William W. Birch

Life is Worship

2012-02-01T05:00:00.006-05:00

Life is one long, continuous worship service for the believer. I realize some people think of worship as shouting, lifting and/or clapping their hands during the singing portion of a Sunday service (which could include speaking or singing in tongues, a spoken word of prophecy or of knowledge, and the like). I realize others think of worship as reverential awe, displayed in bowing, crossing themselves with the sign of the cross, kneeling during prayer and other bodily postures. I also realize that others think of worship as overly structured, to be demonstrated in silence and solitude. But none of these attributes constitute genuine worship in spirit and in truth (cf. John 4:24).

The word "worship" is derived from the Old English word "weorthscipe": to grant worth to an object or a person. You may ascribe Jesus Christ His due worth-ship (worship) using any of the above expressions, but those expressions are not in and of themselves worship. Jesus is inherently worthy, therefore when we demonstrate His worthy-ness, we are merely agreeing with a fixed reality, an irreversible truth.

Jesus told a Samaritan woman, "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22 NASB). The Greek word proskuneite (worship) translates "to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand; to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (literal or figurative) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): -- worship.¹ BDAG states that its frequent use was the designation and custom of one prostrating himself "before persons and kissing their feet or the hem of their garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or something holy."²

We find the expression of kissing the feet of Jesus at Psalm 2: "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way" (Ps. 2:12 NKJV; cf. also KJV, ESV, NIV, ISV); "Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way" (Ps. 2:12 NASB; cf. also NET). The Septuagint (i.e., Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament) uses a different Greek word here for kiss, than for worship, but the image remains.

What if an individual acknowledges God's right to worthship (worship) but lives his life in a perverse or unworthy manner? Will his acknowledgment -- his worship of God through Christ Jesus -- be counted as genuine? You can probably guess by the way the question is asked that the answer is no. But why is the answer no? If the man or woman is worshiping -- in other words, acknowledging that God is inherently worthy -- why must the individual also live a worthy life?

Husbands, imagine if your wife thought you were the most handsome man on earth, with the most impeccable integrity among all other men, and she acknowledged (at least once a week, say Sundays) that you were worthy of that claim. Sundays would probably become your favorite day of the week! However, let's say that Monday through Saturday, she would flirt with every other man with whom she encountered, held private meetings with some of those men, dressed in such a way as to always attract men, and never spoke of you or your worth to anyone else she met. What would you think of her acknowledging your "worthiness" on Sundays?

I was taught by some Pentecostals that to worship God "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24) meant to "give Him all I had" during the Sunday "worship time" (which, typically, meant during the singing portion of the service). "Giving Him all I had" was interpreted to mean lifting my hands in praise, clapping my hands in praise, singing in tongues in the Spirit to Jesus, and allowing the Holy Spirit to do whatever He wanted to do in me, which was not limited to those few expressions. This, I discovered, is not worshiping God in spirit and in truth.

The apostle Paul wrote to one congregation: "Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things" (Phil. 3:17-19 NASB).

Note that Paul was not bothered by their expressions in the worship service. What disturbed him profoundly -- what should disturb us all profoundly -- was that in their congregation were professing believers who did not "walk the walk." In other words, they said one thing in their speech and in their worship, but they lived their lives completely contrary to their profession. Like the wife pictured above, they acknowledged God's worthiness during worship, but they conducted their lives during the rest of the week as though God did not exist. These "believers" are functional atheists.

Life is worship. We do not worship God only on Sundays. Those types of people are called "nominal Christians." That means that such people are "Christian" in name only. But that name is a useless title, void of any real or genuine significance. Scripture teaches, "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31); "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father" (Col. 3:17).

Even eating a meal or a snack -- even drinking a soda or water or juice -- even studying for school or taking a test or performing on your job or going to the bank or walking through the park or burping your baby -- do all to the glory of God. Worship is not about momentary expressions (raising or clapping your hands while you sing praise choruses). Worship is not about the style of music you prefer. Worship is not one hour on a Sunday morning. Life is worship. If you claim to "worship" God, then the manner in which you conduct your life will reflect the truth of that claim.

__________

¹ AMG's Annotated Strong's Greek Dictionary, in Strong's Complete Word Study Concordance, expanded edition, ed. Warren Baker (Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 2004), 2145.

² A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, third edition, BDAG, revised and edited by Frederick William Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 882.

The Wrath of God

2012-01-31T05:00:00.008-05:00

There are at least two viable reasons why I believe that wrath cannot be considered an attribute of God. First and foremost, Scripture nowhere states that wrath is an attribute which makes up the nature, essence, or character of God. More than merely an argument from silence, this assertion rests on Scripture, which does indicate what characteristics comprise God’s nature (i.e., love, holiness, justice, omniscience, etc.). Second, wrath as an attribute cannot be expressed intrapersonally among the members of the Godhead (Trinity).

That Scripture indicates God expresses or demonstrates wrath is undeniable (cf. Matt. 3:7; John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 2:5, 8; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; Eph. 5:6; Col. 3:6; Heb. 3:11; 4:3; Rev. 6:16, 17; 14:10, 19; 15:1, 7; 16:1, 19; 19:15 et al.). The prophet Nahum writes, "A jealous and avenging God is the LORD; the LORD is avenging and wrathful. The LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserves wrath for His enemies. The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, and the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished" (Nahum 1:2-3 NASB).

This and other like verses (cf. Deut. 9:7; 2 Kings 22:13; Ezra 5:12; Ps. 5:5; 7:11; 11:5-6; Isa. 59:18; Rev. 14:10, 19; 15:7; 19:15) have left some with the impression that wrath is part of God’s nature -- part of the very essence which makes God, God. Calvinist Wayne Grudem, for example, writes:

It may surprise us to find how frequently the Bible talks about the wrath of God. Yet if God loves all that is right and good and all that conforms to his moral character, it should not be surprising that he would hate everything that is opposed to his moral character. God’s wrath directed against sin is therefore closely related to God’s holiness and justice. God’s wrath may be defined as follows: God’s wrath means that he intensely hates all sin.¹

Dr. Grudem is right, I think, in stating that God’s moral character hates that to which it is opposed. But instead of suggesting that God’s wrath is "related to" His holiness and justice -- as though it is merely the negative component of the two attributes -- would it not be more proper to insist that God’s wrath is the result of His holiness and justice being offended? I think so.

For example, when the Bible reveals certain attributes of God, each are stated in such a way that relates to who God is -- His character. Take the attribute of love for example. The apostle John writes that God is love (1 John 4:8). This speaks of God’s character and nature. God does not merely possess love. He does not merely express love. Love is part of His character or essence.

Wrath, however, is not mentioned as part of God’s essence, nature, or character in Scripture. If God had never created anything or anyone, He would still be love, because that is who He is; and love could be, can be, and is expressed within the three Persons of the Trinity. Wrath, on the contrary, cannot be expressed within the Trinity. If wrath is one of the many components which make God, God, then how can wrath be demonstrated within the three persons of the Godhead from all eternity past? It could not, and therefore cannot, be an attribute of God.

God indeed expresses, and is willing to demonstrate, wrath. His "loving" attribute does not prevent Him from expressing anger or punishing sin. But Scripture does not teach that wrath is a component which makes up the nature and essence of God. Again, Grudem writes:

This also is an attribute for which we should thank and praise God. It may not immediately appear to us how this can be done, since wrath seems to be such a negative concept. Yet it is helpful for us to ask what God would be like if he were a God who did not hate sin. . . . God’s wrath should motivate us to evangelism and should also cause us to be thankful that God finally will punish all wrongdoing and will reign over a new heavens and a new earth in which there will be no unrighteousness.²

The problem Grudem and other Calvinists present, in my opinion, is twofold: 1) the fact that God hates and will punish sin does not necessitate wrath as being an attribute of God. He could react in wrath and anger at sin without it being an attribute; and 2) the mere fact that God, in Calvinism, has meticulously foreordained everything which happens among His creatures merely by decree, and also will "punish all wrongdoing" -- wrongdoing which He meticulously foreordained by decree -- is quite troubling. That’s like constructing a compass and then blaming it when it points north -- the very action for which you constructed the compass! Is this the holy and just nature or character of God that we see demonstrated in Scripture -- that we see demonstrated in Jesus Christ, "the exact representation of His nature" (Heb. 1:3 NASB)? I do not think so.

However, what behooves us all to remember is that, though God is willing to demonstrate wrath (Rom. 9:22), it is not necessarily His delight to do so. God "takes no pleasure" in the destruction of human beings (Ezek. 18:32; 33:11). What pleases God is redemption (1 Tim. 2:3-4), not condemnation: He sent His Son into the world to save human beings (John 3:16), not to condemn them (John 3:17).

John Piper is not convinced by this argument. He writes: "This verse [Psalm 115:3; cf. 135:6] teaches that whenever God acts, he acts in a way that pleases him. God is never constrained to do a thing that he despises. He is never backed into a corner where his only recourse is to do something he hates to do. He does whatever he pleases. And therefore, in some sense, he has pleasure in all that he does" (link).

For Piper, everything God does or enacts brings Him pleasure. Therefore, having unconditionally predetermined to consign untold billions to an eternal torment in hell actually brought (and will bring) God pleasure, contrary to Scripture (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11). Dr. Thomas Oden, on the other hand, has implicated the happiness (blessedness) of God correctly when he writes:

To say that God is eternally blessed means that God rejoices eternally in the outpouring of goodness, mercy, and love upon creatures, each in accordance with their ability to participate in God’s being. The blessedness of God, or divine beatitude, means that God’s life is full of joy, both within the Godhead and in relation to creatures. God’s enjoyment of redeemed creation is compared to the joy of a bridegroom who rejoices over the bride (Isa. 62:5). . . .
One is blessed who "has whatever he wills and who wills nothing evil" (Tho. Aq., SCG I.100, p. 300, referring to Augustine, Trin. XIII. 5, NPNF 1 III, p. 171). God has what he wills and wills nothing evil, and is therefore incomparably blessed. . . . It is also said that God is angry and grieved over idolatry and sin. . . . Terms such as "God’s anger" are based on analogies that point to God’s rejection of sin. These analogies are best used with constraint. Since the foreknowledge of God always already envisions the triumph of grace over sin . . . God rejoices also at the overcoming of sin, even while sin is amid history gradually being judged and overruled. . . .³

Jesus said, "I tell you that . . . there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent" (Luke 15:7). Jesus was reacting to the attitude of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, who said of Jesus, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them" (Luke 15:2). The Pharisees and teachers of the Law thought that they were righteous. They were the "righteous persons who do not need to repent," meaning that they did not think they needed to repent due to their righteous works of the Law.

Nevertheless, what we find at Luke 15 is that what makes God rejoice; i.e., what brings Him pleasure is the repentance, not the reprobation, of a sinner. If wrath were an attribute of God, a component of His nature, then even reprobation would bring Him direct pleasure. But Scripture teaches that the death of the wicked does not bring Him pleasure. For some theologians to insist that the death of the wicked actually does bring God pleasure speaks volumes about their own view of the Triune God.

__________

¹ Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 94.

² Ibid., 95.

³ Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, Systematic Theology, Volume One (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1987), 128-9.

The Love of God

2012-01-30T05:00:00.006-05:00

The apostle John confesses, "We love, because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19 NASB). The object "Him" (i.e., "we love Him because") is absent from other translations other than the King James and New King James Versions. The NET Bible footnote explains that the "obvious objects that could be supplied from the context are either God himself or other believers (the brethren). It may well be that the author has both in mind at this point" (link).

John instructs believers, "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7 NASB). The NET Bible footnote continues, "the statement is general enough to cover both alternatives, although the following verse puts more emphasis on love for the brethren" (link). Our Triune God truly does love us. The apostle Paul confesses that God "demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). Whenever you are in doubt regarding God’s love for you, look to the Cross, where He demonstrated that love.

What is true is that I love my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus because God first loved me (cf. 1 John 4:19). However, I also love the Lord because He first loved me. He loved me while I was stuck helplessly in sin. Even when I was God’s enemy, He reconciled me (and sinful humanity) to Himself through Christ Jesus (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:19). God did not just tell me that He loved me; He demonstrated His love for me by sacrificing His one and only Son Jesus Christ in order that, by grace through faith in Him, I might be saved from the wrath of God to come (John 3:16, 26; 15:13; Rom. 5:6-8; Eph. 2:8; 1 John 3:16).

I also love the Lord because His love for me is unconditional. His love for me is not object-oriented. He does not love me because of anything I do in particular. If He did, then were I to cease doing that for which He loved me, He could cease loving me.

But His love for me is not conditioned upon anything that I may (or may not) do. In spite of my being fickle, hypocritical, sinful, spiteful, arrogant, ignorant, helpless, intentional, neglectful, apathetic, careless, inconsistent, unloving, unlovable, prayerless, thoughtless, stubborn, wrong -- among so many other unmentioned characteristics -- He loves me still. God hates my sin, but He loves me still in and through Christ.

What must also be admitted is that I love the Lord because of His grace at work in my heart through the indwelling Holy Spirit: God’s love [or my love for God] has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (Rom. 5:5). The apostle means either that God’s love (i.e., His love, which includes love for us, which spills over into our love for others) has been poured into our hearts, or that a love for God has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. Many people may claim to be Christian but have difficulty confessing that they love Jesus Christ. We call these people "nominal" Christians (meaning, Christians in name only). Do you love Jesus?

Jesus said: "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). Our obedience to Him demonstrates our love for Him. He said, "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him" (John 14:21). Jesus then emphatically stated that the one who loves Him will keep His word, and His Father will love him, and both of Them will come to him and make Their abode with him (John 14:23, emphasis added).

Thus we understand that those who do not keep His commandments demonstrate that they do not love Him: "He who does not love Me," admitted Jesus, "does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me" (John 14:24). The apostle also made a similar confession:

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile to 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 (Rom. 8:5-8 NASB).

We must be reminded and remind others to not let our thoughts be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). We must pay greater attention to what we have heard so that we do not drift away from it (Heb. 2:1). We must abide in the love of and our love for Jesus Christ: "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love" (John 15:9-10).

But I can place my confidence in Jesus, in that, as I am "working out" my salvation "with fear and trembling," He is at work in me, enabling me "both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13). He is entirely trustworthy and I love Him for it. I love Him also for every single blessing that is in Him (Eph. 1:3). I love Him for the rod of discipline (Ps. 23:4; Heb. 12:8) as much as for the staff of comfort (Ps. 23:4). The Song of the Lamb, from the daily Collect of the Book of Common Prayer, partly quoted from the Revelation of Jesus Christ (Rev. 15:3-4), concludes:

O ruler of the universe, Lord God,
great deeds are they that you have done,
surpassing human understanding.

Your ways are ways of righteousness and truth,
O King of all the ages.

Who can fail to do you homage, Lord,
and sing the praises of your Name?
for you only are the Holy One.

All nations will draw near and fall down before you,
because your just and holy works have been revealed.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.

Saturday Devotion: The Public Invitation and Calvinism

2012-01-28T05:00:00.003-05:00

There are Calvinists who disdain the evangelistic use of the "altar call," or "public invitation," to come to Christ Jesus. For example, Steve Hays, of Triablogue infamy, insists that the "altar call system is unscriptural." I have to wonder what "scriptures" Hays is reading, because the Christian New Testament grants an ample amount of examples of public invitations for sinners to repent and follow Christ Jesus.

One must wonder also why any Calvinist would disdain the altar call since 1) God meticulously foreordains all things, according to Calvinists, and that would, by necessity, include the altar call; 2) God can bring His elect to Christ through the altar call; 3) the altar call is merely a public invitation to trust in Christ; 4) Jesus Himself called people publicly unto Himself; 5) Christ's disciples also called people publicly unto repentance and faith in Jesus; and 6) ministers can just as easily manipulate people through their sermons -- they certainly do not need an altar to accomplish that!

Today's devotion is taken from R. Alan Streett's chapter "The Public Invitation and Calvinism," in the book Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, edited by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, published by B&H Academic, 2010. Streett is W. A. Criswell Chair of Expository Preaching at Criswell College in Dallas, Texas, and he writes the following.

__________

Most Calvinists oppose the use of a public invitation or altar call at the end of sermons.¹ They think such practices tend to be confusing at best, spiritually dangerous at worst, and certainly a hindrance to true evangelism. Strict five-point Calvinists criticize the invitation on three grounds. First, they believe it has no biblical support. Second, they believe its origin can be traced back only a few hundred years. Third, they think it is incompatible with their understanding of total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. . . .

Calvinist critics contend that the invitation is a modern contrivance, dating back only to nineteenth-century evangelist Charles Finney. In reality, examples abound in the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. . . .

Jesus called people to follow Him publicly. He promised, "Whosoever confesses Me before men, him will I also confess before My Father in heaven" (Matt. 10:32). Conversely, He warned, "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven" ([Matt. 10:33]). Jesus offered little hope of salvation to those who wished to remain anonymous.

One of His favorite words of exhortation was "Come." To some He said, "Come, follow Me" (Matt. 19:21). To others He called out, "Come and see" (John 1:39). To the masses He cried, "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). On another occasion He commanded, "Come, take up the cross and follow Me" (Mark 10:21). All sinners were exhorted to "come like little children" (Matt. 19:14). In the Revelation both the Spirit and the bride say, "Come," and partake of "the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:17). Both God and the evangelist issued this dual call.

Many responded to Jesus' call. To Zaccheus, perched high in a tree, He said, "Make haste and come down" (Luke 19:5). In full view of friends and foe alike who knew him as a despicable but wealthy tax collector, he answered the appeal (vv. 8-9). Had he remained in a tree, Zaccheus would have missed his opportunity to be saved.

When Jesus said, "Who touched Me?" a woman with an issue of blood responded openly. The record shows that "fearing and trembling . . . [she] came and fell down before Him. . . . And He said to her, 'Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace'" (Mark 5:33-34). Had she remained hidden among the crowd, she might have been healed but not saved. Similarly, the leper returned after his healing, "fell down on his face," and thanked Jesus publicly (Luke 17:16). After inquiring into the whereabouts of the other nine lepers, Jesus pronounced, "Your faith has made you well" (v. 19). Again, an outward action was tied to salvation.

The apostle Paul reminds us "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation" (Rom. 10:9-10). However one cuts it, this text links public confession to salvation. One must both believe and confess the facts of the gospel in order to be saved (v. 9). Just as the heart believes "to righteousness," so the mouth confesses "to salvation" (v. 10). . . .

While a public profession of faith is not a guarantee of salvation, it always accompanies salvation (Rom. 10:9-10). That is why we give an invitation.

We do not practice calling people to follow Christ publicly for pragmatic reasons but because we honestly desire to follow the pattern found in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Therefore, let us not shy away from giving an invitation because of its critics or its many abuses. Let us strive instead to emulate Christ and the apostles by inviting people to follow in the Master's footsteps. . . .²

__________

¹ Streett writes the following footnote: "E. Hulse, The Great Invitation (Hertfordshire, England: Evangelical Press, 1986) stands as an example of the strict Calvinist who opposes the public invitation. He disparagingly labels the public invitation an 'evangelical sacrament' (103) and devotes the entirety of chapter seven to his claim (104-9). L. S. Chafer, True Evangelism (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002) is an example of a four-point Calvinist who holds the same position." See R. Alan Streett, "The Public Invitation and Calvinism," in Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 233.

² Ibid., 233-51.

Fabricating Hays, Updated ... Again

2012-01-27T06:00:00.004-05:00

Is it not comical that Calvinists like Steve Hays demand "polling data . . . sociological studies . . . [and] scientific stats, to document this 'very telling' claim" that new Christian converts, when given a Bible, conclude with non-Calvinist theology? And, in typical ever-so-easy-to-bait fashion, Hays has made a whining response to this one.

(Hays has written yet another response to this Updated one. He just finds it irresistible! Remember now, Hays is the one who just complained about all the Arminians who are always posting against Calvinists and Calvinism. Yet, in typical hypocritical fashion, he cannot keep from responding against Arminians and Arminianism. Oh, the irony!)

Yet, his Calvinist friend, Peter Pike, wrote that "More Arminians become Calvinists than vice versa, indicating the flow of sanctification" without the slightest bit of "polling data," "sociological studies," or "scientific stats" to substantiate his claim.

I suppose that's fine with Hays, since Calvinists like him are not interested in keeping their own friends consistent or accountable. It's just Calvinists quoting other Calvinists quoting other Calvinists. Yet somehow that morphs into hard fact.

"Fabricate the evidence you need," as Hays stated. Do you think there is something about Calvinism that fosters this capacity for self-deception?

I mentioned in the comments section what a hypocrite with double standards Steve Hays is, and I stand by it.

For example, Hays writes, "Among many internet Arminians, you have this self-reinforcing code of misconduct -- where they automatically cover for each other." Just like what Hays did for Pike. He continues, "God isn’t real to them. Christ isn’t real to them. Their teammates are real to them. It’s all about in-group loyalty."

Now, why would anyone think that Calvinists are mean-spirited and nasty? Could it be because when they care called out for their ungodly behavior on the Internet, they retreat to this type of nonsense? God isn't real to Arminians? Christ isn't real to Arminians? Their teammates are real to them? Really?

How about this: God isn't real to Steve Hays. Christ isn't real to Steve Hays. His teammates are real to him, and nothing else. And when his Calvinist friends apostatize from the Faith, like Michael Sudduth, all Hays truly cares about is defending Calvinism, much more so than Christianity.

The Old Testament Takes On Determinism and Compatibilism

2012-01-27T05:00:00.011-05:00

"I don't see how anyone could read the Old Testament and not conclude that Calvinism is right," was the assessment of one Calvinist professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. By "Calvinism" he means the theory of God’s exhaustive predeterminism of all things by decree.¹ This professor was merely being consistent and honest about his own beliefs. He has done nothing immoral or ethically wrong with making such a statement to his students. My only hope is that his students do not take their professor’s word on the matter but study, like a good Berean, for themselves (consulting opposing ideas and exegesis) to examine Scripture every day to see if what the professor says is true (Acts 17:11).

This professor is also defending a confession nearly four centuries old:

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.²

Given the statement above, we then ask, In what manner did God foreordain whatsoever comes to pass -- by foreknowledge of what free creatures would do? The Confession answers: “Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions [by what knowledge does He know these things?], yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.”³ (emphases added)

So, everything which comes to pass does so because God has preordained for it to come to pass. When creatures behave in a certain manner, they do so "freely," by God's foreordained decree. God preordained what they should do; they do it "freely" and they will be held accountable for what they "freely" do (even though it was God who preordained what they should "freely" do).

Now this, according to the professor (and Calvinists), is affirmed in the Old Testament, so much so that one wonders how anyone can read it and not conclude that Calvinism is right. If this is true, then there are certain ideas, certain conclusions -- consistent affirmations -- which should not appear in the pages of the Old Testament. Remembering that all events were strictly foreordained by God’s decree, not by foreknowledge of future free will acts but by the exhaustive determinism of His plan, note the following statements from the prophet Jeremiah:

Thus says the LORD, "What injustice did your fathers find in Me, that they went far from Me and walked after emptiness and became empty? They did not say, 'Where is the LORD who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, who led us through the wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits, through a land of drought and of deep darkness, through a land no one crossed and where no man dwelt?' I brought you into the fruitful land to eat its fruit and its good things. But you came and defiled My land, and My inheritance you made an abomination. The priests did not say, 'Where is the LORD?' and those who handle the law did not know Me; the rulers also transgressed against Me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal and walked after things that did not profit. Therefore I will yet contend with you," declares the LORD (Jeremiah 2:5-9 NASB).

But if The LORD has "unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass," then why is He complaining about Israel’s unfaithfulness? Did He not meticulously foreordain their unfaithfulness? Yes, He must have foreordained their unfaithfulness if God "unchangeably ordains whatsoever comes to pass." Is the LORD not the Sovereign? Can any person or group of people do anything which the LORD has not meticulously foreordained for them to do, according to Calvinism? Hence if Israel was unfaithful, it was due to God’s meticulous foreordination that they be unfaithful. Yet we find the LORD declaring the following:

My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water. Is Israel a servant, a slave by birth? Why then has he become plunder? Lions have roared; they have growled at him. They have laid waste his land; his towns are burned and deserted. Also, the men of Memphis and Tahpanhes have shaved the crown of your head. Have you not brought this on yourselves by forsaking the LORD your God when he led you in the way? (Jeremiah 2:13-17).

Even the LORD Himself confessed that the reason why He had acted thus with Israel was due to their own stubbornness and unfaithfulness -- unless one is willing to admit that it was God who meticulously foreordained their unfaithfulness so that He could punish them for the sins that He meticulously foreordained for them to commit. But yes, that is exactly what Calvinism teaches! God did not foreknow, strictly taken, the willing unfaithfulness of Israel and thereby decree whatsoever should come to pass, according to Calvinism. No, in order to be considered sovereign, again, according to Calvinism, God must have meticulously foreordained all things by decree, not by foreknowledge.

A question needs to be asked: What exactly is rebellion? For if the Israelites were rebelling against the LORD, then that means that they were rebelling against a command which God had ordered to be kept. If God is sovereign, in the manner in which Calvinists define sovereignty, then no one can ever disobey God’s foreordained plan -- which by necessity must include rebellion. By their rebellion, they were actually, "freely," obeying God’s strict, foreordained decree.

Yet we find God Himself admitting that human beings have the ability to reject His authority. The LORD said, "Indeed, long ago you threw off my authority and refused to be subject to me. You said, 'I will not serve you.' Instead, you gave yourself to other gods on every high hill and under every green tree" (Jer. 2:20 NET; cf. Jer. 2:29). But how could the Israelites reject God’s sovereign authority? How could they refuse to be subject to Him, since He has strictly foreordained all that comes to pass? God (allegedly) foreordained their rebellion, which they (allegedly) "freely" committed, and then God punished them for it.

But even God’s punishment for their sins did not result in their repentance: "In vain I punished your people; they did not respond to correction" (Jer. 2:30 NET, emphasis added). Respond to correction? But Calvinism teaches that God sovereignly grants repentance to whom He pleases. How could God complain about their lack of response to repentance when He did not grant them repentance (nor foreordain their repentance)? What we discover is that God made Himself vulnerable to Israel: "Indeed they have followed sinful ways; they have forgotten to be true to the LORD their God. Come back to me, you wayward people, I want to cure your waywardness" (Jer. 3:21-22 NET).

Was God genuinely granting them repentance? Yes, the LORD has this to say to the people of Judah and Jerusalem:

Like a farmer breaking up hard unplowed ground, you must break your rebellious will and make a new beginning; just as a farmer must clear away thorns lest the seed is wasted, you must get rid of the sin that is ruining your lives. Just as ritual circumcision cuts away the foreskin as an external symbol of dedicated covenant commitment, you must genuinely dedicate yourselves to the LORD and get rid of everything that hinders your commitment to me, people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. If you do not, my anger will blaze up like a flaming fire against you that no one will be able to extinguish. That will happen because of the evil you have done (Jer. 4:3-4 NET).

Is God sovereign? Yes, God is utterly and absolutely sovereign. Has He meticulously foreordained what every person should do by a mere decree irrespective of foreknown free acts? No, absolutely not. If so, then as the Old Testament proves, God would certainly be schizophrenic -- meticulously foreordaining that a person rebel against Him and then complaining about and punishing the person for obeying His foreordained decree to rebel against Him.

God was by no means finished in His complaining: "Oh people of Jerusalem, purify your hearts from evil so that you may yet be delivered. How long will you continue to harbor up wicked schemes within you?" (Jer. 4:14 NET). Calvinism must answer: As long as the decree of God has already foreordained.

Why did God punish Israel? "So then, Jeremiah, when your people ask, 'Why has the LORD our God done all this to us?' tell them, 'It is because you rejected me and served foreign gods in your own land'" (Jer. 5:19). Were they not just fulfilling that which God had foreordained? "But these people have stubborn and rebellious hearts. They have turned aside and gone their own way" (Jer. 5:23 NET).

Gone their own way? So, they did not go the LORD’s way, but their own way? Does that, then, mean that there were two ways: the LORD’s way of obedience and righteousness and their own way of disobedience and unrighteousness? "'There is no limit to the evil things they do. They do not plead the cause of the fatherless in such a way as to win it. They do not defend the rights of the poor. I will certainly punish them for doing such things!' says the LORD" (Jer. 5:28-29 NET). "The LORD said to his people: 'You are standing at the crossroads. So consider your path. Ask where the old, reliable paths are. Ask where the path is that leads to blessing and follow it. If you do, you will find rest for your souls.' But they said, 'We will not follow it!'" (Jer. 6:16 NET).

Calvinism would have us believe that God meticulously foreordained by decree that the Israelites "freely" rebel against Him (and that they could not have chosen any other path but rebellion), while the LORD stood by and commanded them to choose the righteous path. More to the point, Calvinists would have us believe that "God influences the desires and decisions of people. . . . But we must remember that in all these passages it is very clear that Scripture nowhere shows God as directly doing anything evil, but rather as bringing about evil deeds through the willing actions of moral creatures."⁴

But the question begging to be asked is, How does a "free" agent "freely" do something which God has meticulously foreordained for him to do? How can God be guaranteed that a "free" agent will "freely" decide to do that which He has foreordained, unless He eliminates all choices, thereby guaranteeing the outcome which He decreed? Moreover, if God eliminated all choices, in order for the "free" agent to "freely" do that which God decreed, then the agent was not free to choose the contrary whatsoever. Hence genuine freedom is a farce.

Non-Calvinists and Arminians do not need to rely on philosophy as a crutch to support their theology, as does Calvinism: Scripture clearly supports Arminian theology -- or rather, Arminian theology affirms the truths of Scripture. God told the Israelites: "Look! I have set before you today life and prosperity on the one hand, and death and disaster on the other. . . . Therefore choose life so that you and your descendants may live!" (Deut. 30:15, 19; cf. Jer. 6:16; Jer. 7:3-7 NET). Why would God grant the Israelites these choices if He had already meticulously foreordained by decree that which He had predetermined they should choose? How unjust would God have to be in order to foreordain that a person should "freely" choose rebellion, when that person had no other choice but to rebel against God? How unreasonable would God have to be to then complain about and punish the person who carries out that which He unchangeably and predeterminately decreed for him or her to do?

Do not be fooled into thinking that Arminians deny the sovereignty of God. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What Arminians deny is the Calvinist’s erroneous and philosophical insistence that God exhaustively determined everything that comes to pass merely by a divine decree. We do so because the Bible does not teach such a conception.

God will certainly "accomplish all things according to the counsel of his will" (Eph. 1:11 NET). But we are not permitted to go further and affirm that God has meticulously decreed all things, not from foreknowledge of genuine free acts, but according to a decree which necessitates sin, evil and rebellion. He told Israel: "Obey me. If you do, I will be your God and you will be my people. Live exactly the way I tell you" (Jer. 7:23 NET). Israel disobeyed the LORD, and He responded: "I have rejected them because the people of Judah have done what I consider evil" (Jer. 7:30 NET). They even sacrificed their infants by fire to a false god. The LORD responded, "That is something I never commanded them to do! Indeed, it never even entered my mind to command such a thing!" (Jer. 7:31; cf. Jer. 19:5 NET) Yet they did it! How? By God’s predetermined decree or by their own wickedness? Arminians affirm the latter, biblical response, while Calvinists espouse the former error.

The Old Testament even affirms that some of God’s intentions do not come to fruition, despite Calvinism’s promotion to the contrary. The LORD said, "For, I say, just as shorts cling tightly to a person’s body, so I bound the whole nation of Israel and the whole nation of Judah tightly to me. I intended for them to be my special people and to bring me fame, honor, and praise. But they would not obey me" (Jer. 13:11 NET, emphasis added).

The prophet Isaiah confessed the same sentiment, concerning the LORD building His vineyard, "What more can I do for my vineyard beyond what I have already done? When I waited for it to produce edible grapes, why did it produce sour ones instead?" (Isaiah 5:4 NET) I don’t see how anyone could read the Old Testament and not conclude that Calvinism is wrong.

__________

¹ Arminians and non-Calvinists hold that God has indeed decreed all things and "works all things after the counsel of His will" (Eph. 1:11 NASB), but has done so according with His exhaustive knowledge and foreknowledge of all people and their choices.

² The Westminster Confession of Faith, in The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, ed. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 2176.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 146-47. He also writes, "Our words, our steps, our movements, our hearts, and our abilities are all from the Lord." (146) How Calvinist (Christian) theologians can make this statement is beyond my ability to reason. When people use sinful words, make sinful steps and movements, develop sinful and unbelieving hearts, how can any orthodox believer claim that such come from a holy and just God? Determinism most clearly impugns the character of God.

What Must One Believe in Order to be Saved?

2012-01-26T05:00:00.008-05:00

The title of the post presumes that certain beliefs are directly connected with eternal salvation. In our (inclusivistic, egalitarian, relativistic, pluralistic, socio-politico-religio-savvy) Western culture, I have already presumed too much in the opinion of some people. For example, when a Christian can claim that the biblical doctrine of exclusivism "always ends up turning Christianity into some sort of Creedology: 'Believe thus-and-so (on pain of Hell) and you shall be saved.' . . . But, it is Christ alone who is the Savior!", we must ask ourselves: 1) Are not all people already self-condemned (John 3:18)? and 2) How does Christ the Savior save (1 Cor. 1:21)?

I could empathize with this complaint if Christ Jesus saved people in the manner in which Calvinists think -- by regeneration, due to an unconditional election. But when one considers that this statement belongs to a Wesleyan-Arminian, one should expect the answer to take on the conditional tone of salvation by grace through faith (i.e., "believe thus-and-so . . . and you shall be saved") since Scripture itself uses the exact same language (Acts 16:31).

What did the apostle Paul write? He emphatically declared that "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10:9 NASB, and henceforth, emphases added). From Scripture, then, we understand that right belief ("Believe thus-and-so (on pain of Hell [cf. John 3:16-18, 36]) and you shall be saved"), actually is connected with our salvation. "Right belief" is not our salvation, but it is certainly connected with our salvation.

By "right belief" we do not mean mere mental assent to some historical documents or creeds. By "right belief" we mean a faith in the right God, who is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, through the agency of the Person of the Holy Spirit. Wrong belief will certainly lead no one to salvation.

In a politically correct American society where even Mormons are thought by some to be viable candidates for the orthodox Christian name, this subject matter becomes all the more controversial. Historically, groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have always been considered “Christian heretics,” not orthodox Christians possessing salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. Regarding heresy, Religions and Cult expert Ron Rhodes comments:

It is for good reason that every book in the New Testament except Philemon has something to say about false teachers, false prophets, false gospels, or heresies. Jesus Himself sternly warned His followers to watch out for false prophets (Matt. 7:15-23) and false Christs (Matt. 24:5). The apostle Paul warned of a different Jesus, a different spirit (2 Cor. 11:4), false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13-15), and those who preach “another gospel” (Gal. 1:8; cf. 2 Cor. 11:4).¹

Rhodes continues, “First John 4:1 understandably urges believers to ‘test the spirits.’ The concern is obvious: Counterfeit prophets who speak of a counterfeit Christ who preaches a counterfeit gospel can yield only a counterfeit salvation. Because there are eternal consequences to false teachings, Scripture bears numerous warnings.”² (author's original emphasis) Because anyone can claim to be a Christian -- or a minister of the gospel or a “believer” in Christ Jesus -- we must understand what beliefs are entailed for one to call himself a Christian.

Must an individual have exhaustive knowledge of Christian orthodoxy before he can be saved? Of course not; he need know about sin, salvation by grace through faith in Christ, His substitutionary death and subsequent resurrection brought about by His Father, His own volition, and that of the Holy Spirit. After he receives the gospel by faith and is thus regenerated, he should then be made into a disciple of Jesus through orthodox Christian teaching.

In order to be called an orthodox Christian, a person should believe in one God. As obvious as that statement may seem, what I mean by “one God” is the Creator-Covenant-God of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible (Gen. 1:1-2, 26; John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:1-3). Already we have excluded Jews who reject Christ from salvation. Hence the exclusivity of the Gospel.

More particularly, I mean that the “one God,” though strictly one essence, exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: one God in three co-eternal, co-equal Persons (cf. Matt. 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34; 14-16; 2 Cor. 13:14). This is the God of Scripture. I do not mean one Person who manifests Himself at times as Father, other times as Son, and other times as the Holy Spirit. I mean three distinct Persons who each equally share the essence called God. No individual can become a god (as in Mormonism), since only the triune God can be and is by essence God (or by essence has God-ness, which is something human beings can never possess).

The Son of God, named Jesus from birth, was God incarnate, born of His virgin mother (Matt. 1:21). He was one hundred percent human and one hundred percent God, the only, unique Son of God the Father (cf. John 1:1-3; 3:16). Jesus lived a sinless life, was wrongly accused and tortured and murdered on a cross for the sin of the world (John 1:29; 8:46; 19:28-30). His body was actually dead after six hours of crucifixion, and Roman soldiers buried Him in a tomb (John 19:31-38). He was subsequently raised to life by the Father, by His own will, and by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:24; John 10:18; Rom. 8:11). He was raised to life so that those who trust in Him could be justified in God’s sight (Rom. 4:25).

Jesus ascended back to the Father, sat down at His right hand, and the Holy Spirit’s ministry in the Church and the world through the gospel subsequently took on a new dimension (Acts 2). The Holy Spirit, called the third Person of the triune Godhead, convicts sinners of their sin, lack of inherent righteousness and need of the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, and the judgment to come (John 16:8-11). He indwells those who by grace trust in Christ, and immerses them into the body of Christ, the Church (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:13).

Every person born into the world is in need of salvation -- salvation from one’s own sins and salvation from the wrath of God which is still to come (John 3:36; Rom. 3:23; cf. 1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 6:17). Deliverance from sin comes only by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ, for there is “no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12, emphases added); and be saved we must (John 3:3-5)!

In other words, we all need saving, since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Christ will return, and when He does, all people “will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another” (Matt. 25:32-33).

Those who have been “saved” or "born again" in this life (delivered from the wrath of God by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which brings about one’s renewed life or regeneration, cf. John 3:3-5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Titus 3:5), will be ushered into the coming kingdom of God (Matt. 25:34), while those who have not been saved and born again will be thrust from Him “into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41; cf. John 3:36).

In other words, after this earthly life, there will be recompense, however one reckons the particulars of the event. “Many of those whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace” (Dan. 12:2 NLT). God’s kingdom will reign in the new heavens and the new earth forever and ever (Rev. 21:1-4, 22-27; 22:1-5).

The authors of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit to convey the truth that all of God’s words are “true” (Ps. 119:160), and considered absolute, objective “truth” (John 17:17) -- that Scripture is “breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV), and that human initiative played no part in its origination, but that men were “moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21 NLT). Since Scripture plays such an important role in what we as Christians believe to be God’s revealed truth, no other writings are to be considered on par with Scripture (including but not limited to the Book of Mormon, the writings of the Watchtower Society, or any other alleged “prophetic” writings).

These are the essentials of the Christian faith. As anyone can see, there is room for diversity on other non-essential matters (though not exhaustively so), such as one’s view of how the end of days will be carried out, one’s view of baptism, one’s view of church government, or one’s view of election unto salvation. These diverse views do not affect one’s salvation by grace through faith in Christ. Therefore, we can affirm one another where we are in agreement, and challenge one another where we disagree, holding each other accountable to our only inerrant rule of authority: Scripture.³

__________

¹ Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 19.

² Ibid.

³ The Remonstrants (successors of Arminius) comment: “Because such divine authority as this belongs to these books alone [i.e., the books of Holy Scripture, excluding all books in the Apocrypha], it is therefore necessary that controversies and all debates pertaining to religion be examined by them alone [which excludes creeds], as touchstones and firm and unmovable rules, and to be disputed from them only, and so leave them to be decided by God and Jesus Christ alone as the one supreme and infallible judge.” See The Arminian Confession of 1621, trans. and ed. Mark A. Ellis (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005), 39.

Romans Catholics and Muslims in the Faith

2012-01-25T11:00:00.003-05:00

Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 ESV). This statement of Jesus settles forever the age-old question of the eternal place of those who do not come to the Father through Him. Remember the word in Hebrews: “Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who approach to God through him” (Heb. 7:25). Do Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims approach God through Jesus Christ? Since the clear answer is that they do not, then we understand from God’s word that there is “salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Roman Catholic teaching does not agree with Luke’s declaration in Acts 4:12. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church we read the following: “841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. ‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’”¹ (Thanks are in order to my friend Wesley Grubb for pointing this out to me.) This false teaching is altogether contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Either the Roman Catholic Church is correct, or Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is correct, but both cannot be accurate simultaneously.

My patience has been depleted by those who insist that Islam, as a religion, and Muslims believe in and teach about the same God as does the Christian, as I heard taught by Mother Barbara Cawthorne Crafton, an Episcopal priest, at a recent conference. She informed us that Jesus Christ has died for all people, hence all people will be saved (contrary to Matt. 7:21-23 et al.), and that Osama bin Laden is a child of God and not a child of the devil. This is inaccurate at best, and at worst a lie.

Jesus told some religious hypocrites: “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me” (John 8:44-45). Everyone who does not believe or trust in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is by default a child of the devil (1 John 3:8, 10) and a child of God’s wrath (Eph. 2:3; cf. John 3:36). Mother Crafton needs to read her Bible.

The reason why the angel Gabriel allegedly gave Muhammad the secret truths of the eternal² Qur’an is because it is God’s final revelation to humanity, and because the Jews and the Christians hold incomplete and deficient views regarding the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Qur’an is believed to be as eternal as is God Himself. Moreover, in its divinity, “it is greater than any prophet or any prophecy. It stands to Muslims as Christ does to Christians.”³

Muslims think it offensive to suggest that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, because they falsely have in mind physical, sexual relations. They also consider any theology of the Trinity to be polytheistic. Yet we have Jesus claiming Himself to be God’s Son (John 1:18, 49; 10:36; 11:4), and that the Holy Spirit, the Father and He are one in unity (John 14:15-16, 23, 26). Clearly, Muslims do not worship the same God as do Christians. Such an erroneous statement is offensive to both parties, but especially to Jesus Christ, God’s one and only, unique Son.

The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the teachings of the world’s false religions are “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”⁴ This, too, is a grave error. The only divine preparation for the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit, who is sent out from God the Father and the Son, to “prove⁵ the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of the world [the devil] has been condemned” (John 16:8-11). John MacArthur comments:

The singular [sin] indicates that a specific sin is in view; i.e., that of not believing in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God. This is the only sin, ultimately, that damns people to hell. . . . Though all men are depraved, cursed by their violation of God’s law and sinful by nature, what ultimately damns them to hell is their unwillingness to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior (cf. 8:24).⁶

Note that Scripture does not indicate any other preparation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ other than the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. He uses the Gospel, for “in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith” (Rom. 1:17 ESV). At best, false world religions demonstrate humanity’s desperate need for the Savior, but this in no way indicates that such are means of preparing one’s heart to receive Christ’s Gospel.

Most people are so blinded to the truth of the Gospel by their false religion that they cannot receive it. God’s Spirit may illuminate one’s mind of the falsity of their religion, but the “preparation,” strictly taken, belongs to the Spirit and Christ’s Gospel. The devil has “blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:3, cf. Heb. 1:3). The enemy uses false world religions in blinding minds to the Gospel. How, then, can any Christian admit that these false religions act in any way whatsoever as preparation for the Gospel? Thomas Oden remarks:

The Spirit penetrates the self-deceptions, evasions, defensive ploys, and indifference of the world. The Spirit works to change the lowered awareness of sin into heightened awareness, making the unrighteous hungry for righteousness, as if already facing final judgment. . . .
The Spirit points both to God’s present judgment of idolatry in history, and to God’s final judgment of all human folly. . . . This judging activity is already beheld upon the cross, where all humanity would be justly under the sentence of death and ready for execution except for the Advocate Son who takes upon himself the penalty, so that [as Lewis Sperry Chafer once said] “the sinner is placed on the other side of his own execution.” . . .
The self-righteous find it extremely difficult to believe that on the cross God has taken their sin upon himself. The Advocate Spirit enables this belief. As the Son is openly revealing the righteousness of God on the cross, so the Spirit is quietly illumining the righteousness of God as benefiting each sinner.⁷

Preparatory work in lost people can only be accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit, and certainly not by false religions, propagated by God’s enemy the devil. Islam is considered, if we are to be faithful to the words of Jesus Christ, a false religion -- one which proclaims a false gospel, a false deity named Allah, and another Jesus (cf. Gal. 1:6-9). “Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

__________

¹ Catechism of the Catholic Church (Liguori: Liguori Publications, 1994), 223.

² The Norton Anthology of World Literature, two volumes, shorter second edition (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009), 1:1008. Notes from the Introduction to The Koran read: “For Muslims the Koran is something greater than prophetic revelation. It is an earthly duplicate of a divine Koran that exists in paradise engraved in figures of gold on tablets of marble. Like God, it was not created but exists for all eternity -- a complete and sufficient guide to our conduct on earth. It is God’s final revelation to humanity and was sent by him to complete and correct all prior revelations.” Clearly, Muslims and Christians do not believe in the same God.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Catechism, 223.

⁵ John MacArthur comments: “This word has two meanings: 1) the judicial act of conviction with a view toward sentencing (i.e., a courtroom term -- conviction of sin) or 2) the act of convincing. Here the second idea is best, since the purpose of the Holy Spirit is not condemnation but conviction of the need for the Savior.” The MacArthur Study Bible NASB, ed. John MacArthur (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2006), 1583.

⁶ MacArthur, 1583.

⁷ Thomas C. Oden, Systematic Theology, Volume Three, Life in the Spirit (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2006), 91.

Jacob Arminius's Relationship with Rome

2012-01-25T10:00:00.000-05:00

Calvinist theologian Richard A. Muller confesses that “Arminius was certainly not a crypto-Catholic or a Jesuit sympathizer.”¹ Though charged in the Preface to the Acts of the Synod of Dort as having “received a letter from the pope promising financial rewards in return for advocacy of Roman theological views,”² Arminius fiercely opposed Roman Catholicism and its papacy, having stated just before his death: “I commend my soul, when it quits the body, into the hands of God . . . to the tranquility and peace, according to the Word of God, which becomes the Christian name; excluding the Papacy, with which no unity of faith, no bond of piety or Christian peace, can be maintained.”³

From Arminius’s own pen comes proof that the Calvinists of the Synod of Dort sought nothing more than to calumniate the good and godly name of Arminius and his followers, the Remonstrants. A certain minister in the Church of Amsterdam, where Arminius was pastor for fifteen years, claimed that Arminius believed the Pope was a member of the body of Christ (which was a scandalous confession during Arminius’s post-Reformation era). Arminius responds: “I openly declare that I do not own the Roman Pontiff to be a member of Christ’s body; but I account him an enemy, a traitor, a sacrilegious and blasphemous man, a tyrant, and a violent usurper of most unjust domination over the Church, the man of sin, the son of perdition, that most notorious outlaw. . . .”⁴

Furthermore, Arminius attributes the following titles to the Pope, and thinks that they are justified:

Others disparage him with titles quite contrary [to the lovely titles mentioned previously], such as, the adulterer and pimp of the Church, the false prophet, the destroyer and subverter of the Church, the enemy of God and the Antichrist, the wicked and perverse servant, who neither discharges the duties of a Bishop, nor is worthy to bear the name. Uniting ourselves with the band of those who bestow on the Roman Pontiff the epithets last cited, we assert that he is unworthy of the honourable titles which precede them, and that the latter disparaging epithets are attributed to him through his just deserts. . . .”⁵

In what sense, then, can the Calvinists of Dort conclude that Arminius was in any way in connection with or favored Rome? To admit thus is to expose one’s own prejudice and dishonest motives. I have hesitated to post Arminius’s thoughts regarding the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. My goal is not to offend Roman Catholics. My intention is solely to silence Calvinists who attribute Arminius’s theology (and soteriology) to that of Roman Catholicism (to say nothing of Pelagian- or semi-Pelagianism).

Pope Paul V, born Camillo Borghese (1552-1621), succeeding Pope Leo XI (1535-1605), was head of the Roman Catholic Church (1605-1621) during the time when Arminius penned his words against both the Pope and the Church. There was nothing about the person or attitude of Pope Paul V which triggered Arminius’s response. What Arminius wrote against the Roman Pontiff applied to all Popes, not just the current Pope.

In short, Arminius was no friend of Rome, the Pope, or Roman Catholic dogma. Francis Gomarus, Arminius’s fiercest supralapsarian opponent, argued that Arminius’s theology, as taught in class at the University of Leiden, “agreed with the Pelagians and the Jesuits.”⁶ One expects such unwarranted, emotional outbursts from supralapsarians like Gomarus. Arminius’s theology had nothing in common with either Pelagianism or Roman Catholicism (that of the Jesuits). Gomarus had no appreciation for Arminius’s use of scholasticism, which varied from Reformed teaching proper. Muller writes:

Like virtually every other Protestant theologian of his day, however, Arminius did dip heavily into medieval scholastic sources. And it is also the case that even when some account is taken of the polemical nature of the accusations made against him, the views of the theologians noted in the accusations -- Thomas Aquinas and two of the three Jesuits mentioned, Molina and Suárez -- do appear to have influenced his thought at certain crucial points.⁷

Even granting this fact, however, Arminius yet remained in the Reformed Protestant tradition. His aversion to Roman Catholic teaching and refutation of Pelagian doctrine (to say nothing of his holding to the five solas) cast him in a Reformed light. Notice Muller’s admission that Arminius was like “every other Protestant theologian of his day,” who dipped heavily into medieval scholastic sources.

We need to be reminded that Christian doctrine, including our views on the Atonement, God’s sovereignty, and His Decrees, did not begin with the Reformation. We must not overlook nearly fifteen hundred years of Church teaching. But we must cling to what is good and throw away what is lacking in truth. We also cannot ignore the fact that even supralapsarian Gomarus drew from the scholastic tradition. Muller sums up the difference between Arminius and Gomarus’s use of scholasticism:

The theological or interpretive grid placed by Arminius over his reading of the body of Christian doctrine was different from the grid employed by Gomarus: the latter stood more firmly in the confessional tradition of the Reformed churches and drew on the scholastic tradition in an attempt to create an orthodox Reformed system; the former, whatever one decides about his relation to the confessional tradition of the Reformed churches, drew on the scholastic tradition, including the contemporary efforts of Suárez and Molina, in order to move away from what he considered to be some of the more problematic formulations of his orthodox [though that is disputed!] Reformed colleagues and contemporaries.⁸

However, what cannot be denied by his opponents, admits Muller, is Arminius’s biblicism.⁹ Arminius’s opponents “were as intent on developing a biblical theology as he was, and their scholasticism was certainly the equal of Arminius’s own.”¹⁰ What is most plain regarding Arminius’s scholastic theology, in conclusion, is its antagonism to Roman Catholicism. All charges against Arminius attending to Roman Catholic dogma are to be dismissed as baseless, and only serves to implicate the one making the charge.

__________

¹ Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 29.

² Ibid.

³ Kaspar Brandt, The Life of James Arminius, D. D., trans. John Guthrie (Charleston, SC: BiblioLife, LLC, 2009), 298.

⁴ James Arminius, The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 1:298-99.

⁵ Ibid., 2:264-65.

⁶ Muller, 28.

⁷ Ibid., 29.

⁸ Ibid., 30.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

Bringing the Gospel to the Jains

2012-01-25T05:00:00.002-05:00

The religious beliefs in India all have one thing in common: they all operate in a hierarchical context.¹ While religious equality and tolerance generally flourishes among the social classes (Islam excluded), differences in social equality and status are vigorously distinguished and defended. If religions in India are measured by a hierarchical-adherent model, Jainism (pronounced Jin-ism) would list near the bottom.

Known by some scholars as the oldest world religion,² Hinduism, the fourth largest religion in the world, with more than one billion believers, seeks to teach its adherents “the wisdom and duties necessary to be released from the cycle of life-death-rebirth so that one’s true self may return to Brahman, the ultimate source of life.”³

While Jainism and Hinduism (and even Buddhism) find common ground philosophically, Jainism is its own sect -- it is not a Hindu sect, nor is it a Buddhist heresy (it predates the Buddha). It does not revere any god (unlike Hinduism’s polytheistic practice and belief), but seeks Jina (or Jīva, conqueror), a state one achieves through the conquering of one’s inner enemies. Jainism, as old as Hinduism but with only six million believers,⁴ seeks liberation through self-effort toward divine consciousness -- the divine within each mortal. This is accomplished through three venues: right faith, right knowledge, and right conduct. The first aspect of the Path for the Jain, right faith (or vision), begins with denials as much as affirmations.

Jains maintain a disbelief in a life beyond death in a Christian sense (yet there is “something more”), the authority of the Veda (the name given to ˈɦɪndi holy texts), and in a personal God(s).⁵ Worship, for the Jain, consists of practicing the Jīva’s discipline -- the beginning of right faith. This is not to indicate, however, that the Jains reject holy texts or holy teachers. Kendall Folkert comments:

“Jina” is an honorific term, not a proper name (cf. “Buddha”); it is given by Jains to twenty-four great teachers. The message and example of these teacher-conquerors was that the human being, without supernatural aid, is capable of conquering the bondage of physical existence and achieving freedom from rebirth; and that this conquest is to be achieved only by the most rigorous renunciation of all physical comforts and social constraints.⁶

Not only are the writings of the twenty-four great teachers constructive aids for the Jain in attaining Jīva, but so are the ancient texts Tattvarthadhigama-sutra and Jaina-sutra (to say nothing of the example and teaching of Vardhamāna, the “last prophet of the Jainas”⁷). Though Jains can be divided into the Digambara and Svetambara denominations, if you will, the only paramount difference, generally taken, between the two is the practice of Digambara monks: they wear no clothes, whereas the Svetambara monks wear white robes.

In Jainism, the universe is eternal, as is the soul.⁸ Gopalan explains that in order to avoid an infinite regress with regard to belief in a personal God (for if every existent person, so it is confessed, must have a maker, then that maker would have to be explained by another -- his maker -- so forth and so on), or why there cannot be many gods, one Jaina philosopher states: “Hence ‘it is not necessary to assume the existence of any first cause of the universe.’”⁹ Like all atheist religions, Jainism must relegate the existence of all things as having always existed. Hence the system has no viable answer to -- nor cares to address -- the concept of origins.

At this juncture, Christians have the opportunity of allowing Scripture to address the notion of origins, as well as presenting the gospel as the only reasonable answer to the problem of physical existence (or bondage to personal or extra-personal evil). Epistemologically, we understand that something cannot exist from nothing. If Jains maintain that the universe has always existed, the Christian can gently challenge him on this point. Since there is only one Maker, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:3), then one’s maker does not have to explain his maker, and his maker his maker, so forth and so on. Since God has no maker, but is the Maker of all things, then there is no infinite regress to avoid.

Moreover, there can only be one Sovereign ruler of the universe. Were there to be more than one Sovereign, there could be no such thing as ultimate sovereignty: one god would vie for ruling the other god for ultimate control. The living and true God (1 Thess. 1:9) confesses: “I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God” (Isa. 45:5 NASB, and henceforth). Furthermore, the constraint of physicality and overcoming one’s “inner enemies” can only be accomplished by the power of God, through His Son Jesus Christ’s accomplished work, made effective through the Holy Spirit. Christians can ask the Jain why he thinks that being physical necessitates one having inner enemies (this was not Jesus’ experience).

This conception mirrors what Christians believe about the sin nature, which can only be conquered through faith in Jesus Christ: “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come” (2 Cor. 5:17). The gospel of Jesus Christ offers humanity victory over sin and death: “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). What the Jain seeks to attain can only be accomplished through faith in God’s one and only Son Jesus Christ. This corresponds to the second aspect of the Jain Path: right knowledge.

Jain epistemology is referred to as pramānas (i.e., correct knowledge through reason).¹⁰ A valid test for correct knowledge “is considered to be knowledge which illumines itself as well as others.”¹¹ Knowledge is an essential aspect of the Jain Path: “Knowledge in general may be described as a system in which judgments of various types and on various matters have been co-ordinated, with the result that when a new piece of knowledge is received -- to start with, it is only a sensation -- it is interpreted in the light of knowledge already possessed. . . .”¹² This new knowledge is built upon the foundation of knowledge already acquired. Jains claim to know that “karmic bondage is a vicious circle.”¹³

This knowledge has afforded them the advantage of finding other ways to rid themselves of inner, physical turmoil and achieve Jīva. What is known as “karmic particles,” it is alleged, resides already in the soul, which tends to taint one’s being. Long writes: “So one dimension of Jain asceticism involves the purification and purgation of the soul, freeing it from the karmic matter that is already embedded in it, and which deforms it, obscuring its true nature as infinite knowledge and bliss, and threatening to attract more such matter through the passions its fruition can evoke.”¹⁴

Note, however, the Jains’ “knowledge” is subjective; it is initially only a sensation. In this manner, then, Jains advance an experiential hermeneutic. Their “knowledge” does not have to correspond with reality, only that with that which they have already “known.” Christianity teaches otherwise.

Christians engaging Jains can ask two compelling questions regarding knowledge: 1) how do Jains avoid deceiving themselves? and 2) how can Jains know with any semblance of certainty that “karmic particles” dwell within each person’s soul? First, Christian Scripture informs people that “the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9). The Christian God searches the heart and tests the mind, even to “give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds” (Jer. 17:10).

If all knowledge, including all new knowledge, is predicated upon knowledge already acquired, then whence did correct knowledge originate? If perfect knowledge originated from eternity past, then how does one know with certainty that this is so? Christians have eye witnesses from over a two-thousand year period who attest to the existence of their one, true and living God. The Christian’s God even sent His only Son Jesus Christ into the world in order to “save” (give the victory to) those who would trust in Him (John 1:12; 3:16-17, 26).

Both Jains and Christians are seeking to overcome something. For the Jain, it is karmic particles which corrupt one’s soul. In a biblical context, it is sin, inherited from the fall (Gen. 3), which also corrupts one’s soul and renders a person as separated from the life of and right relationship to God. The difference between these two systems is that the Christian is assured that through faith in Jesus Christ he will be saved (Eph. 2:8), not perhaps may be saved. In the Jain system, there can be no assurance. Second, Christian Scripture teaches that what taints one’s soul is not “karmic particles” but sin (Rom. 5:12-21).

Again, the only way to gain the victory (jīva) over sin is through faith in Jesus Christ: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). In this present state, the Christian is assured that he has -- he possesses now -- eternal life. He does not have to wait and see how things will pan out in the end. He is assured freedom from sin, death, hell and the grave because of what has been accomplished for him by his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This promise belongs to all -- Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim -- who will repent and trust in Jesus alone for salvation. The Jain, at this point, might see a similarity in the Christian “Path” by the Christians’ view of repentance, which prima facie corresponds to the third element of Jainism: right conduct.

Non-violence is a staple value in Jainism (as well as Hinduism and Buddhism). Belief in peaceful actions and reactions with other souls and right conduct go hand-in-hand in Jainism. “The most predominant characteristic of Jainism,” writes Gopalan, “is its insistence on the strict observance of the principle of non-violence.”¹⁵ The coordination between the mind and the body in this regard is absolutely essential for this aspect of the Jain Path. This belief is strictly held, to the point of its “minutest detail.”¹⁶

For example, Gopalan explains that “in regard to the killing of the one-sensed living organisms found in the vegetables, the ascetic is allowed no concession.”¹⁷ Jains often ridicule Buddhists for eating meat they find on the ground -- meat which they had not themselves killed, yet were consuming nonetheless. All living organisms are valued in the Jain religion. To destroy a living being is not right conduct. In the arena of conduct, Jains adhere to five vows: one set of five for the layperson¹⁸ and another set of five for monks and nuns.¹⁹ Right conduct comes from right knowledge, which comes from right faith. The goal of right conduct is ultimate deliverance. Radhakrishnan comments: “If deliverance is to be achieved, the lower matter is to be subdued by the higher spirit. When the soul is free from the weight which keeps it down, it rises up to the top of the universe where the liberated dwell. The radical conversion of the inner man is the way to freedom.”²⁰

Again, the similarities between the Jains’ belief in being released from corruption by way of conversion of the inner man and the Christian doctrine of regeneration and final salvation are astounding. Christians can use these similarities to their advantage.

In Christian teaching, an individual is incapable of perfect conduct due to the effects of the fall (Gen. 3). The apostle Paul is emphatic: “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). There is a two-fold problem with all human beings: 1) they cannot do enough good works in order to satisfy God’s wrath against their rebellion (Rom. 4:16); and 2) they cannot perfectly accomplish the good in order to satisfy God’s wrath against their rebellion (Rom. 8:7). Sixteenth-century Dutch theologian James Arminius writes: “In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and [attenuatum] weakened; but it is also [captivatum] imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.”²¹

But not only does man lack the righteous capacity for doing or being good, but even his motives are corrupt. Again, Arminius explains that the mind of man is “destitute of the saving knowledge of God,” and due to the perverseness of the affections and of the heart, he “hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God.”²²

In mankind’s desperate plight at being rescued from his predicament, the one and only solution is found in the work of Christ Jesus. The Jain is looking for “the soul [to be] free from the weight which keeps it down,” but seeks to accomplish this by a strict moral code. The problem, however, is that what keeps one from accomplishing freedom is his own corrupt nature. Human beings need something stronger -- something (or Someone) outside themselves -- in order to overcome their corruption.

In Christ Jesus, we have someone who has not only conquered all corruption (Jīva), but also grants this victory to the one who will trust in Him, thus avoiding the cycle of life-death-rebirth (which Scripture explicitly rejects, Heb. 9:27). For the believer, over all things “we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us” (Rom. 8:37). The Christian’s “rebirth” happens in this (and only this) life (2 Cor. 5:17; Titus 3:5), for our Savior, our Jīva, has pioneered the Path for us. We fix our spiritual eyes upon Jesus, “the author and perfecter of faith” (Heb. 12:2). One’s right faith, right knowledge and right conduct must find its epicenter in Jesus Christ, who is the way, and the truth, and the life -- the only way to the Father (John 14:6).

__________

¹ Hierarchical cultures pay special tribute to certain classes in a society. In the United States, egalitarianism is celebrated -- the concept that all persons are equal and are to be treated equally. This is not the case in places like India. Patty Lane states: “While every culture has its own protocol for certain occasions, hierarchical cultures rigidly adhere to their complex social structures.” See Patty Lane, A Beginner’s Guide to Crossing Cultures: Making Friends in a Multi-Cultural World (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2002), 73.

² John Dickson, A Spectator’s Guide to World Religions: An Introduction to the Big Five (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2008), 27.

³ Ibid., 25.

⁴ Patheos.com

⁵ Subramania Gopalan, Outlines of Jainism (New York: Halsted Press, 1973), 37.

⁶ Kendall W. Folkert, Scripture and Community: Collected Essays on the Jains, ed. John E. Cort (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 1.

⁷ Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1923), 286.

⁸ Jeffery D. Long, Jainism: An Introduction (New York: I. B. Tauris & Co., Ltd., 2009), 83.

⁹ Gopalan, 40.

¹⁰ Gopalan, 47.

¹¹ Ibid., 49.

¹² Ibid., 63.

¹³ Long, 94.

¹⁴ Ibid., 95.

¹⁵ Gopalan, 160.

¹⁶ Ibid., 161.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ These include: “1. Nonviolence (ahimsa): to refrain from directly and deliberately taking the life of any animal or human being. 2. Truthfulness (satya): to tell the truth and to engage in honest business practices. 3. Non-stealing (asteua): not to steal. 4. Sexual chastity (brahmacarya): to refrain from committing marital infidelity and to avoid pre-marital sexual activity. 5. Non-attachment (aparigraha): to avoid being possessive and materialistic.” See Long, 101.

¹⁹ These include: “1. Strict nonviolence in thought, word, and deed, avoiding even accidental injury to any living being. 2. Absolute truthfulness. 3. Non-stealing (literally ‘not taking what is not given’). 4. Absolute celibacy. 5. Non-possession: not owning any possessions whatsoever.” See Long, 102.

²⁰ Radhakrishnan, 325.

²¹ James Arminius, “Twenty-Five Public Disputations: Disputation XI. On the Free Will of Man and Its Powers,” The Works of Arminius, The London Edition, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:192.

²² Ibid., 192-93.

Ignatius of Loyola: Counter-Reformation's Jesuit Hope

2012-01-25T04:00:00.002-05:00

St Ignatius of Loyola was born Íñigo López in October 1491 in the Basque province of Guipúzcoa, Spain, to upper class parents ten months before Christopher Columbus was commissioned by Ferdinand and Isabella to set sail for the New World in hope to “find riches for the Treasury, depleted by the long campaigns against the Moors.”^[1]

After his birth, Ignatius is given to a “wet-nurse,” as was the custom among upper classes.^[2] He is the youngest of his siblings and educated for the clerical field, even though the Loyolas “were not known for their learning: all that was required of one with the family name to make his way in the world was a spirit of enterprise, and there was plenty of that in them all.”^[3] His father sends him to be a page in the court of Ferdinand, but Ignatius has little interest in such a position.^[4] Only three years later, around age twenty-nine or thirty, he is wounded in battle, when “a cannonball broke his right leg and wounded the left.”^[5]

During the painful, nine month process of healing, he requests reading material—books of chivalry being his preference.^[6] But the castle in which he is recovering only has a collection of the lives of saints and a medieval copy of Life of Christ. He takes up and reads these books, often thinking and re-thinking about the contents—comparing these new thoughts with the old, lustful thoughts upon which he used to dwell. He often thinks to himself, “What if I should do what St. Francis did, what St. Dominic did?”^[7] These thoughts eventually evolve into, “I should do what St. Francis did, what St. Dominic did.”

He often vacillates from the old, sinful thoughts to the new God-ward thoughts, noting that the latter gives him peace and comfort, while the former troubles him greatly, even if he relishes a bit in the former. He then realizes that the sinful, lustful thoughts have their origin from a demon, and the thoughts of a spiritual nature have their origin from God.

At this point, from the light or revelation he has received in those books, he “began to think more earnestly about his past life and about the great need he had to do penance for it.”^[8] He confesses to have a vision of “Our Lady,” and is “filled with sheer happiness that lasted many hours. He became conscious of a presence that gave him a total revulsion from his old dissolute life.”^[9]

From this moment on he is never again disturbed with regard to fleshly temptations. His greatest desire is to imitate the lives of the saints, though “he gave no thought to the circumstances, but only promised with God’s grace to do as they had done.”^[10] His desire is to travel to Jerusalem when he is well enough, “performing all the disciplines and abstinences which a generous soul, inflamed by God, usually wants to do.”^[11]

This idea is planted firmly in his psyche due to the pilgrimages to Jerusalem he had read about in Ludolph’s Life of Christ. He wants nothing of a return to court life, but only to live a life of penance, with the intent on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

Before Ignatius can travel to Jerusalem, he has to obtain permission from the Pope for such a pilgrimage, as per the ruling of Clement V at the Council of Vienne (1305-14).^[12] He makes a plan in 1521 to travel to the Pope in Rome, set out in 1522, but does not arrive there until February 1523.^[13] During this two-year interval, Ignatius develops a mysticism about his new-found faith. He believes that God has made His felt presence known to him in a very real sense. He admits that once, in prayer, his “understanding was opened and though he saw no vision he perceived and understood many things both spiritual and touching matters of faith and learning.”^[14] Philip Caraman comments:

The illumination was so dazzling that though he had known these things from childhood, they all seemed new to him. He admitted that he could not put into words what he had been given to understand about the creation of the world, the Eucharist, the humanity of Christ and, in the form of concrete images, the Holy Trinity with many different comparisons. It was a total mystical view of the world that he had been given, with a perception of how all things proceeded from God and how they all returned to their Trinitarian origin; and he saw at the same time the way all the mysteries of the Christian faith were interlocked.^[15]

This form of mysticism characterizes the system and society he later founds: the Jesuits. Harvey D. Egan admits that Ignatius is “an incomparable mystic whose mystical and apostolic gifts are really two sides of the same coin.” ^[16] By the word “mystic” or “mysticism,” Egan is not referring to other-worldly experiences or para-psychological phenomena associated with spiritual trances or visions, coupled with severe fasting and prayer or meditation.

According to Egan, Ignatius is apostolic because “he was one of the greatest mystics the Church has ever seen. His apostolic successes are the mystical expressions, the sacramental embodiment, of his radical mysticism.”^[17] Ignatius’ mysticism, in a broad sense, is “the implicit or explicit experience of faith, hope, and love that is rooted in all authentic human experiences.”^[18]

Egan also admits, however, that Ignatius’ mysticism, in a strict sense, includes an “infused contemplation,” obtained through the media of prayer and the “extraordinary grace” of God: “This prayer requires God’s special activity. God gives the person something new: the explicit awareness that God is present and that the person clings lovingly to him. By actual experience the person becomes directly and immediately aware of God’s loving, purifying, enlightening, and unifying presence. The person realizes that something totally new is occurring.”^[19] These mystical experiences are meant to root more deeply faith and hope in Christ, as well as the experiential knowledge of the love of God for an individual, and his or her love for God and for others.

Also, during the interval of time between setting out for and arriving at Rome, in which he claims that Christ Himself appeared to him several times,^[20] Ignatius writes his most famous work, Spiritual Exercises. His book “outlines specially designed exercises that take place over a period of thirty days. The first week is devoted to meditations on sin and its consequences, which is followed by three weeks of meditations on Christ’s life, concluding with his passion, resurrection, and ascension.”^[21] When he reaches the Pope, he is granted permission for his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and arrives there in September 1523. He spends three weeks there, visiting all of the places relevant to Jesus’ life and ministry.

Not wanting to leave, he decides to then return to Spain in order to further his education, where, at age thirty-seven, in 1534, he earns a Master’s degree. While Ignatius is earning his degree, a group of six men became his close confidants. This group “took vows of poverty and chastity and pledged themselves to go to Jerusalem to convert the Turks. If that were not possible, they agreed they would go to Rome to serve the pope.”^[22]

Their plan is to meet in Venice, in order to depart for Jerusalem, but is prevented by a war between Venice and the Turks. So they remain three years in Venice, “preaching and engaging in charitable works, and when they were still unable to go to Jerusalem, they decided to pursue their alternative plan of service to the pope in Rome.”^[23] The era is the mid-1530s, and the Roman Catholic Church is embittered in a Counter-Reformation, opposing Protestant theological reform, while acknowledging the need for moral reform.

Ignatius and his band of like-minded brothers become known as the Society of Jesus, also known as Jesuits. The spiritually transformed followers of Christ are moral, traditionally Roman Catholic theologically, with hearts aflame for the Lord. Pope Paul III (1468-1549) recognizes an opportunity for Church reform through Jesuit disciplines and grants papal permission for them to officially form the Jesuit religious order by 1540. James R. Payton Jr. writes, “The Society of Jesus would become one of the reformed papacy’s most powerful instruments in the Counter Reformation movement and in that regard would go vigorously on the offensive against the Protestants.”^[24]

Payton also eagerly informs the reader that the Society of Jesus is not “spawned or developed as a response to Protestantism.”^[25] This statement demonstrates that there exists those within the Roman Catholic Church before, during, and after the Reformation who, though still theologically Roman Catholic, are zealously opposed to the moral corruption within the Church and proactively affirming the practice of true spiritual disciplines.

But these spiritual disciplines are not to be practiced solely by monks or nuns. Ignatius does not desire for his Order to be monastic. According to Diarmaid MacCulloch, Ignatius “passionately wanted to affirm the value of the world and say that it was possible to lead a fully spiritual life within it—he was, after all, a cultured ex-courtier who had seen more of the world than most Europeans. . . .”^[26] The Society begins to raise money for educating Catholics, establishing its own college, which is “not part of an existing university, and yet which rapidly secured university status from the Pope.”^[27] This move on the part of the Pope was an effort to reform the Church, “converting Europe back to the faith.”^[28]

The Counter-Reformation’s hope for reform by the Jesuits comes at a time during the mid-1540s and 50s when such Reformers as Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer and Calvin are dying. As zealous as was Luther, so are the Jesuits. Payton writes, “Invoking a wartime casuistry of ‘the end justifies the means,’ the Jesuits readily assured Protestant parents who expressed reservation about sending their children to these excellent educational institutions that the Jesuit instructors would not proselytize their children.”^[29]

But that is a lie—a lie which they consider to be a “legitimate deception,” since it could, if their Roman Catholic teachings are accepted by the children—which also holds the potential of affecting the parents as well, and perhaps their friends—lead them back to the one, true Church, and thus place them on the only, true path to salvation, for there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic (i.e., Mother) Church.^[30] For all of the hard work of the Jesuits, however, true reform in the Roman Catholic Church is impossible apart from a papacy which desires reform. Had Pope Paul III not also longed for reform, we may have never heard of Ignatius or his Society of Jesuits.

Like Luther, Ignatius is troubled with frequent illnesses throughout his life. By May 1556, he is very ill, though still very active for the growth of his Order. He often reflects on the many spiritual-mystical experiences he encountered in order to cheer his mood. On the eve of July 30, 1556, he eats dinner alone and dies the following morning. Pope Paul IV delivers his eulogy, confessing—and not pejoratively—that “the Society . . . had lost its idol.”^[31] His death is not elaborate, calling for all relatives and close friends in order to depart this life by granting them his last blessings, or anything of the sort. He does not view himself as more worthy than anyone else suffering illness.

During his lifetime, he refuses to have his portrait painted.^[32] But at his death, one of his pupils attempts to capture the essence of his likeness. Many find his character difficult to define. Caraman writes, “He could act on a sudden impulse yet be highly prudent. Though gentle, he could be strong-minded and unyielding when there was opposition to be overcome. Often stern in a paternal manner, he was referred to in Rome as the ‘small Spaniard who limped a little and had such laughing eyes.’”^[33]

The Roman Catholic Church celebrates a feast day in his honor annually on July 31. He is “canonized” by the Roman Catholic Church in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. “Saint Ignatius” is considered the “patron saint of soldiers” by modern Roman Catholics. In the United States there are 28 Jesuit colleges or universities, with two theological seminaries. Ignatius’ legacy consists of the Jesuit Order, as well as his Spiritual Exercises, which is read and practiced by many Roman Catholics as well as some Protestant believers to this day.

^[1] Philip Caraman, Ignatius Loyola: A Biography of the Founder of the Jesuits (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 1.

^[2] Ibid., 4.

^[3] Ibid., 7.

^[4] Rudolph W. Heinze, Reform and Conflict: From the Medieval World to the Wars of Religion, A.D. 1350/1648, eds. John D. Woodbridge and David F. Wright (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 264.

^[5] Ibid. Heinze notes that his leg was “initially set incorrectly, and it had to be rebroken and reset twice; the injury left him with a limp for the remainder of his life.”

^[6] The Autobiography of St. Ignatius of Loyola, trans. Joseph F. O’Callaghan, ed. John C. Olin (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1974), 23.

^[7] Ibid.

^[8] Ibid., 24.

^[9] Caraman, 30.

^[10] Autobiography, 24.

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] Caraman, 43.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Ibid., 40.

^[15] Ibid.

^[16] Harvey D. Egan, S.J., Ignatius Loyola the Mystic (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1987), 19.

^[17] Ibid.

^[18] Ibid., 21.

^[19] Ibid., 23-24.

^[20] Autobiography, 49.

^[21] Heinze, 265.

^[22] Ibid., 266.

^[23] Ibid.

^[24] James R. Payton Jr., Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010), 181.

^[25] Ibid.

^[26] Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: A History (New York: Penguin Books, 2005), 224.

^[27] Ibid., 225.

^[28] Ibid.

^[29] Payton, 183.

^[30] Ibid.

^[31] Caraman, 198.

^[32] Ibid., 199.

^[33] Ibid., 200.

Conversions and Deconversions: A Response to Peter Pike

2012-01-24T05:00:00.007-05:00

Peter Pike of CalvinDude has raised an issue regarding Conversions and Deconversions as a result of thinking about the deconversion (or apostasy) of former Calvinist Philosopher Michael Sudduth. Before I begin, I want everyone to know that Peter Pike and I get along quite famously, so I have no interest in picking an on-line fight with him. I merely want to respond to his post, since he did ask, at the very last of his post, for responses. Peter begins:

It does bring to mind other conversions, however. I have read comments from some of the Arminians at SEA [the Society of Evangelical Arminians] who have said that any new convert to Christianity who reads the Bible will automatically find Arminianism. Arminianism can be read in Scripture, they say, while Calvinism must be taught.

What Arminians mean is that if converts are given a Bible, and they begin to read the scriptures, they typically do not conclude with any semblance of Calvinism. This is very telling, in that, when a convert, without certain theological presuppositions already in place, concludes with Arminianism in some form, there appears to be an evidence of objectivity that is missing from how most people come to believe in Calvinism, a system which must be taught to believers, as the majority of Calvinist converts will admit. Peter concludes:

I would counter by asking why it is that we trust those who are least experienced in Christ, who have followed Him for only a short time and who have not developed a long relationship with Him, would have some kind of inside knowledge about Him that those who have traveled the path of sanctification for many years would somehow lack. That is, why trust the immature Christian to show us the truth as opposed to the elders in the Lord?

We are not "trusting" those who are "least experienced in Christ," rather we are objectively observing that even new converts -- when merely reading the text of Scripture -- do not conclude with any semblance of Calvinism when they study their Bibles. But inherent in Peter's confession here are at least two significations: 1) there is an admission that Calvinism must be taught; i.e., Calvinism is not the result of a plain reading of the text; and 2) Calvinism has a tendency to breed Gnostic proclivities in its adherents.

Note Peter's language: "would have some kind of inside knowledge about Him that those who have traveled the path of sanctification for many years would somehow lack" (emphases added). This "inside knowledge" about God and His ways (e.g., His unconditionally electing ways and His alleged "secret" will or decree) are typically granted to the theologically elite: i.e., Calvinists. How often they admit that God "opened their hearts to the doctrines of grace," and, by implication, noting that God has not yet "opened the hearts of others to the doctrines of grace." Those who do not (yet) accept Calvinism are not among the sanctified and theologically initiated. (And if one is to be consistent, this is God's doing, or not doing, and no one else's.)

Peter acknowledges me as a former Calvinist-turned-Arminian, but confesses to know of no others (save the late Clark Pinnock who later, tragically, adopted Open Theism). Yet, he does concede that this could be in part due to his particular environment or context.

Indeed, it is, for the X-Calvinist Corner at Arminian Perspectives boasts many former Calvinists-turned-Arminians; and we have no doubt that there are plenty more of whom we are not aware. He continues, "Yet it still strikes me that even Arminians would acknowledge that there are far more former-Arminian Calvinists around than former-Calvinist Arminians." Who are the Arminians who have admitted this? None of us have the numbers, so to put it, so this is all speculative conjecture, and little else.

Peter concludes, "And this would seem, to me, an indication of the direction of sanctification in the lives of a believer toward the Reformed position as one matures in Christ." This bold statement, I believe, Arminians need to confront head-on.

To make any apparent lack of former Calvinists-turned-Arminians a matter of an insufficiency of sanctification in the lives of a believer is outlandish for at least two main reasons: 1) the Calvinist is no more sanctified ipso facto than is the Arminian; and 2) God is sovereign over our sanctification. If God really is conforming His children, both Calvinists and Arminians, to the image of His Son Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:29), then Peter's statement is amiss at best and prideful at worst. Peter is also convinced that this "shows the truth of the Reformed position in the fact that former Calvinists so often will renounce Christianity altogether" -- former Calvinists like Bart Ehrman.

This conclusion is a failure to count the proper noses and suffers in, again, two main areas: 1) perhaps Calvinism is the actual reason why they lost their faith (as with Ehrman); and 2) Arminians are certainly not without their fair share of apostates. Would this, then, indicate that this "shows the the truth of the Arminian position in the fact that former Arminians so often will renounce Christianity altogether" rather than convert to Calvinism? If we take Peter's logic, we are obligated to answer a resounding yes!

Do not think, however, that Peter Pike believes Arminians are unsaved people. He writes, "This is not to say that Arminians are not Christians, however." We are grateful for his brotherly kindness here, as we have been told by the likes of John Owen, Augustus Toplady, those at A Puritan's Mind, among a host of other Calvinists, that Arminians are unsaved heathen. Peter does confess, however, that "Calvinism is simply a more consistent form of Christianity." I have no problem with him thinking so, for I, too, think that Arminianism is simply a more consistent form of Christianity, without confessing that Arminianism is Christianity.

Finally, Peter writes: "If Arminians will grant me that (arguendo), consider this:

1. Calvinism is a more consistent form of Christianity.
2. Those who reject the more consistent form of Christianity have nowhere more consistent within Christianity to go toward.
3. Therefore, it is more likely that to reject the more consistent form of Christianity, one will reject Christianity as a whole."

If Calvinists will grant me the same arguendo, consider this:

1. Arminianism is a more consistent form of Christianity.
2. Those who reject the more consistent form of Christianity have nowhere more consistent within Christianity to go toward.
3. Therefore, it is more likely that to reject the more consistent form of Christianity, one will reject Christianity as a whole.

"This does seem, at least to me, to make sense," admits Peter, and I agree with him, at least with regard to Arminianism. Peter continues (my qualifiers are in brackets): "To abandon the more consistent form of Christianity [i.e., Arminianism] results in the desire to abandon Christianity as a whole. One would not logically expect many to step back to a more inconsistent form of Christianity [i.e., Calvinism] if they have trouble with Christian beliefs."

My conclusion, however, will not suggest that this abandonment has anything to do with a lack of sanctification on the part of Calvinism or Calvinists, as does Peter with Arminianism. He writes: "And if you couple this with the belief that Christian sanctification will result in Christians becoming more consistent, we have two facts that seem to lead inexorably (or, dare I say, irresistibly) toward Calvinism.

1. More Arminians become Calvinists than vice versa, indicating the flow of sanctification [which has not been proven, only speculated].
2. More former Calvinists reject Christianity completely than convert to a different form of Christianity, indicating that Calvinism is the more consistent version of Christianity [which also has not been proven, only speculated]."

There exists not one shred of evidence for all of Peter's claims. Is this not extremely problematic? In his defense, however, Peter does admit, "While the above is certainly not ironclad, relying on concepts that seem to be most plausible rather than formal logic, I think it ought to give food for thought to the Arminian." Well, we chewed it over and have spit it out for the reasons given above.

Total Depravity and Total Inability: A Biblical Case Study

2012-01-23T05:00:00.003-05:00

The doctrine of Total Depravity, according to Classical Arminian usage of the term, states that, though all of "the constituent parts of personhood remain intact after the Fall" (cf. Gen. 3:20-21), total depravity is "not absolute depravity," in that not everyone is as bad or evil as he could be, yet "every aspect of one's being is conditioned by sinful inclinations."¹ Arminian scholar F. Leroy Forlines continues, "In summary, total means that the corruption has extended to all aspects of man's nature, to his entire being; and depravity means that, because of that corruption, there is nothing man can do to merit saving favor with God."²

The concept of Total Inability is merely the corollary of the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity. In other words, because man is totally depraved in all aspects of his entire being, this state renders him completely unable, as Arminius and the Remonstrants confess, rightly "to understand, to will, and to do spiritual good things."³ If the doctrine of Total Depravity is accurate, then the conception of Total Inability is a necessary consequence. Incidentally, Calvinist R. C. Sproul, Sr., concludes that the "language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius"⁴ with regard to Arminius's doctrine of Total Depravity.

These conclusions were not derived out of thin air. There are biblical reasons why Classical Arminians and Calvinists hold the doctrine of Total Depravity and its corollary Total Inability. Let us look at some texts of Scripture to see if there is warrant for the doctrine, beginning with the fall of man.

"From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die" (Gen. 2:16-17 NASB, and henceforth); "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen. 3:6). That day Adam and Eve died; but what do we mean by died, and what did God mean that in the day they eat from it they shall surely die?

The Hebrew word muwth is a primitive root which means to die, whether literally or figuratively. The word can refer to a "natural" death "in peace at an old age, as in the case of Abraham (Gen. 25:8; Judges 8:32),"⁵ even though dying is not natural; death is very unnatural. Moreover, death is considered an enemy (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26). Death came about, if you will, "through unbelief and rebellion against God (Gen. 3:4) so that Adam and Eve died. The word describes dying because of failure to pursue a moral life (Prov. 5:23; 10:21)."⁶

Their disobedience -- and ours in them -- brought physical death into God's creation (cf. Rom. 8:19-22), as well as spiritual death. The apostle Paul partly states, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12; cf. 1 Cor. 15:21). Every sinner is "in Adam" before he is ever "in Christ" (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22), and hence he is a sinner before he is ever saved from his sins.

As sin entered the world, it effected creation (as seen in entropy) as well as the hearts of men (as seen in depravity). The prophet Isaiah writes, "Behold, the LORD's hand is not so short that it cannot save; neither is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear" (Isa. 59:1-2). Sin created a separation between God and the creatures whom He created in His image -- a separation which could never be spanned by man's efforts, because he lost his original righteousness and has been rendered helpless in mending the separation. "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (Rom. 5:6, emphasis added). "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8, emphasis added).

Not only are we, in a fallen state, helpless in doing anything positive about it, but we are rightly judged as sinners. If we are take sin and the fact that we are sinners -- those who commit sin -- seriously, then we are, in my opinion, obligated to believe and to teach the biblical doctrine of Total Depravity. "For sin is that condition and activity of human beings that is offensive to God, their Creator."⁷ All unregenerate sinners are in a state of sin and unbelief and thus exist as unholy offenders in an environment of condemnation under the wrath of God (cf. John 3:18, 36).

The state of sin in which the unregenerate sinner exists renders him unable to subject himself to the law of God (Rom. 8:7). "For this reason," explains Arminius, "the human heart itself is very often called deceitful and perverse, uncircumcised, hard and stony (Jer. 13:10; 17:9; Ezekiel 36:26): Its . . . imagination is said to be 'only evil from his very youth' (Gen. 6:5; 8:21); and 'out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,' &c. (Matt. 15:19)."⁸ Let us focus on two passages from which Arminius quotes.

Moses writes, "Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart" (Gen. 6:5-6). Note the depravity inherent in fallen man just prior to the Flood: every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually; not some intents of the thoughts of his heart were partially evil on occasion. No, the situation is much, much worse.

Even after the Flood, the LORD said, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). Again, the situation with regard to man's sinful condition is dire: the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth. Our wicked, evil hearts have a bent toward not righteousness but sin! This wretched condition has crippled us spiritually. The unregenerate man "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1 Cor. 2:14, emphasis added). Even our understanding of spiritual issues has been rendered helpless; hence the corollary Total Inability.

The prophet Jeremiah rhetorically asks, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good who are accustomed to doing evil" (Jer. 13:23). In effect, God insists that if the Ethiopian is inherently capable of changing the color of his skin, and also the leopard his spots, then sinful wicked people who are accustomed to doing evil can also do good in and of themselves. But that is far from reality. We cannot change the color of our skin nor our (sinful) spots. Arminian scholar Robert E. Picirilli writes:

This condition may rightly be called total depravity, in that it pervades every aspect of man's being, and total inability, in that it leaves him helpless to perform anything truly good in God's sight. As Watson expresses this: "The true Arminian, as fully as the Calvinist, admits the doctrine of the total depravity of human nature in consequence of the fall of our first parents."⁹

Indeed, the authors of Scripture, from Jesus to the apostle Paul, continue this theme of both depravity and its corollary inability. Jesus, for example, twice states, "No one can [denoting inability, not permission] come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44, emphasis added); "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can [denoting inability, not permission] come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father" (John 6:65, emphasis added). If we have the inherent ability to come to and believe in Jesus, then the contrary would not be stated thus in Scripture (see my Interpreting John 6:26-45: Coming to Christ).

The apostle Paul states, "Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" (Rom. 2:4 ESV, emphasis added) If we did not need leading, then the contrary would not be thus stated in Scripture. Paul writes elsewhere, "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil. 1:29 NASB, emphasis added). If we did not need to be granted belief in Jesus, then the contrary would not be thus stated in Scripture.

In summary, if we were not totally depraved and totally unable to come to and believe in Christ, scriptural statements quoted in this brief post would not only be gratuitous but actually inaccurate. Even Paul's use of the Midrash at Romans 3:10-18 is telling: Though each one of us has not committed every sin listed in the corpus of that passage (Rom. 3:10-18), our evil and fallen nature holds the seedbed for every despicable act imaginable. A bad tree is incapable in and of itself of producing good fruit (cf. Matt. 7:18). Hence Total Depravity and Total Inability.

Left to ourselves, we would never come to and believe in Christ. In our sins we are "dead" (Eph. 2:1), i.e., separated from a right relationship with and from the spiritual life of our Creator. "But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with [or, in] Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Eph. 2:5).

__________

¹ F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2011), 16-17.

² Ibid., 17.

³ James Arminius, "Disputation XI. On the Free Will of Man and its Powers," in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, the London edition, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:191. See also The Arminian Confession of 1621, trans. and ed. Mark A. Ellis (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2005), 63-69.

⁴ R. C. Sproul, Sr., Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 126. For example, Arminius states: "In this [fallen] state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and . . . weakened; but it is also . . . imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. . . . The Mind of man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. . . . To this Darkness of the Mind succeeds the Perverseness of the Affections and of the Heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil. . . . Exactly correspondent to this Darkness of the Mind, and Perverseness of the Heart, is . . . the utter Weakness of all the Powers to perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause. . . ." (Works 2:192-93, emphases author's original).

⁵ "AMG's Annotated Strong's Hebrew Dictionary of the Old Testament," taken from The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament by Warren Baker and Eugene Carpenter, in the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: Key Insights into God's Word: NASB, eds. Spiros Zodhiates, Warren Baker, and Joel Kletzing (Chattanooga: AMG International, 2008), 1920.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ The New International Dictionary of the Bible: Pictorial Edition, eds. J. D. Douglas and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 946.

⁸ Arminius, Works, 2:193.

⁹ Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002), 149.

The Myth of Free Will

2012-01-23T04:00:00.002-05:00

This post is a follow-up of the previous post Total Depravity and Total Inability: A Biblical Case Study. This post is merely an extension of the previous post, and merely expounds upon the Classical Arminian position of Total Depravity and its corollary Total Inability.

I heard a professor once inform his students that libertarian free will is “the freest of free will.” I wondered then where he had learned that definition or how he had arrived at such a conclusion. I have never heard nor read that libertarian free will is “the freest of free will” (i.e., that there is nothing to persuade the will toward evil, such as sin or a depraved nature). Prior to the Fall, both Adam and Eve experienced the “freest of free will,” but I know of no other fallen human being since then to have experienced the “freest of free will”; such “free will” is a myth, except to Pelagians.

We must be careful not to abuse or misunderstand the phrase free will. We cannot admit that God is free to act contrary to His nature, hence God does not possess absolute free will (i.e., He cannot will Himself ontologically contrary to His own reality or nature -- i.e., He cannot will Himself to be unholy). Nor can fallen human beings will themselves ontologically contrary to their (fallen) nature. Hence when we discuss libertarian free will, we do not mean that humans possess the innate ability to do anything imaginable -- it is not the freest of free will.

According to nineteenth-century Wesleyan theologian Daniel D. Whedon, freedom of the will is exemption: “Either it is exemption from some impediment to the performance of some act, which is a freedom to the act; or it is an exemption from a limitation, confinement, or compulsion to perform the act; and this is a freedom in direction from the act.”¹ Often this definition is coupled with the affirmation of contrary choice, meaning that when an individual makes a decision, he or she has more than option from which to consider.

This definition, however, does not advocate an inherent power or ability to do or accomplish anything imaginable, for Whedon admits that freedom “is not identical with power. The freedom and the power are different, and either may be antecedent condition to the other.”² Humans are functionally capable to perform volitional acts, for example, but this does not mean that they are always volitionally capable of fully performing all acts imaginable. “A man possesses liberty indeed . . . but not liberty in the Will, or of the Will, but liberty of the muscular power.”³ James Arminius concurs, stating that liberty, when

attributed to the Will, is properly an affection of the Will, though it has its root in the understanding and reason. Generally considered, it is various: (1.) It is a freedom from . . . the control or jurisdiction of one who commands, and from an obligation to render obedience. (2.) From the inspection, care, and government of a Superior. (3.) It is also a Freedom from necessity, whether this proceeds from an external cause compelling, or from a nature inwardly determining absolutely to one thing: (4.) It is a Freedom from sin and its dominion: (5.) And a Freedom from misery.⁴

He admits that the first two are reserved for God alone, and the last two are impossible for fallen creatures. Nevertheless, he insists that the third point (freedom from necessity) is “by nature situated in the will, as its proper attribute, so that there cannot be any will if it be not free.”⁵ In other words, no one commits a sin because God has foreordained or decreed for him or her to commit that sin. Fallen human beings do not possess free will with regard to freedom from misery due to sin, from sin itself and its dominion, from God’s providence and sovereignty, and from responsibility to obey His commands. Our freedom from misery will be restored one day, when Christ shall translate our “body and soul into celestial blessedness.”⁶

Concerning Arminius’s views on Total Depravity and Total Inability, Calvinist scholar R. C. Sproul states, “The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius.”⁷ Sproul naturally disagrees with Arminius and the Arminian’s solution to the problem of Total Depravity and Inability and how it liberates human beings from their bondage to sin, but he nevertheless acknowledges that Arminius “affirms the ruination of the will [as do all Classical Arminians], which is left in a state of captivity and can avail nothing apart from the grace of God.”⁸

Does this mean that fallen people can do no good thing? No, for Jesus confesses that evil people know how to give good things to those they love (Matt. 7:11; Luke 11:13). Does this mean that fallen people can do anything savingly good?

Arminius (and all Classical Arminians) affirms that, due to our fallen nature and the lost state of free will toward all spiritual good, due to the darkness of our mind, which is “destitute of the saving knowledge of God,”⁹ and due to the perverseness of the once good affections of the heart, succeeds to the utter weakness of all the powers or ability to “perform that which is truly good, and to omit the perpetration of that which is evil, in a due mode and from a due end and cause.”¹⁰

This fact is supported by various scriptures, notably, a “corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 12:18; cf. Matt. 12:34; John 6:44; Rom. 6:20; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:6-14; 2 Tim. 2:26): “To the same purpose are all those passages in which the man existing in this state is said to be under the power of sin and Satan, reduced to the condition of a slave, and ‘taken captive by the Devil’ (Rom. 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:26).”¹¹ So, then, how do we reconcile libertarian free will with Total Depravity and Total Inability?

all who hold to Total Depravity and Total Inability do not mean that fallen human beings are as bad as they could be, by the grace of God. We simply mean that humanity has been totally affected by the effects of the Fall, in its physical and metaphysical composition.
fallen man cannot be good enough or do enough good deeds to merit the favor or grace of God. All of our righteous deeds are disgusting and filthy before Him (Isa. 64:6); we can do no savingly good thing. Apart from God’s grace and mercy, we have no hope.
though our will toward spiritual issues was lost in the Fall, we still retain certain abilities, even though they are hampered by the effects of sin: reason, thought, volition.

Our reason remains, though it is darkened by sin. Our ability to think remains, though it is tainted by sin. Our volition remains, though it has been affected by sin. If an unregenerate individual is to trust in Christ, such ability must be granted to him. Though this ability can be resisted, it is still a sufficient means for enacting faith in Christ.

Such a view, we think, has less relation to cause and effect than to influence and response. We do not deny that God could have established humanity’s salvation as cause and effect. But we deny that Scripture teaches salvation in that manner. No one is justified and therefore saved apart from personal faith in Christ Jesus. This truth concerns the doctrine of Election as well (i.e., those whom God has chosen to save, 1 Cor. 1:21), and leads Arminian scholar F. Leroy Forlines to comment:

The question that I am concerned about is not whether some constraint is imposed on God outside His will. I do not believe that is the case either. The question is whether His own holy nature forbids him to choose anyone for salvation apart from Christ. Does not His own holy nature forbid Him to choose a person for salvation apart from the application of atonement? Will not His holy nature forbid Him from performing a redemptive act on a person before the death and righteousness of Christ is imputed to him? I think it will.¹²

Again, if someone is to trust in Christ, such gracious ability must be granted to the individual first. Only then can someone freely choose to believe. The choice is said to be free because the Spirit of God freed the will from its bondage to sin in order for him to freely choose to believe. Since this gracious ability is resistible, a person may, for whatever reason, choose not to believe. I think what would be more appropriate to confess is that Classical Arminians believe primarily in freed will more so than free will, with regard to believing in Christ, by the gracious enablement of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11) through the gospel (Rom. 1:16-17; 2:4).

Libertarian free will, however, when used properly, appertains to making a choice between two or more options, the outcome of which was not strictly or meticulously predetermined by God merely by a decree. If one admits that God has already predetermined our decisions, again, merely by a decree (because that is what He wanted to occur), then we cannot speak of free will in any manner whatsoever. We can then only concede to what Calvinist Wayne Grudem refers to as “the error of fatalism or determinism” and thus conclude that “our choices do not matter or that we cannot really make willing choices.”¹³

Will sin affect what natural choices we make? That is a possibility, but not a necessity. In what manner soever the effects of sin may influence our decisions, they do not always, by necessity, determine our decisions, by God’s grace. If the contrary were true, then there could be no semblance of good in the world. People would only choose evil, and fallen human beings would be as bad as they could be.

This is not, however, reality. Evil people civilly choose to do good things. People make decisions based on more than one option and they possess the libertarian freedom to choose between more than one option. However, with regard to sin, which is the chief Arminian concern here, if God has predetermined an individual to sin, giving him or her no other option but to sin, then I find it impossible not to charge God as being the worse sinner in the universe. Scripture teaches the contrary.

__________

¹ Daniel D. Whedon, Freedom of the Will: A Wesleyan Response to Jonathan Edwards, ed. John D. Wagner (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 11.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid., 15.

⁴ James Arminius, “On the Free Will of Man and its Powers,” in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:190.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 126.

⁸ Ibid. Sproul, again, although disagreeing with Arminius’s solution to the problem of depravity, continues: “Arminius not only affirms the bondage of the will, but insists that natural man, being dead in sin, exists in a state of moral inability or impotence. What more could an Augustinian or Calvinist hope for from a theologian? Arminius then declares that the only remedy for man’s fallen condition is the gracious operation of God’s Spirit. The will of man is not free to do any good unless it is made free or liberated by the Son of God through the Spirit of God.” (128) Jesus states, “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36 NASB).

⁹ Arminius, Works, 2:192.

¹⁰ Ibid., 2:193.

¹¹ Ibid., 2:193-94.

¹² F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2001), 265.

¹³ Wayne A. Grudem, Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith, ed. Jeff Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 151.

Roger Olson's Use of Arminian History

2012-01-21T17:00:00.007-05:00

Post-conservative, neo-evangelical, egalitarian, Arminian Roger Olson decided he would publicly continue a private discussion he had with some of us who insisted that Arminius was an exclusivist in his post Was Arminius an Inclusivist? Continuing a Conversation. I had initially intended not to respond to him, but since he refused to respond to my private e-mails, and also deleted a response I made on his own blog on this issue, I decided to respond.

I do so in an effort for others to view for themselves the distance Olson's opinions and theology places him from conservative Classical Arminian views -- views of Jacob Arminius himself and his followers the Remonstrants.

Of course, Olson is an inclusivist, and he believes that Arminianism best suits inclusivist ideology. I disagree and think Olson is wrong where Arminius and the Remonstrants are concerned. Wesleyan-Arminianism may best suit Inclusivism, but Classical Arminianism -- that is, the theology of Arminius and the Remonstrants -- best suits Exclusivism.

The charge from Arminius's opponents was made: God undoubtedly converts, without the external preaching of the Gospel, great numbers of persons to the saving knowledge of Christ, among those . . . who have no outward preaching; and He effects such conversions either by the inward revelation of the Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of Angels (Borrius & Arminius).¹

Arminius began, "I never uttered such a sentiment as this. Borrius has said something like it, though not exactly the same,"² stating that the words "undoubtedly" and "great numbers of persons" were added by their detractors; neither man ever affirmed the added sentiments. Arminius continues:

Besides, if this saying of Christ had occurred to the recollection of our brethren, "Speak, Paul! and hold not thy peace: For I have much people in this city" (Acts 18:9-10), they would not so readily have burdened us with this article, who have learned from this saying of Christ, that God sends the external preaching of his word to nations, when it is his good pleasure for great numbers of them to be converted.³ (emphasis added)

Far from serving Olson's inclusivistic agenda, Arminius here admits that God "sends the external preaching of his word to nations" when God wants their conversion; not through other means but by external preaching of Scripture, nonetheless.

Arminius continues to quote from a "very common and frequent" affirmation -- that the "ordinary means and organ of conversion is the preaching of the Divine word," and he states that this confession "obtains our high approval."⁴ (emphases added) He then wonders why his opponents added words such as "undoubtedly" or the notion that "great numbers of persons" are converted in any other manner.

He continues to expound upon the notion of extraordinary means of conversion which God might employ other than the agreed upon "external preaching of his word to nations." Any other extraordinary means could not, by definition, be admitted to occur to "great numbers of persons," as they were charged as affirming, since the word "extraordinary" is opposed to "ordinary," with regard to means. He continues:

With regard to the Second, if "the preaching of the word by mortal men" be "the ordinary means" by which it is also intimated that some means are extraordinary, and since the whole of our church, nay, in my opinion, since the whole Christian world bears its testimony to this, then indeed it is neither a heresy nor an error to say, "Even without this means [without the preaching of the word] God can convert some persons [as given in the example of the apostle Paul, cf. Acts 9:4-6]." (emphasis added)

To this might likewise be added the word "undoubtedly:" For if it be doubtful whether any one be saved by any other means (that is, by "means extraordinary") than by human preaching, then it becomes a matter of doubt whether it be necessary for "the preaching of the Divine word by mortal men" to be called "the ordinary means."⁵

What is the end of the matter, then? If someone like the apostle Paul was converted without the external preaching of the divine word, which is God's ordinary means of converting sinners, then does this, in fact, occur with a great number of persons? The answer, according to Arminius, is no. The ordinary means by which God converts sinners is the external preaching of the divine word. This admission is no semblance of Inclusivism. He continues,

What peril or error can there be in any man saying, "God converts great numbers of persons (that is, "very many"), by the internal revelation of the Holy spirit or by the ministry of angels" provided it be at the same time stated that no one is converted except by this very word, and by the meaning of this word, which God sends by men to those communities or nations whom He hath purposed to unite to himself?⁶ (emphases added)

The conclusion is clear. He qualifies his understanding on the matter by clearly stating that "no one is converted except by this very word, and by the meaning of this word," except in extraordinary or rare cases, due to God's will, as in the apostle Paul's case. Again, this is no semblance of Inclusivism. Arminius's conception is too far a gap to bridge to make it a "form of Inclusvism," as Olson maintains. (Arminius and the Remonstrants' exclusivist claims have been documented here and here, which Olson ignores.)

Dr. Olson tends to use Arminius and the Remonstrants when they serve whatever agenda he is trying to advance. For example, when engaging the subject of the doctrine of Perseverance, he tried to demonstrate to his readers that the Remonstrants were ambiguous on the matter (link), confessing their conclusion that more study needed to be made before they were willing to make a dogmatic conclusion. That is true, so long as one is reading The Remonstrance of 1610.

However, by 1618, when they had written The Opinions of the Remonstrants, their Fifth Article clearly affirmed:

3. True believers can fall from true faith and can fall into such sins as cannot be consistent with true and justifying faith; not only is it possible for this to happen, but it even happens frequently.

4. True believers are able to fall through their own fault into shameful and atrocious deeds, to persevere and to die in them; and therefore finally to fall and to perish.

When I responded to Olson's post about the Remonstrants' confession of 1618, he would not post it. Why not just be honest and objective about Arminian history? The Remonstrants affirmed the doctrine of Apostasy. This historical fact, however, does not demand obligation of all Arminians to hold the same. Yes, the overwhelming majority of Arminians in history held to the doctrine of Apostasy.⁷ But if someone holds to all points of the Remonstrants save one, is he disavowed from calling himself an Arminian?

Finally, whether Arminius, the Remonstrants, the Wesleys, or later Wesleyans held to one particular doctrine or another with which one disagrees makes little difference to me. For example, calling myself an Arminian, though it often has to be qualified, is a way to express my own doctrine of salvation; which is what Classical Arminianism is: a theology of salvation. (See F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson, published by Randall House, 2011.) I do not see any advantage in abandoning the title.

__________

¹ Taken from "Apology against Thirty-One Theological Articles: Article XVIII," in The Works of Arminius, three volumes, the London edition, trans. James and William Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 2:20.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid., 21.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid., 21-22.

⁶ Ibid., 22.

⁷ Picirilli writes, "The very fact that he [Arminius] and his followers raised this question [of perseverance] . . . indicates that this view [Apostasy] was sure to follow from the basic principle that salvation is conditional. Ever since that early period, then, when the issue was being examined again, Arminians have taught that those who are truly saved need to be warned against apostasy as a real and possible danger." See Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2002), 198.

Saturday Devotion: Early Baptists for Religious Freedom

2012-01-21T05:00:00.003-05:00

Tom Nettles, Professor of Historical Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, in his three volume The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, writes, in this second volume, about the views of early Separatist Baptists John Smyth and Thomas Helwys on the topic of freedom of religion -- a freedom that we in the United States take for granted. Nettles writes the following. Old English forms have been modernized.

__________

John Smyth, in his Propositions and Conclusions, stated the doctrine [of religious freedom] clearly and succinctly. All the constituent elements of a mature doctrine were present:

That the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to leave Christian religion free, to every man's conscience, and to handle only civil transgressions ([Rom. 13:1-7]), injuries and wrongs of man against man, in murder, adultery, theft, etc., for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience ([James 4:12]).

This position follows a reasoning built on the doctrines of repentance, faith, the new birth or regeneration, the nature of the church, the nature of the ordinances, the qualifications of those who administer the ordinances and maintain discipline. Magistrates are not capable of ministering to the "new creature." They are established to keep men from devouring one another and to maintain justice and civility among them. . . .

Thomas Helwys wrote Mystery of Iniquity virtually simultaneously with the publication of Smyth's final confession and thus wrote independently of him, though certainly conversant with his ideas through their long friendship and united with him on most aspects of this doctrine.

They had arrived at common conclusions about the church in their work together, and their convictions about the church led to their dismissal of the magistrate's authority as of any use or prerogative at all in its formation or propagation. In summarizing the contents of his book Helwys writes: "That none ought to be punished either with death or bonds for transgressing against the spiritual ordinances of the new Testament, and that such offenses ought to be punished only with spiritual sword and censures."

A well-spoken word indeed, for Helwys did not come up short on censure. H. Wheeler comments: "It has the passion, and to some extent, the method of the prophet Amos, for its denunciations move swiftly round the contemporary horizon to concentrate on more immediate concerns, viz., the vindication of religious liberty and of the true and consistent Separatism." . . .

Even though Helwys vigorously rejected Roman Catholic ecclesiology, he just as vigorously implored King James "that we may be free from suspect, for having any thoughts of provoking evil against them of the Romish religion, in regard of their profession, if they be true and faithful subjects to the King for we do freely profess that our lord the King that no more power over their consciences than over ours, and that is none at all."

If these requests for hands off the church and hands off the conscience were not bold and forceful enough, Helwys followed it with a clear assertion of the rationale behind his gentle admonitions.

For our lord the King is but an earthly King, and he has no authority as a King but in earthly causes, and if the King's people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all human laws made by the King, our lord the King can require no more: for men's religion to God is between God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it. Nether may the King be judge between God and man. . . .

After several scriptural examples and arguments seeking to seal the points that he has made he again gives rhetorical admonition to the king to consider "by what warrant of God's word the King can now take to himself a spiritual power, and set up an Hierarchy of Archbishop and Lord B. and give authority to them to make laws and Canons of religion and to give them power to compel men unto the obedience thereof." . . .

The anti-Calvinist context of Helwys' argument indicates that he believed Calvinism fostered the assumed prerogatives of persecution. [See posts Dutch Calvinists against Religious Freedom and Arminius and the Remonstrants for Religious Freedom.] He even applied his central idea of the Mystery of Iniquity to the distinctive doctrines of the Calvinists. "We are not able to the full desire of our souls to discover the depth of the mystery of iniquity in this opinion of Particular Election and Reprobation and so of Particular redemption, nor to show forth the great mystery of godliness in the true and holy understanding of Universal or the General Redemption of all by Christ."

That persecution and Calvinism did not share the same soul soon would appear by the arguments of many Particular Baptists for liberty of conscience. But the followers of Helwys had not yet fired their last shot in this cause.

__________

Tom Nettles, The Baptists: Key People Involved in Forming a Baptist Identity, Volume Two: Beginnings in America (Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2005), 26-28.

What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah

2012-01-20T05:00:00.001-05:00

The following is taken from Rachmiel Frydland's What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah: A Study of Genealogy and Prophecy, published by Messianic Publishing Co., 1993.

__________

As a religious Jew raised in the yeshivot [institutes of learning; cf. also yeshiva] of Poland, like my peers, I knew that the secrets of Israel's redemption and the Messianic Days lay hidden in the book of Daniel. I also knew that some of the great Talmudic and post-Talmudic Rabbis had plunged into the study of this book and even plummeted the hidden secrets of its symbolic signs and cyphers.

The Talmud and Midrash [Jewish writings and commentaries respectively], discussing Israel's redemption, often refer to the book of Daniel as the revealer of the secret time of Messiah's coming. However, at the yeshiva I was ominously reminded of a warning and a curse pronounced against those who try to figure out the end. The Talmud says:

May they drop who try to figure out the end; for they say, since the time of his [Messiah's] coming has already arrived yet he did not come, therefore he will not come at all.

This extreme condemnation can be understood when the error of Rabbi Akibah designating Bar Kosiba the Messiah is considered. . . . In the yeshiva I was therefore forewarned that the secrets are in the Scriptures, but that it was dangerous to make assumptions or to figure them out lest we come to the wrong conclusion, as did Rabbi Akibah. . . .

The study of our greatest sages brought them to the conclusion that if the dates in the Scriptures are correct, then Messiah should have come in the first century of our era, or thereabouts. In a Talmudic portion it is written concerning the timing of the Messianic Age:

The school of Elijah taught: The world is to be for six thousand years; two thousand years empty without Torah; two thousand years with Torah; and two thousand years Messianic Times. . . .

The many [would-be] Messiahs who flourished during that period, claiming themselves to be redeemers, were all great disappointments. Finally, Simon Bar Kosiba, whom Rabbi Akibah called "Bar Kochba," came. Though he was active in the first part of the second century, Rabbi Akibah nonetheless adjusted him to the Messianic claim. For the majority of the Jewish people Bar Kosibah was a tragedy and a disappointment. Apart from the loss of tens of thousands of Jews at his defeat in Betar C.E. 135, his activities resulted in untold sufferings for the surviving Jews.

In an eleventh century rabbinic portion we read:

Woe, for the salvation of Israel has perished! But a voice came from heaven saying, "Elijah, it is not as you think, but He will be 400 years in the Great Sea, and eighty years with the Sons of Korah where the smoke ascends, and eighty years at Rome's gate, and the rest of the years He will travel about the great Cities until the end.

In another rabbinic portion, based in part upon a scripture in the book of Lamentations, ["she has none to comfort (Menachem) of all her friends,"] the name of the Messiah is identified as Menachem Ben Ami-el. Messiah, then, is clearly "alive and well" for the last nineteen hundred years, according to these rabbinic writings. His name is Menachem (the Comforter) Ben Amiel (God is with his People). He started to work around the great Mediterranean Sea, went to Samaria (Korah), then Rome and the ends of the world.

We may ask: Why was He expected during the first century? Clearly there was a certainty that Messiah had to appear at that period. This conviction was probably based upon the . . . passages in the book of Daniel [Dan. 9:24-26]. . . . This revelation was a result of Daniel's prayers given to him by the angel Gabriel to explain the time, substance and circumstance of Israel's redemption.

The time embraced was "seventy sevens" [Dan. 9:24-26]. Within the sixty-nine heptads (weeks of years), that is within 483 years, there will be a building up of Jerusalem's streets and canals, though in troublous times. After these 483 years, "Messiah will be cut off and not for himself." After Messiah is cut off, the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple will be destroyed "by the people of the prince that shall come." Messiah was to come before the destruction of the Temple. This is the picture that the archangel Gabriel gave to Daniel.

It was Daniel's prophecy that challenged me many years ago to consider the Messiahship of Yeshua the Nazarene [Jesus of Nazareth]. Rabbinic authorities to whom I consulted said that the reference to Messiah in Daniel's prophecy was to King Agrippa, Herod's descendant, who is called "Messiah" here and who was "cut off" before the Temple's destruction. Hence, the term "Messiah" is transferred to a carnal king, like Agrippa, or to the unknown Menachem Ben Amiel as recorded in the Midrash. On the other hand, I learned of Yeshua the Nazarene, who was "cut off" forty years before the Second Temple was destroyed.

The revelation given to Daniel also deals with the substance and the circumstances of Messiah's activity, "to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteousness." In other words, Messiah's death is distinctly connected with the atoning work that the Temple sacrifices were to accomplish, except that it would be a work of completion and fulfillment far greater than any Temple sacrifices could possibly secure.

I was thus enabled to lay aside my fears and prejudices and to open the Brit Hadasha [i.e. New Covenant/Testament] and learn more of him, who, as the Prophet says:

Hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement for our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.

Yeshua indeed fits perfectly into Daniel's timetable. No one else qualifies; neither King Agrippa nor the mystical Menachem fulfills Daniel's prophecy. Yeshua is the Messiah! He came to give peace to the individual who repents and accepts his atoning sacrifice. He is coming again in might to establish his Kingdom l'olam va'ed [i.e. for all the world eternal]. Amen!

__________

Rachmiel Frydland, What the Rabbis Know about the Messiah: A Study of Genealogy and Prophecy, second edition, ed. Elliot Klayman (Columbus: Messianic Publishing Co., 1993), 73-77. (The link provided is for the third edition.) From the back cover: "Rachmiel Frydland (1919-1985) studied in the religious learning institutes of Poland. He suffered through the Nazi invasion of Poland and escaped to tell his story of how he came to know the Messiah, recorded in his autobiography, When Being Jewish was a Crime. His extensive knowledge of Jewish Scripture and rabbinic writings made him particularly qualified to write this book."

You Do Not Suffer Alone

2012-01-19T05:00:00.002-05:00

King David penned the following lines for his song to the LORD: “My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them” (Psalm 139:15-16 NASB). To say that God has ordained in His book all the days ordained for each one of us includes whatever trials you and I might face.

Some of us disciples and followers of the Lord Jesus Christ may never be faced with physical, emotional, psychological or spiritual anguish. Many of us may never experience much pain on these levels in any relative sense. Death is not natural, but at one time or another, we will all face the death of a loved one. Disastrous weather is not natural, but at one time or another we may be faced with the destructive force of weather, or know someone who has.

If any Christian has not experienced suffering of any kind, however, then he or she is at least called to suffer with the rest of Christ’s body who are experiencing suffering or persecution or trauma (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:26). Because we have been forewarned, Peter writes, “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you” (1 Peter 4:12 NASB).

We are immediately reminded of Job. In one moment he lost his means of income and transportation (Job 1:14-15), his means of food and an offering to God, his employees (Job 1:15-16), and all of his children (Job 1:17). Remember, Job did not know that Satan had talked with the LORD about his integrity. All Job knew was that all at once his life had come crumbling down around him. How would you have reacted?

Job replies: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD” (Job. 1:21 NASB). When Job’s wife tempted him to abandon his integrity -- to curse God and die (Job 2:9) -- he replies: “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks [cf. Psalm 53:1]. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” (Job 2:10 NASB). Though Job complains about his troubles (his “friends” being no help whatsoever), he never abandons God.

However, Job was convinced that the LORD had become his enemy. So, the LORD answers Job in chapters 38-41. He does not, however, give Job a reason for the suffering he had to endure. God is sovereign, and He owes us no reason for the things which He either ordains or permits us to experience. What He calls for is our trust in Him. He knows what He is doing. He is not held accountable to anyone.

When Greg Harris, former Professor of Bible Exposition at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, was a pastor at Berwyn Baptist Church in Maryland, the last thing he expected to suffer was the death of twins in his wife’s womb. How does one explain such suffering? Losing your children must be an inexpressible experience. Yet, he and his wife also experienced a peace that surpasses understanding or comprehension (cf. Phil. 4:7). Dr. Harris writes:

I had stepped into the ever-expanding society of mourners and sufferers. I had rarely been there before and never on this level. It is not a realm you enter voluntarily. Still in the midst of my overwhelming grief the underlying support and love of God were evident in a manner I never knew existed. Although the death of the twins was the greatest sorrow I had ever experienced, I could not break through the quarry rock of God’s support for me. I existed in a composite of grief and grace, mourning and peace, heartache and hope -- and I have never felt so infinitely loved by God as I did during this time.¹

Two years passed when Dr. Harris, having experienced such emotional grief and sorrow, would also experience physical suffering. He experienced crippling, severe rheumatoid arthritis throughout his body. The pain at times was incomprehensible. After experiencing sorrow and suffering, he expected God to bless him with new ministry opportunities. However, what he received next was a wilderness experience. Dr. Harris explains:

Far from having suffering and trials ending, they intensified as I unexpectedly stepped into the wilderness. The wilderness is a domain that I did not know existed. I was, however, learning. . . .

The wilderness is not a place as much as it is a condition. Nonetheless, it is quite real. Often we will seek to be with God away from the distractions and problems of our everyday life. We call this a retreat, or to some, communion with God. What makes the wilderness the wilderness is the appearance of the lack of God’s presence. It is that baffling condition of going from spiritual light into spiritual darkness, and often you do not realize you are there until you are in its midst.²

Subsequent to Jesus’ baptism and filling with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:21-22; 4:1), the Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness (Luke 4:1). He was there “for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And He ate nothing during those days; and when they had ended, He became hungry” (Luke 4:1-2 NASB). If ever there was a man who experienced sorrow and suffering, it was Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Isaiah prophesied that He would be a “man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (Isaiah 53:3), and that His appearance would be “marred more than any man” (Isaiah 52:14).

Jesus knew suffering. The author of Hebrews informs us that “we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15 NASB). This truth should be greatly comforting to all followers of Jesus Christ, for in our trials, sufferings, persecutions, pain, and torment, we can “draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16 NASB). Run to the One who knows all about suffering and find solace in Him. You do not suffer alone.

__________

¹ Greg Harris, The Cup and the Glory: Lessons on Suffering and the Glory of God (The Woodlands, TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2006), 12.

² Ibid., 14-15.

But Do You Love Him?

2012-01-18T21:00:00.003-05:00

The apostle Paul closes his letter to the church at Corinth with these words: “If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha” (1 Cor. 16:22 NASB). “Maranatha” (Greek maran atha) translates, “Our Lord, come.” The word for “accursed” in Greek (anathema) refers to a thing "devoted to God without hope of being redeemed." I give you the original Greek words here so that you can see how nearly every letter used to make up anathema is also used for Maranatha, mentioned only here in the New Testament.

Speculation has been made regarding the connection of the two words, but this post is not meant to further that discussion. I am led to believe that those who profess to be followers of Christ but who do not love Jesus will be among those who are "devoted to God without hope of being redeemed" (anathema) when the Lord returns (Maranatha).

What is of utmost importance, in my opinion, is the immediate question posed to all who profess to be Christians: Can you admit with honesty and integrity that you love Jesus? I did not ask whether you “believe in God” or if you “believe (in a historical way) in Jesus Christ,” nor did I ask if you are perfect or consider yourself to be a good person. I also did not ask if you love Jesus perfectly. Some of you, however, profess to believe in God or even in Jesus -- your confession amounting to beautiful words -- but do you love Him?

I heard a story about a pastor’s son, now in his thirties, who supposedly “accepted Christ” at a young age but presently demonstrates no fruit (evidence) of a changed heart or life (and has not since his youth). The son cannot confess that he loves Jesus. This post is not about the doctrine of Perseverance or what some call "once saved, always saved." The moral of the brief story of the pastor’s son, however, is that he still has the mistaken view that he is currently and will be saved -- saved, even though he cannot confess that he loves Jesus; saved, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that his heart has been changed as a result of “accepting Jesus.”

I want to address this son personally, and all like him: The matter of your spiritual state in Christ is not merely that you are not “living as you should” right now (but that you may "get your life straight" later on). The matter is much more severe. You cannot confess to love Jesus presently, which speaks volumes about your present condition with regard to salvation. I admit that I am uncomfortable with the language of “accepting Jesus.” In my Southern Baptist context, I have heard the phrase used by many pastors. They mean no harm by its use. For them, the phrase means the same as “receiving Jesus.” John the Baptist states, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12 NASB). I prefer the language of receiving Christ as Lord and Savior. I do not think the Greater (King Jesus) needs to be “accepted,” if you will, by the lesser (sinful human beings).

If stated another way, we (the lesser) need to be “accepted” by God (the Greater) through Christ -- this is the biblical way to understand the matter, in my opinion. For Scripture states that God “predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:5-6 NKJV, emphasis added).

If you cannot confess with honesty and integrity that you presently love Jesus, you can be guaranteed one of two truths: 1) that salvation has not yet come to you (so that you still need to be born again); or 2) that you have backslidden into a state from which you need to turn away or forsake. The words of John the Baptist still speak to you today: “Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance” (Luke 3:8 NASB). I like the way the New Living Translation states the matter: “Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God.”

This gospel message was given to Jewish people who were relying on their family lineage to make them right with God. Some professing Christians today are relying on their baptism, or their connection to God through a godly parent or grandparent, or their own good deeds, or, in the case of the pastor’s son, on his dad-pastor’s baptizing him -- that a one-time confession of allegedly "accepting" Christ rather than an on-going faith in and love for Jesus amounts to eternal security and salvation -- to make them right with God. But they fail to consider that each individual will have to appear alone before the judgment seat of God in Christ to give an account of his or her life. Faith and repentance are individual experiences. No one will be admitted into God’s presence by someone else’s faith and repentance.

Scripture teaches that “the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (Rom. 5:5 NASB). When a person believes or trusts in Christ for salvation, the Person of the Holy Spirit comes to dwell within that individual. The “love of God,” whether it is love for God or His love for us and others, is then evident in that person. The person who does not love, Scripture teaches, does not belong to Christ: “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 John 4:7-8 NASB).

We had no love for God prior to being born again: “This is real love -- not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins” (1 John 4:10 NLT). More to the point, Jesus Himself states, “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me” (John 14:24 NASB). Our faith in and love for Jesus is most clearly demonstrated when we obey (a result of repentance) His commandments. Those who live their lives for themselves, in direct disobedience to Christ, do not love Him. No matter what they profess about their supposed Christianity or their belief in God or in Jesus Christ, if they do not love Jesus (exhibited by a life of obedience and worship), then they are not now and will not later be saved, but instead cursed (anathema).

Today is still the day of salvation, which is great news! May the Lord grace your heart toward repentance and faith in Jesus, demonstrated in genuine love for Christ through obedience and worship. My greatest fear for many people whom I know is that they will be among those to whom Jesus says, “I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws” (Matt. 7:23 NLT). For Jesus confesses, “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter” (Matt. 7:21 NLT).

Please, do not let this moment of grace pass you by. Trust in Christ Jesus and you will be born again and/or reconciled to the Lord. You will then love Him in sincerity and with humility, obeying and worshiping Him from the heart. Do not be deceived: Our Lord will return (Maranatha), and those who do not love Him will be without hope of being redeemed or saved (anathema). I want you to know that Christ loves you, in spite of your sins, in spite of your not loving Him. I also want you to know that He is offering you salvation by grace through faith in Him at this very moment: only trust Him.

We Need Revival

2012-01-18T05:00:00.007-05:00

My brother Roy Ingle and I have been thinking a lot about revival lately and how much the Church of Christ Jesus needs to be revived, so we teamed up to briefly write about it. When we say "we" need revival, we mean that each and every individual who calls him- or herself a follower of Christ Jesus needs revival. When we say we "need" revival, we mean that there are crucial spiritual and disciplinary elements missing among those who call themselves Christ followers; a need presupposes lack. When we say we need "revival," we find hard and fast definitions of that word difficult.

For example, Iain Murray, in his book Pentecost Today? The Biblical basis for Understanding Revival, took aim at the "revivalist movement" of the nineteenth century. Murray believed (along with many others) that the "revivalist movement" guided Christianity away from its biblical mandate toward another mandate -- one that has since mislead the Church. He believed that the practices and teachings of revivalistic evangelists such as Charles Finney brought about heretical practices, such as the altar call and the "sinner’s prayer," and introduced man-centered, pragmatic theology into the Church.

In some ways Murray is correct. There are some things about Finney that we appreciate, such as the account of his conversion, or the fact that he had a passion to bring spiritual life back into "dead" New England churches. But there are things about Finney with which we do not agree, such as his introducing the “sinner’s prayer” as the way to properly respond to the gospel, or his pragmatism.

A problem arises, however, when trying to accurately define the word "revival" from Scripture. The prefix "re" refers to the concept of doing something again, whereas "viva" refers to life. Thus revival can be conceptualized as bringing back or restoring to life that which has lost life. But what do we mean by "life"? To what does "alive" refer in the context of revival?

To the church in Sardis Christ said, "I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God" (Rev. 3:1-2 NASB). The Greek word for "alive" (zes) is the present active indicative of zao, meaning "to live." Thus the followers of Christ in Sardis had a name (reputation) for being living Christians -- the ones who had life!

Now, we know that they had physical life, since they were breathing. The reference to "life" here should refer to spiritual life. They had a reputation for being spiritually alive (regenerate) in Christ. However, Jesus informed them that their condition was grave: though their reputation was that of spiritual life and vitality, they were actually dead (nekros), figuratively speaking.

This does not mean that they had lost their salvation, for He commanded them to "Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die." What these Christians needed was revival -- a bringing back to life the spiritual elements of their faith that were dying. We are reminded of the Ephesian believers, whom Jesus informed had left their first love (Rev. 2:4). But to the Ephesians, He did not command to "wake up and be revived," but to "repent" (Rev. 2:5). Indeed, the need for revival often indicates the adoption of bad or sinful habits of which we need to repent; and though we must do the repenting, we recognize even repenting is a gracious enablement of God.

What this indicates is that we cannot work up, initiate, or instigate revival and repentance on our own. When apparent "revivals" derive from man-centered efforts or constraints, what we witness are parades of the flesh, not genuine works of the Holy Spirit.

Finney stated in his book Lectures on Revivals of Religion that revival was not a supernatural work of God’s Spirit but a work and product of man. Thus the rise of modern “revival movements,” which followed Finney’s pragmatism, included aspects of special (oftentimes emotionally driven) music, advertisements, etc. Finney thought that prayer for revival was good and necessary, but that people had to do their part to promote revival and bring it about. He emphasized what we have found to be true of many so-called "revivals," that revival is not explicitly defined for us in Scripture, and thus the term “revival” often means different things to different people.

Why do we sense that Christ's Church today needs reviving? The answer is inherent in Dr. Wilbur Smith's summary of nine characteristics of revivals mentioned in the Old Testament:

1) They [revivals] occurred in a day of deep moral darkness and national depression.
2) They began in the heart of one consecrated servant of God who became the energizing power behind it, the agent used of God to quicken and lead the nation back to faith in and obedience to Him.
3) Each revival rested on the Word of God, and most were the result of preaching and proclaiming God’s law with power.
4) All resulted in a return to the worship of Yahweh as the one true and living God.
5) Each witnessed the destruction of idols.
6) In each revival, there was a recorded separation from sin.
7) In every revival, they returned to offering blood sacrifices (Hebrews 9:22).
8) Almost all recorded revivals show a restoration of great joy and gladness (Nehemiah 8:10; Acts 8:8).
9) Each revival was followed by a period of great national prosperity.

Our churches today -- and by "churches" we mean those self-professed Christians who attend them -- are steeped or trapped in unbiblical and uncritical worldviews and/or practices either explicitly or implicitly condemned in Scripture. Such has turned our hearts away from obeying Christ and has robbed the body of Christ of joy. Our witness has been tainted by sin and we have become ineffectual for the work of God's Spirit.

The simple conclusion is this: we need revival. We need Spirit-led ethical and moral behavior in the hearts of God's people. We need to be saturated in God's word so that we might obey Christ in all things, be faithful witnesses of Christ's gospel and goodness, thereby ridding ourselves of idols and sin, and joyfully, righteously exalting the nature and character, justice and holiness, of our Triune God. Worldliness must be replaced with godliness. Apathy must be replaced with holy zeal. Sinfulness must be replaced with holy obedience. Again, these spiritual facets need to be the daily experience of all denominational and non-denominational followers of Christ.

Finally, James, the Lord Jesus' half-brother, wrote, "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you" (James 4:8a). Southern Baptist pastor Jerry Chaddick comments, "The reason we're not having revival is we're too content living without it" (Sermon: We Need Revival). By God's grace, we can be as close to Him as we desire. "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners [he's writing to Christians]; and purify your hearts, you double-minded" (James 4:8).

Human Sexuality & Choice

2012-01-18T04:00:00.000-05:00

The apostle Paul writes, “Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself” (1 Cor. 6:18 NRSV). The English word “fornication” (or “fornicator”) is an old-fashioned word that has nearly vanished from use (unless used mockingly). The Greek equivalent porneia refers to sexual intercourse, adultery, homosexuality, and bestiality; it also refers metaphorically to the worship of idols.

In our sex-drenched age, committing sexual acts before marriage is commonplace; adultery has been reduced to merely “having an affair;” bestiality is being explored by some; and homosexuality is quickly becoming the cultural norm (though once it was deemed very abnormal and even treatable). Whatever God’s word teaches or commands about human sexuality, what cannot be denied is that we exist in an overly-sexual or sensual culture.

Recently, at the Southern Baptist Convention 2011 conference, held in Phoenix, Arizona, Dr. Al Mohler made a comment about homosexuality with which some have taken issue (link). He states that one’s sexuality is not a matter of choice, and I agree with him.

Where is the individual who, at a certain age, decided that he or she proactively chose to be attracted to either the female or male sex? Such people do no exist. Neither Dr. Mohler, nor you or I, at one moment in our life chose to be attracted to whatever sex we happen to be attracted. If someone cares to argue the point, then I would assume that such an individual could, at any moment, change his or her mind and proactively choose to be attracted to whatever opposite sex they are currently attracted. I doubt anyone is willing to admit to such.

Though many agree with Dr. Mohler on the matter of choice — or as we have it, non-choice — regarding sexual attraction, what some people are perplexed about is how the Church (or Southern Baptists in particular) have “lied about the nature of homosexuality,” as he stated at the Southern Baptist Convention. To confess that Southern Baptists have lied about the nature of homosexuality is to suggest that they knew the truth about such nature but admitted the contrary. If this assessment was what Dr. Mohler was suggesting, as some maintain, then I disagree with him. I am not convinced, however, that the word “lied” is exactly the notion for which he was aiming.

I am not Dr. Mohler’s spokesman, so I certainly do not want to put words in his mouth, so to speak, or attach meanings to his statements that he did not intend. But when I read his words, I immediately thought I understood his intent to communicate that many (though not all) Southern Baptists have 1) handled the subject of homosexuality badly (and they have); 2) treated homosexuals with disrespect, and have been guilty of pushing the gay community farther from the grace of the kingdom of God and the saving arms of Jesus (and they have); 3) dialogued about the subject of homosexuality as though homosexuals could “switch” their sexual orientation by a mere choice (and they cannot); and 4) have sought little to no methods of amending such ineptness on their part.

We all need to face a few facts. Human sexuality is not an easily understood topic; it is not as cut-and-dried as some imagine. As with human nature, our sin nature, the soul and/or spirit, and our complexity as fallen yet metaphysical beings created in the image of God are not detailed doctrines clearly laid out for us in Scripture (or any other book for that matter).

Humanity did not come with an instruction manual, other than what has been revealed in Scripture. But even in Scripture, the existence and nature of God is merely assumed, not explained; such are accepted as truth by faith. The human spirit, with all of its complexities, is also merely assumed, not explained. We all would do well to be less dogmatic about certain assertions or presumptions where Scripture does not fully address those issues.

But where issues are clearly explained, we should abide by them, accepting them as God’s commands. Therefore, when Scripture teaches about how to handle sexual issues, we need to abide by those teachings because God has our best interest in mind. Thus when Scripture demands that we all — hetero- and homosexual in orientation — avoid fornication (sexual intimacy outside of marriage, marriage being defined as physical, sexual and spiritual union between one male and one female), then we must trust in Christ that He has our best interest at heart and obey Him implicitly.

From my perspective, we should not think that God created one man or woman heterosexual and another man or woman homosexual, but then denied the homosexual physical, emotional or sexual fulfillment through a same-sex partner. Such an alleged creative act is, I believe, beneath God’s integrity. Whatever the cause for our sexual orientation, I would not lay such at the feet of God. I cannot fathom God “giving” a person a certain sexual and physical desire and then demanding him or her to refrain from its fulfillment. I tend to leave God out of the direct equation of human sexuality, even if sexual orientation is not intentionally chosen by an individual.

On the issue of homosexuality — the topic of discussion for the next post — I am far less concerned about one’s sexual attraction than I am with what one does with that attraction. Can a gay man or a gay woman be saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus? Scripture answers in absolute terms!

Yes, anyone who trusts in Christ can and will by that continued faith in Him be saved (Rom. 10:13-17). Such a person will be born again (John 3:1-8; 2 Cor. 5:17) and spiritually placed in union with Christ (Eph. 1:4) and within the mystical body of Christ, comprised of other believers worldwide (1 Cor. 12:13). Such a person, though not perfect or sinless, and may, perhaps, still commit or struggle with that sexual sin in moments of weakness, will nonetheless seek to live a holy life in Christ, for without holiness no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). Such a person will seek not to fulfill his or her lust for the same sex, but live to fulfill or please the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sex is not our God. Jesus Christ, Son of God, is the One whom we aim to please. May God the Father be glorified by us in the Son through the Holy Spirit.

Southern Baptists: Diversity in Unity

2012-01-18T03:45:00.013-05:00

If diversity in unity is best represented by any one denomination, I would cast my vote for Southern Baptists. For better or worse, like it or not, within her camp one finds five- and four-point Calvinists, Molinists, some Arminians, “non-Calvinists” (or what some are now vying for, “Majoritarian Baptists,” which claim to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian), Anabaptists, semi-Pelagians, and Charismatic/Third Wave proponents.

Even among those Southern Baptist expressions one finds in their churches Presbyterian-modeled church government, churches with congregational-modeled government, and churches with a satellite campus model. Some Southern Baptist churches revere using the name “Baptist” in their title (e.g. Christ Fellowship Baptist Church), while others disdain the Baptist association or identity (e.g. The Summit).

While some people appreciate an enlarged ideological-theological denominational umbrella, others are not so enthusiastic. Let me explain. Let us imagine that a young, married couple, not well-versed or schooled about various denominations and sub-denominations, is trying to decide on a church to attend. They are looking for a good, Bible-believing “Baptist” church. They both know nothing about the distinctives of Independent Baptists, Southern Baptists, Northern Baptists, Free Will Baptists, American Baptists, Baptist General Association churches, General Baptist Association churches, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship churches, so forth and so on. The couple simply wants to find a good, Bible-believing “Baptist” church. Already the task is complicated.

Let us further imagine that the couple is seeking out solely Southern Baptist churches in any given area. They search on-line for Southern Baptist churches in their area, but information is, on many occasions, sparse regarding the beliefs of the various churches. So our couple decides to spend two months visiting local Southern Baptist churches, unaware of what they will experience.

On one Sunday, they enter a Southern Baptist church, and the pastor’s message is akin to the teachings of Charles Finney. He preaches fervently about “making a decision for Christ” by one’s own free will, complete with an emotional altar call intended to illicit a faith-response.

On the following Sunday, they enter a Southern Baptist church, and the pastor’s message is akin to the teachings of John Calvin. He preaches solemnly about “man’s depravity,” and how God has unconditionally chosen to save only some by His ominous, eternal decree.

On the following Sunday, they enter a Southern Baptist church, and the pastor’s message is akin to the teachings of Jack Hayford. He preaches engagingly about the ministry of the Holy Spirit, and how we need to be baptized in the Holy Spirit (which may be evinced by “speaking in tongues”) in order to be effective witnesses for Christ.

On the following Sunday, they enter a Southern Baptist church, and the pastor’s message is akin to the teachings of D. L. Moody. He preaches on how he and his congregation are neither Calvinistic nor Arminian; they are the majority view of Southern Baptists, whose approach to the doctrine of salvation vies for a middle way between the two.

Clearly, all of these folks, so they claim, “just believe the Bible.” Only one month into searching out a Southern Baptist church and the couple has before them differing flavors of “Southern Baptist” churches from which to choose. While some view this as a negative, seeing confusion and disorganization, others view this as a positive expression of the Body of Christ in general. We, each one of Christ's followers, though many are one body. The Southern Baptist Convention churches, with all of their diversity, actually represent well the body of Christ because of the diversity in their unity!

What is a Southern Baptist? Besides the essentials upon which all orthodox Christian denominations are agreed, what most identifies a congregation as “Southern Baptist” are the following distinctives: 1) the doctrine of Believer’s Baptism, which is by immersion only of believers only; 2) autonomy of the local church; 3) the doctrine of the Inerrancy of Scripture; 4) soul competency; 5) the priesthood of the believer; and, by far one of the most significant distinctives, 6) the doctrine of Eternal Security. Beyond the essentials of the Protestant Christian faith and these distinctives, a Southern Baptist congregation could believe just about any other secondary or tertiary doctrine it wishes and still remain “Southern Baptist” (within reason, of course).

Historically, Baptists, while holding to their distinctives, have had the privilege to believe whatever any Baptist congregation wanted to believe (within reason, of course), and could not be obligated to believe any particular (secondary or tertiary) doctrine by any Synod or Convention. General (Arminian) Baptists were the first Baptists to organize. There followed Particular (Calvinist) Baptists, who separated from the General Baptists. From the outset, Baptists were divided over soteriology (doctrine of salvation). The General Baptists held to a general atonement offered to all, but applied only to believers. The Particular Baptists held to a particular atonement which was intended only for the unconditionally elect.

General Baptists, theologically, were convinced that God had not unconditionally elected to save only some by a mere decree, disagreeing with their Particular Baptist brothers and sisters. Nothing has changed over the last five centuries, except that “General Baptists” of this era no longer want to be identified as such because they disdain certain excessive or erroneous theological baggage that comes along with all that the name or connotation "Arminian" brings, which I understand first-hand.

Even so, though Southern Baptists disagreed over the issue of the atonement, they as a rule have always held to the doctrine of Eternal Security, a doctrine which many Arminians have historically rejected. Therefore no one is surprised to find most "five-point" Arminians in other, non-SBC churches. No matter how large the SBC umbrella may become -- no matter how much diversity is allowed in its unity -- it will not cover any Arminian who does not adhere to this most significant doctrine.

Southern Baptist distinctives are very important to its members; and even though they display great diversity among fellow believers, they maintain strong unity. For this reason alone we should celebrate Southern Baptist diversity in unity.

Southern Baptists and Calvinism: A Historical View

2012-01-18T03:30:00.001-05:00

This brief post is taken from David S. Dockery’s chapter “Southern Baptists and Calvinism: A Historical Look,” in the book, Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, edited by E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner, published by B&H Academic. The book is a collection of essays presented at the 2007 Building Bridges conference, hosted by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC. While, clearly, not all Baptists are Calvinists, are all Southern Baptists Calvinists? Were all Southern Baptists Calvinists historically? David Dockery will attempt to answer these questions.

__________

Let us think together in this chapter about our heritage, our history, and the traditions that have shaped Southern Baptist life. Many of those traditions are wonderful, and we need to hold on to that which is good (1 Thess 5:21). Not everything that is a part of our history is something we want to reclaim and carry forward, yet many aspects of it are good and helpful. We need to carry forward the good for the cause of Christ, for the advancement of His kingdom, and for His glory. . . .

Our question . . . for this chapter is, Are Southern Baptists Calvinists, or have Southern Baptists been Calvinists? And the answer is yes and no. If you ask our Wesleyan and Arminian friends, they say yes without hesitation, for the dividing line for them is [mostly] the issue of eternal security [though other Arminians would admit that it is the doctrine of Unconditional Election]. . . . On the other hand, if by that question we mean, Are the majority of Southern Baptists or have the majority of Southern Baptists been consistent, five-point Calvinists? I think the answer is no. . . .

[T]he early Baptists under John Smyth and Thomas Helwys gathered together a group committed to the New Testament, its teachings about congregationalism, and believer’s baptism. At this time the General [Arminian] Baptists were birthed. About 30 years later a completely different group called Particular [Calvinist] Baptists developed in London and put together the First and Second London Confessions between the 1640s and 1670s. By 1644, England had seven Particular Baptist churches, and by 1689 most Baptists in England were Particular Baptists. General Baptists tended to ebb and flow. Many of them fell into a heresy of deism or rationalism. But by the end of the seventeenth century, England had large numbers of Particular Baptists. [See footnote for the heresy which Calvinist Particular Baptists "fell into" while their movement experienced their own "ebb and flow."¹]

Baptist churches were started in America in Rhode Island during the mid-seventeenth century. The Philadelphia Confession, which became the theological framework for early Baptists in America, was developed in 1707, about 70 years after the founding of the first Baptist church in this country. The Philadelphia Confession, the first important confessional statement for Baptists in America, was largely a restatement of the Second London Confession. Baptists early on in this country were Calvinists, and the early confessions expounded these convictions. . . .

Southern Baptists’ first writing theologian was John L. Dagg (1794-1884). His Manual of Theology is still worth reading today. He taught at Mercer University for many years. He stood in the reformed tradition of earlier Baptist theologians such as Bunyan, Keach, Gill, Fuller, and Backus. Almost all of Dagg’s theology was a study in the grace of God. He was a consistent Calvinist, and the early Southern Baptists who read theology were shaped and influenced by Dagg’s consistent Calvinism. [Dockery goes on to mention the influence of such Calvinist Baptists as James P. Boyce, J. M. Frost, B. H. Carroll, and E. Y. Mullins; but he notes the changes which developed in Southern Baptist life and education through "non-Calvinists" such as Herschel H. Hobbs, Dale Moody, and Frank Stagg.]

We must acknowledge that the ultimate danger to the gospel lies not in the nuances of our differences but in the rising tides of liberalism, neo-paganism, and postmodernism that threaten to swamp Southern Baptist identity in cultural accommodation. We need to look for common ground with those who share commitments to biblical authority, to the gospel, and to Baptist congregationalism. . . .

Perhaps we can find a model of cooperation in the eighteenth-century awakenings with George Whitefield and John [and Charles] Wesley. . . . Whitefield was a consistent Calvinist; Wesley, a consistent Arminian. . . . Yet they were best friends, colleagues, [co-laborers] for the cause of the gospel. Perhaps we can all agree with John Leland, the champion of religious liberty in Virginia. He claimed Baptists are people who hold to the sovereignty of God [which needs defining] and the promiscuous preaching of the gospel. Let us also hear the words of Iain Murray, a Calvinist, who warns that when Calvinism ceases to be evangelistic, when it becomes more concerned with theory than with the salvation of men and women, when acceptance of doctrines seems to become more important than acceptance of Christ, then it is a system going to seed and will invariably lose its attractive power.

Let those who have differing convictions about these matters grasp hands. We need not compromise our own convictions. We need to seek togetherness for the right reasons; we need to remember that doctrinal matters are important. We need to know how to distinguish between primary and secondary matters of faith. . . . We must recognize that Calvinism is not necessarily a key Baptist distinctive; it is not a primary doctrine. We can join hands as Calvinists, as modified Calvinists, as lenient Calvinists, as modified Arminians, working together to advance the cause of the gospel. . . . Let us not be sidetracked by secondary or tertiary matters where we might have disagreements. Instead, let us focus on primary matters where we seek to frame our message by biblical, historical, and theological understandings. . . .

In conclusion, as we seek to build a theological consensus around the gospel for the good of our work together, let us ever be humble, and not arrogant, when dealing with these sacred matters. Moreover, we commit ourselves afresh to the good news of salvation by faith in Christ. We heartily confess and gladly affirm that Jesus Christ, as the God-man, has fully revealed God to men and women. Having lived a sinless life, Christ, as our substitute, died a death for the sins of the world. Having been raised from the dead, He now sits exalted at God’s right hand, a position of honor and exaltation, exercising His rule and dominion. In Jesus Christ we place our trust and hope, offering our thanksgiving, praise, and worship for the gift of salvation He has provided for us by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9). In this gospel, the one true gospel, we place our hope and ground our unity for service together. And we proclaim this gospel to the world to disciple the nations, with confidence in the promise that Christ will be with us even to the end of the age (Matt 28:18-20).²

__________

¹ Dockery conveniently fails to inform his readers that in the Calvinistic Particular Baptist churches “there developed among them an extreme form of Calvinism [i.e., hyper-Calvinism] which blighted their evangelistic vigor. The extremists became antinomian; they overemphasized the biblical injunction that Christians ‘are not under law, but under grace,’ to the exclusion of the idea that sin in their lives was a menace to their salvation. The effect of Arianism was felt slightly in some of the churches.” See Robert G. Torbet, A History of the Baptists, third edition (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 2000), 63. Hence the heresies of hyper-Calvinism, antinomianism and Arianism were propagated by some Calvinist Particular Baptists during this troubling era.

² David S. Dockery, “Southern Baptists and Calvinism: A Historical Look,” Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue, eds. E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008), 29-46.

Are Southern Baptists Calvinists?

2012-01-18T03:00:00.002-05:00

Dr. Albert Mohler “The Reformer,” President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, the Calvinist flagship of Southern Baptist seminaries, published “Why All Southern Baptists are Calvinists.” According to Dr. Mohler, “It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture.” I posted two comments on the SBC Voices site, when Brandon Smith published his post on Dr. Mohler’s assessment. The following were my two comments (though I added to them only slightly), posted in the comments section (and I am grateful for my comments being published, as well as those of other Arminians):

1. I cannot get over this statement: “It is not by accident that there are no great Arminian testimonies to the inerrancy of Scripture.” This is embarrassing for Dr. Mohler. He has demonstrated that he has neither read Arminius [I made this comment having read Arminius on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture], nor taken care to read Arminian ministers who followed him regarding the inerrancy of God’s word (e.g. John Wesley, Fletcher, Watkins, William Burt Pope, Adam Clarke, Miley, and a host of modern Arminians who advance the truth of the inerrancy of God’s word — visit the Society of Evangelical Arminians site).

Anyone who has ever read Arminius’s “On the Authority of Scripture” would never utter any semblance to Dr. Mohler’s comment.Moreover, he has equated and confused (to say nothing of redefined) inerrancy with exhaustive determinism: “We really do believe,” argues Dr. Mohler, “that God can work in such a way that the human will wills to do what God wills that will to do. And that is exactly why we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.” This is tantamount to Charles Spurgeon’s error in stating, “Calvinism is the Gospel, and nothing else.” Jesus is the Gospel, brothers and sisters, not Calvinism. God’s Word is inerrant,, not the Calvinist’s interpretation of it. The lengths to which some Calvinists will tread in order to substantiate Calvinism in Southern Baptist life is very telling. May God grant us mercy, grace and peace.

2. As an aside, while stating, “Agreeing with conditional security, for example, will certainly remove you from Baptist doctrine in and of itself,” how do you explain Dale Moody, formerly of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who rejected unconditional security, or inevitable perseverance of the saints? Or maybe I should ask what your opinion of him is, considering his rejection of perseverance and his being a Southern Baptist. [Believe it or not, there are some Southern Baptists who do not adhere to Perseverance, though they are certainly the minority.]

Assuming that we are correctly understanding and interpreting Dr. Mohler’s comments, what we find in his statements is another unfortunate example of the Calvinizing of Southern Baptists by some Calvinists within the SBC who promote a Calvinistic agenda, such as Founders Ministries, among others. Perhaps what they want Southern Baptists to believe is that, in order to be a consistent Southern Baptist, one must be a Calvinist. But many five-point Calvinists (of the Presbyterian or Reformed stripe) confess that one cannot be a Southern Baptist and truly Reformed (in spite of hosted conferences, such as The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel, which feature Presbyterians and Calvinist Southern Baptists, and which exclude Arminians from ministering in or speaking at their conferences). Dr. Malcolm B. Yarnell III, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, Texas, quoted at length here comments:

In spite of the challenges to Baptist identity that a zealous strain of Calvinism may present, some Baptists are convinced that they can remain Baptist while also being truly Calvinist. But, although such Baptists — and some capable and virtuous ones at that — have tried to combine Reformed soteriology with Baptist ecclesiology, the combination may ultimately prove unstable. As Richard Muller has argued, from the Reformed perspective, the two belief systems are incompatible. For Muller, being Calvinist is not only about the five points of the Synod of Dort. Being Reformed, which is the same as being Calvinist, entails accepting that tradition’s whole way of being Christian. Calvinism includes, among other things, the de-emphasizing of personal decisions for Christ, infant baptism, and a healthy working relationship between church and state. Muller, a highly respected Calvinist theologian, may be correct. In the end, it is impossible to be at once both truly Reformed and truly Baptist, especially when the local church is considered.¹

While sincere believers may disagree over what constitutes a Calvinist or being Reformed, we cannot underestimate the affect which Calvinism is having upon Southern Baptists. We need to be reminded of the intense persecution which Anabaptists endured by Zwingli, Luther and Calvin, being counted as unregenerate heretics. Why? Because this was a theological war, not merely an ideological or philosophical one. We need to be reminded why Anabaptists rejected Reformed teaching.

We need to be reminded that Baptist roots are historically Arminian in nature, not Reformed or Calvinistic. As it stands, many Calvinist Southern Baptists are merely Presbyterians who immerse (and some Baptist Calvinists such as John Piper are willing to admit those who were sprinkled as infants as members of his Baptist church without being immersed, though his church rejects Piper’s willingness to do such).²

Why all Southern Baptists are Calvinists, according to Dr. Mohler, is due in part not only to the truth of inerrancy, but also to substitutionary atonement (which many Classical, historic Arminians hold), the omniscience of God (which all Classical, historic Arminians hold), and the eternal security of the believer (which all Classical, historic Arminians hold).

Regarding the latter, all Arminians, including Arminius himself, confess that a believer, because he or she is trusting in and is in union with Christ Jesus, is eternally secure ipso facto. Belief in (trust in and union with) Christ Jesus secures the believer. The issue of “falling away” is reserved for those who do not abide in Christ (John 15:1-6). The believer is secure in Christ. Those who apostatize have absolutely no assurance of salvation, nor should they (contra the theological errors of Charles Stanley).

Former Southern Baptist professor Dale Moody rejected Dr. Mohler’s assertion in his own day, as do other Southern Baptists presently (though Moody had his own theological demons with which to contend). Holding to or rejecting the doctrine of perseverance, as is maintained by Calvinists, does not make one a Southern Baptist (e.g. there are Methodists who hold to perseverance).

Dr. Mohler and some other SBC Calvinists are arranging secondary issues into primary aspects of what makes a Southern Baptist. If this persists among Southern Baptist churches, within time, either most or all Southern Baptists will be Calvinists, or there will be a mass exodus of believers from Southern Baptist churches. Let us pray that neither will be manifested.

__________

¹ Malcolm B. Yarnell III, “The Potential Impact of Calvinist Tendencies upon Local Baptist Churches,” in Whoseover Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, eds. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010), 232. See also Richard A. Muller, “How Many Points?” in Calvin Theological Journal 28, no. 2 (1993): 425-26.

² Yarnell writes: “Those influences exercised by Calvinism’s ancient church concept and acceptance of the Augustinian innovations may include an increase in conversations about the universal invisible church; an increase in ecumenical relationships, including close cooperation with ministers and churches espousing Reformed polity, as opposed to singular commitment to the local churches; and in increase in conversations about cultural relevancy and cultural transformation alongside a decrease in emphasis upon religious liberty.

"Those influences exercised by the aristocratic preferences of Calvinism may involve adoption of the multiple elders model as opposed to a single pastor model; and, going one step further, the diminishing of congregational governance in favor of elder rule.

"Those influences exercised by the antinomian impulses of Calvinism may include admission of members on the basis of infant baptism and/or baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and the opening of Communion to those who have not submitted to baptism according to the Lord’s command and the apostles’ witness. Finally, related to all four tendencies is a potential increase in conversations about speculative doctrine alongside a decrease in evangelistic practices, such as the decline of invitations at the end of the worship service” (232).

Interpreting John 6:26-34: Coming to Christ (I.)

2012-01-17T09:00:00.000-05:00

The season of Passover had come and a large Jewish crowd was following Jesus because "they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick" (John 6:2 NASB). Quietly, Jesus went up on a mountainside with His disciples. There He saw the crowds coming to Him. Realizing their need for food, Jesus asked where they might buy bread, so that they could eat. Jesus demonstrated His care or concern for the Jewish people. However, He also had in mind what He intended to do.

With five barley loaves and two fish Jesus fed over five thousand people (John 6:10). "Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, 'This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world'" (John 6:14). Knowing their intention to "come and take Him by force to make Him king" (John 6:15), Jesus quickly sneaked away again to the mountainside.

The following day, the crowds were seeking Jesus, but He responded, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled" (John 6:26). He then instructed them to "work [ergazomai] for the food which endures to eternal life," which He Himself was willing to give them (John 6:27).

Spending so much effort in order to be filled physically, Jesus instructed the Jewish people to place their efforts on being filled spiritually -- through "the food" which "endures to eternal life." He instructed them not to work for their salvation, but, if you will, to attune their hearts toward salvation, which can only be found (by grace) through faith (John 6:29) in Christ. The Greek word ergazomai (according to BDAG) carries the notion: to work, work out, labor, trade, do, perform; deed, action.¹ R. C. H. Lenski comments:

When Jesus bids the people at Capernaum to "work" thus, he implies that they have not as yet done so. They, indeed, had come and had heard, but altogether superficially, with their ears not with their hearts. They had clung to the temporal and transient, and every effort of Jesus to give them the eternal they had passed over coldly and indifferently.²

Note what Jesus informed each individual in the crowd: Work for "the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you" (John 6:27). Thus we know that the message of Christ and His intent to give its benefits were restricted here to no one person or group; the Son of Man "will give" to you, though we know from the context that such was not bestowed irresistibly, nor unconditionally, since the condition of belief had first to be accomplished.

Did these Jewish people adequately understand Christ's message? They asked, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" (John 6:28) Let us note what Jesus could have said in response. He could have corrected their thinking about working for salvation (perhaps through works of the Mosaic Law), if such was implied in their question. But Jesus did not necessarily correct their errant theology. He answered their question, which was qualified as the works of God, or the works which God requires. Adam Clarke interprets, "That is, Divine works, or such as God can approve."³ Jesus responded, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom he has sent" (John 6:29). Frédéric Louis Godet comments:

Jesus, in His turn, enters into this idea of works to be done; only He reduces them all to a single one: the work, in contrast to the works (ver. 28). This work is faith in Him; in other terms: the gift of God is to be, not deserved, but simply accepted [or received]. Faith in Him whom God sends to communicate it is the sole condition for receiving it.⁴

Jesus, reflecting the Moses image connected with the manna which fell from heaven (i.e., God), by which food their lives were sustained (cf. Exodus 16:15; Num. 11:8; Neh. 9:15), declared Himself to be the bread (manna) which came down from heaven (i.e., God), and that this bread -- this food: feeding on Him, so to speak -- is true food, food which they needed for salvation (John 6:30-33).

The Jewish people responded, "Lord, always give us this bread" (John 6:34). Note that Jesus then informed them that they, each one of them, must come to Him, and when he or she did so, hunger and thirst for spiritual realities would be satisfied (John 6:35). Again, this bread, admitted Jesus, is "that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world" (John 6:33). Thus we know that the bread, Christ Himself, and His intent to give its benefits, were restricted here to no one person or group, since the word world is all-inclusive.

But there was a problem. The bread from heaven -- the bread of salvation -- stood before them and yet they would not "work for the food . . . which endures to eternal life" (John 6:27). They would not work "the work of God," which is to "believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29). He promised to satisfy their spiritual hunger and thirst by offering Himself as the genuine object of their spiritual needs. Jesus responded, "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet you do not believe" (John 6:36).

This is the second occasion in this brief discourse that Jesus explicitly informed and confronted the Jewish people about their unbelief: "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled" (John 6:26). Again, Lenski comments, "These Galileans now know both the Bread and the eating; but this Bread does not attract them, this eating they refuse."⁵ Why did Jesus emphasize, twice now, the unbelief of this Jewish crowd? Lenski offers:

When the blessed reality of life and salvation in Christ is placed before the eyes and the hearts of men, so that they are made to see them, and when they then refuse to believe and to accept these gifts, their guilt is on their own heads. But Jesus points these people to this their guilt, not in order to cast them off forever (although they deserve that), but in order to drive fear into their conscience."⁶

If the Jewish people clearly and without doubt understood Jesus' message about Him being the Bread and Wine from heaven (God), complete with all its spiritual implications and applications, we are not explicitly informed. We have to remember, however, that Jesus elsewhere stated to Jewish ears, "So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him" (Luke 8:18). The crowds were responsible for rightly responding to Jesus' messages, which acted as a sort of testing ground, if you will, in order to verify the spiritual temperature of each individual.

By the era of Jesus, many hearts of the Jewish people had already grown cold to the realities of the God of Israel (cf. Matt. 13:12-15). Adam Clarke notes the spiritual truths the Jewish people should have derived from Christ's message in John 6:

The person who receives my [Christ's] doctrine, and believes in me as the great atoning sacrifice, shall be perfectly satisfied, and never more feel misery of mind. All the guilt of his sins shall be blotted out, and his soul shall be purified unto God; and, being enabled to love him with all his heart, he shall rest, fully, supremely, and finally happy, in his God.⁷

Yet, by the end of Christ's discourse with this group of Jewish followers, "many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore" (John 6:66). Though this group of Jewish believers saw Christ Jesus in the flesh -- saw the miracles He performed before their very eyes -- they did not, they would not, believe in Him (John 6:36).

__________

¹ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), second edition, trans. and eds. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 306.

² R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel (Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1942), 451-52. So the reader is not led to believe that the Arminian position grants any work, properly taken, of man to his salvation, Lenski comments, "But 'work for' excludes every Pelagian and synergistic sense. Even earthly food for bodily eating we do not produce by any 'working' of ours, it is God's creature and gift; witness every earthly harvest, also the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000" (451).

³ Adam Clarke, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Volume I. -- Matthew to the Acts (New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1883), 560.

⁴ Frédéric Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Historical and Critical Introduction (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1886), 20. Commenting further on the nature of this "work," he comments: "It is evident that, in this context, the genitive . . . of God, designates, not the author of the work (Augustine), but the one with reference to whom it is done: the question is of the work which God requires. What is called Paulinism is implied in this answer, which may be called the point of union between Paul and James. Faith is really a work, the highest work, for by it man gives himself [to God in and through Christ]" (20).

Godet seems to indicate that faith is not a work in the sense of being a meritorious act which God views as righteous, since we know that 1) no one is inherently righteous (Rom. 3:10-18); 2) no one has the inherent ability to come to Christ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit (John 6:44; 16:8-11); and 3) faith or belief in Christ is not counted a work in the sense of performing the works of the Law were counted as a work (Rom. 4:4-5). But, indeed, we must do the believing; God will not believe for us.

R. C. H. Lenski comments, "He makes the genitive 'of God' mean, not 'commanded by God,' but 'wrought by God.' And then in the [hina] clause, which is in apposition to 'this' . . . he plainly defines just what work God works in us. Faith is here called a 'work' in a peculiar sense, differentiating it entirely from 'works' as righteous acts of ours. We, indeed, must do the believing, but our believing is the work of God. We trust, but God kindles that trust in us" (455).

⁵ Lenski, 462.

⁶ Ibid., 462-63.

⁷ Clarke, 561.

Interpreting John 6:35-36: Coming to Christ (II.)

2012-01-17T08:00:00.000-05:00

Having declared Himself to be the bread (manna) from heaven, i.e., from God (John 6:32), and having offered this bread (Himself) to all people (John 6:33), Jesus exclaimed, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35 NASB). This proclamation was the first of Jesus' "I am" revelations (cf. John 6:35: the Bread of life; John 8:12: the Light of the world; John 10:7: the Door of the sheep; John 10:11: the Good shepherd; John 11:25: the Resurrection and the Life; John 14:6: the Way and the Truth and the Life; John 15:1: the true Vine).

The "I am" claims of Jesus, according to Robert H. Mounce, corresponded to "God's response to Moses, who asked him what to tell those who inquire concerning the name of the one who sent him. God reveals his name as 'I Am Who I Am.' He chooses to be known and worshiped as 'I Am' (Ex. 3:14)."¹ Just as Jesus is the manna from God (cf. John 6:31-33), so too is He the great I Am.

Jesus is "the bread of God" (John 6:33); He is also "the bread of life" (John 6:35) -- who "gives life to the world" (John 6:33) -- by which those who eat of it will have life within themselves. He stated further, "he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35). Without doubt, coming to and believing in Christ are one and the same. Note also the present tense verbs: i.e., the one who comes and keeps on coming to Christ, as well as the one who believes and keeps on believing in Christ, will never hunger or thirst respectively. Thus salvation depends upon continual coming to and believing in Christ Jesus.

Jesus then declared, "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe" (John 6:36; cf. John 5:36-38). What was the cause of this Jewish unbelief? Again, Mounce comments, "Miracles point beyond themselves only for those who see with the eyes of faith."² The Jewish people had "seen Jesus," implying they had seen the miracles He had performed, and yet they, according to Mounce's reference to Temple, 1:88, found the miracle of the feeding "a convenience rather than a revelation."³ D. A. Carson concurs:

True, in one sense Jesus can acknowledge to them, you have seen me . . . but they have seen only a mightily endowed man, a potential king ([John 6:14, 15]), not the Son of God who perfectly expresses the Father's word and deed ([John 5:19ff.]); they have seen only bread and power, not what they signify. This crowd has witnessed the divine revealer at work, but only their curiosity, appetites and political ambitions have been aroused, not their faith.⁴

This brings to mind Jesus' words to another Jewish crowd of would-be followers, "So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him" (Luke 8:18).

We learned from Jesus' parable of the sower the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the Jewish people: "You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; for the heart of this people has become dull, with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, otherwise they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return" (Matt. 13:14-15). The blinding of the hearts of many Jewish people was an act of judgment for their sins -- a judgment which resulted in the Babylonian captivity (cf. Isa. 6:8-13).

We also know from Scripture that this sad account was not true of all the Israelites, for there were some Jewish people whose hearts still followed Israel's God, waiting for His Messiah to come (cf. Matt. 1:18-19; 13:16; Luke 1:5-6; 2:25-32, 36-38).

Frédéric Louis Godet comments that the Jewish people "had faith enough to ask Him for the miraculous bread, but not to recognize Himself as the heavenly bread. This proves that they are still strangers to the spiritual needs which might lead them to Him, and to the work which He came to accomplish here on earth."⁵ Their own unwillingness to recognize or even investigate the claims of Jesus was a brazen display of ignorance -- as opposed to wisdom -- as well as self-reliance. These attitudes, no doubt, were due to the overwhelming influence of indwelling sin and a refusal to master it (cf. Gen. 4:7).

The bread of heaven Himself offered the Jewish people eternal life, but they had not the wisdom (cf. Matt. 7:24-25) to seek Him for attaining that life. Craig S. Keener comments:

But this commentary [on the bread of heaven] focuses on cultural context, hence it is particularly important for us to emphasize that bread often related to wisdom: Wisdom will feed a person with the "bread" of understanding (Sir 15:3); in words on which John 6:35 almost surely depends . . . Wisdom declares that whoever eats and drinks from her will hunger and thirst for more (Sir 24:21).⁶

Indeed, instead of asking Jesus for wisdom, or asking Him to explain further His teachings and parables (which were the teachings of the Father, cf. John 7:16), they misunderstood Him and seemed quite content in that confused state. "Thus," adds Keener, "whereas Jesus sought disciples among the Samaritans ([John 4:23]), these Galileans who sought Jesus for the wrong reason [i.e., for bread and kingly power] were not truly 'coming' to Him ([John 6:37])."⁷ Hence Jesus' devastating conclusion regarding the spiritual state of the Jewish followers: "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe" (John 6:36).

We know that Jesus was sent to the earth by the Father to "save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). Given such overwhelming unbelief among so many people, would Jesus' mission fail (cf. Matt. 7:13-14)? The answer is no. Albert Barnes comments, "Jesus then proceeds to state that, although they did not believe on him, yet his work would not be in vain, for others would come to him and be saved."⁸ Jesus continued His discourse to those Jewish people: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37). Jesus would in fact save sinners, and these sinners would be given to Him as a gift from the Father.

__________

¹ Robert H. Mounce, "John," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Luke - Acts, Volume 10, revised edition, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 444.

² Ibid., 445.

³ Ibid.

⁴ D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John: The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 289-90.

⁵ Frédéric Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Historical and Critical Introduction (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1886), 24.

⁶ Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 681.

⁷ Ibid., 684.

⁸ Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: The Gospels, ed. Robert Frew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 246.

Interpreting John 6:37: Coming to Christ (III.)

2012-01-17T07:00:00.000-05:00

Having informed His Jewish audience, "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe" (John 6:36 NASB, and henceforth), yet not admitting defeat in His mission as Savior, He added, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).

Without doubt, coming to and believing in Christ refer to one and the same theme -- the latter defining the former -- for Jesus also said, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35). A. W. Pink rightly notes:

There is, no doubt, a shade of difference between "believing on" Christ, and "coming to" Him. To "believe on" Christ is to receive God's testimony concerning His Son, and to rest on Him alone for salvation. To "come to" Him -- which is really the effect of the former -- is for the heart to go out to Him in loving confidence.¹

Pink then references a passage from the author of Hebrews: "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6, emphases added). But the Jewish audience to whom Jesus referred were neither coming to nor believing in Him.

Christ then added, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37a). Frédéric Louis Godet comments, "By the words: All that which the Father gives me, Jesus strongly contrasts the believers of all times with these men to whom He had just said: You do not believe!"² The widespread unbelief of the Jewish people would not hinder Christ's mission "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). Indeed, the first-century missionaries declared to the unbelieving Jewish people: "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 19:9; 22:21; 26:20; 28:26-28).

The unbelieving Jewish people did not threaten Christ's mission, for He boldly declared that the Father would be giving Him a people (John 6:37). Again, Godet comments: "The neuter [pan o], all that which, indicates a definite whole in which will appear complete at the end of the work. The extent of this [pan], all, depends on an act of the Father designated here by the term give, and later by teach and draw ([John 6:44-45])."³ J. H. Bernard comments that the "collective use of the neuter singular [pan, all] is not unknown in classical Greek. John has it several times (John 17:2, 24; 1 John 5:4, as well as at John 6:39 and here [John 6:37]), and always of the sum of those who have been 'begotten of God' and 'given' by the Father to the Son."⁴ Thus this group ("All that the Father gives Me") comprises believers -- i.e., those who have been "begotten of God" (cf. John 1:12-13). This is the only biblical sense of which to make of this group since the Father could not give unregenerate sinners to His Son, the Savior of mankind.

From Christ's own words we understand that those who come to Him also believe in Him (John 6:35). Hence the Father gives believers to the Son, making belief in Christ the actual condition to the Father's gift or giving. Jesus did not take this opportunity to teach the Jewish people soteriology (the doctrine of salvation, or how one becomes a "saved" individual). He merely made the bare and factual declaration that all the Father gives Him come to, i.e., believe in, Him.

In what is known as Christ's High Priestly prayer, we again encounter the theme of the Father's giving to the Son certain believers: "even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life" (John 17:2); "I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do" (John 17:4); "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me" (John 17:6), referring to the Disciples; "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You" (John 17:7); "for the words which You gave Me I have given to them" (John 17:8); "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours" (John 17:9); "Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me" (John 17:11, 12); "I have given them Your word" (John 17:14); "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them" (John 17:22); "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me" (John 17:24).

Note here one mention of the future active indicative may give (John 17:2; lit. will give), four times the aorist active indicative gave (John 17:2, 6, 8), and twelve times the perfect active indicative⁵ have given (John 17:2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 22, 24), contrasted with the present active indicative⁶ gives at John 6:37. Robert H. Mounce accurately comments:

The verb "to give" (didomi, GK 1443) is found seventeen times in this single prayer (seventy-six times in the gospel). Morris, 718 n. 6, cites Edwin Abbott's remark that "what 'grace' is in the Pauline Epistles, 'giving' is in the Fourth Gospel." It is the nature of God to give, because giving is the primary expression of love.⁷

Jesus Himself admitted, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13). God has made the ultimate sacrifice and demonstration of genuine love: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16; cf. 1 John 3:16, emphasis added). This gift (giving) continues to this day. The Father keeps on demonstrating His love for sinners by giving Christ to them, and then in turn keeps on giving believers to His Son.

What we derive from our passage (John 6:37) is that the Father is presently giving and will keep on giving believers to the Son. The Father has not given all believers to the Son from eternity past but is actively involved in giving believers to the Son as they come to and believe in Him (John 6:35, 37). Again, Godet comments:

The first of these three terms [i.e., all that which (the Father gives)] does not . . . refer to the eternal decree of election; there would rather be, in that case, the perfect has given. Jesus speaks of a divine action exerted in the heart of believers at the moment when they give themselves to Him.

This action is opposed not to human freedom, but to a purely carnal attraction, to the gross Messianic aspirations, which had, on this very morning, drawn these crowds to Jesus ([John 6:26]). It is that hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matt. 5:6) which the preparatory action of the Father produces in sincere souls. Every time that Jesus sees such a soul coming to Him, He receives it as a gift of God, and His success with it is certain.⁸

Note how Jesus had hand-selected His disciples (cf. John 1:41-49), and yet considered them as a gift from the Father (cf. John 17:6). The same truth continues to this day. Those who come to and believe in Christ (John 6:35; cf. Matt. 11:28) -- an action which is the responsibility of each individual -- the Father "gives" them to Him (John 6:37). Christ would never reject or cast such ones away from Himself, for His mission is to seek and to save that which was lost.

Finally, what is the nature of being given to Christ -- meaning, to what purpose? Being given to Christ by the Father is to be in Christ, or in union with Christ. "Therefore if anyone is in Christ [i.e., in union with Christ], he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor. 5:17, emphasis added). Our salvation is in Christ, as is our election by God in Christ: "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him" (Eph. 1:4, emphasis added).

Christ Jesus is the elect one of God (Isa. 42:1). Therefore, if anyone is in Him, he or she is elect (Eph. 1:4), saved (Eph. 2:8), regenerated (2 Cor. 5:17; Titus 3:5), sanctified (Acts 26:18), indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), and baptized into the body of Christ and in the Spirit Himself (1 Cor. 12:13). All spiritual realities find their epicenter in Christ Jesus. He is the Fountain of our spiritual identity; and believers are the Father's gift to the Son, for His redeeming work on the cross and subsequent resurrection, ascension, intercessory office, and future returning and conquering as Lord of lords and King of kings.

__________

¹ A. W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, Volume One, John 1 to 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan1945), 327-28.

² Frédéric Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Historical and Critical Introduction (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1886), 25.

³ Ibid.

⁴ J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Volume 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1953), 199-200.

⁵ David Alan Black writes: "Because the New Testament often draws a sharp distinction between the perfect and the other tenses, mastery of the Greek perfect is essential for accurate exegesis." The perfect active indicative, in this case the words have given, denotes action that is already completed; it also refers to "a state resulting from a completed action." In Jesus' prayer in John 17, the "giving" (of those whom the Father has given to Christ) was an action already completed, contrary to John 6:37, where the action is continual, on-going. See David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek, third edition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 73-75. Note also the aorist tense, gave: "The statement that Christ 'gave himself' for all people or for our sins appears as a creedal formula in Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:6." See The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, abridged edition, ed. Verlyn D. Vergrugge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 157. This action was completed in the past, contrary to John 6:37, where the action is continual.

⁶ The present active indicative, in the case of John 6:37 is our word gives, refers to "contemporaneous action, as opposed to action in the past or the future. It normally refers to continuous or repeated action." See Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: Key Insights into God's Word, NASB, eds. Spiros Zodhiates, Warren Baker, Joel Kletzing (Chattanooga: AMG International, Inc., 2008), 1706.

⁷ Robert H. Mounce, "John," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Luke-Acts Volume 10, revised edition, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 598.

⁸ Godet, 25. Adam Clarke agrees: "All that are drawn by the Father, ver. 44, i.e. all those who are influenced by his Spirit, and yield to those influences: for as many as are led (not driven or dragged) by the Spirit of God, they are the children of God, Rom. 8:14. God sent his prophets to proclaim his salvation to this people; and he accompanied their preaching with the influence of his Spirit. Those who yielded were saved: those who did not yield to these drawings were lost. . . .

"Those who come at the call of God he is represented here as giving to Christ, because it is through his blood alone that they can be saved. God, by his Spirit, convinces of sin, righteousness, and judgment [John 16:8-11]; those who acknowledge their iniquity, and their need of salvation, he gives to Christ, i.e. points out unto them the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world [John 1:29]." See Adam Clarke, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Volume I. -- Matthew to the Acts (New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1883), 561.

Interpreting John 6:38-40: Coming to Christ (IV.)

2012-01-17T06:00:00.000-05:00

Christ's mission to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10) would be successful in spite of the fact that many would reject Him. Success is not measured quantitatively but qualitatively, and there is no higher objective qualifier than Christ Jesus Himself. Though the Jewish crowd following Him had not placed their faith in Him (John 6:36), Christ could still insist that He would, indeed, have followers (John 6:35) -- followers He counted as a gift from His Father (John 6:37).

Jesus promised that the individual who comes to Him, He would "certainly not cast out" (John 6:37 NASB, and henceforth). He explains further: "For I have come down from heaven [cf. John 6:33, 38, 41, 50, 51, 58], not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Note the English word "certainly" (John 6:37): this communicates the Greek word ou, which negates its verb, and is used here for emphasis: i.e., "the one who comes to Me I will in no way whatsoever [ou] send away [ekballo, cast or throw out, send away, expel]" is the sense Jesus was conveying.

The reason why He would not expel someone who came to and believed in Him is hoti (for, because) He had come down from heaven to do the Father's will, and the Father's will was that of all He had given or would give Him, He would lose not one of them (John 6:39). On the contrary, He would raise these ones up on the last day (John 6:39). Moreover, Christ admitted that the will of His Father was that "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life" (John 6:40). These persons Christ will raise up on the last day (John 6:40).

The words "beholds" (theoron) and "believes" (pisteuon) are present active participles: thus everyone who is beholding (or looking to) the Son and believing in Him will have eternal life. Hence "looking to" and "believing in" Christ Jesus is not a one-time act but a present, continuous reality. Inherent in this statement is a condition to possessing eternal life: Only the person who is looking to the Son and believing in Him will have eternal life.

The authority that Christ had to raise up believers on the last day is inherent by nature. Jesus claimed six times in John 6 to have "come down from heaven" (John 6:33, 38, 41, 50, 51, 58). Robert H. Mounce comments, "By stressing that he 'comes down from heaven,' Jesus clearly establishes heaven as his eternal home. This in turn grants authority to all that he has to say."¹ We know that, "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1), meaning that the Word (i.e., Christ Jesus, cf. John 1:14) already existed. Moreover, "the Word was with God [whose eternal dwelling is heaven], and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Furthermore, we understand that Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (cf. John 5:22; Matt. 28:18). R. C. H. Lenski comments:

While the stress is on the purpose clause, which, therefore, also is expressed both negatively and positively, we must not overlook the main clause, in which Jesus says in so many words: "I (the Father's Son) have come down (perfect tense: and thus am now here) from heaven ([apo], elucidating [ek], "out of" in the previous verses)." And "I have come down from heaven" states in most literal fashion what in [John 6:33] Jesus says of himself as "the Bread of God," that this "comes out of heaven."²

The fact that Jesus had indeed "come down from heaven" convicted the Jewish people's unbelief to be not merely related to Himself and His person but also to His Father: "By thus putting himself back of the Father, Jesus makes plain to these Galileans that their unbelief is really opposition to the Father and to that Father's gracious will which Jesus is carrying out in his work with them. . . ."³ This fact was attested to by Jesus' words, "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself" (John 7:17).

We will note soon enough the reaction of the Jewish people to Christ's brief teaching here (e.g., John 6:41). Meanwhile, let us pay close attention to the following statement made by Christ: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Did Christ Jesus have His own will -- a will separate from that of the Father? I do not believe so.

Christ's meaning is clear. He did not want anyone to think that He had come to push His own agenda, force His own will, but merely to accomplish the task for which His Father had sent Him. Albert Barnes comments that the passage demonstrates Christ Jesus "came for a specific purpose . . . and means that . . . he came to do his Father's will, [and that] he would be faithful to the trust. Though his hearers should reject him, yet the will of God would be accomplished in the salvation of some who should come to him."⁴ Even in Christ's human nature, we should not think that He had a conflicting will from that of the Father, since, He confessed, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work" (John 4:34); and, "for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him" (John 8:29). Adam Clarke, speaking from Jesus' perspective in first person, comments:

I am come, not to act according to human motives, passions, or prejudices; but according to infinite wisdom, goodness, and mercy. Jewish passions and prejudices would reject publicans and sinners as those alluded to, and shut the gate of heaven against the Gentiles [cf. Matt. 23:13]; but God's mercy receives them, and I am come to manifest that mercy to men.⁵

We carefully note the Savior's genuine offer of salvation to all people thus far in John 6: "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal" (John 6:27); "For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world" (John 6:33); "I am the bread of life, he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35); "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:40).

__________

¹ Robert H. Mounce, "John," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Luke - Acts, Volume 10, revised edition, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 445.

² R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel (Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1942), 466.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: The Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 247.

⁵ Adam Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Volume 1. -- Matthew to the Acts (New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1883), 561.

Interpreting John 6:41-45: Coming to Christ (V.)

2012-01-17T05:00:00.007-05:00

In this final post, Jesus had explicitly offered Himself -- the Bread of God (John 6:33), the Bread of Life (John 6:35) -- to His Jewish audience, and yet they would not believe in Him (John 6:36); they would not "work for . . . the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you" (John 6:27 NASB, and henceforth; cf. John 6:29).

Still, anyone who "comes to" and "believes in" Him will be "given to" Him as a gift from the Father (John 6:35, 37). These people He will raise up on the last day (John 6:39, 40), for He Himself came down from heaven to accomplish the Father's will (John 6:38), and the Father's will is that, "of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day" (John 6:39). How did the Jewish crowd react to Christ's message?

"Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, 'I am the bread that came down out of heaven.' They were saying, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?" (John 6:41-42, emphases added). Their complaint is very telling. I am led to believe that they did not detect any language from Jesus with regard to the doctrine of Unconditional Election, for had they done so, their reaction would have been different.

The Jewish people were considered God's elect people (cf. Deut. 7:7). They had been, corporately, yet individually, called out of the idolatrous nations through Abraham to be God's holy people; He had chosen them "to be a people for His own possession out of all peoples who are on the face of the earth" (Deut. 7:6). God chose to set His love on them (Deut. 7:7); and He did so unconditionally.

However, though the Jewish people as a nation were corporately chosen unconditionally, salvation, so to speak, was still conditioned upon faith in the God of Israel. In other words, none of the Jewish people were saved unconditionally. "For we say, 'Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.' How was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them" (Rom. 4:9-11).

The Jewish people were indeed the elect of God. (The apostle Paul insisted that "the adoption" and other prior blessings still belongs to them, cf. Rom. 9:4-5.) But this Messiah, Jesus, the one claiming to be the Son of God, insisted that the Jewish people needed to come to and believe in Him; and those who did come to and believe in Him were counted as a gift of the Father. But their grumbling was the result, not of Jesus rebuking them for their unbelief (cf. John 6:36), but for insisting that He was the Manna (i.e., bread) that had came down out of heaven. Andreas Köstenberger comments:

There are obvious parallels between Jesus' Jewish opponents and wilderness Israel (cf. Exod. 16:2, 8-9; Num. 11:4-23). Just as the Israelites grumbled about the first giver of bread, Moses, so now they grumbled about the second, Jesus (1 Cor. 10:10); and just as in the wilderness, the Jews' grumbling ultimately is directed against God himself (Moloney 1998: 217).¹

Jesus then commanded His Jewish audience, "Do not grumble among yourselves" (John 6:43). The Greek word for "were grumbling" at John 6:41 (egonguzon) is imperfect active indicative, informing us of a perpetual grumbling or complaining. They did not merely complain once but were continually grumbling and complaining about His message and claim. Their complaint seemed valid to them; after all, they had known Jesus, son of Joseph, since He was a small boy. Robert H. Mounce adds: "From their perspective, the logic was irrefutable. Jesus was either misguided or, even worse, attempting to foist off on them a fraudulent claim of essential superiority."²

Jesus, however, did not believe they had cause for grumbling. Frédéric Louis Godet explains: "In other words: 'A truce to these murmurs; it is not my word that is absurd; it is you who are incapable of comprehending it, and all your 'hows' will serve no purpose, so long as you remain in this moral condition."³ Adam Clarke agrees. The grumbling of the Jewish people was aroused because "the whole of his discourse went to prove that he was infinitely greater than Moses; and that he alone could give present peace and eternal glory to men."⁴

Their grumbling was futile. Jesus continued, "No one [oudeis, not even one person] can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught of God." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me'" (John 6:44-45). The Jews' grumbling about Jesus' identity was getting them nowhere, spiritually speaking. In other words, their grumbling was not drawing them toward Christ but away from Him.

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35). Their grumbling against Him was only adding to their spiritual problem -- a spiritual problem inherent in the Jewish people for centuries (cf. Matt. 13:14-15; Isa. 6:9-10). Jesus then emphatically stated their true problem: they were incapable of coming to and believing in Him of their own strength. Again, Köstenberger writes:

Jesus proceeds to underscore the human inability to gain salvation apart from divine enablement. People can come to him only if the Father who sent Jesus draws them. Ultimately, therefore, salvation depends not on human believing [an impossibility], but on the "drawing" action of the Father (presumably by the Holy Spirit) by which God moves a person to faith in Christ (cf. [John 12:32]; see also Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; see Ridderbos 1997: 232).⁵

Much attention has been granted to both the English and Greek words draw and elkuse respectively (elkuse being the aorist active subjunctive of the verb helkuo). This verb (according to BDAG) may refer 1) "to [moving] an object from one area to another in a pulling motion, draw, with the implication that the object being moved is incapable of propelling itself or in the case of [the person being] unwilling to do so voluntarily, in either case with implication of exertion on the part of the mover"; 2) "to draw a person in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract, an extended figurative use"; 3) "to appear to be pulled in a certain direction, flow, a . . . figurative use . . . flow along of a river."⁶

Some emphasize the use of helkuo to mean drag, which does find scriptural usage (cf. John 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 21:30; James 2:6). Incidentally, BDAG places helkuo in the second categorical use of the word in John 6:44: "to draw a person in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract." Albert Barnes concludes that God inclines the soul and thus receives all glory, but that the individual "yields without compulsion."⁷ John Peter Lange comments that helkuo denotes "all sorts of drawing, from violence to persuasion or invitation."⁸ Again, Godet explains: "The two divine works external and internal, answer to and complete each other. The happy moment in which they meet in the heart, and in which the will is thus gained, is that of the gift on God's part, of faith on man's part."⁹

R. C. H. Lenski agrees that this drawing, helkuo, is "accomplished by a specific power, one especially designed for the purpose, one that takes hold of the sinner's soul and moves it away from darkness, sin, and death, to Jesus, light, and life. No man can possibly thus draw himself to Jesus. The Father, God himself, must come with his divine power and must do this drawing; else it will never be effected."¹⁰ Lenski continues to defend his thesis that the external drawing "belongs equally to all three Persons" of the Godhead:

The Sender of Jesus is here mentioned because of the unbelieving Galileans; they are to understand that it is God himself who is now dealing with them through Jesus whom he has sent. The power by which these Jews are at this very moment being drawn is the power of divine grace, operative in and through the Word these Jews now hear from the lips of Jesus. While it is power (Rom. 1:16), efficacious to save, it is never irresistible (Matt. 23:37, "and ye would not").¹¹

Interpreting John 6:26-45: Coming to Christ

2012-01-16T05:00:00.000-05:00

The season of Passover had come and a large Jewish crowd was following Jesus because "they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick" (John 6:2 NASB). Quietly, Jesus went up on a mountainside with His disciples. There He saw the crowds coming to Him. Realizing their need for food, Jesus asked where they might buy bread, so that they could eat. Jesus demonstrated His care or concern for the Jewish people. However, He also had in mind what He intended to do.

With five barley loaves and two fish Jesus fed over five thousand people (John 6:10). "Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, 'This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world'" (John 6:14). Knowing their intention to "come and take Him by force to make Him king" (John 6:15), Jesus quickly sneaked away again to the mountainside.

JOHN 6:26-27: THE FOOD OF ETERNAL LIFE

The following day, the crowds were seeking Jesus, but He responded, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled" (John 6:26). He then instructed them to "work [ergazomai] for the food which endures to eternal life," which He Himself was willing to give them (John 6:27).

Spending so much effort in order to be filled physically, Jesus instructed the Jewish people to place their efforts on being filled spiritually -- through "the food" which "endures to eternal life." He instructed them not to work for their salvation, but, if you will, to attune their hearts toward salvation, which can only be found (by grace) through faith (John 6:29) in Christ. The Greek word ergazomai (according to BDAG) carries the notion: to work, work out, labor, trade, do, perform; deed, action.¹ R. C. H. Lenski comments:

When Jesus bids the people at Capernaum to "work" thus, he implies that they have not as yet done so. They, indeed, had come and had heard, but altogether superficially, with their ears not with their hearts. They had clung to the temporal and transient, and every effort of Jesus to give them the eternal they had passed over coldly and indifferently.²

Note what Jesus informed each individual in the crowd: Work for "the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you" (John 6:27). Thus we know that the message of Christ and His intent to give its benefits were restricted here to no one person or group; the Son of Man "will give" to you, though we know from the context that such was not bestowed irresistibly, nor unconditionally, since the condition of belief had first to be accomplished.

JOHN 6:28-33: THE BREAD AS SIGN

Did these Jewish people adequately understand Christ's message? They asked, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" (John 6:28) Let us note what Jesus could have said in response. He could have corrected their thinking about working for salvation (perhaps through works of the Mosaic Law), if such was implied in their question. But Jesus did not necessarily correct their errant theology. He answered their question, which was qualified as the works of God, or the works which God requires. Adam Clarke interprets, "That is, Divine works, or such as God can approve."³ Jesus responded, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom he has sent" (John 6:29). Frédéric Louis Godet comments:

Jesus, in His turn, enters into this idea of works to be done; only He reduces them all to a single one: the work, in contrast to the works (ver. 28). This work is faith in Him; in other terms: the gift of God is to be, not deserved, but simply accepted [or received]. Faith in Him whom God sends to communicate it is the sole condition for receiving it.⁴

Jesus, reflecting the Moses image connected with the manna which fell from heaven (i.e., God), by which food their lives were sustained (cf. Exodus 16:15; Num. 11:8; Neh. 9:15), declared Himself to be the bread (manna) which came down from heaven (i.e., God), and that this bread -- this food: feeding on Him, so to speak -- is true food, food which they needed for salvation (John 6:30-33).

JOHN 6:34-36: THE BREAD REFUSED

The Jewish people responded, "Lord, always give us this bread" (John 6:34). Note that Jesus then informed them that they, each one of them, must come to Him, and when he or she did so, hunger and thirst for spiritual realities would be satisfied (John 6:35). Again, this bread, admitted Jesus, is "that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world" (John 6:33). Thus we know that the bread, Christ Himself, and His intent to give its benefits, were restricted here to no one person or group, since the word world is all-inclusive.

But there was a problem. The bread from heaven -- the bread of salvation -- stood before them and yet they would not "work for the food . . . which endures to eternal life" (John 6:27). They would not work "the work of God," which is to "believe in Him whom He has sent" (John 6:29). He promised to satisfy their spiritual hunger and thirst by offering Himself as the genuine object of their spiritual needs. Jesus responded, "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet you do not believe" (John 6:36).

This is the second occasion in this brief discourse that Jesus explicitly informed and confronted the Jewish people about their unbelief: "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled" (John 6:26). Again, Lenski comments, "These Galileans now know both the Bread and the eating; but this Bread does not attract them, this eating they refuse."⁵ Why did Jesus emphasize, twice now, the unbelief of this Jewish crowd? Lenski offers:

When the blessed reality of life and salvation in Christ is placed before the eyes and the hearts of men, so that they are made to see them, and when they then refuse to believe and to accept these gifts, their guilt is on their own heads. But Jesus points these people to this their guilt, not in order to cast them off forever (although they deserve that), but in order to drive fear into their conscience."⁶

The person who receives my [Christ's] doctrine, and believes in me as the great atoning sacrifice, shall be perfectly satisfied, and never more feel misery of mind. All the guilt of his sins shall be blotted out, and his soul shall be purified unto God; and, being enabled to love him with all his heart, he shall rest, fully, supremely, and finally happy, in his God.⁷

Having declared Himself to be the bread (manna) from heaven, i.e., from God (John 6:32), and having offered this bread (Himself) to all people (John 6:33), Jesus exclaimed, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35 NASB). This proclamation was the first of Jesus' "I am" revelations (cf. John 6:35: the Bread of life; John 8:12: the Light of the world; John 10:7: the Door of the sheep; John 10:11: the Good shepherd; John 11:25: the Resurrection and the Life; John 14:6: the Way and the Truth and the Life; John 15:1: the true Vine).

The "I am" claims of Jesus, according to Robert H. Mounce, corresponded to "God's response to Moses, who asked him what to tell those who inquire concerning the name of the one who sent him. God reveals his name as 'I Am Who I Am.' He chooses to be known and worshiped as 'I Am' (Ex. 3:14)."⁸ Just as Jesus is the manna from God (cf. John 6:31-33), so too is He the great I Am.

Jesus is "the bread of God" (John 6:33); He is also "the bread of life" (John 6:35) -- who "gives life to the world" (John 6:33) -- by which those who eat of it will have life within themselves. He stated further, "he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35). Without doubt, coming to and believing in Christ are one and the same. Note also the present tense verbs: i.e., the one who comes and keeps on coming to Christ, as well as the one who believes and keeps on believing in Christ, will never hunger or thirst respectively. Thus salvation depends upon continual coming to and believing in Christ Jesus.

JOHN 6:36: JEWISH UNBELIEF

Jesus then declared, "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe" (John 6:36; cf. John 5:36-38). What was the cause of this Jewish unbelief? Again, Mounce comments, "Miracles point beyond themselves only for those who see with the eyes of faith."⁹ The Jewish people had "seen Jesus," implying they had seen the miracles He had performed, and yet they, according to Mounce's reference to Temple, 1:88, found the miracle of the feeding "a convenience rather than a revelation."¹⁰ D. A. Carson concurs:

True, in one sense Jesus can acknowledge to them, you have seen me . . . but they have seen only a mightily endowed man, a potential king ([John 6:14, 15]), not the Son of God who perfectly expresses the Father's word and deed ([John 5:19ff.]); they have seen only bread and power, not what they signify. This crowd has witnessed the divine revealer at work, but only their curiosity, appetites and political ambitions have been aroused, not their faith.¹¹

This brings to mind Jesus' words to another Jewish crowd of would-be followers, "So take care how you listen; for whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him" (Luke 8:18).

We learned from Jesus' parable of the sower the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the Jewish people: "You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; for the heart of this people has become dull, with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, otherwise they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return" (Matt. 13:14-15). The blinding of the hearts of many Jewish people was an act of judgment for their sins -- a judgment which resulted in the Babylonian captivity (cf. Isa. 6:8-13).

We also know from Scripture that this sad account was not true of all the Israelites, for there were some Jewish people whose hearts still followed Israel's God, waiting for His Messiah to come (cf. Matt. 1:18-19; 13:16; Luke 1:5-6; 2:25-32, 36-38).

Frédéric Louis Godet comments that the Jewish people "had faith enough to ask Him for the miraculous bread, but not to recognize Himself as the heavenly bread. This proves that they are still strangers to the spiritual needs which might lead them to Him, and to the work which He came to accomplish here on earth."¹² Their own unwillingness to recognize or even investigate the claims of Jesus was a brazen display of ignorance -- as opposed to wisdom -- as well as self-reliance. These attitudes, no doubt, were due to the overwhelming influence of indwelling sin and a refusal to master it (cf. Gen. 4:7).

The bread of heaven Himself offered the Jewish people eternal life, but they had not the wisdom (cf. Matt. 7:24-25) to seek Him for attaining that life. Craig S. Keener comments:

But this commentary [on the bread of heaven] focuses on cultural context, hence it is particularly important for us to emphasize that bread often related to wisdom: Wisdom will feed a person with the "bread" of understanding (Sir 15:3); in words on which John 6:35 almost surely depends . . . Wisdom declares that whoever eats and drinks from her will hunger and thirst for more (Sir 24:21).¹³

There is, no doubt, a shade of difference between "believing on" Christ, and "coming to" Him. To "believe on" Christ is to receive God's testimony concerning His Son, and to rest on Him alone for salvation. To "come to" Him -- which is really the effect of the former -- is for the heart to go out to Him in loving confidence.¹⁶

Pink then references a passage from the author of Hebrews: "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6, emphases added). But the Jewish audience to whom Jesus referred were neither coming to nor believing in Him.

Christ then added, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me" (John 6:37a). Frédéric Louis Godet comments, "By the words: All that which the Father gives me, Jesus strongly contrasts the believers of all times with these men to whom He had just said: You do not believe!"¹⁷ The widespread unbelief of the Jewish people would not hinder Christ's mission "to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10). Indeed, the first-century missionaries declared to the unbelieving Jewish people: "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 19:9; 22:21; 26:20; 28:26-28).

The unbelieving Jewish people did not threaten Christ's mission, for He boldly declared that the Father would be giving Him a people (John 6:37). Again, Godet comments: "The neuter [pan o], all that which, indicates a definite whole in which will appear complete at the end of the work. The extent of this [pan], all, depends on an act of the Father designated here by the term give, and later by teach and draw ([John 6:44-45])."¹⁸ J. H. Bernard comments that the "collective use of the neuter singular [pan, all] is not unknown in classical Greek. John has it several times (John 17:2, 24; 1 John 5:4, as well as at John 6:39 and here [John 6:37]), and always of the sum of those who have been 'begotten of God' and 'given' by the Father to the Son."¹⁹ Thus this group ("All that the Father gives Me") comprises believers -- i.e., those who have been "begotten of God" (cf. John 1:12-13). This is the only biblical sense of which to make of this group since the Father could not give unregenerate sinners to His Son, the Savior of mankind.

From Christ's own words we understand that those who come to Him also believe in Him (John 6:35). Hence the Father gives believers to the Son, making belief in Christ the actual condition of the Father's gift or giving. Jesus did not take this opportunity to teach the Jewish people soteriology (the doctrine of salvation, or how one becomes a "saved" individual). He merely made the bare and factual declaration that all the Father gives Him come to, i.e., believe in, Him.

In what is known as Christ's High Priestly prayer, we again encounter the theme of the Father's giving to the Son certain believers: "even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life" (John 17:2); "I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do" (John 17:4); "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me" (John 17:6), referring to the Disciples; "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You" (John 17:7); "for the words which You gave Me I have given to them" (John 17:8); "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours" (John 17:9); "Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me" (John 17:11, 12); "I have given them Your word" (John 17:14); "The glory which You have given Me I have given to them" (John 17:22); "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me" (John 17:24).

Note once the future active indicative may give (John 17:2; lit. will give), four times the aorist active indicative gave (John 17:2, 6, 8), and twelve times the perfect active indicative²⁰ have given (John 17:2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 22, 24), contrasted with the present active indicative²¹ gives at John 6:37. Robert H. Mounce accurately comments:

The verb "to give" (didomi, GK 1443) is found seventeen times in this single prayer (seventy-six times in the gospel). Morris, 718 n. 6, cites Edwin Abbott's remark that "what 'grace' is in the Pauline Epistles, 'giving' is in the Fourth Gospel." It is the nature of God to give, because giving is the primary expression of love.²²

The first of these three terms [i.e., all that which (the Father gives)] does not . . . refer to the eternal decree of election; there would rather be, in that case, the perfect has given. Jesus speaks of a divine action exerted in the heart of believers at the moment when they give themselves to Him.

This action is opposed not to human freedom, but to a purely carnal attraction, to the gross Messianic aspirations, which had, on this very morning, drawn these crowds to Jesus ([John 6:26]). It is that hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matt. 5:6) which the preparatory action of the Father produces in sincere souls. Every time that Jesus sees such a soul coming to Him, He receives it as a gift of God, and His success with it is certain.²³

Christ's mission to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10) would be successful in spite of the fact that many would reject Him. Success is not measured quantitatively but qualitatively, and there is no higher objective qualifier than Christ Jesus Himself. Though the Jewish crowd following Him had not placed their faith in Him (John 6:36), Christ could still insist that He would, indeed, have followers (John 6:35) -- followers He counted as a gift from the Father (John 6:37).

Jesus promised that the individual who comes to Him, He would "certainly not cast out" (John 6:37 NASB, and henceforth). He explains further: "For I have come down from heaven [cf. John 6:33, 38, 41, 50, 51, 58], not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Note the English word "certainly" (John 6:37): this signifies the Greek word ou, which negates its verb, and is used here for emphasis: i.e., "the one who comes to Me I will in no way whatsoever [ou] send away [ekballo, cast or throw out, send away, expel]" is the sense Jesus was conveying.

The reason why He would not expel someone who came to and believed in Him is, hoti (for, because) He had come down from heaven to do the Father's will, and the Father's will was that of all He had given or would give Him, He would lose not one of them (John 6:39). On the contrary, He would raise these ones up on the last day (John 6:39). Moreover, Christ admitted that the will of His Father was that "everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life" (John 6:40). These persons Christ will raise up on the last day (John 6:40).

The words "beholds" (theoron) and "believes" (pisteuon) are present active participles: thus everyone who is beholding (or looking to) the Son and believing in Him will have eternal life. Hence "looking to" and believing in" Christ Jesus is not a one-time act but a present, continuous reality. Inherent in this statement is a condition to possessing eternal life: Only the person who is looking to the Son and believing in Him will have eternal life.

The authority that Christ had to raise up believers on the last day is inherent by nature. Jesus claimed six times in John 6 to have "come down from heaven" (John 6:33, 38, 41, 50, 51, 58). Robert H. Mounce comments, "By stressing that he 'comes down from heaven,' Jesus clearly establishes heaven as his eternal home. This in turn grants authority to all that he has to say."²⁴ We know that, "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1), meaning that the Word (i.e., Christ Jesus, cf. John 1:14) already existed. Moreover, "the Word was with God [whose eternal dwelling is heaven], and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Furthermore, we understand that Christ has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (cf. John 5:22; Matt. 28:18). R. C. H. Lenski comments:

While the stress is on the purpose clause, which, therefore, also is expressed both negatively and positively, we must not overlook the main clause, in which Jesus says in so many words: "I (the Father's Son) have come down (perfect tense: and thus am now here) from heaven ([apo], elucidating [ek], "out of" in the previous verses)." And "I have come down from heaven" states in most literal fashion what in [John 6:33] Jesus says of himself as "the Bread of God," that this "comes out of heaven."²⁵

The fact that Jesus had indeed "come down from heaven" convicted the Jewish people's unbelief to be not merely related to Himself and His person but also to His Father: "By thus putting himself back of the Father, Jesus makes plain to these Galileans that their unbelief is really opposition to the Father and to that Father's gracious will which Jesus is carrying out in his work with them. . . ."²⁶ This fact was attested to by Jesus' words, "If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself" (John 7:17).

We will note soon enough the reaction of the Jewish people to Christ's brief teaching here (e.g., John 6:41). Meanwhile, let us pay close attention to the following statement made by Christ: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Did Christ Jesus have His own will -- a will separate from that of the Father? I do not believe so.

Christ's meaning is clear. He did not want anyone to think that He had come to push His own agenda, force His own will, but merely to accomplish the task for which His Father had sent Him. Albert Barnes comments that the passage demonstrates Christ Jesus "came for a specific purpose . . . and means that . . . he came to do his Father's will, [and that] he would be faithful to the trust. Though his hearers should reject him, yet the will of God would be accomplished in the salvation of some who should come to him."²⁷ Even in Christ's human nature, we should not think that He had a conflicting will from that of the Father, since, He confessed, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work" (John 4:34), and, "for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him" (John 8:29). Adam Clarke, speaking from Jesus' perspective in first person, comments:

I am come, not to act according to human motives, passions, or prejudices; but according to infinite wisdom, goodness, and mercy. Jewish passions and prejudices would reject publicans and sinners as those alluded to, and shut the gate of heaven against the Gentiles [cf. Matt. 23:13]; but God's mercy receives them, and I am come to manifest that mercy to men.²⁸

Jesus had explicitly offered Himself -- the Bread of God (John 6:33), the Bread of Life (John 6:35) -- to His Jewish audience, and yet they would not believe in Him (John 6:36); they would not "work for . . . the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you" (John 6:27 NASB, and henceforth; cf. John 6:29).

Still, anyone who "comes to" and "believes in" Him will be "given to" Him as a gift from the Father (John 6:35, 37). These people He will raise up on the last day (John 6:39, 40), for He Himself came down from heaven to accomplish the Father's will (John 6:38), and the Father's will is that, "of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day" (John 6:39). How did the Jewish crowd react to Christ's message?

"Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, 'I am the bread that came down out of heaven.' They were saying, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, 'I have come down out of heaven'?" (John 6:41-42, emphases added). Their complaint is very telling. I am led to believe that they did not detect any language from Jesus with regard to the doctrine of Unconditional Election, for had they done so, their reaction would have been different.

The Jewish people were considered God's elect people (cf. Deut. 7:7). They had been, corporately, yet individually, called out of the idolatrous nations through Abraham to be God's holy people; He had chosen them "to be a people for His own possession out of all peoples who are on the face of the earth" (Deut. 7:6). God chose to set His love on them (Deut. 7:7); and He did so unconditionally.

However, though the Jewish people as a nation were corporately chosen unconditionally, salvation, so to speak, was still conditioned upon faith in the God of Israel. In other words, none of the Jewish people were saved unconditionally. "For we say, 'Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.' How was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them" (Rom. 4:9-11).

The Jewish people were indeed the elect of God. (The apostle Paul insisted that "the adoption" and other prior blessings still belongs to them, cf. Rom. 9:4-5.) But this Messiah, Jesus, the one claiming to be the Son of God, insisted that the Jewish people needed to come to and believe in Him; and those who did come to and believe in Him were counted as a gift of the Father. But their grumbling was the result, not of Jesus rebuking them for their unbelief (cf. John 6:36), but for insisting that He was the Manna (i.e., bread) that had came down out of heaven. Andreas Köstenberger comments:

There are obvious parallels between Jesus' Jewish opponents and wilderness Israel (cf. Exod. 16:2, 8-9; Num. 11:4-23). Just as the Israelites grumbled about the first giver of bread, Moses, so now they grumbled about the second, Jesus (1 Cor. 10:10); and just as in the wilderness, the Jews' grumbling ultimately is directed against God himself (Moloney 1998: 217).²⁹

Jesus then commanded His Jewish audience, "Do not grumble among yourselves" (John 6:43). The Greek word for "were grumbling" at John 6:41 (egonguzon) is imperfect active indicative, informing us of a perpetual grumbling or complaining. They did not merely complain once but were continually grumbling and complaining about His message and claim. Their complaint seemed valid to them; after all, they had known Jesus, son of Joseph, since He was a small boy. Robert H. Mounce adds: "From their perspective, the logic was irrefutable. Jesus was either misguided or, even worse, attempting to foist off on them a fraudulent claim of essential superiority."³⁰

Jesus, however, did not believe they had cause for grumbling. Frédéric Louis Godet explains: "In other words: 'A truce to these murmurs; it is not my word that is absurd; it is you who are incapable of comprehending it, and all your 'hows' will serve no purpose, so long as you remain in this moral condition."³¹ Adam Clarke agrees. The grumbling of the Jewish people was aroused because "the whole of his discourse went to prove that he was infinitely greater than Moses; and that he alone could give present peace and eternal glory to men."³²

JOHN 6:43-45 THE DRAWING

Their grumbling was futile. Jesus continued, "No one [oudeis, not even one person] can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught of God." Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me'" (John 6:44-45). The Jews' grumbling about Jesus' identity was getting them nowhere, spiritually speaking. In other words, their grumbling was not drawing them toward Christ but away from Him.

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst" (John 6:35). Their grumbling against Him was only adding to their spiritual problem -- a spiritual problem inherent in the Jewish people for centuries (cf. Matt. 13:14-15; Isa. 6:9-10). Jesus then emphatically stated their true problem: they were incapable of coming to and believing in Him of their own strength. Again, Köstenberger writes:

Jesus proceeds to underscore the human inability to gain salvation apart from divine enablement. People can come to him only if the Father who sent Jesus draws them. Ultimately, therefore, salvation depends not on human believing [an impossibility], but on the "drawing" action of the Father (presumably by the Holy Spirit) by which God moves a person to faith in Christ (cf. [John 12:32]; see also Jer. 31:3; Hos. 11:4; see Ridderbos 1997: 232).³³

Much attention has been granted to both the English and Greek words draw and elkuse respectively (elkuse being the aorist active subjunctive of the verb helkuo). This verb (according to BDAG) may refer 1) "to [moving] an object from one area to another in a pulling motion, draw, with the implication that the object being moved is incapable of propelling itself or in the case of [the person being] unwilling to do so voluntarily, in either case with implication of exertion on the part of the mover"; 2) "to draw a person in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract, an extended figurative use"; 3) "to appear to be pulled in a certain direction, flow, a . . . figurative use . . . flow along of a river."³⁴

Some emphasize the use of helkuo to mean drag, which does find scriptural usage (cf. John 18:10; 21:6, 11; Acts 21:30; James 2:6). Incidentally, BDAG places helkuo in the second categorical use of the word in John 6:44: "to draw a person in the direction of values for inner life, draw, attract." Albert Barnes concludes that God inclines the soul and thus receives all glory, but that the individual "yields without compulsion."³⁵ John Peter Lange comments that helkuo denotes "all sorts of drawing, from violence to persuasion or invitation."³⁶ Again, Godet explains: "The two divine works external and internal, answer to and complete each other. The happy moment in which they meet in the heart, and in which the will is thus gained, is that of the gift on God's part, of faith on man's part."³⁷

R. C. H. Lenski agrees that this drawing, helkuo, is "accomplished by a specific power, one especially designed for the purpose, one that takes hold of the sinner's soul and moves it away from darkness, sin, and death, to Jesus, light, and life. No man can possibly thus draw himself to Jesus. The Father, God himself, must come with his divine power and must do this drawing; else it will never be effected.³⁸ Lenski continues to defend his thesis that the external drawing "belongs equally to all three Persons" of the Godhead:

The Sender of Jesus is here mentioned because of the unbelieving Galileans; they are to understand that it is God himself who is now dealing with them through Jesus whom he has sent. The power by which these Jews are at this very moment being drawn is the power of divine grace, operative in and through the Word these Jews now hear from the lips of Jesus. While it is power (Rom. 1:16), efficacious to save, it is never irresistible (Matt. 23:37, "and ye would not").³⁹

That is the question most students of Scripture want answered: Is this drawing, helkuo, resistible? Arminians and others answer yes, while Calvinists and others answer no. Arminians and others emphasize persuasion and attracting, while Calvinists and others emphasize dragging (cause and effect).⁴⁰

Jesus continued expounding on the concept of certain ones being drawn to Him, noting that those certain ones have "heard and learned from the Father" (John 6:45). This is directly connected to the previous verse.⁴¹ We understand that merely hearing the message of the gospel will not save the soul. Jesus said, "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock" (Matt. 7:24). James, the Lord's half brother, wrote, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves" (James 1:22). So it is that those who have "heard and learned from the Father" -- the message of the Father that Christ was presenting (cf. John 7:17) -- these are the ones who "come to" Jesus (John 6:45).

Yet, "coming to" (John 6:35, 37, 45), "believing in" (John 6:29, 35, 40), being "given" and "drawn" to Christ (John 6:37, 39, 44), "hearing and learning" the word (John 6:45; 7:17), are all activities initiated from the gracious internal and external moving of God, the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. God alone will receive glory for the salvation of any sinner, since no sinner can inherently come to, believe in, give or draw himself to Christ Jesus. This work must be the granting of the Father in the Son through the Spirit (cf. John 6:65; Phil. 1:29).

__________

¹ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), third edition, revised and edited by Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 389.

² R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel (Columbus: Lutheran Book Concern, 1942), 451-52. So the reader is not led to believe that the Arminian position grants any work, properly taken, of man to his salvation, Lenski comments, "But 'work for' excludes every Pelagian and synergistic sense. Even earthly food for bodily eating we do not produce by any 'working' of ours, it is God's creature and gift; witness every earthly harvest, also the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000" (451).

³ Adam Clarke, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Volume I. -- Matthew to the Acts (New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1883), 560.

⁴ Frédéric Louis Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Historical and Critical Introduction (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1886), 20. Commenting further on the nature of this "work," he comments: "It is evident that, in this context, the genitive . . . of God, designates, not the author of the work (Augustine), but the one with reference to whom it is done: the question is of the work which God requires. What is called Paulinism is implied in this answer, which may be called the point of union between Paul and James. Faith is really a work, the highest work, for by it man gives himself [to God in and through Christ]" (20).

Godet seems to indicate that faith is not a work in the sense of being a meritorious act which God views as righteous, since we know that 1) no one is inherently righteous (Rom. 3:10-18); 2) no one has the inherent ability to come to Christ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit (John 6:44; 16:8-11); and 3) faith or belief in Christ is not counted a work in the sense of performing the works of the Law were counted as a work (Rom. 4:4-5). But, indeed, we must do the believing; God will not believe for us.

R. C. H. Lenski comments, "He makes the genitive 'of God' mean, not 'commanded by God,' but 'wrought by God.' And then in the [hina] clause, which is in apposition to 'this' . . . he plainly defines just what work God works in us. Faith is here called a 'work' in a peculiar sense, differentiating it entirely from 'works' as righteous acts of ours. We, indeed, must do the believing, but our believing is the work of God. We trust, but God kindles that trust in us" (455).

⁵ Lenski, 462.

⁶ Ibid., 462-63.

⁷ Clarke, 561.

⁸ Robert H. Mounce, "John," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, revised edition, eds. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 444.

⁹ Ibid., 445.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John: The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), 289-90.

¹² Godet, 24.

¹³ Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 681.

¹⁴ Ibid., 684.

¹⁵ Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament: The Gospels, ed. Robert Frew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 246.

¹⁶ A. W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, Volume One, John 1 to 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan1945), 327-28.

¹⁷ Godet, 25.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Volume 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1953), 199-200.

²⁰ David Alan Black writes: "Because the New Testament often draws a sharp distinction between the perfect and the other tenses, mastery of the Greek perfect is essential for accurate exegesis." The perfect active indicative, in this case the words have given, denotes action that is already completed. In Jesus' prayer in John 17, those whom the Father has (have) given to Christ was an action already completed, contrary to John 6:37, where the action is continual. See David Alan Black, Learn to Read New Testament Greek, third edition (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 73-75. Note also the aorist tense, gave: "The statement that Christ 'gave himself' for all people or for our sins appears as a creedal formula in Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:6." See The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, abridged edition, ed. Verlyn D. Vergrugge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 157. This action was completed in the past, contrary to John 6:37, where the action is continual.

²¹ The present active indicative, in the case of John 6:37 is our word gives, refers to "contemporaneous action, as opposed to action in the past or the future. It normally refers to continuous or repeated action." See Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible: Key Insights into God's Word, NASB, eds. Spiros Zodhiates, Warren Baker, Joel Kletzing (Chattanooga: AMG International, Inc., 2008), 1706.

²² Mounce, 598.

²³ Godet, 25. Adam Clarke agrees: "All that are drawn by the Father, ver. 44, i.e. all those who are influenced by his Spirit, and yield to those influences: for as many as are led (not driven or dragged) by the Spirit of God, they are the children of God, Rom. 8:14. God sent his prophets to proclaim his salvation to this people; and he accompanied their preaching with the influence of his Spirit. Those who yielded were saved: those who did not yield to these drawings were lost. . . .

"Those who come at the call of God he is represented here as giving to Christ, because it is through his blood alone that they can be saved. God, by his Spirit, convinces of sin, righteousness, and judgment [John 16:8-11]; those who acknowledge their iniquity, and their need of salvation, he gives to Christ, i.e. points out unto them the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world [John 1:29]." See Adam Clarke, 561.

²⁴ Mounce, 445.

²⁵ Lenski, 466.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Barnes, 247.

²⁸ Clarke, 561.

²⁹ Andreas Köstenberger, John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 213.

³⁰ Mounce, 446.

³¹ Godet, 30.

³² Clarke, 562. Albert Barnes agrees: "This was spoken by Jesus to reprove their murmurings -- 'Murmur not among yourselves.' They objected to his doctrine, or murmured against it, because he claimed to be greater than Moses, and because they supposed him to be a mere man, and that what he said was impossible." See Barnes, 248.

³³ Köstenberger, 213. He continues: "Rabbinic sources use the expression 'to bring near to the Torah' with reference to conversion." The parallel is striking, given that Jesus is the Torah of God. In the footnote he writes, "There is a certain affinity between John's teaching on predestination and the Qumran doctrine of the 'two spirits' (1QS 3:14-4:6). The rabbinic view is summed up by a saying attributed to Rabbi Akiba (ca. A.D. 135): 'All is foreseen, but freedom of choice is given.' . . ." (213-14)

³⁴ (BDAG), third edition, 318.

³⁵ Barnes, 248.

³⁶ John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical: John, trans. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1871), 220.

³⁷ Godet, 30.

³⁸ Lenski, 475.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Incidentally, if the word helkuo is to always mean drag, and little else, then why do we have not one English translation which reads, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him; and I will raise him up on the last day"? Even the English translation favored by many Calvinists -- the English Standard Version -- reads, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44 ESV). If the translators are so utterly convinced that helkuo only means drag, then they should translate helkuo as such. The closest English translation to any semblance of necessitarian dragging is God's Word translation: "People cannot come to me unless the Father who sent me brings them to me. I will bring these people back to life on the last day" (John 6:44 God's Word).

⁴¹ Adam Clarke writes, "This explains the preceding verse. God teaches a man to know himself, that, finding his need of salvation, he may flee to lay hold on the hope which his heavenly Father has set before him in the Gospel. God draws men by his love, and by showing them what his love has done for them. Fear repels, but love attracts. He who is ever preaching the terrors of the law, and representing God as a vindictive judge, will never bring sinners to him. They are afraid of this terrible God: but they love him, who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life. (562)

Saturday Devotion: Simon Greenleaf on the Authenticity of the Apostles

2012-01-14T05:00:00.004-05:00

In his latest book Has God Spoken? Proof of the Bible's Divine Inspiration, Hank Hanegraaff quotes Dr. Simon Greenleaf, Harvard's Royall Professor of Law, undoubtedly, according to Hanegraaff, "the greatest American authority on common law evidence of the nineteenth century." Regarding all that the followers of Christ endured for His name's sake, Dr. Greenleaf writes the following.

__________

The great truths which the apostles declared were that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man.

Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them.

Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing.

As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage.

They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency.

It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact.

If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, temptations, and infirmities as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings.

If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for this fabrication. ["For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (2 Peter 1:16 NASB)]

__________

Taken from Hank Hanegraaff, Has God Spoken? Proof of the Bible's Divine Inspiration (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011), 34-35.

Baptism by Immersion Evinced by Luther

2012-01-10T05:00:00.003-05:00

Protestant Reformer Martin Luther (1483-1546) maintained his belief in infant baptism, considering the Anabaptist view of believer's baptism to be too radical -- too much, too soon, and an unhealthy distraction to his theological reforms. However, Luther did agree that the Greek word baptizo means "I immerse," not "I sprinkle," nor "I pour." From Three Treatises, published by Fortress Press, 1970, Luther writes the following.

__________

The second part of baptism is the sign, or sacrament, which is that immersion in water from which it derives its name, for the Greek baptizo means "I immerse," and baptisma means, "immersion." For, as has been said, along with the divine promises signs have also been given to picture that which the words signify, or as they now say, that which the sacrament "effectively signifies." We shall see how much truth there is in this.

A great majority have supposed that there is some hidden spiritual power in the word and water, which works the grace of God in the soul of the recipient. Others deny this and hold that there is no power in the sacraments, but that grace is given by God alone, who according to his covenant is present in the sacraments which he has instituted.

Yet all are agreed that the sacraments are "effective signs" of grace, and they reach this conclusion by this one argument: if the sacraments of the New Law were mere signs, there would be no apparent reason why they should surpass those of the Old Law. Hence they have been driven to attribute such great powers to the sacraments of the New Law that they think the sacraments benefit even those who are in mortal sin; neither faith nor grace are required -- it is sufficient that no obstacle be set in the way, that is, no actual intention to sin again.

Such views, however, must be carefully avoided and shunned, because they are godless and infidel, contrary to faith and inconsistent with the nature of the sacraments. For it is an error to hold that the sacraments of the New Law differ from those of the Old Law in the effectiveness of their signs. . . . So far as the signs are concerned, there is no difference between a sacrament of the Old Law and one of the New, provided that by the Old Law you mean that which God did among the patriarchs and other fathers in the days of the Law. . . .

The difference, then, between the legal symbols and the new and old signs is that the legal symbols do not have attached to them any word of promise requiring faith. Hence they are not signs of justification, for they are not sacraments of the faith that alone justifies, but only sacraments of works. . . .

Thus it is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in that word of promise to which baptism is added. This faith justifies, and fulfills that which baptism signifies. For faith is the submersion of the old man and the emerging of the new [Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10]. . . .

Therefore let us open our eyes and learn to pay heed more to the word than to the sign, more to faith than to the work or use of the sign. We know that wherever there is a divine promise, there faith is required, and that these two are so necessary to each other that neither can be effective apart from the other. . . .

Baptism, then, signifies two things -- death and resurrection, that is, full and complete justification. When the minister immerses the child in the water it signifies death, and when he draws it forth again it signifies life. . . .

It is therefore indeed correct to say that baptism is a washing away of sins, but the expression is too mild and weak to bring out the full significance of baptism, which is rather a symbol of death and resurrection.

For this reason I would have those who are to be baptized completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the mystery indicates. Not because I deem this necessary, but because it would be well to give to a thing so perfect and complete a sign that is also complete and perfect. And this is doubtless the way in which it was instituted by Christ.

__________

Martin Luther, Three Treateses (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), 186-91.

Baptism by Immersion Evinced in the Early Church

2012-01-09T05:00:00.003-05:00

The following information is taken from G. Wainwright, in his article "Baptism, Baptismal Rites," in the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, published by InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Before the novel practice of infant baptism became the orthopraxy (right or proper practice) of the third-century Church, baptism by immersion -- and that by believers only -- was the orthodox (right or proper theological) position. Since this is an historical fact, then the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century and their forerunners were merely insisting on a returning of the Church back to her roots, a view which would cost many of them their lives. Wainwright writes the following.

__________

[The Didache, one of the earliest first-century, non-canoncial Christian documents of which we know] . . . presents in its first six chapters what looks like catechetical material as it expounds the "Two Ways" of "life" and "death" . . . Then in chapter 7 the document prescribes: "Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water."

No more than in Matthew 28:19 is it specified how the threefold divine name was invoked: it may have been covered by the exchange of questions and answers between minister and candidate concerning the latter's faith (as in The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus), for we have no declaratory pronouncement "I baptize you in the name of. . . ." "Running water" is literally "living water" . . . which has biblical associations with divine grace (e.g., Jer. 2:13; 17:13). . . .

While running water is preferred, it is not indispensable: "If you do not have running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot in cold, then in warm." Some form of immersion is envisaged, although affusion [i.e. pouring] is allowed if running or standing water is lacking: "If you do not have either, pour water three times on the head." . . .

Another, slightly later, description of the rites of initiation, together with fuller theological reflection on their meaning and effect, can be pieced together from the writings of the North African, Tertullian [160-225 AD]. His treatise "On Baptism" (De Baptismo) may be supplemented from passages in several other writings. . . .

The baptismal water is blessed in a prayer of invocation (technically called an epiclesis): "All waters, when God is invoked, acquire the sacred significance of conveying sanctity: for at once the Spirit comes down from heaven and stays upon the waters, sanctifying them from within himself, and when thus sanctified they absorb the power of sanctifying" (De Bapt. 4).

At the edge of the water, the candidates make a renunciation of the devil, and once in the water "make profession of the Christian faith in the words of its rule" (De Spect. 4): "When on the point of coming to the water, we then and there as somewhat earlier in church under the bishop's hand affirm that we renounce the devil and his pomp and his angels.

"After this we are thrice immersed, while we answer interrogations rather more extensive than our Lord has prescribed in the gospel" (De Cor. 3). (As De Bapt. 13 reveals, the reference is to the command to baptize in the threefold name of Mt 28:19, and Adversus Praxean 26 makes explicit that "not once only, but thrice are we dipped [tinguimur], into each of the three persons at each of the several names." . . .

From the earliest documents certain facts about baptism emerge. On the divine side, baptism is an occasion, or even a means, but certainly a testimony, of God's saving activity toward a person on the basis of the redemptive work of Christ. But nowhere is faith in Christ dispensed with on the human side. In the most clearly attested cases in the apostolic period and the early centuries, baptism is administered upon a confession of faith on the part of the recipient.

The question, however, arises whether baptism [immersion] was also given to some -- particularly children -- who were in a way "covered" by the faith of others or could at least be "spoken for" by them, as we see ritually encoded for the first time in The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus [170-235 AD] ("If [the children] cannot [answer for themselves], let their parents answer, or someone from their family").

Historians and exegetes often have a heavy ecclesial and ecclesiological investment here, for the answer affects, even if it does not finally settle, the contested issue of the impropriety, legitimacy or necessity of infant baptism. . . .

In particular, those looking for apostolic evidence of infant baptism argue that the "households" which were "saved" and "baptized" will have included infants. In the estimation of those opposed to infant baptism, infants can hardly be said to have heard the word and believed and so will not have been baptized. [This matter is complicated when considering the grave danger of immersing -- for that is how to properly define baptism -- infants. Luther himself will speak to this issue in the following post.]

__________

G. Wainwright, "Baptism, Baptismal Rites," in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, eds. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 120-23.

Saturday Devotion: Clement of Rome on Christ's Humility

2012-01-07T05:00:00.002-05:00

For Christ is of those who are humble-minded, and not of those who exalt themselves over His flock.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Sceptre of the majesty of God, did not come in the pomp of pride or arrogance, although He might have done so, but in a lowly condition, as the Holy Spirit had declared regarding Him.

For He says, "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have declared [our message] in His presence: He is, as it were, a child, and like a root in thirsty ground; He has no form nor comeliness; but His form was without eminence, yea, deficient in comparison with the [ordinary] form of men.

"He is a man exposed to stripes [from whipping] and suffering, and acquainted with the endurance of grief: for His countenance was turned away; He was despised, and not esteemed. He bears our iniquities, and is in sorrow for our sakes; yet we supposed that [on His own account] He was exposed to labour, and stripes, and affliction.

"But He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we were healed.

"All we, like sheep, have gone astray; [every] man has wandered in his own way; and the Lord has delivered Him up for our sins, while He in the midst of His sufferings openeth not His mouth. . . .

"His soul was delivered to death, and He was reckoned among the transgressors, and He bare the sins of many, and for their sins was He delivered."

And again He saith, "I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All that see Me have derided Me; they have spoken with their lips; they have wagged their head, [saying] He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him, let Him save Him, since He delighteth in Him."

Ye see, beloved, what is the example which has been given us; for if the Lord thus humbled Himself, what shall we do who have through Him come under the yoke of His grace?

__________

St. Clement of Rome, "Christ as an Example of Humility," in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2004), 9.

Thinking about the Southern Baptist Name Change

2012-01-06T05:00:00.003-05:00

I have been giving a lot of thought to the possibility of the Southern Baptist Convention changing its name (link). This is an updated post of one I had written earlier on this subject. I have been thinking and re-thinking about the consequences of a name change. Like it or not the answer to the question, “What’s in a name?” is, “Everything!”

We all associate ideas or concepts with names. When I hear or read about the Episcopal Church USA or the Presbyterian Church USA, I think about their homosexual agenda and liberal theology. I just cannot get beyond those two, what I view as negative, elements which seem to be distinctives in those denominations.

Likewise, when I hear or read about the Emergent Church movement, I think about their left-field interpretations of how to “do” church. If the Episcopal, Presbyterian (or Emergent) Church changed their name but still held to their same basic principles, my perception of them would not change in the least, and I might even question the motive for the change.

When I hear or read about Southern Baptists or the Southern Baptist Convention, I think about their staunch views on biblical inerrancy, believer’s-only immersion (baptism), male-only pastorate and the priesthood of the believer. What is thought of as a positive by one person (me) is thought of as a negative by others.

For example, though I disagree with the homosexual agenda or liberal theology of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Church USA, or the theological or ecclesiological proclivities of the Emergent Church movement, these may represent positive concepts in the mind of those who disagree with me.

In the same manner, though my perception of Southern Baptists (or what comes to my mind when I think about them) may be positive, for others, their perception may be quite negative. They do not view such things as biblical inerrancy, believer’s baptism, or the priesthood of the believer -- to say nothing of a dogmatic tone apparent among many Southern Baptists on some theological and ecclesiological issues -- as positive but as negative.

In spite of this fact, however, I was initially opposed to a Southern Baptist name change. I think that no matter what name the Southern Baptist Convention or Southern Baptists call themselves the actual name is not an issue of contention among those who disagree with us. Our “problem,” so others would tell us, is not our name but our beliefs.

If we no longer identified ourselves by nomenclature with the “Southern” hemisphere, or with “Baptist” principles (which poses the most difficulty given our doctrine of believer’s baptism), still we are who we are but under a different name. Sooner or later our “opponents” will have the exact same perception of us because our beliefs did not change to suit or please them -- only our name changed. I fail to see how a name change would be beneficial in changing the perception of those who care nothing for us.

Moreover, if the name did change, people would still refer to us as “the former Southern Baptist Convention,” whether in speech or in thought. What has, then, been gained? People who are opposed to Southern Baptists will still be opposed to us no matter what name we attach to ourselves.

Furthermore, many “Southern Baptist” churches do not name their churches as “Southern Baptist.” What I mean is that, whether in the South or the West, North, or East, the name on a church sign never reads “First Southern Baptist Church Clayton,” or “Second Southern Baptist Church Fruitland.” The word “Southern” is typically absent from the majority of church signs. Only when one asks whether or not a particular “Baptist” church happens to be a “Southern Baptist” church in the “Southern Baptist Convention” does anyone learn that distinction. Most people are not even aware of the many, divergent Baptist associations.

However, after much thought, I have come to the conclusion that if there is to be a name change, that change should reflect the Convention both ecclesiologically as well as geographically. In this case, I would vote for a name such as International Baptist Convention, given that we have planted our churches throughout the world, and we are distinctively Baptist. This is the name I submitted in the Inquiry.

That name, however, will not likely be chosen, given that work accomplished by Baptists overseas is not strictly governed by the SBC. I like the name North American Baptist Convention equally as much as International Baptist Convention. But again, in my opinion, the perception of critics of Southern Baptists is not going to change merely because we change the name of our Convention. We (Southern) Baptists still hold to all the same basic principles as we did prior to a name change.

To our critics, changing our identity may even appear as a bit deceptive, rather than making an effort to real change. Real change happens only when we acknowledge our checkered past, seek forgiveness and reconciliation of wrongs inflicted by us or those who went before us, and, by God’s grace, live our lives for Christ’s gospel in pursuit of holiness by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Those are aspects which a mere name change cannot effect.