THEOparadox - The Biblical Paradox Blog

A Great FREE College Course on the Book of Romans

2012-01-25T07:55:00.020-05:00

I have been enjoying this great series of lectures:

Dr. Jack Fish on Romans (click to view on iTunes)

Dr. Jack Fish

Dr. Fish does a great job of bringing the exegetical aspects of the text together with informative discussions of historical and systematic theology. A graduate of Brown University and Dallas Theological Seminary, his perspective is definitively Calvinistic and probably dispensational. Overall, the course is very edifying and educational. If you're looking for a good study of Romans, look no further.

The course includes 28 lectures, each one offering an in-depth exposition of a single passage.

A Response to Scot McKnight Regarding Roger Olson's "5 Conundrums of Calvinism"

2012-01-23T07:55:00.006-05:00

Scot McKnight, who says he abandoned Calvinism for an Anabaptist-flavored Pietism, recently posted and commented on Roger Olson's "5 Conundrums of Calvinism." McKnight makes this astounding claim:

"There are often better, non-Calvinist explanations, and the Calvinist appeal to conundrum, or antinomy, masks the illogic and fails to deal with the more adequate rational, logical answer of others. Divine determinism and meticulous providence create more problems for God’s character than they solve problems. Divine self-limitation and human free will are better, more rational explanations."

Really? Does McKnight truly think the Bible leaves those options open? I don't mean to be harsh, but one can only reach this conclusion by miniaturizing God, exalting man, and playing fast-and-loose with Scripture. It is better to have philosophical conundrums on our hands and remain uncompromising with Scripture than to construct pretend "explanations" of the Word of God using mere man-made speculation. I responded as follows:

First, It is obvious that God self-limits (however, His self-limiting - or condescension, divine humility, etc. - is itself an expression of His eternal glory). For a Calvinist, there is no problem in any of that. The major problem, in fact, is not that God self-limits, but that human beings self-exalt. For example, we magnify ourselves by imagining that we can devise better "logical" explanations for the philosophical conundrums created by the Bible rather than simply accepting God's own testimony and admitting we are limited in our logic, information and understanding. We don't particularly like God's testimony because it leaves a lot of holes and seems to create logical conflicts. Our rationalistic minds demand resolution; we don't want to live in the lowliness of our own limits, or the discomfort of mysteries and paradoxes. We easily commit the error of filling in the gaps with our own thoughts. However, because the contradictions themselves are only apparent, the resolutions we create are also only apparent. They are a mirage designed to make us feel better - but in reality we have solved nothing. There was nothing to solve because God never saw any conflict between the two sides we supposedly resolved (e.g. His meticulous sovereignty and our freedom of choice). In fact, if we "solved" the apparent problem by contradicting a single Biblical proposition, we only succeeded in creating a bigger problem for ourselves!

Second, it is true that "explanations" have been devised which fill in the logical gaps left by the Bible. However, I daresay this has only been done at the expense of the Bible. There is no way to take ALL of the Bible at full face value without accepting a great deal of mystery and some degree of paradox or antinomy. We stand in great danger of overstepping whenever we begin to demand answers to questions God Himself has left unanswered.

In conclusion, I remain a Calvinist because it is the only system I know of that allows me to give full credit to God's revelation in the Bible without delving presumptuously into the matters He has not revealed. At the same time, the Reformed system leaves me the freedom to explore philosophical matters with the understanding that I am only thinking the lowly thoughts of a man - so I can rest in God's wisdom even when I can't get it all figured out "logically." It teaches me to take my own thoughts less seriously, and God's thoughts with absolute confidence. If my system is criticized because it doesn't answer all of the questions to the satisfaction of a fallen human being, I can live with that.

I believe any true Pietist can and should find such an arrangement refreshingly humbling. Pietists and Calvinists ought to be the best of friends. :)

Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe In God"

2012-01-21T11:17:00.000-05:00

If you would like to know more about Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the father of presuppositional apologetics, you may find the following video useful. It contains the narration of a long letter written by Van Til to defend his belief in God, and more specifically the Christian faith. This is extremely thought provoking and insightful material, and even includes some interesting autobiographical information regarding Van Til's upbringing in Holland (you'll love his jokes about wooden shoes).

Here is a great example of Van Til's presuppositional method:

"... I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him without already having taken Him for granted. And, similarly, I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God's existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not, but as we debate the point we are both breathing air all the time."
- 2:43 on the video

I especially liked his critique of the presupposition behind rationalistic atheism:

"You have made the reach of your intellect the standard of what is possible or not possible. You have thereby virtually determined that you intend never to meet a fact that points to God. Facts, to be facts at all - facts, that is, with decent scientific and philosophic standing - must have your stamp instead of that of God upon them as their virtual creator."
- 44:30 on the video

Cornelius Van Til - "Why I Believe in God"

There is much more on Van Til here: www.VanTil.info

A Primer on Sanctification

2012-01-05T07:55:00.009-05:00

At different times in Church History, issues of justification and sanctification have led to great errors. Sometimes the attempts to correct these errors have resulted in other errors. What follows is a Biblical perspective on eight aspects of sanctification that deserve to be included in any discussion of the topic. They range from the forensic, instantaneous aspect of sanctification, which takes place right alongside justification, to the oft-mentioned progressive aspect - and several associated aspects which are often overlooked or underplayed. Of course, much more could be said, but it is our earnest prayer that this little primer will help saints to advance in the cross-centered life of holiness.

Sanctification is . . .

Possessive

We belong to God. This is the "definitive" or "positional" sanctification that accompanies justification. God now calls us holy, saints, His own redeemed people. We become His special possession - immediately, instantaneously, and irrevocably. It is a legal and forensic holiness - entailing a change of status rather than a change of state or behavior. Because we are in Christ, God now looks upon us and treats us as those clothed in Jesus' own perfect holiness.

Acts 26:18 so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

I Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ ...

I Corinthians 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption ...

I Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Hebrews 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Ingressive

Christ has the right of way. We must surrender to Him and yield to the Holy Spirit daily.

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Romans 6:11, 13 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. ... Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.

Romans 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

Galatians 5:16-17 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.

James 4:7-8 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.

Impressive

We are impressed by the splendors of Christ's holiness, and His image is increasingly impressed upon our hearts. We become more like Him in our thoughts and beliefs as our inner person is transformed.

Romans 8:29 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.

Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Galatians 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Philippians 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus ...

Philippians 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Colossians 3:1-3 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

I John 2:28 And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.

Expressive

We actively portray Christ's image through our words and deeds.

Philippians 1:27 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ ...

Philippians 3:10 ... that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death ...

I John 2:6 ... whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

I John 4:17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world.

Suppressive

We fight against our natural, fleshly and sinful tendencies and say "no" to sin.

Romans 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.

Romans 13:14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.

I Thessalonians 4:3-5 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God ...

Titus 2:11-12 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age ...

James 1:21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Progressive

We change over time as we replace sinful habits with godly practices, and we gradually become more holy in our thoughts, attitudes and actions.

Galatians 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Colossians 3:9-10 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

Heb. 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Excessive

Sanctification takes us beyond the minimum "legal" requirements of obedience to a divine overflow of love and service.

I Corinthians 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

II Corinthians 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work.

Philippians 1:9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more ...

I Thessalonians 3:12 ... and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all ...

I Thessalonians 4:1 Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more.

I Thessalonians 4:9-10 Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more ...

Aggressive

Our energies and wills are devoted to the mortification of sin and the vivification of Christian virtues. Through a struggle and fight of perseverance we overcome evil with good. We increasingly learn to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul and strength, and we become hyper-conquerors through Him who loved us.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

Romans 8:13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Romans 13:12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.

Ephesians 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.

Galatians 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Colossians 3:5, 8 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. . . . But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

I Thessalonians 5:8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.

A Real Friend

2012-01-02T20:19:00.001-05:00

Barry Wallace (right) and me (left)

One of my favorite things about blogging is being able to "virtually" meet so many interesting and edifying people from all over the world. I've been blessed to interact with great theological minds and godly people I might never have met otherwise. Early in my blogging career (I'm not sure if that's the right word for it), I found Barry Wallace to be a wonderful friend and ally in the cause of sound doctrine and discipleship. I can still remember the day I stumbled onto his blog and found my heart resonating with his article, "A Bad Heart." Since then, I have come to rely on Barry's mature advice and counsel, as well as his gracious words of encouragement.

During my recent vacation in Missouri, I had the opportunity to meet up with Barry in "real life." I happened to be driving right through his town, so we decided to bring our families along and have lunch at a local Mexican restaurant. I was thrilled to enjoy a few hours of fellowship with this man whose thoughtful writings I have long appreciated. Barry and his family were delightful, and he wasn't even fazed by my children sticking balloons on top of his head while we talked. That was true meekness, I think!

Sometimes people downplay online relationships as if they were not in any way impactful or genuine. As if they were somehow "unreal." While I understand and agree with the primacy of cultivating actual face-to-face relationships with the people around us, I believe some of the criticism of online friendships is overstated. Consider how many of the apostle Paul's relationships were developed over long distances and through letters, and how "real" and "genuine" he took those relationships to be.

Colossians 2:1 "For I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those at Laodicea and for all who have not seen me face to face . . ."

I'd like to follow that up with another question: is your relationship with the Lord "long distance" or "face-to-face"? Now you can see the false dichotomy in those categories, can't you? For Christians, real connections can be made with folks we never meet because the same Spirit lives in us. We love and serve the same Savior, and we are mystically united in Him whether we ever make spatial contact in this life.

Have you ever met a Christian brother or sister with whom you had formed an online friendship? Leave a comment and tell us about it.

Whatever

2011-12-29T18:53:00.000-05:00

Let's begin the new year with a fresh submission to the will of God, and break the hold of that lackadaisical and purposeless attitude which has flooded our age.

"We live in a day of 'whatever.' The problem is that 'whatever' is fate to - 'whatever happens.' The mantra I hear from post modernity is, 'I don't know, I don't care and I don't really matter.' This strikes at the truth and value of human life. This is preached in contemporary music, seen in art and read in literature. The technical terminology for ths frame of mind is agnosticism, narcissism and apathy. 'whatever' leads to hopelessness and hopelessness leads to apathy and apathy eventually leads to depression. This lethargic minded approach of interpreting life is very dangerous to the health of your soul. The attitude shift of repentance is 'Whate'er My God Ordains is Right.'"

-Pastor Craig Bowen of Lakeside Community Church (from a sermon delivered on Dec. 18, 2011)

Contradiction, Paradox and Mystery

2011-12-28T14:57:00.000-05:00

I ran across this interesting video on YouTube. These guys do a good job of discussing issues close to the heart of THEOparadox. Don't you agree?

DISCLAIMER: with a little further research, I discovered the main speaker here is Alex Locay, and the questioner is Eric Purtic. Both are instructors at the Ravi Zacharias School of Apologetics, which is associated with Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale. The two have produced lots of apologetics videos, some of which are very good. However, given the prevailing anti-Calvinist stance of Calvary Chapel (not to mention Ravi Zacharias' commitment to the free will doctrine), some of the videos should be taken with large grains of salt. Use caution. No apologist is great on every topic, but Locay and Purtic provide well informed arguments on some of the important ones.

A.A. Hodge on the Mystery of Incarnation

2011-12-24T13:39:00.001-05:00

My mother-in-law was going to give me a $25 gift certificate to Redeemed Books, a used Christian bookstore in Springfield, MO with quite a large inventory. As I happened to be going there yesterday to shop for some gifts, she said, "Just pick up $25 worth of books for yourself and put it on our account." Nice! Pre-buying theology books for my own Christmas gift. What could be better? Here's what I got:

1. The Cross of Christ by John Stott

2. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner

3. Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine by A.A. Hodge

A.A. Hodge of Princeton

Each of them is a treasure, but I have found Hodge's book especially insightful. His writing style is direct and pointed, and every paragraph is laden with useful insights. Following are a few excerpts from his chapter on the Person of Christ:

"It is the grand distinction of Christianity that all its doctrines and all its forces centre in the Person of its Founder and Teacher. . . . the entire system, from foundation to superstructure, rests upon and derives its life from the Person of its Founder. The question of questions is what he was, rather than what he taught." (p. 184)

"The Person of the incarnate God is unique. His birth has had no precedents and his existence no analogy. He cannot be explained by being referred to a class, nor can he be illustrated by an example. The Scriptures, while clearly and fully revealing all the elements of his Person, yet never present in one formula an exhaustive definition of that Person, nor a connected statement of the elements which constitute it and their mutual relations. The impression is all the more vivid because it is made, as in a picture, by an exhibition of his Person in action - an exhibition in which the divinity and humanity are alike immediately demonstrated by the self-revelation of their attributes in action; and this unique personality, as it surpasses all analogy, also transcends all understanding. The proud intellect of man is constantly aspiring to remove all mysteries and to subject the whole sphere of existence to the daylight of rational explanation. Such attempts are constantly ending in the most grotesque failure. Even in the material world it is true that omnia exeunt in mysterium ["everything comes out to mystery"]. If we cannot explain the relation which the immaterial soul sustains to the organized body in the person of man, why should we be surprised to find that all attempts to explain the intimate relations which the eternal Word and the human soul and body sustain to each other in the Person of Christ have miserably failed?" (pp. 185-186)

"And undoubtedly we freely admit just here that in the constitution of the Person of the God-man lies the, to us, absolutely insoluble mystery of godliness. How is it possible that the same Person can be at the same time infinite and finite, ignorant and omniscient, omnipotent and helpless? How can two complete spirits coalesce in one Person? how can two consciousnesses, two understandings, two memories, two imaginations, two wills, constitute one Person? All this is involved in the scriptural and Church doctrine of the Person of Christ. Yet no one can explain it. The numerous attempts made to explain or to expel this mystery have only filled the Church with heresies and obscured the faith of Christians." (p. 187)

"There is one obvious respect in which the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ agree, and one in which they no less obviously differ. They agree in that both alike utterly transcend all experience, all analogy, and all adequate grasp of human reason. But they differ in that, while the mystery of the Trinity is that one Spirit should exist eternally as three distinct Persons, the mystery of the person of Christ is that two distinct spirits should for evermore constitute but one Person. If you give due attention to the difficulties involved in each of these divinely revealed doctrines, you would be able a priori to anticipate all possible heresies which have been evolved in the course of history. All truth is catholic [i.e. universal or comprehensive]; it embraces many elements, wide horizons, and therefore involves endless difficulties and apparent inconsistencies. The mind of man seeks for unity, and tends prematurely to force a unity in the sphere of his imperfect knowledge by sacrificing one element of the truth or other to the rest. This is eminently true of all rationalists. They are clear and logical at the expense of being superficial and half-orbed. Heresy . . . means an act of choice, and hence division, the picking and choosing a part, instead of comprehensively embracing the whole of the truth. Almost all heresies are partial truths - true in what they affirm, but false in what they deny." (pp. 190-191)

"I adore a Christ who is absolutely one - who is at the same time pure, unmixed, unchanged God, and pure, unmixed, unchanged man - and whose Person, it its wholeness and its fulness, is available throughout all space and throughout all time to those who trust him and love his appearing." (p. 200)

A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976 (first published 1890), bolding and bracketed portions mine.

Note that he practically states the THEOparadox thesis in the fourth excerpt. We in the Reformed/Calvinistic tradition in this day need to heed Hodge's wise words forewarning us against the creeping rationalism that would deny one truth in order to affirm another. This Christmas, enjoy the blessed paradox of our wonderful Savior in His mysterious incarnation - fully God and fully man.

Now, where did I put those t-shirts?

Wayne Grudem on Spirit Baptism

2011-12-16T07:55:00.003-05:00

Early on Thursday mornings, my pastor meets with men from our church to work through a chapter or two of Grudem's Systematic Theology. This week we went over chapter 39: "Baptism In and Filling With the Holy Spirit - Should we seek a 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' after conversion? What does it mean to be filled with the Holy Spirit?" It's a great topic and those are good questions.

Grudem's approach is refreshing and interesting. As a former Pentecostal who is now essentially Reformed (but still committed to the continuation of spiritual gifts), I found his thoughts enlightening.

WHAT IS IT?

Grudem begins by delineating the basic Pentecostal understanding of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. His rendering is fair and accurate. He then examines the seven New Testament passages dealing directly with the subject. Appealing to a consistent interpretation of these passages, Grudem offers a strong argument for Spirit baptism occurring at the point of conversion rather than subsequent to it. Next, he answers the possible tensions his interpretation might create when compared with several passages in the book of Acts. The result is a cogent, Biblical understanding that properly accounts for Spirit baptism as a soteriological event linked directly to regeneration.

TWO CLASSES?

Having neatly dispensed with the idea of a "second blessing" on solid exegetical grounds, Grudem addresses a more practical problem with the Pentecostal understanding: the creation of a two-class Christianity that (perhaps inadvertently) places Spirit-baptized believers above ordinary Christians who have not experienced Spirit baptism. Pentecostals, however, are not alone in this regard. Grudem effectively illustrates how other theological systems have created similar two-class systems. Roman Catholic hierarchy is mentioned, along with several run-of-the-mill sanctification errors. Noticeably absent from this discussion is the two-class doctrinal system, commonly found among the Reformed, which views anyone outside of our doctrinal camp as a second-class or "unenlightened" believer. However, this problem is more subtle because it is not inherently and obviously linked to Reformed doctrine as it is to Pentecostal doctrine. Among the Reformed, it is more an issue of pride than a direct effect of the theology itself. In fact, it is doubly ironic because it is directly counter to our theology. But I digress . . .

SPIRIT-FILLED SANCTIFICATION

Grudem moves from Spirit baptism to a discussion of the Biblical idea of being "Spirit-filled." He notes that all believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit, and proposes that the Pentecostal "second blessing" experience can potentially be viewed as genuine Spirit filling that has been mistakenly called "Spirit baptism." He calls for all believers to seek the filling of the Holy Spirit for increased sanctification and service. An understanding of progressive sanctification undergirds this teaching and serves as the ideal antidote to the concept of a "second blessing."

THE SPIRIT'S WORK IN CONVERSION AND SANCTIFICATION

To summarize Grudem's emphases: Spirit baptism is connected to conversion; Spirit filling is an element of sanctification and an empowerment for service. Being "filled with the Spirit" is a continuous pursuit that should be experienced repeatedly by believers who are maturing. We can expect the ongoing and revolutionizing work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. The difference this makes is not a matter of reaching a higher plane, but an issue of maturity and progress in sanctification. It should never be the dividing line between separate classes or types of Christian.

WHAT ABOUT TONGUES?

In his final point, Grudem argues that the gift of tongues is a possible result of being filled with the Spirit, but not a necessary result. I find this view sensible and Biblical.

CONCLUSION

Spirit baptism is not to be sought. It is to be affirmed and rejoiced in as a part of the overall conversion experience. Spirit filling, on the other hand, is to be pursued vigorously. There is no room for a two-class Christianity that elevates the "spiritual" above the "unspiritual." At the same time, there is no place for a cold and lifeless spirituality that neglects the ongoing and dynamic work of the Holy Spirit. Abandoning those unbiblical extremes, all believers should engage instead in a relentless pursuit of the Spirit's sanctifying and empowering work.

To hear Dr. Grudem speak on this subject, click here.

Common Grace and Saving Grace: Flood Light and Spotlight

2011-12-15T13:28:00.003-05:00

Here's an important fact to remember about Common Grace and Saving Grace: one never negates the other, as if one were darkness and the other light. Both are lights. They can strengthen one another, but they can never darken or diminish one another.

Some in the Reformed tradition, having accepted the glorious doctrine of unconditional election, begin to view everything through "election glasses" which tend to limit every aspect of God's nature and action.

Election Glasses may be stylish and comfortable,
but they can be theologically reductionistic.

It is dangerous to start building our theology with the divine act of election and then read that back into every other divine attribute and action. Some would reason this way: "God only elects some so He must only love some" ... however, God in His Word veritably shouts the exact opposite! Why not say, "God only elects some, so He only has the power to save some?" No Christian would ever say that, yet God has never defined Himself in Scripture as "power," while He has defined Himself emphatically as "love."

A spotlight is directed toward a limited and particular area

The fact that God loves the elect in a special way does not negate His general love for all, any more than an effectual call can negate the reality of a general one. Both work together.

Election is a type of love, but it is not the only kind. Election magnifies God's love; it does not shrink His love. Election extends His love to include the salvation of certain worthless wretches ("election according to grace"); it does not rescind His love from the rest. Election makes His willingness to save (all) effectual (in the case of some), but it does not remove His love or His willingness to save from the rest. Election simply takes a general willingness to save and makes it a FIRM WILL to save. In other words, the spotlight of Saving Grace does not unplug the flood light of Common Grace. Both work together in perfect harmony without conflict or negation. Both shed positive light, but in different ways and to different ends. They may be two different kinds of lights, but both are lights indeed.

A flood light provides a general ambiance of light

A Great Musician I Just Discovered

2011-12-11T20:06:00.000-05:00

I stumbled across Kees Kraayenoord while searching for some music on YouTube. Apparently he's Dutch, and he's produced some spectacular music!

MIGHTY IS THE POWER OF THE CROSS - Kees Kraayenoord

HOLD ON TO YOU FOREVER - Kees Kraayenoord

FOR THE CROSS - Kees Kraayenoord

Thanks be to God ...

2011-11-24T10:59:00.001-05:00

... For His inexpressible gift! (II Corinthians 9:15)

The context of this phrase:
The Corinthians have embraced the Gospel.
The Gospel's work in them has made them generous.
There is a continuous flow of giving and receiving from genuinely generous hearts.
The result is more thanksgiving and praise and glory to God - and more giving and receiving among believers.
Needs are abundantly met and there is great joy!
Paul adds this phrase at the end to remind them who gave first and who gave most.

The gift was is inexpressible, so the praise will be eternal!

Here are a few photos taken around the City Center in Port Orange, Florida.

Nouthetic Counseling and Discipleship Training

2011-11-20T07:39:00.000-05:00

Brad Bigney shares a Biblical
Perspective on Worry and Fear

This weekend my pastor and I attended the third installment of NANC Counseling and Discipleship Training at Christian Family Chapel in Jacksonville, FL. Over three weekends, we received an introduction to the basics and fundamentals, and we hope to pursue more education in this area in the future. My former pastor, Brad Bigney, was one of the featured speakers. It has been wonderful to sit again before this man whom God used at a critical time in my life. Soon after I first met Brad back in 2000, my marriage fell apart and my wife and I were separated for two and a half years. We are walking miracles, now committed to our family and working hard to raise up our children in the ways of the Lord! We have received such mercy at the hands of our God, who not only forgave and accepted us, but also lives in us and transforms us by His Word. As I sat next to my current pastor, Craig Bowen, it struck me how perfectly God has provided for the care of my family under faithful servants of Christ.

The 30 hour NANC training course was amazing. Some of the other featured speakers were:

Randy Patten - Executive Director of NANC. He is a solid, hard-hitting preacher and teacher with vast counseling experience and lots of insightful lessons to share.
Stuart Scott - Associate Professor of Biblical Counseling at SBTS and Department Coordinator of Biblical Counseling at Boyce College. Dr. Scott served 10 years under John MacArthur at Grace Community Church. He is a pioneer in the art of Biblical Counseling and a man of great discernment.
Jim Newheiser - Pastor of Grace Bible Church of North San Diego County, CA and head of the Institute for Biblical Counseling and Discipleship. He is a wise, balanced thinker.
Nicolas Ellen - Pastor of Community of Faith Bible Church in Houston, TX. He is a great speaker with energy and passion for the Truth!
Dan Gannon, MD and Pam Gannon, RN - This husband/wife team includes an orthopedic surgeon and a registered nurse who share valuable insights regarding medical issues in counseling. They are thorough and extremely helpful in their analysis of challenging topics.
Andrew Rogers - Pastor of Sunrise Community Church in Atlantic Beach, FL. He is a solid preacher and teacher with a gift for exposition and application.

A key concept shared by several of the speakers is the fact that humanity's problems revolve around two primary issues: sin and suffering. All suffering is a result of the fall, but not all suffering is the direct result of one's own sin. Often a counselor must confront sin, but sometimes he is simply called to offer comfort to an afflicted soul. The counselor is a fellow sinner and a fellow sufferer who desires to share God's grace. The goal is always to help the counselee to grow to become more like Christ, pleasing and glorifying God through the situation. NANC's overall perspective included a great deal of humility and nuance, while holding resolutely to the sufficiency of Scripture. Integrationist methods that attempt to reconcile secular psychology with Biblical theology were briefly critiqued, but the main focus was on the power and efficacy of the Word of God itself.

I have met a few people who have gotten a poor impression of nouthetic counseling. My suggestion would be to attend a NANC training course before believing any negative reports about what is taught. The things you actually hear might surprise you!

In conclusion, I highly recommend this training for any Christian who is interested in helping others and making disciples.

Grateful

2011-11-18T15:55:00.002-05:00

Each day I live, I find I am more grateful for God's grace in my life.

Sitting at the Leper's Table - by Horatius Bonar

2011-11-17T07:55:00.004-05:00

Some edifying thoughts here from the Scottish revivalist, preacher, and hymn writer - Horatius Bonar. His text is Matthew 26:6 - "Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper . . ."

Can Biblical Paradoxes Be Reconciled?

2011-11-11T07:55:00.000-05:00

Of course they can. By definition, a paradox is not an actual contradiction but an apparent one.

When we say that paradoxes are apparent contradictions, and not actual contradictions, we affirm that they can be logically reconciled. The important question is not whether they can be reconciled, but by whom. We must always affirm that any collection of true statements are logically reconciled in the mind of our wise and omniscient God.

But this prompts another question: can all Biblical paradoxes be logically reconciled by human beings?

The answer is "Yes" and "No." It is "Yes" because one remains hopeful that they can all be explained in some way by human beings. We are ingenious creatures capable of highly complex thought. Some who are intellectually gifted can come up with creative ways to explain just about anything. If there is a paradox that hasn't been theoretically "solved" by some philosopher or theologian, we can be sure it's only a matter of time before someone presents what they believe to be a logical solution.

This, however, brings up a third question: how much stock can we place in these solutions?

This is the critical point: the question of epistemological authority. In layman's terms, the question is: who or what is an authoritative source of knowledge? How can we know that a given logical explanation for a paradox is THE TRUE explanation - the one that reflects God's own knowledge of the matter?

We must say, "No, Biblical paradoxes cannot be reconciled by human beings," because apart from divine revelation we can't put complete faith in our explanations.

Another way of explaining this is by presenting the Christian's hierarchy of epistemological certainty. The top level represents the highest level of certainty we can possess, with our certainty decreasing as we move down.

___________________________________________

SPECIAL REVELATION (Scripture)

___________________________________________

GENERAL REVELATION (Creation, Conscience)

___________________________________________

EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE (Hard Science)

___________________________________________

REASON & OBSERVATIONS (Soft Science)

___________________________________________

INTUITION (Feelings & Senses)

___________________________________________

(This chart is adapted from notes taken during a lecture by Dr. Stuart Scott)

Attempted reconciliations of Biblical paradoxes are in the realm of metaphysics. That is, they belong to the category of soft sciences, being unsupported by direct revelation or empirical proof. We can swim around in mysteries, theorize and explore implications. But we can't KNOW anything outside of Scripture with an equal level of certainty. We lack the epistemological warrant to claim we have authoritatively reconciled any Biblical paradox. That is, unless Scripture itself provides the solution.

Thus, we are led back to the exegesis and exposition of Scripture - not mere philosophical speculation - as the best ways to grow in certainty regarding the Truth of God.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.

Thus, let us hold fast to the Word and leave the rest to God.

Calvinists Aflame for God

2011-11-09T07:55:00.011-05:00

Some say Calvinism tends toward a cold, cerebral piety that is devoid of compassion. They claim Reformed theological convictions produce ineffective or just downright annoying Christians. In some cases this has undeniably been true. You can probably think of examples.

Great. Point conceded.

On the other hand, many of the most zealous servants of Christ have been Calvinists. Some of the most pioneering, devoted, self-sacrificing missionaries in the history of the Church have been Calvinists. Many of the martyrs who have testified passionately and died for Christ's cause have been Calvinists. Many of the greatest devotional works - the ones that point to the glories of Christ and call us to love-inspired labors - were written by Calvinists. Newton, Bunyan, Spurgeon, Baxter, Whitefield and Watson come to mind.

How is it that some Calvinists have demonstrated such intense devotion, while others have gone flat? It's a good question, and an important one. Below are a few thoughts about how we Calvinists can stay aflame for God, speaking Truth in love and maintaining the simplicity of devotion to Christ, even as we wrestle Calvin-style with the hard doctrines of Scripture and refuse to back away from any of their philosophical implications.

Never think about the doctrine of Total Depravity without considering your own sins. Especially your recent sins. Let the desperate plight of fallen humanity inspire a fresh compassion for the lost people around you.
Never think about the doctrine of Unconditional Election without reminding yourself that nothing in you influenced God's choice. That's what unconditional means. Know that it was purely of His mercy that He took pity on you and saved you.
Never think about Christ's atoning work without thanking Him for what He has done for you at the cross, and in the resurrection, and the way He applies that work to your life now. Be affected by how much you need the cross on a daily and moment-by-moment basis.
Never think about the doctrine of the Effectual Call without marveling that God miraculously changed your stony heart.
Never think about the doctrines of the Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints without recognizing that all your godly fruit is an effect of Christ's unmerited mercy toward you. Remember that a lack of godly fruit is a sign of trouble that must move you to re-examine your heart. Don't use the doctrine of election to exempt yourself from this.
Never think about the sovereignty of God without surrendering yourself afresh to His glorious rule.
Never let logical deductions about the secret will of God lessen your adherence to His revealed will in the Scriptures. Don't get carried away by speculations.
Read plenty of Reformed books and blogs if you like, but devote yourself to the study and application of Scripture. Read the whole Bible and spend more effort applying it than thinking philosophically about it.
Share the Gospel regularly and stay involved in missions. Prove that you believe in the free offer of the Gospel.
Worship God alone. Don't let theology become your idol.
When you speak, boast in the goodness of God rather than just spouting theological facts you have learned.
Repent thoroughly, earnestly and often. Confess your sins to God daily, and rejoice in His outpoured grace daily. Repent to other people when you sin against them (it's wonderfully humbling).
Stay close to your Lord, and tremble if you gain a head full of knowledge without corresponding affections for Him.

I'm a 10-Point Calvinist

2011-11-07T07:55:00.002-05:00

Reflecting on some previous posts concerning the Three Points of Common Grace and the Purpose and Potency of the Atoning work of Christ, I have concluded that I am a 10-Point Calvinist. I believe it is important to be a 10-point Calvinist (a.k.a. a 5-paradox Calvinist) because this maintains the balance of Biblical teaching concerning God's disposition toward the elect and the reprobate. I believe all 10 points are essential for any soteriology that is based on the Bible.

Most Calvinists agree that the ubiquitous "TULIP" is an insufficient summary of our core theology. This is not to say that it is completely inaccurate. It is a brilliant strand of truth (and a handy acronym) . . . but perhaps too narrow a strand.

5 Paradoxes of Calvinism: A Deep Vision of Sovereign Grace

PARADOX #1 - MAN
Humanity's Condition: Lost - yet Loved
1a. God's Pervasive Love for All of His Creatures (Psalm 145:9)
1b. Humanity's Pervasive Total Depravity and Spiritual Inability (John 6:44)

PARADOX #2 - GOD
God's Disposition: Willing to Save All - yet Sovereignly Selecting
2a. God's Saving Desire toward All Mankind (Ezekiel 18:31-32)
2b. God's Unconditional Election of Particular Sinners from Eternity (Ephesians 1:4-5)

PARADOX #3 - CROSS
Christ's Saving Work: Sufficient for all - yet Particular to the Elect
3a. Christ's Infinitely Sufficient Atonement for all Sinners (I John 2:2)
3b. God's Particular Redemption of the Elect through the atoning work of Christ (Matthew 1:21)

PARADOX #4 - CONVERSION
The Gospel Call: Offered to All - yet Effectual in the Elect
4a. The Free Offer of the Gospel to All Sinners (Matthew 11:28-30)
4b. The Effectual Call of the Elect by Irresistible Grace (Matthew 11:27)

PARADOX #5 - SANCTIFICATION
The Christian Life: Sinners by Nature - yet Saints by Grace
5a. The Struggle of the Saved Sinner in Sanctification (Romans 7:18-25)
5b. The Preservation and Perseverance of the Saints (John 10:27-29)

Arminians press the "a" statements to the point of denying God's sovereignty in salvation.
Hyper-Calvinists press the "b" statements to the point of denying God's goodness as expressed in His general love and willingness to save all. Mainstream Calvinists hold the balance. This is beautiful, Biblical Calvinism! 10 points worth of it.

A 10-Point Calvinist Faces Off with an Arminian

Putting it another way . . .

1. God loves all people.
2. Sin has rendered all people pervasively depraved and unable to repent on their own.
3. God desires the salvation of all people.
4. From eternity, God unconditionally elects some sinners to salvation.
5. Christ's shed blood was and is a sufficient atonement for all people.
6. God's special intention in the atonement was to redeem a particular people.
7. In the Gospel, God freely offers His atoning mercy to all people.
8. God effectually calls and irresistibly draws the elect by sovereign, saving grace.
9. The saints are saved sinners.
10. Those who are truly converted will persevere in faith to the end.

John Piper considers becoming a 10-pointer

Just don't preach a 10-point sermon!

Saved by Works

2011-11-05T20:45:00.003-04:00

I recently came to the realization that I am saved by works. This realization did not result from a change in my theology, nor did it result in a theological change. It actually reinforced the Biblically-grounded "Sola Fide" and "Sola Gratia" convictions I have long held. Believe me, this is a core Reformed conviction.

I'll say it again another way: all who have been saved have been saved by works. No one can be saved apart from works. I know, it sounds like heresy, but take a moment to read the rest of this article before passing judgment on the idea.

Can we be saved by works and still hold to Sola Fide and Sola Gratia? Yes, absolutely!

The question is not whether we are saved by works, but whose work saves. We can only be saved by the work of Christ. We cannot be saved by our own works. This is just another way of saying we must be saved by faith alone. All we bring to the equation is faith. God brings the rest, and He does the work. Saving faith, of course, can never be produced from within ourselves. It is granted us from God, and Christ is the Author of it. Saving sinners is His work. Granting repentance and faith is His work. Bearing sin is His work. Dying for unworthy wretches is His work. Raising the dead is His work. Forgiving the guilty is His work. Justifying the ungodly is His work. Sanctifying and keeping and glorifying believers is His work.

So if you are saved, it is by works! God's works.

And when we recognize that we are the sinners, the ungodly, the weak fools who have proudly turned from God's mercy, we cannot imagine that there would ever be any work we could do that could possibly save us. Not in a million years. Not in an eternity.

John 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work."

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."

Philippians 1:6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.

To be saved by grace through faith is to be saved by good works - but not by our own works. We are saved by the works of Christ Jesus our Lord alone.

Thus we say . . .

Sola Fide!
Sola Gratia!
Solus Christus!
Soli Deo Gloria!

And all of that is a consequence of this:

Sola Scriptura!

Editor's Note: I wrote this article a while back, and had decided not to post it. However, when I saw this post from Eddie Eddings, I changed my mind. I guess we were on the same page.

Looking for a New Job

2011-11-04T07:55:00.010-04:00

For the last 5 years, I have worked as a marketing manager for a great company. Due to circumstances beyond my control, today will be my last day at this job. As this turn of events was somewhat unexpected, please pray that God will open my eyes to the direction He is leading.

I'm looking forward to a new opportunity. God is good.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Solving the Baptism Debate

2011-10-28T07:55:00.001-04:00

Recently I've seen some heated debates over baptism. Should we sprinkle infants or immerse believers?

Why not just immerse infants like the Eastern Orthodox Church does?
(I'm only kidding, but they are totally serious about this solution)

FYI

2011-10-27T07:55:00.012-04:00

I'm married to the most awesome woman on the planet!

Just thought I'd mention that.

Marriage is not a sprint. It's a marathon (with high hurdles). We all get weary along the way. We grow tired of putting the interests of others ahead of our own, dying to self, preferring one another in love, considering others more important than ourselves, speaking the truth in love, and bearing one another's burdens. That's not easy stuff, no matter how beautiful, talented or fun your spouse may be.

But here's what I've noticed in 15 years of marriage: when I do love my wife in any measure with our Lord's kind of self-sacrificing, practical love, there comes to my heart an inexpressible joy. Although It's hard to die to self, it's a JOY to live as Christ would live. Marriage is the perfect opportunity for sacrifice, for servanthood, for discipleship, for cross-bearing, for pain, for heartbreak, for perseverance, for suffering . . . and for glorious JOY!

Ungracious Cows

2011-10-21T07:55:00.001-04:00

From Charles Spurgeon:

"I will judge between cattle and cattle." (Ezekiel 34:22)

Some are fat and flourishing, and therefore they are unkind to the feeble. This is a grievous sin and causes much sorrow. Those thrustings with side and with shoulder, those pushings of the diseased with the horn, are a sad means of offense in the assemblies of professing believers. The Lord takes note of these proud and unkind deeds, and He is greatly angered by them, for He loves the weak.

Is the reader one of the despised? Is he a mourner in Zion and a marked man because of his tender conscience? Do his brethren judge him harshly? Let him not resent their conduct; above all let him not push and thrust in return. Let him leave the matter in the Lord's hands. He is the Judge. Why should we wish to intrude upon His office? He will decide much more righteously than we can. His time for judgment is the best, and we need not be in a hurry to hasten it on. Let the hard-hearted oppressor tremble. Even though he may ride roughshod over others with impunity for the present, all his proud speeches are noted, and for every one of them account must be given before the bar of the great Judge.

Patience, my soul! Patience! The Lord knoweth thy grief. Thy Jesus hath pity upon thee!

(Charles Spurgeon, Faith's Checkbook - "He of Tender Conscience")

Here's an audio version for your listening pleasure:

Slander and Defamation

2011-10-20T07:55:00.006-04:00

Mike Abendroth's "No Compromise Radio" podcast is a place where one can often hear sharp critiques of false teaching. If you've listened to the show, you know he is not namby pamby or conflict-avoidant; he's a real pastor with a discerning Biblical mind and no hesitation about demolishing heresy. However, Abendroth knows the difference between valiantly standing for Biblical Truth and merely blasting an opponent by unfair and ungodly means. Last year he did a great show on Slander and Defamation. Be warned, it is convicting.

Click HERE to listen

Abendroth exposits James 4:11 and surveys other Scripture verses relevant to the topic, then gives several useful applications and illustrations.

He offers this helpful distinction between proper discernment ministry and ungodly attack:

"I will gladly and often critique what people teach; but I don't think you've heard me say things about them personally to attack their character and attack their person."

That is a helpful distinction to keep in mind.

GOD'S FREE AND SINCERE OFFER: Calvin on Isaiah 65:1-6

2011-10-19T07:55:00.005-04:00

2. I have stretched out my hands. He accuses the Jews, and complains of their ingratitude and rebellion; and in this manner he proves that there is no reason why they should say that the Lord does them wrong if he bestow his grace on others. The Jews conducted themselves proudly and insolently toward God, as if they had been elected through their own merit. On account of their ingratitude and insolence the Lord rejects them as unworthy, and complains that to no purpose did he "stretch out his hands" to draw and bring them back to him.

By "the stretching out of the hands" he means the daily invitation. There are various ways in which the Lord "stretches out his hands to us;" for he draws us to him, either effectually or by the word. In this passage it must relate chiefly to the word. The Lord never speaks to us without at the same time "stretching out his hand" to join us to himself, or without causing us to feel, on the other hand, that he is near to us. He even embraces us, and shews the anxiety of a father, so that, if we do not comply with his invitation, it must be owing entirely to our own fault. The heinousness of the guilt is greatly aggravated by long continuance, that, during a long succession of ages, God did not cease to send one Prophet after another, and even, as he says elsewhere, to rise early in the morning and continue the same care till the evening. (Jer 7:13, 11:7, 35:14).

To a rebellious people. First, he calls them "rebellious" or disobedient, but immediately afterwards he declares what is the nature of that rebellion, namely, that the people walk after their own thoughts. Nothing is more displeasing to God than for men to be αὐθάδης "self-willed," (2 Pe 2:10); that is, devoted to their own inclinations; for he commands us to surrender our own judgment, that we may be capable of receiving the true doctrine. The Lord therefore testifies that it was not owing to him that he did not retain and continue to exercise towards them his wonted favor, but that they alienated themselves through their own madness, because they chose to abide by their own natural inclinations rather than to follow God as their leader.

Having pointed out the cause of this rejection, we must come to the calling of the Gentiles, who succeeded in the room of the Jews; for that is undoubtedly the subject treated in the first verse. The Lord had long ago foretold it by Moses, so that they ought not to have thought that there was anything new in this prediction.

"They have provoked me by that which is not God; they have moved me to anger by their vanities; and I also will provoke them by that which is not a people, by a foolish nation I will enrage them." (De 32:21).

Finally, the Prophet now threatens the same thing which was afterwards foretold by Christ when that blinding was at hand.

"The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation which shall bring forth fruit." (Mt 21:43).

1. To them that asked not. {1} When he says that God manifested himself "to them that asked not," he shews that the Gentiles were anticipated by the grace of God, and that they brought no merit or excellence as an inducement to God to give it to them. This obviously agrees with that passage which we quoted, in which Moses calls them "a foolish nation." (De 32:21). Thus, under a universal type, he describes what is the nature of men before the Lord anticipates them by his mercy; for they neither call on the Lord, nor seek him, nor think about him. And this passage ought to be carefully observed, in order to establish the certainty of our calling, which may be said to be the key that opens to us the kingdom of heaven; for by means of it peace and repose are given to our consciences, which would always be in doubt and uncertainty if they did not rest on such testimonies. We see, therefore, that it did not happen accidentally or suddenly that we were called by God and reckoned to be his people; for it had been predicted long before in many passages. From this passage Paul earnestly contends for the calling of the Gentiles, and says that Isaiah boldly exclaims and affirms that the Gentiles have been called by God, because he spoke more clearly and loudly than the circumstances of his own time required. Here we see, therefore, that we were called by an eternal purpose of God long before the event happened.

Behold I, behold I. By repeating these words twice, he confirms still more the declaration that God hath manifested himself in so friendly a manner to foreign and heathen nations, that they do not doubt that he dwells in the midst of them. And, indeed, that sudden change needed to be confirmed, because it was difficult to be believed; although by that very novelty the Prophet intended to magnify the unexpected grace of God. The meaning may be thus summed up: "When the Lord shall have offered himself to the Gentiles, and they shall have been joined to the holy family of Abraham, there will be some Church in the world, after the Jews have been driven out." Now we see that all that is here predicted by the Prophet was fulfilled by the Gospel, by which the Lord actually offered and manifested himself to foreign nations. Whenever, therefore, this voice of the Gospel is sounded in our ears, or when we record the word of the Lord, let us know that the Lord is present, and offers himself, that we may know him familiarly, and may call on him boldly and with assured confidence.

[Underlining and bolding added]
______________________________________________________________

NOTES:

Calvin incorporates Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and the Effectual Call throughout these comments. He places affirmations of those doctrines alongside affirmations of the Gospel Offer, God's love for the reprobate, and His desire to save them. He does not view these truths as contradictory, but places them side by side. Why are so many of today's Calvinists unwilling to do the same?

Note how explicitly and emphatically Calvin speaks of God's sincere, desirous offer and invitation. Even when God's call is general and not effectual, Calvin says God's desire is "to join us to himself." Context shows the "us" here is fallen humanity, not just the elect. He even goes so far as to say God "embraces" the ones who reject Him. Calvin clearly believed that God calls the reprobate, loves the reprobate, and desires to save the reprobate (while at the same time not choosing to save them).

Calvin reasons that nothing on God's part prevents the reprobate from returning to Him. All the fault lies with the one who rejects God's call. The fact that God did not "decree" or foreordain their repentance in the secret counsel of His will is a separate issue. Calvin has no problem saying "they chose" to abandon God, while at the same time exhorting his readers not to follow their example.

D.A. Carson on God's Love and Hate

2011-10-18T07:55:00.002-04:00

"If the love of God refers exclusively to his love for the elect, it is easy to drift toward a simple and absolute bifurcation: God loves the elect and hates the reprobate. Rightly positioned, there is truth in this assertion . . . Stripped of complementary Biblical truths, that same assertion has engendered hyper-Calvinism. I use the term advisedly, as it is used in Church History, referring to groups within the Reformed tradition that have forbidden the free offer of the Gospel. Spurgeon fought them in his day. Their number is not great in America today, but their echoes are found in young Reformed ministers who know it is right to offer the Gospel freely but who have no idea how to do it without contravening some element in their conception of Reformed theology."

http://mediafiles.dts.edu/chapel/mp3/19980105.mp3, emphasis added

Monday Morning Humor

2011-10-17T07:55:00.003-04:00

Kevin DeYoung is in the habit of posting something funny on Mondays. So I decided to give it a try this week just for fun. But this one is a double header.

First, we have an amazing song extolling the wonders of "free will" (actually, this is probably more sad than funny, but something about the song makes you want to laugh involuntarily). Please choose to watch this video.

I'm glad you chose to watch it.

Next, we have this great video entitled, "John Piper Preaches Against Calvinism." It really is a great video. The only thing funny about it is the title. It's funny that someone thinks this is preaching against Calvinism. I was really expecting something more or less un-Calvinistic, but instead there was just this . . .

There you have it! A clear contradiction of everything he's ever preached in the past!

Choose to have a great Monday, friends.

God's PRO-MANDS

2011-10-07T07:55:00.010-04:00

Command + Promise = PRO-MAND

Here's an example: "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you." (James 4:8a)

Do you see how the command and the promise go together as a set? For a believing child of God, the promise provides motivation to obey the command.

Here's another way to find a PRO-MAND: someone has said that under the New Covenant the 10 Commandments become 10 Promises. "You shall have no other gods before me . . ." What wonderful news this is when taken as a promise. It's a marvelous PRO-MAND!

Please take a moment to share more encouraging "PRO-MANDS" in the comments.

We're at Disney World!

2011-10-06T20:20:00.001-04:00

Thanks be to our God for the common grace of amusement parks.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

The Night of Weeping - Horatius Bonar

2011-10-05T07:55:00.004-04:00

The writings and hymns of Horatius Bonar are never short on encouragements for the weary saint. This brief word of exhortation to sufferers is no exception. May it strengthen your heart.

Calvin on the Sufficiency of Scripture

2011-10-03T07:55:00.001-04:00

"But let us know, as faith can be grounded nowhere else than in the Word of the Lord, so we must only stand to the testimony thereof in all controversies."

-from Calvin's Commentary on Acts 17:2

Try a Blog (But Don't Try Triablogue)

2011-09-30T12:55:00.022-04:00

I share the following with a great deal of disappointment, both in myself and in the others involved.

For some time, I have looked up to Steve Hays at Triablogue, and I've also made no secret of my admiration for Paul Manata. Unfortunately, I must now disavow any recommendation of these men and their work.

Why? I wish I didn't have to say any of this. But I do.

For several weeks, Hays and Manata have been posting vociferously against some arguments David Ponter has presented regarding certain distinctives of Moderate Calvinism. This week I got into a related discussion with both Hays and Manata in the Triablogue comment box. The discussion went downhill and quickly turned into a mud slinging contest, with uncharitable personal attacks being launched from both sides. Hays then wrote a blog post about me, citing out-of-context phrases taken from comments I posted, interspersed with his cutting remarks. Hays harshly attacked my character, calling me a "yes-man" and a "cheerleader" for Ponter. Mind you, Hays has never met me, and has rarely interacted with me online. So I'm not sure how he justifies making those pronouncements.

After considering the whole situation, I concluded that one of Hays' criticisms was correct. I had engaged in ad hominem attacks, particularly with regard to certain remarks I had made about him. I also realized I had not conducted myself with appropriate respect or humility in our previous exchanges. I had become sarcastic and was starting to take things too personally. The ad hominem attacks from both sides were escalating, and we were violating clear Biblical standards. Proverbs 15:1 came to mind with great force and began to batter my conscience. Also, Colossians 4:6. What could I do?

I decided it best to take responsibility for my actions and try to restore good relations with these Christian brothers. I wrote a detailed confession, asked their forgiveness, and requested further input from them if they felt there were other offenses that needed to be addressed. I also asked Hays to back up what he had asserted about me (my full responses are quoted at the end of this post).

The only response was from Hays: "Thanks, Derek."

No admission of wrong from his side. No affirmation of forgiveness and no request for forgiveness. No attempt at reconciliation. Worst of all, perhaps: no acknowledgement of the falsehoods that were brought to his attention.

The falsehoods were the reason I engaged in dialogue with Hays in the first place. He has labeled his posts about Moderate Calvinism with the misleading tag, "Anti-Calvinism." Take a moment to think about the significance of that. In Hays' estimation, moderate Calvinism equals ANTI-CALVINISM. The label is pure slander. Hays continues to do this despite the fact that he has repeatedly been shown conclusive proof that moderate Calvinism is a historically valid stream of Reformed Theology and is not in any sense "Anti-Calvinism." Norman Geisler and Randal Rauser are Anti-Calvinism. Classic/Historic/Moderate Calvinists like David Ponter are not. I find Hays' ignorance about these matters disturbing, and his stubbornness when corrected alarming. In my mind, his ongoing refusal to accept the facts and correct his own thinking disqualifies Hays from acting as a Christian apologist or a representative of mainstream Reformed thought. He has shown a persistent unwillingness to tell the truth about his opponents. He has smeared them with false charges and misrepresented their arguments. And he has not been willing to justify or recant slanderous remarks made about a brother.

In contrast, Ponter's response to Hays and Manata has been copiously fair and balanced. He has addressed the arguments presented rather than the individuals who presented them. His posts have lacked the insulting tone and deceptive selectivity of Hays' posts. Whether or not you agree with Ponter, his godly conduct in this debate has been unmistakable. This is a good example for me to learn from. This is admirable.

It is notable that Hays picked a fight with James White on the same day he attacked me. White perfectly described Hays' basic M.O. when he said:

"The ability to not only disregard the obvious meaning of my words, but to stretch to this incredible length, speaks so loudly to the length to which Mr. Hays is willing to go in the prosecution of his case against those he personally dislikes that I truly need to make no further comment. I simply ask the reader to compare what I wrote to his response, see how the substance of my reply was ignored, and that what he does say in response ignores my clear intent and purpose, and make your decision on the basis of the facts."

I have seen Hays consistently use these tactics with moderate Calvinists like David Ponter and Tony Byrne, and I have seen him use them against many others. Systematically and unrepentantly. This makes for a sad parody of Reformed Apologetics that can only serve to reinforce negative stereotypes. I stand with White in his conclusion:

"I pray the Lord's blessings on Steve, and on the whole Triablogue team. I simply pray he will recover his balance and seek fairness in his future efforts."

Until that happens, I recommend trying another blog. In the past I would have suggested Paul Manata's. But Manata has disgracefully stood with Hays on these matters and is now taking shots at other moderate Calvinists as well. So, for a more objective approach to Reformed Philosophy and Apologetics, I recommend these great sites:

Mike A. Robinson - God Does Exist: Applied Apologetics

James N. Anderson - Analogical Thoughts

I don't agree with these men on every point, and I don't imagine they agree with me on every point, but I have found I can count on them to be fair and respectful to their opponents. That adorns their arguments with grace and makes me much more willing to consider the merits.

Dear reader, those you admire will fail. Your friends will fail. I will fail and you will fail. But Christ will never fail. Keep your trust firmly set on Him, and you will not be shaken. Keep repenting, and you will not get far in your own selfish folly when it arises. Keep walking humbly with Him, and you will find rest for your soul. These are lessons I am learning . . . sometimes the hard way.

________________________________________________________________

My notes to Steve Hays and Paul Manata at Triablogue:

Steve and Paul,

This cut-and-paste job on my comments is a stacked deck. I could do the same using comments from you, but I'm not going to bother with it. I would simply invite readers to go back to the original comment threads and read my words in context along with the rest of the conversation. No defense, just a call for objectivity.

For my part, I admit I got too deep in this and resorted to some ad homs, and definitely employed some unnecessary sarcasm. In particular, my two "conclusions" about you, Steve, were offensive and uncalled for. I can see that my sinful pride fueled some of my words as our disagreement heated up. Please forgive me.

FWIW, the logic of my "formal argument" was intentionally ridiculous in order to make the point that one need not be a professional philosopher to realize calling moderate Calvinism "anti-Calvinism" is simply incorrect. Amazingly, you (Steve) continue to use and even defend this misleading label. I never considered that you would take my "argument" as a serious attempt at formal logic. So I guess I set myself up for your comeback.

That doesn't excuse the improper labeling of moderate Calvinism. On this point I will stand firm. It's a matter of Truth, and it is to your benefit to accept what I'm saying. Obviously, the choice is yours.

Now the three of us have had our little brouhaha and I hope we can all shake hands (metaphorically speaking) and take responsibility for what went wrong with the discussion.

BTW - I have always held that you are much better philosophers than I am. You'll get no arguments from me on that point. I hope you enjoy your abilities and use them for the glory of God, and speak Truth in love.

Blessings,
Derek (a.k.a. THEOparadox)

PS - nothing written above should be taken as sarcasm. These words are sincere and serious reflections on our recent experience of significant disagreement. If I have committed offenses that need to be addressed further, please give feedback and let's be sure we are fully reconciled as Christian brothers.

----

One other question: Other than agreeing with Ponter, was there something I did that led you to the conclusion that I am a "yes man"? I work very hard at thinking independently and speaking honestly to everyone in every circle I travel. I have lost jobs and strained friendships over this. No doubt I fall short sometimes, too. But this question is very, very important to me, so I would deeply appreciate any further thoughts on this point especially. Thanks.

PS - again I want to assure you there is no sarcasm here, and I am grateful for your willingness to bring to my attention the areas in which I have fallen short during our conversation.

The Gospel and the Household

2011-09-23T12:55:00.001-04:00

I want to take a moment to consider a Biblical character quality that has suffered neglect in our culture: hospitality. This quality is enjoined upon every believer (Romans 12:13, I Peter 4:9, Hebrews 13:2) and it is a non-negotiable requirement for all Christian leaders (I Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:8). Thankfully, hospitality is making a comeback as the grace of Christ opens hearts and homes in many places.

The Principle of Hospitality

John Piper reminds us that the Gospel, at its heart, is a form of hospitality.

“The ultimate act of hospitality was when Jesus Christ died for sinners to make everyone who believes a member of the household of God. We are no longer strangers and sojourners. We have come home to God."

Even for God, hospitality involved sacrifice. As His sacrifice brought magnificent benefit to humanity and much glory to God, so our small sacrifices of hospitality can serve others and glorify our Father in heaven. My pastor often reminds me that every Christian household can be an outpost for ministry, and every true church is a part of the "household of God" (Ephesians 2:19, I Timothy 3:15, I Peter 4:17) which is made up of our households. A concordance study of the word "household" is be a good way to rediscover a few of the forgotten Biblical principles around this topic. Hospitality is nothing less than the mercy of God extended through a household as outsiders are welcomed in and cared for.

The Practice of Hospitality

Do you lack hospitality? Do you want to grow in this grace? There is a cure! As in many other areas, the medicine and its effect are the same. What do I mean by that?

A friend once said to me, "If you want to be more humble, start doing humble things. It's hard to be proud when you're scrubbing toilets or picking up trash." Well, trust me, it's not impossible! But that's still good advice, and the same goes for hospitality. If you want to be more hospitable, invite some folks over and serve them. Feed them. Turn off the TV, computer and other devices and listen to them. Ask questions. Talk to them. Don't wait until you feel like it. Do it this week.

An Opportunity
Another good way to grow in hospitality is to get around people who practice it with joy and excellence.

My friends Craig and Theresa Bowen are just that sort of people. They have recently launched "A Candle in the Window," a Christian hospitality network. Over the years, the Bowens have hosted hundreds (if not thousands) of visitors in their home (including me and my family on numerous occasions). They exude kindness, compassion and genuine care, not only in big ways but also in the small ways that say, "You're truly welcome here."

If you would like to stay with hospitable Christians when travelling, and also open your home to fellow believers who are away from home, a one or two year membership in "A Candle in the Window" might be a good investment. While there is a small fee to join, a one or two year membership costs less than most hotels charge for a single night's stay. Theresa recently wrote to let me know they are offering special introductory rates at this time. See below for details, and please help spread the word to those who might find this useful.

From Theresa Bowen . . .

We are new and it will take us awhile to build our database. Please show grace as we are growing. At first, there will be fewer member locations… but we believe we will soon be a thriving worldwide network of Christian households delighting in hospitality!
As an incentive, we are offering free lifetime memberships to the first household in each state or foreign country to join. These will be our “charter members”. Click on the locations page: if there are no members yet from your state or country, join and become your state’s charter member. Hurry! We are also offering an introductory discount of $30/1 year and $50/2 year. To take advantage of our discounts, go to join us, click on either 1 or 2 year memberships. Click next to take you the following screen. Fill out preliminary application and type into the discount code box either FOUNDER'S 1 YEAR (case sensitive and spaces) or FOUNDER'S 2 YEAR (case sensitive with spaces) and the discount will automatically be applied.
Please help us spread the word… post a link on your facebook page, email or "tweet" it to your friends. Be creative. We also enjoy speaking on the topic of hospitality and would welcome opportunities to do so in your area. The more members we have in different locations, the better it is for everybody!"

Even if you don't join the network, you may want to bookmark the site for valuable insights on how you can grow in the practice of hospitality to the glory of God.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Addendum

2011-09-20T07:55:00.009-04:00

While examining the arguments presented by Dr. Rauser and comparing them to the theology of mainstream Calvinism, it occurred to me that there is a striking difference in our methods. He was willing to write off a Biblical text as too "complex" in order to maintain the simplicity of his Systematic Theology. In contrast, we have drawn out the clear meaning from a variety of relevant Biblical texts and attempted to construct from them a coherent description of God's disposition toward fallen humanity. We are willing, by God's grace, to take the texts at full face value and accept the logical challenges created by exegesis - even if we can't solve the logical challenges (although in this case we can).

A question facing every Evangelical theologian is this: am I going to accept the whole of the Bible as God's unique and inerrant self-revelation - and the only light by which I see - or will I impose my own system of thought upon it?

Psalm 119:160 The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.

Like some Evangelical theologians, this house is
lacking something important: a solid foundation.
Like some Calvinists, it could use a better paint job
and a more welcoming entrance.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 2

2011-09-17T07:55:00.112-04:00

This is Part 2 of a discussion of Randal Rauser's recent essay, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist." Click here for Part 1.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

In part 1, we discussed the first of two points:

1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Now we will move on to the second point:

2. Rauser clouds the Biblical texts with vague hermeneutical speculation rather than accepting the plain teachings of the passages.

He suggests the teaching of Romans 9 is very complex, and proposes we use John 3:16 as an interpretive control against the Calvinistic understanding. In my view, a better approach is to hold the clear truth of Romans 9 in balance with the clear truth of John 3:16. Otherwise, we are in danger of skewing our perspective by discounting valuable Scriptural data.

Back to the text . . .

I will be the first to admit there are passages in the Bible that are hard to understand. However, Romans 9 is not one of them. It is hard to accept, but not so hard to understand at the basic level. Without any doubt it is "strong medicine." But the strong medicine of God's Word is the cure for our sin-sick souls' deepest diseases, and we need to be willing to receive it full strength. Let our Systematic Theology feel the pain if it must, but Scripture is non-negotiable.

Rauser dilutes this medicine by proposing the following "complexities":

(his words are in orange, with my responses following)

Rauser: The specific individuals Jacob and Esau serve as symbols representing people groups

Me: Sure, these individuals are heads of nations. But that doesn't change the fact that they are themselves individuals, as Rauser's statement candidly admits. They are individuals who represent nations, and nations are of course made up of individuals. One of Paul's points is that being ethnically a part of an elect nation does not make the individual elect (Romans 9:6-8). Isaac and Ishmael were both descendents of Abraham, but only Isaac was elect. Jacob and Esau were both descendents of Isaac, but only Jacob was elect. In other words, election extends beyond the national/ethnic level to the individual level.
Rauser: There is the potential for the hyperbolic use of language.

Me: It is true that Scripture sometimes uses hyperbolic language, but Rauser needs to show how the language is hyperbolic, and what is meant by the hyperbole. Otherwise, this claim does nothing to clarify the meaning of the text. It would have to be some kind of extreme hyperbole for the text to mean, "Jacob I loved, and Esau I loved equally." That interpretation is, in fact, antithetical to the context as well as to the terms employed.
Rauser: Insofar as “election” is in view there is the distinction between election for a particular task and election for an eternal destiny.

Me: Is this idea drawn from the text, or brought to it by the interpreter? Let's see . . . the entire previous chapter and the letter itself are about salvation. Paul begins the passage by speaking of the eternal destiny of Israel (Romans 9:3). Does he change course somewhere along the way? Would election to different tasks cause us to question God's justice (Romans 9:14)? Paul is certainly referring to eternal destinies in Romans 9:23-28, as is the case in Romans 9:30, where he says the Gentiles have attained righteousness by faith. That's not "task" talk, it's "salvation" speak. Where, exactly, does Paul switch from discussing eternal destinies to discussing tasks? Rauser would need to present some strong exegesis to make this claim believable.
Rauser: Insofar as one accepts the appropriateness of the “scripture interprets scripture” principle there is the question of whether texts which seem to teach divine omnibenevolence (e.g. John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4) should function as interpretive controls of those texts that seem not to.

Me: As shown in Part 1, the Biblical Calvinist does not have this problem. Omnibenevolence is taught in Scripture, and God's hatred of the unregenerate is also taught, along with God's election of some to salvation. For Calvinists it's both/and (or "all three"), not either/or. This is the reality of Biblical paradox, under which our thoughts must be forged like steel on the anvil. Among the soteriological options, it is our judgment that Calvinism alone has the epistemological integrity to withstand the full weight of the tensions found in divine revelation. Rauser's theological commitments seem to require him to affirm the omnibenevolence of John 3:16 without any tempering from other Scripture passages. It's much easier - and more common among theologians - to declare a passage "complex" and then just ignore the tension it creates.
Rauser vs. The Text

Romans 9 is not as mysterious as Rauser's suggestions imply. Let's see if we can understand the place of "Esau I hated" in the flow of its teaching. This will be both edifying and educational.

Graphic by Eddie Eddings of calvinisticcartoons.blogspot.com,
a site everyone should visit often.

In Romans 9:13, Paul's reason for quoting "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is to reinforce what he has just said about God's sovereign election of Israel as opposed to other nations - including those nations descended from Abraham (which is also Malachi's point) - by the election of the individual named Jacob as opposed to the individual named Esau. Since the type of election Paul references occurred prior to birth (Romans 9:11-12), it was unconditional. Since it was related to specific persons (Romans 9:7; 9:13; 9:17), it was not merely national in scope but was particular to the individual. Since Paul's discussion of this election includes descriptions of the "children of God" (Romans 9:8), the display of God's saving mercy (Romans 9:15-16), the call to faith (Romans 9:24), the people of God (Romans 9:25-26) and those who will "be saved" (Romans 9:27), it is clearly more than election to a task. It is election to salvation and righteousness by faith (9:30-33). Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 to support this unconditional, individual/national, salvation-focused election. Anticipating that some people will think this exercise of divine prerogatives is inherently unjust, Paul asks, "Is there injustice on God's part?" Then he answers, "By no means!" (Romans 9:14). And what is Paul's justification for this claim? He says God's sovereign election of persons and nations is not a question of justice, but of mercy (Romans 9:15), and he says that man is in no position to question God's right to make such choices (Romans 9:20-21). All of this accords perfectly with the teachings of mainstream Calvinism, especially the teaching that election is God's saving mercy toward hated sinners, His pre-determined plan to specially love them by satisfying the demands of justice on His own Son in their behalf. In terms of election, God pre-determined to give justice to Esau and saving mercy to Jacob.

To recap: in terms of Common Grace, God clearly loved both Esau and Jacob. In terms of election, God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Both are true according to Scripture, and both are affirmed by Calvinism.

Thus Rauser's claim that Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:2-3 contradict Calvinism is unfounded. These verses only contradict Rauser's mistaken understanding of Calvinism. Unfortunately, Rauser seems unwilling to correctly interpret the texts that would lead him inevitably to that beautiful system of Biblical paradox called "Calvinism."

Conclusion

This looks scary, but it's not the real thing.

It seems clear that Dr. Rauser is wrestling with a misunderstanding of Calvinism and not the genuine article. He is trying to address Calvinistic conceptions without fully grasping them. This leaves room for the hope that he may someday gain a better understanding of Calvinism, and embrace it with the same enthusiasm with which he now opposes it.

Why "God Hated Esau" is of No Use to Randal Rauser - Part 1

2011-09-16T07:55:00.081-04:00

For a textbook example of how the failure to apprehend Biblical paradox can lead to erroneous theological conclusions, check out Randal Rauser's article, "Why 'God Hated Esau' is of No Use to the Calvinist."

First of all, I'd say every word of Scripture is of use to a Calvinist. But let's take a look at his arguments to see what's good and what's not so good, and whether he has a point.

Where Rauser Gets It Right

First, we should point out a couple of positive features.

1. He refreshingly notes that some Calvinists believe that "God loves all people but has a special love for the elect." Non-Calvinists often miss this point, but Rauser does not. The truth is, all mainstream Calvinists affirm this, while hypers deny it.

2. He correctly notes that the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture" compels us to place greater weight on the clear passages when we are examining less clear passages. That's a useful principle that no self-respecting Calvinist would argue against.

Pretty good so far.

Where Rauser Goes Wrong

1. Rauser's confusion begins when he proposes two different kinds of Calvinism

Non-Omnibenevolent Calvinism (NOBC): God loves the elect and hates the reprobate.

Omnibenevolent Calvinism (OBC): God loves all people but has a special love for the elect.

Here's what he misses: Biblical Calvinism embraces the paradox of God's love and hatred for all unrepentant sinners. What Rauser terms OBC and NOBC are each essential components of mainstream Calvinism. In other words, there is a sense in which God loves all people, and there is a sense in which He hates all the wicked. He is nonetheless omnibenevolent. So, we have three apparently contradictory propositions:

God loves all people, sinners included (Matthew 5:44-45, Luke 6:35)
God hates all unregenerate sinners (Psalm 11:5)
God has a special love for the elect (Ephesians 1:3-6)

These propositions are not actually contradictory or mutually exclusive. They appear to be, and yet they are not so hard to reconcile on Calvinistic terms. Different Calvinists resolve the paradox in different ways, but every mainstream Calvinist affirms these three undeniably Biblical truths. Rauser's artificial division of two separate Calvinisms - one affirming one truth of Scripture, and the other affirming another truth of Scripture - creates a false dilemma that is not applicable to mainstream Calvinism.

I don't believe Rauser purposely creates a straw man here; I think he is truly unaware of the beautiful Biblical paradox that Calvinism embraces (in fairness, this might partially result from the fact that most debating Calvinists are so zealous to get their point across that they fail to present a balanced perspective). However, Rauser's misunderstanding fatally clouds his analysis and renders his arguments invalid because he assumes that Calvinists believe God can only love or only hate a given class of persons. Scripture presents a more complex disposition, and most Calvinists are willing to accept this.

Properly speaking, God loves and hates all of the unconverted, including the unconverted elect who are under His wrath (Ephesians 2:3). The non-elect are loved through Common Grace, while the elect are loved with Saving Grace. Unconditional Election means God has chosen to show saving mercy to a subset of sinners who are chosen beforehand according to His own wise counsels. Reprobation means that God has chosen to allow some sinners to go on in their natural course of rebellion and receive the just punishment they are due. Even so, the reprobate are extended much mercy and patience throughout their earthly lives (Romans 9:22, Romans 11:32, Psalm 145, 15-17). There is nothing to prevent God from saving them if they are willing to be saved. No one suffering in hell can deny that God showed love to him, that God was kind to him, that God was patient with him, that God was willing to save him on condition of repentance, or that God treated him justly. No one suffering in hell can say that God somehow prevented him from repenting; all who are there know that they were unable to repent simply because they were unwilling - and that they remain unwilling in spite of their sufferings. Esau included.

That is the ugly face of human sin. No wonder God condemns it.

To the elect, God grants a willingness to be saved; yet for His own part He is always willing and ready to save all who come to Him. He is truly omnibenevolent! Jacob and Esau were both loved and hated in various ways, but Esau was not loved with electing love, while Jacob was. Thus we conclude, in opposition to Rauser: the phrase, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," is of great use to the Calvinist because it highlights the electing love of God. Yet it does not diminish His general love for all people, or His general hatred for all the wicked.

All the words of Scripture are useful to the Calvinist because he strives to take all of them together, as the whole counsel of God, and hold them in their proper balance.

In part 2, we will examine Rauser's hermeneutical arguments and support our thesis with a study of the Biblical texts themselves.

Calvinism, Systematic Theology and Scripture

2011-09-14T07:55:00.003-04:00

At some level, every Calvinist who is not hyper embraces a paradox (you can call it tension, antinomy, aporia, really deep mystery, or whatever you like, but I prefer "paradox"). This is properly true of every Christian, but it is especially true of Biblical Calvinists. Our theology generates paradox, whether it's the apparent duality of divine wills, multiple senses of God's love and hatred for fallen humanity, or the compatibility of deterministic divine sovereignty and real human choice/freedom/responsibility. Calvinism without the essential balance of Biblically-derived paradox is in danger of going the way of Herman Hoeksema and the PRC. Characteristically, hyper-Calvinists eschew paradoxes in every possible way. Arminians, for their part, also seem reluctant to embrace paradoxes. Some take great delight in calling Calvinistic paradoxes "contradictions," ignoring the fact that these are unavoidable if we take divine revelation and historic/orthodox Christianity at face value.

THEOparadox is essentially a call for Calvinists (and others) to do two things:

1. Go whole hog and embrace every Biblically justified paradox, refusing to exegetically "adjust" any verse or passage of Scripture that might create a seeming contradiction in Systematic Theology.

2. Be rigorous in trying to understand, explain and evaluate possible resolutions to these paradoxes, but accept the fact that we can ultimately have no greater certainty than the very words of Scripture afford us.

It seems that many Calvinists don't want to follow through with their paradoxes, perhaps afraid they will end up in the murky slough of Neo-orthodoxy, or that embracing a Biblical "both/and" scenario somehow amounts to a denial of dearly held truth.

Whatever it is that drives some Calvinists to twist texts to their own liking, it is not a helpful thing. This bad habit leaves the door wide open for Arminians and others to criticize our theology on Biblical grounds. On the other hand, if we are copiously Scriptural in our affirmations and they criticize our position as "contradictory," they are really accusing Scripture of contradiction and leaving our paradoxes unscathed. Non-Calvinist Christians will find no holes in the fortress of Biblical Calvinism, except where our exegesis is unsound. That can be fixed. And of course they will find a gaping hole right in the center of our fortress: the open door of invitation to join us in believing ALL the Word of God (whether we like it or not, and whether we can explain it or not).

Someone will respond, "But that kind of thinking will destroy Systematic Theology!" This is only true if our Systematic Theology does not include a robust theory of knowledge that carefully balances the perspicuity of Scripture, the incomprehensibility of God, and the Creator/creature distinction.

Accepting Biblical paradox does not harm Systematic Theology; it enhances it. A well-developed Systematic Theology is essential and useful, but Biblical and Exegetical Theology are supreme. You can't have an accurate Systematic Theology if you don't have an in-depth knowledge of the texts themselves. To the extent that any system rejects even one tiny drop of the Bible, it reduces its own validity as a Christian system and partially cripples itself. Let's rather have a system that is hard to explain - yet Biblical to the core - than a system that explains itself by reducing the Word of God to man-made concepts.

Tensions in Divine POWER and PURPOSE

2011-09-08T07:55:00.013-04:00

A central point of theological tension is found at the intersection of God's power and His purpose. Many errors grow directly from the conflation or general misunderstanding of these two distinct facets of theology which sometimes appear to contradict. Let's examine a few of these paradoxes.

Does God have the POWER to keep his creatures from falling into sin? Of course.
Was it God's PURPOSE to prevent the fall? No.
Yet this does not mean God was not grieved by the fall.

Does God have the POWER to save all people? Certainly.
Is God's PURPOSE to save all? No.
Yet this does not mean God does not desire the salvation of all.

Is there sufficient POWER in the atoning work of Christ to save all? Absolutely.
Was this God's PURPOSE in the atonement? No.
Yet this does not mean the atonement is inherently limited.

Does God have the POWER to move every living person to repentance and faith? Certainly.
Is it His PURPOSE to irresistibly draw every living person? No.
Yet the fault for the sinner's unbelief lies with the sinner alone.

Does God have the POWER to keep Christians from sinning? Yes.
Is it God's PURPOSE to make us sinless in this life? No.
Yet we are responsible to grow in grace, mortify sin and persevere in faith.

I have just explained why I am a 5-Paradox Calvinist.

Here is R.C. Sproul with a few thoughts on God's sincere desire for the salvation of all.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 17 - Wayne Grudem

2011-08-31T07:55:00.021-04:00

The eminent Evangelical scholar and theologian, Wayne Grudem, is the latest recipient of our famous t-shirt. These words of wisdom from his Systematic Theology text will tell you why.

We find in the New Testament that Jesus and the New Testament authors will often quote a verse of Scripture and then draw logical conclusions from it. They reason from Scripture. It is therefore not wrong to use human understanding, human logic, and human reason to draw conclusions from the statements of Scripture. Nevertheless, when we reason and draw what we think to be correct logical deductions from Scripture, we sometimes make mistakes. The deductions we draw from the statements of Scripture are not equal to the statements of Scripture themselves in certainty or authority, for our ability to reason and draw conclusions is not the ultimate standard of truth — only Scripture is.

What then are the limits on our use of our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from the statements of Scripture? The fact that reasoning to conclusions that go beyond the mere statements of Scripture is appropriate and even necessary for studying Scripture, and the fact that Scripture itself is the ultimate standard of truth, combine to indicate to us that we are free to use our reasoning abilities to draw deductions from any passage of Scripture so long as these deductions do not contradict the clear teaching of some other passage of Scripture.7

This principle puts a safeguard on our use of what we think to be logical deductions from Scripture. Our supposedly logical deductions may be erroneous, but Scripture itself cannot be erroneous. Thus, for example, we may read Scripture and find that God the Father is called God (1 Cor. 1:3), that God the Son is called God (John 20:28; Titus 2:13), and that God the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3 – 4). We might deduce from this that there are three Gods. But then we find the Bible explicitly teaching us that God is one (Deut. 6:4; James 2:19). Thus we conclude that what we thought to be a valid logical deduction about three Gods as wrong and that Scripture teaches both (a) that there are three separate persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), each of whom is fully God, and (b) that there is one God. We cannot understand exactly how these two statements can both be true, so together they constitute a paradox (“a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true”).8 We can tolerate a paradox (such as “God is three persons and one God”) because we have confidence that ultimately God knows fully the truth about himself and about the nature of reality, and that in his understanding the different elements of a paradox are fully reconciled, even though at this point God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isa. 55:8 – 9). But a true contradiction (such as, “God is three persons and God is not three persons”) would imply ultimate contradiction in God’s own understanding of himself or of reality, and this cannot be.

When the psalmist says, “The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous ordinances endures for ever” (Ps. 119:160), he implies that God’s words are not only true individually but also viewed together as a whole. Viewed collectively, their “sum” is also “truth.” Ultimately, there is no internal contradiction either in Scripture or in God’s own thoughts.

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 34. Italics original. bold added for emphasis.

This is a good basic overview of the THEOparadox thesis. All of the salient points are there. Dr. Grudem deserves not only the t-shirt, but the THEOparadox hat, shoes, tie, bumper sticker, coffee mug, keychain, belt buckle and wall poster as well.

___________________________________________________________________

Dr. Grudem's Footnotes:

7 This guideline is also adopted from Professor John Frame at Westminster Seminary.

8 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, ed. William Morris (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1980), p. 950 (first definition). Essentially the same meaning is adopted by the Oxford English Dictionary (1913 ed., 7:450), the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1981 ed., p. 742), the Random House College Dictionary (1979 ed., p. 964), and the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary (p. 780), though all note that paradox can also mean “contradiction” (though less commonly); compare the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan and The Free Press, 1967), 5:45, and the entire article “Logical Paradoxes” by John van Heijenoort on pp. 45 – 51 of the same volume, which proposes solutions to many of the classical paradoxes in the history of philosophy. (If paradox meant “contradiction,” such solutions would be impossible.)

When I use the word paradox in the primary sense defined by these dictionaries today I realize that I am differing somewhat with the article “Paradox” by K. S. Kantzer in the EDT, ed. Walter Elwell, pp. 826 – 27 (which takes paradox to mean essentially “contradiction”). However, I am using paradox in an ordinary English sense and one also familiar in philosophy. There seems to me to be available no better word than paradox to refer to an apparent but not real contradiction.

There is, however, some lack of uniformity in the use of the term paradox and a related term, antinomy, in contemporary evangelical discussion. The word antinomy has sometimes been used to apply to what I here call paradox, that is, “seemingly contradictory statements that may nonetheless both be true” (see, for example, John Jefferson Davis, Theology Primer [Grand Rapids : Ba ker, 1981], p. 18). Such a sense for antinomy gained support in a widely read book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, by J.I. Packer (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961). On pp. 18 – 22 Packer defines antinomy as “an appearance of contradiction” (but admits on p. 18 that his definition differs with the Shorter Oxford Dictionary). My problem with using antinomy in this sense is that the word is so unfamiliar in ordinary English that it just increases the stock of technical terms Christians have to learn in order to understand theologians, and moreover such a sense is unsupported by any of the dictionaries cited above, all of which define antinomy to mean “contradiction” (e.g., Oxford English Dictionary, 1:371). The problem is not serious, but it would help communication if evangelicals could agree on uniform senses for these terms.

A paradox is certainly acceptable in systematic theology, and paradoxes are in fact inevitable so long as we have finite understanding of any theological topic. However, it is important to recognize that Christian theology should never affirm a contradiction (a set of two statements, one of which denies the other). A contradiction would be, “God is three persons and God is not three persons” (where the term persons has the same sense in both halves of the sentence).

Election and Atonement - A Few Key Differences

2011-08-29T07:55:00.007-04:00

A recent article by David Ponter got me thinking about some of the differences between election and atonement in God's sovereign plan of salvation. Here are a few important distinctions that came to mind . . .

Time

Election is supra-historical (it took place outside of time as we know it, or what we call "history").

Atonement is a historical event (it happened at a specific time in history)

Place

Election happened outside the world, in eternity, before the creation of the world.

Atonement happened in the world.

Role in Salvation

Election is essentially a plan and a decision to save

Atonement is the means by which the plan is executed

Relation to Sin
Election does not prevent sins or remove guilt
Atonement is the remedy for sin that has been committed (or will be committed) and the means of removing the resulting guilt.

Visibility

Election took place in secret and outside the possibilities of empirical verification

Atonement took place in public and was verifiably witnessed

Human Involvement
Election is totally free of human involvement, being God's choice alone
Atonement occurred through a compatibilistic action of God's will through the sinful choices of fallen humans, and by the righteous act of the incarnate God-Man.

Relation to the Incarnation
Election occurred independent of the incarnation, however it rendered the incarnation necessary
Atonement could not occur apart from the incarnation

Beneficiaries

Election only benefits believers

Atonement benefits everyone, and especially believers

Intended Audience
Election is preached primarily to believers
Atonement is preached to everyone

Intended Effect of Preaching
The preaching of election is meant to encourage, edify and comfort believers
The preaching of the atonement is meant to induce initial repentance in unbelievers, and to edify believers

Primary Revelatory Purpose
Election reassures believers of God's eternal love
Atonement tells the whole world of God's love and justice

Relation to Human Will
Election is not offered, but decreed from eternity, and cannot be accepted or rejected
Atonement is offered to all people, to be accepted or rejected.
*Note that apart from the effectual call, the offered atonement is always rejected.

Relation to the General Call of the Gospel
Election has no bearing on the the general call of the Gospel, except that it guarantees that call will reach all of the elect
Atonement is the essential subject matter of the general call

Relation to the Effectual Call
Election determines who will receive an effectual call, and thus respond to the general call
Atonement is the essential subject matter of the effectual call, the fountain of irresistible grace

Relation to God's Will (Part A)
Election reflects God's specific choice to save particular sinners
Atonement reveals God's general desire to save sinners, by telling all sinners a way has been made for their salvation, yet it is also the means by which His particular will to save the elect is put in to effect

Relation to God's Will (Part B)
Election is a hidden decree of God
Atonement expresses God's revealed will to offer salvation to all, and is the means by which He fulfills His hidden decree to actually save some.

God is perfect in planning and in executing the plan.

A Hymn by Calvin

2011-08-24T07:55:00.002-04:00

I greet Thee, who my sure Redeemer art,

My only Trust and Saviour of my heart,

Who pain didst undergo for my poor sake;

I pray Thee from our hearts all cares to take.

Thou art the King of mercy and of grace,

Reigning omnipotent in every place:

So come, O King, and our whole being sway;

Shine on us with the light of Thy pure day.

Thou art the life, by which alone we live,

And all our substance and our strength receive;

Sustain us by Thy faith and by Thy power,

And give us strength in every trying hour.

Thou hast the true and perfect gentleness,
No harshness hast Thou and no bitterness:

O grant to us the grace we find in Thee,

That we may dwell in perfect unity.

Our hope is in no other save in Thee;

Our faith is built upon Thy promise free;

Lord, give us peace, and make us calm and sure,

That in Thy strength we evermore endure.

- by John Calvin, 1545; translated by Elizabeth L. Smith, 1868, alt.

This hymn reinforces my suspicion that the mere sovereignty of God may not be the preeminent feature of Calvin's theology. I wonder if his soteriology, at least, was driven more by a firm faith in God's absolute saving strength and goodness?

Here is the original version, nicely sung and played by Zachary Harris.

And a contemporary version by Brian Moss.

James White Flays "A Cultish Side of Calvinism"

2011-08-22T07:55:00.052-04:00

We knew it wouldn't be long before James White delivered a response to the latest-and-greatest anti-Calvinist book. Click here to listen to the two hour presentation.

Note: Although White gives a scholarly defense of basic Calvinism, his brief statements concerning limited atonement in this broadcast seem to betray an uncharacteristic ignorance of the historical development of the doctrine of particular redemption, the importance of differentiating between the extent (infinite power) and intent (limited purpose) of the atonement, and the logical consistency of the well-attested belief that there can be no limits to the atonement's power. He appears to be missing some important pieces here. But we all have our blind spots, I guess.

UPDATE: Arminian apologist William Birch also has reservations about "A Cultish Side of Calvinism". His article is a great example of wisdom, balance and irenic disagreement.

Christ is the Remedy for Sin

2011-08-19T07:55:00.002-04:00

Here are some encouragements for the saints. Be encouraged in your walk with Jesus today. If you are a preacher, you may find a spot for this somewhere in a sermon. Feel free.

Christ is God's gracious and true remedy for sin. He is full of grace and truth. He saves sinners completely.

Hebrews 7:25 ... He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is an undeserved remedy for sin
We do not deserve such a Savior. We do not deserve to be saved. We deserve to be condemned and separated from His presence.

Christ is an unmerited remedy for sin
We cannot earn His favor through our efforts or make ourselves worthy of Him.

Christ is the exclusive remedy for sin
There is no other way to be saved from sin.

Christ is the powerful and effective remedy for sin
He justifies us from its punishment. He sanctifies us from its effects. He will free us from it completely.

Christ is the enduring remedy for sin
He will not be replaced with another. He is all in all, eternally.

Christ is the ideal remedy for sin
He perfectly fills all of our need.

Christ is the available remedy for sin
He stands ready to receive all who come to Him by faith.

Isaiah 53:5 - Wrath and Discipline

2011-08-16T07:55:00.009-04:00

Editor's Note: With chagrin, I must remark that our slowly progressing study of Isaiah 53 might be the longest running series in blogging history. This particular post has been 15 months in the making! I hope it was worth the wait. The challenges contained in this verse led to the recent series of posts on the extent of the atonement, which had to be sorted through before this post could be finished. May you be blessed by the encouragements given through Isaiah in his astoundingly deep words about the work of Christ in our behalf.

But He was pierced through for our transgressions,

He was crushed for our iniquities;

The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,

And by His scourging we are healed.

This verse is a response to the preceding phrase: "we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted" (Isaiah 53:4b). It answers the questions, "Why was He so afflicted, grieved and sorrowful?" and, "Why would God treat Him this way?" The reasons are clear: because we sinned, and in order to restore us.

Here Isaiah brings the substitutionary and representative aspects of Christ's work into focus. As substitute, Christ stands in the place of the condemned sinner and receives the full outpouring of God's wrath. Yet He stands also in the place of the redeemed sinner and represents that sinner in the corrective judgments that will bring full restoration. As the believer's substitute, Christ closes the door on wrath. As his representative, He opens the blessed way into God's discipline - the way of sonship.

First he endures wrath so that we can escape from it, then He experiences divine discipline so we can embrace it. There is the wrath which we deserve but haven't yet received, and then there is the discipline we need but can't receive without first being accepted as sons. Christ suffers the one substitutionally so that we can't suffer it, and the other representatively so that we may join Him in it.

The Substitutionary Suffering of Christ

The verse divides neatly into two halves, indicating substitutionary atonement first, and then representative suffering. As our substitute, Christ suffered in our stead - so that the sting of sin and death is now removed. Thus, as believers, we can never experience what He experienced there. We could have, and should have, but by God's grace we never will. This is the message of the first half of the verse:

But He was pierced through for our transgressions,

He was crushed for our iniquities;

Pierced Through - Heb. HHALAL, חָלַל = to wound (fatally), bore through, pierce, bore. The word can also have the meaning: to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate

In the literal sense, Christ was "pierced" 5 times; in each hand, in each foot, and then in His side. In the figurative sense, God allowed him to be defiled by our sin. Sin defiles the soul, piercing and killing it.

Crushed - Heb. DAKA, דָּכָא = to crush, be crushed, be contrite, be broken

Though our Lord experienced the most intense physical pain, He was not crushed physically. In fact, He was preserved from the breaking of bones (Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20). He was spiritually broken, crushed and made contrite by the bearing of our sins. The weight and pressure of them was hideously oppressive to His soul.

Here He is treated as an enemy, and not as a son. "Piercing" and "crushing" describe the furious destruction that would be meted out upon one's adversary. One pierces and crushes his foe, not his child. Thus, Christ represented the enemies of God and experienced the kind of destruction they are due: the terror of having to bear their own iniquity and its destructive results.

The Representative Suffering of Christ

As our representative - our brother - Christ suffered with us. In the first half of the verse, he accomplished what was needed to justify us. But in the second half he brings about our much needed sanctification. In this sense He not only suffers for us, but also with us, and in order that we may suffer with Him. He thus provides the ground by which we can be accepted, not merely as sinners justified through a gifted righteousness, but also as sons sanctified through experiential identification with THE SON. This is the message of the second half of the verse:

The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,

And by His scourging we are healed.

Chastening - Heb. MUSAR מוּסָר = discipline, chastening, correction. "Essentially, it is a bond, a checking, restraint, i.e., correction which results in education." (Zodhiates)

Well-being - Heb. SHALOM שָׁלוֹם = completeness, soundness, welfare, peace. ". . . Shalom is a harmonious state of soul and mind, both externally and internally. . . . Though shalom can mean the absence of strife, it usually is much more. It expresses completeness, harmony, and fulfillment." (Zodhiates)

Scourging - Heb. HHABURAH חַבּוּרָה = bruise, stripe, wound, blow

Proverbs 20:30 Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts.

Healed - Heb. RAPHA רָפָא = to heal, make healthful

In the second half of the verse, He suffers the corrective discipline which would be administered to a beloved but disobedient son. "Chastening" and "scourging" describe the discipline a Father administers to his erring child. Christ was standing in our place, no longer as rebellious sinners deserving wrath, but as justified sons needing the Father's discipline. He suffers this discipline not so that we can avoid it, but so that we can enter into it with Him.

In the first part of the verse, He suffered for the sin of the whole world. In the second, He suffered for the benefit of those who are redeemed and brought to sonship through His suffering. As He suffered the fullness of divine wrath for the sin of the world, so He suffered the fullness of divine discipline for the sins of the believer.

Thus we find God, in the process of making atonement, already responding to the anticipated effects of the atonement.

We now share in Christ's sufferings. We take up our crosses and follow Him. Christian suffering and sanctification in the New Testament are framed as a participation in the sufferings of Christ, and a sharing in the cross.

Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me."
Luke 9:23 And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me."
Luke 14:27 "Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
I Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
I Peter 4:1-2 Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God.
Romans 6:10-11 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.

The first half of Isaiah 53:5 showed us our culpability as sinners under God's wrath. The second half speaks of our well being as God's redeemed children. Contained in every line, and forming the link between these two concepts, is the suffering of Christ in behalf of sinners. His suffering accomplishes our justification and empowers our sanctification.

Is There a Viable Non-Calvinist Interpretation for this?

2011-08-12T07:55:00.000-04:00

Try as I might, I can't see any way to explain the following passage apart from Unconditional Election and the Effectual Call. No Arminian or Open Theist interpretation seems possible, let alone plausible. Maybe I've just been a Calvinist for too long, and have forgotten how to think the other way.

I Corinthians 1:26-31 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

What does Paul mean by "calling", if not the divinely orchestrated Effectual Call? How does one explain, "God chose A [to have a particular effect upon] B", apart from Unconditional Election? What does Paul mean by, "because of Him you are in Christ Jesus", if not the monergistic action of God in saving His elect? And what prevents me from boasting, if salvation ultimately depends more on my own "free choice" than on God's?

John Wesley himself seems to have temporarily become a Calvinist in his notes on the passage:

I Cor. 1:26 Behold your calling - What manner of men they are whom God calls. That not many wise men after the flesh - In the account of the world. Not many mighty - Men of power and authority.

Wesley can't possibly mean the general call of the Gospel is kept from those who are wise and mighty after the flesh, can he? Does he believe in a special call? Based on these notes, he seems to.

I Cor. 1:27 [No entry exists in John Wesley's Notes for this verse]

Shocking!

I Cor. 1:28 Things that are not - The Jews frequently called the gentiles, "Them that are not," 2 Esdras vi. 56, 57. In so supreme contempt did they hold them. The things that are - In high esteem.

That's an interesting detail. Wesley is worth reading.

I Cor. 1:29 That no flesh - A fit appellation. Flesh is fair, but withering as grass. May glory before God - In God we ought to glory.

Another good thought. I have nothing against Wesley, just his errors.

I Cor. 1:30 Of him - Out of his free grace and mercy. Are ye Engrafted into Christ Jesus, who is made unto us that believe wisdom, who were before utterly foolish and ignorant. Righteousness - The sole ground of our justification, who were before under the wrath and curse of God. Sanctification - A principle of universal holiness, whereas before we were altogether dead in sin. And redemption - That is, complete deliverance from all evil, and eternal bliss both of soul and body.

Is God "free" to bestow His grace and engraft us into Christ when, where, and how He Himself wills? Does Wesley affirm man's total moral inability when he says we were "altogether dead in sin"?

I Cor. 1:31 Let him glory in the Lord - Not in himself, not in the flesh, not in the world. Jeremiah 9:23-24

Is there an Arminian, Open Theist, or other advocate of "free will" out there who can provide a more satisfying explanation for his passage? One that is faithful to Sola Scripture and the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy?

Cultish Side of Calvinism?

2011-08-10T07:55:00.066-04:00

It looks like another book attacking that horrible, dangerous thing called "Calvinism" has just been released. I won't say anything substantial against the book until I've read it (if I read it). For now I want to consider what others are saying (others who, presumably, have read the book).

Tim LaHaye said this about "A Cultish Side of Calvinism":

“At last, someone has the courage to tie Calvinism

into the dark side where it originated."

Okay. That was pretty ignorant. He'll have to apologize to God for saying that. But it was a mild endorsement compared to this one:

“With great skill, submission and sincerity, Pastor Micah Coate has very faithfully brought to light a much-needed word regarding the pitfalls of a deficient and defiant craze with Calvinism. In this outstanding work, Pastor Coate weaves these victorious patterns through his discerning work to show real life in Christ alone, and through none other! When you read this captivating, clear work, it will bring certainty of conviction. This literary work will greatly mandate, motivate, and matriculate you in maturity serving the Master!!!”
-Pastor Eddie Atkinson, Calvary Baptist Church, Beverly Hills, Florida

I laugh longer and harder each time I try to make sense of this paragraph. If the book is half as clownish and senseless as the alliterated endorsement, it will make entertaining reading. But I'd say don't waste your time or money. What I mean is, don't desecrate your denominations of dollars with delusional denunciations of divine doctrine. If you do, you might major on misinformation and matriculate yourself into the margin of magisterial mumbo-jumbo. Ha, that's fun. Sort of like wearing a t-shirt with huge red letters that say, "Pay no attention to me." And then putting a line through the words "no attention to".

Who actually uses the word "matriculate"? How exactly will this book "greatly matriculate me into maturity"? Does that even mean anything?

This sort of book becomes popular simply because many Calvinists themselves - and most non-Calvinists - don't recognize the inherent balances in Biblical, Reformed soteriology.

Anyhow, I'm keeping my membership in the horrible Calvinist cult, 'cause I'm completely constrained and correctly confined and colossally correlated and comprehensively contained and cheerfully changed and concomitantly combined and constantly connected and contentedly commandeered by Scripture.

If you'd like, feel free to leave an amazing alliterated comment . . .

Evolution: Science Beyond Its Boundaries

2011-08-08T07:55:00.009-04:00

There is much talk these days about accommodating the Bible to the supposed "fact" of evolution, whether it is possible to retain belief in a literal Adam and Eve, how God could have used evolutionary processes to create, etc. You've probably seen it somewhere (since it seems to be everywhere), so I won't give examples.

The problem I see in this whole discussion is . . . too many Evangelicals are taking the current state of scientific theory as unassailable and unalterable "fact". Scientific theory by its very nature is constantly changing and always subject to refutation as more evidence is discovered. Today's evolutionary theories are quite a bit different from those that existed 10 years ago, and 50 years ago, and 100 years ago (most evolutionary "theory" is actually hypothesis, despite what they claim). The idea of evolution is itself evolving! I doubt it is reaching a higher form, however.

The reason theories and hypotheses change so much is that scientists can only build them from the tiny slice of empirical facts they presently have available (tiny in comparison to all of the facts that exist, or even all of the facts relevant to the subject). As they discover more facts, they are forced to adapt - or even revoke - their theories and hypotheses. Sometimes newly discovered empirical facts will totally overthrow a long accepted theory. It's happened over and over, that is what science is all about. What science can establish as empirical fact is very useful, but what is hypothesized/theorized is never absolutely certain.

Care for a scientific theory? Just ignore the artificial colors, flavors and assumptions.

Now, place that bowl of jello next to the rock solid Truth of the Word of God. Which One do you trust more?

Any attempt to accommodate our view of Scripture to the current prevailing theories will likely force us to adjust further and further as the theories get adjusted - and we could potentially have

our views totally destroyed as further empirical data is discovered. We could waste our time writing large volumes attempting to accommodate eternal and infallible Scripture to whirling bits of hypothesis that only last 100 years or less! Often much less. I do not doubt that if scientists were given, by fiat, ALL of the pertinent facts, they would logically be forced to become literal 6 day creationists.

Who actually possesses all of the empirical facts regarding the origins of life and the universe? More to the point, who has ALL of the empirical facts that exist, period? The same One who also knows ALL of the history of our universe. When He gives an account of what He did, I think it wise to simply accept what He has said, and believe that he has the facts to back it up – whether we have uncovered those facts yet or not. This is the difference between science and revelation.

Really, the hubris of a puny man giving us very firm dates for this or that event in the remote past, millions and billions of years ago. It’s simply absurd for him to do it, but it might be even more absurd for us to take him seriously.

Isaiah 40 gives us some idea of what God thinks about such temporary and fading human pride.

6 A voice says, “Cry!”
And I said, “What shall I cry?”
All flesh is grass,
and all its beauty is like the flower of the field.
7 The grass withers, the flower fades
when the breath of the LORD blows on it;
surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
but the word of our God will stand forever.

9 Get you up to a high mountain,
O Zion, herald of good news;
lift up your voice with strength,
O Jerusalem, herald of good news;
lift it up, fear not;
say to the cities of Judah,
“Behold your God!”
10 Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might,
and his arm rules for him;
behold, his reward is with him,
and his recompense before him.
11 He will tend his flock like a shepherd;
he will gather the lambs in his arms;
he will carry them in his bosom,
and gently lead those that are with young.

12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand
and marked off the heavens with a span,
enclosed the dust of the earth in a measure
and weighed the mountains in scales
and the hills in a balance?
13 Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD,
or what man shows him his counsel?
14 Whom did he consult,
and who made him understand?
Who taught him the path of justice,
and taught him knowledge,
and showed him the way of understanding?
15 Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket,
and are accounted as the dust on the scales;
behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust.
16 Lebanon would not suffice for fuel,
nor are its beasts enough for a burnt offering.
17 All the nations are as nothing before him,
they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness.

Goal of Preaching

2011-08-07T15:35:00.002-04:00

Not trying to coerce people into good behavior,
but calling them to the good Savior.

John Stott on Sin and Salvation

2011-08-06T07:55:00.000-04:00

This is one of those short quotes that just sums everything up perfectly . . .

"The essence of sin is man substituting himself for God, while the essence of salvation is God substituting himself for man. Man asserts himself against God and puts himself where only God deserves to be; God sacrifices himself for man and puts himself where only man deserves to be. Man claims prerogatives which belong to God alone; God accepts penalties which belong to man alone."

— John Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984), 160

HT: Of First Importance

Indeed, we are naturally self-idolaters, while God is a self-sacrificer. The humility of our God is astounding.

Sam Waldron on the Doctrine of God

2011-08-05T07:55:00.001-04:00

In the video below, Dr. Waldron of the Midwest Center for Theological Studies offers a useful and thought provoking structure for analyzing theology and considering the doctrine of God. I'm not sure I agree with everything that is said here, but I was greatly edified by this video in the following ways:

I was encouraged to think much more deeply than I ever have before about the Being and attributes of God - His character, His acts, His ways and His glory.
I was delighted to consider how incomprehensibly magnificent our God is.
I was moved to worship our amazing God in view of the grandeur and beauty in what He has revealed of Himself.
I was challenged to be much more careful in what I affirm and deny about our holy God.
I was humbled in realizing how much I still don't know about God, and how much I have yet to learn.

What do you think of Dr. Waldron's chart for categorizing the divine attributes? I found it enlightening and full of possibilities for explaining some difficult concepts.

What do you think of Dr. Waldron's suspicion that there is no single "fundamental attribute of God," i.e. one that sums up all of God's nature? I am currently planning a series of posts for later in the year that will take a different approach. I believe there is an attribute that sums up all of God's nature, and it's not "love" or "holiness." It's one you might not readily think of. Curious? Stay tuned! In the meantime, say whether you think it's possible.

Did you catch the comment about God's promeity? That was funny.

I highly recommend this teaching as a means of deepening your thinking about the Lord of heaven and earth. But be careful, because it will blow your mind! Enjoy.

Doctrine of God | Lecture 9 from MCTS on Vimeo.

Christ is Praying for You

2011-08-03T07:55:00.011-04:00

At least two passages in the New Testament teach us that our Lord is interceding for us at this very moment.

Hebrews 7:25 Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Romans 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
In addition, Christ is called our "advocate" in heaven.

I John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

How does Jesus pray for us, and what is the effect of His praying? We know that the Father gives Him whatever He asks, but can we know specifically how and why Jesus prays for His followers? For a clue to the way our Lord is praying for us, let's consider His own account of the prayers he prayed for His beloved disciple, Peter.

Luke 22:31-34 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” Peter said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.” Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.”

We may note the following for our encouragement:

Two witnesses stand before God

Both Jesus and Satan stand before God making requests concerning us. Satan's requests are sometimes approved, but Jesus' requests are never denied. Satan accuses and attacks, while Jesus intercedes.

Satan's evil activities are ultimately used for our good

Peter's testing is compared to the sifting of wheat. That is a highly beneficial thing! Just try eating bread made from wheat that has not been sifted, and you will taste the difference. Sifting gets the bad out while preserving the good.

Jesus' prayers do not prevent us from suffering

Peter was facing that darkest days of his life. The Lord by His prayers was not going to stop the testing of Peter's faith, but He did prevent the destruction of it. Our faith may be shaken, but if it is real it can never be shattered. Why? Because Jesus is praying that our faith may not fail.

Jesus' prayers do not necessarily prevent sinful failure on our part

On the contrary, Jesus knew with certainty that Peter would deny Him. Our Lord's prayers are not hindered by the reality of our sins - past, present, or future. He is praying for imperfect - though saved, and partly sanctified - sinners. Do we find that in some ways we still love this world? If we are honest, the answer is probably yes. But there is a victory that overcomes the world: our faith.

Christ's prayers guarantee that our faith will not fail, and that we will continue in repentance despite our failures and sins

Our Lord's primary concern was Peter's perseverance in faith, not his immediate perfection in holiness. But just as the disciple's failure was guaranteed, so was his repentance: "WHEN you have turned again . . ." The battle is real, and humbling, and sometimes terrifically brutal. But the ultimate victory is guaranteed, certified, and promised. Count on it, because He has settled the matter.

Dear brother or sister in Christ, know for certain that your ongoing perseverance in repentance and faith is the result of your Lord's infallible praying from heaven. Be assured that none can pluck you from His hand. Accept the sifting that God allows and thank Him that He is working through it for your good. Be encouraged that your tested faith will prove to be of greater worth than gold, and will result in praise, glory and honor for your Lord on the day He appears. Until that day, He is praying for you.

Repentant Sinners

2011-08-01T07:55:00.007-04:00

"All of us are sinners. True Christians are repentant sinners. And God’s grace is mighty to save us and change us – every one of us and every part of us."

-Trevin Wax (Source)

The words above remind me of this verse:

Acts 5:30-31 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

In Christ, God grants REPENTANCE and FORGIVENESS OF SINS. Both are necessary, and all true believers are granted both. If we say our sins aren't really sinful, we can't be saved from them. We can try to remove sin with the slippery soap of our self-justifications, but it remains an insoluble offense to the Author of all good things and the Judge of all humanity. The only way to deal with sin is to have it washed away in the cleansing blood of Christ, and to submit to the sanctifying work of His Spirit within. There is forgiveness of sin, and there is repentance from sin, for all who believe.

God not only saves us from the penalty of sin by forgiving us, He also saves us from its power by granting repentance and sanctification. Ultimately, He promises to save us from its very presence by glorifying us in Him forever! That is great news, and the way to apply that news today is by continuing to repent and believe.

Where in the World is Paul Manata?

2011-07-30T07:55:00.007-04:00

Paul Manata's "Aporetic Christianity" blog mysteriously disappeared awhile back, and I wasn't able to find him for a few months. But now, at last, I've tracked him down! He has been posting HERE since April.

I'm thankful for the work of Reformed philosophers like James Anderson and Paul Manata. Any Christian who is interested in logic and philosophy will find the work of these men to be an invaluable resource.

The video below is an old debate between Manata and atheist Dan Barker. It's both informative and fun to listen to.

Three Good Reads in Reformed Theology

2011-07-29T07:55:00.046-04:00

I've been enjoying these and finding them very beneficial.

#1 The first "good read" is this group of extended quotations from some leading theologians regarding the secret and revealed will of God. This is direct source material, so you can get it from the proverbial horse's mouth. I like this bit from Calvin:

"In fine, give up all fondness for your puerile dilemma, for the Scriptures assure me of the secret will of God; asserting what I have learned from them I do speak of an ascertained truth; but because I do not reach so great a height, I reverently adore with fear and trembling what is too sublime for the angels themselves. Often therefore in my writings I admonish my readers, that on this subject nothing is better than a learned ignorance; for those rave like madmen who arrogate to know more about it than is fit."

And this one from Jonathan Edwards caught my attention:

"... all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them."

Apparently Edwards never met an open theist! God alone knows if Edwards will ever meet one in the future (think about it).

_____________________________________________________________

#2 A second "good read" is Paul Manata's Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - A Contemporary Introduction. Lots of deep philosophical stuff here. Manata has a gift, and I am grateful that he uses it to advance good theology! He argues that Reformed Theology is, by definition, both deterministic and compatibilistic, and decidedly unaffirming of libertarian free will. It's all worth reading and considering, and well documented, too.

_____________________________________________________________

#3 The third "good read" is David Ponter's response to James Anderson's attempt to reconcile the Free Offer of the Gospel with a provisionally Limited Atonement using Newcomb's Paradox (see here and here). It's a deeply complicated argument, but worth thinking about. To me, this is a little bit like Gandalf vs. Saruman (I won't say which one is which). Although James Anderson is a personal hero for expounding so brilliantly on theological paradox, in this case I concur with Ponter (also a personal hero for expounding brilliantly on historic Moderate Calvinism) in his closing remarks:

"Anderson wants to argue that if a moderate Calvinist insists that limited atonement precludes a sincere offer, he must accept that election likewise precludes a sincere offer, for the same reasons. However, a proper rebuttal rejects the assumed univocal relationship between limited atonement and election in relation to the sincere offer, such that one can counter that limited atonement is incompatible with the free offer, while election is not. The only avenue Anderson can have, as I see it, is to attempt to claim that we should see election as equally incompatible with a sincere offer (given our assumptions?). But on what grounds could he suggest that? and does he really want to argue that in the first place? Perhaps Anderson might say both election and limited atonement bare a paradoxical relationship to the sincere offer. My reply would be limited atonement and the sincere free offer entail a contradiction (you cannot offer what you are not able to give), while election and the free offer entail a paradox (one offers, by revealed will, what one does not intend to give, by secret will). We would say we are warranted in rejecting the contradiction, while retaining the paradox. Anderson could only claim that one can indeed sincerely offer what one is not able to give."

The issues in these three "good reads" are tied together, and each of them has bearing on both hyper Calvinism and Arminianism (mind you, I'm not saying any of the people mentioned in this post are hyper Calvinists - far from it - only that the issues covered have direct bearing on refuting that error). To be balanced, I believe we must hold to the paradox of God's revealed and secret wills which are united perfectly in the glorious mystery of His eternal wisdom; we must hold to the paradox of compatibilism so that man is responsible for his actions under the total sovereignty of God; and we must hold to the Free Offer of the Gospel backed up by an infinitely powerful atonement, which, paradoxically, is not intended to save all people. Thank God it saves some!

Thank You

2011-07-27T07:55:00.002-04:00

THEOparadox recently passed the 3 year mark, and I want to take a moment to say a sincere "thank you" to the folks who read, comment, and link to this blog.

First, to all of you who read this blog, THANK YOU. It is an honor to have these articles and resources considered thoughtfully and used for the glory of our great God. Even if you read with skepticism or to disagree, I am grateful that God uses anything here for your good and blessing.

Second, to those who take the time to comment, THANK YOU. It is always encouraging to know that a post has edified a brother, or sparked further thought. It is even encouraging to be corrected and challenged. Commenting requires real thought, and your thoughtfulness is greatly appreciated.

Third, to those who link here . . . THANK YOU! THEOparadox receives many visits from search engines, and your links are part of the reason for that. My hope and prayer is that God will use the site to help spread the knowledge of Christ, and to encourage solid Biblical theology, inspiring deeper delight in Christ and stronger service for Christ.

Here is a quick sampling of some sites that link here:

An Open Book - deep thoughts by Matt Rose
aprilNandy - April and Andy Miller will encourage you
Baptism and the Big Picture - Matt Viney explores baptism, apologetics, culture, and all things Biblical

God Does Exist, All Know it - presuppositional apologetics by Mike A. Robinson

Ma's Blog - the musings of a child of God by His Sovereign Grace, wife, homemaker, homeschooler, and mother of six
Pericope de Adultera - defending the canonicity of John 8:1-11

Many others could be added. However, I don't think I've previously mentioned any of the sites listed above.

All of the thanksgiving and praise ultimately go to God alone. How immeasurable is His grace! How unfailing are His mercies! Soli Deo Gloria.

Cross-Centered Humility: A "Glorious Spiritual Destitution"

2011-07-25T07:55:00.004-04:00

". . . The great irony is that the door through which we experience the profundity of God’s love is the complete humiliation and abasement of ourselves at the foot of the cross. . . . The blessing of knowing God in the fullness of his love comes to us to the degree that we become poor in spirit. This glorious spiritual destitution belongs to those who hear what the cross teaches us about man and his nature."

William P. Farley, Outrageous Mercy, pp. 70-71

This book is a wonderful admonition toward a Cross-Centered and Gospel-Grounded worldview. Highly recommended reading.

Paul Washer Sermon Clip - The Work of the Holy Spirit

2011-07-23T07:55:00.001-04:00

This is a bonus video for my fellow Charismatic Calvinists and Reformed continuationists. Paul Washer advises openness with regard to the demonstrative work of the Holy Spirit, and also warns against the charismatic "circus" that has become so prevalent in the modern day charismatic apostasy. He presents a beautiful balance of a Biblically grounded desire for the Spirit's ongoing work . . . if you can receive it.

NOTE: I don't think the words written on the screen, "Paul Washer believes in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Contrary to most denominations in this nation," are warranted by the words recorded here. Paul Washer doesn't mention the "baptism" in the Holy Spirit. That phrase means different things to different people. I recommend listening to Washer's own worlds without paying attention to what has been added to the screen by the maker of the video.

Paul Washer: Come to Christ, He is Mighty to Save!

2011-07-22T07:55:00.006-04:00

One of my favorite Paul Washer videos, with a moving testimony of grace and forgiveness. Tomorrow I will post a bonus video, which you might find REALLY SHOCKING.

Paul Washer: Empowered by the Holy Spirit

2011-07-21T07:55:00.004-04:00

Paul Washer: Turn to Christ!

2011-07-20T07:55:00.001-04:00

Paul Washer: A Heart and Passion for God

2011-07-19T07:55:00.004-04:00

Paul Washer: Jesus Christ is Everything

2011-07-18T07:55:00.011-04:00

"The problem today . . . is not a lack of zeal for missions . . . the problem is much greater: a lack of zeal for God and for the glory of God."

COMING SOON: Gospel Defibrillation with Paul Washer

2011-07-15T07:55:00.024-04:00

Each day next week, a short but shocking Paul Washer sermon jam will be posted. It's Gospel "defibrillation" to help awaken our hearts from the hardening and stupefying effects of this dark, compromising age.

Rise up, saints! Put on your armor! The ends of the ages are upon us, and we must be found faithful for our Savior's sake! Shake off your sins! Look to the cross! Clothe yourselves with Christ and get ready for the fight!

May God help us to awaken, arise, and endure for His great Name and His great glory!