Category Archives: Theology

A Few Notes on the Subject of Baptism

Leave a reply

This coming Sunday afternoon I will have the distinct honor and privilege of baptizing two of GCA’s young fellows. Whenever we hold a baptism service, I always teach a bit so that the congregation understands what we are doing and why we are do it. Baptism is a hallmark activity, a distinguishing characteristic of the Christian Church. I truly enjoy participating in the public proclamation of faith in Christ.

So, since we were on the subject, I decided to compile and few thoughts and post them here on the blog in the hope that it will answer common questions and help us understand this ancient ordinance and instruction.

Definition

The Bible uses the term “baptism” in a variety of ways. The Greek word “baptizo” migrated into the English language largely unchanged. Had it been properly translated, rather than transliterated, it would have been rendered “immerse.” Baptizo was a common word in Greek parlance.  For instance, you essentially “baptized” dishes when you washed them because you immersed them in water.

The New Testament Greek Lexicon offers these notes on the word “baptizo” —

    1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe, to overwhelm.
    2. Not to be confused with bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

John the Baptist immersed people in the Jordan River. But the word embraces more than just water baptism. In Acts 1:5, Jesus assures His disciples that, though they’d been immersed in water, they would be immersed in the Holy Spirit, which occurred at Pentecost when the tongues of fire appeared on each of them and they manifested the gifts of the Spirit.

Or, in another example, in Mark 10:38 Jesus asks His apostles, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” He was immersed in the wrath of God, which none of them could endure.

As John Gill writes in his Exposition of the Bible, commenting on Mark 10:38 –

can ye drink of the cup that I drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

Which Christ speaks of in the present time, partly because his sorrows and sufferings were already begun: he had already been drinking of the cup of sorrows, being a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefs, all his days; and he was wading in the waters of affliction, though as yet they were not come into his soul, and he as it were immersed in them; he was not yet baptized with the bloody baptism he came into this world for, and he was desirous of, ( Luke 12:50 ) , and partly because of the certainty of these things, the cup was not to pass from him, and the baptism of his sufferings was to be surely accomplished.

So, the word baptizo has a variety of applications, depending on the context. But, in all instances, it has to do with being immersed in something, whether it’s water, fire, the Holy Spirit, or the wrath of God.  We need to recognize the textual distinctions and keep our definitions precise.

“Water baptism” refers to being immersed in water. But, baptismal immersions of other sorts also exist.

John the Baptist

The people of Israel engaged in various ceremonial washings. The concept of ceremonial cleanliness permeates the Law of Moses. But usually the Old Testament washings were physical in nature, for the cleansing of the body. The practice of immersion for remission of sin or as an act of repentance was unknown in the Old Testament.

Now, that’s not to say that it wasn’t typified. Peter certainly makes a direct connection between a type/antitype when he writes —

God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him. (1 Peter 3:20-22)

John’s was a baptism of repentance. It had no direct reference to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, inasmuch as those events had yet to occur. John never baptized in the name (or “in the authority”) of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. John’s baptism was a matter of repentance among the Jews who saw no reason to repent of their sins. They assumed that their Abrahamic descent was sufficient to guarantee them a place in the kingdom. So John’s baptism was quite revolutionary. He was calling Abraham’s seed to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins, without reference to animal sacrifice or blood. Rather than merely a ceremonial cleansing, John advocated a spiritual cleansing in preparation for the appearance of the Messiah.

Baptism In His Name

After His death, burial, and resurrection, Jesus instructed His apostles that they were to baptize disciples according to the following pattern —

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20)

We have become so familiar with this baptismal “formula” that it’s easy to overlook how earth-shattering Christ’s declaration truly was. First off, the then-extant Scriptures (what we would call the Old Testament) were replete with references to God’s sovereignty and authority over all the earth. But, Jesus not only equated Himself with God the Father, He stated emphatically that all authority was now His. This had to be shocking to the apostles’ religious sensibility.

And, having asserted His authority, Jesus instructed them to do three things:

  •  Go
  • Baptize
  • Teach

Rather than concentrating exclusively on the descendants of Abraham, the apostles were now to go to “all the nations.” As they went, they were to “make disciples,” which requires teaching people to observe everything that Jesus said and taught. And those who were discipled in such a manner were to be immersed in water under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Pauline Baptism

Despite the fact that in 1Corinthians 1:17 Paul said that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to preach the gospel, the baptism that Paul advocated was the same as what Jesus commissioned in Mat. 28:19: a baptism centered on Christ.

We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:4)
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. (Colossians 2:9-12)

Unlike John’s baptism, the New Covenant version of baptism that Paul advocated is a public proclamation of faith in Christ, identifying one’s self with His death, burial, and resurrection. It does not save, in and of itself. However, it does identify a believer as part of the body of Christ. It does not wash away sin (an idea associated with John’s baptism, in keeping with Jewish ceremonial washings), the sins of His elect were washed away by the finished atoning work of Christ at Calvary. Christian baptism is an obedient response to that fact.

Contrasting the Baptisms

In Acts 19 we read a very interesting exchange between Paul and some disciples at Ephesus.

He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. There were in all about twelve men. (Acts 19:2-7)

John’s baptism was not sufficient, being a baptism of repentance, designed to pave the way for the appearance of Christ. But, after Christ had come, died, resurrected, and ascended, the Spirit of God in-dwelt believers. Hence, a new baptism was necessary, one that was in accordance with Christ’s authority. And, as often occurred in the New Testament, not only did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit, but His presence was manifested by obvious, verifiable gifts.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit

The common phrase “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is drawn from Matthew 3:11.

“As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” (Matt. 3:11)

Those words by John the Baptist do not create a separate form of baptism, they simply describe Christ’s authority to immerse people with the Spirit — or contrariwise, with fire. To be “baptized with the Holy Spirit” is not a form of ceremonial dipping or immersion. It is completely distinct from water baptism. Peter makes clear that receiving the Holy Spirit, as a gift from God, is the same as being baptized (or immersed) in the Holy Spirit.

 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'” (Acts 11:15-16)

Peter’s equation is: “the Holy Spirit fell up them” = “you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

“Baptism in the Holy Spirit” is simply receiving the Spirit, it is not a ritual nor a charismatic event that is superior to the common experience of all regenerate Christians.

One Baptism

In Ephesians 4:5, Paul insisted that the Christian church would have “only one baptism.”

 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

One understanding of Paul’s word is that there is no place for being immersed in any other name or by any other authority. There are essentially only two types of water baptism in the NT – John the Baptist’s and baptism into Christ. John’s baptism was not sufficient. There was to be no division or schism between those who had followed John and those who were disciples of Christ. Only baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ was (and is) appropriate and commanded for His disciples.

Alternately, some have argued that Paul may have been referring to the singleness of the baptism, or receiving, of the Holy Spirit. That’s a one-time gift. And it makes perfect sense in the context of “one body (of believers), and one Spirit … one Lord, one faith, once baptism, one God and Father …”

Either way you read and understand that passage, the goal is unity within the body of Christ, based on our common profession of faith, receiving of the Spirit, and declaration of identification with Him.

Clearing Up Some Common Misconceptions

Water baptism does not automatically endue people with miraculous power. Some people in the NT received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism (such as the Gentiles in Acts 10:47), others received the Holy Spirit after being baptized (such as those who had previously received John’s baptism). And not everyone who receives the Holy Spirit receives the same gifts.

“All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?” (1 Cor. 12:30)
“Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” (1 Cor. 12:4-11)

So, it’s up to God how those gifts are distributed and how they operate. We cannot conclude that baptism “gives us power” in and of itself, nor that everyone who is baptized will have the same experience. After all, the obedient act of baptism is essential and required.  Accompanying gifts of the Spirit are up to God’s discretion.

Also, there is no conflict between Jesus’ instruction to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” and later accounts of the apostles baptizing “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The importance of the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is that it went beyond John’s baptism of repentance toward God. Prior to the cross, no one was ever baptized in the name (or authority) of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. When Jesus assigned His apostles to baptize according to this new formula, He was making Himself equal with God and instructing that His baptism would include more than just God the Father. So, when we read in the New Testament that the apostles baptized in the name of Christ, they were doing exactly what He told them to do and, honestly, there is not verbatim account of what words they spoke when baptizing new converts.  It is safe to assume, however, given the beneficial and spiritual outcome of those baptisms, that they were performed in accordance with His instruction.

Always remember: Jesus saves, not baptism.

In Closing

Baptism is more than a ritual. It’s one of only two ordinances that Christ left His church: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Both practices memorialize His death, burial, and resurrection. They are both focused on Him and His finished work. And, when we participate in these ordinances, we are connected with 2,000 years of Christian faith, teaching, and practice. It’s a really remarkable thing.

So, don’t take it lightly. But do take joyfully. And reverently. And gratefully. Remembering always the words of our Lord, “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16a)

Amen.

 

Answering a Critic of Calvinism

11 Replies

Because I am a very public advocate for Calvinism (which is a nickname for the historic theology that lays at the heart of the Protestant Reformation), I occasionally hear from critics.  Sometimes, their arguments are logical and well-presented.  Other times, they’re little more than rants.  Usually, they’re somewhere in-between. And I answer most of them — avoiding the really silly or truly angry ones.

The reason I’m sharing this particular exchange is because it includes assumptions and arguments that are typical and that show up in my in-box with increasing frequency.  Some folk simply cannot conceive of God being absolutely sovereign so they attempt to argue against it by insisting that such sovereignty would necessarily make God evil.  And that’s where we’ll jump into the exchange —

The Critic writes:

When the philosophy that drives Calvinism is projected to its logical conclusion, even Satan’s activity is an extension of God’s sovereignty. God sovereignly controls Satan’s every move.

Jim:

Not only is that the logical conclusion of Calvinism, it’s the logical conclusion of Biblical sovereignty.  The alternative is to have an uncontrolled devil running roughshod over God’s creation.  But, the Bible is full of examples of God limiting and binding Satan.  Consider Job.  Or Satan’s desire to sift Peter, but Christ intervened. Even Legion could not take the herd of swine without Jesus’ consent.

Or, to look at it another way, we know that in the book of Revelation Satan is bound and put into an abyss for 1000 years.  Afterward he is released, vanquished, and placed in the Lake of Fire.  Now, since we know that God has the power to do that, why has He not done it yet?  The only rational answer is: Satan plays a part in God’s economy.  When God is done with him, He will judge him and seclude him eternally.

Remember, God’s way are not our ways.  His thoughts are not our thoughts.  As high as the Heavens are above the earth, so are God’s ways higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than our thoughts.  Just because we struggle with the idea of God’s absolute power, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true or that God cannot exercise it.

Critic:

This makes God the author of everything evil, and the most wicked sinner of all.

Jim:

The Bible repeatedly declares God’s holiness and righteousness.  So, if Calvinism led to the idea that God was not only the “author of evil,” but the most wicked of sinners, the whole theology would have been abandoned by thoughtful churchmen years and years ago.  The reason Calvinism continues to thrive is that it recognizes God’s sovereignty and His holiness.  Straw man arguments about how that makes God sinful are just banal.

Theologically, God does not have to be evil in order to create evil in His universe.  Just as darkness is the natural state of all unlit matter and energy is necessary to produce light, God can produce evil in His creatures simply by withholding His goodness.  He does not have to be positively evil to do this.  He merely has to withhold Himself and allow the natural darkness to have its way.

Critic:

Some Calvinists actually admit what I said and seek to defend it from Scripture. If ultimately God sovereignly is in control of everything, and if free will of man, angels, or even Satan, is ultimately under the control of God, then the responsibility for all wickedness and evil must be placed at the feet of God Himself.

Jim:

There are no Calvinists who “actually admit” that God is “the most wicked sinner of all.”  Please attempt to present our position in a manner consistent with what we ourselves say about it.

Volumes have been written on this topic.  God is the creator, sustainer, and purpose behind all things.  But, that is not tantamount with being the author of evil.  That’s why Satan exists.  Satan is the instrument through which necessary evil occurs in God’s universe.  Think, for instance, of how God used Satan to bring calamity to Job.  God allowed it and limited the extent of it.  But, it was Satan who performed it.

Or, who brought about the fall in the Garden of Eden?  Satan.  But, was that God’s design? Yes.  Christ is the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (Rev. 13:8) Why have a sacrifice prepared prior to creation unless the Fall is ordained and inevitable?  But, God did not sin in ordaining the lapse.  He used an intermediate cause: Satan.

Everything God does is designed to bring Him the greatest glory.  And that includes His control over the events of human history and celestial eternity.  The responsibility for everything that occurs in God’s universe can rightly be laid at His holy feet.  But, that is not the same as charging Him with evil, which no man can do.

Isa 45:5-7 — “I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.”

If you are going to attempt to limit God’s sovereignty, then what exactly will you use as your plumb line?  How far is God capable of going before He reaches the edge of what men will allow?  What events is God involved in and what events require His absence?  And how will you discern between the two?  Where exactly is the limitation on the One who calls Himself “Almighty”?

Critic:

Are Satan’s actions of his own free will? If so, then God has obviously limited His own sovereignty regarding Satan’s activities.

Jim:

Of course not.  The book of Job (arguably the oldest book in the Bible) proves that. Satan was not free to interact with Job, his family, his possessions, his health, or his life without God’s consent and restrictions. The truth of the text is just the opposite of your conjecture. God limited Satan’s will and activity in keeping with His own purposes and design.

Critic:

God allows Satan free will.

Jim:

No He doesn’t and you’ll be hard pressed to produce any Biblical evidence that He does.

By the way, if Satan does indeed have a free will, then I think we could make pretty good argument that free will leads to evil.  Then again, that’s precisely what the Bible teaches; the human will is limited by its incapability to be righteous and natural proclivity for sin.

Critic:

If Satan’s actions are ultimately under the control of God, then Satan is merely God’s puppet, or “dark side.” The God of the Bible does not resemble this kind of god.

I John 1:5 – This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
James 1:17 – Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Jim:

I smell straw.  Do you smell straw?  It’s like someone is building straw men …

This is not good argumentation.  You cannot accuse us of holding a position we do not hold and then blame us for holding that position.

Is Satan God’s puppet? I’d say yes.  And when God’s done with him, He will put the devil away permanently.  But, to posit a form of dualism in which God has a dark side and a light side is rank heresy.  So, no respectable Calvinist has ever claimed it — despite your effort to assert it.

The problem is your misunderstanding of God’s character and actions. The problem is not the consistently Biblical theology of the Calvinist.

We agree that God has no dark side. But, the Calvinist sees no discrepancy in allowing the Bible to say what it says.  God is the absolute ruler and authority who empowers everything in His universe, the whole time remaining absolutely holy and just.  Remember, God is not held to a standard higher than Himself.  Whatever He does is right by virtue of the fact that it is a completely holy God doing it.  Whether that boggles our human sensibility is of no consequence.  It’s still how God portrays Himself.

Critic:

We must keep in mind that Satan’s ultimate ambition is to usurp God’s position, (Isa. 14:13-15, 2Thes. 2:3,4). Satan cannot make himself holy, but he can make God appear to be unholy, closing the gap between man’s perception of God and Satan. Satan simply assumes the dark side of God. Calvinism’s philosophical merging of God and Satan in effect fulfills Satan’s ultimate aspiration.

Jim:

This is really sad argumentation.  You are ascribing to Calvinists a position that they themselves never advance.  You are attempting to equate Calvinism with a form of Satanic darkness or blindness.  But, since this is a philosophical position you’ve invented and not anything to do with the systematic theology of Calvinism, it does no damage to our position at all.

Anyone can claim that God is on their side and those who oppose their side are under the control of Satan.  The important ingredient in this discussion is whether or not the Bible states what you’re stating.  And, since it doesn’t, I don’t plan to worry over it.

Critic:

The danger for Christians is that only one baby step separates the Calvinism taught in mainstream Evangelical churches from the logical philosophical conclusion that God is both good and evil. Calvinism leads to the conclusion that God is Satan and Satan is God. In the last days this philosophy will facilitate Christians worshipping the Beast.

Jim:

God is Satan!  Satan is God!  And my cat is the Antichrist!!!!

A tad hysterical, eh?  Don’t worry.  Calvinism has been around for hundreds of years and has never led to satanic rituals and devil worship.  You’re getting wwaaayyy too wrapped up in your emotionalism.  Painting one of the major theological streams in the history of Christendom with the broad “it’s from the Beast!” brush does nothing to advance your argument.  It just makes you sound like an alarmist.  Perhaps studying and replying to the actual doctrines of Calvinism would serve you better.

And, just for clarity’s sake, no Christians will be “worshipping the Beast.”  Why?  Because God is sovereign.

Critic:

I am very troubled by the logical implications that the Calvinist philosophy forces Christians to embrace. And I’m also concerned about the image of the Christian “God” presented to the world.

Jim:

Ummm … if “the Calvinist philosophy” forces Christians to embrace these logical implications, then why is it that no Calvinist I know teaches or believes this?

You’re arguing about a position that does not exist.  Take a step back, take a breath, and try to argue about the things we actually do say … as opposed to your unwarranted conclusions.

I am equally concerned about how the Christian Church presents God to the world.  The world does not need a God who has the power to save but who is hampered by the apparently superior will of His own creatures.  Why would anyone worship such a weak and powerless Deity?  The concept of freewill, and the supposition that God will not or cannot encroach on human freedom, leads to creature worship.  It places human decisions above God’s decrees.  Worse, there is no such God found in the pages of Scripture.  So, if you’re truly concerned about the image of God we’re presenting, take a moment to consider the alternative you’re offering and ask yourself two things: (1) is your conception of God biblical and (2) does it promote worship and admiration for God or does it emphasize the superiority of the creature?

Critic:

Calvinism, when consistently taken to its logical conclusions, implies all of the following:

1. God’s offers of salvation to “whosoever will” are insincere. God is not completely honest in Scripture.

Jim:

There is no Greek equivalent for the English term “whosoever.”  Consequently, God never offers salvation to “whosoever will.”  Look it up.  And please make sure to include specific texts that prove your contention that God actually offers salvation universally to anyone who wants it.

Critic:

2. God offers to save the non-elect IF they will do what is utterly impossible. God taunts the damned.

Jim:

Again, where do you find God’s universal offer of salvation to “whosoever will”?  If that does not exist (and it doesn’t) then there is no basis for claiming that the Calvinistic position results in God taunting the damned.  Saving faith is utterly impossible among all people.  There is none who does good, there is none who seeks after God (Rom. 3:11).  Therefore, only those whom God graciously enlightens will be drawn to God.  It takes more than merely an offer.  It takes empowerment, enlightenment, and regeneration.

But, since you bring up taunting, what do you make of texts like this? —

Psalm 59:7-8 – “Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords are in their lips: for who, say they, doth hear? But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.”
Psalm 2:1-5 – “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.  Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.”

It turns out that God is perfectly comfortable laughing at His enemies and treating them derisively.

Critic:

3. God created most people for the purpose of torturing them forever. God is cruel and sadistic.

Jim:

So, you’re saying that God will eventually save absolutely everyone?  That’s the only way around what you’ve charged here.  Because, whether God elects people on the basis of His own free choice or whether He saves them on the basis of their own faith, either way God ends up making people for the purpose of judging and condemning them.  I mean, if He is truly all-knowing, then He realizes who is going to reject Him.  Yet, He makes them anyway.

The Arminian has no advantage over the Calvinist on this point.  Your God is every bit as “cruel and sadistic” as the God of the Calvinist.

But, the question is not whether God lives up to human notions of cruelty.  The question is whether or not God describes Himself as absolutely sovereign over the affairs of men.  And, since the Bible is emphatic on that point, our human estimation of His relative cruelty is of no consequence.  Hell is a pretty cruel concept, humanly speaking, but it’s still a reality.

Critic:

4. God CAN save all, and DESIRES to save all, but chooses to damn many for no apparent reason. God is insane.

Jim:

Anyone whom God judges is fairly and rightly judged.  He does not condemn people “for no apparent reason.”  They are sinners and they have rebelled against the righteousness of an eternally holy God.  Their judgment is just.

Agreed, God can save as many as He is pleased to save.  But, there is no verse in the Bible that says He desires to save everyone.  Sure, people misread and misunderstand texts like 2Peter 3:9 and 1Timothy 2:4 (as I assume you have), but straightforward exegesis demonstrates that those texts are perfectly in league with the doctrine of God’s sovereignty that permeates Scripture.  Please allow me to offer you two videos that I think will be helpful:

http://youtu.be/GIPabz-01lY

http://youtu.be/aLla5rHmpO4

If you truly want to know what God’s will is concerning the salvation of people, Jesus stated it quite plainly – “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6:39)

Far from desiring the salvation of all, God’s will, according to Jesus, is that all that the Father gave the Son will be saved and none will be lost.  That’s not universalism or whosoever will-ism.  It’s sovereign election.

And please restrain yourself from verbal histrionics such as “God is insane.”  If you truly believe that Calvinism leads to such conclusions, then we are genuinely heretics of the lowest order and you should not even be engaging in this discussion with me.  Try to keep a civil tone.

Critic:

5. God controls Satan’s every move, and every wicked act of the most vile sinner. God is the source of all evil.

Jim:

This appears to be the heart of the matter for you.  You cannot seem to disassociate God’s sovereignty from the conclusion that it makes Him evil. But, God can control every action of every creature while remaining sinless, holy, and separate from the evil He deigned for His creation.  The reason I know that is because it’s what the Bible actually teaches.  God is undeniably good and holy.  And He is equally Lord over the armies of the Heaven and the inhabitants of the earth.

Critic:

The bottom line is that Calvinism, when carried to its logical conclusions, implies that God is a lying, taunting, sadistic, insane, wicked, tyrant who demands our worship!

Jim:

No.  What you’ve presented is a series of misguided statements and straw men, accompanied by sub-biblical notions of God’s soteriological intentions. You’ve drawn the very conclusions you intended to draw when you began constructing your argument.  This is not logic, it is simply a foregone conclusion.  And rather than deal with the actual teaching of Calvinists, you simply throw around epithets and emotional language as if that undermines the whole system of Calvinistic theology.  But, in order to do any real damage to anyone else’s argument you must deal with the actual content of their own presentation, which you have failed utterly to do.

Critic:

But, what kind of God are Calvinists presenting to the rest of mankind?

Jim:

The Biblical one.

Critic:

I strongly believe that Atheism thrives largely because of the Reformed – Calvinist model.

Jim:

No, atheism thrives because people are wicked and depraved.  They hate God in their hearts and, as Jesus said, they hate Christ without a cause.

Oh, and that’s exactly what Calvinism states: Men are wicked, depraved God-haters.

But once again you’ve taken the easy route.  I could also say that atheism is a direct result of man’s libertarian freedom to reject the God who loved them and desperately wanted to save them.  But, the great, eternal God is powerless against the superior will of the almighty atheists.  If only men had not been raised to believe in their own free will, atheism would never have gotten such a foothold.

See how vacuous that argument is?  Is cuts both ways, but proves nothing.

Critic:

Calvinism’s portrayal of God is one of the major reasons that many thinking people reject God.  They are rejecting the Calvinist’s God.

Jim:

And I’m certain you can back this claim up with solid research, right?  You have long lists of confessing atheists who say that it was Calvinism that did them in, right?  I mean, it wasn’t Catholicism or science that convinced them.  It wasn’t Darwinism or TBN-style fundamentalists they’re rejecting.  It was their deep study of Reformed theology that produced their atheism, right?  And it wasn’t their sin or their natural hatred of God.  It wasn’t the fact that the natural man is at enmity with God (Romans 8:6-8) or that people by their flesh cannot subject themselves to Him.  That has nothing to do it with it, right?  No, it can’t be the depravity of evil, sinful men.  It’s the theology of Calvinism — that same theology that led the greatest revivals and missionary campaigns in history, that lays at the heart of American civil liberties, that produced outpourings of Christian piety and devotion to the Bible — that’s what produced the atheists.

Yeh, that makes sense.  No, really ….

Critic:

While I do not agree with all of Dave Hunts’ points in his book, “What Love is This?”, I think his title is far too tame!

Jim:

Trust me, I knew that you were stumping for Hunt’s book very early on.  He likes to argue from emotion rather than facts, too.

Critic:

The real mistake of Calvinists is elevating God’s sovereignty at the expense of His holiness. They have failed to see that sovereignty does NOT demand God’s micromanaging all His creatures. That God has the power to control everything is without question. But, His purpose in creation would not be realized if He did so. Free will and allowing natural consequences to follow human choices is a major component of what God is accomplishing with His creation.

Jim:

Since you have yet to demonstrate any actual grasp of Calvinistic thought or doctrine, I doubt that you are able to lay your finger on “the real mistake of Calvinists.”  It is Calvinstic theology that advances God’s holiness as His primary attribute against the Arminian who insists (as Hunt does) that God is primarily love.  There is not a whit of Calvistic doctrine that elevates God’s sovereignty over His holiness.  In fact, His sovereignty is sustained by His holiness.

Please do not pretend to define what we believe when you cannot represent us fairly or even-handedly.  Do not pretend to tell us where we’ve failed when you have reduced our entire body of divinity to name-calling.  And if you insist on limiting God’s sovereignty — so that He is not “micromanaging” His creation — then you must be prepared to explain biblically where the perimeters are.  Where does His control start and stop.  In what circumstances is He active and in what circumstances is He passive?  Be exact.  Be specific.  Or, be quiet.

Since you’ve expressed knowledge of God’s purpose in creation, please explain that purpose, with adequate chapter and verse, and explain how it precludes absolute sovereignty.  Or, be quiet.

And show us one verse that plainly states what you contend concerning free will and natural consequence being a “major component of what God is accomplishing with His creation.”  I’d love to see it.  And please, make sure the Bible passage includes the phrase “free will” and “natural consequences.” Or, be quiet.

Finally, since you have demonstrated an alarming lack of knowledge concerning Calvinism overall, I would suggest refraining from any further discussions of this type until you have spent some serious time in study.  Here’s why:

I don’t know anything about heart surgery.  But, I know enough to know that I don’t know anything about heart surgery.  So, if I were to confront a heart surgeon and start offering my opinions and criticisms, he would instantly recognize that I don’t know what I’m talking about.  I’d come across as little more than a verbose fool.

No Calvinist will ever be affected by your current line of argumentation.  Most won’t take the time I’ve taken to reply. They will recognize instantly that they are dealing with someone who is ill-informed and relying on emotion rather than intelligent, educated information. You’re not doing yourself, or the cause of Christ, any favors when you attack our position ignorantly.

I hope that your future interactions with the Christian community will be more productive.

In Him,

Jim Mc.

 

This critique of Calvinism was originally published online.  It was sent to me via email with a request that I respond to it.  You can see the original article here:
http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin09.html  

Sovereignty, Puppetry, and Freewill

4 Replies

Hello Pastor Jim,

Recently I have been watching your videos on YouTube of your messages and sermons about the Sovereignty of God, Calvinism, predestination, and Reformed Theology.

I am greatly encouraged by the messages but still confused because of how I was raised. People in the church I attended said Calvinists do not evangelize and they [Calvinists] think people are robots with no free will to love God.

So here are my questions:

  1. Are all events on earth already preordained by God?
  2. Do we have a “free will?”
  3. Are we robots already programmed?
  4. How does the aspect of love play into this if we are just puppets?
Reply:

I understand your perplexity.  It takes time to sort through the things you’ve been taught and separate traditions from valid doctrines. One of the most difficult aspects of learning and embracing what the Bible actually says is un-learning our traditions, assumptions, and presuppositions.

The things that you’ve written here are typical responses to Calvinism.  For instance, people who do not know their church history will often claim that Calvinism inhibits evangelism.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  The fact is, some of the greatest revivals in history were led by Calvinists.  The first universities planted on U.S. soil were established by Calvinists.  Some of the most enduring missionary societies were established by Calvinists.  So, the claim that Calvinists do not evangelize is mere folly.

The following bit of history is from my book By Grace Alone (which is available as a free pdf download on the GCA website), including a pericope from David Steinmetz’s book Calvin in Context.

Calvinism, as it is commonly called, has a rich European history, but it finds its most striking influence during the foundation of these United States. Owing to Martin Luther’s commitment to reform, the church that bears his name was founded on the teaching of God’s election and determinate predestination. John Knox, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, held these doctrines. Early American history reveals that the vast majority of the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock were Calvinistic Presbyterians. The Congregationalist Churches of early America were once bound by these doctrines. And the original Baptists were avid predestinarians, which is why their modern counterparts advertise themselves as “Free-Will Baptists” to distinguish themselves from their ancestors.

This English Calvinist strain was strengthened by the Dutch Calvinists of New York and New Jersey, the German Reformed of Pennsylvania and Maryland, and the Scots-Irish Presbyterians who settled in the mid-Atlantic and southern colonies.While not all settlers in the New World were Protestant and not all Protestants were Calvinist, nevertheless there was from the very beginning a strongly Calvinist influence on American thought and institutions. Calvinists founded universities, pioneered the New England town meeting, insisted on the separation of powers in the federal government, played a prominent role in the movement for the abolition of slavery, and even promoted such characteristic institutions of frontier revivalism as ‘the anxious bench’ and the ‘camp-meeting’… In short, although Calvinism is not the only ingredient in American intellectual and religious history, it is such an important ingredient that no one can claim to understand American history and culture without some appreciation of its Calvinist heritage.

Or, let’s look at it this way:  Calvinistic theology is drawn directly from biblical, Pauline doctrine.  Of all the New Testament writers, Paul wrote the most complete arguments in favor of God’s absolute predestination and electing grace.  Yet, Paul devoted his life, his wealth, his health, and everything in him to the work of evangelism.  Calvinists follow Paul’s example.  We teach everything that the Bible says and we do everything that the Bible instructs.  We evangelize vigorously because we do not know who God’s elect are.  And in reality, Calvinism inspires evangelism because we know that God’s word will not return to Him void; it will accomplish what God intends for it to accomplish.

So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. (Isa. 55:11)

So we preach the good news full of hope and expectation.  By contrast, a person who believes in man’s autonomous free will has to fight the uphill battle of trying to convince someone to make a decision that is completely contrary to their nature and self-interest.  The Calvinist is convinced that only the power of God changing a person from the inside will result in salvation.  Therefore, the only tool we need is the truth of God’s word.  And we know His word will be successful; His people are out there and they will respond.  That takes a tremendous weight of pressure off of our shoulders and places responsibility for salvation exactly where it belongs — in God’s hands.

As for the robot argument, this YouTube sermon may help: http://youtu.be/ZJTjBg-QJ78

Basically, when someone poses the “robot” argument (also known as the “that would make us puppets” argument), it’s evidence that they have a sub-biblical anthropology.  They think human beings are essentially good, capable, and willing to follow God if you just give them sufficient inducement.  But, the Bible says just the opposite.  Psalm 53 and Romans 3 come to mind.

God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there is anyone who understands, who seeks after God.  Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one. (Psalm 53:2-3)As it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,     THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE. THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING, THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS; WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS; THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN. THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.” (Romans 3:10-18)

In the YouTube video, I reviewed the various New Testament passages that describe the human condition from God’s point of view.  You mentioned previously that you have been taught that Calvinism eliminates man’s “free will to love God.”  The truth is, the Bible eliminates man’s free will to love God. Nowhere in the Bible are human beings spoken of as being willing and capable of loving God unless God Himself awakens and quickens them.  Calvinism simply places the emphasis where it belongs — on God’s will instead of man’s.

Now, with that bit of introduction out of the way, let’s address each of your questions individually.

Are all events on earth already preordained by God?

The short answer is: Yes.

All Christians agree, in essence, that God is in charge of the really large events.  But the Bible also declares that God feeds the animals, hangs the stars, determines the days of every man’s life, and settles “the whole disposing” of things as minute as casting lots.  In other words, anyone who says that God is not in charge of everything in His universe must be able to tell us exactly where the line of demarcation is. What things is God in charge of and what things are beyond His scope?  Based on clear Scripture, I would inquire, what part of God’s creation does He restrict Himself from?  And where is He absent?

The Bible declares that He is everywhere, has all knowledge, and even gives Himself the proper name “God Almighty.”  So, if He has all the power, knows everything, and is everywhere, then there is nothing in His universe that escapes His grasp, is hidden from Him, or which He does not empower.  Otherwise, we would have to argue that He is limited in His knowledge and presence, or that there is another power in His creation that is separate and distinct from Him.  And that, biblically-speaking, is an impossible argument to win.

 Do we have a “free will?”

The term “freewill” has been utilized in Christian circles for so long that the concept is simply assumed to be true, despite the lack of clear biblical evidence. For instance, the only place in the entire Bible where the actual terminology “freewill” exists is as a type of Old Testament offering. But importantly, that word never shows up in the New Testament. Now that fact, in and of itself, does not automatically undermine the concept of free will. The word “Trinity” is also not in the New Testament, but the concept is plainly and repeatedly displayed. So, what we really have to determine is whether the concept of “free will choice,” as a part of the salvation process, is ever mentioned, implied, or stated in the New Testament.

Here are the facts: wherever the will of man is referred to in the Bible it is always in the negative. In other words, because human beings are sinful, their will is equally depraved and is therefore limited. To say it more simply, human beings cannot act outside of the confines of their nature.

My YouTube teaching video “Thinking About Free Will” may prove helpful in this regard. http://youtu.be/j3oSqbLDGxc

According to the Bible, our wills are limited by our inability —

Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil.  (Jeremiah 13:23)
So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.  (Matthew 7:17)
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.  (John 8:43)
…the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7-8)And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?  (Luke 12:25-26)
There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. (Romans 3:11)

Given our inability to do good, choose God, or enable our will against its nature, salvation must be the result of grace on God’s part and never the result of the “free will” decisions of any human. And the Bible states that repeatedly and emphatically.

For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:15-16)
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.  (John 1:12-13)

But, here’s the really essential point — if free will (as the modern church defines it) were indeed an essential element in salvation, then the passages that deal with salvation should actually mention it. But, they don’t. You can read through every portion of Scripture that deals with eternal salvation and you will find words like: predestination, election, and “according to His will.”

But never — never once, not a single time — will you read the word “freewill.”

That really ought to tell us something. The language and concept of freewill in salvation is glaring in its absence.  So, why is it so popular among confessing evangelicals?  Despite the textual evidence, human beings love the idea that they contribute something to their salvation. It just seems more “fair” that way.  And, our egos being what they are, we want to insert ourselves into the process in some significant way so that we can assure ourselves on the basis of our own actions and behavior.  It is, for lack of a better term, human nature.  Corrupt, fallen, prideful, arrogant, rebellious human nature.

Now let me be clear. I am not denying that human beings have a will or that they make decisions. What I am saying is that the human will is not truly free in any libertarian sense. The human will is limited by our incapabilities, resulting from our sinfulness. The fact that we make choices does not prove that we can choose anything we would like. As Romans 3:11 says, we cannot simply choose to understand, nor can we choose to seek God. And that is a very serious limitation.

Also, whenever man’s “will” is referenced in the Bible, it is always in the negative.  “You were not willing…”   “You do always resist the Holy Spirit…”  “You will not come…” etc.   That is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches concerning man’s natural state.  Sinful humans are free to sin.  But no sinful human is free to do what is righteous, what is just, or what is holy.  In fact, there is no man who does anything that is good.  And there is no one who ever sought God.

And that leads us right back to the topic of Biblical Anthropology.  The first tenet of Reformed Theology (the “T” in the tulip acrostic) is Total Depravity.  If you start there, then the entire rest of the five points fall perfectly in line.  But if you deny that humans are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), then you will end up advocating for human capability and wind up in direct opposition to the clear declarations of Scripture.  It’s really just that simple.

Are we robots already programmed?

I offered a brief reply to this statement earlier, but let me also offer a bit of audio wherein I addressed this very question:

Puppet Argument

 How does the aspect of love play into this if we are just puppets?

The question of love is used as a “red herring” by those who oppose Calvinism.  They assume that human beings are free to love God or not love God according to their own “free will.”  But, as I wrote above, if the biblical description of mankind is accurate then no natural human being has the capacity to love God.  In fact, they hate Him with a vengeance.  They are referred to as His enemies:

 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10)

The biblical reality is that only after God quickens and enlightens a person can they truly love God.  I get weary of hearing preachers say, “Only love that is freely given his genuine love!  Calvinism says that God forces His love on us.  Forced love is not real love.”  Norman Geisler went so far as to say that Calvinism posits a form of “divine rape.”

“Irresistible force used by God on his free creatures would be a violation of both the charity of God and the dignity of humans. God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist!” (Norman Geisler, “God knows all Things,” Predestination and Free Will, (ed.) David Basinger and Randall Basinger (IVP, 1986), p. 69 ).

What sad rhetoric such men have to stoop to in order to avoid what the Bible says.  Again, the fact is that humans will never “freely” love God until God removes their hatred and enmity and puts His divine spirit within them.  And, as I have argued openly and often, God is indeed irresistible in every aspect of His character and dealings with mankind. http://youtu.be/e9SiY4HAgNg

So, how does the aspect of love play into this?  It is God’s divine and eternal love that resulted in the grace that saved fallen sinners like you and me. In response to that reality, and as a result of His quickening power, we loved Him.  But, as in all things, God is the “first cause.”  He does not love us in response to our love.  We love Him because He first loved us.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.  In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.  Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. (1John 4:7-11)

Don’t allow people to mischaracterize Calvinism and tell you that it limits evangelism, does damage to man’s free will, makes us robots and puppets, or reduces divine love to forced rape.  I think you can see that those are all emotion-based arguments, not Biblical arguments.  People are naturally suspicious and afraid of things they do not understand.  I wish more of Calvinism’s critics would take the time to understand it before they begin criticizing it.

Grace and peace,

Jim Mc.

By Grace Alone is available via this link: http://www.salvationbygrace.org/uc/sub/docs/bygracealone.pdf

Featured photo: “Delusions of Grandeur” by Megan McClarty

A Wonderful Plan

Leave a reply

I heard it again just yesterday.  Yet another pulpiteer begging people to “choose Jesus” because “God has a wonderful plan for your life.”  Then, of course, it’s up to the individual sinner to make that wonderful plan operational through their choice, determination, or willingness to let God do what He’d like to do for them. It’s theological mumbo-jumbo.  It’s sub-biblical pabulum. It’s banal and insipid. It’s tripe where substance ought to be. Should I go on?

You would never have been able to convince the First Century church or any of the apostles that God had such wonderful plans for them.  Their lives were full of trouble and sacrifice.  Genuine Christianity recognizes that this world is not our home and we’re strangers and pilgrims on this planet.

The Apostle Peter knew this well, and wrote:

“For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.  For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps.”  (1 Peter 2:20-21)

And, of course, Paul wrote:

“For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me.” (Phil. 1:29-30).

My point is, the apostolic writers never say that God has a “wonderful plan for your life” and they never used such language as part of the gospel call. Rather, they expected hardship in this life, knowing that the world that hates Christ will equally hate those who belong to Him.  That being the case, the plan and purpose that God has for His children revolves around their eternal destiny much more than around their goals and comforts in this life.

Nevertheless, we can have confidence that our activity in the world is in the hands of the One who works everything after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11).  And, it will all work out for His glory and our greatest good.  As Paul wrote:

“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

Some of the men who followed Jesus after He fed the 5,000 asked Him what they should do so that they could make sure they were working the way God wanted:

 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”  Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” (John 6:28-29)

In the end, our lives are not about working correctly: following the right rules, getting the best job, joining the biggest church, making the most of our money, etc.  The real work of God is to believe in Christ.  Once that’s in place, everything else supports that primary purpose in life.  It’s typical of us flesh-and-blood folk to think we’re in control.  If life has taught me anything, it’s that I’m certainly not.  The bad things that happened I never saw coming.  And the good things happened despite me.  So, I know I’m not driving this bus.

Read Jesus’ words concerning how we should live:

  “For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?  Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?  And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?  And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.  But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith! Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’  For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.” (Mat. 6:25-34)

It’s hard to trust that completely.  But, the longer I live, the more faithful God appears.  The key is to “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness.”  The rest will fall in line.

Lastly — we walk by faith, not by sight.  As we walk through this life we trust that God is leading, opening and closing appropriate doors to get us to our predetermined destiny with Him.  If God has loved us since before the foundation of the world and written our names in the Lamb’s book of life, He will not leave our lives (both temporal and eternal) to chance.  There is no way to be outside of the plan of a truly Sovereign God.

So maybe we should start a T-shirt and bumper sticker campaign that says, “God has a sovereign plan for your eternity.”  At least it would be biblical.  🙂

Hazy Theology

3 Replies
A young man wrote:There were 3 hazy statements I heard last night from my pastor:

  1. God loves everyone in the world and the reason why people go to hell is because they freely choose to reject God’s universal love.
  2. Israel is supposed to represent the church.
  3. We are just mortal and limited human beings and we will never understand the question of predestination v. free will because we are not God.

How would you reply?

Response:

Well, let’s take these one-at-a-time.

1. God loves everyone in the world and the reason why people go to hell is because they freely choose to reject God’s universal love.

It’s important that when we make theological statements we are certain that our conclusions fit both the specific and overarching theology of Scripture. So, try to fit that first statement into this passage:

And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.’  Just as it is written, ‘JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.’  What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!  For He says to Moses, ‘I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.’  So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”  (Rom. 9:10-16, capitalization in NASB text)

If God loved one twin baby and hated the other, although they had not yet been born and had not done anything good or bad, then how are we going to conclude that “God loves everyone” and that people go to hell because they “freely chose”?  Paul’s conclusion is that God loved and hated each twin “so that God’s purpose according to His choice (KJV: election) would stand.”

In other words, the Bible says the opposite of what your pastor said.

2. Israel is supposed to represent the church.

This is a widely-held, though Biblically-unsupportable, assumption. I’d ask: since Israel was a stiff-necked, hard-hearted group of rebels who resisted God and fell under His hand of judgment, resulting in their being scattered and “divorced,” exactly how does that represent the Church?

Well, it doesn’t.

Usually when someone makes a statement like this, it is an attempt to co-opt Israel’s promises while ignoring the various warnings and judgments that accompany those promises. In other words, the Church is to receive all of Israel’s positive attributes while avoiding the various punishments and curses, usually based on the argument that Christ became “a curse for us,” leaving nothing but Israel’s blessings for the Church to inherit. Importantly, though, no New Testament writer advances that thinking or develops that paradigm.

I dealt with this in my book “Is The Church Israel?”  You can find the book as a free pdf download on our website:

http://www.salvationbygrace.org/default.aspx?ct=sub/read

3.  We are just mortal and limited human beings and we will never understand the question of predestination v. free will because we are not God.

Pardon my sarcasm, but if that’s true then God pointlessly filled His book full of all that fancy talk about predestination just so we “mortal and limited human beings” could ignore it all.  What was He thinking?

In my experience, people who do not want to do the work and commit the time to study these things always try to excuse themselves by saying it’s too complicated and no one can understand it.  Then, of course, they also use that excuse to dismiss or ignore the people who actually have committed the time and done the work.

Or, to put it another way, just because one person cannot understand something, it does not follow that therefore no one can understand it. Far too often, we egocentric humans assume that our experience is the standard for all human experience.  But, God is selective and He enlightens people and gifts them with particular abilities and skills according to His own good pleasure.  So, rather than making sweeping, universal statements, your pastor should have been more careful and stated his opinion as simply that: an opinion.

The Bible does take the time to explain God’s sovereignty in salvation and it uses the language of predestination and election to do so.  Our job is to stand toe-to-toe with what the Scripture actually says and align our thinking to bring it into conformity with what God has clearly stated.  The failure to do so and excuse ourselves is not evidence of mortal limitations, it’s a demonstration of hubris.  It’s the assumption that we know better than the Bible and we prefer our opinions to God’s clear, didactic declarations.

But this is what passes for teaching and leadership in far too much of the modern, professing Evangelical church.   <<sigh>>

Blessings,

Jim Mc.

A Catholic question about Galatians 3

1 Reply

The email began:

Maybe you could help me out here. I am a Catholic trying to better understand the Protestant position on justification. One part of Scripture that has been really interesting me is the second half of Galatians 3 (3:15-29) because I think that is where the real issue rests.

I think 3:21 hits on the point the best —

“Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.”

(I see basically the same thing taught in Gal 2:21 —

“I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

In Galatians 3:21, Paul says “if” the Law was intended to give life then salvation would have come by the Law, meaning that the Law never was intended to save.  From what I have heard from Protestants, man is not justified by the Law because nobody can keep the Law perfectly.  Yet I’m wondering how that fits with Gal 3:21?  If the Law was never intended to save, then keeping it perfectly still wouldn’t save.

Response:

Thanks for taking the time to write.  I don’t know how much you know about my approach to Scripture, but I am convinced that in order to understand any verse we must understand the surrounding context. The primary question that Paul was dealing with in the third chapter of Galatians is whether the inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant of salvation through faith in Christ’s finished work undermined the historic promises God had made to national Israel — the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. More specifically, since Christ did away with the requirements of the law of Moses for everyone who believes, then what was the point of the law in the first place? And, tied to that question: did the introduction and removal of the law effect the other promises made to the descendants of Abraham?

Gal 3:16-25 — Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.  Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

This passage, in context, helps us answer your questions. You questioned whether or not the law was ever intended to save. Paul tells us it was added “because of transgressions.” In other words, the law made sin more obviously sinful (see also: Romans 3:20, 5:20).  Neither did the law abrogate the promises God made Israel nor did it invalidate the Abrahamic Covenant.  Its purpose was to act as a tutor (the KJV says “schoolmaster”), or custodian, to lead God’s people to Christ.  Now that faith in Christ has come, there is no longer any need for the tutor.  Together that tells us that the law was never intended to save.

Specifically then, verse 21 does not say that perfect obedience to the law would lead to salvation, it says that if a law had ever been given to mankind that actually was able to impart life to sinners, then indeed someone may have received eternal life in exchange for the righteousness they had obtained through keeping the law.  But, the problem was not merely man’s incapability, it was the inability of the law itself to offer such life to people who were born into Adam’s sinful estate.  The purpose of the law was always to “shut everyone under sin so that the promise of faith in  Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.”  It was always God’s intention to glorify His Son.  And the law served that explicit purpose.

Now we can get at the root of your real question.  The reason Protestants say that real righteousness was offered via the law, provided a man perfectly kept it, was that Christ did indeed stand faultless before the law and no one could accuse Him of sin.  So, if we say universally that no one can ever keep the law and therefore no one can ever achieve perfect obedience, then we eliminate what Christ accomplished on our behalf.  As our substitute, He did what no sinful man could do.  He established His own righteousness through perfect obedience to God and the law.  While we agree that no man — no sinful human — can be justified by the works of the law, we need to careful not to undermine what Christ did accomplish through His perfect work.

Emailer:

Also, I have been told that since we cannot keep the Law perfectly that Jesus had to keep it perfectly for us (something I cannot find in the Bible), but does not the same issue remain?

Response:

Well, let’s take that question in parts.  First, did Christ keep the Law perfectly?  He said,

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Mat. 5:17)

All Christians agree that Christ was the spotless, sinless Lamb of God.  Yet, according the apostle Paul —

So also we, while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” (Gal. 4:3-6)

So, Jesus was “born under the Law,” yet is regarded by all Scripture as perfect and sinless.  Since the purpose of the law is to expose sin and hold all men guilty, Christ must have perfectly kept the dictates of the law in order to be guiltless and sinless.  As He Himself said,

“And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him.” (John 8:29)

And Paul’s stated reason why Jesus was born “under the Law” was in order to redeem those who were under the Law. I don’t know how to follow Paul’s logic — that Jesus was born under the law to save those who were under the law, resulting in their adoption as sons — without seeing a form of substitution.  Jesus did something on the behalf of others that resulted in the law, which would have condemned them, being removed, the guilt expunged, and eternal life resulting.  And, according to Paul, what He did was a direct result of the fact that He was “born under the law.”  So, Christ’s relationship to the law had a positive result for those who were under its condemnation.  That’s substitution.

Thanks for taking the time to write.  I always enjoy theological exchanges.  I hope that I’ve understood you aright and have answered appropriately.

Yours for His sake,

Jim Mc.

 

The lengths some folk will go …

Leave a reply

The subject of freewill and its relative importance in salvation is a topic that comes up frequently in my email correspondence.  But, this particular defense was new to me.

The email read:

Hello Brother Jim.

I have another silly question about freewill.  I am debating a fellow, who calls himself Moderate Calvinist, which in reality is Arminian. LOL.  Anyway, he stresses that faith precedes regeneration.  And that a spiritually dead man can believe prior to regeneration.  So he uses this verse in 2Chronicles 17:16: “And next to him was Amasiah the son of Zichri, who willingly offered himself unto the Lord;”

Now, I did tell him that the verse does not say he was a man of  God, or even how he came to do that.  But I can’t think of anything better to say.  I know you will give much better exegesis of the text than I.  So what are your thoughts?  Thanks again.  Yours in Christ, K —

Response:

Well, I must admit that this is an argument I have never heard.  It’s amazing the lengths to which people will go in order to defend the “free” will of humans.  So, let’s walk through this logically.

First off, if you’re going to discuss the nature of faith in salvation, it’s necessary that your text-of-choice is actually addressing that subject.   2Chron. 17:16 is a list of “mighty men”  who served under King Jehoshaphat.  The subject has nothing to do with salvation or faith.

The only place where the term “freewill” appears in Scripture is in reference to a type of voluntary offering that Israelites could bring to the priests of God after they had satisfied all of the required first fruits, tithes, offerings and sacrifices.  Never — and this is important — never is the will of man (any less the “free” will of man) brought up in any passage that has to do with salvation.  And it’s glaring in its absence.  In the passages that are actually addressing the subject of salvation, you’ll find the language of predestination, election, foreordination, foreknowledge, etc.  But never once does any Biblical author say that eternal salvation is the direct result of any person’s choice, determination, or willingness.

Okay, back to 2 Chron. 17:16.  In the list of men who served the king, we read of Amasiah, who gave himself into service.  He opted to serve God by serving the king God had ordained to rule Israel. There were a variety of ways to end up in the Israelite army: you could simply be of age, you could be in debt, or you could willingly volunteer, as Amasiah did.  In fact, the NASB renders this verse — “and next to him Amasiah the son of Zichri, who volunteered for the LORD, and with him 200,000 valiant warriors.”  And that is the sum total of everything we know about this man.  He is not mentioned again.

If we stay within the bounds of what the text actually tells us, the only thing we can deduce is that Amasiah believed in God and joined the army as a means of serving Him.  This passage says nothing about where that faith or belief came from.  It only says that he willingly joined the army for God’s sake.

Now, let’s get the largest context.  Israel, as a nation, was chosen by God.  He refers to them as His elect people —

“O seed of Israel His servant, Sons of Jacob, His chosen ones!” (1Chron. 16:13)

“For the LORD has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His own possession.” (Psa. 135:4)

“But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, And Israel, whom I have chosen:”  (Isa. 44:1)

“For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me.” (Isa. 45:4)

Amasiah is an Israelite — already a member of God’s chosen nation.  In other words, his willingness to serve God was not tantamount to a depraved sinner coming to faith in Christ.  There’s no one-for-one comparison here.  Amasiah was a member of elect Israel.  His willingness to serve God was demonstrated by volunteering to join the armed forces of the God-ordained king of elect Israel.  The context has nothing whatsoever to say about a “spiritually dead man” choosing to believe in Christ prior to regeneration.  That’s simply not in this text.

To be honest, if this is the length your Moderate Calvinist friend has to go to in order to find something in the Bible that appears to support his theology, I would say that our side is on pretty firm ground.  Challenge him to find a text that is actually dealing with salvation and demonstrate from that text how the will of man is the source of faith leading to salvation.

Then wait … (crickets) …

I hope that helps.

Grace and peace,

Jim Mc.

 

The Mathematic Value of 1000

Leave a reply

This past Friday I recorded a response to Gary DeMar’s YouTube video concerning the number 1000 in Revelation 20.  You can hear my response here: A Thousand Means A Thousand

In his video, Gary said, “The use of the number thousand in Revelation 20 is interesting because of the way thousand is used elsewhere in Scripture.”  Then Gary provided three examples from the Old Testament where the word “thousand” is used less-than-literally.  He concluded that, given such evidence, the number “thousand” in Revelation 20 is meant to be understood in a similar, non-literal way.  But, I wondered — and you should too — why those three examples ought to have greater weight than the hundreds of other references to “thousand” in the Old Testament.

Well, last night as we were teaching our way through the book of Numbers, we came across the passage below, describing the dividing of the plunder Israel brought home after defeating the Midianites.  It’s a passage where the word “thousand” occurs repeatedly as the animals and people are counted.  At first glance, it might seem like an insignificant bit of accounting.  But pay attention to the details because they include a vital bit of information that helps us understand the meaning of “thousand” in the Bible.

“Levy a tax for the LORD from the men of war who went out to battle, one in five hundred of the persons and of the cattle and of the donkeys and of the sheep; take it from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest, as an offering to the LORD.  From the sons of Israel’s half, you shall take one drawn out of every fifty of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys and of the sheep, from all the animals, and give them to the Levites who keep charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.”   Moses and Eleazar the priest did just as the LORD had commanded Moses.  Now the booty that remained from the spoil which the men of war had plundered was 675,000 sheep, and 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 donkeys, and of human beings, of the women who had not known man intimately, all the persons were 32,000.  The half, the portion of those who went out to war, was as follows: the number of sheep was 337,500, and the LORD’S levy of the sheep was 675; and the cattle were 36,000, from which the LORD’S levy was 72; and the donkeys were 30,500, from which the LORD’S levy was 61; and the human beings were 16,000, from whom the LORD’S levy was 32 persons.  Moses gave the levy which was the LORD’S offering to Eleazar the priest, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.  As for the sons of Israel’s half, which Moses separated from the men who had gone to war– now the congregation’s half was 337,500 sheep, and 36,000 cattle, and 30,500 donkeys, and the human beings were 16,000.   (Numbers 31:28-46)

Notice that this passage is full of math.  And it’s accurate math.  For instance, half of 32,000 is 16,000, 1/500th of which is 32.  These people were skilled at counting and using numbers.  But, pay attention to the math concerning the number 1000.  Twice, in dividing 1000, the outcome is 500.  Half of 675,000 sheep equals 337,500.  And half of 61,000 donkeys is 30,500.

What’s my point?  This passage plainly tells us that 1000 equals 500 times 2.  That’s mathematic certainty concerning the common meaning of 1000 in the Old Testament.

So, why didn’t Gary DeMar consider these passages when he was telling us what 1000 meant in Revelation 20?  His system won’t allow it.  The simple reality is that the Bible uses the term 1000 literally and mathematically far more frequently than it uses it to express any lack-of-specificity.  If we just do a quick survey of how it is used throughout the Bible, it’s plain that Gary was cherry picking and overemphasizing certain texts in order to draw his predetermined conclusion.  And that, my friends, is no way to “do” theology.