God's Will of Disposition

[timfost]

I do not claim to know the mind of God beyond what Scripture tells me.

The problem is that you ignore the contextual markers of Scripture and impute everything you read in Scripture to the mind of God. Again, if you were Reformed you would recognise that Scripture expressly speaks after the manner of men because God exercises His moral government over men, not because God is a man who changes.

I think it is unfortunate that you understand me to be imputing "everything read in Scripture to the mind of God." I've expressly stated that I do not know the mind of God. All I have is what I've been given in the Scripture. I would respectfully ask if you impute everything you know about human logic to the mind of God? I would submit that you have a presupposition that understands God through the finite and not the infinite. Since the Scriptures reveal the mind of God, a presupposition based in the terminology directly revealed by the Object of Scripture is far more precise than anything based in human logic, regardless how "illogical" it may sound to the creature.

10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Cor. 2)

 

[py3ak]

I doubt anyone means to disagree with Calvin's statement in the Institutes. I can't see a way to read him as being farther from my position than from yours, however.

In all seriousness, I think it's a good rule of thumb to not aim at greater precision than the words of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21).

I'm sure the impetus for this position is pious; but it overlooks the reality of error in the church. Scripture communicates precise concepts not through a technical exactitude of language but as its teachings are compared and correlated. The precise, technical vocabulary that summarizes this Scripture teaching is necessary; without it we are left to the good faith of heretics. Since you enjoy Calvin, consider these words:

Now, although the heretics rail at the word “person,” or certain squeamish men cry out against admitting a term fashioned by the human mind, they cannot shake our conviction that three are spoken of, each of which is entirely God, yet that there is not more than one God. What wickedness, then, it is to disapprove of words that explain nothing else than what is attested and sealed by Scripture!
It would be enough, they say, to confine within the limits of Scripture not only our thoughts but also our words, rather than scatter foreign terms about, which would become seedbeds of dissension and strife. For thus are we wearied with quarreling over words, thus by bickering do we lose the truth, thus by hateful wrangling do we destroy love.
If they call a foreign word one that cannot be shown to stand written syllable by syllable in Scripture, they are indeed imposing upon us an unjust law which condemns all interpretation not patched together out of the fabric of Scripture. But if that is “foreign” which has been curiously devised and is superstitiously defended, which conduces more to contention than to edification, which is made use of either unseasonably or fruitlessly, which by its harshness offends pious ears, which detracts from the simplicity of God’s Word—I wholeheartedly embrace their soberness. For I do not feel that concerning God we should speak with less conscientiousness than we should think, since whatever by ourselves we think concerning him is foolish, and whatever we speak, absurd. Yet some measure ought to be preserved: we ought to seek from Scripture a sure rule for both thinking and speaking, to which both the thoughts of our minds and the words of our mouths should be conformed. But what prevents us from explaining in clearer words those matters in Scripture which perplex and hinder our understanding, yet which conscientiously and faithfully serve the truth of Scripture itself, and are made use of sparingly and modestly and on due occasion? There are quite enough examples of this sort of thing. What is to be said, moreover, when it has been proved that the church is utterly compelled to make use of the words “Trinity” and “Persons”? If anyone, then, finds fault with the novelty of the words, does he not deserve to be judged as bearing the light of truth unworthily, since he is finding fault only with what renders the truth plain and clear?

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 123–124.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

This is in Rutherford's book but it is not Rutherford's view. Dr. Richard was closer to the mark when he noted this idea "is found in such medieval scholastics as Duns Scotus and Durandus." Rutherford was drawing attention to their opinion. His own view followed... Here is the translation:

And I believe scripture never attributes to God a will in this sense: for so God is said to will to the same extent the sins and eternal destruction of all.

Friends,


Rev. Winzer is correct. Bobby Phillips translated part of the larger context and it does show that Rutherford was speaking of the view of Duns Scotus, that Rutherford considers such an error, and Dr. Richard mistakenly attributed it to Rutherford. This means that Dr. Richard's page and a half in his dissertation and book affirming that Rutherford held to an antecedent will in God is wrong. Here is Phillips' translation of Rutherford:

I. What John Chrysostom taught about the will of God concerning these concepts, as well as what John of Damascus taught, is manifest from their writings; and I do not deny that the Arminians insist upon passages of these same men. Yet in truth, Duns Scotus says that God does not will antecedently in Himself and directly, but rather that He wills according to antecedent motive, from which (states Durand) the result follows, though not necessarily; seeing as God antecedently wills everyone to be saved, to the extent that He gave everyone a nature capable of salvation, and did not deny them sufficient means, and God does not consequently will according His motive, but wills in Himself, for believers to be saved. Willem Hessel van Est, Dominic Bannes, and Peter Cumelius wish not to belong to such a will for God. And I believe that nowhere do the scriptures allow God a will in this sense: for thus God would be said to will the sins and destruction of everyone: for He gave to everyone a nature capable of obedience and disobedience, of salvation and destruction, indeed in the same way God would be said to will the obedience and salvation of devils, and the disobedience and destruction of good angels: for the angelic nature is capable of salvation and destruction.​

I have taken the 'Rutherford on the Antecedent Will of God' webpage down from ReformedBooksOnline, and thank Rev. Winzer for his helpful clarification. Please do forgive me for the confusion.

 

[timfost]

Ruben,

Thank you. Your point is well taken and I appreciate it very much. Certainly we want to stay away from error and heresies. Unfortunately, heretics enjoy corrupting good vocabulary. This reminds me of the "catholic [small "c] church" in the Apostles Creed. I've spoken to some who were confused at the word, associating it with Catholicism. However, I am very pleased that "catholic" is used as it is repeated and expounded upon in the Heidelberg because it does not let perversions of Catholicism steal good vocabulary. I would rather spend more time clarifying and qualifying to be able to stick with biblical and historical terminology than be changing in reaction to heresies, since we often move farther from the plain language of Scripture or the Reformed fathers. Often times what is changed in our reaction against heresies shows less resemblance to scripture, which hurts us in the long run.

 

[py3ak]

I'm not at all sure I follow you, Tim. "Catholic" as it appears in the Creed is not a Biblical term. I join you in defending its usage, but having a precise theological vocabulary in no way implies surrendering terms to others. On the whole, I suspect that heretics are somewhat more likely to co-opt the language of Scripture: hence the slogan: 'Every heretic has his text.' In actual history, technical vocabulary has been a blessing, per Calvin himself.

Arius says that Christ is God, but mutters that he was made and had a beginning. He says that Christ is one with the Father, but secretly whispers in the ears of his own partisans that He is united to the Father like other believers, although by a singular privilege.
Say “consubstantial” and you will tear off the mask of this turncoat, and yet you add nothing to Scripture. Sabellius says that Father, Son, and Spirit signify no distinctions in God. Say they are three, and he will scream that you are naming three Gods. Say that in the one essence of God there is a trinity of persons; you will say in one word what Scripture states, and cut short empty talkativeness.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 127–128 (emphasis added).

Saying "in one word what Scripture states" is an excellent description of what technical language does. People who use it are generally trying to be clear and forthright in their statement of what they understand Scripture to teach. The disadvantage of using a term found in Scripture for a concept more precise than that of its Scriptural usage, is that it makes it easier to read the precise meaning into Scripture's more elastic usage. A sense that this was happening seems to be part of what lies behind Murray's article on "Definitive Sanctification" (where, incidentally, by use of a technical adjective Murray disambiguates a word and lists certain Biblical texts as belonging to the post-canonical category under discussion).

 

[MW]

I've expressly stated that I do not know the mind of God.

You have expressly defended the idea that God has passions, and you have supported this on the supposition that Scripture presents God as having passions. In so doing you interpret Scripture in a manner which ignores its governmental and covenantal contexts.

It is not a matter of logical deduction when I state that there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning with God. This is plain Scriptural testimony. He does not change. Passions by definition are diverse, momentary, and mutable. Again, Scripture states that God is of one mind, and that what He desires He does. In supporting the idea of complexity in God you ignore these plain facts of revelation and devise a God of your own imagination.

 

[timfost]

I'm not at all sure I follow you, Tim. "Catholic" as it appears in the Creed is not a Biblical term. I join you in defending its usage, but having a precise theological vocabulary in no way implies surrendering terms to others. On the whole, I suspect that heretics are somewhat more likely to co-opt the language of Scripture: hence the slogan: 'Every heretic has his text.' In actual history, technical vocabulary has been a blessing, per Calvin himself.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I did not intend to only speak about biblical terms, which is why I said:

I would rather spend more time clarifying and qualifying to be able to stick with biblical and historical terminology...

Examples:

1. Common Grace: it has been hijacked by many. However, I would rather qualify the term than throw it away.

2. Sufficiency of the Atonement: I would rather qualify than deny its historical usage.

Yes, technical language has been a blessing, including all the adjectives associated with the five points of Dort.

My only concern is that in relation to God's revealed and decretive will, we do not over-simplify to conform to finite reason on an admittedly complex issue that in many ways transcends the human intellectual capacity to comprehend. I would rather accept it in its complexity by faith than reduce it to what is not expressly biblical much like I accept the Trinity, though it transcends my comprehension.

 

[timfost]

Jonathan Edwards:

It is objected against the absolute decrees respecting the future actions of men, and especially the unbelief of sinners, and their rejection of the gospel, that this does not consist with the sincerity of God's calls and invitations to such sinners; as he has willed, in his eternal secret decree, that they should never accept of those invitations. To which I answer, that there is that in God, respecting the acceptance and compliance of sinners, which God knows will never be, and which he has decreed never to cause to be, in which, though it be not just the same with our desiring and wishing for that which will never come to pass, yet there is nothing wanting but what would imply imperfection in the case. There is all in God that is good, and perfect, and excellent in our desires and wishes for the conversion and salvation of wicked men. As, for instance, there is a love to holiness, absolutely considered, or an agreeableness of holiness to his nature and will; or, in other words, to his natural inclination. The holiness and happiness of the creature, absolutely considered, are things that he loves. These things are infinitely more agreeable to his nature than to ours. There is all in God that belongs to our desire of the holiness and happiness of unconverted men and reprobates, excepting what implies imperfection. All that is consistent with infinite knowledge, wisdom, power, self-sufficience, infinite happiness and immutability. Therefore, there is no reason that his absolute prescience, or his wise determination and ordering what is future, should hinder his expressing this disposition of his nature, in like manner as we are wont to express such a disposition in ourselves, viz. by calls and invitations, and the like.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

Tim,

Instead of quoting Edwards and bolding, I suggest pointing out in your words what it is you are trying to say. After all, your contention is a hermeneutical contention. We all may read the scriptures or even historical theology, and come to different conclusions. That is the usual. I think you may agree.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Actually I see nothing in the Edwards quote that is inconsistent with what Matthew Winzer has said. In my view, God's revealed will (often termed his preceptive will) expresses his dispostion, i.e. what men ought to do and what he is disposed that men should do. I still don't see a "will of disposition" (in God) that is separate from or contrary to his "revealed will"; unless one is trying to say that God wishes for some things to come to pass that, in fact, do not. The latter is something which, to me, does not stand up to the analogy-of-faith hermeneutic.

 

[timfost]

Clarification: I believe that God has a disposition in His will, not a will of disposition.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

unless one is trying to say that God wishes for some things to come to pass that, in fact, do not.

Mr. Foster and Mr. Fentiman,

What do you think of what Mr. Ellis wrote here?

 

[timfost]

There is a disposition in God that desires perfection and obedience because He is Holy. Since He commands all to repent, can we say that there is no desire in God for obedience to that which conforms to His law and Person? If He decrees something in His infinite wisdom contrary to the perfection that He has revealed about Himself, this is beyond my ability to comprehend. But since I'm not infinitely wise, I submit only to what He has revealed and go no further. I believe this is reverence, not confusion or compromise.

 

[timfost]

Tim,

Instead of quoting Edwards and bolding, I suggest pointing out in your words what it is you are trying to say. After all, your contention is a hermeneutical contention. We all may read the scriptures or even historical theology, and come to different conclusions. That is the usual. I think you may agree.

Nicholas, I completely agree! Having seen statements like "if you were Reformed" and "you ignore these plain facts of revelation and devise a God of your own imagination," I think there is something greater at work than simply a different conclusion in a Reformed context based on a different hermeneutic.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I was addressing the Edwards quote in light of the subject of this thread and the OP, which is "God's will of disposition" as distinct from his decretive and preceptive (secret and revealed) will. I still feel that to speak of a third will as Sproul and others have done seems to be not only ill founded but misleading. That aside, I love R.C.

 

[py3ak]

My only concern is that in relation to God's revealed and decretive will, we do not over-simplify to conform to finite reason on an admittedly complex issue that in many ways transcends the human intellectual capacity to comprehend. I would rather accept it in its complexity by faith than reduce it to what is not expressly biblical much like I accept the Trinity, though it transcends my comprehension.

Tim, I think my concern is practically identical to yours. I think we should be very careful not to go beyond what is written. That is exactly why I find unwarranted the conclusion that God wants things he chooses not to have. The arguments I am familiar with for that position cannot be applied consistently to the Biblical text; though if you are aware of anyone arguing for a genuine desire in God to kill Moses, for instance, I would be most interested (Exodus 4:24-26).

 

[MW]

Actually I see nothing in the Edwards quote that is inconsistent with what Matthew Winzer has said.

Studies in the thought of Edwards give different views on the degree to which he was a follower of Lockean psychology, but to the extent Edwards utilised Lockean psychology in speaking of God I must disagree with him. The idea of "disposition" is passive and dependent, and therefore unfitting for speaking of the One who calls Himself I AM THAT I AM, which was and is and is to come.

Man proposes, God disposes; The Almighty is not disposed of! Disposition regarding created objects would make God liable to be acted upon, and therefore subject to change.

Certainly disposition is part of the revealed will, but with historic reformed theology I affirm that the revealed will is not an intrinsic will and therefore should not be regarded as a "will" in the proper sense of "volition" and "self-determination."

Also, even if one allowed disposition in God, such a disposition would include the preservation of His own majesty and honour at the expense of human happiness. The argument that God desires things which never come to pass because He is disposed towards man's happiness is anthropocentric and God-dishonouring.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thread restored. Some posts have been edited or deleted. Folks, if you think a commenter crossed a line, use the report post feature which is the third icon to the right of "blog this post" in the lower left of each post. That is what that is for.

 

[timfost]

I'll try to explain this another way:

Psalm 45:7

You love righteousness and hate wickedness...

1. Does God desire the futurition of that which He hates?
2. Does God desire that which conforms to righteousness?
3. Is God pleased with the 1) sin itself if He decreed it or the 2) punishment of sin?
4. If 1) sin, is He pleased with what He hates?
5. If 2) punishment, is He pleased with the decree itself?
6. If commanding pleases Him though He decrees disobedience to the command, is His desire for righteousness (being Himself wholly righteous) inferior (or compromised) in His desire to display His wrath?

Because God is complex to us as He has multiple absolute attributes in one Essence without compromise or confusion, I prefer not entertaining or trying to wrap my head around these questions. What I know is that God accomplishes exactly what He purposes, though the details are mysterious to me. I cannot fathom harmonizing multiple absolutes, since the finite can only compromise multiple attributes if more than one is employed simultaneously. (E.g. a person cannot be both completely merciful and completely just simultaneously.)

 

[MW]

1. Does God desire the futurition of that which He hates?

No; He punishes it; but some are saying He desires not to punish it, but has a disposition and a desire to save it.

2. Does God desire that which conforms to righteousness?

Yes; and so He rewards it; but some are saying He desires to reward everything, good and evil, because He has a disposition towards man's happiness.

3. Is God pleased with the 1) sin itself if He decreed it or the 2) punishment of sin?

"This their sin God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory." WCF 6.1.

"The rest of mankind God was pleased ... to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice." WCF 3.7.

God has ordained all things for His own glory; as the Highest End of creation He is pleased in the glory of Himself. Anything less would be idolatrous.

4. If 1) sin, is He pleased with what He hates?

He hates sin as that which is contrary to Himself; but is pleased to ordain and overrule it for His own glory, particularly the manifestation of His justice.

Let's think about it -- if God had not been pleased to ordain the existence and punishment of sin, the creature under His moral government would not have adequate means of seeing how sin is contrary to His holiness.

5. If 2) punishment, is He pleased with the decree itself?

He is pleased to display His wisdom, magnify His dominion, demonstrate His holiness, manifest His justice, preserve His goodness, and maintain His truth. The idea that God does not desire His glory is unworthy of God.

6. If commanding pleases Him though He decrees disobedience to the command, is His desire for righteousness (being Himself wholly righteous) inferior (or compromised) in His desire to display His wrath?

This is confused. Wrath eventuates because of disobedience and is revealed as the consequence of disobedience. It does not simply fall under something God has decreed, but is a part of what is denominated the preceptive will.

I cannot fathom harmonizing multiple absolutes,

We don't have to fathom it. We are to glory in the Lord as He has revealed Himself. It is the imposition of human psychology and limitation upon God which confuses everything.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

unless one is trying to say that God wishes for some things to come to pass that, in fact, do not.

Mr. Foster and Mr. Fentiman,

What do you think of what Mr. Ellis wrote here?

Tim,

I am not sure if your post #43 addresses what I asked here above or not. If you could directly address it, even if you say something along the lines of 'I agree' or 'I can not fathom' or 'I disagree' to start out at a bare minimum, then it may give me a starting point to understand where the contention or non-contention is.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

Tim,

Instead of quoting Edwards and bolding, I suggest pointing out in your words what it is you are trying to say. After all, your contention is a hermeneutical contention. We all may read the scriptures or even historical theology, and come to different conclusions. That is the usual. I think you may agree.

Nicholas, I completely agree! Having seen statements like "if you were Reformed" and "you ignore these plain facts of revelation and devise a God of your own imagination," I think there is something greater at work than simply a different conclusion in a Reformed context based on a different hermeneutic.

So you do not think that in our approach of scripture (or historical theology) that we are to account for each others hermeneutic?

If yes, then I am not sure where we agree.

 

[Nicholas Perella]

6. If commanding pleases Him though He decrees disobedience to the command, is His desire for righteousness (being Himself wholly righteous) inferior (or compromised) in His desire to display His wrath?

I am wondering, Tim, if you are trying to resolve: 'man's responsibility' with 'God is pleased to permit our sin'. The contention, thus what you are trying to resolve, is over the act of sin in the world and who is responsible: 'man is responsible' versus 'God is responsible'.

I do not think you are saying 'God is responsible', but you are trying to resolve what you understand, which is 'man is responsible' but 'God is pleased to permit our sin'.

Am I correct in my assessment of what you are trying to resolve? I am not saying where the resolution needs to take place, whether in you, or any other person. I am just wondering if this is where the contention is.

 

[timfost]

"With this distinction in mind we are in a position to interpret properly those portions of Scripture which speak of God desiring compliance with what He has commanded. The desire has respect solely to what ought to be done by man, not to what is to be done." -Winzer

"Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far as he wills repentance. But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though the external word only renders, those who hear its and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us therefore hold the doctrine of the prophet, that God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; that the godly may feel confident that whenever they repent God is ready to pardon them; and that the wicked may feel that their guilt is doubled, when they respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God." -Calvin

With Winzer, the only way we can properly speak of God's desire in relation to God's revealed will is that God desires to obligate us to His command, not that we obey it if He didn't decree it. In contrast, Calvin states that God wills repentance, not just the obligation to repent. Winzer creates a dichotomy between God's desire for righteousness and His decree of sin. Calvin does not since God actually, according to Calvin, wills the repentance though He does not decree it.

Calvin can (and often does) therefore speak of God's revealed desire and will to save all. Winzer cannot. Winzer seeks to reconcile God's revealed will with His decree. Calvin does not.

In summary, all of us believe God perfectly accomplished all of His purposes. Winzer would, I believe, say there is mystery in why God decrees sin for His glory. I would say that there is mystery in how God decrees sin to His glory.

In regards to Edwards, Winzer's position does not fully take into account that God desires mercy because He is merciful. Since mercy has relation to the objects of mercy and this unto His glory, the happiness of the creature is not divorced from the glory of God.

This is the last contribution I plan on making to this conversation.

 

[MW]

With Winzer, the only way we can properly speak of God's desire in relation to God's revealed will is that God desires to obligate us to His command, not that we obey it if He didn't decree it.

This is false. If one is going to engage in polemics he would do well to properly represent the position he is opposing. God desires obedience as a thing pleasing in itself. If He did not desire obedience there would be no basis for defining or describing sin. But the event belongs to the Lord, as the Proverbs so wisely teach us.

When the decretive and preceptive are properly distinguished, and not shut up in a whirlpool of paradox, it is possible to follow Scripture and avoid assigning decretive properties to the preceptive will. Then man's moral responsibility is fully his own, and God's sovereignty to rule and overrule all things for His own glory is properly acknowledged. Within the whirlpool of paradox these things are continually confused, so that man is left irresponsible for his own actions and God is powerless to do anything about it.

In contrast, Calvin states that God wills repentance, not just the obligation to repent. Winzer creates a dichotomy between God's desire for righteousness and His decree of sin. Calvin does not since God actually, according to Calvin, wills the repentance though He does not decree it.

Let us hear the man for himself.

"But men untaught of God, not understanding these things, allege that we hereby attribute to God a twofold or double will. Whereas God is so far from being variable, that no shadow of such variableness appertains to Him, even in the most remote degree. Hence Pighius, ignorant of the Divine nature of these deep things, thus argues: 'What else is this but making God a mocker of men, if God is represented as really not willing that which He professes to will, and as not having pleasure in that in which He in reality has pleasure?' But if these two members of the sentence be read in conjunction, as they ever ought to be -– 'I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;' and, 'But that the wicked turn from his way and live' – read these two propositions in connection with each other, and the calumny is washed off at once. God requires of us this conversion, or 'turning away from our iniquity,' and in whomsoever He finds it He disappoints not such an one of the promised reward of eternal life. Wherefore, God is as much said to have pleasure in, and to will, this eternal life, as to have pleasure in the repentance; and He has pleasure in the latter, because He invites all men to it by His Word. Now all this is in perfect harmony with His secret and eternal counsel, by which He decreed to convert none but His own elect. None but God’s elect, therefore, ever do turn from their wickedness. And yet, the adorable God is not, on these accounts, to be considered variable or capable of change, because, as a Law-giver, He enlightens all men with the external doctrine of conditional life. In this primary manner He calls, or invites, all men unto eternal life. But, in the latter case, He brings unto eternal life those whom He willed according to His eternal purpose, regenerating by His Spirit, as an eternal Father, His own children only."

He clearly distinguished thing and event, and thereby avoided bringing the wills of God into collision and confusion.

In regards to Edwards, Winzer's position does not fully take into account that God desires mercy because He is merciful. Since mercy has relation to the objects of mercy and this unto His glory, the happiness of the creature is not divorced from the glory of God.

Thankfully God is bigger than this and wisely demonstrates His glory in the misery of the impenitent wicked. Psalm 37:28, "For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off."