father: we are the clay, thou art the potter, we are the work of thine hands.” Isa. 64:8*. He formed man’s body into a majestic figure, becoming his original state, being Lord of the lower world. But* in a peculiar manner he is styled “the Father of spirits:” [Heb. 12:9]* *they have a near alliance, and resemblance of the Father of lights, in their intellectual powers, and their immortal nature.* From hence it is, *the angels are called “the sons of God:” Job 2:1, they are the eldest offspring of his power. Adam has the title of the “Son of God.” Luke 3:38. And since the fall, men are called “God’s offspring.”* There is an indelible character of dignity engraven in the reasonable nature by the hand of God. But *since man turned rebel to his Creator and Father, this endearing obliging relation aggravates his rebellion, but gives him no interest in the paternal love of God, of which he has made a deadly forfeiture*. It is threatened against ignorant perverse sinners, “He that made them, will not have mercy on them.”​


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 26, 2015)

MW said:


> The Westminster Confession of Faith...




Its pretty clear that the Westminster Confession and Standards do not speak to the issue.


----------



## MW (Jan 26, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > The Westminster Confession of Faith...
> ...



Its teaching on providence, the covenants, and adoption, speaks very clearly to the issue and leaves no place for an universal Fatherthood of God.


----------



## MW (Jan 26, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> *Thomas Watson*


*

According to Thomas Watson, This is no privilege. How can it be? Men have fallen from their state and relation which they enjoyed by creation.

If one is going to present the reformed faith he should present the proper emphases of the reformed faith, not try to turn peripheral statements into central doctrines.*


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 27, 2015)

MW said:


> Its teaching on providence, the covenants, and adoption, speaks very clearly to the issue and leaves no place for an universal Fatherthood of God.




Your interpretation of the Confession is interesting, as it appears to be contrary to that of the Westminster Assembly members: Rutherford, Harris, Burgess, and Goodwin, as well as Manton who wrote the Letter to the Reader in the earlier editions of the standards. 

I put yellow asterisks next to their names on the webpage so that people can more easily note the Westminster Divines. More will be coming soon...

Historic Reformed Quotes on the Fatherhood of God Over All People | Reformed Books Online


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 27, 2015)

MW said:


> If one is going to present the reformed faith he should present the proper emphases of the reformed faith, not try to turn peripheral statements into central doctrines.




I fully agree. However, when certain reformed teachings have long been forgotten, are held as suspicious, and by many are positively denied, then it is time to reassert them.


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 27, 2015)

*John Murray*

Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Eerdmans, 1955, p. 134-135​
Ch. 6, Adoption​
In relation to men there is what has sometimes been called *the universal fatherhood of God. It is true that there is a sense in which God may be said to be the Father of all men. Creatively and providentially He gives to all men life and breath and all things. In Him all live and move and have their being. It is this relation that is referred to in such passages as Acts 17:25-29; Heb. 12:9; James 1:18. Since we are the offspring of God, since He is the Father of spirits* and the Father of lights* it may be scriptural to speak of this relation which God sustains to all men in creation and providence as one of fatherhood and therefore of universal fatherhood.*​

Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2, Banner of Truth, 2001, p. 223​
Ch. 18, Adoption​
Adoption is concerned with the Fatherhood of God in relation to the redeemed. But it is necessary to preface our discussion by *distinguishing the several kinds of divine Fatherhood found in Scripture*.​
…

2. *Creative*​
This is very seldom stated in terms of God’s Fatherhood. But since* it appears in such passages as Acts 17:28,29; Heb. 12:9; James 1:17,18*, we shall have to reckon with the fact that* it is not improper to speak of God’s creative relationship in terms of Fatherhood*. Since all three persons of the Godhead were the agents of creation *we cannot restrict this Fatherhood to the first person of the Trinity but we must think of the Godhead as sustaining this relation to angels and men.*​


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 27, 2015)

*James Fisher* 1753

The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained, reprinted 1998, Berith Publications, p. 435​
Question 100. What does the preface of the Lord’s prayer teach us?

Answer: The preface of the Lord’s prayer which is, “Our Father which art in heaven,” teaches us, to draw near to God with all holy reverence and confidence, as children to a Father, able and ready to help us; and that we should pray with and for others.​
…

Q. 6.* In what respect is God called a Father, with reference to men?*​
A. *He is called a Father, with reference to them*, either *in respect of creation*, external covenant-relation, or the grace of adoption.​
Q. 7. *To whom is He a Father in respect of creation?*​
A. *In this respect He is a Father to all mankind in general, Mal. 2:10*.​
…

Q. 10. *May not every one who hears the gospel warrantably cry to God, “My Father,” according to Jer. 3:4?*​
A. *No doubt but it is their duty to do so, upon the call and command of God*; but none will actually do it in faith, but they into whose hearts “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son,” Gal. 4:6.​


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 27, 2015)

*John Brown of Haddington*

A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion, Philadelphia, 1819, p. 393​
Book 5, Ch. 3, Of Adoption​
*Angels are called ‘sons of God’, being made after his image, admitted into intimate familiarity with Him, and having a kind of authority over inferior creatures, Job 38:7, and perhaps 1:6; 2:1*. But some take the two last texts to mean professed saints, as Gen. 6:2; Matt 8:12.​
*In much the same respects, Adam was the ‘Son of God’, Luke 3:38*; but some apply that text to Christ, who is the Son of God by natural, necessary, and therefore eternal generation, Ps. 2:7; John 1:14; 3:16. 

Men are called ‘sons of God’:​
1.Because they represent Him as his deputies in civil government, particularly in that which was typical, Ps. 82:6; John 10:34-36…​


----------



## MW (Jan 27, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > If one is going to present the reformed faith he should present the proper emphases of the reformed faith, not try to turn peripheral statements into central doctrines.
> ...



Only this is not a "teaching." More accurately, it is a part of a presentation of the teaching on divine fatherhood. When an individual decides to strip away all the limitations and qualifications from an author's teaching on a subject, and present one part of his teaching as if it were a distinct teaching in itself, he misrepresents that author and his teaching. This is the sum and substance of what has been done in this thread. What is made as a "concession," so as to credit the Scripture with the proper sense in which its terminology should be understood, has been turned into a "confession," as if this is what the Scripture intended to teach as a distinct doctrine.

In the words of John Murray, “To substitute the message of God’s universal fatherhood for that which is constituted by redemption and adoption is to annul the gospel; it means the degradation of this highest and richest of relationships to the level of that relationship which all men sustain to God by creation." (Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, p. 135, 136).


----------



## MW (Jan 27, 2015)

Travis Fentiman said:


> Your interpretation of the Confession is interesting, as it appears to be contrary to that of the Westminster Assembly members: Rutherford, Harris, Burgess, and Goodwin, as well as Manton who wrote the Letter to the Reader in the earlier editions of the standards.



I have quoted three of these men on this thread, and their quotations demonstrate the opposite of what you have attempted to make them say.


----------



## MW (Jan 27, 2015)

Comparing Manton with Manton, let us see how "universal fatherhood" looks in the light of the doctrine of the covenant of works. In his commentary on James 1:25 Manton makes this emphatic and exclusive assertion:



> When a man is *under a covenant of works*, the testimony of his conscience is suitable to his estate; and therefore in his natural condition his spirit is servile, and *all that he doth*, *he doth as a servant*: but when he is regenerated, and claimeth by another tenure, that of grace, the dispositions of his spirit are more filial and child-like; he acteth as a son, with an ingenuous liberty and confidence. *Adam himself in innocency*, *because under a covenant of works*, *was but as an honourable servant*: "We are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free" (Gal. iv. 31). The new covenant giveth us another kind of estate and spirit. So, "Being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we serve him without fear" (Luke i. 74); that is, without such a scrupulous awe and bondage as otherwise would remain upon the soul.



So far as Manton's view of the covenant of works is concerned, there was no place for natural sonship. A covenant of works is inconsistent with sonship. Adam, under the covenant of works, was dealt with as a servant and nothing more.


----------



## MW (Jan 27, 2015)

James Durham, Commentary on the Revelation (1739 ed.), 222: "Hence we may call the Covenant of Works, a servile Covenant, and the Covenant of Grace, a filial or conjugal Covenant; And therefore, although holy Duties be required in both; yet there is difference, and the one is of Works, and the other of Grace."


----------



## MW (Jan 27, 2015)

James Henley Thornwell, Collected Writings, 1:475: "Adoption is the crowning blessing of both covenants — the rich prize offered to our race in the garden and secured to believers on the cross. Under the law of nature man was a subject and God a ruler. The Covenant of Works was an interposition of grace by means of which man might become a child and God a father, and the filial relation supercede that of simple and naked law. This glorious adoption, which makes paternal love and goodness, instead of our own merits, the measure of our expectations and security — this priceless blessing which Adam failed to secure — is what Christ has won for us."

James Henley Thornwell, Collected Writings, 1:566: "As a moral creature, invested with the image of God, man was under the law as a servant, bound to execute his master’s will, with no promise but the continuance of the Divine favour as he then enjoyed it. The condition of his servitude was perpetual innocence. As long as he obeyed he would remain holy and happy as he was. As soon as he disobeyed he was to die. His state was contingent, dependent upon his legitimate use or the abuse of his liberty. As a moral creature, moreover, he was treated purely as an individual, and had no change taken place in his relations, each man as he came into being would have been on trial for himself. Now the covenant of works was a special dispensation of God’s goodness, modifying this state in several important respects. Its aim was twofold — to change the relation of man from that of a servant to a son, and to confirm him indefectibly in holiness, which is the essential notion of life."


----------



## Travis Fentiman (Jan 28, 2015)

MW said:


> In the words of John Murray,
> 
> “To substitute the message of God’s universal fatherhood for that which is constituted by redemption and adoption is to annul the gospel; it means the degradation of this highest and richest of relationships to the level of that relationship which all men sustain to God by creation." (Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, p. 135, 136).




I fully agree with John Murray.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 28, 2015)

Travis, why is this so important to you that you do not incorporate, for instance, Winzer's corrections of your assertions and acknowledge them? You claim that the position you oppose did not come into existence until the 19th century with the advent of Hodge and the like, when Winzer has clearly demonstrated that the position you oppose is far older. The position you oppose actually seems to me to be the standard vanilla Reformed position: we are servants until adoption. In the unfallen state of Adam, humanity is still servant. In the fallen state, we are disobedient servants. In adoption only we become sons. As Twisse said, creation of something does not imply fatherhood of that something, or else demons must be God's children in the exact same sense as we are. I'm just not sure you're gaining anything by advocating this position, and you're losing rather a lot of ground. My recommendation would be to drop it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 28, 2015)

MW said:


> Only this is not a "teaching." More accurately, it is a part of a presentation of the teaching on divine fatherhood. When an individual decides to strip away all the limitations and qualifications from an author's teaching on a subject, and present one part of his teaching as if it were a distinct teaching in itself, he misrepresents that author and his teaching. This is the sum and substance of what has been done in this thread. What is made as a "concession," so as to credit the Scripture with the proper sense in which its terminology should be understood, has been turned into a "confession," as if this is what the Scripture intended to teach as a distinct doctrine.



I think this pretty much sums up your approach Travis. I thought you might have learned something from your replies earlier but you somehow equate collecting quotes with actually presenting an exegetical and theological argument. You not only don't seem to have learned from the rebuke of your superiors but you are doubling down on your bizarre methodology. Have you no mentors at the Seminary you attend who can help you see that what you're doing is bizarre and irresponsible?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 29, 2015)

I once heard of a seminar at which a PhD student spoke on Northern Ireland and the Cold War. The student loved to spend a lot of time in the archives, but at the expense of doing a lot of secondary reading of the works of major authorities on the Cold War. As a result of this methodological flaw, he took statements by certain politicians to the effect that Northern Ireland was important to the Cold War, on a geopolitical level, entirely at face-value. But when he presented this thesis at the seminar, in front of someone who knew what they were talking about, he was ripped to shreds. However, the student persisted in defending his thesis because he had seen quotes by the British Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, to the effect that Northern Ireland was really important to the geopolitics of the Cold War. The fact that he was making these statements when speaking in Belfast to Ulster unionists did not seem to give the student pause for thought.

I see something similar going on in this thread. Someone who likes to read primary sources sees something that he thinks has been neglected, and thus runs wild with it. Perhaps if said person had consulted relevant contemporary authorities, who have probably read far more primary sources, he might get his thinking and analysis straightened out a wee bit.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 29, 2015)

While there is no doubt that Scripture asserts that God is the creator of, and exercises a measure of goodness toward, fallen men, is there anyplace where it directly asserts that He is the Father of fallen men? Apparently not. 

When Paul was preaching to the Athenian intellectuals he only asserted that fallen men are God's offspring (in context the word almost certainly means children). From this various Reformed worthies have made the logical deduction that it is proper to call God the father (in the sense of progenitor only) to all men not just the redeemed who are children in a different sense, by being adopted into God's family as part of their regeneration. This approach requires those using it to carefully define the sense in which they use the term father for it is clear from Scripture that even if it is logical to conclude that God is the father of his offspring, he is the Father of the redeemed in a completely different sense. 

Is it necessary to follow the lead of the reformed worthies who applied the term father to describe God's relationship to fallen men? Perhaps not, for even if Travis has identified a real shortcoming in much Christian teaching, I suggest that the shortcoming can be better addressed by increasing the emphasis we place on the required theological points: a) that we are God's offspring, and b) that he is good (in at least some senses) to the unjust as well as the just. We can easily establish both points from the Scriptures without using the term "father" to describe God's relationship to fallen and unregenerate men, a usage that creates an equivocation over the meaning of the term. In my view, we do well to avoid unnecessary equivocations in our theology wherever and whenever we can, but it is clear that others have seen a benefit to running the risk in this case.

However the Reformed worthies Travis has cited who have taken the opposite view cannot be fairly accused of advocating "the universal fatherhood of God" as liberalism understands the phrase. For the Reformed worthies have qualified their use of the term "father" to clearly limit its meaning to "progenitor" when predicated of unbelievers and Travis appears to be doing likewise. So long as he and they continue to qualify their use of the term, do we really need to get all hot and bothered about their view?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 29, 2015)

We all agree that God is the father of all men _in a sense_. And hopefully we all agree that God is the father of the elect in a _different and much fuller sense._ If both of these premises are agreed upon by all, why then are we having this debate?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> However the Reformed worthies Travis has cited who have taken the opposite view cannot be fairly accused of advocating "the universal fatherhood of God" as liberalism understands the phrase. For the Reformed worthies have qualified their use of the term "father" to clearly limit its meaning to "progenitor" when predicated of unbelievers and Travis appears to be doing likewise. So long as he and they continue to qualify their use of the term, do we really need to get all hot and bothered about their view?


Tim,

You have not read very carefully if you think this is all that Travis has asserted or inferred.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 29, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > However the Reformed worthies Travis has cited who have taken the opposite view cannot be fairly accused of advocating "the universal fatherhood of God" as liberalism understands the phrase. For the Reformed worthies have qualified their use of the term "father" to clearly limit its meaning to "progenitor" when predicated of unbelievers and Travis appears to be doing likewise. So long as he and they continue to qualify their use of the term, do we really need to get all hot and bothered about their view?
> ...



Instead of merely asserting an error on my part it would be more helpful if you could provide a specific quotation which demonstrates that either Travis or the Reformed worthies have an agenda that goes beyond trying to establish that God is the father (in the sense of progenitor) of all men. 

Admittedly, I read this thread in a hurry and I am not at all sure I agree with Girardeau on the case of Adam: the fact that Adam could be called a Son of God necessarily implies nothing more that God's only relationship to fallen Adam is that of progenitor, but even Girardeau apparently makes the distinction between the differing senses in which God is father to unregenerate and regenerate when he writes "until recent times the consensus ofcommentators and theologians has, with but few exceptions, been in favor of the doctrine that man was by nature, in some sense, a Son of God" something he later defines more specifically "the natural relation is one which once constituted can never be destroyed...the relation which a son sustains to his human father, as a natural fact, can, from the nature of the case, never be changed. The son may be disinherited,disowned, cast out, in consequence of his bad conduct, but to a disgraceful end he will continue to be his father’s son. Somebody’s child he must be; he is not the child of nobody. In this purely natural sense, the sinner is a Son of God." 

In addition, I did spot a couple of places where T. incorrectly employed Scriptures that speak of Christians to apply to the unregenerate but that is not the basic error that seems to be being attributed to him in this thread. And if we are going to charge Travis with that error we need to make the same charge against Manton in connection with the Mal 2 citation.

And by the way, I observe from his signature that Travis, like yourself, is a Licentiate in a Reformed Church. Is there any reason to presume that a man in that situation has not had a class in basic hermeneutics? Or might you yourself perhaps find it "antagonistic" to be asked if you had attended a class in basic hermeneutics given that your signature implies to those with knowledge of theological education that it is more than likely you have attended such, particularly if, in addition, your interlocutor is seemingly overlooking the fact that both you, Girardeau and the reformed worthies you cite all make it plain that you and they are using different senses of the term Father depending on whether the relationship with the regenerate or the unregenerate is in view?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> Admittedly, I read this thread in a hurry and I am not at all sure I agree with Girardeau on the case of Adam


Perhaps you ought to do more than "...read the thread in a hurry..." before you assume that several TE's and RE's and a Seminary professor are all wet when it comes to their concern that Travis is being irresponsible. I, and others, are very well acquainted with how to use source material and theological distinctions. If Travis were *merely* asserting that the Fatherhood of God over all men can be understood in a certain sense then that would be just fine. What he has asserted, however, is that a teaching that was once common among the Reformed has now been "lost" and he has been on a program to show us, by the use of quotes, to demonstrate that we need to recapture an understanding of the universal Fatherhood of God that was understood by the early Reformers.



timmopussycat said:


> And by the way, I observe from his signature that Travis, like yourself, is a Licentiate in a Reformed Church. Is there any reason to presume that a man in that situation has not had a class in basic hermeneutics? Or might you yourself perhaps find it "antagonistic" to be asked if you had attended a class in basic hermeneutics given that your signature implies to those with knowledge of theological education that it is more than likely you have attended such, particularly if, in addition, your interlocutor is seemingly overlooking the fact that both you, Girardeau and the reformed worthies you cite all make it plain that you and they are using different senses of the term Father depending on whether the relationship with the regenerate or the unregenerate is in view?


Perhaps you are not aware but a Licentiate in the PCA can be one in perpetuity. Being a two-office Church, there are RE's who are licentiates who have been in the office of RE for decades.

Would I find it antagonistic to be asked if I had been trained in hermeneutics? It depends. Honestly, if I was trying to argue for a theological point and was showing no appreciation for the use of language or the methods of interpretation then I think an interlocutor would have every reason to question whether I understood the semantic range of words and how they are used contextually and historically. If I was merely doing a word search for "father" or "fatherhood" in Reformed writings and attempted to marshall those quotes to demonstrate a point then I think I would open myself up to criticism.

In your "quick reading" of this thread, you have apparently not noticed the ad hoc nature of the presentation. It is not as if Travis has simply argued for Girardeau's use. In fact, his argument and "quote lofting" has been so erratic that it's not certain exactly what value the quotes he has collected demonstrate. In some cases there are quotes from Calvin where Calvin is simply distinguishing God the Father as the subject of a sentence. That makes no positive argument for any position.

As Lane notes (and I noted earlier), Travis' article on Girardeau even points out that Girardeau was the first to develop an idea of God as a natural Father and I pointed out that, by itself, it's worthy of discussion. But that theological contribution is thrown in with many other quotes that precede Girardeau by centuries by men who are not so using the term. In fact, those same authors (as Matthew demonstrated) make very plain that they thought of the natural relationship as being one of servant and not as son (whether or not they might have used it in a progenitor sense). When pressed on this, Travis seems to refuse to acknowledge that the Reformed historically understood this to be the case even though, in his own paper, he claims that Girardeau is the first to articulate something that he is wont to read back into earlier writers.

Thus, my concern and the concern of several who have admonished Travis. My concern here is not oneupsmanship or to unnecessarily embarrass but, as I stated early on, Travis has repeatedly come tot this board with this methodology. At the first, I thought that he might actually not be trying to push something. He seemed to back off and then he re-engaged with full force with a bizarre and confused method that really establishes nothing coherent. You claim it is merely to demonstrate the use of Father as progenitor and I suggest you are not reading carefully if you think it boils down to this point. I have every right and privilege as both an administrator and his superior to rebuke a man publicly for what he is doing publicly and my conscience is clear before God in this. It is unfortunate that this has to occur but Travis has chosen the medium in which to put himself forward as a teacher and so I will roundly rebuke him and encourage him to seek superiors with whom he is close to counsel him but I am under no obligation to continue to permit the use of this medium toward his ends.


----------



## MW (Jan 29, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> So long as he and they continue to qualify their use of the term, do we really need to get all hot and bothered about their view?



I don't feel hot and bothered. For myself it is of concern to distinguish between things that differ so that we do not fall into the liberal tendency to give that which is holy to the profane. Faithfulness is the first pre-requisite of a steward.

A progenitor is not a "Father" in the proper sense of the term. Once it is accepted that Scripture uses the term "Father" in a restricted sense to convey the idea of a "progenitor," it should be concluded that there is no "Fatherhood" of God over all men. Fatherhood undertakes to fulfil all the responsibilities of nurture as implied in and required by a father-son relationship. That Providence distributes its temporal blessings to the just and unjust is no argument for universal Fatherhood. As the Confession clearly points out, Providence discriminates so as to assure us that God is dealing with the wicked as a Judge but with the righteous as His own children. In sum, the doctrine of universal Fatherhood makes common that which is peculiar and special to believers alone, and effectively gives that which is holy to the profane.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 29, 2015)

MW said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > So long as he and they continue to qualify their use of the term, do we really need to get all hot and bothered about their view?
> ...



I'm not even sure that Scripture ever uses the term "father" to convey the idea that God is the father of all men. It's one of the reasons I agree with Ben that the term shouldn't be used in that sense. And I certainly agree that all Christians need to distinguish things that differ. But the real questions here are: what exactly are the differences and how significant are they? As I look at Travis' posts, I don't see a subtle attempt to establish the universal fatherhood of God over all men in the way liberalism understands the phrase (if nothing else his post 26 clearly excludes such an understanding), rather it seems that the point he is attempting to establish and which many of his citations clearly buttress is, to borrow your phrase "that Scripture uses the term "Father" in a restricted sense to convey the idea of a 'progenitor.'" Now since some of these men also, as you have documented, held that view apparently simultaneously with pointing out that God's active relationship to sinners is not that of Father but rather that of judge, it seems that it might possible for the two views to go hand in hand without enmity.


----------



## MW (Jan 29, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> it seems that it might possible for the two views to go hand in hand without enmity.



It may be best to rehearse a few of the assertions which have been made in this thread in behalf of universal Fatherhood. "The Fatherhood of God Over All Men" is the title of the thread. It has been claimed that this is a "teaching" of Scripture in and of itself. There has been nothing in the way of limiting that "Fatherhood" apart from a reference to a "general" sense. Giving substance to that title is the idea that God's goodness to the wicked flows from this relationship, in contrast to the express declaration of the Westminster Confession. Further substance is given to this title when it is claimed that all men may pray to God as "Father" as a result of this relation. Moreover, numerous theologians have been quoted without any regard to their express qualifications and limitations. Finally, there has been no attempt to synchronise this teaching with the system of doctrine positively taught in the Scriptures and expounded by the Westminster Standards; and when it has been shown to clash with the biblical view of providence, the covenant of works, and adoption, there has been no recognition of the fact or withdrawal of any statement.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 30, 2015)

Wow. I thought this thread was done two weeks ago.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 30, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> I don't see a subtle attempt to establish the universal fatherhood of God over all men in the way liberalism understands the phrase





MW said:


> It may be best to rehearse a few of the assertions which have been made in this thread in behalf of universal Fatherhood. "The Fatherhood of God Over All Men" is the title of the thread. It has been claimed that this is a "teaching" of Scripture in and of itself. There has been nothing in the way of limiting that "Fatherhood" apart from a reference to a "general" sense. Giving substance to that title is the idea that God's goodness to the wicked flows from this relationship, in contrast to the express declaration of the Westminster Confession. Further substance is given to this title when it is claimed that all men may pray to God as "Father" as a result of this relation. Moreover, numerous theologians have been quoted without any regard to their express qualifications and limitations. Finally, there has been no attempt to synchronise this teaching with the system of doctrine positively taught in the Scriptures and expounded by the Westminster Standards; and when it has been shown to clash with the biblical view of providence, the covenant of works, and adoption, there has been no recognition of the fact or withdrawal of any statement.



Tim,

Seriously, you ought to pay closer attention.

I agree with Ben. I thought this thread was done a couple of weeks ago.


----------

