Thanksgiving Thoughts

Happy Thanksgiving!

1 You will say in that day: "I will give thanks to you, O LORD, for though you were angry with me, your anger turned away, that you might comfort me. 2 "Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation." 3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.4 And you will say in that day: "Give thanks to the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the peoples, proclaim that his name is exalted. 5 "Sing praises to the LORD, for he has done gloriously; let this be made known in all the earth.  - Isaiah 12:1-5

Here we are reminded that God’s WRATH was upon us and has been turned away from Jesus’ followers by His death on our behalf and this has been confirmed by His resurrection from the dead. He SAVED us by FAITH alone. We are FREED FROM FEAR, have endless JOY, GIVE THANKS continually, and CALL ON HIM because of this. We want to TELL ALL THE WORLD what HE HAS DONE, and it is FOR HIS GLORY ALONE! 

For all of this and so many blessings and gifts of His grace, we give thanks today.

Particular and General: A Key Tension in Reformed Soteriology

Reformed soteriology is humble and grand enough to tolerate significant tensions. One evidence of this is its ability to view the overarching, eternal purpose of God in both general and particular ways. In doing so, it maintains a clear line of division between the generalities we can know and the particulars known to God alone. It views the particulars abstractly, as categories without content. For example, we know abstractly that God has sovereignly elected some (i.e., the "elect" as a category); but we do not know concretely who they are (i.e., the content of the "elect" category). At the very same time, Reformed soteriology views the generalities concretely, as partially categorized content (for example, we know the general truth that God loves and desires to save every living person, without exception). The Biblical Calvinist does not apply election in an unwarranted way; he does not use this truth to invalidate God's general love for the non-elect and His general desire to save all sinners. Election is specific to a subset of humanity, but God's love and saving desire are all-humanity-wide. God is love.

Let's imagine for a moment that we are speaking with two unbelievers. God knows that one of them is elect and is going to be brought to repentance, and He also knows that one of them will die in the stubbornness of his heart. For our part, we don't know which one of them is elect, or if both of them are elect, or if neither of them is elect. We don't know if either of them will repent and be saved. Even if they both appear to repent and believe, we won't know for certain that their conversions were genuine until we meet them in heaven. On earth, we can't know with absolute certainty that they are truly saved and will persevere to the end. Those are particulars that belong to God's own purpose and wisdom. 

What we can know for certain and by faith is this: God has a purpose for both of them. Both are created in God's image and are loved by Him. Both are enemies of God. Both, in their current state, would gladly choose an eternity in hell over intimate fellowship with their Creator. Both are sinners who need saving grace. God would be pleased greatly by the salvation of both, and He will also be pleased to display His justice if they remain His enemies and perish. If they repent, they will be saved. From the standpoint of generalities--from our human standpoint--both unbelievers are identical. In our eyes, both are potentially elect. But from God's standpoint--in His own omniscient knowledge of the particulars--they are very different. One is elect and will be brought to faith, and the other is destined for damnation. Even if we knew for certain that one of them was elect, we wouldn't have any way of knowing with any certitude which one it is. So unconditional election is a solid and certain truth, but it is equally a mystery.

So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. (Romans 9:18) 

High Tension Wires:
Very Powerful!

We can approach these two unregenerate souls with the sure knowledge that God elects, but not that God elected either of them in particular. We can approach them in the certain understanding that God will bring justice directly upon some human beings, but not in the sure knowledge that either of these sinners will have to personally bear the wrath he justly deserves. We can know that both of them are currently under the wrath of God, already condemned for their unbelief--yet neither of them has perished yet, so we can be hopeful about both of them. We know that both will perish if they do not repent. We know that Jesus bore the wrath of God, and we know that if either of these unsaved persons repents he will no longer be under God's wrath. He will pass from death to life and will be created anew in Christ. We look at these two people and see potentials, not particulars. We see conditions, not determinations. We see a process partly finished, but up to the point of our visible horizon neither one is differentiated from the other. In God's mind they may be different, but in our minds they cannot be. It is enough for us to know that God knows.

What happens when you remove
the tension from one side?

The great error of the hyper Calvinist is to attempt in his own mind a coalescence of the generalities and the particulars, so that they become one in his mind. He tries to know things he cannot know, and is forced to rely on his own senses to determine who is and is not elect. He seeks to preach God's love to the elect only, to communicate God's saving desire to the elect only, to preach the Gospel to the elect only. He tries to be as efficacious in his efforts as God is in His ordination of all things. Thus, the hyper Calvinist simultaneously exalts his own perceptions while oversimplifying the complexities of God's dispositions. He limits everything to the unknowable particulars, which he concretizes, having no room in his thinking for the generalities or the undefined abstractions. The inherent arrogance of this approach should be obvious. The lopsidedness is striking.

This understanding will help us to take a Biblically balanced view of many topics, among them the extent of atonement. We can posit particular redemption from the standpoint of divine particularity. God knows whom He saves by the atonement. Once we have said this much, what need is there to limit the sufficiency or the potentially salvific nature of Christ's work? The fact that God will not apply the redeeming power of the blood of Christ to all people is no reason to believe it does not essentially contain that power. From the standpoint of generality, we can make no assumptions. So, in considering the elect abstractly, we can say "Christ died especially, efficiently, particularly for them." In looking concretely at the masses of lost humanity, we must say, "Christ died for the whole world." We can tell a lost sinner, "Christ died for you," and this will be true in many senses whether the person we are speaking with is specifically elect or not.

The best Calvinist thinkers and scholars of the past have embraced key tensions and important distinctions between the general and the particular. Those who have been most Biblically grounded have warned us to remain purposely ignorant of those things which God has not seen fit to reveal, and to hold solid and steadfast in embracing all that He has made known in His awe-inspiring wisdom.

Tell People Jesus Loves Them

Below is my response to a recent post at the Defending and Contending blog. The author admonishes us not to tell people Jesus loves them. Yes, you read that correctly. It's Calvinism gone bad, with a TULIP that is unfortunately planted in the shallow sand of human logic, arguing backwards from assumptions concerning the mystery of divine election and God's disposition toward the non-elect. (NOTE: upon further reflection, I think the sentiments may have been born more from a distaste for shallow, Gospel-deficient evangelism than an excessive dependence on human logic or a harsh brand of Calvinism. And I share the distaste.) The TULIP grows and shows its vibrant color best when it is cultivated in the life-giving ground of Revelation and Grace. God's disposition toward the reprobate is a topic that needs to be handled with special prudence and care (can you guess which Reformed theologian I am paraphrasing?). The thoughts below are not comprehensive, but they are an attempt to present the other side of the Biblical teaching that is sometimes ignored and must be brought back into the equation if we are to be Scripturally balanced.

Just a few things to consider here. I think we might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the proverbial bath water . . . (and I apologize in advance for this long comment – thanks for your patience).

First, it is true that glibly telling people Jesus loves them is not the same as preaching the Gospel. It is also true that the Law can be a great tool to lead people to Christ. And it is true that God does not love every person in a way that ultimately ends in his or her salvation. But the love of God for all of His creatures is evident in the fact that he bears patiently with the reprobate while meeting their needs Providentially, and in some sense desires their repentance. He certainly commands it (Acts 17:30) – even if He does not effect it.

Is it possible that there is a logical fallacy behind the conclusion that Jesus does not love all people? Why can’t there be a sense in which God loves and hates all sinners? Do we have to make the categories mutually exclusive? Can’t there be a sense in which God loves all people as His creatures, and another sense in which He hates all sinners as rebels against Him and destroyers of His work? I find this is the only way to reconcile all of the Biblical statements about God’s disposition toward sinners.

If God had only hatred for the reprobate, and no real love for them at all, would he not have great pleasure in their destruction? Yet He says He has NO PLEASURE in it, but rather would have pleasure in their repentance.

Ezekiel 18:23 “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?”

Ezekiel 33:11 “Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”

This expression of hypothetical pleasure on the part of God surely indicates love for those He calls “wicked.” Unmingled hatred would never invite an enemy to repentance and reconciliation. But God loves His enemies, and even blesses them (Mt. 5:44-45).

Consider this: we do not know whether Adam and Eve were ultimately saved. But God certainly loved them by pursuing them, calling to them, clothing them, giving them instructions and promises, granting them children, etc. They may both have been reprobate in the end (we don’t know), but that does not mean God couldn’t rightly claim to have loved them. Do we assume that because God showed love to them they must have been saved?

If God says He “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,” we ought to have no qualms about telling the entire world (all the progeny of Adam and Eve) that God loves them. And to be accurate we must not forget to mention the thrust of the rest of the chapter: the fact that God’s love will not prevent Him from finally condemning all those who do not respond to His love with repentance and trust in Christ. But by all means teach children to sing, “Jesus loves the little children.” Let us not fall into the same trap the disciples did, when they tried to push the children away from the Lord. Jesus didn’t say, “Let the elect children come.” He simply said, “Let the children come to Me.”

Sharing God’s love can be an important part of evangelism, as Paul noted it is God’s kindness that leads us to repentance. (Romans 2:4)

Reformed theologians have historically maintained a distinction between the general love of God and His effectual working of salvation in an individual’s life. God loves all sinners; He loves and justly judges some, while He loves and graciously saves others. But all of them have been sustained and blessed by Him all along the way. He takes pleasure in their repentance. He doesn’t delight in their destruction, though He delights in His justice when they do not repent.

So, I say we should tell the whole world about the love and judgment of God, and especially about the way both were demonstrated in the cross of Christ, to the glory of our great God and Savior. The Gospel isn’t “For God hated most of the people in the world . . .”

I agree that the angle of God opposing the proud is of great use in evangelism. This is a useful observation. But even here we must be careful, for what does His opposition say? It says, “Repent, or perish. Humble yourself, and receive grace!” If there was no love, there would be no such warning. If there was no love, there would be no confrontation. If there was no love at all, there would be no breath, no heartbeat, no patience, no warning, no command to repent, no Providential care.

Why do we share the Gospel in the first place? Because we love others, in obedience to God’s command. Is this love from ourselves only? That can hardly be. It is an expression of His love, even for those who turn away and go on hating Him.

FREE OFFER - Addendum, Part 2

What follows is deep and undeniable Biblical material in support for the four aspects of the free offer. For more on this, see part 1 of the addendum, and also the original post.

First, the easiest one: "the Gospel is to be proclaimed to every individual."

Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and preach the Gospel to every creature . . ."
Mark 16:15 "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation."
Perhaps there's a bit of hyperbole there to emphasize the point, but it only strengthens the argument: PREACH THE GOSPEL TO ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION.


Next: "God invites every individual."

Matthew 11:28-29 "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."
Isaiah 55:1-3 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, and your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and delight yourself in abundance. Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, according to the faithful mercies shown to David."
John 7:37 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink."
Revelation 22:17 ". . . And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost."

These invitations are given to all, even though the hunger and thirst which move a person to respond are brought about by God's sovereign stirrings of grace. Visibly, the call is universal. Invisibly, the drawing of the Spirit is particular. There's a difference between the general call and the effectual call, but one does not nullify the other.

Next: "God loves every individual."

Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful"

It is objected by some that this refers to God's love for the elect prior to their conversion. I wonder, then, why Christ did not mention this distinction, but commanded His followers to love all enemies? If our heavenly Father does not love the reprobate, and we are admonished to be like Him, why should we love the reprobate? Yet we are commanded to love ALL neighbors and enemies without exception.

Ezekiel 18:23 "Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord God, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?"
Ezekiel 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord God. "Therefore, repent and live."

God's pleasure is increased when sinners repent, yet He does not lead all sinners to repentance. His reasons for leaving some in their sins is an unrevealed mystery, but His lack of pleasure in their destruction is directly stated and plainly revealed. Just as God saves some sinners without being unjust, He condemns other sinners without being unloving. Christ's death secured the salvation of the elect, but it also "condemned sin in the flesh." (Romans 8:3) That is a genuine and blessed paradox.

Does God love everyone? My 4-year-old can quote John 3:16, and I think he understands it better than most theologians. What kind of twisted interpretation of "world" does one have to invent in order to deny that "God so loved [every lost person] that He gave His only begotten son . . ."? The violent revisions forced on this text by a petrified theology are bizarre at best, and blasphemous at worst. One of the great benefits of being a paradoxical Calvinist is that we can allow the text to mean exactly what it says. On the downside, explaining things can be tricky, and one's systematic theology may be less than iron clad. But I'd rather be true to the text and scratch all the remaining hair off of my head trying to figure it out than to scratch a single line of truth from God's Bible.

Finally, the tough one: "God wills (i.e. desires) the salvation of every individual."

I Timothy 2:3-4 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Many - even among those who agree with all I have said above - will take exception to the use of this verse in this context. However, I am convinced that the verse is a true statement of God's desire for the salvation of all. The best argument against this view is formed by linking "all men" in this verse to "a ransom for all" in verse 6. Based on limited atonement, "all" in verse 6 is thought to mean "all kinds" (which is sometimes an accurate way to interpret the word), and thus the "all" in verse 4 purportedly has to mean "all kinds." It is a powerful argument. However, Christ's death as "a ransom for all" may well fit within the universal aspects of the atonement. The argument can be just as powerful when stated the opposite way: the "all" in verse 6 proves that the "all" in verse 4 really means "all." Christ's ransom payment was infinite and sufficient for all, though it is efficient and effective only for those who believe. Thus, God desires the salvation of all - especially the elect; and Christ paid the ransom for all - especially the elect. Alas, there are probably only a few Calvinists who will agree, but the point is more disputable than some would ever admit. Let's not allow our theology to become too "limited."

Beyond this, God's desire for the salvation of every individual can be explained this way: every universal invitation, and every universal call to repentance, stands as a statement of God's genuine desire - even if it is not His intention to fulfill that desire. God is not, therefore, "eternally bummed out" or frustrated by man's rejection of Him. Rather, He purposefully mourns with a compassionate heart over the well-deserved destruction of His creatures. He suffers for all, even the reprobate. Yet He also rejoices and finds complete satisfaction in all His decrees. Should it then surprise us that He calls us to find "pure joy" in all our trials and sufferings? And that we should "leap for joy" when people hate us?

Conclusion

The Scripture passages listed above provide strong support for the free offer of the Gospel. But is it a "sincere" and "well meant" offer? The answer is obvious: can God do anything without sincerity? Of course not. Is such terminology redundant? Yes, it is. But is it any more redundant than adding the word "holy" or "righteous" or "kind" or "good" or "perfect" to any of God's other acts? Certainly not. Therefore, we should never be ashamed to speak freely and sincerely of the free, sincere, and well meant offer of the Gospel.

The result of the free offer is sure: "This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14)

So the great commission is a guaranteed success! Let every one of us do his (or her) part to fulfill the command (and the prophecy) of Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria.
_____________________________________
Further information can be found here:

http://www.loughbrickland.org/articles/freeoffer.shtml

Excerpt:

Do you have difficulty reconciling the genuine overtures of the Gospel with the truth of God's sovereign election and predestination? To allow any such difficulty to cause you to reject the plain Biblical testimony to the reality of these gracious overtures is to bow down to the false humanistic god of the finality of human reason and is the very antithesis of true Biblical Calvinism. Whilst all of God's Word is reasonable, our powers of reason are those of a finite and fallen creature. We must lean upon the words that have proceeded out of the mouth of God. It is fallen man's pride in his own reason causing him to heed again the words of the serpent, "Hath God said?" (Gen. 3/1). Let us glorify God and say, "I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right" (Psalm 119/128).

IMPOSSIBLE: The Rich Young Ruler, Part 2

Jesus initially responded to the rich young ruler by taking him to the Law of Moses. The young man should have become convicted of sin, and convinced that it is impossible for righteousness to be attained by keeping the Law. But he was not. The riches of a religious life were holding him in blindness. How easy it is for us to become blinded by our own righteousness, to forget that any good in us is God's work, to believe that we ourselves have brought something meritorious to the salvation equation. In the Gospel, God is dying to lead us to a different conclusion. And in the Law, God has engraved our unworthiness and guilt in stone.

It is interesting to note that Jesus did not always refer people to the Law. Nicodemus, for example, was merely given a baffling command to be "born again," something not particularly related to the Law. The woman at the well was told the damning and embarassing facts about her sad life, but not a list of specific transgressions. The disciples heard the simple invitation, "Follow me," rather than a list of rules they had broken. There are those today who would encourage us to preach the Law before we preach the Gospel, or at least to include Law as a key part of the presentation. There is certainly wisdom in this approach, but let us never get ourselves stuck in a system that is unable to flex and respond to each individual God brings our way. There is a time to preach the Law, and there is a time to proclaim free mercy. There is a time to go straight to the cross, and even a time to listen quietly and shed tears. It all depends on the needs of the one with whom we are speaking. Let us be Spirit-led and guided by love, not just committed to a good method.

When the young man responded to the Law by asserting his self-righteousness, our Lord looked at him, and He loved him. This fact is significant, because Jesus is about to ask a wealthy real estate tycoon to give up everything he has. What motivates this demand for complete surrender? Only love.

If this man chooses to leave all and follow Christ, he will be responding to divine love. If he walks away, he will be rejecting it. May this be the case when we share the Gospel with others. Let our hearers be confronted with God's truth as we speak to them, and enveloped in God's love as we look upon them.