Sola Gratia: I'm Wholly Dependent

The Puppet Theater

2008-10-27T00:30:00.001-04:00

Today I was doing some reading on the topic of Determinism in an old Philosophy book I was blessed to find when I came across and interesting quote entitled “Puppet Theater.”

“We see the puppets dancing in their miniature stage, moving up and down as the strings pull them around following the prescribed courses of their various little parts. We learn to understand the logic of this theater and we find ourselves in its motions. We locate ourselves in society and thus recognize our own position as we hang from its subtle strings. For a moment we see ourselves as puppets indeed. But then we grasp a decisive difference between the puppet theater and our own drama. Unlike the puppets, we have the possibility of stopping in our movements, looking up and perceiving the machinery by which we have been moved. In this act lies the first step towards freedom.”
Peter L.Berger: Invitation to Sociology

When I started studying the doctrines of Calvinism this was one of the few things I seemed to have a problem with. It was so hard to picture God as having a good and perfect plan for his people that is impossible to avoid. I had been raised on the idea of a free will and that I can do anything to prevent the work of God here on Earth. “The Earth belongs to us, and God doesn’t do anything on it without our permission” seemed to be echoed from the pulpit every Sunday morning. It didn’t take long to realize that I was being raised to believe in an unsovereign God, who in reality wasn’t God at all. Digging into scripture with this mindset revealed many things that were once looked over with apathetic eyes. I began to notice that God was a God who “works all things to his council and will” Eph. 1:11, “does as He pleases” Psalms 115:3; 135:6, and He does “according to His will on Earth and in Heaven…and no one can thwart his hand” Dan. 4:35. With these scriptures it began to be revealed that indeed, God does have a perfect plan for his creatures, and he carries out that plan until completion. No one can talk back to God and no one can stop His hand. We are, indeed, created as perfunctory apparatus’ for God’s own pleasure. I have no problem believe that God pulls the strings, because I also know that “for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” Rom. 8:28. The dividing line between the puppets of the theater and we as humans is the we are able to perceive the one who pulls our strings. And to him be the kingdom, glory, and power, Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Ben

Pulled the Plug - A small update on some current and future events

2008-10-13T19:51:00.002-04:00

Subsequent to the blog post from yesterday I though I would post about a couple things that I am doing and going to do here in the next few days.

First, just a few moments ago I unscrewed the dish from my T.V. in my room and pulled the plug. I found that I really have no reason for it, and in reality, no real reason for a T.V. in all the house. I have a computer that I can watch DVD's on theology, listen and watch sermons, lectures, and teachings, check the news and weather, and all the other things that I may need to do. All the T.V. has been doing is distracting me from what really matters in my life. I usually spend an hour or so a night watching T.V. before I go to bed. This time could be spent reading or studying, a much better usage.

Second, I haven't turned on my computer downstairs to play World of Warcraft in over a week now, and quite honestly I have no real desire to play.

Third, I was talking to a friend of mine the other night and we got on the topic of fasting. We discussed how our church usually portrays the idea. Pick something in your life, computer, T.V. chocolate, etc. and cut that out for a set amount of time and replace it with God. Though this may be a practical form of fasting, in essence it isn't the type we read through the entire bible. We've decided to take some time together and fast an entire day of food. I just e-mailed him last night about Friday being a good time. I don't have school this Friday and fasting the entire day will allow for hours of study, devotion, and prayer. I can't wait!

I hope this provided a good update for those of you in my life that are helping me grow.

In Christ Alone,

Ben

When Pride Comes Crashing

2008-10-12T22:19:00.001-04:00

Beginning early in the afternoon I started feeling the spirit work in me. I knew God wanted to reveal something to me, but it was as if he was waiting until the proper time to reveal it. I continued through the day involving myself in the voluminous laughter of the fun at youth group and never gave myself time to just be alone and listen to God. Finally, as the gregariousness came to a close I prepared to head back home. It was in my car ride home that God finally revealed to me what he had been waiting to say. I will also mention that it was in the most unexpected, and peculiar way that God chose to reveal his words.

As I was listening to one of my favorite songs, by one of my favorite bands, Misery Signals, instead of just repeating the lyrics through my head, the words actually entered my conscious thought. The line “we’re just rehearsing who we think we are” stuck in my head. I found myself repeating it over and over again. Then I asked myself a simple question: Who am I? The answer: Well, I’m Ben Rudd, a descendent of the Rudd and Ebright family, I’m a Senior at Ithaca High School, I’m a thinker, I’m a reader, I’m a Christian, and more in depth, I consider myself a Calvinist. Of course, there is probably much more, but to keep it short I’m sure that I conveyed the general idea. What first struck me as odd was that I was able to name many things off and I finally neared the end of the list as a Christian and Calvinist. Then I really began to think. Are these things actually me, or have I been rehearsing who I think I am?

Of course, I am a descendent of the Rudd and Ebright family and I am a Senior at Ithaca High School, but was a truly a thinker, reader, Calvinist, or even a Christian? It was just within the past 1 – 2 years that I have been building up a collection of history, theology, and philosophy books. This of course made me a reader, and because of the material I was reader there was no doubting that I was a thinker. Also because of the material and words from various spiritual mentors I became to be known as a Calvinist. It is also just in these past 1 – 2 years that I could honestly consider myself as a professing and believing Christian. I was maturing in Christ and becoming the kind of person that I thought I would truly want to be, but for some reason, at this time, driving in my car, God felt the need to stop me where I was and truly reflect on some things.

Now this is where my pride suddenly came crashing. You see, I had been reading books by various reformed authors and listening to numerous people in my life who were also reformed. Based on everything that I was reader, being told, and discovering, I found myself as once foolish. I saw myself as once tricked by crafty Arminians. As the studying progressed and the idea that the people I once followed and looked up to believed something that I now saw a completely unbiblical I began to feel smarter. I saw myself as smarter than my parents, smarter than my pastor, and smarter than hundreds of thousands Christians in the world today. I had inundated myself with doctrine and thought I had discovered some esoteric meaning that scripture held. When in reality, I had only been a professing Christian for just over a year and had been studying works of many authors and leaving the bible in the dust. Yes, I was receiving scripture indirectly from the words of other authors, but I thought of myself as such a better Christian and believer than many people I saw in my life, but I cannot name to you one book of the bible that I have read through, or even came close. I was a terrible Christian and was reverting to Phariseeism. I revered myself and the doctrine I believed far higher than Christ and the gospel itself.

I was spending so much time rehearsing this person that I thought I was, when in reality I was a pompous Pharisee who thought that everyone who didn’t believe what I did new nothing and was diving headfirst in the wrong direction, but now I was suddenly realized that I was the stupid one, and I was definitely diving in the wrong direction.
All through this God was showing me that it isn’t what we say about ourselves that makes us who we are, rather, it is what we actually are doing that defines us. What I though myself as versus what I was actually doing where wholly different. I’ve decided that the time is now. I’ve been to full of pride to actually discover who Christ is. I have no idea who the God is that I worship. I only know what people have told and taught me. I was never digging into scripture itself, rather, what someone was saying about scripture and their belief. It is time to pull the plug. I’m pulling the plug on the T.V., the computer, and anything else that is going to distract me from discovering God’s word. Jesus tells us in Matthew 6:33 to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.” It is no longer that I need to be filling my life with useless junk that I would run to instead of scripture. God should be the first and foremost thing in my life, along with everybody else’s.

Please pray along side me that God would grant me the strength to truly cast these things away. I want my life to be wholly focused on him and his word.

In Christ Alone,
Ben

Gone for a long time....

2008-10-08T16:31:00.001-04:00

So as everyone can tell, it has been a while (ok, a very long while) since my last post. With school well on its way into the year and my perpetual addiction to World of Warcraft and my Xbox 360 posting, along with my extra-curricular studying has been far lower than acceptable. I apologize to those who have been checking regularly for a new post. Please be praying for me to be able to cast aside these addictions and pick up God’s Word for longer than a few minutes.

I expect to have some posts up soon, maybe tonight after I do some studying.

God Bless,
Ben

Exegesis of John 3:16

2008-08-26T21:49:00.001-04:00

Introduction:

If you asked many Christians today to quote for you one passage of scripture they have memorized it wont be uncommon to hear John 3:16 roll from their lips almost immediately. The overly prevalent usage of the scripture is scary when a proper exegesis is done. These words are scribbled on almost every work you see of a “Christian radical.” It was just a few weeks ago that I remember a man that had come through the Drive-Thru at the local Burger King. When paying the girl at the window he had slipped a $1,000,000 bill into the stack of money. She hadn’t realized it of course until putting the money in the register. Upon noticing, she glanced at it and handed it back to the man. He told her to keep it. She then brought it over to me to show what she had received. Of course, it wasn’t a million dollars. Rather, it was a piece of paper containing the “million dollar gift” God has offered you. Following a very short, misleading paragraph typed around the bill in a rectangular outline that is going to send more people to Hell than we can begin to imagine was written the all famous passage of John 3:16. Oh! Christian radicalism at its finest!
While you’re asking people to recite scripture you should also ask them what the terms mean contained in the verse. Again, it will be no surprise when you hear their answers.
To start, it would be proper to quote the passage so we have it to look back to when reading. Because the passage will be the main focus of this paper I will also post the verse in many common translations of the bible for comparison.
John 3:16:

(AMP) For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.

(ESV) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

(KJV+) ForG1063 GodG2316 soG3779 lovedG25 theG3588 world,G2889 thatG5620 he gaveG1325 hisG848 only begottenG3439 Son,G5207 thatG2443 whosoeverG3956 believethG4100 inG1519 himG846 should notG3361 perish,G622 butG235 haveG2192 everlastingG166 life.G2222

(MSG) "This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.

(NIV) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Upon reading the verse out of some of the most popular translations we see a very miniscule to no difference in the general “idea” of the scripture at all.

I. The Words + Their Assumed Meanings = The Problem

a. To obtain proper understanding of the scripture I want to focus on two words, that when properly defined and understood, alter the entire meaning of the passage, thus altering ones entire doctrine on salvation. After all, many Christians profess this as the verse that “gets you into heaven.” Going from the KJV we see two words of importance: ‘world’ and ‘whosoever’. The former is a very common word we see in John’s writings, along with other writers of the bible.
This word, being infused with tradition, is assumingly defined as: everyone, the whole body of man on the earth, or shorter, a universal term. The latter, again being infused with tradition, is assumingly defined as something like: Any person on the planet.

b. Now the problem: These words are so commonly used to a point that we feel no need to find definitions for them. Instead, we make assumptions on what they mean and infuse our traditions to make them wrap around our doctrine.

This principle is the same around the entire bible. One of the first things we learn when studying the bible is to read a passage as a whole. We have to remember that the original bible was never separated into chapters and verses. When studying the bible we ought to look for paragraphs, which are defined as a separation of thought. After reading an entire paragraph we can then begin to break down the general idea focused within the writing. When we read one verse out of an entire idea we are left with an incomplete slice of the entire thing. This makes paths for us to walk in with our own incomplete idea and slide in the slice like a puzzle thus recreating the idea (wow, that’s a lot of idea repetition, sorry.) Another important thing to remember when interpreting scripture is that the entire bible is the Word of God. Therefore one verse can’t contradict another. So when we interpret a verse we must also look at other scripture that relates to that verse. For example, if Jesus says that eating pie is a sin, then he goes and eats pie, we must interpret the verse as meaning “certain types of pie”. We may also then end up reading another passage that says “consumption of apple and cherry pie is sinful” Now we have a confirmation of our assumption and an interpretation. Jesus says eating pie is a sin. He himself ate pie, and since Jesus can’t sin we must know that certain kinds of pie may be consumed. Other scripture says specifically that consuming apple or cherry pie is a sin. Therefore we know that Jesus had to of eaten something like pecan pie. If no other scripture is found, then it can be considered “sound doctrine” to state that only the consumption of apple and cherry pie is a sin, all others are safe to eat.

II. World: What Can It Mean and What It Does Mean

a. First I would like to point out that previously when I say that ‘world’ is “assumingly defined as everyone, the whole body of man on the earth” I am not excluding this definition, I am just pointing out that this is the generally assumed one.

Starting on what the word can mean, I would like to introduce two statements that offer some contrast to its general definition. For example:

i. Because of a lack of technology, in turn creating a lack of knowledge, one making a map could stop at the ocean and assume there is no more land. When the map is then completed there is what we would know as a continent, surrounded by water. This would be called “the world” to the people of that day.
ii. A news reporter may make state while observing a massive hurricane that “the world is in turmoil.” Surely it is not, this is something we know as a hyperbole, or over exaggeration.

Now for a few biblical uses of the term taken from the same author showing us how the term is used and defined differently.

I. 1Jn 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
a. Surely we are not being told to not love “the whole body of man on Earth.” Jesus teaches that we are to “love one another.” We are also taught that “by this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (cf. John 13:34-35) Because of this we must define the word differently. This verses is commonly interpreted as ‘not loving the sinful or fleshly offers of the world’ rather we are to love the spiritual or moral, Godly things – spirit over flesh.

II. Joh 12:18-19 The reason why the crowd went to meet him was that they heard he had done this sign. (19) So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him."
a. Surely it wasn’t the “the whole body of man on Earth” that had went after Jesus. It was a hyperbole of the extreme amount of people that did go after him.

As you can see in the four examples the term ‘world’ can imply a set number or “limited” amount of people.

b. What does world mean in John 3:16? To answer this question we must first explore verses that deal with the same topic of John 3:16. If you recall what I mentioned in I. b. about two important things when interpreting scripture we will be using the latter here.

I. Joh 17:9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
a. Jesus states specifically that it isn’t the world (keeping in mind that this usage of the term is implying “the whole body of man on earth”) he is praying for, rather it is only the ones the father has given him.

II. Joh 10:25-29 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, (26) but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (28) I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (29) My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
a. Paying close attention to the bolded words we can easily understand that Jesus came to die only for the sheep. It is only the sheep that will receive eternal life. It is also the Father who has given Jesus the sheep, like john 17:9 above.

III. Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
a. Jesus will save his people from there sins. Who are his people? Look at the verses above. They are the ones the Father gives him.
IV. Mat 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
a. Jesus’ life is only a ransom for many. Here is a very strong point! This single verse tells us that world in John 3:16 does not mean every single person on Earth. It can’t because this verse would have to read entirely different. If it was to say that Jesus’ life was the ransom for the entire world then everyone would be saved no matter what happens because Jesus had paid the price. But for the matter of fully studying this out, and completely understanding it we must go on. Keep this thought in mind though.
V. Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
a. Again, his blood is only poured out for many

So what does ‘world’ mean in John 3:16. In light of other scripture we must interpret ‘world’ in John 3:16 as meaning “a limited or selected group.” Keep in mind that I have only listed 5 verses, to list the several others would be superfluous. One might then say that this is demeaning of Christ death because it makes it sound as though Christ only died for a small amount of people. To respond I will add Revelation 7:9 “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands,” Today we are still part of that “no one.” Look at the technology we have that is able to count far past numbers we once thought imaginable. Still we are not able to number those who Christ has saved!

III. If World Is Limited Then What Does Whosoever Mean?

a. Since we have discovered that this verse in no way promotes a universal ability and given ‘world’ a studied, biblical definition that task of defining whosoever becomes much easier. Some synonyms of whosoever are words like: anyone or anybody. I think we can agree that these in no way change the meaning, just the word used. Now for an example.

i. If I am sitting in a room full of people (a declared limited group using our definition of world) and I ask a question like: “I will give a cookie to whosoever, anyone, or anybody that asks me.” Am I declaring this to the every person on the planet? Of course not, and it would never be assumed that way.

Using our definition of world we have to define whosoever as being “anyone, anybody, or any person out of the world (or group)”

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion I would simply like to state that through this study I have found it very logical and biblical to say that in the matter of John 3:16 the word ‘world’ in no way implies “everyone, or the whole body of man on Earth” and ‘whosoever’ therefore cannot imply “any person, anybody, or anyone on the planet” but rather “any person, anybody, or anyone of the limited or select group that defines the word world.”

Its Been Awhile

2008-08-23T21:11:00.002-04:00

So, how has everyone been doing?

It has been quite some time since I made a post. I just thought I would take some time and write a couple sentences describing why I've been gone and some future works I will be posting within the next day or two.

It was a couple weeks ago that I decided to purchase an Xbox 360. I imagine right from the start you can imagine what happens next. When comparing this to me recent World of Warcraft addiction I can say only one thing: They're the same. I found myself dedicating countless hours into a myriad of games that would only end in countless hours wasted. About a week into my play time I began to realize the poison I had consumed. I took a short break (about 2 hours) to only find myself sucked right back in. It wasn't until the past 2 or 3 days that I really have been able to set aside and do some studying. I feel new, like I just discovered my passion again. Which is really cool because I have the same excitement, if not more, to study the heck out of everything.

It was just today that I had been doing some heavy reading. I've been on my laptop from about 3pm - 9pm and have only stopped for the bathroom and dinner. After doing some reading I really wanted to do some writing.

I've been working on two things for the past 6 hours. The first is my exegesis of TULIP. I've been preparing a word document the contains the Five Points defined in my words with verses after each statement. It's kind of hard to describe because there is really no "attractive" way to describe a piece of paper with words on it, other than maybe talking about the brightness and "purity" of the papers whiteness. Anyway, I thought of something really cool to do. I copied every verse that I have in my paper from E-Sword and pasted them to individual notepad files. I then hyper linked the corresponding scripture. Now when someone is reading it off from my computer all the have to do is Ctrl-click the verse and it brings up the scripture. I thought that was really cool and really fun to put together.

The second thing I have been working on is an exegesis on John 3:16. I have read a couple articles and have watched a video on the scripture passage and decided that I wanted to put together my own article. I hope to have most, if not all of it done tonight so I can post it.

Glad to be back!

Soli Deo Gloria!

-Ben

My Essay on Salvation

2008-07-09T16:50:00.003-04:00

Well, here is the long awaited for essay on salvation that I wrote for youth group. It is unchanged from the original copy I handed in. The emphasis that I put on certain parts didn't show up, but I think you will know where they would be placed.

Enjoy!

-Ben

In introduction I find it pertinent to state that this essay will be written from my faith in Reformed Doctrine. After studying out this doctrine, in my view, it is becoming very clear that it is the most biblically correct doctrine compared to others. Feel free not to read or do whatever you feel like, I don’t care. This paper will be choppy, mainly because it’s three different topics, but all relating to salvation.

The first thing I would like to present is this idea of a quick and easy salvation. “It will just take a minute; anyone can do it right now.” The times I have heard this line is innumerable, but this idea of synergistic salvation is unbiblical. I would much rather hold to the biblical, monergistic salvation. Where God, in his holy and perfect, triune self, and by his single hand starts, and carries through to the end his plan for those whom are to receive salvation.

I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. (25) I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. (26) And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (27) And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

[Eze 36:24-27 emphasis added]

Do you see a pattern here? When I read this, I find that it’s all about God, and how great HIS name is. Not once in that text do I read of something that a creature of God had done. It is all about how HE may receive ALL glory. Preacher Paul Washer says it better than I can. He puts salvation like this:

“Salvation is all about the work of God demonstrating the glory of God, and that is why men such as ourselves should guard it so severely and preach it so carefully, because its all about God and his name; that his name be great among the nations. Hollowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done. It’s all about God!”

Notice verse 26 (And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.) First, this is amazing that God is even willing to take a heart of stone, a completely depraved human like me and give me a heart of flesh. For contrast, I want to review what a heart of stone is compared to a heart of flesh.

The heart of stone is: Darkened and ignorant (Eph. 4:17-18), Full of unbelief (John 6:63-64), Dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1), Depraved of mind (Rom. 1:28), Continually wicked (Genesis 6:5), and last, A slave to sin (John 8:34).

The heart of flesh is: Knowledgeable of sin (Rom. 3:20), sorrowful of sin (2 Cor. 7:10), Alive with Christ (Eph. 2:6), A slave to righteousness (Rom. 6:6), Renewed (Titus 3:5), Divine workmanship (Eph. 2:20), Born of God (1 John 5:1), and last, Clean (Ezek. 36:25)

Every man’s heart is a first a heart of stone, so where to we get this idea that man would even begin to have remorse for his sin, with true contrition, and then want to repent and believe to receive salvation. It is GOD who first must give a new heart, this new heart being the beginning of his work.

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

[Php 1:6]

It is all entirely God; He begins the work of salvation and finishes it to the end. I play no role other than to be the recipient of God’s wonderful grace. And the best part is that I wouldn’t have it any other way.

The second thing I would like to present is an organized, biblical idea of salvation. The term “Ordo Salutis” is a Latin phrase meaning “The Order of Salvation.” I don’t know if you have heard of this before, I surely hadn’t until the past year that I have so diligently digging into the Reformed aspect of Christianity. The idea isn’t secular from the bible. It comes from Romans 8:29-30

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

[Rom 8:29-30]

The idea is foreign to many people, mainly because it’s not taught in many of the churches today. This verse refers to those who are chosen by God, those who will be saved. It teaches us that our salvation follows an ordered line of events. God first foreknows those who are to be saved. Revelation 13:8 shows us that everyone who will inherit salvation will have there names written within the Lambs Book of Life before the foundation of the world. The topic of foreknowledge is a highly debated one today, just as it was centuries ago. This verse in Romans is often misinterpreted to say that God foresees faith within an individual. The problem with this interpretation is that it’s not what theses verses are saying, along with many others. If faith is the basis that God chooses off form then how shall we interpret the following passage:

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--

[Rom 9:11]

This passage shows is how God’s election works. It is based off from nothing that we can exert; it’s only by HIS purpose that we are saved. When God foresees he doesn’t look for anything we are doing, because we have done nothing good or bad. He isn’t looking for action, only looking for someone that can live by his purpose. I don’t know what God’s purpose is, and I wouldn’t dare try to say what it is. All I know is that those who will receive salvation have exerting nothing, and they can’t, there heart of stone will not allow it.

So back to the Ordo Salutis. First we are foreknown by God; next we are predestined by Him to receive salvation. Then those who He predestines are called by the Spirit. Since we know that all are foreknown will be predestined then this calling must then be irresistible. After their calling the elect are then justified. After justification we are then glorified. This entire process is one thing, you can’t remove a part of it or it all crumbles. The way it reads is that everyone who is first foreknown must then follow completely through to glorification. Not one of these processes can happen without the first or next happening.

The third and last thing I would like to cover is the question – I will say first that this is a topic that I still struggle with slightly, though I see the myriad of verses that would cause questioning of Arminianism. Who is it that Jesus died for? This is easy, if we take the typical Arminian response stating that Jesus came and died for the entire world and everyone in it and who will ever be in it. But I like to answer the question with the following passages:

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. "I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.

[Joh 17:1-9 emphasis added]

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

[Joh 10:11]

I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

[Joh 10:14-17]

Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

[Joh 10:25-29]

It is read that Jesus only lays down his life for the sheep. Jesus declares that people are all ready sheep, and others a not, we can call them goats. The first passage refers to a people who are chosen and given out of the world. If we go back to the second par that I covered we know that the sheep or ones that Jesus dies for are first foreknown by God and elected unto salvation. This gives us some insight when we read that Jesus prays for those who are given to him out of the world.

In closing I would simply like to restate this verse:

And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

[Php 1:6]

It is so comforting to know that God has a purpose and a plan that he will carry out until the end. I was a lost sinner, as we all are from birth. But God so freely sent his son that his sheep may be saved.

A Plethora of Pages: New Books Ordered!

2008-07-08T18:40:00.008-04:00

I just placed an order for some new books today. Thought I would keep everyone posted on some new reading I will be doing.

Systematic Theology, 3 Volumes
By: Charles Hodge

Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
By: Wayne Grudem

What is a True Calvinist
By: Philip Graham Ryken

The Freedom of The Will
By: Jonathan Edwards

The Heart of Theology

2008-07-07T15:15:00.002-04:00

Read an interesting quote today that seemed to communicate the supreme goal of Christianity and theology. The sad part is that I only find this type of comment emanate from the mouths of those in reformed doctrine. I haven't really heard anything like this in my current church, and it's sad.

“The goal of theology is the worship of God. The posture of theology is on one’s knees. The mode of theology is repentance.” (Sinclair B. Ferguson, pastor of St. George’s Tron Church in Glasgow, Scotland and professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia)

Paul Washer - Who is in Control?

2008-06-28T21:53:00.000-04:00

I really liked this message exert form one of Paul Washer's sermons.

Van Til on Presuppositionalism

2008-06-16T22:06:00.000-04:00

PA195

Penpoint Vol. VI:1 (January, 1995) © Covenant Media Foundation, 800/553-3938

Van Til's "Presuppositionalism"
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

1995 celebrates the centennial of the birth of Cornelius Van Til, the most profound writer in apologetics in the twentieth century. His distinctive method was called the "presuppositional" defense of the faith, which is explained in this excerpt from Dr. Bahnsen's upcoming book on Van Til's apologetic, including readings and analysis.

In the words of 1 Peter 3:15, the personal prerequisite for offering a reasoned defense of the Christian faith is this: "set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts." Christ must be the ultimate authority over our philosophy, our reasoning, and our argumentation -- not just at the end, but at the beginning, of the apologetical endeavor.

If we are to "cast down reasonings and every high thing exalted against the knowledge of God," said Paul, then we must "bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5.) An ultimate commitment to Christ covers the entire range of human activity, including every aspect of intellectual endeavor. To reason in a way which does not recognize this is to transgress the first and great commandment: "You shall love the Lord your God with... all your mind" (Matthew 22:37). In light of this, our thoughts about apologetic method should be controlled by the word of Jesus Christ, not merely our apologetic conclusions.

Very simply, if the apologist is to rid himself of profane audacity, his faith in the greatness of divine wisdom must be championed by means of a procedure which itself honors the same wisdom. After all, in Christ "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited" (Colossians 2:3), no exception being made for the knowledge by which the Christian defends the knowledge of Christ. This means the apologist must presuppose the truth of God's word from start to finish in his apologetic witness. A "presupposition" is an elementary assumption in one's reasoning or in the process by which opinions are formed. As used here, a "presupposition" refers not to just any assumption in an argument, but to a personal commitment which is at the most basic level of one's network of beliefs. Presuppositions form a wide-ranging, foundational perspective (or starting point) in terms of which everything else is interpreted and evaluated. As such, presuppositions have the greatest authority in one's thinking, being treated as your least negotiable belief and being granted the highest immunity to revision.

It is only to be expected that, in matters of ultimate commitment, the intended conclusion of one's line of argumentation will also be the presuppositional standard which governs his manner of argumentation for that conclusion -- or else the intended conclusion is not his ultimate commitment after all. Thus unbelievers refuse to submit to the authority of God in their thinking, insisting that they themselves are intellectually autonomous. The situation is pictured well by C. S. Lewis: "The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock.... The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock" (God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1970], p. 244).

It has been the genius of Cornelius Van Til's approach to defending the Christian faith to see how entirely inappropriate this intellectual attitude is. The spirit of saint Paul arouses him: "rather, who are you, O man, to reply against God?" (Romans 9:20), and "Let God be deemed true, though every man is a liar" (Romans 3:4). Created men, especially as sinful rebels, are in no moral or intellectual position to challenge their sovereign Creator and Lord.

A thoughtless approach to Christian epistemology which forgets this runs the danger of transgressing God's clear prohibition, "You shall not put the Lord your God to test" (Deuteronomy 6:16). Notice how Jesus himself, in an apologetical and moral contest with Satan, rested his case on a simple quotation of this stricture from the word of God (Matthew 4:7). Remember the example of Job, who dared to question God and demand answers from Him. "The Lord said to Job: will the one who contends with the Almighty correct Him? Let him who argues with God answer Him!... Would you condemn Me to justify yourself?" (Job 40:1, 8). God is not in the dock; we are. His word and character are not questionable; ours are. And as Van Til is acutely aware, this is not true simply in some narrow "religious" or moral sense; it equally applies to man's intellectual reasoning (which is an expression of a man's religious posture).

Our Christian epistemology (or theory of knowledge) should thus be elaborated and worked out in a way which is consistent with its own fundamental principles (or presuppositions), lest it be incoherent and ineffective. We ought not to espouse one thing theologically, then practice something else in our scholarship. One way to say this is to say that Christian scholars and apologists must be thoroughly "self-conscious" about the character of their own epistemological position, letting its standards regiment and regulate every detail of their system of beliefs and its application. They need always to form opinions and develop reasoning in light of their fundamental Christian commitments. It has been Van Til's aim to bring this ideal of "epistemological self-consciousness" to bear upon the theory and practice of defending the Christian faith.

A Schizophrenic God?

2008-06-13T21:30:00.001-04:00

I was remembering some sayings that my assistant pastor would say, and still mentions from time to time about how God is not schizophrenic, and indeed, he is not. But his basses for saying this is that if God would require things from man in which man cannot do, then God must be double sided. I recently found a pretty strong rebuke:

"Question
Does not God then do injustice to man by requiring of him in His Law that which he cannot perform?

Answer
No, for God so made man that he could perform it, but man, through the instigation of the devil, by willful disobedience deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts. "
Heidelberg Catechism (Q9; 1563)

Response to "A Reformation Revival

2008-06-13T21:02:00.002-04:00

I has received a link to an article posted on another blog entitled: A Reformation Revival, describing one mans journey into reformed faith. About a week or two ago I had gotten into a conversation with this same friend about the need for reverence in our current, and most evangelical churches. It seems as though we would come in and conduct our selves accordingly to the rules and guidelines of a party. Socializing was a major issues and I say it like that because it seemed like conversation never related to anything spiritual, but rather how we have done things or how our week had been. Then as pastor would dismiss we would go to the same conduct.

I was while I was reading this article that I came across a paragraph relating to the same conversation, (funny how this thing only seems to be brought up in the minds of those we can call reformed in their beliefs.)

"In addition to this, there was a lack of reverence and seriousness that was disconcerting to me as a young Christian. Before the services began each week, there was a roar of socializing that had, all too often, nothing to do with spiritual things. As soon as the pastor dismissed the service, this din would break forth again, melting any sense of conviction or gravity that may have been produced by the actual worship service."

It made all to much sense. Just take the next church service to sit and watch how people conduct themselves. It makes me cry because we preach that Jesus is always watching, and we know he is always there next to us, and knows of everything we do. But we don't conduct ourselves like it. We say we are men and women of faith, so shouldn't we worship the same way we would if we were actually at the feet of Jesus. If he was to walk in to our worship service would HE be impresses, and how would be appear before his almighty presence? If we are really worshiping God the way we should then we wouldn't be able to stop our selves from falling to our knees with tears streaming down our face. It would be to much for us to bare. If we were worshiping like we should, our depravity should be more than the gravity of this world.

Worship is all about who HE is and what I am not.

The link to the full article can be found here .

An Essay on Salvation

2008-06-09T19:48:00.003-04:00

It was last night that our Youth Coordinator introduced our new task as the youth group. We were to write an essay on salvation and give at least 3 main verses. Instantly my mind wandered down every road that I could take. I was secretly jumping with joy with his words. I couldn't help but think, that maybe God, in his provident grace had just opened a door for me to extol his greatness and introduce my "newly reformed" mind to those who may not have already known. He had also stated that every 3 weeks we will be doing other essays on different topics.

Bellow is the outline I think I might follow:

Intro - How my essay may differ from the others and why

Body 1 - Mans Fallen State: Depravity/Depravity from what
Body 2 - Election/Reprobation and Jesus
Body 3 - Ordo Salutis (The order of Salvation: Rom. 8:28-30) and the Five Solas

Conclusion

Any tips/Suggestions let me know

I will post the essay when I finish and let you know how it turned out when I handed it in :)

Soli Deo Gloria,

-Ben

Leaving the Tidal Pool

2008-05-28T21:30:00.000-04:00

Leaving the Tidal Pool

Nathaniel Jonet

I've never seen the ocean with my feet on the ground.

I've flown over it, I've driven past it, I've seen it on television, I've read books about it. Yet I know about the ocean. And out of all of the fascinating aspects of marine life and the seas they live in, the most intriguing are the tidal pools.

Tidal pools are hollows in the beach which trap water when the tide goes out, leaving behind a microcosm of the ocean. There are fish and sea anemones, crabs and plankton, sea cucumbers and starfish all stuck in these small pools. Most of the residents of a tidal pool are there through both high and low tides, living their aquatic lives dependent on the small amounts of food and oxygen each receding wave leaves them. They don't leave, they don't grow, they rarely impact the ocean. All a tidal pool does is eke out a life made up of whatever gets left behind.

Up until 22 minutes ago, I thought that Christianity was a tidal pool and not the ocean.

In life, we Christians are separate and set apart. To be sure, we certainly do interact with the world. We evangelize, we critique and seek to add to culture, we stay involved in the world at large. Regardless, there is a certain restriction to our faith, a specific depth that our faith won’t let us pass. We are strained out of parts of life. Or, that’s what I used to think. At the heart of things, I suppose I thought that following God, in spite of all of the positives, still resulted in a loss of sorts. And it is understandable that I thought that way. The ocean is rough.

The ocean is enormous, dark and cold. It lies carpeted with shipwrecks and lost, long-forgotten sailors. It is dangerous, full of sharks and gigantic whales, commercial fishing operations and pollution. The ocean remains the greatest unknown frontier here on earth. To be in the middle of the ocean is, no matter how many other people are with you, to be ultimately alone. The ocean can be a terrifying place.

But there are also corral reefs and tropical fish. There is every shade of blue and water which ranges from as murky as last week’s dreams to the clarity of hope. The ocean can be a warm and peaceful place. In fact, it can be so beautiful that scuba divers are supposed to dive in pairs so they can help one another avoid what is called “the ecstasy of the deep.” That happens when a diver becomes so enraptured by the otherworldly beauty of an undersea paradise that they forget to come back to the surface and drown. There is a transcendent power to the ocean.

There are great depths to our seas, both good and evil. But when we join Christ, it is not as though we are being restricted from certain parts of the ocean. We aren't missing out on any part of life by being a Christian, we are receiving the greatest possible amount of life. It is only through our connection with God that we are able to plunge into those deepest depths without fear and see the ocean as it truly is. It is not a place where we must fear our mistakes. It is bigger than that. God is bigger than that. I am not talking about a license to simply swim as we see fit, but the ability to see the grand patterns and hints towards the design of the entire ocean. Although other might swim faster, more successfully, or simply have more fun, we know where everything is going. We can be uninhibited. That sets us free.

There are certainly good intentions behind the view of Christianity which shrinks it down to a tidal pool. This is not simply a view held by more conservative Christians, those who think it is most wise to look after their own holiness and hold the world at bay until Christ returns. What it comes from is how we look at ourselves and at life in general. When we believe that the greatest identifier of humanity is sin, then it follows that sin is what we stand to inherit. And if we turn down that inheritance and turn towards God, we are giving up what is ours in order to claim what is God’s. But in truth, despite sin, we are God’s children at the core of our selves. When we move back towards God, we are not giving something up, but reclaiming what was created to be ours. It is not that the world is evil and we must strive for small gains in the face of a crushing darkness to be vindicated at some point in the future. The world is good, the world is ours, but it has become polluted. When we follow God, we take the world back.

Life is not about being set aside or stuck swimming in a holding tank until we can be released into the ocean as it should be. It is about swimming the ocean we have.

I'm leaving the tidal pool.

The Church Without Christ

2008-05-22T22:37:00.003-04:00

I had written a small paper tonight. It has no real direction, just what poped into my mind next after the first paragraph was what I wrote. I had been doing some strong thinking on the current state of the "christless church" and compiled some recent thoughts about some things I had been experiencing at my current church.

It wasn’t to long ago that I welcomed in a new passion for the Reformed Faith and Doctrines of Grace. I had been raised in a charismatic church since I was about five, and it wasn’t until I was about 14 that I actually began to live a life of a devout Christian; it was just recently that I developed the fervor for “knowing what I believe and why I believe it.” Being raised in the Charismatic church I had never new anything different. I new what I had been told and only what I was told. There was never a mention from the pulpit of any member of the congregation that I should “go home and study what I had just heard from the recent sermon.” What we believed and why we believed it was that which was said from the pulpit and the other “leaders.” The “worship” was great and the sermons where very applicable to how I should live my life. But it seems there will always come a time when one will notice something that just doesn’t seem “right.”

With a new mind set certain theological topics came in and were instantly questioned. I had become a spectator of my churches worship and sermons. I found it heart ripping to see through new eyes into what I was lead to believe for years. But it isn’t only this church that seemed to have a problem. Through the masses of articles and individual statements made my fellow believers it seems as though this problem was mutual through much of the Armenian Church today.

It was horrifying to sit In the back as worship was sung to us. The congregation jumped with excitement over the words. Hands were raised in the air as an act of praise and every one seemed to have a joyful time with this song. But what I didn’t understand was how this song was considered worship and who these people were praising every so intensely. The words were so “me” centered that I don’t even think we could call it synergism any more. More like Monergism with each individual as there own mono. I couldn’t stand to look around at the people let alone listen to the comments of how much the LOVE this song. I thought worship was to be something we loved doing because it was all about God. Who he is, what he is, and how self sufficient HE is. But this song was so focused on who we are, what we have, and how it seemed that WE were the ones to CHOOSE all this.

The sermons where just as bad. Before, I had barely paid attention, but now I sat with ears open and a mind ready for enlightenment. But what did I get? A list of “here’s what you do.” It seemed as though the messages were lists of how to’s and what to do. My heart cried in agony. Where was this God that this church loved so much? The problem that I found wasn’t just the “Christless Christianity” but also that I seemed to be the only one who saw it, me, a seventeen year old who had one day decided to sit and listen with an open mind. Was the congregation that blind, or that uneducated in there bible. I knew it wasn’t that they were uneducated because many were people that were in there bible for hours a day and they surely knew much more than I had. IT was then that I had to conclude that the “church” was no longer the Church. We had become so centered on the gifts instead of the gift giver. We waited around every Sunday as the pastor had a divine illumination that someone was ill and needed prayer. We waited on the miracle and gave credit to the visible deliverer of that miracle, the man in the suit called pastor. Jesus was the way out of things. Get prayer for this and everything will be better. Believe and ask and you will receive. The words are from the Bible, but so are “you will suffer all for my names sake.”

Sovereignty seemed to be a forbidden word, unless of course we were the object. It was just last Sunday that the assistant pastor stated that the world was mans given to him by God, and God never takes back his word. It was in the Garden that God told man it was his and he had to retain it. The conclusion was that God couldn’t do anything within the world without the approval or allowance of man. But it seems that Psalms brings a destructive end and strong rebuke to this man-centered view. Psalms 24:1 - The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it. We are the Lords and the Earth is his. How can we even say that God needs approval to do anything with what is his?

We think we own something that isn’t even ours. Worship isn’t ours and the world isn’t ours. We are God’s

-Ben

Is being born again up to us?

2008-05-11T20:03:00.000-04:00

November 9, 2007

The following is an edited transcription of the audio.

Is being born again up to us?

It's no more up to us than it was up to my grandson, who was born two days ago, to get out of the womb. In other words, birth is something done to us. It's not something that we do.

It is, however, something that we react to. The first cry of a newborn in Christ is faith. I would never write a book on how to be born again—because that is like writing a book for babies on how to get out of the womb—but I would write a book on how to be saved, because that is about faith in Jesus Christ.

I've never met a believer who, when you ask how they came to Christ, really wants to take credit for it. I've never talked to anybody who wants to say that they we the one who really provided the decisive initiative and the decisive work behind their salvation. Almost every believer, because of the work of God within them, wants to give God the credit for their salvation.

When you have two brothers listening to a sermon together, and one is awakened to see the spiritual beauty of Christ while the other isn't, can this awakening in the one be attributed to any innate wisdom or sensitivity to spiritual things? No! These things are not innate. The Bible says that we are all dead in our trespasses and sins and that it is God who makes us alive together with Christ. God, in his sovereign mercy, is the one who quickens people and causes them to be born again.

The new birth is the prior, miraculous, subconscious work by which people are enabled to see and savor and embrace Jesus Christ. Therefore we must pray accordingly.

I've prayed for my own children, before they were born again, that God would do a decisive, regenerating work in their hearts. I didn't pray that God would keep his distance and leave it up to my son to come to Christ. I prayed, "Break in! Crash in! Take out the heart of stone and give a heart of tenderness!"

We pray for regeneration—we pray for new birth—so that people can believe. They don't believe so that they can be born again. They're born unto a living hope so that they can believe. People don't believe unless God breaks into their lives, raises them from the dead, gives them a new heart, and enables them to see the beauty of Christ.

Do you think we'll ever be able to resolve the tension between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility?

Yes, in heaven. I think it can be resolved to a significant measure here, if you read the very best analyses of it. (Jonathan Edward's book The Freedom of the Will is as good as they get, and I think he comes to a pretty close solution. But practically I find that lay people, by and large, are not going to read such a heavy-duty book).

In the end, however, we have to live with mystery because we are finite. And we must make sure that we draw the line for mystery in the right place. I find that a lot of people agree that there is mystery, but they don't agree on what that mystery is.

The mystery is not between the sovereignty of God that governs all things (including the will of man) and the absolutely self-determining free will of man. That is not the biblical mystery.

The biblical mystery is between God, who is sovereign over all things and governs all things (including the will of man), and our accountability and responsibility to will what we ought to even though we don't have absolute self-determination. That's the mystery. And I'm willing to live with that because the Bible teaches both of those things.

What is the first step in our responsibility?

If we read Jesus in John 3 we see that the new birth is God's work. The wind of God's Spirit blows where he wills. And if was talking to another person who showed some interest in spiritual things, I would say to them, "There is evidence that the wind is blowing here because of your concern, interest, and conviction. Therefore, take this initiative that God has wrought in your life and use it to close with Christ. Come to Christ. Come to the cross, and reach out with the arms of your heart and will, and embrace Christ as Savior and Lord."

Then the person must admit, "I was brought to this point by the Spirit of God. Yet now I must use my will, enabled by God, to embrace him, to receive him" (John 1:12).

So I would plead with people to come to Christ as the fountain of living water and as the bread of heaven (Isaiah 55:1-3). And when people come and embrace Christ with faith they are saved, their sins are forgiven, and they have the hope of eternal life. Then they'll look back some day and say, "I came because he drew me. I came because I was born again. He opened my eyes. He gave me ears to hear. He enabled me to taste and see that the Lord is good."

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

The Decrees of God - Part One

2008-05-10T22:52:00.000-04:00

The Decrees of God

Part One

John G. Reisinger

I. The Importance of Studying the Decrees of God.

I hope no one gets frightened when I use the word decrees. We are not talking about abstract philosophy, nor are we arguing about fine points in theology. We are talking about real, everyday life. We are talking about personal tragedies and human destiny. Our subject affects the lives of truck drivers, housewives, store clerks, sales persons, etc. The decrees of God concern your personal life.

We are raising questions that every person has thought about at one time or another. How would you explain the many terrible tragedies that Rose Kennedy suffered in her lifetime? Where was God when six million Jews were killed and a maniac ravaged and raped a whole continent? Did God know that the terrorists were going to fly two planes into the twin towers of the Trade Center on September 11? If so, why did he not stop them?

Years ago, I taught a Bible class, and God, in his providence, converted a woman in her early forties who attended. She grew in grace and witnessed of her faith in Christ. Within one year after being converted, she died of cancer. After the funeral her mother asked me, with tears in her eyes, "Mr. Reisinger, why did my daughter have to die? She was a wonderful mother and wife. Her husband and children needed her so badly." She was asking the proverbial $64,000 question. It is the question that every philosopher has asked since the dawn of time --"Is there rhyme and reason to the world and the events of life or is it all a cruel joke? Is there purpose to life or is it all without real meaning?" Is God in control or are we ultimately the victims of chance, chaos and confusion? If God is in total control of all things, did he not surely make a mistake this time? If God ordained this awful event how can I ever love and trust him again?

We are not talking about abstractions or fantasies. We are talking about the realities and tragedies that make up the real world. What does a pastor say when a tearful saint asks, "Why did God take my child"? How do we respond when the doctor says it is cancer and it is inoperable? Or when the company I have worked for thirty-five years goes bankrupt and I lose every penny of my pension? We could go on and on with examples in our own lives and the lives of godly Christians close to us. I repeat, when we discus the decrees of God, we are not talking about philosophy nor are we talking about something that is make-believe. We are talking about reality and human destiny.

The primary purpose of this article is not to promote a particular view of theology. It, of course, does that in the same sense that every religious book that was ever written lays out a theological belief. Primarily, though, we are seeking to understand the 'why' of real life situations. Many of us are aware of the personal tragedies that Rose Kennedy suffered. She had a daughter killed in a plane crash and a grandson killed in another plane crash, a son murdered while he was president of our country, another son murdered while seeking to be president, a son involved in a girl's death at Chappaquiddick, a grandson who lost his leg to cancer, another grandson convicted of murder, and the list goes on and on. Compare that to a woman who has seven children, twenty-three grandchildren, all of them healthy and all coming home for Thanksgiving Day dinner. How do you explain the difference?

We should add that the closer one gets to reality, the more tragic and ugly life becomes. That fact is true because all of life is upside down as a result of sin. Neither life nor man himself today is even close to what they were when God originally created them. Sin has distorted everything. Man is never more in the presence of reality than when he stands by the casket of a dead loved one. Man does all he can to not think about death, but it is the one inevitable reality that all men must face. Death is an appointment decreed by God that no man will ever avoid and for which he will not be even one second late. I do not the like the fact that life is tragic, but because of man's sin such is the reality.

II. The Basic Choices and Responses to Reality.

One response to this unpalatable fact is to not think about anything ugly like death. You maintain a 'positive attitude' and simply refuse to face reality. You put on a pair of rose-colored glasses that enables you to see only what you want to see. You turn real life into a world of make-believe that you yourself create. This method cannot possibly succeed in the long run, but still many people continue to try it. When anyone runs from reality, they need some diversion; booze, dope, unbridled sex, constant work, parties, or something else just to keep from jumping off the bridge. They might even adopt the "I love me and I feel good about myself" philosophy that is being peddled even by evangelical (?) religious hucksters. Call it what you want to, but the result is the same as sticking your head in the sand.

Another response to the ugliness of reality is to believe the world is controlled by blind fate. Life really has no rational explanation. "That's the way the cookie crumbles" is the response to "bad luck." You simply "grin and bear it" and hope, with no real basis, that things will get better. This is a hard stone to chew if it is your biopsy report that shows inoperable cancer.

A common response by many evangelical Christians is to blame all the bad things on the devil. We call this the 'Flip Wilson' response, "The devil made me do it." As we shall see in a moment, crediting God with all of the good things and blaming the devil for all the bad things is a heresy known as dualism.

Still other people believe that those people who suffer badly are all wicked sinners and God is punishing them for their sin. Scripture clearly contradicts this view and forbids us to think like that. Our Lord addressed this very attitude in Luke 13:4-5.

Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them— do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. (NIV)

The only viable answer left in the attempt to explain real life, including its tragedies, is to acknowledge God and his sovereign decrees.

III. The Bible Teaches that God Ordains All Things that Come to Pass.

That statement may disconcert you, but it is true. The major confessions of faith all agree with it:

1. God hath (Isa. 46:10; Eph. 1:11; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18) decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things whatsoever come to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin (James 1:13; 1 John 1:5) nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather (Acts 4:27,28; John 19:11) established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness (Num. 23:19; Eph. 1:3,4,5) in accomplishing his decree. (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, Chapter 3, Section 1)

The wording is almost identical in The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 3, section 1, and in The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, chapter 3, section 1.

I admit that this view creates problems, but so does every other view. Often times we are confronted with a situation that has more than one option, none of which are satisfactory in our minds. As I mentioned earlier, I do not like the fact that I cannot paint life like a bowl of cherries, but reality demands that we face the hard facts, regardless of how much we may dislike them. Trying to understand and explain the ugliness of reality and reconcile it to our view of the love and grace of God poses difficulties for which we do not have complete and satisfactory answers.

Lastly, I often hear people say, when confronted with the sovereignty of God, "That is not my idea of God at all." Sadly, that statement is only too true of that person. It means that his ideas about God are just that, they are his ideas. This person did not get his ideas out of the Bible, but out of his own imagination and emotions.

After all the smoke clears, I think it is better to accept the statement of the Confession as that which accurately represents the teaching of Scripture on this subject, rather than to chase alternative theories. Even with all its difficulties, it is reasonable to throw yourself right into the teeth of God's absolute sovereignty and rest in confidence in his holiness and sovereignty, even when you cannot understand. The 'holy, holy, holy, sovereign Lord' is our heavenly Father.

Henry Ironside was a great preacher among the Plymouth Brethren. He was known for his ability to illustrate biblical truth. One of his favorite stories concerned a rug made out of a bearskin that included the bear's head and teeth. Dr. Ironside would cover himself in the bear rug, look out through the teeth, and chase his grandson saying, "I'm a big bad bear and I'm going to eat you." The child would run and scream. On one occasion, Dr. Ironside chased the boy into the corner of the bedroom where the boy had no way of escape. Ironside said, "Now I've got you. I am a big bad bear and I am going to eat you." The boy was screaming as loud as he could, as his grandpa got closer and closer. At the last moment the boy threw his arms around the bear's head and said, "You are not a big bad bear, you are my grandpa and you are not going to hurt me." That's the way to meet the subject of God's sovereign decrees in the time of tragedy. When the devil taunts you by questioning God's wisdom and love, throw yourself right into the teeth of God's absolute sovereignty and say, "This sovereign God is also my heavenly Father, and he has committed himself to bring good out of this awful situation." That is the safest and only biblical answer.

IV. The Place to Start.

One of the first verses I memorized after becoming a Christian was Deuteronomy 29:29. I have reminded myself of its truth many times.

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (KJV)

The decrees of God are the 'secret things' and they belong to God. The decrees of God, as the Confession states, include all things that will ever happen. There is no way that we can know what God has decreed unless he chooses to reveal it to us. God does not consult us about what he can or will decree to do or not to do. The decrees do indeed 'belong to God' and are therefore none of my business. It gives me great comfort to know that God has decreed all things. It is reassuring to know that not one single thing happens by chance or luck. However, those secret things are locked up in the secret counsel of God.

The 'revealed things' to which the text refers are God's Word, the Bible. The revealed things include the law and the gospel. The text says they are given to us and to our children so that we might know and do God's will. The decrees of God do not spell out our duty as children of God. The revealed will of God in Scripture does that. We are not responsible in any way to figure out the secret decrees of God. They are not given to us to rule our lives. We are responsible to understand and obey all that he has revealed in his Word, but not what he has secretly decreed. Arminians have a tendency to be unwilling to go as far as Scripture does on some subjects and Calvinists have a tendency to refuse to stop where God has stopped. The latter group tries to use human logic to unlock things that God has been pleased to simply not reveal.

The charts below give a few of the basic philosophic approaches to understanding reality. Christians should be aware of how these, and other, philosophies impact the society in which we must live.

Basic Approaches
Chart 1
THEISM	ATHEISM
A belief in a god (Monotheism) or gods (Polytheism)—A religious system with belief that there is 'outside' control.	No God, no 'supernatural'—A 'natural' explanation; science, evolution, humanism, fate (luck) or man, etc.

Chart 2
Deism	Pantheism	Dualism	Biblical Theism
God is impersonal—he is not active in human affairs—the 'big clock' idea.	God IS creation—he is part of everything and everything is part of him.	Two 'eternal', sovereign forces—good and evil, God and the devil in a cosmic war.	God of the Bible! Genesis 1:1 Romans 11:36 Creator, Sustainer—history is HIS-story.
Thomas Jefferson	Environmentalist	Charismatic	Reformed Theology

I am aware that the charts are a gross over-simplification. A philosophy major will be tempted to quit reading at this point. My defense is that I am not writing a book on philosophy. I am merely showing a few modern examples of how various philosophies impact our life and society. Deism, pantheism, and dualism are certainly three of the major philosophies that have shaped, and continue to shape, our culture.

Deism, which began to be expressed among a small group of English writers in the first half of the seventeenth century, purports to believe in God, but not the God who has revealed himself in the Bible. In general, deism refers to the concept that knowledge of God can be acquired solely through the use of reason, and denies the divine authority of the Bible. Its adherents use what Francis Schaefer calls "God words." The purpose in using a word like 'God' is not to convey a concrete piece of descriptive information, but to evoke a 'religious' feeling. The God of deism is an impersonal God. True, he created the world, but then turned it over to natural law. The universe is a like a big clock. God created it, wound it up, subjected it to natural laws, and then he went fishing. The universe is a 'closed system' and life is controlled by man's free will. Moral principles do not originate in revelation, but are inherent in the very structure of man's reason. Deism denies that there are real answers to specific prayers, the concept of the new birth, the idea that God could become flesh, etc. American deists include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and William Penn.

Pantheism was coined as a term in the early eighteenth century. It refers to philosophical systems that tend to identify God with the world. Pantheistic thought deifies nature so that nature becomes God. It identifies God with his creation in such a way that everything without exception is part of God. God is not in any way separate from his creation. He is not a personal, unique, individual being who is the sovereign Creator. He is nature and nature is God. The deer and the tree, as well as you and I, are a part of God. If you shoot a deer then you have destroyed part of God. The extreme environmentalists of our generation are rabid pantheists. When they speak of "saving God's creation," they do not refer to the God of the Bible. He is not the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ. These people and their cohorts write songs about nature being "My Fair Sister." Nature is neither my sister nor my mother and time is not my father. Speaking about Mother Nature and Father Time conveys very bad theology. We gladly admit that everything in nature was created by God and created for his glory. We also acknowledge that God is active in his creation today. However, we insist that God is distinct from and over and beyond his creation. God and his creation are not the same. In no sense whatever is creation necessary to God. It adds nothing at all to him as the all-sufficient God.

Dualism, as I mentioned earlier, explains given situations in terms of two opposing factors or principles. Ethical or ethicoreligious dualism has its most clear-cut expression in the ancient Iranian religion of Zoroaster, but found a supporter in the third century in Mani, who fused Persian, Christian, and Buddhist elements into a major new faith. It is dualism as presented in the form of Mani's views that was fought vigorously by both the Roman emperors and by the Christian church, most notably by Augustine, who himself had at one time been a lower-class member of the Manichaean community. The current evangelical form of dualism views the world as being in a cosmic battle between good and evil, black and white, God and devil. The devil has stolen God's creation and Jesus, with the help of Christians, is trying to get it back. We are not sure who is going to win the war but we hope it is our side. We must give God all the help that we possibly can. In this system of thought, God is credited with all the good things that happen and the devil is responsible for all the bad things. As we pointed out in our booklet The Sovereignty of God in Providence, when the bad things become more numerous than the good things, we are tempted to wonder if we are fighting on the wrong side. The movie "Star Wars" depicted the philosophies of dualism, pantheism, and deism in the concept of a universal, but impersonal "Force," with its light side and dark side, each available and equally powerful to any who are gifted to use it.

The moment we acknowledge any form of theism—a belief in God or gods—and reject Atheism—no god—then we must answer the next, logical question. If there is 'government' or 'control' and not just luck or chance, where and what is the source of that outside control? There are only three basic answers if we think in the 'ultimate sense'.

1) Man himself: Man is the 'master of his fate'. His free will controls not only his own personal destiny but also the future itself.
2) The Devil: He has stolen God's creation (including man) and God is earnestly seeking to get it back.
3) God Almighty: He is in total control and is working out his own decrees in his own time (Romans 11:36).

As biblical theists, we can safely choose the third answer, and say, "What God sovereignly decrees in eternity, man will always, in time, freely choose with his own free will" (Matt. 27:15-26 cf. Acts 2:23 ). We have worked out the implications of this biblical principle in our booklet The Sovereignty of God in Providence1.

When biblical theism refers to God, it means the 'God of the Bible'. This God has revealed himself through special revelation, and can only be known personally through that revelation. The biblical revelation of God's character does not begin with John 3:16, but with the entire being of the God of John 3:16. That verse can only benefit you spiritually to the degree that you understand who this God is, what he is promising, and whether he is able to do what he promised. The God of the Bible is personal; he is Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge. Above all, he is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God's perspective on history is presented in Romans 11:36:

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen. (NIV)

The first sentence of this verse uses three different prepositions. The purpose of a preposition is to express the relationship or function between two different things that occur in a sentence. The prepositions in Romans 11:36 instruct us of the relationship between everything that happens and God's sovereign purposes. The word from is the English translation of the Greek word ek. It is the word exit and means 'out of'. The Book of Exodus uses this word in the account of Israel 'coming out of' Egypt. Paul is saying that all things, without exception, grow 'out of' the decrees of God. The second preposition is the Greek word anti and means 'by means of,' or through. Paul intends for us to know that just as all things have their source in God, so all things are brought to pass through, or by means of, God's sovereign providence. The third preposition is the Greek word eis and means 'into'. Paul uses these words to communicate the truth that all things are planned by God, brought about in time by God, and ultimately bring God honor and glory. All things grow out of God's purpose, they all are brought to pass by his power, and they all move into God.

A person could believe that all of the above is true and hate the fact he cannot do anything to change it. He may admit, through gritted teeth, that that God is truly sovereign and does whatever he pleases. That is not the response produced in the apostle as he considers this truth. For Paul, these facts are the cause of worship. When he says "To him be glory forever," Paul is lost in wonder and praise to the God who has revealed himself in the Bible.

V. God's Relationship to His Creation—TRANSCENDENCE and IMMANENCE.

We must understand and hold tightly to both of these truths. To believe either one of these truths without also believing the other one is to wander into heresy and ultimately deny the God of the Bible. Let's define these great words:

Transcend: to rise above or beyond the limits or power of; to overpass; exceed...Theological: Of God, being prior to and exalted above the universe, and having being apart from it (Webster's dictionary).
Immanent: Remaining or operating within the subject considered; indwelling; inherent; as, the belief that God is immanent in nature..." (Webster).

When we speak of the transcendence of God, we mean that he is "over, above, and beyond" everyone and everything. The universe is not at all essential to God's being. If God had never created the world, he would still have been just as much God as he is now. Creation is not essential to God, but God is essential for creation. The main point of this idea is to insist that God is totally distinct from his creation. He is over and beyond everything he ever created or will create. As Webster correctly says, "God has being apart from the universe he created."

When we speak of God being immanent, we mean that God has chosen to come into his creation. It is true that God is "immanent in nature," but the vital immanence of which the Scripture speaks is his choice to become man and partake of the very nature of his creation. God actually became a real, living part of the world that he created.

The Three Great "Omni's"

Theologians use three words to describe God's active day-to-day relationship to his universe. You and I as individuals are included in 'his universe'. The three words are omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. They mean God is everywhere present, all-powerful, and all-knowing.

Part of the glory of the gospel is the truth that the transcendent God of creation has become personally immanent in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, God's Son and our Lord. Two key New Testament texts set forth this amazing truth:

"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us." (Matt. 1:23 NIV)
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 NIV)

The incarnation fulfills the hope of the Old Testament believer. They understood both concepts of God's relationship to his creation, but never in the personal way that we do as we grasp the gospel and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament Scriptures reveal the relationship of the 'indwelling' of God by his Holy Spirit that certainly transcends anything experienced under the Old Covenant. This was made possible by the ascension of Christ to the throne of David, when he then sent the Holy Spirit as his vicar on the day of Pentecost.

Christ is the 'head of the church', and as such, is over and beyond us (Col. 1:18). However, he is also 'one with us' as our 'older brother' (Heb. 4:14-16); even though he is king of kings. We are 'in him' (2 Cor. 12:2) and he is 'in us' (Col. 2:9, 10; and Rev. 1:10-20).

VI. Definition of Decrees.

The Confessions define decrees this way: "God from all eternity did, by His most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeable ordain whatsoever comes to pass..." (Westminster & Philadelphia Confessions, Chapter 3, Section 1). I'm sure I don't need to remind you that creeds and confessions are not inspired. Granted they are often treated that way, but that is a misuse of creeds. A creed does not prove a doctrine is true; it merely means that a certain group is accepting certain tenets as true. A 'confessional church' may use their creed with equal authority to Scripture, and in a confessional church you must believe what the creed states. A non-confessional church may have a creed or confession, but they do not bind your conscience to the confession in the same that a confessional church does. In such a church (non-confessional), the confession proves what the church has believed and confessed down through history.

A.H. Strong, a Baptist theologian, said, "By Decrees of God we mean:

A. That eternal plan
B. by which God has rendered certain
C. all events of the universe,
D. past, present, and future."

I personally give these home-made definitions:

A. DECREES: The plans or purposes of God. Those things that God had decided to do, allow to happen, accomplish: Some examples are: creation, Adam's fall, redemption by blood, the Flood, the Cross, etc… Decrees include everything that actually happens or comes to pass.
B. SOVEREIGNTY: This includes both God's right and also his almighty power to bring to pass everything that he has decreed. God can, and will, accomplish everything he purposes.
C. PROVIDENCE: This is God actually bringing to pass (in time) (history), by his sovereign power, all that he has decreed.

A Quiz for Arminians

2008-05-03T22:05:00.001-04:00

A Quiz For Your Arminian Friends,
by Jay Banks

Eph. 1:11 ...[W]ho [God] worketh all things after the counsel of His will.

Q. If God works all things after the counsel of His will, how much
does He work to the will of you, me, Satan, etc.?

A. None.

B. 20%

C. 50%

D. 85%

Is. 14:24 Jehovah of hosts hath sworn, saying , Surely, as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand.

Q. How much of what He wants to come to pass, doesn’t?

A. All of His thoughts will come to pass

B. Some of His thoughts will not come to pass

C. A few of His thoughts will not come to pass

D. A lot of His thoughts will not come to pass

Rom. 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many bretheren: and whom He foreordained, them He also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.

Q. How many do you think have been called, justified, or glorified that He did not first foreknow or foreordain?

A. Write in your answer: ___________________

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd; and I know my own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Q. Where does this scripture say that Jesus laid down his life for the sheep and the goats

A. It doesn’t

B. It doesn’t, but I just know He meant the goats, too

John 6:65 No man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

Q. How many come to Jesus that were not first given to him by the Father?

A. 0

B. 5,000

C. 5,000,000

D. 10,000,000

John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me

Q. How many that the Father gave Him will not come to Him?

A. Two

B. A couple of thousand

C. A couple of million

D. Trick question, it says they will all come unto him

John 10:28 I [Jesus] give unto them the (true followers, or ‘sheep’) eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Q. How many sheep do you think have been snatched from either God’s or Jesus’ hands?

A. None

B. 50,000

C. 500,000

D. 1,000,000

Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Q. Considering this, and other related scripture, God having to blot out a name from the book of life would mean:

A. God makes mistakes.

B. Some have been snatched from Jesus’ hands?

C. God didn’t know that some of His sheep were really goats.

D. None of the above.

Q. Could a person whose name was written in the book of life from the foundation of the world not have become a Christian (or have saving faith in God if born before Jesus)?

A. No

B. Yes

C. This confuses me, but I’m going to believe the Bible.

D. This confuses me, and I’m going to pretend this isn’t in the Bible (be honest).

Matt. 13 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Q. Jesus himself declared that one of the reasons why He spoke in parables was that the truth might be concealed from whom it was not intended. Is this fair?

A. No.

B. Yes.

C. Who are we to question God?

D. I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that verse.

Rom. 8:28 To them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to His purpose.

Q. How many things do not work for the good of those who love God?

A. 10% of all things

B. 40% of all things

C. 85% of all things

D. Trick question, the Bible says all things work for the good of those who love Him

Mark 14:30 And Jesus said unto him (Peter), Verily I say unto thee, that thou, today, even this night before the cock crow twice shall deny me thrice.

Questions:

A. Could Peter not have denied Jesus three times before the cock crowed twice?

Answer here: ____________________________

B. Did Jesus make Peter deny him, or did Peter do it of his own free will?

Answer here: ____________________________

Exodus 4:11 [God Himself asks the rhetorical question] Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or dumb? Who gives him his sight or makes him blind? Is it not I the Lord?

Q. Is this fair?

A. Yes.

B. No.

C. Who are we to question God?

D. I’m going to pretend this isn’t in the Bible.

BACK

Copyright 1998,

Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved.

Was Jesus a Calvinist?

2008-04-18T20:30:00.002-04:00

Greatly enjoyed this article, the name made me laugh for some reason...

Enjoy!

-Ben

John 6:37-40,44,65 (see also 17:1-2,6,9,24)

"All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. . . . No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. . . For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.'

On several occasions in John's Gospel divine election is described in terms of God the Father giving certain persons to God the Son (6:37, 39; 10:29; 17:1-2,6,9,24). In each of these cases the giving of men to Christ precedes and is the cause of their receiving eternal life. Those who are given to the Son include not only the present company of disciples who believe in Jesus but also the elect of future ages who will come to faith through the gospel. Jesus looks upon them as already his (John 17:20-21; see also John 10:16; Acts 18:10), even though they have not yet believed in his name. They are his because they were given to him by the Father in eternity past.

What is of special importance to us is what Jesus says about how those whom the Father has given to him come to him and whether or not those who come can ever lose their salvation. It will prove helpful to look at this in terms of three impossibilities.

The first impossibility. Jesus says that it is morally and spiritually impossible for a person to come to Christ apart from the "drawing" of that person by God the Father (6:44,65). May I strongly emphasize the words morally and spiritually. The reason people do not come to Christ is not because they lack a will, or a mind, or feelings, or even lack opportunity and occasion. Their not coming to Christ is due to their moral and spiritual refusal to do so, a refusal in which they willingly and freely delight. If they cannot come it is not because God will not let them. It is because it is their nature not to want to come.

The second impossibility. Jesus also says that it is impossible for someone whom the Father "draws" not to come to him. He says in verse 37, "All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me"' In other words, just as it is impossible for a person to come to Christ apart from the Father drawing him/her, so also is it impossible for a person not to come to Christ if the Father does draw him/her. Two crucial elements are involved here. On the one hand, if a man is to be saved he must come to Christ. An active, willing embrace of Jesus Christ in faith is essential. On the other hand, this active, willing embrace of Jesus Christ is guaranteed by virtue of the Father having given certain people to Jesus Christ. John Murray explains it this way:

"Jesus does not say: all that the Father giveth me are brought to me. He uses the term that denotes motion on the part of the person - 'will come to me.' Coming to Christ is the movement of commitment to Christ, coming that engages the whole-souled activity of the person coming. It is not that he may come, not that he has the opportunity to come, not that he will in all probability come, and not simply that he is empowered to come, but that he will come. There is absolute certainty; There is a divine necessity; the order of heaven insures the sequence.'

John Murray, 'Irresistible Grace', in Soli Deo Gloria: Essays in Reformed Theology, Festschrift for John H. Gerstner, ed. R. C. Sproul (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), p. 59. The Greek word translated 'draw' (John 6:44) is found elsewhere in the NT only in John 12:32; 18:10; 21:6,11; Acts 16:19. Some believe that the use of the term in 12:32 indicates that the 'drawing' is not necessarily efficacious in all. But, as D. A. Carson (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension [Atlanta: John Knox, 1981]) has noted, 'the all' whom Jesus will draw, and the drawing itself, cannot both be taken absolutely, because in the succeeding verses it becomes clear that not all are saved (12:35-41). In the context of the arrival of the Greeks (12:20-22), to whose request for an audience Jesus has not so far responded, the 'all' appears to mean 'all' as opposed to Jews only: Jesus does not talk to the Greeks because that which will draw all men is the climactic event of his own death/exaltation' (p. 174).

Therefore, it is impossible that an elect person, a "given-by-the-Father-to-the-Son" person, might fail to come to faith in Christ. Or to put it positively, all the elect shall come to faith in Christ. God's drawing of them is efficacious. The Father will never fail in drawing to salvation those whom he has given to the Son.

Before we move to the third impossibility, observe one more crucial fact. Since this drawing of people by the Father to the Son is always efficacious, it cannot refer to the so-called enabling grace of Arminianism. Do you recall what the Arminian believes? He believes that God restores in all men a power or an ability sufficient to enable them to come to Christ. Clearly this "universal enablement" cannot be the drawing that Jesus describes, Why not? Because millions and millions of men and women do not, in fact, come to Christ! And yet Jesus says that all who are given by the Father are drawn by the Father and shall come to Christ. There is no escaping the clear and unequivocal language of our Lord Jesus Christ: no one can come unless drawn by the Father; but if one is drawn by the Father he shall come.

Some may want to argue that there is significance in what Jesus does not say: He does not say that others have not been given to him by the Father. However, if in fact all are given, then all shall be saved, for Jesus does say that all whom the Father gives him shall come to him. In other words, if election/giving is universal, so is salvation.

The third impossibility. To the previous two impossibilities Jesus adds a third. He has already said it is impossible to come to him unless the Father draws. He has also said it is impossible not to come if the Father does draw. Now he says that when a man does come through the drawing of the Father it is impossible for him to be cast out. Look again at verse 37: "and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out." The point is that those whom the Father gives to the Son, who therefore come to the Son, will be received by the Son and shall never perish.

The verb translated "cast out" in verse 37 is used several times in John (2:15; 6:37; 9:34f.; 10:4; 12:31) and always means to cast out someone or something already in. Thus the emphasis here is not so much on receiving the one who comes (although that is true enough in itself) but on preserving him. In other words, "6:37 argues not only that the ones given to Jesus will inevitably come to him, but that Jesus will keep them individually . . . once there.'(Murray, 'Irresistible Grace', 184).

Who would dare suggest that Jesus Christ would refuse to accept what his Father has given him? If the Father was pleased to make a gift of certain sinners to his most blessed Son, you may rest assured that the Son will neither despise nor deny his Father's gracious generosity. The certainty of ultimate and absolute salvation for those who come to the Son is reaffirmed in verses 38-40. Their life in Christ is eternal and irrevocable because that is the will of the Father; a will or a purpose that the whole of Christ's person and work was designed to secure. What did Jesus come to do? He came to do the Father's will (v.38). What is the Father's will? The Father's will is that all those he has given to the Son be fully and finally saved (v. 39). Oh, what a glorious thought it is, that

"My name from the palms of His hands

Eternity will not erase;

Impress'd on His heart it remains,

In marks of indelible grace."

And still again we sing:

"Fear not, I am with thee, O be not dismayed,

For I am thy God, I will still give thee aid;

I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,

Upheld by my gracious, omnipotent hand."

"The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose,

I will not, I will not desert to his foes;

That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,

I'll never, no never, no never forsake!"

So I ask you, have you experienced the invincible attraction of the Redeemer? Have you been entranced by His beauty? Have you been so drawn to him that you invest your all in Him?? (John Murray, 'The Father's Donation', in Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 3:207). If so, you may be assured that the Father has given you to the Son and that the Son has given himself for you. Therefore, he has drawn you with an everlasting and efficacious love. Therefore, you have abandoned yourself to him in faith. 'This is why his attraction has become irresistible and you have fallen in love with the Savior of your soul' (ibid.).

My conclusion: Yes, Jesus was a Calvinist!

Christian Eschatology

2008-04-15T21:47:00.002-04:00

Eschatology Comparison

This page is broken down into two sections. Chart #1 lists the main distinctives of Dispensational Premillennialism and Historic Premillennialism. Chart #2 lists the main distinctives of Postmillennialism and Amillennialism.

This information was excerpted from For He Must Reign: An Introduction to Reformed Eschatology by Kim Riddlebarger. The complete audio series is available through ACE. They can also be reached at http://www.alliancenet.org. This series gives a good overview of the various positions with an excellent Biblical support for Amillennialism.

It should be noted that is information may be a little dated as I understand that RC Spoul has gone into the postmil camp. This chart has him listed as amil.

Chart #1	Dispensational Premillennialism	Historic Premillennialism
Overview	1. Distinctive Features and Emphases: a. Dispensationalists argue for the necessity of the literal interpretation of all of the prophetic portions of Scripture. Charles Ryrie makes this point very clearly: When the principles of literal interpretation both in regard to general and special hermeneutics are followed, the result the premillennial system of doctrine... If one interprets literally, he arrives at the premillennial system. This means that all promises made to David and Abraham under the Old Covenant are to be literally fulfilled in the future millennial age. b. Dispensationalists insist that God has two redemptive plans, one for national Israel, and one for Gentiles during the "church age." This presupposition forms the basis for the dispensational hermeneutic. As John Walvoord states regarding the dispensational hermeneutic, "Pretribulationism distinguishes clearly between Israel and the church and their respective programs." c. There is a "rapture" of believers when Jesus Christ secretly returns to earth before the seven year tribulation period begins (the seventieth week of Daniel, cf. Daniel 9:24-27). Believers do not experience the persecution of the Anti-Christ who rises to prominence during this "tribulation period." The Biblical data dealing with the time of tribulation is referring to unbelieving Israel, not the church. Therefore, church age, or the "age of grace," is to be seen as that period of time in which God is dealing with Gentiles prior to the coming of the kingdom of God during the millennium. d. The visible and physical second coming of Christ occurs after the great tribulation. Those who are converted to Christ during the tribulation, including Jews (the 144,000) who turn to Christ, go on into the millennium to re-populate the earth. Glorified believers rule with Christ during his future reign. e. Jesus came to earth bringing with him an "offer" of the kingdom to the Jews, who rejected him. God then turned to dealing with the Gentiles -- thus, the church age is a parenthesis of sorts. The rapture is the next event to occur in Biblical prophecy. The signs of the end of the age (i.e., the birth of the nation of Israel, the revival of the Roman empire predicted in Daniel as seen through the emergence of the EEC [common market], the impending Russian-Arab invasion of Israel, etc.) all point to the immediacy of the secret return of Christ for his church. Antichrist is awaiting his revelation once the believing church is removed. f. The millennium is marked by a return to Old Testament temple worship and sacrifice to commemorate the sacrifice of Christ. At the end of the millennium, the "great white throne" judgement occurs, and Satan and all unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire. There is the creation of a new heaven and earth.	1. Distinctive Features and Emphases: a. While often popularly confused with "dispensational premillennialism" with but a mere disagreement as to the timing of the "rapture," historic premillennialism is, in actuality, a completely different eschatological system, largely rejecting the whole dispensational understanding of redemptive history. b. The basic features of historic premillennialism are as follows. When Jesus began his public ministry the kingdom of God was manifest through His ministry. Upon His ascension into heaven and the "Gift of the Spirit" at Pentecost, the kingdom is present through the Spirit, until the end of the age, which is marked by the return of Christ to the earth in judgement. During the period immediately preceding the return of Christ, there is great apostasy and tribulation. C. After the return of Christ, there will be a period of 1000 years (the millennium separating the "first" resurrection from the "second" resurrection. Satan will be bound, and the kingdom will consummated, that is, made visible during this period. d. At the end of the millennial period, Satan will be loosed and there will be a massive rebellion (of "Gog and Magog"), immediately preceding the "second" resurrection or final judgement. After this, there will be the creation of a new Heaven and Earth.
Leading Proponents	a. Dispensationalism was largely popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible, and is now represented, for example, by the notes in the Ryrie Study Bible. Hal Lindsey's book, The Late Great Planet Earth served to keep the movement in the mainstream of Evangelicalism in the late 60's and early 70's. The vast majority of the early Charismatic movement was dispensational in its orientation even though most dispensationalists emphasized that charismata ceased with the completion of the New Testament. As the Charismatic movement has matured and become more consistent in its own theology, dispensationalism has largely been jettisoned. Because of this, and because of the resurgence of questions of ethics (the dispensationalist cannot efficiently use his OT to answer ethical questions) dispensationalism is apparently on the decline. b. Leading dispensational theologians include John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost, Norman Geisler and Charles Feinberg. Popular dispensational pastors and writers include; Charles Swindoll, Dave Hunt, Jack Van Impe and Charles Stan Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel movement represent the Charismatic side of dispensationalism. c. Dallas Theological Seminary is the leading dispensational institution. Other dispensational institutions include: Talbot Theological Seminary, the Master's College and Grace Theological Seminary.	a. Without question, the best and most influential historic premillennialist was the late George Eldon Ladd of Fuller Theological Seminary. Through the work of Ladd, historic premillennialism gained scholarly respect and popularity among Evangelical and Reformed theologians. Other major historic premillennialists include the late Walter Martin, John Warwick Montgomery, J. Barton Payne, Heny Alford (the noted Greek scholar), and Theodore Zahn (the German NT specialist). The best examples of current historical premillennial work would the many scholars of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Evangelical Free). b. Historic premillennialism draws its name from the fact that many of the early Church Fathers (i.e. Ireneaus [140-203], who as a disciple of Polycarp, who had been an disciple of the apostle of John, Justin Martyr [100-165], and Papias [80-155]), apparently believed and taught that there would be a visible kingdom of God upon the earth, after the return of Christ. c. Several major Evangelical seminaries have some historic premillennial representation such as Fuller and Trinity. Surprisingly, a number of the faculty of Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis (a Reformed institution), held to a covenantal form of premillennialism -- J.O. Buswell, J. Barton Payne and R. Laird Harris. However, all of these men have recently departed for glory, and the Reformed varieties of premillennialism are probably gone with them.
Bibliography	The standard dispensational textbook is J. Dwight Pentecost's Things to ComeThe Basis of the Premillennial Faith (New York: The Loizeaux Brothers, 1953); Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism TodayThe Millennial KingdomThe Rapture QuestionMajor Bible Prophecies (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1991). (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978). Other important works include: Charles Ryrie, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977); John Walvoord, (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1983), and John F. Walvoord, (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1979). In addition, John Walvoord has authored an updated work incorporating all of his popular writings;	The best of all the historic premillennial writers was the late George E Ladd. See his works on the subject: A Commentary on the Revelation (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1981), The Last Things (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), and The Gospel of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1981). Also very helpful is Robert Duncan Culver's Daniel and the Latter Days (Chicago: The Moody Press, 1977). This is the single best defense of historic premillennialism against the amillennial critique. See also J. Barton Payne's Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980). Another important work defending the Biblical basis for premillennialism is, Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend, eds., A Case For Premillennialism:A New Consensus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992).

Chart #2	Postmillennialism	Amillennialism
Overview	1. Distinctive Features and Emphases: a. Generally speaking, postmillennialists affirm that the millennium is a period of one thousand years of universal peace and righteousness in this world, which precedes the return of Jesus Christ to earth in judgement. Postmillennialists are divided as to whether or not the period of time is a literal one thousand years, and whether or not the millennial age begins abruptly or gradually. Some see the millennial age as entirely future, others argue that it may have already begun to gradually emerge. Postmillennialists also disagree as to the events that mark the beginning of the millennial age, such as the conversion of Israel (Romans 9-11), the binding of Satan (Revelation 20), and the defeat of Antichrist. b. Postmillennialism is in one sense the historic position of the church since the days of St. Augustine. Since all amillennial Christians (to be discussed below) are also technically postmillennial in their understanding of the millennium, (though self-consciously "postmillennial" Christians cannot not be "amillennial" in any sense) and since the term "amillennialism" was not coined until after the beginning of the twentieth century, it was common for Protestant dogmaticians to speak of the contrast between "pre" and "post" millennialism, without distinguishing between "a" and "post" millennialism. Therefore, the difference between amillennial and postmillennial Christians centers upon the character and length of the millennial age. Postmillennialists see the millennial age as commencing at some point during the present age, and as a period in which the kingdom of God triumphs over the kingdoms of this world. Amillennial Christians see the millennial age as occupying the entire period of time between the first and second coming Christ. Generally speaking, amillennial Christians see the millennial age as one of both the triumph of the spiritual kingdom of God and the corresponding rise of evil in opposition. c. According to postmillennialists, there will be universal preaching and acceptance of the Gospel, and a complete and total victory of the kingdom of God, over the forces of Satan and unbelief. Postmillennialism is an optimistic eschatology of the victory grace of God in subduing evil in the world. During this period Satan will be effectually bound by the triumph of grace. Israel be converted somewhere near the beginning of the millennial Postmillennialists do disagree however, about the nature and details of these events. d. At the end of the millennial period, Satan will be released the period of great tribulation and the apostasy described in Revelation 20 occurs, culminating in Gog and Magog and the Battle of Armageddon. Christ then returns in judgement (the "great throne judgement"), the resurrection occurs, and there is the creation of a new heaven and earth.	1. Distinctive Features and Emphases: a. The "a" millennial (literally meaning "no" millennium) position is the eschatological view of historic Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Christianity. It would be my educated guess that about two-thirds of the Christian family espouse an amillennial eschatology. The amillennial position is as well the position of the vast majority of Reformed and Lutheran theologians. The position portrayed in these lectures is the Reformed understanding of amillennialism, which is better understood as "present" millennialism [or "realized" millennialism], since Reformed eschatology argues for a real, present, though "invisible" non-spatial millennium. b. Amillennialists insist that the promises made to national Israel, David and Abraham, in the OT are fulfilled by Christ and the Church during this age, which is the millennium, that is the entire period of time between the two advents of our Lord. The "thousand years" are therefore symbolic of the entire inter-advental age. Satan is bound by Christ's victory over him and the establishment of the kingdom of God via the preaching of the gospel, and Satan is no longer free to deceive the nations, through the presence of Christ is reigning in heaven during this period with the martyrs who come out of the great tribulation. At the end of the millennial age, Christ returns in judgement of all men. The general resurrection occurs, final judgement takes place for all men and women, and a new Heaven and Earth are established. C. In most forms of amillennialism, immediately before the return of Christ, Satan is unbound, there is a great apostasy, and a time of unprecedented satanically inspired evil. This last Satanic gasp and subsequent rebellious activity is destroyed by our Lord at his return.
Leading Proponents	a. Postmillennialism was popular among American Evangelicals in the period of unprecedented technological growth between 1870 and 1915. World War I largely served to squash the tremendous optimism regarding the growth of technology and the related optimism about the future of man, which was carried over in church in the form of an optimistic eschatology. Many Reformed theologians of this period are generally considered postmillennial, including the "Old-Princetonians," Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield. b. Recently, postmillennialism has seen a resurgence, with the rise of Christian reconstructionism and theonomy. In addition, there is mass confusion generated by critics of postmillennialism, such as Dave Hunt and Hal Lindsey, who portray the movement as taking two quite different and confusing forms -- that of "Theonomy," and that of "Dominion Theology." Thus many Evangelicals fail to see these two forms as distinct and divergent movements. Setting out the differences between the two forms then is helpful. 1). The "theonomic" form of postmillennialism was initially presented by J. Marcellus Kik, and reworked into a full--blown ethical system known as "theonomy" or "reconstructionism" by R. J. Rushdoony. The business of the church was to work to see a theocracy restored upon the earth by emphasizing the continuity of OT law (civil, ceremonial and moral) with the NT. Once established, this victorious church would be the divine vehicle from which the ever advancing kingdom of God would bind Satan and subdue all evil in the world. The emphasis of theonomic postmillennialism is that it is God who exercises dominion through his church establishing His law as the law of the land. Other theologians in the postmillennial theonomic movement are, the late Greg Bahnsen, Ray Sutton and Gary North. Popular writers include Gary DeMarr, Kenneth Gentry, and Peter J. Leithart. 2). The "dominion" form of postmillennialism (though not all "dominion" advocates are postmillennial) is exclusively Pentecostal. This form believes the charismatic revival "Latter Rain") is God's means of binding Satan and allowing the Spirit-lead church to reclaim material possessions and wealth, which had been surrendered to unbelief and the kingdom of Satan. Once the Church understands its role and potential for dominion, through the work of the Spirit, be able to establish the kingdom of God on earth in it fullness, thereby bringing in a millennial age. The emphasis here is that it is the believer who must learn to exercise dominion if he is to take part in the advancing kingdom. Bishop Earl Paulk, Paul Yongli Cho and perhaps Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin and Pat Robertson. d. The older form of postmillennialism, as practiced by Reformed theologians such as Hodge and Warfield, has little in common in emphasis with the modern theonomic approach to eschatology, which emphasizes the rise of a theocracy as the vehicle of dominion. The modern form raises serious questions about the Reformed understanding of the distinction between law and gospel. The result in many circles a peculiar hybrid, (a tertium quid, if you will) with a propensity for making strange bed-fellows.	a. Amillennialism has always been the majority position of the Christian family. It was first articulated by St. Augustine, and has been given a distinctive Reformed emphasis through the work of Geerhardus Vos (the "Biblical-Theological" approach). As the "dispensational" movement captured the hearts and minds of conservative American Evangelicals, amillennialism was equated with "liberalism" or Roman Catholicism. The supposed interpreting prophecy "spiritually" or "not-literally" has lead to the rejection of amillennialism by many. In addition, amillennialism suffered greatly from the failure of Reformed and Luthern writers to defend the position against the likes of Dave Hunt, Chuck Missler and Hal Lindsey, who has labeled the position as "demonic and heretical," and the root of modern anti-semitism. b. Leading contemporary "amill" theologians would include popular writers such as J. I. Packer, Mike Horton, [the late] Calvin seminary professor, Anthony Hoekema, and RC Sproul. In addition, all of the Reformers, as well as the Reformed and Lutheran confessional traditions, as a whole, have been amillennial.
Bibliography	Standard classical Reformed postmillennial works are: Lorraine Boettner, The Millennium (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed publishing Company, 1957); Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New CovenantAn Eschatology of Victory (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1974). A classic expression of the older form of "postmillennialism" is found in the recently reprinted work; David Brown, Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial? (Edmonton: Still Waters Revival Books, 1990). (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1954); Marcellus J. Kik,	The most important and useful amillennial work is the excellent book by Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982). Also helpful are: Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Phillipsburg: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947); Arthur Lewis, The Dark Side of the Millennium (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980); William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (PhilIipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1966); William E. Cox, Biblical Studies in Final Things (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1966).

Limited Atonment - Charles Spurgeon

2008-03-31T21:53:00.000-04:00

TULIP in Romans 8:29-30

2008-03-31T21:37:00.000-04:00

I some recent reading I noticed these verses. AS I read them over and over I noticed a consistency in them. This consistency is one that seems to point out the Doctrines of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Also known as TULIP.\

"Rom 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image
of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (30) And those
whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those
whom he justified he also glorified."

- God, in his love and kindness has predestined certain individuals to be the brethren
of Christ in eternity, of these, Jesus was the firstborn. It is customary in biblical times
that the firstborn is given all rights of inheritance.
- That's Unconditional Election performed among Totally Depraved humans

- Those individuals whom God has predestined were then efficaciously called.
- That's Irresistible Grace

- Those same people, in particular, were justified by Christ's atonement.
- That's Limited Atonement

- Those same that God elected (predestined then justified), are already glorified
in the sight of God.
- That's Perseverance of the Saints

Soli Deo Gloria,
-Ben

Christ’s Predetermined Death

2008-03-22T23:03:00.000-04:00

Christ’s Predetermined Death

By Robert C. Harbach

"Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23).

Many years ago, Jonathan Edwards preached a sermon entitled, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Today, with the widespread low view of God, many think of God in the hands of angry sinners. God, to many, is a very little ‘God’ indeed, who is being hindered and limited by the wicked hands of men. One man thinks he can hold God off at arm’s length and say unto Him, "I will not!"; or that he can, if he chooses, open his heart to the Saviour and let Him in. What a burlesque caricature of the "Almighty God, whose power no creature is able to resist!"

Our text does not say that Christ was delivered up to death on the Cross by man’s wicked hands, but by the determinate counsel and foreknowlege of God. Yet, we hear the Cross of Jesus being spoken of as an emergency measure on the part of God. As one writer put it: "Emergencies change all habits of action, divine and human . . . The greatest event on earth, the Cross, was an emergency action" (S. D. Gordon, Quiet Talks on Prayer, p. 55). What a horrible travesty of the truth! God is never put into an emergency. He is the Creator of circumstances; and no circumstance is ever any problem to Him. God is never put into a predicament; and the Cross was no afterthought, suddenly brought in to cope with an unforeseen difficulty. Nor was the death of Christ a calamity which calls for man’s sympathy and pity. Neither was His death a mere experiment, uncertain in its results. It was not a mere trial which God put into operation to see what good could be accomplished; it was the eternal purpose and counsel of the sovereign God. "For of a truth against Thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together, to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done" (Acts 4:27,28). Hear the whole purpose of the Cross from the lips of incarnate Truth: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth (on the Cross), will draw ALL unto Me" (John 12:32); and "ALL that the Father giveth Me shall come unto Me" (6:37). I delight in this truth and love to proclaim it, that the counsel of the Lord shall stand, and He shall do all His pleasure. Therefore, of all that the Father giveth to Christ, He shall lose nothing. By His predetermined death, they are eternally saved, and they shall never perish (John 10:28). Every part of His crucifixion was ‘according to the eternal purpose of God which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph. 3:11).

You can see, then, that the principle cause of Christ’s death was no accident of chance, but the sovereign counsel and eternal foreknowledge of God. It was God who planned it, who ordered it, and who disposed all things concerning it. This in no case implies that the murderers of Christ were forced into their evil act. They acted freely, and did unto Him whatsoever they listed. Yet, they are accountable to God for their sin; and are not excused on the ground that it was all the work of God’s determinate counsel. Their malice, cruelty and wicked hands God was pleased to use as instruments to accomplish His own holy purpose.

From the human side, (1) it was a violent death. He was put to death violently by outrageous men: "ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." Yet, from the point of view of God’s sovereignty no man could touch Him, except by the will of the Almighty Lord. For His life was laid down of Himself; no man took it from Him. He had power to lay it down, and power to take it again. (2) It was a painful death. "The cross was a rack as well as a gibbet" (John Flavel). The pains which He suffered were the pains of death. His soul was in travail; His body in bitter pangs. (3) It was a shameful death. Only slaves, and the basest and vilest of men were crucified. They were made an ignominious spectacle. But Jesus "endured the Cross" and "despised the shame" (Heb. 12:2).

Now why did Jesus thus die? Not to show us how a good man dies; not to teach us how to remain true to our convictions; not to prove that martyrdom is better than compromise. No, it was because in His death He must bear the curse of God against sin. The curse of the Law was against all of us, since we all fall short of that law. Christ bore the curse for His people and redeemed them from it. His was a prefigured death. In the O.T., we have the figure of the lamb being sacrificed as a type of Christ, who is the Lamb of God. His was a predicted death. He Himself had predicted His own death: "For the Son of Man goeth as it hath been determined of Him; but woe unto that man through whom He is delivered" (Luke 22:22). Also, God had foreappointed His death. It was all "according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11). Therefore, though He died ON the Cross, He did not die OF the Cross. Christ was not a victim of circumstances. No, all circumstances are in the control of God. Nor did Christ suffer a tragic death as a result of caprice, chance, fortune or luck. We intensely dislike the thought that the Cross was a tragedy, or any sort of an emergency that God was forced into. Yet, we come across sermon titles such as "The Tragedy of the Cross." Now a "tragedy" is defined by the dictionary as "the fatal outcome of a hopeless struggle." That is exactly what the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ WAS NOT! "Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18); and the Cross is no exception to this! It was no fatal outcome of a hopeless struggle; but it was the inevitable consequence of an invincible purpose! Thus, it is with the precious blood of Christ. Believers are saved by that blood while on earth, that they may live with Christ in heaven. And the blood which is redemption to them on earth is confirmation to those in heaven. Because of His shed blood, the saints in heaven have more perfect joy, but not more security, than the saints yet on earth.

"But Christ’s to the end shall endure,
As sure as the earnest is given;
More happy, but not more secure,
The glorified spirits in heaven."

So it is by His blood that He has opened the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers. Notice not to all men, but to all believers! That is the extent and intent of His death: "By Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses" (Acts 13:39). The world sees this mighty sacrifice held up as the means of pardon and forgiveness for the people of God; and the world hates every bit of it. The ungodly world will have nothing of God’s mercy in the blood of Christ. With them, it is mercy despised. Yet those who trust in that atoning blood, though they be the greatest sinners, are certain of free, full and final pardon. The very blackest guilt can no more stand under the cleansing power of that blood, than a wicked reprobate can stand up under God’s justice. By that Divine blood every stain is washed away. And that efficacious blood shall wash away all the sins of God’s people, even their most obstinate unbelief.

As a certain writer so wonderfully describes His death: "(1) It was a natural death, i.e., it was a real death. He did not merely swoon on the Cross, then revive in the coolness of the tomb. The eternal Son of God ‘became flesh,’ condemned sin in the flesh, and ‘tasted death’ itself. And that the naturalness of it might be the more evident, He was buried, and lay in the tomb for three days. (2) It was an unnatural death, i.e., it was exceptional. Death had absolutely no claim on the Divine Saviour. Death comes by sin, and He had no sin. Peter says ‘He did no sin’ (1 Pet. 2:22); John says, ‘In Him is no sin’ (1 John 3:5); Paul says, ‘He knew no sin’ (2 Cor. 5:21). He is ‘holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.’ Pilate found no fault in Him. Therefore, for the Holy One of God to die, it was unnatural. (3) His death was preternatural, i.e., it was predetermined from all eternity. He was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. He Himself said ‘from henceforth I tell you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am He’ (John 13:19).

We are redeemed . . . with the ‘precious blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish (in His person), and without spot (in His conduct); who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world’ (1 Pet. 1:20). God in His determinate counsel planned from eternity that the Saviour should die as the sacrifice for sin, that we might live. (4) His death was supernatural, i.e., it was different from any other death. It was a voluntary death, for He ‘laid down’ His life of Himself. He was led (not driven) as a lamb to the slaughter. He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit. Through all the six hours of excruciating pain on the Cross, He had held His head erect. It did not loll helplessly on His chest. And when He died, His head did not fall — He bowed His head — reverently and voluntarily. Behold, the majestic bearing of Christ on the Cross!

But there is further evidence that it was a supernatural death: ‘Behold the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened’ (Matt. 27:51, 52). The purpose and power of God are very outstanding in the death of His Son. Everything about His death was in the hands and power of God. The Son Himself was the chief Actor in this drama of the ages; for He put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:26). He was not a helpless victim of human hate. By His death He did what was assigned Him to do, as He said: ‘This commandment have I received of my father’ (John 10:18b)" (Arthur W. Pink, in his Seven Sayings of the Saviour on the Cross).

We insist, therefore, that the death of Jesus Christ was definite and certain in every respect. There was nothing accidental, nothing precarious about it. His foreknowledge rendered it certain, for God’s foreknowledge is based on His settled counsel and purpose. So Jesus went to the Cross with absolute determination — with His face set like a flint. He went, not merely to make possible the salvation of mankind, but to make certain the salvation of believers. He died on the Cross, not simply to render sins pardonable, but to "take away sin" (John 1:19). Therefore, His death was not a mere "conditional" redemption purely incidental to the mood and inclination of man. It was an actual redemption: He actually redeems. "He hath visited and redeemed His people" (Luke 1:68). Thus Jesus carried out the counsel of God. He put into execution the whole plan of God. And we know that all things co-operate for them that love God and are called according to His purpose. Back in eternity there was a people God foreknew, and predestinated to be called, justified and glorified (Rom. 8:28-30). Now, in time, these people shall be called by Christ, justified by His blood, and glorified at the return of Christ in His glorious Second Coming. Thus the Cross of Jesus is the central link in the chain that connects the entire plan of salvation, including the believer, from everlasting to everlasting. Jesus died by the counsel of God, and believers are saved by the counsel of God, for the child of God is led to sing: "Thou shalt guide me with Thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory" (Psa. 73:24). Yes, the believer is glorified by God’s grace. That means that Jesus Christ has merited glory for us on His Cross. Through the power of His Cross the glory of heaven can alone be realized. Through the power of His Cross He will draw His people from the depth of sin and death to the very height of everlasting glory. This He is able to do, since He arose from the dead, and He "ever liveth’ — death hath no more dominion over Him. The living Christ has power to save. And that gracious power is always in operation saving men through faith, calling them, justifying them, sanctifying them, and will ultimately glorify them both in soul and in body. Believe and trust the Christ of Calvary, and you will dwell for ever with the Christ of Glory.

Paul Washer - That's Not my God"

2008-03-05T17:53:00.000-05:00

God Did Not Cause the Calamity, but He Can Use It for Good

2008-03-03T09:05:00.001-05:00

Why I Do Not Say, "God Did Not Cause the Calamity, but He Can Use It for Good"
Download:
By John Piper September 17, 2001

Many Christians are speaking this way about the murderous destruction of the World Trade Towers on September 11, 2001. God did not cause it, but he can use it for good. There are two reasons I do not say this. One is that it goes beyond, and is contrary to, what the Bible teaches. The other is that it undermines the very hope it wants to offer.
First, this statement goes beyond and against the Bible. For some, all they want to say, in denying that God "caused" the calamity, is that God is not a sinner and that God does not remove human accountability and that God is compassionate. That is true - and precious beyond words. But for others, and for most people who hear this slogan, something far more is implied. Namely, God, by his very nature, cannot or would not act to bring about such a calamity. This view of God is what contradicts the Bible and undercuts hope.
How God governs all events in the universe without sinning, and without removing responsibility from man, and with compassionate outcomes is mysterious indeed! But that is what the Bible teaches. God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).
This "all things" includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28).
From the smallest thing to the greatest thing, good and evil, happy and sad, pagan and Christian, pain and pleasure - God governs them all for his wise and just and good purposes (Isaiah 46:10). Lest we miss the point, the Bible speaks most clearly to this in the most painful situations. Amos asks, in time of disaster, "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" (Amos 3:6). After losing all ten of his children in the collapse of his son's house, Job says, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD" (Job 1:21). After being covered with boils he says, "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10).
Oh, yes, Satan is real and active and involved in this world of woe! In fact Job 2:7 says, "Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head." Satan struck him. But Job did not get comfort from looking at secondary causes. He got comfort from looking at the ultimate cause. "Shall we not accept adversity from God?" And the author of the book agrees with Job when he says that Job's brothers and sisters "consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him" (Job 42:11). Then James underlines God's purposeful goodness in Job's misery: "You have heard of the endurance of Job and have seen the outcome of the Lord's dealings, that the Lord is full of compassion and is merciful" (James 5:11). Job himself concludes in prayer: "I know that You can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). Yes, Satan is real, and he is terrible - and he is on a leash.
The other reason I don't say, "God did not cause the calamity, but he can use it for good," is that it undercuts the very hope it wants to create. I ask those who say this: "If you deny that God could have 'used' a million prior events to save 5,000 people from this great evil, what hope then do you have that God could now 'use' this terrible event to save you in the hour of trial?" We say we believe he can use these events for good, but we deny that he could use the events of the past to hold back the evil of September 11. But the Bible teaches he could have restrained this evil (Genesis 20:6). "The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples" (Psalm 33:10). But it was not in his plan to do it. Let us beware. We spare God the burden of his sovereignty and lose our only hope.
All of us are sinners. We deserve to perish. Every breath we take is an undeserved gift. We have one great hope: that Jesus Christ died to obtain pardon and righteousness for us (Ephesians 1:7; 2 Corinthians 5:21), and that God will employ his all-conquering, sovereign grace to preserve us for our inheritance (Jeremiah 32:40). We surrender this hope if we sacrifice this sovereignty.
Strengthening Your Confidence in Christ Our King,
Pastor John

The Sovereignty of God

2008-03-03T08:55:00.000-05:00

I just love reading on the sovereignty of God. In my view it's one of the most important things to understand about God. How do you define sovereignty? That is the question I find myself always wanting to ask people.

It was just on Sunday, March 02, that I was studying my INSTE lesson and had someone point out to me that they define sovereignty as the "right of God to govern." The problem with this is that we say God has the right, and he does, but we leave out the part that say he does govern, all things at all times.

John Piper said this:

"It is not merely that God has the power and right to govern all things but that He does so always and without exception." - John Piper

Here are some more verses, look them up.

God is sovereign over the entire universe: Ps 103:19; Rom 8:28; Eph 1:11
God is sovereign over all of nature: Ps 135:6-7; Mt 5:45; 6:25-30
God is sovereign over angels & Satan: Ps 103:20-21; Job 1:12
God is sovereign over nations: Ps 47:7-9; Dan 2:20-21; 4:34-35
God is sovereign over human beings: 1 Sam 2:6-7; Gal 1:15-16
God is sovereign over animals: Ps 104:21-30; 1 Ki 17:4-6
God is sovereign over "accidents": Pr 16:33; Jon 1:7; Mt 10:29
God is sovereign over free acts of men: Ex 3:21; 12:25-36; Ez 7:27
God is sovereign over sinful acts of men and Satan: 2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chr 21:1; Gen 45:5; 50:20

All Men Saved?

2008-02-23T14:19:00.000-05:00

Predestination is the doctrine that God alone is the One who chooses who is saved, that He ordains the means, the time, and the circumstances of salvation and that without His predestination, no one would ever be saved. In part this is because human nature is so completely corrupted by sin that no person is capable of choosing God unless God first regenerates that person. But any Bible student will soon discover there are verses which say God wants all men to be saved. For example, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4, NIV). The question, then, is if God predestines only some to salvation, why are there verses that say God wants all to be saved?
The answer is simple: The "all" are the Christians. Now, before you toss this paper aside, please try to be open-minded. I will prove that the "all" in at least three important verses that deal with salvation means the Christians. To do so, I would like to examine 2 Cor. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:22, and then Rom. 5:18 where the word "all" is used in a way that can only mean the elect. Then I will examine other apparent universal passages.
Before I begin, and for clarity, I would like to introduce a couple of terms: Arminianism and Calvinism. Essentially, Arminianism states that man is able, by his own free will, to choose or reject God and that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived. Calvinism states that it is God alone who chooses who is saved, not man, and that Jesus died only for the Christians.
Also, I would like to introduce a principle that will become important later in this paper. It will help us in understanding God's word. Let's say we have two sets of scriptures that are related. For example, they deal with salvation and contain the word "all." And let's say that some of the scriptures can be interpreted in two ways, and the rest of the scriptures can only be interpreted one way. It follows then that those that can be interpreted two ways must be interpreted in harmony with those that have only one interpretation.
If the first group of salvation verses containing "all" have two interpretations and the second group of salvation verses containing "all" has only one possible interpretation...Then the first group must be interpreted in such a way as to agree with the second group; both must be interpreted as, say, "B." This will prove helpful in looking at scriptures later, especially after we've examined the next three verses.
One last thing: you will find that though I seek to prove a single presupposition, I end up discussing several points. This is because of the intermingling of theological ideas that flow from the verses discussed. I simply ask that you bear with me.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15:

"For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."
At first glance the phrase "He died for all" would lead you to think that Jesus died for every individual who has ever lived. But upon a closer look we see something different revealed. When Paul speaks of people dying, in relation to the death of Christ, he is speaking of the Christians who have died in Christ: "Now if we have died with Christ..." (Rom. 6:8); "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world..." (Col. 2:20); "For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3); "It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him" (2 Tim. 2:11). The only ones who have died with Christ are the believers, not the unbelievers. Therefore, this verse can only make sense if it is understood that the "all" spoken of is not everyone who has ever lived, but only the Christians: "...that one (Jesus) died for all (the Christians), therefore all (the Christians) died..."
But, you might ask, "If God meant only the Christians, then why did He use the word ‘all'?" I believe it is because from all eternity God knew who He had chosen to be the elect and the eternal plan of redemption was carried out to reclaim "all" He had chosen. Therefore, the "all" to Him is the all for which He intended the death of Christ to atone.
It is important here that you understand that sometimes God uses words differently than we do. For example, the Bible says that God only knows believers, not unbelievers. "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27, NIV); "...The Lord knows those who are his," (2 Tim. 2:19, NIV); "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,'' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matt. 7:21-23, NIV). Of course, God knows who everyone is, He is omniscient. But the way He is using the word in relation to the saved is different than we use it: He knows the Christians, and doesn't know the non-Christians. This knowing is an intimate, familiar kind of knowing.
You see, it is important to understand that the Bible best interprets itself. We need to see how it uses words and phrases and then, once we have a clearer understanding, attempt to interpret the Word of God.

1 Corinthians 15:22-23:

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming."
Who are the ones who will be made alive? They are the Christians and only the Christians. First of all, to be "in Christ" is a phrase that describes a saving relationship between the redeemed and the Redeemer: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1, NIV) (See also, Rom. 6:11; 12:5; 16:7; 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.); second, those who are made alive at Christ's coming are the believers. We will be made alive with Christ: "By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also" (1 Cor. 6:14, NIV); "in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed" (1 Cor. 15:52, NIV).
The "all" that died in Adam were all that Adam represented: every individual who ever lived. Those "in Christ" are only believers. The "all" therefore can only be the believers, because it says "in Christ all shall be made alive." If all shall be made alive, then the "all" can only mean the believers because only believers are made alive in Christ. There simply isn't any biblically consistent alternative interpretation. But you might object and say that the first "all" refers to everybody, obviously. So why, then, doesn't the second do the same? Because the second "all" can't refer to everyone. Only the Christians are made alive.
It could be said that everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, will be raised; only the unbelievers are raised to receive damnation. This is true, but it does not fit here in this passage because it is speaking of those who are Christ's; that is, the believers. The "all" of these verses can only be the elect.

Romans 5:18

"So, as through one offense, there resulted condemnation to all men, so also, through one righteous deed, there resulted justification of life to all men."

The literal, word for word, translation of Romans 5:18 is:

so therefore as through one offense into all men into condemnation, so also through one righteous deed into all men into justification of life"

So, therefore, as through one offense, into all men into condemnation,
so, also, through one righteous deed, into all men into justification of life.

Because there is no verb in this verse (it is not unusual in Greek for there to be no verb in a sentence), a verb must be borrowed or implied. Since there isn't a verb close enough in the previous verses to borrow and that would fit appropriately, one from the context must be derived. A smoothed out version would be:

So, as through one offense, there resulted condemnation to all men,
so also, through one righteous deed, there resulted justification of life to all men.

We know that inserting the words "there resulted" into the text is correct by simple logic. The offense of Adam resulted in condemnation to all men--no one disputes that. Adam represented all his people (everybody) in the garden. When he sinned, we fell with him. There was a result, an actual result to his sin: condemnation. It follows that "there resulted" should be in the second part of the sentence as well because the second part has the same syntax as the first and says "also." That is, Paul is implying a parallel between the actions of Adam and the actions of Jesus. Adam represented his people; Jesus represented His.
1) The structure of the first and the second parts of the verse are the same: adverb(s), preposition, noun, (verb place), noun, and object.

Paul is trying to make it clear in this verse that the deeds of the respective persons had definite results upon those whom they represented. That is why the verse is really two sentences of identical structure.
Adam's sin resulted in condemnation to all
Jesus' sacrifice resulted in justification to all

Where the first Adam brought condemnation to all, the second Adam (Jesus is called the second Adam in 1 Cor. 15:45) brought justification to all--that is what the text says, despite the apparent problem of "all people being justified."
Justification is being declared legally righteous before God. If someone is declared legally righteous before God, then he is saved. Only the saved are justified: "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him " (Rom. 5:9). Since the Scriptures clearly teach that not all men are saved (Matt 25:31-33), we know that the "all" in this verse can't refer to every individual. It must refer to something other than everyone who ever lived. I conclude that the "all" can only mean the Christians. God was so sure of His predestination that to Him, the elect are the "all" He wishes to save.
The NASB gives the best translation: "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men."
The NIV does not translate it as literally. It says, "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." The NIV is right in adding the word "result." The NIV is an excellent translation but in this verse it sacrifices the literalness needed to draw out this aspect of biblical teaching.
Furthermore, if the verb phrase "that brings" is in the second part, it should then be in the first part of the verse because the verse is two identical thoughts. If that were done, then "that brings" would take on the meaning of result, because condemnation is exactly what resulted to all men when Adam sinned. Since the verse is in two identical parts, what is done to one should be done to the other. The NIV is not consistent in its translation at this point.
The KJV translates it thus: "Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The words "free gift" are not in the Greek. The translators have drawn conclusions, though accurate ones, but I believe this too does injustice to the text by not letting it say what it says. Also, if the free gift simply came upon all people, then it does not mean that it resulted, and the apparent problem of all people being justified is taken care of. Unfortunately, that isn't what the Greek says.
I believe some translators of the Bible, when coming across this verse, realize the problem of saying the atonement resulted in justification to all men. They assume the "all" means every individual and then translate the scripture in light of their theology to allow harmony with their interpretations of the rest of the scriptures. I think that is a mistake. Translators should translate the text as accurately as possible, even if it conflicts with their theology.
In these three verses it is clear that God has used the word "all" differently than what would normally be expected. This is an indication that God has intended for the "all" to be saved, and they are. When God is thinking of the "all" He is thinking of a specific group. These three verses bare that out. But, what about other verses that have a universal flavor to them?

The Universal Passages

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
If predestination is true, then why does this verse state "whoever believes" will be saved? The Bible says that faith is a gift from God (Rom. 12:3); that it is God who grants belief (Phil. 1:29); it is God who produces belief in a person (John 6:29); and only those appointed to eternal life by God are the ones who believe (Acts 13:48). Also, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). In order for someone to believe, they must hear the gospel of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4) because the gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom. 1:16). There is no other name under heaven besides Jesus by which anyone may be saved (Act 4:12). And, one must receive Jesus (John 1:12) in order to be saved.
Since these things are true, then how can the "whoever" of John 3:16 apply to those who never heard the Word of God? There are multitudes who never heard the gospel at all, who never had the chance. Consider the Aborigines, the Bushmen, the Eskimos, or the American Indians, who died before the time of Christ, or who even lived before the time of Christ. Yet they NEVER heard ANYTHING about Christianity, the atonement, the resurrection, the holy scriptures, or the gospel. It was never preached to them at all. How, then, can the "whoever" apply to them when they have no chance of hearing the Word of God concerning Jesus and salvation? From what I know of scripture, they cannot.
To answer this question some say that those who never heard the gospel will not be judged the same way as those who have. But that answer contradicts the scriptures that clearly say no one gets to the Father but through Jesus (John 14:6); that it is the gospel that saves (Rom. 1:16); the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection for sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4); and, there is no other name under heaven besides Jesus by which anyone may be saved (Acts 4:12).

John 12:32: "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." (NIV)
Does the "all" here refer to every individual on the planet? If yes, then how can they be drawn and come to salvation if they never hear of Jesus and the gospel message? I don't see how they can since they never had the opportunity to hear and, therefore, believe in Jesus. Again, what about the tribesmen in the Amazon? What about the Incas and Aztecs at the time of Christ? What about the countless people who had never even heard of Jesus, the Bible, Jehovah, or the Jews? How are they drawn if Jesus draws all men? They certainly must be drawn if the Arminian position is valid and the "all" here means every individual. But no one can believe unless they hear the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). How can the heathen believe without hearing? How can they all be drawn if they never hear the gospel or even have the slightest chance to ever hear it? They cannot.

Romans 8:32: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" The question again here is, who are the "all"? Are they every individual on the planet who ever lived (the Arminian position) or are they the elect, the chosen of God (the Calvinist position)? We need to examine the verses in their context.
Romans 8:31-38: "What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? ³²He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all -- how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? ³³Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. ³⁴Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died -- more than that, who was raised to life -- is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. ³⁵Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? ³⁶As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.' ³⁷No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. ³⁸For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, ³⁹neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (NIV).
Verse 31 starts the context and it is clearly speaking of the Christians. Only those who are covered by the blood of the Lamb have been reconciled and are no longer enemies of God (Rom. 8:7). The "us" of verse 31 can only refer to the Christians. Verse 32 speaks of Jesus' sacrifice for "us all." Is the "us" suddenly everyone, the unbeliever too? Verse 33 speaks of the ones God has chosen; that is, the Christians. Verse 34 speaks of Jesus' intercession for "us"; the "us" can only be the Christian's because Jesus is not mediating for the unbeliever. Verses 35-39 speak of the Christians inseparability with God. It is clear that the whole context is speaking about Christians and no one else. The "us all" of Rom. 8:32 must, then, refer to the Christians.
Before beginning the next section, I need to propose what I think is a correct supposition regarding the mind of the Jews and, therefore, bears influence on interpreting the writers of the N.T. It is this: The Jews were so narrowly minded that they considered the Messiah to be for them only, not the whole world.
That is why there are salvation verses that speak of all being saved, of a sacrifice not only for our sins, but those of the whole world (1 John 2:2). In other words, Jesus is the savior not only of the Jews, but of all people, including the Gentiles -- the whole world. Please consider the following as proof of Paul's attempt to correct the mistaken idea that the Jews alone were to be saved:
Rom. 1:16: "for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Rom. 2:9-10: "There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Rom. 10:12: "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him." Gal. 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Incidentally, the "all" here means only the believers.) Col. 3:11: "and a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew..."

1 Timothy 2:4-6: "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all..."
First of all, Jesus is the mediator for the believers, not the unbelievers. To me, "men" in this verse can only mean the elect, the Christians. Though I understand how an Arminian would interpret this verse, the Calvinist position is more consistent with the rest of the scriptures I've examined.
Second, considering that "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18 can only mean the Christians, it follows that when we approach verses like 1 Tim. 2:4-6, there is legitimacy in interpreting it in a consistent manner with the other verses; that is, the "all" is the elect. Therefore, 1 Tim. 2:4 can have two possible interpretations:
1) The Arminian: The "all" means every individual.
2) The Calvinist: The "all" means the Christians. But since the Arminian interpretation would contradict the interpretations found in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18, we are left with the Calvinist interpretation as the only legitimate one; namely, that the "all" means the Christians.
Also, there is the problem of answering how the desire of God is thwarted. The Arminian position has the desires of God frequently thwarted in addition to having the decision of God depend on the decision of man. God can only save someone if that someone makes the right choice.

2 Pet. 3:9: "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance."
Peter wrote this epistle to the Christians. "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). Also, "This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you..." (2 Peter 3:1).
In the immediate context, verse 8, says, "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
It is very clear that Peter is talking to the believers. It follows, then, that in verse 9 when it says the Lord is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, he again is speaking of the believers. God's patience is here told to be toward the believers, not the unbelievers. God does not want any of them (the believers, the elect) to perish. And they won't, because God's wishes are not thwarted. But again if "any" is every individual then we again have the problem of God's desires being thwarted.

John 1:19: "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." This could be interpreted either in the Arminian or the Calvinist camp. However, if the sins of every individual are actually taken away, then why do any go to hell? After all, aren't all the sins taken away? "Ah," but you say, "they are taken away only if that person believes." The only problem with that is that Jesus' blood is sufficient to cleanse of all sin, even the sin of unbelief. Therefore, even that sin is covered. Remember, it says that the sins were taken away by the cross of Christ, not made possible to be taken away.

John 6:33: "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world." How is "gives life" to be understood? Does it mean that the life is offered or does it mean that it is given? If something is offered, it does not mean that it is received. If it is given, then it carries with that word the implication that it is received. Only the believers receive life. The world in general is the recipient of that life.

John 6:51: "I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Simply partaking of the Lord's Supper does not guarantee salvation. To eat the bread of Jesus means that it must be done by faith--which only the believer, only those who are appointed to eternal life and believe (Acts 13:48), can do. This could be interpreted either in the Arminian or the Calvinist camp.

Rom. 11:12,15: "Now if their transgression be riches for the world and their failure be riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be!...15For if their rejection be the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" It is only the Christians who are reconciled. If the Jews' rejection of the Christ be the reconciliation of the world, "the world" there must mean the believers. It cannot mean that every individual is reconciled to God; otherwise, everyone would be saved, and this simply isn't true. If you say this means that reconciliation is generally applied to the world and that whoever wants to believe may, then you are ignoring what the verse says, that their rejection be the reconciliation of the world.

2 Cor. 5:19: "namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation." Again Paul speaks of God reconciling the world to Himself. This verse is even more clear than Rom. 11:12,15, for it states what the reconciliation of the world entails: not counting their trespasses against them. This clearly means salvation for only the Christians who are forgiven and reconciled. The word "world" here can only mean the Christians. Its interpretation makes the most sense in the Calvinist camp.

Hebrews 2:9: "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. " This verse can be interpreted in both the Arminian and Calvinistic camps. The Arminian and the Calvinist say that Christ tasted death for everyone. To the Calvinist, the death of Christ actually removes the wrath of God upon the ungodly (the elect). To the Arminian the death of Christ was for all and doesn't actually remove the wrath; it makes it possible for the wrath to be removed based upon a human condition: belief. Therefore, the choice of God depends upon the choice of the person man.

LIMITED PASSAGES

Matt. 26:28: "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Notice that the verse does not say for all, but for many.

John 10:11: "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." and John 10:15: "even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep." Both these verses specifically state that Jesus laid His life down for the sheep (Christians) as opposed to the goats (non-Christians). These verses are best interpreted in the Calvinist camp. Frankly, I don't see how this could be interpreted in the Arminian sense at all.

John 17:9: "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine." Jesus is making a distinction in His prayers to the Father in regard to who is being asked for. It is the ones whom the Father gives to the Son that are being prayed for. The whole of John 17 bears this out. Jesus is not praying for everyone. His prayers are "limited."

Acts 20:28: "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." This could be interpreted either in the Arminian or the Calvinist camp but makes more sense in the Calvinist one. It was the church that was purchased with the blood. The unbeliever was not purchased. Also, this shows that there was a result, a direct result to the sacrifice: the church was purchased, not made possible to be purchased. It occurred. It happened because of the atonement. The Arminian might say that the purchase made by the blood becomes effectual only after the person believes in Jesus. But this is a problem because then the sacrifice of Christ must await validation and efficacy depending upon what people do. I see that as a problem because the infinite value of Christ's blood accomplished what it was shed for; it purchased the church.

Eph. 5:25-27: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her." This could be interpreted either in the Arminian or the Calvinist camp but makes more sense in the Calvinist one. Jesus gave Himself up for the church, not the unbelievers.

Rom. 8:32: "He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with him freely give us all things?" I addressed this verse above. The "all" here can only mean the believers. Paul is speaking of the saved which is why he says that God will "freely give us all things".

Isaiah 53:12: "Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors." Obviously this speaks of a limited sacrifice, that Jesus bore the sin of many, not all. How does the Arminian interpret this passage?

Heb. 9:28: "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." Again, another verse that says that Jesus bore the sins of many, not all.

It seems clear that God sometimes uses words differently than we do. When we examine the scriptures, we see that "all" when used in the context of salvation can be interpreted in at least two ways: 1) It can only mean the elect, 2) it can mean everyone. As I mentioned above, when two sets of related scriptures have various interpretations and there are a few that can only be interpreted one way, then it seems best to interpret all the scriptures in such a way so that they agree.
When God wants all men to be saved, they are. God predestines. He died for those He predestined. And He has been working from all eternity to atone for, sanctify, and glorify His elect. It will occur because God has ordained it so.

Matt Slick 3/26/92

Irresistible Grace and Resistible Grace Compared

2008-02-22T23:34:00.000-05:00

The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted

The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) proceeds and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

STOP. Isn’t this saying that God has limits? It says that when man’s will and God’s will bump together that man’s will triumphs over God’s. If God has a limit by man, doesn’t that give man sovereignty at the expense of God’s sovereignty?

So if God isn’t sovereign over all things, then is he God?

R.C. Sproul says: "If God is truly God, he is sovereign-over all thing, over all decisions."

The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or
Irresistible Grace

In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

Now that sounds like my God, a God that I can truly rely on salvation for. If salvation in partly in an act of man how can we be sure of it. Man is finite and fallible. God is infinite and infallible.

Isa 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

The Holy Spirit is sent forth and Christ elects. His word will accomplish the purpose that he sent it for

Now that sounds like a God who can accomplish anything and everything without an ounce of participation from man.

Think again when you say God is limited by mans response.

Religion for Sale

2008-02-18T14:45:00.000-05:00

Religion for Sale
Pamela Trunk

It used to be that a wide selection of choices applied to products and services only, but not anymore. In our present day culture, religion is also on the shelf, able to claim and adapt as needed. As I saw it fittingly phrased on a Facebook profile, “mix and match” is the religion of choice, a spirituality that is custom made for you.

You may not know too many people that claim to believe in “mix and match" but in actuality, this theology has conquered the hearts and mindsets of many unassuming Americans, both Christians and non-Christians. “Mix and match” flaunts the acceptance of all beliefs. Everything is permissible. It advertises synergy of religious ideas, combining the best of it all, and discarding aspects of doctrine that are difficult or offensive. Take some of this and some of that and ta-da you have religion on your terms.

“Mix and match,” so attractive and carefree in nature, generates such popularity that it is even mistaken for increased interest in spirituality. However, it is a false sense of spirituality; it does not lead its followers to belief in Jesus Christ. As I see it, spirituality in our culture is a quest for personal fulfillment, not a quest to know God. Rather than submitting before God’s authority, spirituality today encourages soul seeking and pursuit of inner peace. Instead of attending the church, people are signing up for yoga classes and ascribing to detoxification diets. Doctrine is old-fashioned, strict and unreasonable. God’s way is too rigid, too uncompromising and too many Americans are simply not impressed by these features of the product.

I can understand why people feel this way; after all, it is mankind’s own selfish nature to rebel against God’s way, hence the need for salvation through Christ. “Mix and match” is a manifestation of the flesh that has unfortunately been adopted by the world. For that reason it is no longer just a craving for independence from God, it is everyone’s craving, and the world says it is OK to indulge. Now every person can feel good about telling God that they are in control, not Him, and that they determine what truth is.

So where does this self-indulgent religion leave Christians? The answer: in a very difficult position. As believers of the Gospel, Christians who strongly declare their faith are often labeled intolerant in our politically correct world. As I share my faith with others I myself begin to worry maybe I am being rude or perhaps religion is a personal affair, and soon I decide that it is just too hard to share at all.

Beware of such attitudes. If Christians can be swayed to abandon their obedience to God based on the difficulty of the calling, then they too have become their own spiritual authorities; their own breed of “mix and matchers”. I have seen this enacted in many ways, in my own life and in the lives of others. The great commission commands followers of Jesus to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19), yet I know many of my friends that have never told anyone about their belief in Jesus. In Romans 12:2, Paul warns us not to be conformed by the world, but I have been to bible study hangouts where movies that glorify sex and money were watched.

I shudder to think the outcome if Jesus had applied His own “mix and match” theology. God had many hardships for His Son to endure on this earth, and had Jesus discarded His fate to die on a cross, the payment for our sins would not have been met. Instead, Jesus showed us that to be a follower of Christ, we lay down our lives.

There is nothing more contradictory than the calling of a Christian and a subscriber to “mix and match”. Will we cheat ourselves from knowing God because we have been fooled by our own selfishness?

“You felt secure in your wickedness and said, ‘No one sees me,’
Your wisdom and your knowledge, they have deluded you;
For you have said in your heart, ‘I am and there is no one besides me.’” –Isaiah 47:10

Who Needs Theology Anyway?

2008-02-16T16:30:00.000-05:00

chapter excerpt from
Survivor's Guide to Theology
[1]by
M. James Sawyer

The great nineteenth-century evangelist D. L. Moody was at one time challenged by a woman who reportedly said, “I want you to know that I don’t believe in your theology.” Moody’s response: “I didn’t know I had any!”[1] [1] Which goes to show that even great men of God can be wrong. The word theology is a compound of two Greek terms: theos (God) and logos (word, statement, discourse, a line of argument). Therefore, in simple terms, a theologian is someone who knows about or speaks about God, and theology is what is thought or said about God.
When I was about five years old, my beloved pet dog died. Shortly thereafter I was talking with my friend Chuck about death and what happens afterward. As we dug in the dirt and filled our toy dump trucks, we came to the conclusion that when you died you went to heaven and lived there. Then when you died in heaven, you went to the next heaven and lived there, and so on. Even as young children, confronted with questions of life, death, and God, we were in the most basic sense practicing theologians developing a theology (a rather unusual one, but a theology nonetheless) even as we dug in the dirt and played with our trucks.

Whenever we think about God we are involved with theology. The question therefore is not whether we will be theologians—we have no choice in the matter. Rather, the question is what kind of theologians we will we be—good or bad, responsible or irresponsible.

But, you say, if we are all theologians anyway, can’t we be good and responsible theologians by just being good and sincere Christians? Most Christians over the last two millennia (including D.L. Moody!) have hardly been aware of the discipline of theology, and if they were, they saw it as something abstract, theoretical, more than a bit daunting, and unrelated to everyday life. Theirs was a practical faith. So why should we even study theology? Why isn’t it enough to just love Jesus and obey him?[2] [1]Scripture calls us to disciplined learning. Paul admonishes in 1 Corinthians 14:20, “Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.” Yet many of us never take the responsibility for theological maturity seriously. While we may put forth great effort into our profession, perhaps even earning a Ph.D., many of us are like the astronomer who said to the theologian, “I don’t understand why you theologians fuss so much about predestination and supralapsarianism, about the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God, imputed or infused grace, and the like. To me Christianity is simple--it’s the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” (To which, incidentally, the theologian replied, “I think I see what you mean. I get lost in all your talk about exploding novas, expanding universes, theories of entropy and astronomical perturbations. For me astronomy is simple: It’s ‘Twinkle, twinkle little star…’ ”) We can illustrate the importance of theology by means of the skeleton and the jellyfish. When we look at a skeleton we can be reasonably sure that it is dead. The life that once held these bones together is gone, and these bones are now held together with pins and wires. This is how many people view theology: lifeless, and a collection of ideas that are held together by the artificial means of complex rationalizations and arguments. Then there is the jellyfish. A jellyfish can live for a time on the beach, but cannot do anything. It lies on the sand in a pulsating blob, unable to do anything except possibly sting a passerby. The jellyfish, like the skeleton, has a problem. While the skeleton has structure without life, the jellyfish has life without structure. The lack of structure, or a skeletal system, causes it to be ineffective at doing anything on land.

While it is true that theology alone may be lifeless, spiritual life without structure is at best ineffective and is for all practical purposes useless. The answer to the dilemma is to bring together the life with a structure that will support it.

A structure such as a skeleton will allow us to accomplish the task of living life, but this does not mean that just any structure will do, that one structure is as good as another. Years ago I worked with a person who as a child had fallen from a tree and broken his arm. The physician who attended to him was drunk and set the arm improperly, so that in the healing process a deformity developed. My colleague could still use his arm but it was not fully functional, because the structure that supported his arm inhibited his movement.

Improper theological structures may give the illusion of being intellectually and spiritually harmonious and in line with Scripture, but the reality shows otherwise. In the pilot episode of the original Star Trek series, broadcast as “The Menagerie,” Captain Christopher Pike (Captain Kirk’s predecessor) is imprisoned on the planet Talos 4. The inhabitants of the planet put him and a beautiful young woman as exhibits in their zoo. The plan is for them to mate and ultimately populate the planet. Pike learns that the Talosians are experts at illusion and that this is why his escape attempts keep failing. When he is finally successful and is about to leave the planet, he tries to take the young woman as well, but she refuses to leave. He discovers that she, like everything else he has experienced, is not as she appears. She is human, but she is not young and beautiful. She is the sole survivor of a scientific expedition stranded on the planet years before. Badly injured in the crash of her spaceship, she was nursed back to health by the Talosians. But they had never seen a human before and consequently did not properly set her broken bones so that she ended up hunched over with twisted limbs. In this ugly condition, she could not face other humans. She could live a functional life, but the underlying structure of her body could not support normal existence. Her twisted structure cut her off from contact with normal humans.

To extend our analogy a step further, our theology should not only have a functional structure but also a beauty and attractiveness that reflects the beauty of God, who is himself the source of beauty. Astrophysicists who are searching for a “unified field theory” that will explain and unify our knowledge of how the universe came into being and how the fundamental forces of nature are related speak of the “beauty principle.” They have discovered in their advancing knowledge significant new insights that have an “elegant simplicity” about them. It is this very elegance that is a compelling feature in the acceptance of the new theory. Likewise, our theology should have a compelling beauty about it. If it does not, we probably need to do more reflection to grasp more fully who God is and what he has done.

During our first trip to England, my wife and I visited the medieval walled city of York and the York Castle museum. Particularly fascinating was the exhibit showing the history of warfare, with displays arranged in chronological order, beginning in the Stone Age. We saw the progress in weaponry during the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age, including spears, bows and arrows, and chariots. In the medieval displays, we saw broadswords, body armor, and chain mail. Then, in a display that was dated only fifty years later than the preceding one, we saw a profound shift. The armor was nearly gone, and now cannons and muskets were used. The defensive weaponry of recent decades was ineffective against the new gunpowder-powered weapons. In order to survive under these new conditions, both the defensive and the offensive weapons had to change.

While theology is rightly seen as an intellectual activity that seeks to bring all things under the lordship of Christ and is rightly seen as an act of worship, it also involves interaction with our contemporary culture. In this sense, we might think of our theology as an armory that provides us with weapons to do battle with a world that is hostile to the lordship of Christ. If we do not retool our weapons to meet the current battlefield conditions, we face defeat. This has been a real problem for the evangelical community in that we have not recognized changing conditions and have carried muskets into battle when the opposition totes M16s and AK-47s.

Our theological understanding comes from the Bible but not from the Bible alone. Many of the questions, categories, and thought forms that are incorporated in our understanding are drawn from the dominant philosophy of the culture we inhabit. Professional theologians have recognized this fact for centuries and have acknowledged that it is unavoidable. When the culture changes, as it does continuously and is doing now at an unprecedented rate, persisting in using the thought forms and categories and explanations and defenses of the faith that have been effective in a previous generation is akin to charging into battle astride horses with sabers drawn, only to be met by machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, bombers, heat-seeking missiles, and the like. While it may be courageous, it is hardly wise.

Our theology has consequences. What we believe matters. History reveals that our belief system determines whether we live wisely or naively. One of the most tragic events of the medieval crusades was the Children’s Crusade. Since the previous crusades had ended in dismal failure, some reasoned that it was because the crusaders were sinners and God would not bless a venture undertaken by sinners. If an army of pure individuals were raised, surely God would bless and give victory. Who is purer and more innocent than children? So an army of children was put together with the objective that they would rescue the Holy Land from the infidel Turks. But when the army of children reached the Holy Land, instead of defeating the Turks, they were captured and sold as slaves.

Love of Jesus, while vital, is not enough. Theology is not just for the professional, the professor, the pastor, or even the Sunday school teacher. Each of us is responsible to become a competent theologian. Rather than viewing our theology as propositions to be learned, we ought to view it as an act of worship. God has entrusted to us his divine revelation in all its multifaceted richness and fullness, but he has not given us a theology. He has revealed himself through his works and his words in human history, in his encounters with individuals at various times and places. He has revealed himself most fully in the person and work of Jesus Christ, but that revelation is in narrative, or story, form. Our job is to organize the material and bring it into a coherent whole so that we can more fully grasp who God is and what he has done. We offer back to him the fruit of our labor in understanding him and his work. The task of theology is to bring all things under the lordship of Christ. While we may rely on the work of others who have gone before us, we have a personal responsibility before God for our understanding.

Our call is not to remain babes but to grow continuously. While there is far more to spiritual maturity than theological knowledge, this knowledge is a definite part of maturity. Jesus commanded us “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matt. 22:37, italics added). The goal is to always be ready to give an answer to those who ask us about our faith (1 Peter 3:15). This demand puts us squarely into the midst of the discipline of theology, a discipline that is and will always be dynamic, a work in progress, because our finite human understanding cannot by definition grasp completely and once and for all infinite truth.

[1] [1] Cf. Stanley N. Gundry, Love Them In: The Life and Theology of D.L. Moody (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976, 1999), 67.

[2] [1] By our basic definition of a theologian, one need not even be saved to be a theologian. Scripture itself testifies that every human being has some knowledge of God, a knowledge gleaned from the created order as well as from conscience (see especially Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18–20). The theology being spoken of here is not formal or technical, but it is nonetheless real theology. Thus, while it is possible to be a theologian without being saved, it is not possible to be saved without being a theologian, since salvation involves not just a mystical spiritual experience and encounter with “spiritual reality,” but is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Calling and Repentance

2008-02-15T21:48:00.001-05:00

Calling and Repentance

by Abraham Kuyper

The Calling of the Regenerate

Whom He did predestinate, them He also called. — Rom. viii. 30.

In order to hear, the sinner, deaf by nature, must receive hearing ears. “He that hath ears let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”

But by nature the sinner does not belong to these favored ones. This is a daily experience. Of two clerks in the same office, one obeys the call and the other rejects it; not because he despises it, but because he does not hear God’s call in it. Hence God’s quickening act antedates the sinner’s hearing, and thus he becomes able to hear the Word.

The quickening, the implanting of the faith-faculty, and the uniting of the soul to Christ, apparently three acts, are in reality but one act, together constituting (objectively) the so-called first grace. In the operation of this grace the sinner is perfectly passive and indifferent; the subject of an action which does not involve the slightest operation, yielding, or even non-resistance on his part.

In fact, the sinner, being dead in trespasses and sins, is under this first grace like a soulless, motionless body, with all the passive properties belonging to a corpse. This fact can not be stated with sufficient force and emphasis. It is an absolute passivity. And every effort or inclination to claim for the sinner the minutest cooperation in this first grace destroys the Gospel, severs the artery of the Christian confession, and is not only heretical, but anti-Scriptural in the highest sense.

This is the point where the sign-post is erected, where the roads divide, where the men of the purified, that is, the Reformed Confession, part company with their opponents.

Having stated this fact forcibly and definitely, it is of the utmost importance to state with equal emphasis that, in all the subsequent operations of grace (so-called second grace), this absolute passivity is made to cease by the wonderful act of the first grace. Hence in all subsequent grace the sinner to some extent cooperates.

In the first grace the sinner is absolutely like a corpse. But the sinner’s first passivity and his subsequent cooperation must not be confounded. There is a passivity, after the Scripture, which can not be exaggerated, which must be left intact; but there is also a passivity which is pretended, anti-Scriptural, and sinful. The difference between the two is not that the former is partially cooperating, and the latter without any cooperation whatever. Surely by such temporizing the churches and the souls in them are not inspired with energy and enthusiasm. No; the difference between the sound and the sickly passivity consists herein, that the former, which is absolute and unlimited, belongs to the first grace, to which it is indispensable; while the latter clings to the second grace, where it does not belong.

Let there be clear insight into this truth, which is after all very simple. The elect but unregenerate sinner can do nothing, and the work that is to be wrought in him must be wrought by another. This is the first grace. But after this is accomplished he is no longer passive, for something was brought into him which in the second work of grace will cooperate with God.

But it is not implied that the elect and regenerate sinner is now able to do anything without God; or that if God should cease working in him, conversion and sanctification would follow of themselves. Both these representations are thoroughly untrue, un-Reformed, and unchristian, because they detract from the work of the Holy Spirit in the elect. No; all spiritual good is of grace to the end: grace not only in regeneration, but at every step of the way of life. From the beginning to the end and throughout eternity the Holy Spirit is the Worker, of regeneration and conversion, of justification and every part of sanctification, of glorification, and of all the bliss of the redeemed Nothing may be subtracted from this.

But while the Holy Spirit is the only Worker in the first grace, in all subsequent operations of grace the regenerate always cooperates with Him. Hence it is not true, as some say, that the regenerate is just as passive as the unregenerate; this only detracts from the work of the Holy Spirit in the first grace. Neither is it true that henceforth the regenerate is the principal worker, only assisted by the Holy Spirit; for this is equally derogatory to the Spirit’s work in the second grace.

Both these errors should be opposed and rejected. For altho, on the one hand, it is said that the regenerate, considered out of Christ, still lies in the midst of death; yet, tho he be considered a thousand times out of Christ, he remains in Him, for once in His hand no one can pluck him out of it. And altho, on the other hand, the regenerate is constantly admonished to be active and diligent, yet, tho the horse does the pulling, it is not the horse but the driver who drives the carriage.

Reserving this last point until we consider sanctification, we now consider the calling, for this sheds more light upon the confession of the Reformed churches concerning the second grace than any other part of the work of grace.

After the elect sinner is born again, i.e., quickened, endowed with the faculty of faith, and united with Jesus, the next work of grace in him is calling, of which Scripture speaks with such emphasis and so often. “But as He which has called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation”; “Who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”; “The God of all grace who hath called us unto His eternal glory”; “Whereunto He called you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ;” “Who hath called you unto His Kingdom and Glory”; “I beseech you to walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye were called;” and not to mention more: “Give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things ye shall never fall.”

In the Sacred Scripture calling has, like regeneration, a wider sense and a more limited.

In the former sense, it means to be called to the eternal glory; hence this includes all that precedes, i.e., calling to repentance, to faith, to sanctification, to the performance of duty, to glory, to the eternal kingdom, etc.

Of this, however, we do not speak now. It is now our intention to consider the calling in its limited sense, which signifies exclusively the calling whereby we are called from darkness into light, i.e., the call unto repentance.

This call unto repentance is by many placed upon the same level with the “drawing,” of which, e.g., Jesus speaks: “No man can come unto Me except the Father draw him.” This we find also in some of St. Paul’s words: “Who hath delivered [Dutch translation, drawn] us from the power of darkness”; “That He might deliver [draw] us from this present evil world according to the will of God and our Father.” However, this seems to me less correct. He that must be drawn seems to be unwilling. He that is called must be able to come. The first implies that the sinner is still passive, and therefore refers to the operation of the first grace; the second addresses the sinner himself, and counts him able to come, and hence belongs to the second grace.

This “calling” is a summons. It is not merely the calling of one to tell him something, but a call implying the command to come; or a beseeching call, as when St. Paul prays: “As tho God did beseech you, be ye reconciled to God”; or as in the Proverbs: “My son, give Me thine heart.”

God sends this call forth by the preachers of the Word: not by the independent preaching of irresponsible men, but by those whom He Himself sends forth; men especially endowed, hence whose calling is not their own, but His. They are the ministers of the Word, royal ambassadors, in the name of the King of Kings demanding our heart, life, and person; yet whose value and honor depend exclusively upon their divine mission and commission. As the value of an echo depends upon the correct returning of the word received, so does their value, honor, and significance depend solely upon the correctness wherewith they call, as an echo of the Word of God. He who calls correctly fills the highest conceivable office on earth; for he calls kings and emperors, standing above them. But he who calls incorrectly or not at all is like a sounding brass; as a minister of the Word he is worthless and without honor, True to the pure Word, he is all; without it, he is nothing. Such is the responsibility of the preacher.

This should be noticed lest Arminianism creep into the holy office. The preacher must be but the instrument of the Holy Spirit; even the sermon must be the product of the Holy Ghost. To suppose that a preacher can have the least authority, honor, or official significance outside of the Word, is to make the office Arminian; not the Holy Spirit, but the dominie, is the worker; he works with all his might, and the Holy Spirit may be the minister’s assistant. To avoid such mistake, our Reformed churches have always purged themselves of the leaven of clericalism.

And through this office the call goes forth from the pulpit, in the catechetical class, in the family, in writing, and by personal exhortation. However, not always to every sinner directly through the office. On a ship at sea God may use a godly commander to call sinners to repentance. In a hospital without spiritual supervision the Lord may use a pious man or woman, both to nurse the sick and call their souls to repentance. In a village where the quasi-minister neglects his duty, the Lord God may be pleased to draw souls to life by printed sermons and books, by a newspaper even, or by individual exhortation.

And yet in all these the authority to call reposes in the divine embassy of the ministry of the Word. For the instruments of the call, whether they were persons or printed books, proceeded from the office. The persons were themselves called through the office, and they only transmitted the divine message; and the printed books offered on paper what otherwise is heard in the sanctuary.

This calling of the Holy Spirit proceeds in and through the preaching of the Word, and calls upon the regenerated sinner to arise from death, and to let Christ give him light. It is not a calling of persons still unregenerate, simply because such have no hearing ear.

It is true that the preaching of missionary or minister of the Word addresses itself also to others, but this is not at all in conflict with what we have just said. In the first place, because there is also an outward call to the unregenerate, in order to deprive them of an excuse, and to show that they have no hearing ears. And second, because the minister of the Word does not know whether a man is born again or not, wherefore he may make no difference.

As a rule, every baptized person should be reckoned as belonging to the regenerated (but not always converted); wherefore the preacher must call every baptized person to repentance, as tho he were born again. But let no one commit the mistake of applying this rule, which applies only to the Church as a whole, to every person in the Church. This would be either the climax of thoughtlessness or a complete misunderstanding of the reality of the grace of God.

The Coming of the Called

That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.— Rom. ix. 11.

THE question is, whether the elect cooperate in the call.

We say, Yes; for the call is no call, in the fullest sense of the word, unless the called one can hear and hears so distinctly that it impresses him, causes him to rise and to obey God. For this reason our fathers, for the sake of clearness, used to distinguish between the ordinary call and the effectual call.

God’s call does not go forth to the elect alone. The Lord Jesus said: “Many are called, few are chosen.” And the issue shows that masses of men die unconverted, altho called by the outward, ordinary call.

Nor should this outward call be slighted or esteemed unimportant; for by it the judgment of many shall be made the heavier in the day of judgment: “If the mighty works which have been done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Therefore it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you”; “And the servant which knew the Lord’s will and did not according to His will shall be beaten with many stripes.” Moreover, the effect of this outward call reaches sometimes much deeper than is generally supposed, and brings one sometimes to the very point of real conversion.

The unregenerate are not so insensible to the truth as never to be touched by it. The decisive words of Heb. vi., concerning the apparently converted who have even tasted of the heavenly gift, prove the contrary. St. Peter speaks of sows which were washed and then returned to the wallowing in the mire. One can be persuaded to be almost a Christian. But for the selling of his goods the rich young ruler would have been won for Christ. Wherefore the effect of the ordinary call is by no means as weak and meager as is commonly believed. In the parable of the sower the fourth class of hearers alone belong to the elect, for they alone bear fruit. Still there is among two of the remaining classes a considerable amount of growth. One of them even produces high stalks and ears; only there is no fruit.

And for this reason the men that company with the people of God should earnestly examine their own hearts, whether their following of the Word is the result of having the seed sown in “good ground.” Oh, there is so much of illumination and of delight even; and yet only to be choked, because it does not contain the genuine germ of life.

All these unregenerate persons lack saving grace. They hear only with the carnal understanding. They receive the Word, but only in the field of their unsanctified imagination. They let it work upon their natural conscience. It plays merely upon the waves of their natural emotions. Thus they may be moved to tears, and they ardently love whatever so affects them. Yea, they often perform many good works which are truly praiseworthy; they may even give their goods to the poor, and their bodies to be burned. Their salvation is therefore considered to be a matter of fact. But the holy apostle completely destroys their hope, saying: “Tho you speak with the tongues of men and of angels, tho you understand all mystery, tho you give all your goods to feed the poor, and tho you give your body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth you nothing.”

Hence to be God’s child and not a sounding brass, deep insight into the divine mysteries, an excited imagination, a troubled conscience, and waves of feeling are not required, for all these may be experienced without any real covenant grace; but what is needed is true, deep love operating in the heart, illuminating and vitalizing all these things.

Adam’s sin consisted in this, that he banished all the love of God from his heart. Now it is impossible to be neutral or indifferent toward God. When Adam ceased to love God, he began to hate Him. And it is this hatred of God which now lies at the bottom of the heart of every child of Adam. Hence conversion means this that a man get rid of that hatred and receive love in its place. He who says from the heart, “I love the Lord,” is all right. What more can he desire!

But as long as there is no love for God, there is nothing. For mere willingness to do something for God, even to bear great sacrifices, and to be very pious and benevolent, except it spring from the right motive, is in its deepest ground nothing but a despising of God. However beautiful the veneering, all these apparently good works are inwardly cankered, sin-eaten, and decayed. Love alone imparts the real flavor to the sacrifice. Wherefore the holy apostle declares so sternly and sharply: “Tho you give your body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth you nothing.”

To perform good works in order to be saved, or to oblige God, or to make one’s own piety lofty and conspicuous, is a growth from the old root and at the most but a semblance of love. To cherish true love for God is to be constrained by love to yield one’s ego with all that it is and has, and to let God be God again. And the ordinary, the general, the outward call never has such effect; it is incapable of producing it.

Wherefore we leave the ordinary call and return to the call which is particular, wonderful, inward, and effectual; which addresses itself not to all, but exclusively to the elect.

This call, which is spoken of as “heavenly” (Heb. iii. i), as “holy” (2 Tim. i. 9), as “being without repentance” (Rom. xi. 29), is “according to God’s purpose” (Rom. viii. 28), is “from above in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Phil. iii. 14), and does not have its starting-point in the preaching. He that calls by it is God, not the minister. And this call goes forth by the means of two agencies, one coming to man from without and the other from within. Both these agencies are effectual, and the call has accomplished its purpose and the sinner has come to repentance as soon as their workings meet and unite in the center of his being.

Hence we deny that the regenerate, hearing the preached Word, will come of himself. We do not thus understand their cooperation. If the inward call is sufficient, how is it that the regenerate can sometimes hear the preaching without arising, unrepentant, refusing to let Christ give him light? But we confess that the call of the regenerate is twofold: from without by the preached Word, and from within by the exhortation and conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Hence the work of the Holy Spirit in the calling is twofold: The first work is, as He comes with the Word: the Word which is inspired, prepared, committed to writing, and preserved by Himself, who is God the Holy Ghost. And He brings that Word to the sinners by preachers whom He Himself has endowed with talents, animation, and spiritual insight. And so wonderfully does He conduct that preaching through the channel of the office and of the historical development of the confession, that at last it comes to him in the form and character required to affect and win him.

We see in this a very mysterious leading of the Holy Spirit. Afterward a preacher will learn that, under his preaching in such a church and at such an hour, a regenerate person was converted. And yet he had not specially prepared himself for it. Frequently he did not even know that person; much less his spiritual condition. And yet, without knowing it, his thoughts were guided and his word was prepared in such a way by the Holy Ghost; perhaps he looked at the man in such a manner that his word, in connection with the Spirit’s inward operation, became to him the real and concrete Word of God. We hear it often said: “That was directly preached at me.” And so it was. It should be understood, however, that it was not the minister who preached at you, for he did not even think of you; but it was the Holy Spirit Himself. It was He who thought of you. It was He who had it all prepared for you. It was He Himself who wrought in you.

The ministers of the Word should therefore be exceedingly careful not in the least to boast of the conversions that occur under their ministry. When after days of failure the fisherman draws his net full of fishes, is this cause for the net to boast itself? Did it not come up empty again and again; and then was it not nearly torn asunder by the multitude of fishes?

To say that this proves the efficiency of the preacher is against the Scripture. There may be two ministers, the one well grounded in doctrine, the other but lightly furnished; and yet the former has no conversions in his church, while the latter is being richly blessed. In this the Lord God is and remains the Sovereign Lord. He passes by the heavily armed champions in Saul’s army, and David, with scarcely any weapons at all, slays the giant Goliath. All that a preacher has to do is to consider how, in obedience to his Lord, he may minister the Word, leaving results with the Lord. And when the Lord God gives him conversions, and Satan whispers, “What an excellent preacher you are, that it was given you to convert so many men!” then he is to say. “Get thee behind me, Satan,” giving the glory to the Holy Spirit alone.

However, it is not the Holy Spirit’s only care in such a way and focus of life to cause the Word to come to a regenerate person, but He adds also a second work, viz., that by which the preached Word effectively enters the very center of his heart and life.

By this second care He so illuminates his natural understanding and strengthens his natural ability and imagination that he receives the general tenor of the preached Word and thoroughly understands its contents.

But this is not all, for even pretended believers may have this. The seed of the Word attains this growth also in those who have received the seed into a rocky ground and among thorns. Hence to this is added the illumination of his understanding, which wonderful gift enables him not only to apprehend the general sense of the preached Word, but also to perceive and realize that this Word comes to him directly from God; that it affects and condemns his very being, thus causing him to penetrate into its hidden essence and feel the sharp sting which effects conviction.

Lastly, the Holy Spirit plies this conviction — which otherwise would quickly vanish — so long and so severely, that finally the sting, like the keen edge of a lancet, pierces the thick skin and lays open the festering sore. This is in the called a very wonderful operation. The general understanding puts the matter before him; the illumination reveals to him what it contains; and the conviction puts the sharp two-edged sword directly upon his heart. Then, however, he is inclined to shrink from that sword; not to let it pierce through, but to let it glance harmlessly from the soul. But then the Holy Spirit, in full activity, continues to press that sword of conviction, driving it so forcibly into the soul that at last it cuts through and takes effect.

But this does not end the calling. For after the Holy Spirit has done all this, He begins to operate upon the will; not by forcibly bending it, as an iron rod in the strong hand of the blacksmith, but by making it, tho stiff and unyielding, pliant and tender from within. He could not do this in the unregenerate. But having laid in regeneration the foundation of all these subsequent operations in the soul, He proceeds to build upon it; or, to take another figure, He draws the sprouts from the germ planted in the ground. They do not start of themselves, but He draws them out of the germ. A grain of wheat deposited in a desk remains what it is; but warmed by the sun in the soil, the heat causes it to sprout. And so it is here. The vital germ can do nothing of itself; it remains what it is. But when the Holy Spirit causes the fostering rays of the Sun of Righteousness to play upon it, then it germinates, and thus He draws from it the blade and the ear and the corn in the ear.

Hence the yielding of the will is the result of a tenderness and emotion and affection which sprang from the implanted germ of life, by which the will, which was at first inflexible, became pliant, by which that which was inclined to the left was drawn to the right. And so, by this last act, conviction, with all that it contains, was brought into the will; and this resulted in the yielding of self, giving glory to God.

And in this way love entered the soul — love tender, genuine, and mysterious, the ecstasy of which vibrates in our hearts during all our after-life.

And this finishes the exposition of the divine work of calling. It belongs to the elect alone. It is irresistible, and no man can hinder it. Without it no sinner ever passed from the bitterness of hatred to the sweetness of love. When the call and regeneration coincide, they seem to be one; and so they are to our consciousness; but actually they are distinct. They differ in this respect, that regeneration takes place independently of the will and understanding; that it is wrought in us without our aid or cooperation; while in calling, the will and understanding begin to act, so that we hear with both the outward and inward ear, and with the inclined will are willing to go out to the light.

The Bible on Divine Sovereignty

2008-02-12T18:59:00.000-05:00

So I can’t explain it, but for some reason when it comes to scripture my heart just starts racing. Not that im nervous, but because of the fact that it is the only infallible word of God. Like 2tim 3:16 says: All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Why else would the Reformation giants put so much stress on Sola Scriptura?

I’ve added yet another verse list. Another amazing read.

Keep in mind, we are to teach what the bible says, not what we want it to say. Context is everything. I encourage a full out verse study on every verse listed.

The Bible on Divine Sovereignty

The below passages are set forth with very little commentary and emphasis in caps and bold print. They are set forth under different headings to show that God is absolutely sovereign, that man is absolutely depraved, and that God has chosen of His Own will those who are saved.

ON DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY (WARNING: SOME OF THESE PASSAGES MAY SHOCK YOU!) :

GENESIS 50:20 - "(Joseph speaking) But as for you, you thought evil against me; but GOD meant it to good ..."

JUDGES 9:23 - "Then GOD SENT AN EVIL SPIRIT between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech ..."

1 SAMUEL 16:14 - "But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and AN EVIL SPIRIT FROM THE LORD troubled him."

1 KINGS 22:23 - "Now therefore, behold, THE LORD HAS PUT A LYING SPIRIT IN THE MOUTH OF ALL THESE YOUR PROPHETS, AND THE LORD HAS SPOKEN EVIL CONCERNING YOU."

PSALMS 17:13-14 - "Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from THE WICKED, WHICH IS THY SWORD; FROM MEN WHICH ARE THY HAND ..."

PSALMS 76:10 - "Surely THE WRATH OF MAN SHALL PRAISE THEE: the remainder of wrath SHALT THOU RESTRAIN."

PSALMS 115:3 - "But our God is in the heavens: HE HAS DONE WHATSOEVER HE HAS PLEASED."

PSALMS 119:89-91 - "Forever, O LORD, Thy Word is settled in heaven. Thy faithfulness is to all generations: Thou has established the earth, and it abides. They continue this day ACCORDING TO THINE ORDINANCES: FOR ALL ARE THY SERVANTS."

PSALMS 135:5-6 - "For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods. WHATSOEVER THE LORD PLEASED, THAT HE DID in heaven, and in the earth, in the seas, and in all deep places."

PROVERBS 16:4 - "The LORD has made ALL THINGS FOR HIMSELF: yes, EVEN THE WICKED FOR THE DAY OF EVIL."

PROVERBS 16:9 - "A man's heart devises his way; BUT THE LORD DIRECTS HIS STEPS" (see Isa. 10:5-7,12).

PROVERBS 19:21 - "There are many devices in a man's heart; NEVERTHELESS THE COUNSEL OF THE LORD, THAT SHALL STAND."

PROVERBS 20:24 - "Man's goings are OF THE LORD; how then can a man understand his own way?"

PROVERBS 21:30 - "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD."

ECCLESIASTES 3:11 - "(GOD) HAS MADE EVERYTHING BEAUTIFUL IN HIS TIME: also He has set the world in their heart, so that NO MAN CAN FIND OUT THE WORK THAT GOD MAKES FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END."

ECCLESIASTES 7:13 - "Consider the work of God: for WHO CAN MAKE THAT STRAIGHT WHICH HE HAS MADE CROOKED?"

ISAIAH 14:24 - "The LORD of Hosts has sworn, saying, 'Surely as I have thought, SO SHALL IT COME TO PASS; and as I have purposed, SO SHALL IT STAND ..."

ISAIAH 30:28 - "And (GOD'S) breath, as an overflowing stream, shall reach to the midst of the kneck, to sift the nations with the sieve of vanity: and there shall be a bridle in the jaws of the people, CAUSING THEM TO ERR."

ISAIAH 43:13 - "Yes, before the day was I am He; and THERE IS NONE THAT CAN DELIVER OUT OF MY HAND: I WILL WORK, AND WHO SHALL HINDER IT?"

ISAIAH 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do ALL THESE THINGS."

ISAIAH 46:9-11 - "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, 'MY COUNSEL SHALL STAND, AND I WILL DO ALL MY PLEASURE: calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that EXECUTES MY COUNSEL from a far country: yes, I have spoken it, I WILL ALSO BRING IT TO PASS; I HAVE PURPOSED IT, I WILL ALSO DO IT."

ISAIAH 54:16 - "Behold, I have created the smith that blows the coals in the fire, and that brings forth an instrument for his work; and I HAVE CREATED THE WASTER TO DESTROY."

ISAIAH 55:11 - "So shall My Word be that goes forth out of My mouth: it shall not return to Me void, BUT IT SHALL ACCOMPLISH THAT WHICH I PLEASE, and IT SHALL PROSPER IN THE THING WHERETO I SENT IT."

LAMENTATIONS 3:37-38 - "Who is he that says, 'and it comes to pass, when the LORD commands it not? Out of the mouth of the Most High proceeds not EVIL AND GOOD?'"

DANIEL 4:34-35 - "... and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured Him that lives forever, Whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation: AND ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH ARE REPUTED AS NOTHING: and He does ACCORDING TO HIS WILL in the army of heaven, AND AMONG THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH: and NONE CAN STAY HIS HAND, OR SAY TO HIM, 'WHAT DOEST THOU?'"

AMOS 3:6 - "... Shall there be evil in a city, AND THE LORD HAS NOT DONE IT?"

JOHN 3:27 - "John answered and said, 'A man can receive NOTHING, except it be given him FROM HEAVEN."

ACTS 4:26-27 - "'The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ ... to do WHATSOEVER THY HAND AND THY COUNSEL DETERMINED BEFORE TO BE DONE."

1 CORINTHIANS 2:7 - "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which GOD ORDAINED BEFORE THE WORLD, to our glory."

JAMES 4:13-15 - "Go to now, you that say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain,' whereas you know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time, and then vanishes away. For that you ought to say, 'IF THE LORD WILL, we shall live, and do this or that.'"

REVELATION 4:11 - "Thou art worthy, O LORD, to receive glory, and honour, and power: for Thou has created all things, and FOR THY PLEASURE they are and were created."

MAN IS BY NATURE SINFUL AND UNABLE TO COME TO CHRIST IN AND OF HIMSELF:

MATTHEW 12:34 - "O generation of vipers, how CAN you, BEING EVIL, speak good things: and an EVIL MAN OUT OF THE EVIL TREASURE BRINGS FORTH EVIL THINGS."

JOHN 5:44 - "How CAN you believe, which receive honour one of another, and SEEK NOT THE HONOUR THAT COMES FROM GOD ONLY?"

JOHN 6:64-65 - "But there are some of you who believe not. For Jesus knew FROM THE BEGINNING who they were that believed not, and who should betray Him. And He said, 'Therefore I said to you, that NO MAN CAN COME TO ME, EXCEPT IT WERE GIVEN TO HIM OF MY FATHER."

JOHN 8:44 - "You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father YOU WILL DO ..."

JOHN 14:17 - "Even the Spirit of truth; Whom the world CANNOT receive, because it sees Him not, neither knows Him ..."

ROMANS 3:10-12 - "... There is NONE righteous, no, NOT ONE; there is NONE that understands; THERE IS NONE THAT SEEKS AFTER GOD. They are ALL gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable: there is NONE that does good, no, NOT ONE."

ROMANS 6:20 - "For when you were the servants of sin, you were FREE FROM RIGHTEOUSNESS."

ROMANS 8:8 - "... they that are in the flesh CANNOT PLEASE GOD."

THAT GOD HAS CHOSEN AND PREDESTINED THOSE WHO ARE SAVED:

MATTHEW 13:11 - "(JESUS) answered and said to (His disciples), 'Because it is GIVEN TO YOU to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is NOT GIVEN."

JOHN 6:37 - "ALL that the Father GIVES Me SHALL come to Me ..."

JOHN 13:18 - "I speak NOT OF YOU ALL, I know whom I have CHOSEN; but that the Scripture might be fulfilled ..."

JOHN 15:16 - "You have not chosen Me, but I HAVE CHOSEN YOU, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain ..."

JOHN 17:2 - "As Thou (FATHER) has given Him (JESUS) power OVER ALL FLESH, that He should give eternal life to AS MANY AS THOU HAS GIVEN HIM."

JOHN 17:6 - "I have manifested Thy Name TO THE MEN WHICH THOU GAVE ME out of the world; THINE THEY WERE, AND THOU GAVE THEM (TO) ME."

JOHN 17:9 - "I pray for them: I pray NOT FOR THE WORLD, but FOR THEM WHICH THOU HAS GIVEN ME; FOR THEY ARE THINE."

ACTS 13:48 - "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad glorified the Word of the Lord; AND AS MANY AS WERE ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE BELIEVED."

ROMANS 9:9-24 - "For this is the word of promise, 'At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.' And not only this: but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children, being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION MIGHT STAND, NOT OF WORKS, BUT OF HIM THAT CALLS:) It was said to her, 'The elder shall serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau HAVE I HATED.' WHAT SHALL WE SAY THEN? IS THERE UNRIGHTEOUSNESS WITH GOD? GOD FORBID. For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy ON WHOM I WILL have mercy, and I will have compassion ON WHOM I WILL have compassion.' So then, IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLS, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNS, BUT OF GOD WHO SHOWS MERCY. For the Scripture says to Pharoah, 'Even for this same purpose have I raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My Name might declared throughout all the earth.' Therefore He has mercy ON WHOM HE WILL have mercy, and WHOM HE WILL HE HARDENS. You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' Nay but, O man, WHO ARE YOU THAT REPLIES AGAINST GOD? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, 'Why have You made me thus?' Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel TO HONOUR, and another TO DISHONOUR? What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath FITTED TO DESTRUCTION: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessel of mercy WHICH HE HAD AFORE PREPARED TO GLORY, even us, who He has CALLED, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

ROMANS 11:2-7 - "God has not cast away His people WHICH HE FOREKNEW. Know you not what the Scripture says of Elijah? How he makes intercession to God against Israel, saying, 'Lord, they have killed Thy prophets, and digged down Thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.' But what says the answer of God to him? 'I have RESERVED TO MYSELF seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.' Even so then at this present time also there is A REMNANT ACCORDING TO THE ELECTION OF GRACE. And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it is of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel has not obtained that which he seeks for; but THE ELECTION HAS OBTAINED IT, AND THE REST WERE BLINDED."

1 CORINTHIANS 1:24-31 - "But to THEM WHICH ARE CALLED, both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For you see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God has CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has CHOSEN the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. And base things of the world, and things which are despised has God CHOSEN, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: THAT NO FLESH SHOULD GLORY IN HIS PRESENCE."

PHILIPPIANS 1:29 - "For to you IT IS GIVEN IN THE BEHALF OF CHRIST, NOT ONLY TO BELIEVE ON HIM, but also to suffer for His sake ..."

1 THESSALONIANS 5:9 - "For God has not APPOINTED us to wrath, but TO OBTAIN SALVATION BY OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST ..."

2 THESSALONIANS 2:13-14 - "But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because GOD HAS FROM THE BEGINNING CHOSEN YOU TO SALVATION, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto He CALLED YOU BY OUR GOSPEL, TO THE OBTAINING OF THE GLORY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST ..."

2 TIMOTHY 1:9 - "(GOD) has saved us, and CALLED us with a holy calling, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS, BUT ACCORDING TO HIS OWN PURPOSE AND GRACE, which was given us in Christ Jesus BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN."

JAMES 1:18 - "OF HIS OWN WILL BEGAT HE US WITH THE WORD OF TRUTH ..."

1 PETER 1:2 - "ELECT ACCORDING TO THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE FATHER, through sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience AND SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST ..."

1 PETER 2:8-9 - "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the Word, being disobedient: WHEREUNTO ALSO THEY WERE APPOINTED. But you are a CHOSEN generation ... that you should show forth the praises of Him Who has CALLED you out of darkness into His marvelous light ..."

REVELATION 17:8 - "... and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, WHOSE NAMES WERE NOT WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD ..."

REVELATION 17:14 - "... the Lamb shall overcome them, for He is LORD OF LORDS, and KING OF KINGS; and they that are with Him are CALLED, and CHOSEN, and FAITHFUL."

I will rest my case with John 1:13, which describes believers as being "born, not of blood (i.e., descent), NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH, NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but OF GOD."

Of Justification by Faith

2008-02-12T15:58:00.000-05:00

Of Justification by Faith

by John Calvin
(1509-1564)

1. I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man's only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life. This second benefit, viz., regeneration, appears to have been already sufficiently discussed. On the other hand, the subject of justification was discussed more cursorily, because it seemed of more consequence first to explain that the faith by which alone, through the mercy of God, we obtain free justification, is not destitute of good works; and also to show the true nature of these good works on which this question partly turns. The doctrine of Justification is now to be fully discussed, and discussed under the conviction, that as it is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared. The necessity of thoroughly understanding this subject will become more apparent as we proceed with it.

2. Lest we should stumble at the very threshold, (this we should do were we to begin the discussion without knowing what the subject is,) let us first explain the meaning of the expressions, To be justified in the sight of God, to be Justified by faith or by works. A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, (see sec. 21 and 23.)

3. In confirmation of this there are many clear passages of Scripture. First, it cannot be denied that this is the proper and most usual signification of the term. But as it were too tedious to collect all the passages, and compare them with each other, let it suffice to have called the reader's attention to the fact: he will easily convince himself of its truth. I will only mention a few passages in which the justification of which we speak is expressly handled. First, when Luke relates that all the people that heard Christ "justified God," (Luke 7: 29,) and when Christ declares, that "Wisdom is justified of all her children," (Luke 7: 35,) Luke means not that they conferred righteousness which always dwells in perfection with God, although the whole world should attempt to wrest it from him, nor does Christ mean that the doctrine of salvation is made just: this it is in its own nature; but both modes of expression are equivalent to attributing due praise to God and his doctrine. On the other hand, when Christ upbraids the Pharisees for justifying themselves, (Luke 16: 15,) he means not that they acquired righteousness by acting properly, but that they ambitiously courted a reputation for righteousness of which they were destitute. Those acquainted with Hebrew understand the meaning better: for in that language the name of wicked is given not only to those who are conscious of wickedness, but to those who receive sentence of condemnation. Thus, when Bathsheba says, "I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders," she does not acknowledge a crime, but complains that she and her son will be exposed to the disgrace of being numbered among reprobates and criminals, (1 Kings 1: 21.) It is, indeed, plain from the context, that the term even in Latin must be thus understood, viz., relatively, and does not denote any quality. In regard to the use of the term with reference to the present subject, when Paul speaks of the Scripture, "foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith," (Gal. 3: 8,) what other meaning can you give it than that God imputes righteousness by faith? Again, when he says, "that he (God) might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus," (Rom. 3: 26,) what can the meaning be, if not that God, in consideration of their faith, frees them from the condemnation which their wickedness deserves? This appears still more plainly at the conclusion, when he exclaims, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us, (Rom. 8: 33, 34.) For it is just as if he had said, Who shall accuse those whom God has acquitted? Who shall condemn those for whom Christ pleads? To justify therefore, is nothing else than to acquit from the charge of guilt, as if innocence were proved. Hence, when God justifies us through the intercession of Christ, he does not acquit us on a proof of our own innocence, but by an imputation of righteousness, so that though not righteous in ourselves, we are deemed righteous in Christ. Thus it is said, in Paul's discourse in the Acts, "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses," (Acts 13: 38, 39.) You see that after remission of sins justification is set down by way of explanation; you see plainly that it is used for acquittal; you see how it cannot be obtained by the works of the law; you see that it is entirely through the interposition of Christ; you see that it is obtained by faith; you see, in fine, that satisfaction intervenes, since it is said that we are justified from our sins by Christ. Thus when the publican is said to have gone down to his house "justified," (Luke 18: 14,) it cannot be held that he obtained this justification by any merit of works. All that is said is, that after obtaining the pardon of sins he was regarded in the sight of God as righteous. He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God. Hence Ambrose elegantly terms confession of sins "legal justification," (Ambrose on Psalm 118 Serm. 10).

4. Without saying more about the term, we shall have no doubt as to the thing meant if we attend to the description which is given of it. For Paul certainly designates justification by the term acceptance, when he says to the Ephesians, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the Beloved," (Eph. 1: 5, 6.) His meaning is the very same as where he elsewhere says, "being justified freely by his grace," (Rom. 3: 24.) In the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he first terms it the imputation of righteousness, and hesitates not to place it in forgiveness of sins: "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven," &c., (Rom. 4: 6-8.) There, indeed, he is not speaking of a part of justification, but of the whole. He declares, moreover, that a definition of it was given by David, when he pronounced him blessed who has obtained the free pardon of his sins. Whence it appears that this righteousness of which he speaks is simply opposed to judicial guilt. But the most satisfactory passage on this subject is that in which he declares the sum of the Gospel message to be reconciliation to God, who is pleased, through Christ, to receive us into favor by not imputing our sins, (2 Cor. 5: 18-21.) Let my readers carefully weigh the whole context. For Paul shortly after adding, by way of explanation, in order to designate the mode of reconciliation, that Christ who knew no sin was made sin for us, undoubtedly understands by reconciliation nothing else than justification. Nor, indeed, could it be said, as he elsewhere does, that we are made righteous "by the obedience" of Christ, (Rom. 5: 19,) were it not that we are deemed righteous in the sight of God in him and not in ourselves.

5. But as Osiander has introduced a kind of monstrosity termed essential righteousness, by which, although he designed not to abolish free righteousness, he involves it in darkness, and by that darkness deprives pious minds of a serious sense of divine grace; before I pass to other matters, it may be proper to refute this delirious dream. And, first, the whole speculation is mere empty curiosity. He indeed, heaps together many passages of scripture showing that Christ is one with us, and we likewise one with him, a point which needs no proof; but he entangles himself by not attending to the bond of this unity. The explanation of all difficulties is easy to us, who hold that we are united to Christ by the secret agency of his Spirit, but he had formed some idea akin to that of the Manichees, desiring to transfuse the divine essence into men. Hence his other notion, that Adam was formed in the image of God, because even before the fall Christ was destined to be the model of human nature. But as I study brevity, I will confine myself to the matter in hand. He says, that we are one with Christ. This we admit, but still we deny that the essence of Christ is confounded with ours. Then we say that he absurdly endeavors to support his delusions by means of this principle: that Christ is our righteousness, because he is the eternal God, the fountain of righteousness, the very righteousness of God. My readers will pardon me for now only touching on matters which method requires me to defer to another place. But although he pretends that, by the term essential righteousness, he merely means to oppose the sentiment that we are reputed righteous on account of Christ, he however clearly shows, that not contented with that righteousness, which was procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ, he maintains that we are substantially righteous in God by an infused essence as well as quality. For this is the reason why he so vehemently contends that not only Christ but the Father and the Spirit dwell in us. The fact I admit to be true, but still I maintain it is wrested by him. He ought to have attended to the mode of dwelling, viz., that the Father and the Spirit are in Christ; and as in him the fulness of the Godhead dwells, so in him we possess God entire. Hence, whatever he says separately concerning the Father and the Spirit, has no other tendency than to lead away the simple from Christ. Then he introduces a substantial mixture, by which God, transfusing himself into us, makes us as it were a part of himself. Our being made one with Christ by the agency of the Spirit, he being the head and we the members, he regards as almost nothing unless his essence is mingled with us. But, as I have said, in the case of the Father and the Spirit, he more clearly betrays his views, namely, that we are not justified by the mere grace of the Mediator, and that righteousness is not simply or entirely offered to us in his person, but that we are made partakers of divine righteousness when God is essentially united to us.

6. Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps, it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark and inky blood, conceals its many tails, if we would not knowingly and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. To prove the first point, viz., that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul's statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us "righteousness and sanctification," (1 Cor. 1: 30.) And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures. Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle's meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture. He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ, (who is the righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.

7. When he objects that the power of justifying exists not in faith, considered in itself, but only as receiving Christ, I willingly admit it. For did faith justify of itself, or (as it is expressed) by its own intrinsic virtue, as it is always weak and imperfect, its efficacy would be partial, and thus our righteousness being maimed would give us only a portion of salvation. We indeed imagine nothing of the kind, but say, that, properly speaking, God alone justifies. The same thing we likewise transfer to Christ, because he was given to us for righteousness; while we compare faith to a kind of vessel, because we are incapable of receiving Christ, unless we are emptied and come with open mouth to receive his grace. Hence it follows, that we do not withdraw the power of justifying from Christ, when we hold that, previous to his righteousness, he himself is received by faith. Still, however, I admit not the tortuous figure of the sophist, that faith is Christ; as if a vessel of clay were a treasure, because gold is deposited in it. And yet this is no reason why faith, though in itself of no dignity or value, should not justify us by giving Christ; Just as such a vessel filled with coin may give wealth. I say, therefore, that faith, which is only the instrument for receiving justification, is ignorantly confounded with Christ, who is the material cause, as well as the author and minister of this great blessing. This disposes of the difficulty, viz., how the term faith is to be understood when treating of justification.

8. Osiander goes still farther in regard to the mode of receiving Christ, holding, that by the ministry of the external word the internal word is received; that he may thus lead us away from the priesthood of Christ, and his office of Mediator, to his eternal divinity. We, indeed, do not divide Christ, but hold that he who, reconciling us to God in his flesh, bestowed righteousness upon us, is the eternal Word of God; and that he could not perform the office of Mediator, nor acquire righteousness for us, if he were not the eternal God. Osiander will have it, that as Christ is God and man, he was made our righteousness in respect not of his human but of his divine nature. But if this is a peculiar property of the Godhead, it will not be peculiar to Christ, but common to him with the Father and the Spirit, since their righteousness is one and the same. Thus it would be incongruous to say, that that which existed naturally from eternity was made ours. But granting that God was made unto us righteousness, what are we to make of Paul's interposed statement, that he was so made by God? This certainly is peculiar to the office of mediator, for although he contains in himself the divine nature, yet he receives his own proper title, that he may be distinguished from the Father and the Spirit. But he makes a ridiculous boast of a single passage of Jeremiah, in which it is said, that Jehovah will be our righteousness, (Jer. 23: 6; 33: 16.) But all he can extract from this is, that Christ, who is our righteousness, was God manifest in the flesh. We have elsewhere quoted from Paul's discourse, that God purchased the Church with his own blood, (Acts 20: 28.) Were any one to infer from this that the blood by which sins were expiated was divine, and of a divine nature, who could endure so foul a heresy? But Osiander, thinking that he has gained the whole cause by this childish cavil, swells, exults, and stuffs whole pages with his bombast, whereas the solution is simple and obvious, viz., that Jehovah, when made of the seed of David, was indeed to be the righteousness of believers, but in what sense Isaiah declares, "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many," (Isa. 53: 11.) Let us observe that it is the Father who speaks. He attributes the office of justifying to the Son, and adds the reason, - because he is "righteous." He places the method, or medium, (as it is called,) in the doctrine by which Christ is known. For the word "da'at" is more properly to be understood in a passive sense. Hence I infer, first, that Christ was made righteousness when he assumed the form of a servant; secondly, that he justified us by his obedience to the Father; and, accordingly that he does not perform this for us in respect of his divine nature, but according to the nature of the dispensation laid upon him. For though God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and the only way in which we are righteous is by participation with him, yet, as by our unhappy revolt we are alienated from his righteousness, it is necessary to descend to this lower remedy, that Christ may justify us by the power of his death and resurrection.

9. If he objects that this work by its excellence transcends human, and therefore can only be ascribed to the divine nature; I concede the former point, but maintain, that on the latter he is ignorantly deluded. For although Christ could neither purify our souls by his own blood, nor appease the Father by his sacrifice, nor acquit us from the charge of guilt, nor, in short, perform the office of priest, unless he had been very God, because no human ability was equal to such a burden, it is however certain, that he performed all these things in his human nature. If it is asked, in what way we are justified? Paul answers, by the obedience of Christ. Did he obey in any other way than by assuming the form of a servant? We infer, therefore, that righteousness was manifested to us in his flesh. In like manner, in another passage, (which I greatly wonder that Osiander does not blush repeatedly to quote,) he places the fountain of righteousness entirely in the incarnation of Christ, "He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 21.) Osiander in turgid sentences lays hold of the expression, righteousness of God, and shouts victory! as if he had proved it to be his own phantom of essential righteousness, though the words have a very different meaning, viz., that we are justified through the expiation made by Christ. That the righteousness of God is used for the righteousness which is approved by God, should be known to mere tyros, as in John, the praise of God is contrasted with the praise of men, (John 12: 43.) I know that by the righteousness of God is sometimes meant that of which God is the author, and which he bestows upon us; but that here the only thing meant is, that being supported by the expiation of Christ, we are able to stand at the tribunal of God, sound readers perceive without any observation of mine. The word is not of so much importance, provided Osiander agrees with us in this, that we are justified by Christ in respect he was made an expiatory victim for us. This he could not be in his divine nature. For which reason also, when Christ would seal the righteousness and salvation which he brought to us, he holds forth the sure pledge of it in his flesh. He indeed calls himself "living bread," but, in explanation of the mode, adds, "my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," (John 6: 55.) The same doctrine is clearly seen in the sacraments; which, though they direct our faith to the whole, not to a part of Christ, yet, at the same time, declare that the materials of righteousness and salvation reside in his flesh; not that the mere man of himself justifies or quickens, but that God was pleased, by means of a Mediator, to manifest his own hidden and incomprehensible nature. Hence I often repeat, that Christ has been in a manner set before us as a fountain, whence we may draw what would otherwise lie without use in that deep and hidden abyss which streams forth to us in the person of the Mediator. In this way, and in this meaning, I deny not that Christ, as he is God and man, justifies us; that this work is common also to the Father and the Holy Spirit; in fine, that the righteousness of which God makes us partakers is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God, provided effect is given to the clear and valid reasons to which I have adverted.

10. Moreover, lest by his cavils he deceive the unwary, I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him. This disposes of Osiander's calumny, that we regard faith as righteousness; as if we were robbing Christ of his rights when we say, that, destitute in ourselves, we draw near to him by faith, to make way for his grace, that he alone may fill us. But Osiander, spurning this spiritual union, insists on a gross mixture of Christ with believers; and, accordingly, to excite prejudice, gives the name of Zwinglians to all who subscribe not to his fanatical heresy of essential righteousness, because they do not hold that, in the supper, Christ is eaten substantially. For my part, I count it the highest honor to be thus assailed by a haughty man, devoted to his own impostures; though he assails not me only, but writers of known reputation throughout the world, and whom it became him modestly to venerate. This, however, does not concern me, as I plead not my own cause, and plead the more sincerely that I am free from every sinister feeling. In insisting so vehemently on essential righteousness, and an essential inhabitation of Christ within us, his meaning is, first, that God by a gross mixture transfuses himself into us, as he pretends that there is a carnal eating in the supper; And, secondly that by instilling his own righteousness into us, he makes us really righteous with himself since, according to him, this righteousness is as well God himself as the probity, or holiness, or integrity of God. I will not spend much time in disposing of the passages of Scripture which he adduces, and which, though used in reference to the heavenly life, he wrests to our present state. Peter says, that through the knowledge of Christ "are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by them ye might be partakers of the divine nature," (2 Pet. 1: 4;) as if we now were what the gospel promises we shall be at the final advent of Christ; nay, John reminds us, that "when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is", (1 John 3: 2.) I only wished to give my readers a slender specimen of Osiander, it being my intention to decline the discussion of his frivolities, not because there is any difficulty in disposing of them, but because I am unwilling to annoy the reader with superfluous labour.

11. But more poison lurks in the second branch, when he says that we are righteous together with God. I think I have already sufficiently proved, that although the dogma were not so pestiferous, yet because it is frigid and jejune, and falls by its own vanity, it must justly be disrelished by all sound and pious readers. But it is impossible to tolerate the impiety which, under the pretence of a twofold righteousness, undermines our assurance of salvation, and hurrying us into the clouds, tries to prevent us from embracing the gift of expiation in faith, and invoking God with quiet minds. Osiander derides us for teaching, that to be justified is a forensic term, because it behaves us to be in reality just: there is nothing also to which he is more opposed than the idea of our being justified by a free imputation. Say, then, if God does not justify us by acquitting and pardoning, what does Paul mean when he says "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them"? "He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 19, 21.) Here I learn, first, that those who are reconciled to God are regarded as righteous: then the method is stated, God justifies by pardoning; and hence, in another place, justification is opposed to accusation, (Rom. 8: 33;) this antithesis clearly demonstrating that the mode of expression is derived from forensic use. And, indeed, no man, moderately verdant in the Hebrew tongue, (provided he is also of sedate brain,) is ignorant that this phrase thus took its rise, and thereafter derived its tendency and force. Now, then, when Paul says that David "describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven," (Rom. 4: 6, 7; Ps. 32: 1,) let Osiander say whether this is a complete or only a partial definition. He certainly does not adduce the Psalmist as a witness that pardon of sins is a part of righteousness, or concurs with something else in justifying, but he includes the whole of righteousness in gratuitous forgiveness, declaring those to be blessed "whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered," and "to whom the Lord will not impute sin." He estimates and judges of his happiness from this that in this way he is righteous not in reality, but by imputation.

Osiander objects that it would be insulting to God, and contrary to his nature, to justify those who still remain wicked. But it ought to be remembered, as I already observed, that the gift of justification is not separated from regeneration, though the two things are distinct. But as it is too well known by experience, that the remains of sin always exist in the righteous, it is necessary that justification should be something very different from reformation to newness of life. This latter God begins in his elect, and carries on during the whole course of life, gradually and sometimes slowly, so that if placed at his judgment-seat they would always deserve sentence of death. He justifies not partially, but freely, so that they can appear in the heavens as if clothed with the purity of Christ. No portion of righteousness could pacify the conscience. It must be decided that we are pleasing to God, as being without exception righteous in his sight. Hence it follows that the doctrine of justification is perverted and completely overthrown whenever doubt is instilled into the mind, confidence in salvation is shaken, and free and intrepid prayer is retarded; yea, whenever rest and tranquility with spiritual joy are not established. Hence Paul argues against objectors, that "if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise," (Gal. 3: 18.) that in this way faith would be made vain; for if respect be had to works it fails, the holiest of men in that case finding nothing in which they can confide. This distinction between justification and regeneration (Osiander confounding the two, calls them a twofold righteousness) is admirably expressed by Paul. Speaking of his real righteousness, or the integrity bestowed upon him, (which Osiander terms his essential righteousness,) he mournfully exclaims, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7: 24;) but retaking himself to the righteousness which is founded solely on the mercy of God, he breaks forth thus magnificently into the language of triumph: "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth." "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?" (Rom. 8: 33, 35.) He clearly declares that the only righteousness for him is that which alone suffices for complete salvation in the presence of God, so that that miserable bondage, the consciousness of which made him a little before lament his lot, derogates not from his confidence, and is no obstacle in his way. This diversity is well known, and indeed is familiar to all the saints who groan under the burden of sin, and yet with victorious assurance rise above all fears. Osiander's objection as to its being inconsistent with the nature of God, falls back upon himself; for though he clothes the saints with a twofold righteousness as with a coat of skins, he is, however, forced to admit, that without forgiveness no man is pleasing to God. If this be so, let him at least admit, that with reference to what is called the proportion of imputation, those are regarded as righteous who are not so in reality. But how far shall the sinner extend this gratuitous acceptance, which is substituted in the room of righteousness? Will it amount to the whole pound, or will it be only an ounce? He will remain in doubt, vibrating to this side and to that, because he will be unable to assume to himself as much righteousness as will be necessary to give confidence. It is well that he who would prescribe a law to God is not the judge in this cause. But this saying will ever stand true, "That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judges," (Ps. 51: 4.) What arrogance to condemn the Supreme Judge when he acquits freely, and try to prevent the response from taking affect: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." And yet the intercession of Moses, which God calmed by this answer, was not for pardon to some individual, but to all alike, by wiping away the guilt to which all were liable. And we, indeed, say, that the lost are justified before God by the burial of their sins; for (as he hates sin) he can only love those whom he justifies. But herein is the wondrous method of justification, that, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, they dread not the judgment of which they are worthy, and while they justly condemn themselves, are yet deemed righteous out of themselves.

12. I must admonish the reader carefully to attend to the mystery which he boasts he is unwilling to conceal from them. For after contending with great prolixity that we do not obtain favor with God through the mere imputation of the righteousness of Christ, because (to use his own words) it were impossible for God to hold those as righteous who are not so, he at length concludes that Christ was given to us for righteousness, in respect not of his human, but of his divine nature; and though this can only be found in the person of the Mediator, it is, however, the righteousness not of man, but of God. He does not now twist his rope of two righteousnesses, but plainly deprives the human nature of Christ of the office of justifying. It is worth while to understand what the nature of his argument is. It is said in the same passage that Christ is made unto us wisdom, (1 Cor. 1: 30;) but this is true only of the eternal Word, and, therefore, it is not the man Christ that is made righteousness. I answer, that the only begotten Son of God was indeed his eternal wisdom, but that this title is applied to him by Paul in a different way, viz., because "in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and righteousness," (Col. 2: 3.) That, therefore, which he had with the Father he manifested to us; and thus Paul's expression refers not to the essence of the Son of God, but to our use, and is fitly applied to the human nature of Christ; for although the light shone in darkness before he was clothed with flesh, yet he was a hidden light until he appeared in human nature as the Sun of Righteousness, and hence he calls himself the light of the world. It is also foolishly objected by Osiander, that justifying far transcends the power both of men and angels, since it depends not on the dignity of any creature, but on the ordination of God. Were angels to attempt to give satisfaction to God, they could have no success, because they are not appointed for this purpose, it being the peculiar office of Christ, who "has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us," (Gal. 3: 13.) Those who deny that Christ is our righteousness, in respect of his divine nature, are wickedly charged by Osiander with leaving only a part of Christ, and (what is worse) with making two Gods; because, while admitting that God dwells in us, they still insist that we are not justified by the righteousness of God. For though we call Christ the author of life, inasmuch as he endured death that he might destroy him who had the power of death, (Heb. 2: 14,) we do not thereby rob him of this honor, in his whole character as God manifested in the flesh. We only make a distinction as to the manner in which the righteousness of God comes to us, and is enjoyed by us, - a matter as to which Osiander shamefully erred. We deny not that that which was openly exhibited to us in Christ flowed from the secret grace and power of God; nor do we dispute that the righteousness which Christ confers upon us is the righteousness of God, and proceeds from him. What we constantly maintain is, that our righteousness and life are in the death and resurrection of Christ. I say nothing of that absurd accumulation of passages with which without selection or common understanding, he has loaded his readers, in endeavoring to show, that whenever mention is made of righteousness, this essential righteousness of his should be understood; as when David implores help from the righteousness of God. This David does more than a hundred times, and as often Osiander hesitates not to pervert his meaning. Not a whit more solid is his objection, that the name of righteousness is rightly and properly applied to that by which we are moved to act aright, but that it is God only that worketh in us both to will and to do, (Phil. 2: 13.) For we deny not that God by his Spirit forms us anew to holiness and righteousness of life; but we must first see whether he does this of himself, immediately, or by the hand of his Son, with whom he has deposited all the fulness of the Holy Spirit, that out of his own abundance he may supply the wants of his members. When, although righteousness comes to us from the secret fountain of the Godhead, it does not follow that Christ, who sanctified himself in the flesh on our account, is our righteousness in respect of his divine nature, (John 17: 19.) Not less frivolous is his observation, that the righteousness with which Christ himself was righteous was divine; for had not the will of the Father impelled him, he could not have fulfilled the office assigned him. For although it has been elsewhere said that all the merits of Christ flow from the mere good pleasure of God, this gives no countenance to the phantom by which Osiander fascinates both his own eyes and those of the simple. For who will allow him to infer, that because God is the source and commencement of our righteousness, we are essentially righteous, and the essence of the divine righteousness dwells in us? In redeeming us, says Isaiah, "he (God) put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head," (Isaiah 59: 17,) was this to deprive Christ of the armour which he had given him, and prevent him from being a perfect Redeemer? All that the Prophet meant was, that God borrowed nothing from an external quarter, that in redeeming us he received no external aid. The same thing is briefly expressed by Paul in different terms, when he says that God set him forth "to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins." This is not the least repugnant to his doctrine: in another place, that "by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," (Rom. 5: 19.) In short, every one who, by the entanglement of a twofold righteousness, prevents miserable souls from resting entirely on the mere mercy of God, mocks Christ by putting on him a crown of plaited thorns.

13. But since a great part of mankind imagine a righteousness compounded of faith and works let us here show that there is so wide a difference between justification by faith and by works, that the establishment of the one necessarily overthrows the other. The Apostle says, "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith," (Phil. 3: 8, 9.) You here see a comparison of contraries, and an intimation that every one who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own. Hence he elsewhere declares the cause of the rejection of the Jews to have been, that "they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God," (Rom. 10: 3.) If we destroy the righteousness of God by establishing our own righteousness, then, in order to obtain his righteousness, our own must be entirely abandoned. This also he shows, when he declares that boasting is not excluded by the Law, but by faith, (Rom. 3: 27.) Hence it follows, that so long as the minutes portion of our own righteousness remains, we have still some ground for boasting. Now if faith utterly excludes boasting, the righteousness of works cannot in any way be associated with the righteousness of faith. This meaning is so clearly expressed in the fourth chapter to the Romans as to leave no room for cavil or evasion. "If Abraham were justified by works he has whereof to glory;" and then it is added, "but not before God," (Rom. 4: 2.) The conclusion, therefore, is, that he was not justified by works. He then employs another argument from contraries, viz., when reward is paid to works, it is done of debt, not of grace; but the righteousness of faith is of grace: therefore it is not of the merit of works. Away, then, with the dream of those who invent a righteousness compounded of faith and works, (see Calvin. ad Concilium Tridentinum.)

14. The Sophists, who delight in sporting with Scripture and in empty cavils, think they have a subtle evasion when they expound works to mean, such as unregenerated men do literally, and by the effect of free will, without the grace of Christ, and deny that these have any reference to spiritual works. Thus according to them, man is justified by faith as well as by works, provided these are not his own works, but gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration; Paul's only object in so expressing himself being to convince the Jews, that in trusting to their ohm strength they foolishly arrogated righteousness to themselves, whereas it is bestowed upon us by the Spirit of Christ alone, and not by studied efforts of our own nature. But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Gal. 3: 11, 12.) For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again, (Rom. 10: 5-9.) Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith. And, indeed, the passage above quoted, in which Paul declares that Abraham had no ground of glorying before God, because he was not justified by works, ought not to be confined to a literal and external form of virtue, or to the effort of free will. The meaning is, that though the life of the Patriarch had been spiritual and almost angelic, yet he could not by the merit of works have procured justification before God.

15. The Schoolmen treat the matter somewhat more grossly by mingling their preparations with it; and yet the others instill into the simple and unwary a no less pernicious dogma, when, under cover of the Spirit and grace, they hide the divine mercy, which alone can give peace to the trembling soul. We, indeed, hold with Paul, that those who fulfill the Law are justified by God, but because we are all far from observing the Law, we infer that the works which should be most effectual to justification are of no avail to us, because we are destitute of them. In regard to vulgar Papists or Schoolmen, they are here doubly wrong, both in calling faith assurance of conscience while waiting to receive from God the reward of merits, and in interpreting divine grace to mean not the imputation of gratuitous righteousness, but the assistance of the Spirit in the study of holiness. They quote from an Apostle: "He that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him," (Heb. 11: 6.) But they observe not what the method of seeking is. Then in regard to the term grace, it is plain from their writings that they labour under a delusion. For Lombard holds that justification is given to us by Christ in two ways. "First," says he, (Lombard, Sent. Lib. 3, Dist. 16, c. 11,) "the death of Christ justifies us when by means of it the love by which we are made righteous is excited in our hearts; and, secondly, when by means of it sin is extinguished, sin by which the devil held us captive, but by which he cannot now procure our condemnation." You see here that the chief office of divine grace in our justification he considers to be its directing us to good works by the agency of the Holy Spirit. He intended, no doubt, to follow the opinion of Augustine, but he follows it at a distance, and even wanders far from a true imitation of him both obscuring what was clearly stated by Augustine, and making what in him was less pure more corrupt. The Schools have always gone from worse to worse, until at length, in their downward path, they have degenerated into a kind of Pelagianism. Even the sentiment of Augustine, or at least his mode of expressing it, cannot be entirely approved of. For although he is admirable in stripping man of all merit of righteousness, and transferring the whole praise of it to God, yet he classes the grace by which we are regenerated to newness of life under the head of sanctification.

16. Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation, when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified; and, though renewed by the Spirit of God, considers that, instead of leaning on his own works, he must look solely to the righteousness which is treasured up for him in Christ. When these things are weighed separately, they will clearly explain our view, though they may be arranged in a better order than that in which they are here presented. But it is of little consequence, provided they are so connected with each other as to give us a full exposition and solid confirmation of the whole subject.

17. Here it is proper to remember the relation which we previously established between faith and the Gospel; faith being said to justify because it receives and embraces the righteousness offered in the Gospel. By the very fact of its being said to be offered by the Gospel, all consideration of works is excluded. This Paul repeatedly declares, and in two passages, in particular, most clearly demonstrates. In the Epistle to the Romans, comparing the Law and the Gospel, he says, "Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which does those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, - If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved," (Rom. 10: 5, 6: 9.) Do you see how he makes the distinction between the Law and the Gospel to be, that the former gives justification to works, whereas the latter bestows it freely without any help from works? This is a notable passage, and may free us from many difficulties if we understand that the justification which is given us by the Gospel is free from any terms of Law. It is for this reason he more than once places the promise in diametrical opposition to the Law. "If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise," (Gal. 3: 18.) Expressions of similar import occur in the same chapter. Undoubtedly the Law also has its promises; and, therefore, between them and the Gospel promises there must be some distinction and difference, unless we are to hold that the comparison is inept. And in what can the difference consist unless in this that the promises of the Gospel are gratuitous, and founded on the mere mercy of God, whereas the promises of the Law depend on the condition of works? But let no pester here allege that only the righteousness which men would obtrude upon God of their own strength and free will is repudiated; since Paul declares, without exceptions that the Law gained nothing by its commands, being such as none, not only of mankind in general, but none even of the most perfect, are able to fulfill. Love assuredly is the chief commandment in the Law, and since the Spirit of God trains us to love, it cannot but be a cause of righteousness in us, though that righteousness even in the saints is defective, and therefore of no value as a ground of merit.

18. The second passage is, "That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that does them shall live in them," (Gal. 3: 11, 12; Hab. 2: 4.) How could the argument hold unless it be true that works are not to be taken into account, but are to be altogether separated? The Law, he says, is different from faith. Why? Because to obtain justification by it, works are required; and hence it follows, that to obtain justification by the Gospel they are not required. From this statement, it appears that those who are justified by faith are justified independent of, nay, in the absence of, the merit of works, because faith receives that righteousness which the Gospel bestows. But the Gospel differs from the Law in this, that it does not confine justification to works, but places it entirely in the mercy of God. In like manner, Paul contends, in the Epistle to the Romans, that Abraham had no ground of glorying, because faith was imputed to him for righteousness, (Rom. 4: 2;) and he adds in confirmation, that the proper place for justification by faith is where there are no works to which reward is due. "To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." What is given to faith is gratuitous, this being the force of the meaning of the words which he there employs. Shortly after he adds, "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace," (Rom. 4: 16;) and hence infers that the inheritance is gratuitous because it is procured by faith. How so but just because faiths without the aid of works leans entirely on the mercy of God? And in the same sense, doubtless, he elsewhere teaches, that the righteousness of God without the Law was manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (Rom. 3: 21;) for excluding the Law, he declares that it is not aided by worlds, that we do not obtain it by working, but are destitute when we draw near to receive it.

19. The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith alone, (Rom. 4: 2.) They dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added. Is it so? What answer, then will they give to the words of Paul, when he contends that righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous? How can it be gratuitous, and yet by works? By what cavils, moreover, will they evade his declaration in another place, that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested? (Rom. 1: 17.) If righteousness is manifested in the Gospel, it is certainly not a partial or mutilated, but a full and perfect righteousness. The Law, therefore, has no part in its and their objection to the exclusive word alone is not only unfounded, but is obviously absurd. Does he not plainly enough attribute everything to faith alone when he disconnects it with works? What I would ask, is meant by the expressions, "The righteousness of God without the law is manifested;" "Being justified freely by his grace;" "Justified by faith without the deeds of the law?" (Rom. 3: 21, 24, 28.) Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of their own devising but taken from Origin and some ancient writers, is most childish. They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not moral works. Such profit do they make by their constant wrangling, that they possess not even the first elements of logic. Do they think the Apostle was raving when he produced, in proof of his doctrine, these passages? "The man that does them shall live in them," (Gal. 3: 12.) "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them," (Gal. 3: 10.) Unless they are themselves raving, they will not say that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced only against the transgressors of them. If these passages are to be understood of the Moral Law, there cannot be a doubt that moral works also are excluded from the power of justifying. To the same effect are the arguments which he employs. "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3: 20.) "The law worketh wrath," (Rom. 4: 15,) and therefore not righteousness. "The law cannot pacify the conscience," and therefore cannot confer righteousness. "Faith is imputed for righteousness," and therefore righteousness is not the reward of works, but is given without being due. Because "we are justified by faith," boasting is excluded. "Had there been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe," (Gal. 3: 21, 22.) Let them maintain, if they dare, that these things apply to ceremonies, and not to morals, and the very children will laugh at their effrontery. The true conclusion, therefore, is, that the whole Law is spoken of when the power of justifying is denied to it.

20. Should any one wonder why the Apostle, not contented with having named works, employs this addition, the explanation is easy. However highly works may be estimated, they have their whole value more from the approbation of God than from their own dignity. For who will presume to plume himself before God on the righteousness of works, unless in so far as He approves of them? Who will presume to demand of Him a reward except in so far as He has promised it? It is owing entirely to the goodness of God that works are deemed worthy of the honor and reward of righteousness; and, therefore, their whole value consists in this, that by means of them we endeavor to manifest obedience to God. Wherefore, in another passage, the Apostle, to prove that Abraham could not be justified by works, declares, "that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect," (Gal. 3: 17.) The unskillful would ridicule the argument that there could be righteous works before the promulgation of the Law, but the Apostle, knowing that works could derive this value solely from the testimony and honor conferred on them by God, takes it for granted that, previous to the Law, they had no power of justifying. We see why he expressly terms them works of Law when he would deny the power of justifying to theme viz., because it was only with regard to such works that a question could be raised; although he sometimes, without addition, excepts all kinds of works whatever, as when on the testimony of David he speaks of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, (Rom. 4: 5, 6.) No cavils, therefore, can enable them to prove that the exclusion of works is not general. In vain do they lay hold of the frivolous subtilty, that the faith alone, by which we are justified, "worketh by love," and that love, therefore, is the foundation of justification. We, indeed, acknowledge with Paul, that the only faith which justifies is that which works by love, (Gal. 5: 6;) but love does not give it its justifying power. Nay, its only means of justifying consists in its bringing us into communication with the righteousness of Christ. Otherwise the whole argument, on which the Apostle insists with so much earnestness, would fall. to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Could he express more clearly than in this word, that there is justification in faith only where there are no works to which reward is due, and that faith is imputed for righteousness only when righteousness is conferred freely without merit?

21. Let us now consider the truth of what was said in the definition, viz., that justification by faith is reconciliation with God, and that this consists solely in the remission of sins. We must always return to the axioms that the wrath of God lies upon all men so long as they continue sinners. This is elegantly expressed by Isaiah in these words: "Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear," (Isaiah 59: 1, 2.) We are here told that sin is a separation between God and man; that His countenance is turned away from the sinner; and that it cannot be otherwise, since, to have any intercourse with sin is repugnant to his righteousness. Hence the Apostle shows that man is at enmity with God until he is restored to favour by Christ, (Rom. 5: 8-l0.) When the Lord, therefore, admits him to union, he is said to justify him, because he can neither receive him into favor, nor unite him to himself, without changing his condition from that of a sinner into that of a righteous man. We adds that this is done by remission of sins. For if those whom the Lord has reconciled to himself are estimated by works, they will still prove to be in reality sinners, while they ought to be pure and free from sin. It is evident therefore, that the only way in which those whom God embraces are made righteous, is by having their pollutions wiped away by the remission of sins, so that this justification may be termed in one word the remission of sins.

22. Both of these become perfectly clear from the words of Paul: "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation." He then subjoins the sum of his embassy: "He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: l9-21.) He here uses righteousness and reconciliation indiscriminately, to make us understand that the one includes the other. The mode of obtaining this righteousness he explains to be, that our sins are not imputed to us. Wherefore, you cannot henceforth doubt how God justifies us when you hear that he reconciles us to himself by not imputing our faults. In the same manner, in the Epistle to the Romans, he proves, by the testimony of David, that righteousness is imputed without works, because he declares the man to be blessed "whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered," and "unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," (Rom. 4: 6; Ps. 32: 1, 2.) There he undoubtedly uses blessedness for righteousness; and as he declares that it consists in forgiveness of sins, there is no reason why we should define it otherwise. Accordingly, Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, sings that the knowledge of salvation consists in the forgiveness of sins, (Luke 1: 77.) The same course was followed by Paul when, in addressing the people of Antioch, he gave them a summary of salvation. Luke states that he concluded in this way: "Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses," (Acts 12: 38, 39.) Thus the Apostle connects forgiveness of sins with justification in such a way as to show that they are altogether the same; and hence he properly argues that justification, which we owe to the indulgence of God, is gratuitous. Nor should it seem an unusual mode of expression to say that believers are justified before God not by works, but by gratuitous acceptance, seeing it is frequently used in Scripture, and sometimes also by ancient writers. Thus Augustine says: "The righteousness of the saints in this world consists more in the forgiveness of sins than the perfection of virtue," (August. de Civitate Dei, lib. 19, cap. 27.) To this corresponds the well-known sentiment of Bernard: "Not to sin is the righteousness of God, but the righteousness of man is the indulgence of God," (Bernard, Serm. 22, 23 in Cant.) He previously asserts that Christ is our righteousness in absolution, and, therefore, that those only are just who have obtained pardon through mercy.

23. Hence also it is proved, that it is entirely by the intervention of Christ's righteousness that we obtain justification before God. This is equivalent to saying that man is not just in himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation, while he is strictly deserving of punishment. Thus vanishes the absurd dogma, that man is justified by faith, inasmuch as it brings him under the influence of the Spirit of God by whom he is rendered righteous. This is so repugnant to the above doctrine that it never can be reconciled with it. There can be no doubt that he who is taught to seek righteousness out of himself does not previously possess it in himself. This is most clearly declared by the Apostle, when he says, that he who knew no sin was made an expiatory victim for sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5: 21.) You see that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ; that the only way in which we become possessed of it is by being made partakers with Christ, since with him we possess all riches. There is nothing repugnant to this in what he elsewhere says: "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us," (Rom. 8: 3, 4.) Here the only fulfillment to which he refers is that which we obtain by imputation. Our Lord Jesus Christ communicates his righteousness to us, and so by some wondrous ways in so far as pertains to the justice of Gods transfuses its power into us. That this was the Apostle's view is abundantly clear from another sentiment which he had expressed a little before: "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," (Rom. 5: 19.) To declare that we are deemed righteous, solely because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it where our own, is just to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ. Wherefore, Ambrose appears to me to have most elegantly adverted to the blessing of Jacob as an illustration of this righteousness, when he says that as he who did not merit the birthright in himself personated his brother, put on his garments which gave forth a most pleasant odour, and thus introduced himself to his father that he might receive a blessing to his own advantage, though under the person of another, so we conceal ourselves under the precious purity of Christ, our first-born brother, that we may obtain an attestation of righteousness from the presence of God. The words of Ambrose are, - "Isaac's smelling the odour of his garments, perhaps means that we are justified not by works, but by faith, since carnal infirmity is an impediment to works, but errors of conduct are covered by the brightness of faith, which merits the pardon of faults," (Ambrose de Jacobo et Vita Beats, Lib. 2, c. 2.) And so indeed it is; for in order to appear in the presence of God for salvation, we must send forth that fragrant odour, having our vices covered and buried by his perfection.

John Calvin, Book 3:11, The Institutes of The Christian Religion, Beveridge edition, 1863.

Spurgeon's Morning and Evening

2008-02-09T22:39:00.000-05:00

“Lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil [or, the evil one].”

Luke 11:4

What we are taught to seek or shun in prayer, we should equally pursue or avoid in action. Very earnestly, therefore, should we avoid temptation, seeking to walk so guardedly in the path of obedience, that we may never tempt the devil to tempt us. We are not to enter the thicket in search of the lion. Dearly might we pay for such presumption. This lion may cross our path or leap upon us from the thicket, but we have nothing to do with hunting him. He that meeteth with him, even though he winneth the day, will find it a stern struggle. Let the Christian pray that he may be spared the encounter. Our Saviour, who had experience of what temptation meant, thus earnestly admonished his disciples—“Pray that ye enter not into temptation.”

But let us do as we will, we shall be tempted; hence the prayer “deliver us from evil.” God had one Son without sin; but he has no son without temptation. The natural man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upwards, and the Christian man is born to temptation just as certainly. We must be always on our watch against Satan, because, like a thief, he gives no intimation of his approach. Believers who have had experience of the ways of Satan, know that there are certain seasons when he will most probably make an attack, just as at certain seasons bleak winds may be expected; thus the Christian is put on a double guard by fear of danger, and the danger is averted by preparing to meet it. Prevention is better than cure: it is better to be so well armed that the devil will not attack you, than to endure the perils of the fight, even though you come off a conqueror. Pray this evening first that you may not be tempted, and next that if temptation be permitted, you may be delivered from the evil one.

Mark Driscoll on Predestination

2008-02-06T19:56:00.000-05:00

Chosen By God

2008-02-06T14:40:00.000-05:00

Let me start with just saying "WOW" I had been told this was a good book, but it was never stressed enough that this is an AMAZING book. There are many other words that can describe the first 2 chapters (Stupendous, astounding, breathtaking, awe-inspiring, and superb are just a few) Sproul does a superior job in chapter 2 with the information he provides on Predestination and the Sovereignty of God. The way he presents it is something that even an Arminian wouldn't be able to deny.

By far Sproul has done the best at describing the way God can "freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."

He makes clear the fact that nothing can happen outside the permission or allowance of God, but God himself is not, and cannot be held responsible.

Here are a few quotes from Chapter 2:

"A freedom of a Sovereign is always greater than the freedom of his subject....Any other authority that exists in this universe is derived from and dependent upon God's authority. All other forms of authority either exist by God's comman of by God's permission."

"If God refused to permit something to happen and it happened anyway, then whatever caused it to happen would have more authority and power than God himself"...."If God is not sovereign then God is not God"

"If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, totally free of Gods sovereignty, then we have no grantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled."

Sproul has gone far enough as to say that if we are rejecting the divine sovereignty of God than we must be in support or atleast embrace atheism. Again, if God is not sovereign than God is not God.

This book is a must buy for anyone being introduced to Reformed doctrine.