Jon Moffitt from the Theocast and Kingdoms Unveiled podcasts continues in his attempt to make Heiser’s Divine Council view fit with Reformed theology, this time by quoting Westminster divine and Savoy Declaration co-author, Thomas Goodwin. I think we might be seeing this push among Reformed camps to legitimize Heiser’s view because without it being found in the Reformed tradition, they would have to choose between keeping their Reformed card or go with Heiser. We have examined Heiser’s view at length across these two episodes on The Particular Baptist Podcast here and here, so I will not spend much time discussing the view itself. The purpose of this article is to continue to address the use of Reformed literature to justify Heiser’s Divine Council view as being Reformed and to provide primary source material for further research. Finally, for the second section of this article, I will address whether Goodwin taught angels are part of God’s council as Heiser believed, but I want to do so not as an argument against Jon. It is important to point out that Jon has expressly denied that God takes advice from any creature, in which he would thankfully depart from Heiser.
In this article by Jon, he provides two quotes from a sermon by Goodwin where he interacts with Ephesians 1:21-22 and Daniel 4:13, 17.
Are Angels Real Gods?
Here is the first quote that Jon presents as Goodwin’s alleged support for angels being gods properly speaking:
“You therefore find that the angels, both good and bad, are called gods…Of the devil there is an express place, 2 Cor. iv. 4, where the Apostle calleth him ‘ the god of this world ; ‘ it is all one with that in John xii. 31, where he is called ‘the prince of this world.’ He is by the Apostle in one place called the god of this world, and by Christ in another the prince of this world ; and you have as clear a place that the good angels are called gods too, and that in this respect ; it is in Ps. xcvii 7, ‘ Worship him, all ye gods ;’ now look in Heb. i. 6, where the Apostle quoteth it, and interpreteth it to be meant of the good angels, “Let all the angels of God worship him ; ‘ they are gods, and gods because they are chief princes, as you heard before.” Moffitt, Jon. “Thomas Goodwin: Watchers, Gods, and the Council of Angels!” Jon Moffitt, Jon Moffitt, 8 Feb. 2025, http://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/thomas-goodwin-watchers-gods-and-the-council-of-angels.
Jon does not expound upon Goodwin’s text but simply quotes it. However, notice after the first sentence there is a “…” before “Of the devil.” This means that text was omitted. Here is the section that Jon omits:
“…it is a title you know given to magistrates : ‘ I have said ye are gods.’ And it is only due to the civil magistrate ; it is not due to spiritual rulers, they are nowhere called gods. Why? Because their power is not in a way of com-mand, but their power is in a way of revealing the truth, and so working upon men’s consciences; they are therefore nowhere called gods; no, not the apostles themselves, for they have not dominion over the faith. But ye have good angels and bad angels called gods as well as magistrates here below, and they are therefore called so because they are rulers.” Goodwin, Thomas. “SERMON XXXII.” The Works of Thomas Goodwin, Edinburgh, 1861, p. 489.
Well, isn’t that interesting? An entire section where Goodwin expressly defines what he means by “gods” in this context is magically missing from Jon’s quote. And as providence would have it, Goodwin’s definition has nothing to do with calling angels “gods” properly speaking, as if they were real deities, but does so on the basis of their status as rulers. Goodwin also includes earthly magistrates in this category, further cementing that Goodwin does not have gods properly speaking in mind here. Otherwise, mere men would be deities, which is absurd from Goodwin’s theological standpoint, as any Christian worth his salt would be quick to deny. This leads us to the question: if Jon is willing to say that angels are gods properly speaking, then why not say magistrates are also gods if we take the principles provided here by Goodwin? Heiser’s view does not include mere men as the “council” or as those entities that are considered proper deities (Elohim are those spiritual beings that are in the same genus as God, while God remains “species-unique”. See Heiser’s book ‘The Unseen Realm’ on page 32 of the Kindle edition for further study). Therefore, using Goodwin’s quote to support the Divine Council would not work from Jon’s perspective. Goodwin either meant angels and magistrates were gods proper or they weren’t. Jon cannot distinguish between the deity of angels vs. the earthly role of magistrates, since Goodwin lumps them together.
To further hammer Goodwin’s belief that these angels and magistrates weren’t proper gods, we now turn to the Savoy Declaration which he co-authored with the great John Owen.
“There is but one only living and true God…” From Chapter 2, Article 1
This is almost word for word what is found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith in chapter 2, paragraph 1 (which makes sense since this confession is based in part on the Savoy). The point being, the confession clearly confesses God as the “only living” proper deity. Goodwin, being a co-author and signer of this confession, is saying that God is not great among many proper gods, but that He is the only living God period. They have no existence. Looking at the broader Reformed tradition helps us to see this in greater depth.
Westminster Divine Francis Cheynell who was also a Westminster divine said this:
“The Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost are God by nature, the same God with the Father, and therefore they are not excluded. In like manner, when it is said that Iehovah alone did lead the people in the wildernesse, and conduct them unto Canaan, that exclusive particle is put to exclude strange gods, such as were then idolized, but were indeed no Gods, as is most evident, Deut. 32. 12. So Iehovah alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him: but these strange gods who are here excluded, were no gods, as is cleare by comparing the 16. and 21. verses of the same Chapter.” Francis Cheynell, The divine triunity, page 52
It is interesting to note that he once capitalizes “Gods” when referencing the idols. The Savoy also capitalizes “God” when referencing the true God as the only living one. Cheynell then will use the lower-case version of Gods in the very next sentence, meaning the way the words were rendered was interchangeable, with the context letting the reader see what is being discussed. This rendering of this noun indicates that the confession was referencing not to YHWH as unique among other Elohim, but as the only living and true Elohim period.
How about Particular Baptists, which are in the same Reformed tradition and inform the confession that Jon himself claims to believe in (the 2nd London):
“We are plentifully instructed from the Scripture, That there is but one only living and true God, who is a most pure Spirit, Eternal and Immutable, Incomprehensible, and infinitely perfect in his Being, and all the properties thereof,” Nehemiah Coxe, For the vindication of the truth, page 1
This is Coxe, co-editor, of the 2nd London. This man, defending against heresy from Thomas Collier, states the obvious that there is only one God. Not that there isn’t any god like YHWH but that there is only one living God at all. Notice that the language is pretty much identical to the 2nd London 2.1, and that he uses the same capitalization scheme of Cheynell, the 2nd London, and the Savoy Declaration when referencing God as to essence. This is a statement of genus improperly speaking: that God is the only God. The only Elohim. If Jon wanted to say that this statement is referring to God being merely “species-unique,” then how do we explain the fact the Savoy, 2nd London, and Coxe use the term “living.” If no other Elohim is like YHWH, then they are all dead since YHWH is said to only be living.
“WE do believe, declare and testify, that there is but One Only Living and True God, who is a Spirit Infinite, Eternal, Immense and Unchangeable in his Being,” The articles of the faith of the Church of Christ, or, Congregation meeting at Horsley-down Benjamin Keach, pastor, as asserted this 10th of the 6th month, 1697. From “Of God and the Holy Trinity”
Benjamin Keach was a signer of the 2nd London, and was here declaring the same faith in his church almost 10 years after the confession was adopted by the Baptist Assembly in 1689. This was Keach and his church putting together their own articles of faith in which they declare only one God exists (he also uses the same capitalization of “God” as the 2nd London, Cheynell, Coxe, and the Savoy).
Now we come to the great Turretin, who represents the broader Reformed tradition on this matter, which so happens to comport with Cheynell, Coxe, the 2nd London, and the Savoy. The following quotes are from this source: Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 181.j
“One numerically is used in two senses: either affirmatively only or also exclusively. In the former sense, that is one which is undivided in itself and divisible by any other, but besides which others of the same order and nature can be granted (as every human individual is one numerically). In the latter sense, that is one which is the only one and single (monadikon), besides which there is nothing else like it (as the sun is said to be one because the only one). The question here does not concern the unity of God in the former sense, but in the latter. God is so one affirmatively as to indivision that he is also one as to the exclusion of others.”
Turretin is laying out two different types of oneness. The first has to do with God’s simplicity and the divisibility of any other being that is not God. This means that the principle of “oneness” can be shared with others in different ways. However, in the second sense this cannot be the case. God is one because there is none like him. In the same way there is no other sun because there is only one, there cannot be another God because there is only one. Now, one might say there are other suns in other solar systems so there can be other real gods just not one like YHWH. The problem with that argument is it completely misses the point that Turretin is making: while there can be “oneness” shared in principle with other divisible beings (as to the first sense), there is only a “oneness” that God is. The sun example works because it illustrates that there can be no other, leaving only itself by default.
“III. The question does not concern the personal numerical unity. As will be proved hereafter, there are more persons than one in the Godhead. Rather the question concerns the essential numerical unity: whether God is one numerically as to essence. We defend this against the polytheism (polytheotēta) of the heathen and the error of the Tritheists.”
Turretin continues to defend monotheism and is clear that this singularity in God is not about his persons (since there are three distinct persons who are nothing but God existing) but about His essence. There is only one God essentially. This has nothing to do with the polytheistic Heiserite assertion that there isn’t a god like YHWH, while saying that there are other proper deities, but that there is no other God of real essence. This is seen by the contrast made by Turretin of the singular God versus polytheists and Tritheists, both of which believe in multiple gods as to essence.
“IV. The question is not whether there are many Gods so called (legomenōs) (according to the absurd and false opinion of men which prevails among the heathen). Rather the question is whether there are more than one in reality and as to essence. The question is not whether there are more participatively and improperly (for we confess that in this sense even angels and magistrates are often called “gods” in the Scriptures on account of a certain participation in dominion and authority, Ps. 82:6; Heb. 2; Jn. 10:34). Rather the question is whether there are more properly and originally (which we deny).”
Turretin wants us to come away with the fact that God is the only god properly speaking. He harshly condemns polytheism leaving no room to call these or anything else god as an actual deity. Properly speaking, this only belongs to God. Notice too that Turretin discusses the principle of angels and magistrates being called “gods.” While he confesses along with Goodwin that they can be called such, he is careful to note that they are done so on “account of a certain participation in dominion and authority.” It is almost as if Goodwin and Turretin believed the same thing: namely, that they were not called gods properly, but improperly due to their authoritative roles.
Are Angels Part of The Divine Council?
The second quote from Goodwin that Jon provides is as follows:
“Who were the watchers? It was not the Persons in the Trinity ; they were angels, for it is said, ver. 13, ‘the watchman came down from heaven.’ Though one angel was the executioner more especially, yet he saith it was by the decree of the watchers ; they decreed in heaven, the council of angels did, as being of counsel to the great king, and one watcher came down to execute it. Thus, you see, angels have their hands in the great things of the world, in ruling of kingdoms and the affairs here below.” Moffitt, Jon. “Thomas Goodwin: Watchers, Gods, and the Council of Angels!” Jon Moffitt, Jon Moffitt, 8 Feb. 2025, http://www.jonmoffitt.com/post/thomas-goodwin-watchers-gods-and-the-council-of-angels.
At first glance, one might come to the conclusion that there really is the Divine Council as Heiser taught. There are a few different points to be made in response to this apparent defeater.
First, we will briefly look at Goodwin’s theology proper. A dangerous implication of using Goodwin to support Heiser’s Divine Council view is that God is receiving counsel from this body of angels. This would mean that God actually takes advice from creatures to make various decisions. Does this comport with Goodwin’s understanding of who God is? We return to the Savoy Declaration:
“…without body, parts, or passions, immutable,…” From Chapter 2, Article 1
God is not like a man that He takes on new knowledge or new states of being, which would imply that God becomes something He is not already (which involves the taking on of “parts,” denying God’s simplicity). If He were to take advice from creatures as through counsel, He would be gaining new knowledge either through the advice itself or by using the knowledge gained to come to a conclusion coupled with already possessed knowledge. Either way, God is lacking in the knowledge needed to carry out His will. The Declaration knows no such nonsense. Later on in the Declaration, its says,
“God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in, and of himself; and is alone, in, and unto himself, all- sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures, which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting is own glory in, by, unto, and upon them” From Chapter 2, Article 2
Goodwin and his co-signers are asserting that God is not in need of anything outside of Himself precisely because He is self-sufficient. He doesn’t need or want to take advice from anyone. He doesn’t run ideas past a panel before executing. He acts according to His decree. Goodwin rejected any notion that God was counseled as man is. The Declaration, in the same paragraph, notes:
“In his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain:” From Chapter 2, Article 2
In contrast to this exahstive knowledge that relies not on any creature in any way, the Declaration points out that all creatures owe God worship (including angels) leaving out any false doctrine that would suggest God takes on knowledge from a third-party that He does not already possess:
“To him is due from angels and men, and from every other creature, whatsoever worship, service or obedience, as creatures, they owe unto the creator,” From Chapter 2, Article 2
Goodwin’s theology proper provides crucial background for our next point.
Second, Goodwin’s interpretation of Daniel 4:13, 17 does not allow for this to be a council in the sense posited by Heiser. The commentary on this passage gives us a glimpse into the work of angels. In this case, one angel comes to execute a decree of the “watchers” or angels. However, seeing these angels as some sort of council was a generally accepted interpretation among the orthodox that included an important caveat: the council was not understood according to what men would consider a council that counsels. The Baptist commentator John Gill, in speaking on Daniel 4:17, said this,
“That is, the cutting down the tree, and what is signified by it, was with the advice, consent, and approbation of the watchers, by whom is generally understood angels; not that they were the authors of this decree, but approvers of it; and were ready, not only to subscribe it, but to execute it; it being against a wicked man, and an oppressor of the Lord’s people: they are represented as assessors with God; called into a consultation with him; alluding to the manner of kings and princes, who have their privy council, whom they advise with on occasion; though, properly speaking, nothing of this nature is to be attributed to God, only after the manner of men; see ( 1 Kings 22:19-22 )” Gill, John ‘John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible’
Notice that Gill says “by whom is generally understood angels” which establishes his view as the general orthodox position. Gill acknowledges that there is some sort of council that is “called into a consultation with him.” However, in the end Gill is careful to note that “nothing of this nature is to be attributed to God, only after the manner of men.” In other words, God does not take counsel from a council, properly speaking, but that it is only to be understood on human terms. Nothing in Goodwin’s quote above contradicts Gill and actually fits quite well given his theology proper. It is also worth noting that this second quote that Jon provided cannot be used by anyone to support Heiser’s Divine Council as being that of Goodwin’s because he did not believe that angels were gods properly speaking (as we demonstrated earlier). Heiser’s view depends on these spiritual beings in God’s council being real gods and not merely rulers, meaning Goodwin did not believe in a foundational aspect of Heiser’s theology. Even if we were to determine that he believed in a council that counseled God in a univocal sense with that of man, a key piece would be missing, undermining the entire position.
We even see a similar understanding in Calvin (who came before Goodwin and Gill). In his commentary on Daniel 4:17 he says:
“But a new question still remains, because it seems absurd to attribute power and authority to those angels, lest in this way they seem to be equal to God. We know God to be judge alone, and hence it is his proper office to determine what pleases him; and if this is transferred to angels, it seems as if it lessened his supreme authority, because it is not becoming to make them companions of his Majesty. But we know it to be no new thing in Scripture for God to join angels with himself, not as equals but as attendants, and to attribute to them so much honor as to deign to call them into counsel. Hence angels are often called God’s counselors. As in this place they are said to decree together with God; and not by their own will or pleasure, as they say, but because they subscribe to God’s judgment.” From Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible on Daniel 4:17
Notice that we see Calvin being careful to note that these angels are not on par with God in anyway. They are treated “not as equals but as attendants” who “subscribe to God’s judgment.” This comports with Gill who asserts that in relation to the decree of God, the angels are “approvers of it,” and is therefore consistent with Goodwin’s approach as well. This flatly contradicts the teaching of Heiser who argued that God’s council sometimes acts upon its own will:
“Things we discussed earlier in this book allow us to take the discussion further. God may foreknow an event and predestine that event, but such predestination does not necessarily include decisions that lead up to that event. In other words, God may know and predestine the end—that something is ultimately going to happen—without predestining the means to that end. We saw this precise relationship when we looked at decision making in God’s divine council. The passages in 1 Kings 22:13–23 and Daniel 4 informed us that God can decree something and then leave the means up to the decisions of other free-will agents. The end is sovereignly ordained; the means to that end may or may not be.” Heiser, Michael S.. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (pp. 65-66). (Function). Kindle Edition.
According to Heiser, this means that members of God’s divine council may be left to bring ideas to God on how to carry out the end that He has decreed rather than just agreeing with what has already been decreed from means to end. The Reformed taught no such foolishness.
Conclusion
Not only are there Heiserites in the Reformed tradition trying to argue for much of the Divine Council position on its own merits, they are trying to say this is part of that tradition. This poses a threat to those who, out of ignorance of that tradition, would follow this doctrine thinking it is indeed confessional. All this does is highlight the need for Reformed pastors and laymen to have a good understanding of not only the Scriptures, but the history they claim to hold to. This does not mean we are all to be experts in that history, but we should know enough to see these things for the wickedness that they are and flee from them.
~Daniel Vincent
Note: Thanks to The Particular Baptist team for edits and review of this article.
The Particular Baptist 
Leave a Reply