Questions That Don't Need Answers

Skeptics sometimes ask: "If God created everything, who created God?"

The question seems reasonable enough, but it overlooks the eternality, transcendence, and self-existence of God.

I like this turn of the tables: "If man created God, then who created man?"

Since human beings are clearly not eternal, transcendent, or self-existent, and the person asking the question is a human being, this seems to be the more important of the two questions. Skeptics say they cannot see or sense God, so how can they know He exists? Okay, fine. But all of us can perceive human beings, and must somehow account for their existence. As I see it, the choices ultimately boil down to spontaneous generation in an illogically eternal universe, or creation by God (which may sometimes appear illogical to some, but is ultimately the most logical of all possibilities).

Someone will say that skeptics don't know the eternality, transcendence, and self-existence of God, which is why they're asking the question in the first place. The Bible says they most certainly do know these things, and they are therefore without excuse in their stubborn refusal to glorify their Creator by trusting in Him.

Romans 1:18-21 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

It is not a lack of logical explanation, but a lack of trustful adoration, which prevents sinful man from believing in his Creator.

God exists as the uncaused Cause, the unsourced Source, the unmoved Mover, the uncreated Creator, the unmade Maker, the ungiven Giver - and all too often as the unloved Lover. Even those who deny this know it to be true.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 13 - Henry Mahan

I found an excellent message titled "Orthodox Paradoxes" by Henry Mahan, a well known "Sovereign Grace" Baptist who has enjoyed a fruitful preaching ministry for over 50 years. Here is Mahan's bio from sermonaudio.com:

Henry T. Mahan was born in Birmingham, Alabama August 1926. He began pastoring at the young age of 21 and has wide experience in the pastoral ministry, having been pastor of Thirteenth Street Baptist Church, Ashland, Kentucky, for over 50 years. He also travels widely as a conference speaker and evangelist. What draws the positive reaction from people all over the world to Henry Mahan's preaching is not primarily the man, but the message. It is not the preacher so much as the One preached. Listeners know that each one of these sermons will honor their precious Savior and lift up the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Pastor Mahan believes in the sovereign free grace of God. He sees all of God's plan and purpose directed toward one end of glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ in the salvation of sinners. His sermons are God honoring, Christ exalting, and places the Savior at the forefront of our attention, the worth of Christ's blood and righteousness on the lips of every saved sinner. If you love the God-honoring preaching of God's sovereign grace, you will not be disappointed in the preaching of Henry T. Mahan!

Among other things, Mahan discusses the paradoxes of faith & works, the Trinity, the Incarnation, God's sovereignty & human responsibility, active election & passive reprobation, divine love & wrath, law & grace, and the sinner/saint paradox. This is a very encouraging message that gives helpful perspective on the struggles of the Christian life.

Quotes:

"One of the evidences that a person has not been taught of God - has not been taught of God . . . has not heard that voice from heaven in his soul, he has not learned of the Father - is when a man continually has problems with the orthodox paradoxes."

"You can't handle a paradox unless you're taught of God."

Well said.

Listen to it here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=72106144825

Christianity and We-Are-Able-ISM

"This fresh breaking out of the doctrine of the free-will ministers to the pretension of the natural man not to be entirely lost, for that is just what it amounts to. All who have never been deeply convicted of sin, all those with whom this conviction is based on gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans and all reasoners, of all philosophers; but it completely changes the whole idea of Christianity and entirely perverts it."

J.N. Darby (Source)

Note: The first line is clumsily worded, but it's worth reading over again if necessary. The word "ministers" is a verb, not a noun. I finally got it on the 3rd reading. The full article is excellent, too.

Note #2: In case you're wondering, I'm not a dispensationalist, but I do appreciate the Christ-centered devotional writings of the Plymouth Brethren.

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Conclusion

A Calvinist is a person who knows he is bad, and knows Christ is good. It's that simple.

In this series I have endeavored to show how a Biblical understanding of human depravity leads directly and necessarily toward a theological viewpoint which exalts the grace and mercy of God, maximally glorifies Him, and gladly rejoices in His exhaustive, meticulous, comprehensive, detailed, enveloping, all-encompassing sovereignty over all things - including the salvation of individual sinners. The five parts coincide with the 5 points of Calvinism.

The trouble with some Calvinists is they have forgotten they are bad. A "good" Calvinist (indeed, a "good" Christian of any sort) has a short shelf life and spoils immediately. Bad Christians, on the other hand, never stop repenting and never stop receiving more of Christ and grace. And when Christ's work in us is complete, we will be fully restored from all the effects of the fall - better than if it had never happened.

Soli Deo Gloria!
Solus Christus!
Sola Gratia!

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 5

Because I am so utterly sinful that I would turn back to sin and fall away from Christ if God did not keep me. I could never - and would never - do a single thing to please Him, except as He works in me to will and to do according to His good pleasure. Apart from Him, I can do nothing.

God, who elected us before the world began, gave us life, preserved us when we rebelled against Him, called us through the Gospel, regenerated us by the Holy Spirit, gave us faith, washed us in Christ's blood, and saved us by His grace, will certainly keep us to the very end and bring us safely into His glorious, eternal rest!



I think this is my all time favorite Keith Green song.

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 4

Because it required the direct intervention of the Third Person of the Trinity to turn me from my love of sin and bring me to faith in Christ.

The Holy Spirit unveils the beautiful Son of God to us and instills in us His own love for Christ. No fallen sinner will ever choose Christ on his own. But thanks be to God, He draws us to Himself.

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 3

Because my sins and offenses against a holy God are so completely wicked they require an infinite payment - a payment in sinless blood. A Perfect man had to die in my place to satisfy the justice of a Perfect God, so that the unutterable sinfulness of my soul would be forgiven and a sufficient, saving righteousness would be freely given to me. My moral bankruptcy is so great that I can not even pay a fraction of a penny toward my own salvation. I can bring only the immensity of my debt and the fact of my inability to pay.

Man's iniquity is so vile that there is no way for us to approach God (or even continue to breathe!), apart from the Mediator who experienced the immeasurable spiritual agony we deserve, died in our place, and rose to new life so that He might apply the benefits of His sacrifice to His chosen ones.

 

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 2

Because there was NOTHING good in me that would make me worthy enough for God to choose me . . . unworthy sinners are elected unconditionally on the basis of God's mercy, according to His own sovereign purpose, and not according to any merit or worth in them.

We would never have chosen Him, so He chose us. That's a remarkable and humbling fact.

Why I am a Bad Calvinist - Part 1

Because there's no such thing as a good Calvinist . . . by definition, we're all totally depraved.

Christ died for sinners, and only His grace can make any good of any of us.

Marveling at the Gospel

The incomprehensible God united Himself incomprehensibly with humanity, to die under the incomprehensible suffering generated by His just and incomprehensible wrath, paying an incomprehensible price to redeem incomprehensibly sinful sinners through His incomprehensible grace, rising again by His incomprehensible power, showing His incomprehensible love, displaying His incomprehensible wisdom, revealing His incomprehensible glory.


  

Why I Spell Coincidence with a Capital "G"

It's been an interesting week. I was in Atlanta on business from Sunday evening through Tuesday. The trip wasn't going very well, and a lot of my "personal expectations" (read: idolatrous desires) were not being met. We stayed in an atrocious downtown hotel and, out of fear of our lives, decided to move to another hotel after the first night. I had hoped to stay for the full week, but my boss insisted I return on Tuesday. The trade show was smaller than expected, and didn't seem too productive. I had hoped to have dinner with some business associates before flying out on Tuesday night, but it didn't work out. By 5:00, I hadn't had any lunch, and I found myself heading to the airport several hours earlier than expected. As I walked alone toward the train station, preparing for the 20-minute ride to the airport, I sensed the Holy Spirit calling me to submit my self-centered and complaint-ridden attitude to God's mercy and sovereignty.

Then something strange happened. Just after sitting down on the train, I overheard a conversation nearby. I distinctly heard someone utter the words, "the Arminian system." That caught my attention. I figured I could use some fellowship with other believers, whether Calvinists or Arminians, so I went over to the two men who were obviously discussing theology and introduced myself. They said they were indeed believers and told me their names. That's when my jaw dropped, and I saw the sovereign hand of God in the midst of all my petty disappointments (something tells me heaven will be like this).

Here's a little background to help you understand why my jaw dropped. Over a year ago, my pastor gave me a little book called "Uniting Church and Home," written by his friend Eric Wallace. Eric is a pastor who lives in Virginia, and a leader of the family-integrated church movement. I enjoyed the book and have become excited about returning to the Biblical vision for church, family, marriage, parenting, and household-based ministry. The concept has transformed and is continuing to transform my family.

The last thing I expected was to meet Eric Wallace in Atlanta, but one of the men I met on the train was him! The other man was an elder from his church. They just "happened" to be in Atlanta, just "happened" to be on my train, we just "happened" to be in the same car, and I just "happened" to overhear their conversation. So, for 20 minutes my soul was refreshed as we chatted about the good things of God, Scripture, theology and life. God knew. God knew!

That's coincidence with a capital "G."

Here is a link to Eric's website:
The Institute for Uniting Church and Home

and a short video (note the Gospel-centeredness!)

Dr. Andreas Kostenberger was at my church last Sunday!

Yes, it's true. One of the great Biblical scholars of our day taught a small Sunday School class and then preached to less than 100 people at Lakeside Community Church.

Dr. Kostenberger capably answered several tough questions about the book of John, from my "definition-of-world" multi-question to the reason why John 7:53-8:11 is included in the Bible. His working definition of "world" was surprisingly close to mine, but he added "in need of redemption," which I thought was helpful. He also noted that there could be some aspect of "Gentiles & Jews" (i.e., "the whole world" as opposed to Jews only) in John 3:16. I'm not opposed to "Gentiles & Jews" because, well, that pretty much encompasses every individual. You're either one or the other, right? In addition, he mentioned some passages where "world" clearly means "earth" or created universe, and showed how John can quickly switch between the two meanings.

As for the apparently spurious passage in John 8, Dr. Kostenberger said he has contacted Bible publishers and asked them to consider removing it. Although it's probably historically true, the passage lacks the needed textual evidence to be considered an authoritative part of the New Testament. Contrary to the impression given by Bart Ehrman, this is one of only two passages in the New Testament which fall into this category (the other is the famous "second ending" of Mark). An interesting point made during the Q and A session was that John's Gospel has many parallels with the book of Isaiah.

The sermon covered John 20:26-29, which is the account of Thomas' refusal to believe in the resurrection without physical proof. This was timely for me, as I had just confessed to my accountability partners that "my number one problem at the moment is unbelief." God is always the master of perfect timing, is He not? In the middle of the sermon, my 8-year-old daughter looked up at me and said, "Daddy, this is interesting - I like it!" Wow.

What struck me most about Dr. Kostenberger was the way he exuded humility. He was thoughtful, gracious and not quick to speak. It is rare to see such great knowledge and insight unaccompanied by the arrogance that sometimes results from learning. God's Word, rightly handled, does produce a remarkable humility and Christ-centeredness which are inspiring.

My pastor exhibits the same characteristics, and he's no theological lightweight himself. I'm grateful to God for providing these men as examples of character qualities I hope to attain, by grace, in His time.

I haven't figured out how to upload the audio files yet, but if I figure it out I'll offer them for the benefit of all interested THEOparadoxians.

Dr. Andreas Kostenberger will be at my church this Sunday!

Dr. Andreas Kostenberger will be doing a Q & A session in our Sunday School this week, and he will preach in our Sunday worship gathering. We're just finishing a sermon series on John's Gospel, which will be the subject of both meetings. Dr. Kostenberger has written numerous scholarly volumes on the Gospel of John. 


We have been given the opportunity to submit questions ahead of time, and I just sent mine in. Here it is:

Please discuss the meaning of the word "world" (KOSMOS) in the writings of John. Does the word have a consistent meaning? Is there a basic definition that fits in every case? Or does the word have a range of possible meanings, and if so how should we determine which meaning applies to particular texts? To what extent can we use John's epistles to define the word in John's Gospel?

I guess that's actually 5 or 6 questions, but who's counting?

My current understanding is that KOSMOS almost always means "the order of mankind as sinners, on (or near) the earth, in active opposition to God, under the domain and influence of Satan." I'll be very interested to see how this compares to Dr. Kostenberger's answer, which I will report here next week. 

If you're in the Jacksonville area this Sunday, you may hear the answer for yourself at Lakeside Community Church.

PARADOX FILES, Vol. 12 - A.W. Pink

A.W. Pink (1886-1952) gets one of our famous t-shirts. Although Pink is regarded as the consummate "ultra-high" Calvinist, and although he is considered by some to have been an actual hyper-Calvinist during at least a period of his life, it is clear from the excerpt below that Pink became a firm believer in theological balance and paradox. He is well known for denying that God has any love for the non-elect. On that matter, he was certainly expressing a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, and was at odds with Calvin and every other mainstream Reformed theologian in history. If Pink had applied some paradoxical thinking to the topic, he would have moved into a more balanced position. But we all have our blind spots.

The excerpt below is from an article written by Pink in 1936, in which he tenaciously argues against the hyper-Calvinist's denial of "duty faith" (duty faith refers to the fact that God commands every person to repent and believe the Gospel, and therefore it is everyone's "duty" to do so). It is important to note that Pink is not denying the validity and usefulness of reason or logic, as such. Rather, he is showing how "human" reasoning stands opposed to divine, inerrant Truth. Human logic is good as far as it goes, but in dealing with divine matters there is a need for revelation, which exceeds the capacities and categories of mere human logic. In other words, God's ways cannot be mapped out mathematically by the human brain.

Pink also wrote a book about the attributes of God, in which he made some very strong statements in favor of the doctrine of incomprehensibility. Perhaps he will win another t-shirt for that. But for now, enjoy A.W. Pink's bold attack on theological imbalance - complete with a strong appeal to the concept of paradox.

"Now if we resort to human reasoning it will logically follow that it is quite useless to exhort the unregenerate to turn unto God or come unto Christ; yea, to exhort those who are utterly incompetent to respond, will appear to be most inconsistent and the height of absurdity. But, my reader, the things of God cannot be encompassed by human reason, and the moment we attempt to measure them by the line of our "logic," we open the door for Satan to deceive by his subtleties. He will tell us that if the Lord our God be one Lord then He cannot be a plurality of Persons, and that if we hold to three Divine Persons we are most "inconsistent" in affirming the unity of God. Satan will tell us that if God be Love then He will never banish any of His creatures to everlasting woe, and that if we hold to eternal punishment of the wicked we are altogether "inconsistent" in believing in the Divine benevolence.

What, then are we to do? This: repudiate all reasoning upon spiritual things as utterly worthless, and believe with the simplicity of a child whatever God's Word teaches. The Apostles held firmly the revealed truth of a glorious and victorious Messiah, and they could not "harmonize" with that fact a humiliated Messiah that would be crucified: the two things appeared to be altogether "inconsistent" and contradictory. But to them Christ said, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25).That, my reader, should be a lasting warning to us of the utter inadequacy of human logic and philosophizing upon Divine things! We must turn from the vain reasonings of the Unitarian, and while holding fast to the Unity of the Divine nature, we must also believe there are three co-equal Persons in the Godhead. We must turn from the vain reasonings of the Universalist, and while holding fast to the love of God, we must also believe in the eternal punishment of His enemies. And why? Because Holy Scripture teaches both!

In like manner, we must turn from the vain reasonings . . . of the hyper-Calvinist, and while holding fast to the total depravity and the spiritual inability of the natural man, we must also believe in his moral responsibility and accountability to God."

(Note: I have emboldened some text for emphasis, but the italics are all Pink's)

Source: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/dutyfth.htm

HT: Phil Johnson

Isaiah 53:2a - Tender Shoot and Rugged Root

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, 

And like a root out of parched ground . . .

Isaiah paints a striking picture of ruggedness and tenderness as he begins to describe the character of the Messiah. Using the illustration of a desert plant he contrasts a fresh, green sprout with a tough, gnarled root. They are part of the same organism, yet they are opposite in their characteristics. The ironies here illustrate the majestic humility of the God-Man. 
.
Rev. Fred Klett, a specialist in ministry to the Jewish people, notes that the seemingly contradictory Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah led some Jewish Rabbis to predict that there would be two Messiahs rather than just one. 
.
When one studies rabbinic views of the Messiah one finds something very interesting. Many ancient rabbis spoke of two Messiahs, one who was the "Son of David" and another who was the "Son of Joseph." Though one can find the sufferings of Messiah attributed to the sufferings of the Davidic Messiah in many rabbinic writings, often a second Messiah is posited, the "Son of Joseph" or "Son of Ephraim," who is the one who suffers while the Davidic Messiah conquers. The rabbis struggled with Biblical portraits of a suffering Messiah, as found in Isaiah 53 and other places, and portraits of a conquering Messiah, also found in the Hebrew Bible. They posited two Messiahs, but could it not also be reasonable to believe there is just one Messiah but two aspects of his mission, a suffering aspect and a conquering aspect? 
.
There is only one Messiah, but there are two comings and two aspects of his ministry. The Messiah came the first time to provide atonement for sin. He is now expanding his kingdom and conquering the Gentiles, not by the sword, but by preaching. . . . One day he will return to judge the earth and to bring in his Kingdom in all its fullness. (Source: www.CHAIM.org, The Two-Messiah Theory. CHAIM is a Reformed ministry to the Jewish people, led by Rev. Fred Klett) 
.
Fittingly, Isaiah presents this one Messiah in the paradox of a fragile, new plant springing from very old and sturdy roots. The plant appeared defenseless, but there was a hidden strength underneath it.  
.
The soft shoot that wouldn't threaten a caterpillar is fed by a root that can break through concrete. There is weakness and fragility, but there is also strength and durability. A plant that has been cut down, but not uprooted, can resurrect itself and produce new shoots again. Though Christ's human weakness made Him mortal, His divine strength made Him invincible. He died and rose again.
.
Rising Up To God 
.
 "Grew Up" = עלה Heb. ALAH (900 occurrences in the OT) = This is a common verb meaning "to go up, to ascend, to climb." 
.

Christ always moved upward, toward the Father, just as plants grow toward their sources of sustenance: water and light. As God pre-incarnate, Christ was rooted eternally and immutably in the Father's love. As God incarnate, He was ever reaching up toward the light of that love. As the God-Man resurrected and ascended, He is forever enthroned in it. Consider what a great yearning He always had for His Father . . . 
.
Hebrews 5:7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.
.
Luke 5:16 But Jesus Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray.
.
Luke 6:12 It was at this time that He went off to the mountain to pray, and He spent the whole night in prayer to God.
.
Matthew 14:23 After He had sent the crowds away, He went up on the mountain by Himself to pray; and when it was evening, He was there alone.
.
Mark 1:35 In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there.
.
Think of it . . . God was praying! Our Lord led the way for us in pure devotion to the Father. He was perfectly faithful in prayer because it was a necessity of His humanity - and He was a perfect example for us. Every saint knows he falls far short in matters of prayer, but we need only look to the cross where Christ's perfect righteousness was applied to our account. In Christ's perfect life we see a righteousness sufficient to cover us, and we find a righteousness that inspires us to perseverance and growing devotion. So we fix our eyes on Jesus and press on in faith, trusting His grace to cover all our sin and trusting His Spirit to supply what is needed for our ongoing sanctification.
.

Drawing Life From the Roots
."Tender Shoot" = יוֹנֵק Heb. YOWNEQ (this is the only occurrence of this word in the OT) = The word properly means "sucking," and pictures the way a young animal draws life from its mother's milk (cf. Gesenius' note here).
.

The defenseless sprout endures because it is connected to a firm root. The rugged root pictures the divinity of Christ, in communion with the Father. Yet it is a root out of parched ground because life on earth offered Him nothing. Surely David was predicting the thoughts of Christ Himself when he uttered these words . . .
.
 Psalm 63:1 O God, You are my God; I shall seek You earnestly; My soul thirsts for You, my flesh yearns for You, In a dry and weary land where there is no water. 
.
This is the beginning of His sufferings in behalf of a sinful world. In the incarnation, He already feels some separation from the Father. The pre-incarnate Son basked in the Father's love; in this state He still basks in it, but time and matter have become a barrier. In the pre-incarnate state, He enjoyed an omniscient knowledge of the Father's love; now a knowledge gap stands between. He has become a physically separate Being walking on a spiritually barren planet amidst the perishing wreckage of multiplied human sin - sin He will soon carry on His own shoulders. The sufferings of the incarnation are only the first steps on a long journey, at the end of which He will experience spiritual separation from the Father because He bears every sin. On the cross He will cry with the most absolute realism possible: "I thirst!"