The Purpose of Man
After the discussion on Predestination, the dialogue moved to another large topic: the purpose of mankind. From the discussion I found that though Arminians and Calvinists agree on the purpose of life being to glorify God (I’m not sure who would deny this), Arminians have a different approach to this that places another purpose on a higher plane. I suppose Calvinists would concede to this notion, but the idea is this: two purposes of man, Calvinists put one above the other and Arminians switch the levels of importance. The two purposes are these: to glorify God and to be in relationship with God. Because of the importance of man’s free will in Arminian theology, to lower man to the bottom rung of significant existence seems reproachful to its adherents. This is, in my opinion, a saddening dichotomy between the two groups, but I am seeing that it exists. Let’s go through the two views per template.
First is the Arminian view of the purpose of man. If there is one attribute that proponents of Arminianism peddle it is the love of God. This is the omnipotent aspect of the Godhead that cannot be undone and cannot be contended against, even by the Godhead Himself. Love is the attribute of God that trumps literally everything else that has ever existed and that attribute is poured out upon man. Because God created man in His image and because God crowned man the pinnacle of creation, a certain aura of immutable benevolence is exuded from the Godhead and hence the Godhead will never, ever do anything to interfere in man’s affairs. To interfere with man’s affairs is to rape the freedom of man and thus besmirch the Imago Dei. How does this correlate to the purpose of man? It follows from this that man’s (and hence God’s) purpose is to be in a loving relationship with God, free of strife and partaking of blessing. Because the purpose of life is to love God, it follows that God cannot interfere with this purpose because entering into a relationship is a free choice. If man is the center of existence these things are indelibly true and such truths are incontrovertible. Why shouldn’t these things be true? The free will of man coupled with his position in creation should allow for man to be autonomous. God’s love dictates that He not ever interfere with the free will of His prize creation because that would be hurtful and narcissistic. Man’s end after being in a relationship with God is to glorify Him. Descending into Hell does not glorify God but is a failure to live up to the fullest purpose of existence: to enter into relationship with God. God would NEVER willingly violate the freedom of a man and cause him to refuse Him, that’s forced love and forced love is not truly love. If loving relationship as defined by human standards is the pinnacle of existence, predestination from Calvinism is impossibly illogical and frankly wretched.
Second is the Calvinistic view of the purpose of man. If there is one attribute that proponents of Calvinism peddle it is the sovereignty of God. This is the omnipotent aspect of the Godhead that cannot be undone and cannot be contended against. Indeed, it is simply the attribute of God that makes God the supreme being of existence. Above all things, God answers to absolutely no person created or uncreated on any matter. Consulting only His own divine counsel, that is the counsel administered automatically by the Three Persons of the Godhead, God acts how He wishes. Because God is perfectly holy and is supremely valuable as Creator and owing to His transcendence, He is to be glorified in all things. As the One true God, glory and honor are to Him alone and are to Him in fullest measure. How does this correlate to the purpose of man? It follows from God’s sovereignty and His jealousy that all things created be created with a single edict: bring glory to their Creator. Man as the pinnacle of creation and bearing the precious Imago Dei is responsible for living out this edict in greater measure than any other created thing, even angels. The purpose of man is to bring glory to God, and God has created this universe in such a way that He will receive the highest amount of every bit of glory. God would receive the glory in any universe, but this one in particular seemed most glorifying to the Godhead from eternity past. Because God’s glory is more important than anything else, God’s fullness must be glorified, not merely one or two or three attributes of His character. The fullness of the glory of God is revealed in the sovereignty of God in salvation. More important than the “free will” of man is God’s glorification. More than wishing to be loved by men, God commands that He be glorified, and He will be glorified. He will be glorified in the damnation of many and He will be glorified in the salvation of many. God’s glory is the chief end of all things.
Synthesis of the Purpose of Man
So the high end of mankind seems different when comparing Calvinism to Arminianism. This was one of the major points or rather one of the major questions that Mr. Bulger had regarding Calvinism. I mentioned some things before going into the brief explanations given above concerning the purpose of mankind. Both Arminians and Calvinists would concede that man exists to glorify God. From a Pentecostal standpoint, the purpose of man transcends this however. When deep focus is placed upon what one feels and how one’s emotions are factored into spirituality, humanistic ideas unfortunately follow in suit. The focus upon what the human feels rather than what the Bible dictates leads to any number of oddities and diversions from orthodoxy as well as damnable heresy and false religion. It is clear throughout the Bible that God is the preeminent One, and that what we as creatures feel has no bearing on Truth. The sovereignty of God bids a man come and surrender everything to the Father, intellect and emotions. Calvinists seem, to me, to be more intellectually oriented while Arminians fare the opposite, emotionally driven. Emotional visions and idealism lead to a glorification of man’s feelings, and what follows from this is an unbiblical view of mankind. Yes man cannot enter into heaven without a relationship with God, but are those in heaven a failure on God’s part? If man’s chief end is to enter into relationship with God, then God’s plan for creation is frustrated. On the other hand, when intellectual and hence objective standards are applied to the Bible, one finds that creation’s chief end is to glorify the Father. Rather than God being saddened for all of eternity on account of Hell’s occupancy, God will glory in the suffering of countless wicked and vile creations, He will revel in their unending destruction. The loving, relationship oriented God that Arminians, Pentecostals, and Charismatics like to sing to is not represented very well in the Bible is He? All this is averted, however, if the focus is put on man’s free will. Do you see the vicious circle? All the focus, all the attention; the hinge is upon free will for Arminians, man’s free will. On the other side of the coin is Calvinism. When we are so utterly enamored with and enthralled by and broken under the ultimate sovereignty of God Almighty, the freedom of man quickly disappears. The purpose of creation in a world where God is absolutely sovereign is to bring glory to that sovereign One. When the focus and intent of creation is upon God rather than how man feels, the Bible’s statements regarding the immovable God stand clearly and brightly. The ultimate sovereignty of God is the big issue for Calvinists, because God is God and we are not. Honestly, I could care less how you, the reader, feels, or what you think about the Bible. What matters is an objective view of the Scriptures, a consistent interpretation of Scripture and I find that Calvinists alone provide a perfectly consistent view of the Bible. As men, we often wonder what our purpose is in this world. This is the agenda of fallen men. The agenda of a regenerate man, we should often wonder what God’s purpose is in this world. Put emotions and traditions aside, brothers and sisters; embrace an objective and consistent apologetic for the Scriptures that is based in the dictum: Sola Scriptura.
Friday, November 27, 2009
An Irenic Response to Aaron Bulger part 1
An irenic response to Aaron Bulger on the Doctrines of Grace (Calvinism)
It would be reproachful to my conscience to begin this response in a way different from addressing the underlying tone of this composition. As stated plainly in the title, so as to avoid any form of suspicion of my intent, this response is strictly irenic. I regard Mr. Bulger very highly as a friend and because I appreciate his initiation of this topic, I find that it would be useful to produce a gathered and composed response to the dialogue we had. I, more than anything, deeply appreciate Mr. Bulger’s calm demeanor during the discussion and the simple fact that he was willing to enter into dialogue on the subject. Willingness to dialogue has been lost in our time, and I find it refreshing that he took the steps necessary to learn and to teach. Most often people want monologue, they do not want dialogue. The present necessity of dialogue is in greater quantity than its antithesis, the desire to simply allow Truth to go unprobed.
It is Truth that I am most interested in, and Truth is equivalent to nothing more than the Bible. As the perspicuous Word of God, I believe that God’s Revelation to man is able to be known and known well. I believe that as God’s Special Revelation to man, the Bible is to be taken with the highest amount of severity and sobriety when making claims about its pages. The nature of Special Revelation comes with one single caveat, it being that certain aspects are too divine for the unglorified mind to fathom. Moses writes in Deuteronomy 29:29 that the most secret things belong to God, BUT that which is revealed to us is to be known and taught and followed. I do not so much care for the frankly post-modern agenda of defaulting to this verse or Paul’s lauding of God’s unfathomable nature in Romans 11 when difficult texts come into the field of discussion. The nature of the Trinity, the origination of Sin, and the hypostatic union of Christ are things that in their nature are impossible to fully understand, but the Bible is clear on each of them. The immanence of God’s sovereignty, the Doctrine of Election, and the inability of man, on the other hand, are things that should be clearly visible in the text of Scripture. If we default to, “O the depths of the riches of the knowledge of God,” on the topic of election, is that really doing justice to a prevalent doctrine of Scripture? I think not. I say these things because I do believe that God’s Word speaks in regards to the arguments of Arminianism versus Calvinism. As a proponent of Reformed Theology, I posit that God’s Word is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Arminianism, and that it is best and fully represented in a consistent manner by Calvinism*. Because I believe this, the idiom, “Theology matters” will follow in step. The question often posed is, “does it really matter?” I would say with deep passion that it DOES matter! This is God’s revealed and perspicuous Word that we are dealing with and only one side of the opposing beliefs can do the Word justice. I would, as you know, posit that Calvinism does justice to a consistent interpretation of Scripture.
As one who finds the Word of God more important than anything else in the world, I have a tendency to come off harsh. As one who lauds the character quality of consistency, it behooves me to refrain from mincing words. In the same way, Paul and Peter both command Christians to speak the truth in love and give a defense for our inward hope with gentleness and reverence. It is my aim to produce a response to the topics discussed with Mr. Bulger, and to do so with the highest amount of reverence for a Christian brother.
Predestination
“Predestination” is a word that has numerous different meanings, especially among Christian circles. To begin, I would posit that “predestination” has a definite meaning in the Bible, contrary to the post-modern ideology that words do not have objective meanings. There are really only two major points of reference from which to approach Predestination or Election.
First there is the approach taken up by Arminian believers. The word “predestination” is intertwined deeply with the idea of the divinely sovereign foreknowledge of God. The idea is that God, being unperturbed by the boundaries of time that He in fact created, sees through the passage of time to the very end, for one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day, and knows in that moment before Creation who will and who will not choose Him as Lord of their lives. It is upon this knowledge that God institutes His electing purposes. The plan of God is in effect not thwarted, because He chose those who would in time choose Him, thus He prepares perfectly for their arrival into the inheritance of grace because His foreknowledge dictates His action, and the human choice dictates what His foreknowledge sees. This is represented in the Arminian simplification: God sees through the corridors of time and chooses those who will choose Him. The word “foreknowledge” means that God simply and hence arbitrarily knows who to choose on account of this foreknowledge. In effect, the action of the extension of salvific grace is enacted by the creature rather than the Creator via the Free Will of the creature. This, however, is ONLY made possible by the first extension of grace via the giving of the Savior. The Arminian view deftly dodges the indictment of Pelagianism here. The Arminian view of election is, as stated above, inseparable from foreknowledge. The idea of God’s foreknowledge is the crux of the argumentation. God’s foreknowledge is a passive attribute rather than an active verb in Arminianism. God simply, on account of His deity, knows. He cannot interfere with the Free Will of man; He simply works around it by being the timeless God. I hope this is a fair representation of Arminianism.
Second is the approach taken up by Calvinistic believers. The word “predestination” is intertwined deeply with the Biblical concept of God’s ultimate sovereignty. The idea is that God being supremely sovereign over all things, especially the salvation of man, elected from eternity past some unto salvation and the rest unto damnation. Seeing the arc of time in its fullness and being aware of all things, most applicable the affairs of men, God simply chose. God was not bound by the concept of His foreknowledge; He actively chooses to enter into relationship in love with His elect. From eternity past, it is accepted among all orthodox Christians that the Godhead came together in council with Himself, the Three Persons being eternally present and active in said council. From eternity past it was decided that the Son, the Second Person, would by the free will of the Father, the first person, suffer the humiliation of His Godhood in order to redeem men from the condition of reprobation. Being of the design of the Triune Godhead, this redemption would extend grace freely, efficaciously, and perfectly. The Arminian would object to the idea that God’s grace is “free” if it is only extended to the elect. This seeming contradiction is only apparent if, and only if, the focus of redemptive history is taken off of God and placed upon man. The Calvinist would posit that God’s grace is perfectly and totally free, in that it is God’s free extension of that grace to whom He will. Taking into account some notion of man’s freedom removes the freedom from that offering of grace. The crux of Calvinism is an active view of God’s sovereignty, over all things.
Synthesis of Predestination
So the two arguments have been established in very brief form. I hope that I have represented both sides fairly and objectively. Foreknowledge of man’s choices versus active divine sovereignty; Arminianism is pitted against Calvinism. Arminian theology posits that God “elects” His elect, but those who go to Hell are there as a result of their refusal to hear and respond to the gospel. Those who are in Hell are not elected to their status of eternal damnation by the God of the Bible, but are there via a free will choice to be there. Perhaps their choice is better described as a free will refusal of God’s grace. What follows from this is that those who are saved are not equal with their fellow men, but are a hidden super group of people on a higher plane of understanding. There are those who are under the sin of Adam and those who are under that sin but able to make the decision of salvation as well. There is no equality among men, but the struggle between those who choose and those who do not choose. Those who do not choose are apparently not smart enough, or they are too stubborn, they are too far removed from the application of knowledge that they do not see the logical formulation of Scripture and the application of its message. The Reformed (Calvinistic) view of this matter is entirely different. Those who are in hell are there as a result of their being under the sin of Adam. Those who are in Hell are responsible for their sinfulness and their rejection of God because they know that He exists and they labor at the suppression of truth in their sinfulness. Because of this, there is no possible way for them to respond to the Gospel and the truth of Scripture unless God regenerates them, giving them via grace the propensity to take the Gospel by faith. Thus, God is the active agent and if a man descends to hell, it is because God chose not to regenerate that person for His good purpose in displaying the justice of His omnipotent wrath. If a man ascends to heaven it is because God chose to regenerate that person for His good purpose in displaying the immeasurable riches of His kindness. In both cases God is the active, choosing agent and man has no say in the matter. Before birth, eternity before birth, God chose some and rejected others. Because God chose His elect before birth the Calvinistic interpretation of Election is that it is strictly Unconditional, or that their being elect does not owe in any part to a positive attribute in the elected person (i.e. wisdom or logic). What follows from the unconditional predestination of souls is the full display of God’s glory in His most beautiful attributes: holiness and love. What also follows from the unconditional predestination of souls is an Efficacious Atonement from the Savior’s sacrifice. An Arminian interpretation of predestination gives the duty of election for all intents and purposes to mankind. The only reason that God chooses someone is because they chose Him first. The Arminian theology then posits that they cannot be given the propensity to choose were it not for God’s action of extending grace. Which is it? Does God act first or does man? If man chose in the present time and this reflects in the eternality of God’s timeless omniscience, how is it that they choose based off of a grace that has not been presently given to them? Perhaps this is simply a misrepresentation of Arminianism, but it seems as though there is a flaw in the consistency of chronology. Is it not simpler and more delivering to simply let God be God? What about the missionary who goes into a foreign land to share the Gospel but sees no result of conversion in the natives? He has two ways of approaching his predicament as he lays his head down at night. Either he has utterly failed and has apparently shared the Gospel in an incorrect manner, or he is successfully fulfilling the command of Christ (to go into all the world to make disciples) and will see results if it be the will of God. I would posit that an “unsuccessful” missionary is truly very successful! If he is faithfully taking the Gospel into the world, he has done his duty and the process of regeneration is up to the freely acting Agent, because salvation is of the Lord.
It would be reproachful to my conscience to begin this response in a way different from addressing the underlying tone of this composition. As stated plainly in the title, so as to avoid any form of suspicion of my intent, this response is strictly irenic. I regard Mr. Bulger very highly as a friend and because I appreciate his initiation of this topic, I find that it would be useful to produce a gathered and composed response to the dialogue we had. I, more than anything, deeply appreciate Mr. Bulger’s calm demeanor during the discussion and the simple fact that he was willing to enter into dialogue on the subject. Willingness to dialogue has been lost in our time, and I find it refreshing that he took the steps necessary to learn and to teach. Most often people want monologue, they do not want dialogue. The present necessity of dialogue is in greater quantity than its antithesis, the desire to simply allow Truth to go unprobed.
It is Truth that I am most interested in, and Truth is equivalent to nothing more than the Bible. As the perspicuous Word of God, I believe that God’s Revelation to man is able to be known and known well. I believe that as God’s Special Revelation to man, the Bible is to be taken with the highest amount of severity and sobriety when making claims about its pages. The nature of Special Revelation comes with one single caveat, it being that certain aspects are too divine for the unglorified mind to fathom. Moses writes in Deuteronomy 29:29 that the most secret things belong to God, BUT that which is revealed to us is to be known and taught and followed. I do not so much care for the frankly post-modern agenda of defaulting to this verse or Paul’s lauding of God’s unfathomable nature in Romans 11 when difficult texts come into the field of discussion. The nature of the Trinity, the origination of Sin, and the hypostatic union of Christ are things that in their nature are impossible to fully understand, but the Bible is clear on each of them. The immanence of God’s sovereignty, the Doctrine of Election, and the inability of man, on the other hand, are things that should be clearly visible in the text of Scripture. If we default to, “O the depths of the riches of the knowledge of God,” on the topic of election, is that really doing justice to a prevalent doctrine of Scripture? I think not. I say these things because I do believe that God’s Word speaks in regards to the arguments of Arminianism versus Calvinism. As a proponent of Reformed Theology, I posit that God’s Word is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Arminianism, and that it is best and fully represented in a consistent manner by Calvinism*. Because I believe this, the idiom, “Theology matters” will follow in step. The question often posed is, “does it really matter?” I would say with deep passion that it DOES matter! This is God’s revealed and perspicuous Word that we are dealing with and only one side of the opposing beliefs can do the Word justice. I would, as you know, posit that Calvinism does justice to a consistent interpretation of Scripture.
As one who finds the Word of God more important than anything else in the world, I have a tendency to come off harsh. As one who lauds the character quality of consistency, it behooves me to refrain from mincing words. In the same way, Paul and Peter both command Christians to speak the truth in love and give a defense for our inward hope with gentleness and reverence. It is my aim to produce a response to the topics discussed with Mr. Bulger, and to do so with the highest amount of reverence for a Christian brother.
Predestination
“Predestination” is a word that has numerous different meanings, especially among Christian circles. To begin, I would posit that “predestination” has a definite meaning in the Bible, contrary to the post-modern ideology that words do not have objective meanings. There are really only two major points of reference from which to approach Predestination or Election.
First there is the approach taken up by Arminian believers. The word “predestination” is intertwined deeply with the idea of the divinely sovereign foreknowledge of God. The idea is that God, being unperturbed by the boundaries of time that He in fact created, sees through the passage of time to the very end, for one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day, and knows in that moment before Creation who will and who will not choose Him as Lord of their lives. It is upon this knowledge that God institutes His electing purposes. The plan of God is in effect not thwarted, because He chose those who would in time choose Him, thus He prepares perfectly for their arrival into the inheritance of grace because His foreknowledge dictates His action, and the human choice dictates what His foreknowledge sees. This is represented in the Arminian simplification: God sees through the corridors of time and chooses those who will choose Him. The word “foreknowledge” means that God simply and hence arbitrarily knows who to choose on account of this foreknowledge. In effect, the action of the extension of salvific grace is enacted by the creature rather than the Creator via the Free Will of the creature. This, however, is ONLY made possible by the first extension of grace via the giving of the Savior. The Arminian view deftly dodges the indictment of Pelagianism here. The Arminian view of election is, as stated above, inseparable from foreknowledge. The idea of God’s foreknowledge is the crux of the argumentation. God’s foreknowledge is a passive attribute rather than an active verb in Arminianism. God simply, on account of His deity, knows. He cannot interfere with the Free Will of man; He simply works around it by being the timeless God. I hope this is a fair representation of Arminianism.
Second is the approach taken up by Calvinistic believers. The word “predestination” is intertwined deeply with the Biblical concept of God’s ultimate sovereignty. The idea is that God being supremely sovereign over all things, especially the salvation of man, elected from eternity past some unto salvation and the rest unto damnation. Seeing the arc of time in its fullness and being aware of all things, most applicable the affairs of men, God simply chose. God was not bound by the concept of His foreknowledge; He actively chooses to enter into relationship in love with His elect. From eternity past, it is accepted among all orthodox Christians that the Godhead came together in council with Himself, the Three Persons being eternally present and active in said council. From eternity past it was decided that the Son, the Second Person, would by the free will of the Father, the first person, suffer the humiliation of His Godhood in order to redeem men from the condition of reprobation. Being of the design of the Triune Godhead, this redemption would extend grace freely, efficaciously, and perfectly. The Arminian would object to the idea that God’s grace is “free” if it is only extended to the elect. This seeming contradiction is only apparent if, and only if, the focus of redemptive history is taken off of God and placed upon man. The Calvinist would posit that God’s grace is perfectly and totally free, in that it is God’s free extension of that grace to whom He will. Taking into account some notion of man’s freedom removes the freedom from that offering of grace. The crux of Calvinism is an active view of God’s sovereignty, over all things.
Synthesis of Predestination
So the two arguments have been established in very brief form. I hope that I have represented both sides fairly and objectively. Foreknowledge of man’s choices versus active divine sovereignty; Arminianism is pitted against Calvinism. Arminian theology posits that God “elects” His elect, but those who go to Hell are there as a result of their refusal to hear and respond to the gospel. Those who are in Hell are not elected to their status of eternal damnation by the God of the Bible, but are there via a free will choice to be there. Perhaps their choice is better described as a free will refusal of God’s grace. What follows from this is that those who are saved are not equal with their fellow men, but are a hidden super group of people on a higher plane of understanding. There are those who are under the sin of Adam and those who are under that sin but able to make the decision of salvation as well. There is no equality among men, but the struggle between those who choose and those who do not choose. Those who do not choose are apparently not smart enough, or they are too stubborn, they are too far removed from the application of knowledge that they do not see the logical formulation of Scripture and the application of its message. The Reformed (Calvinistic) view of this matter is entirely different. Those who are in hell are there as a result of their being under the sin of Adam. Those who are in Hell are responsible for their sinfulness and their rejection of God because they know that He exists and they labor at the suppression of truth in their sinfulness. Because of this, there is no possible way for them to respond to the Gospel and the truth of Scripture unless God regenerates them, giving them via grace the propensity to take the Gospel by faith. Thus, God is the active agent and if a man descends to hell, it is because God chose not to regenerate that person for His good purpose in displaying the justice of His omnipotent wrath. If a man ascends to heaven it is because God chose to regenerate that person for His good purpose in displaying the immeasurable riches of His kindness. In both cases God is the active, choosing agent and man has no say in the matter. Before birth, eternity before birth, God chose some and rejected others. Because God chose His elect before birth the Calvinistic interpretation of Election is that it is strictly Unconditional, or that their being elect does not owe in any part to a positive attribute in the elected person (i.e. wisdom or logic). What follows from the unconditional predestination of souls is the full display of God’s glory in His most beautiful attributes: holiness and love. What also follows from the unconditional predestination of souls is an Efficacious Atonement from the Savior’s sacrifice. An Arminian interpretation of predestination gives the duty of election for all intents and purposes to mankind. The only reason that God chooses someone is because they chose Him first. The Arminian theology then posits that they cannot be given the propensity to choose were it not for God’s action of extending grace. Which is it? Does God act first or does man? If man chose in the present time and this reflects in the eternality of God’s timeless omniscience, how is it that they choose based off of a grace that has not been presently given to them? Perhaps this is simply a misrepresentation of Arminianism, but it seems as though there is a flaw in the consistency of chronology. Is it not simpler and more delivering to simply let God be God? What about the missionary who goes into a foreign land to share the Gospel but sees no result of conversion in the natives? He has two ways of approaching his predicament as he lays his head down at night. Either he has utterly failed and has apparently shared the Gospel in an incorrect manner, or he is successfully fulfilling the command of Christ (to go into all the world to make disciples) and will see results if it be the will of God. I would posit that an “unsuccessful” missionary is truly very successful! If he is faithfully taking the Gospel into the world, he has done his duty and the process of regeneration is up to the freely acting Agent, because salvation is of the Lord.
small thoughts on thanksgiving
The blessing of camaraderie has been upon my heart of hearts as of late. I am unsure why, but I felt compelled to read the letters that I wrote to the Grace Academy Class of 2009, and as I did so, numerous fond memories washed over my mind like a crashing wave. I am totally baffled by God’s unconditional outpouring of such lavish blessing upon a miserable little creature such as myself! I don’t deserve any of the absolutely amazing friends that I have, but the sovereignty and providence of God puts those thoughts to rest, though they are not without merit. I am a wicked man, but God has felt glorified, God has been glorified in the friendships that He Himself has blessed me with. In reading the letters, I thought back many, many years; pictures of people coming and going filled my mind’s eye, and I felt exceedingly sentimental. The memories of Grace Academy in the culminating year of 2009 came over me and I felt a strange mingle of joy and sorrow, comparable perhaps to the Apostle’s benediction to the Corinthians. I have seen a number of the 2009 graduates recently, and what a joy it has been to see how God has kept them. In my letters I told the recipients that I would be in prayer for them constantly, and seeing and thinking of them has brought my failure in this to light. I beg forgiveness from such wonderful friends whom I may have neglected to pray for. I have been praying for a number of them, but I felt awful not having remembered others. I just wanted to put my thoughts down, as that’s what a blog is for. This isn’t very comparable to my other blogs where I ponder deeply and scrutinize minutely; these are just some thoughts.
I know I don’t have a very becoming personality but God has a plan for that, and has blessed me with many wonderful friends despite that. I love them dearly and I want to be a faithful prayer warrior for each one of them; they are so special to me. I think sometimes of my foolishness and wonder why I am so blessed but God has always been in control, and for that I am deeply thankful.
I guess I was thinking about these things in light of the Thanksgiving season. If a Grace 2009 grad reads this, just know that I love you and am so thankful for you.
What a sap huh? :)
I know I don’t have a very becoming personality but God has a plan for that, and has blessed me with many wonderful friends despite that. I love them dearly and I want to be a faithful prayer warrior for each one of them; they are so special to me. I think sometimes of my foolishness and wonder why I am so blessed but God has always been in control, and for that I am deeply thankful.
I guess I was thinking about these things in light of the Thanksgiving season. If a Grace 2009 grad reads this, just know that I love you and am so thankful for you.
What a sap huh? :)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Romans 9 with an Arminian
Romans 9 by an Arminian
This is a link to a very feisty Arminian’s blog; if I could use Dr. John Piper’s words hah. Anyway, this person commented on one of my blogs a while ago. If you click the link here, you’ll be directed to my blog about Phil Johnson’s excellent sermon “Closet Calvinists.” Being in college I find it difficult to do a lot of responding to Arminian theology unless it’s at dinner or lunch time or in the dorms. I mostly attempt to acquire more knowledge of my own side of the story, but as someone interested in apologetics, I must be dedicated to getting the other side of the story too. Anyway, all this to say, I popped around on this person’s blog and wanted to see if he had any articles about Romans 9 or James White. I found this particular article concerning Romans 9, which is a link to an Arminian teaching on the famous passage. Indeed, this person’s blog has a feature on the homepage, a drop down menu with favored links; this sermon is one of those links. Seeing as this person puts a good deal of favor on this sermon, I wanted to check it out.
What did I find? Unfortunately I did not find solid exegesis of the text. Unfortunately, our Arminian brothers fail once again to walk through the text without jumping around to other passages to read their theology into it. This teacher, Dennis McCallum, misrepresented Reformed Theology as being a fatalistic philosophy. I was in the library when I was listening to this (actually I was watching the youtube videos) and I almost chuckled because of his, frankly bad, argumentation. I guess I’ll highlight a few of his points and a few other things that stood out to me that show that theology matters*.
He started his presentation with the Calvinistic reading of Romans 9 and ended with the idea that Calvinists fail to look at Romans 9 in context. Obviously he very poorly represented Reformed Theology by utterly failing to account for why Calvinists hold to their position. Calvinists hold to their interpretation by ACTUALLY LOOKING TO THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE IN QUESTION. He did not mention Romans 8 even once in the presentation. As much as I say that Arminians ruin passages by failing to account for context, this man illustrates it better than words. Instead of looking at what Paul was talking about, Mr. McCallum reverted to the standard Arminian interpretation of Romans 9. Mr. McCallum went through the notion that Romans 9 is about national election, God choosing a nation through which His purposes would be accomplished. There is absolutely no reason to fall prey to such an ideology, but theology matters. When one’s theology is not completely fixed upon the centrality of God’s freedom in creation, then there is no other option than to revert to this massacre of the text of Scripture. Call me mean and judgmental, but I’m just pointing out what this man illustrates clearly. Watch the video/ listen to the mp3 yourself.
Interestingly enough, when he goes through the “Calvinist Reading” he doesn’t even start at the beginning of the passage; he starts in verse 6. Oh but ALL Arminians take the passages in context and no Calvinist would walk through the text verse by verse in regards to context. *Ahem* Yeah… just pointing something out that seemed interesting to me. Instead of objectively getting what the other side actually says, he sort of makes up what we believe because he has the false presupposition that absolute fealty to God’s sovereign purpose (Reformed Theology) is tantamount to fatalism. Theology matters.
Another thing that stood out to me is something that Dr. James White often decries Arminians and Roman Catholics of doing. Instead of walking through the text (in its context) other groups that don’t want to deal with the sovereignty of God in salvation simply jump to other texts, get meaning from those disjointed passages and read those meanings back into the text at hand, in this case Romans 9. Mr. McCallum does just this. He jumps around to Genesis and Malachi (standard Arminian argumentation) instead of trying to see why Paul was quoting these passages. Why was Paul quoting these passages? That information is found directly in the context. The ending portion of Romans 8 concerns the wonderful promise of security in salvation because God actively works in salvation. Paul’s detractors would have questioned him concerning the fate of Israel as a nation (interestingly enough the Arminian interpretation is exactly what Paul is refuting in Romans 9). Paul goes on to say in verse 6 of chapter 9 that not all who are of Israel are truly of Israel. The promises of justification and glorification (Romans 8:30) are only for those who have been called according to God’s purpose of justification and glorification (Romans 8:28-29). Mr. McCallum states that the destination of souls is not even discussed in Romans 9, and I suppose such would be true if you just rip the chapter out of Romans and discuss it in that way. Paul’s argumentation, on the other hand, flows from what he was saying in Romans 8. If the Arminian interpretation is correct, Romans 9 is an illogical formulation of thought placed in the middle of an entirely alien context. It really stands that Arminians cannot walk through this text. Theology matters.
Yet another thing that sticks out to me is his reason for accepting the interpretation that he does. He mentions that when he read Romans 9:13 that he could no reconcile the words “Esau I hated.” Again, and I cannot stress this enough, theology matters! Do you not understand, sir, that God is an angry and righteous and holy and just God? Do you not understand, sir, that God has complete authority in all of heaven and earth to send every single person straight into the pit of hell? Mr. McCallum, perhaps you completely missed chapters 1 and 3 of the very book you’re attempting to interpret? Romans 3 is Paul’s litany of the depravity of mankind. If you want to go to Jeremiah 17:9 you are justified in this sense, because all men are desperately wicked in their hearts. Here is an occasion where you can supplement your teaching with other passages of Scripture. Why, then, do you seek to advocate sinful men, sir? What standing does a man have before the death invoking presence of God? When Isaiah saw the I AM in Isaiah 6, were it not for God’s purposes, he would have, in the words of the Prophet, been undone. When one’s theology is not utterly fixed upon the righteous purpose of the Creator but upon the supposed autonomy of man, it will follow that he will not properly handle God’s Word. Theology matters, friends.
Still another thing that stood out to me was the fact this man took the Lord’s name in vain three times during the presentation. I don’t want to make a sweeping generalization but it seems to me that Arminians don’t have as proper an understanding of the need to mortify the flesh and the nature of the necessity of repentance. It’s simply an observation of my own experiences. Perhaps it is a very real vindication of the idea that theology matters.
So why this indictment of a Christian brother? Notice that I do with certainty believe this man to be a brother in the faith, as I do with most Arminians. What I want more than the brotherhood of a differing interpretation of the Bible, however, is a true interpretation of the Bible. I believe with all of my heart that the Doctrines of Grace, Reformed Theology, Calvinism, whatever you wish to call it; I believe that the Doctrines of Grace do justice to the Scriptures when objectively considered and when the presupposition is God’s sovereignty and man’s createdness. I, with the Apostle Paul in Romans 9, wish that all of my brothers could come to an acceptance of the absolutely beautiful Doctrines of Grace! I don’t want to simply have a good argument or have more head knowledge; I would that all my brothers come to the liberating, God centered, Soli Deo Gloria theology that is Calvinism! I find that the sovereignty of God in all things, especially my salvation, is beyond words of laude. If I were in charge of my own eternal destiny I would be so utterly terrified, because I would not know whether or not to think if I truly had attained justification. If, on the other hand, my salvation is in the hands of an almighty and sovereign and loving God, my fate is sealed and His work will continue! The Doctrines of Grace, I believe, illustrate the God of the Bible as He is given to us: in the Bible. The Reformed notion of Sola Scriptura resounds most clearly and most wonderfully in the Doctrines of Grace, in what we call Calvinism.
In light of my devotion to the Scriptures and to the God Who revealed Himself mightily to me, I quote Martin Luther, “Here I stand; I can do no otherwise. God help me. Amen!”
~Grace and Peace
*Theology matters is a very common yet very profound statement by Dr. James White and it means that if one's theology is wrong then it will follow that the lifestyle and actions of that person will not be in conformity with what the Bible truly teaches
This is a link to a very feisty Arminian’s blog; if I could use Dr. John Piper’s words hah. Anyway, this person commented on one of my blogs a while ago. If you click the link here, you’ll be directed to my blog about Phil Johnson’s excellent sermon “Closet Calvinists.” Being in college I find it difficult to do a lot of responding to Arminian theology unless it’s at dinner or lunch time or in the dorms. I mostly attempt to acquire more knowledge of my own side of the story, but as someone interested in apologetics, I must be dedicated to getting the other side of the story too. Anyway, all this to say, I popped around on this person’s blog and wanted to see if he had any articles about Romans 9 or James White. I found this particular article concerning Romans 9, which is a link to an Arminian teaching on the famous passage. Indeed, this person’s blog has a feature on the homepage, a drop down menu with favored links; this sermon is one of those links. Seeing as this person puts a good deal of favor on this sermon, I wanted to check it out.
What did I find? Unfortunately I did not find solid exegesis of the text. Unfortunately, our Arminian brothers fail once again to walk through the text without jumping around to other passages to read their theology into it. This teacher, Dennis McCallum, misrepresented Reformed Theology as being a fatalistic philosophy. I was in the library when I was listening to this (actually I was watching the youtube videos) and I almost chuckled because of his, frankly bad, argumentation. I guess I’ll highlight a few of his points and a few other things that stood out to me that show that theology matters*.
He started his presentation with the Calvinistic reading of Romans 9 and ended with the idea that Calvinists fail to look at Romans 9 in context. Obviously he very poorly represented Reformed Theology by utterly failing to account for why Calvinists hold to their position. Calvinists hold to their interpretation by ACTUALLY LOOKING TO THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE IN QUESTION. He did not mention Romans 8 even once in the presentation. As much as I say that Arminians ruin passages by failing to account for context, this man illustrates it better than words. Instead of looking at what Paul was talking about, Mr. McCallum reverted to the standard Arminian interpretation of Romans 9. Mr. McCallum went through the notion that Romans 9 is about national election, God choosing a nation through which His purposes would be accomplished. There is absolutely no reason to fall prey to such an ideology, but theology matters. When one’s theology is not completely fixed upon the centrality of God’s freedom in creation, then there is no other option than to revert to this massacre of the text of Scripture. Call me mean and judgmental, but I’m just pointing out what this man illustrates clearly. Watch the video/ listen to the mp3 yourself.
Interestingly enough, when he goes through the “Calvinist Reading” he doesn’t even start at the beginning of the passage; he starts in verse 6. Oh but ALL Arminians take the passages in context and no Calvinist would walk through the text verse by verse in regards to context. *Ahem* Yeah… just pointing something out that seemed interesting to me. Instead of objectively getting what the other side actually says, he sort of makes up what we believe because he has the false presupposition that absolute fealty to God’s sovereign purpose (Reformed Theology) is tantamount to fatalism. Theology matters.
Another thing that stood out to me is something that Dr. James White often decries Arminians and Roman Catholics of doing. Instead of walking through the text (in its context) other groups that don’t want to deal with the sovereignty of God in salvation simply jump to other texts, get meaning from those disjointed passages and read those meanings back into the text at hand, in this case Romans 9. Mr. McCallum does just this. He jumps around to Genesis and Malachi (standard Arminian argumentation) instead of trying to see why Paul was quoting these passages. Why was Paul quoting these passages? That information is found directly in the context. The ending portion of Romans 8 concerns the wonderful promise of security in salvation because God actively works in salvation. Paul’s detractors would have questioned him concerning the fate of Israel as a nation (interestingly enough the Arminian interpretation is exactly what Paul is refuting in Romans 9). Paul goes on to say in verse 6 of chapter 9 that not all who are of Israel are truly of Israel. The promises of justification and glorification (Romans 8:30) are only for those who have been called according to God’s purpose of justification and glorification (Romans 8:28-29). Mr. McCallum states that the destination of souls is not even discussed in Romans 9, and I suppose such would be true if you just rip the chapter out of Romans and discuss it in that way. Paul’s argumentation, on the other hand, flows from what he was saying in Romans 8. If the Arminian interpretation is correct, Romans 9 is an illogical formulation of thought placed in the middle of an entirely alien context. It really stands that Arminians cannot walk through this text. Theology matters.
Yet another thing that sticks out to me is his reason for accepting the interpretation that he does. He mentions that when he read Romans 9:13 that he could no reconcile the words “Esau I hated.” Again, and I cannot stress this enough, theology matters! Do you not understand, sir, that God is an angry and righteous and holy and just God? Do you not understand, sir, that God has complete authority in all of heaven and earth to send every single person straight into the pit of hell? Mr. McCallum, perhaps you completely missed chapters 1 and 3 of the very book you’re attempting to interpret? Romans 3 is Paul’s litany of the depravity of mankind. If you want to go to Jeremiah 17:9 you are justified in this sense, because all men are desperately wicked in their hearts. Here is an occasion where you can supplement your teaching with other passages of Scripture. Why, then, do you seek to advocate sinful men, sir? What standing does a man have before the death invoking presence of God? When Isaiah saw the I AM in Isaiah 6, were it not for God’s purposes, he would have, in the words of the Prophet, been undone. When one’s theology is not utterly fixed upon the righteous purpose of the Creator but upon the supposed autonomy of man, it will follow that he will not properly handle God’s Word. Theology matters, friends.
Still another thing that stood out to me was the fact this man took the Lord’s name in vain three times during the presentation. I don’t want to make a sweeping generalization but it seems to me that Arminians don’t have as proper an understanding of the need to mortify the flesh and the nature of the necessity of repentance. It’s simply an observation of my own experiences. Perhaps it is a very real vindication of the idea that theology matters.
So why this indictment of a Christian brother? Notice that I do with certainty believe this man to be a brother in the faith, as I do with most Arminians. What I want more than the brotherhood of a differing interpretation of the Bible, however, is a true interpretation of the Bible. I believe with all of my heart that the Doctrines of Grace, Reformed Theology, Calvinism, whatever you wish to call it; I believe that the Doctrines of Grace do justice to the Scriptures when objectively considered and when the presupposition is God’s sovereignty and man’s createdness. I, with the Apostle Paul in Romans 9, wish that all of my brothers could come to an acceptance of the absolutely beautiful Doctrines of Grace! I don’t want to simply have a good argument or have more head knowledge; I would that all my brothers come to the liberating, God centered, Soli Deo Gloria theology that is Calvinism! I find that the sovereignty of God in all things, especially my salvation, is beyond words of laude. If I were in charge of my own eternal destiny I would be so utterly terrified, because I would not know whether or not to think if I truly had attained justification. If, on the other hand, my salvation is in the hands of an almighty and sovereign and loving God, my fate is sealed and His work will continue! The Doctrines of Grace, I believe, illustrate the God of the Bible as He is given to us: in the Bible. The Reformed notion of Sola Scriptura resounds most clearly and most wonderfully in the Doctrines of Grace, in what we call Calvinism.
In light of my devotion to the Scriptures and to the God Who revealed Himself mightily to me, I quote Martin Luther, “Here I stand; I can do no otherwise. God help me. Amen!”
~Grace and Peace
*Theology matters is a very common yet very profound statement by Dr. James White and it means that if one's theology is wrong then it will follow that the lifestyle and actions of that person will not be in conformity with what the Bible truly teaches
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Romans 9 with James White
I just got done listening to a wonderful exegesis of Romans 9:1-24 by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries. I’ve posted a sort of bio on James White before, so I’ll leave it up to the reader to find out more about him (I highly recommend it).
One of the most admirable things about Dr. White is his ability to faithfully and consistently exegete Scripture, stripping away traditions and anthropocentric philosophy. Instead he replaces these burdens of exegesis with a Sola Scriptura-Soli Deo Gloria approach to Scripture. With these wonderful tools in hand and with his Reformed Apologetic ever present, he tackles this seemingly tough passage of Scripture with ease. One can tell that he is very well versed in the presentation of this passage of Scripture, but he does well in presenting it in the context of his audience and with a captivating way of presentation. Near the end of his presentation, he mentions something that I found interesting and very, very insightful. Dr. White does not even mention such terms as these: Reformed Theology, Predestination, Divine Election, Reprobation, John Calvin (only once at the end), Calvinism, Arminianism: he simply approaches the text of Scripture. I love that about him. He doesn’t need to be embroiled in a debate with a Synergist to be able to present exactly what the text is saying. Indeed, he mentions that this text is not a hard text if one really considers it. If one would put forth some effort, he would find that the text is unambiguous and clear. Dr. White is on my Top 5 Contemporary Theologians, and I think you can begin to see why.
I’ll just highlight some of the points he camped on.
People opposed to Reformed Theology often dismiss Romans 9 as a text that displays the electing purposes of God and the process of election. In the same motion they disregard the closely tied doctrine of Limited Atonement. They instead seek to justify the notion that Romans 9 is simply talking about nations. Verse 13, they say, refers to Jacob and Esau as the nations of Israel and Edom. What is sad is that if they would simply walk through the text, they would see their errors. The reason Paul was writing this chapter was because the people who raised up arguments against his theology of Romans 8 had one thing in mind: the promises to God’s people are void because the Jews are apostates. Let me just point out that the context of any passage of Scripture is exceedingly important. Back to business. So God’s promises are of no value at all, Paul, because these so-called people of God (the Jews) rejected their God on innumerable occasions! Read the book of Kings and you will see! So what did Paul do? He eloquently and easily refutes these arguments by appealing to the theology of election. How does he do this? He mentions the obvious truth that not every son of Abraham is a partaker of the covenant blessing. Verse 6: “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Just as God elected Isaac over Ishmael, so does God act with every man! God preserves for Himself a people, that is the whole point of the nation of Israel and the Remnant. Going even further, God chose Jacob over Esau. This is the next point.
The election of Jacob over Esau is a very curious thing in Scripture. Let’s look at it from three different perspectives.
First, the aesthetic appeal of Jacob versus Esau. This is an easy one, I mean come on. Especially in today’s Hollywood dominated society. Esau is muscular, physically fit, physically oriented, he’s an outdoorsman, he’s a hunter, he had good looks; he had just about everything going for him. Jacob on the other hand? He was probably a pale-faced, skinny boy. He was a momma’s boy and a deceiver and a liar. Really, who would you rather want on the team? Who would lead God’s people to victory over the nations? Esau hands down.
Second, the Arminian view of election. When Arminians face Romans 8 and the clear word “elect” they attempt pitifully to create an extra-Biblical, man-centered doctrine of election. God simply looks down the corridors of time and sees who will choose Him; that’s how He chooses the elect! Really? Is that how it works? There’s really no reason to go into how utterly bankrupt this ideology is; perhaps I can do it later. This “theology” is not a theology, but an anthropology. It is a completely man-centered doctrine of salvation, and I hate such a doctrine. Verse 11 seems to deal directly with this. It was not by any works that they did but by His call. The text really couldn’t be any more clear. Indeed, when Paul refers to God as a Potter, any idea that somehow the clay calls out to the Potter what to make him into is easily dismissed as laughable.
Finally, the last point: God’s freedom in election. This is really the only logical formulation of thought. To be more forward, this is the only biblical formulation of thought. God is the free agent of the universe, NOT man. Again we look to verse 11; it mentions God’s purpose. God has a purpose, and that purpose is going to be accomplished. There will be no “free will” of man to frustrate the designs of the Almighty. The doctrine of election is the only soteriology that allows for the freedom of God. Are you, Mr. Arminian, going to blatantly deny the freedom and sovereignty of God with such debonair? Perhaps you should look more clearly into Reformed Theology. Verse 13 is one of the most powerful verses in Scripture. “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Yes there is the argument that Malachi is referring to the countries produced by Jacob and Esau, but that is not the case. In the Jacob and Esau narrative, God spoke to Rebekah before her sons were even born and told her whom He had elected. God loved Jacob and at the same time He hated Esau. What a powerful statement. Before they were even born, before either of them took a single breath, their fate was sealed by the Almighty God. This is how God chooses a people; not everyone of Abraham is truly of Abraham. Not everyone of Isaac is truly of Isaac.
So we have discussed the three ways of looking at how God chose His elect, two man-centered ways and one God-centered way. Anthropology versus Theology; which is more important? Let me get to another point that Dr. White is known for making about Romans 9, and I love this.
Look again at verse 13. God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Those are powerful words. Do you see the power? Do you really? Look closer, you may have missed it. The amazing thing about Romans 9:13 is NOT that God HATED Esau. God had every reason to hate Esau; He would have been completely just in sending Esau straight into infinite and undying torment as soon as he entered into the world. He would have been just in killing Rebekah in child birth for her wickedness as a human being. He would have been just in sending the earth up in a ball of flame that very moment for the sins that would be committed by Edom AND Israel. Do you see the absolutely amazing thing in Romans 9:13? It is not that God hated Esau, because every man deserves the hatred of Almighty God. The utterly AMAZING thing about Romans 9:13 is that He loved Jacob! Why would God even choose any man? Why would God choose a multitude of people? Because God has a purpose that is not able to be seen outside of Reformed Theology. God is wishing to display the panorama of His glory to all things created. God could have saved no man, thus displaying the awesome power of His wrath (Romans 9:22). If this is the case, where is God’s love? God could have saved every man, thus displaying His infinite love and mercy (Romans 9:23)! Where, then, is God’s justice? What must be the case is a combination of these two. God, being completely free, chooses for Himself a people. God will mercy whom He will mercy, and He will harden whom He hardens. I hate the autonomy of man; not that it exists. I hate that man seeks to perpetuate the sickening idolatry of autonomy.
The traditions of men are exceedingly difficult to get past, but the Scripture behooves you to let your traditions about God go. If your traditions are not based on the biblical view of God, than it is rooted and based in the amorphous view of the “Grandfather in the Sky.” People opposed to Reformed Theology are so used to hearing about God as the God of love, that they do not see that He is an angry and furiously provoked God. When a person’s theology is better described as an anthropology, they will hear their echoed voice in Romans 9:19. “Who is at fault, for who can resist the will of a freely acting God?” Perhaps one of the greatest verses in all of Scripture is Romans 9:20, “Who are you, O man, that you answer back to God?”
I love the Doctrines of Grace, and I will embrace the biblical apologetic of Calvinism till the very end. I have no fealty to Calvin, though I revere the man of God that he was. Calvin would be the first to condemn anyone who would swear allegiance simply to his name. John Calvin was a man who faithfully and incomparably studied the Scriptures. His passion for God’s glory is unfathomable. Calvin’s devotion to God’s Word is the reason we credit our theology with his name. Calvin would surely agree, however, that he was simply working to expound the truth of God’s perfect and beautiful revelation.
Dr. White had many other wonderful things to say in this presentation, and I highly recommend his materials if you are willing to allow the Bible to scrutinize your traditions and your life.
Here’s the link to his presentation
Grace and Peace
~Rich
One of the most admirable things about Dr. White is his ability to faithfully and consistently exegete Scripture, stripping away traditions and anthropocentric philosophy. Instead he replaces these burdens of exegesis with a Sola Scriptura-Soli Deo Gloria approach to Scripture. With these wonderful tools in hand and with his Reformed Apologetic ever present, he tackles this seemingly tough passage of Scripture with ease. One can tell that he is very well versed in the presentation of this passage of Scripture, but he does well in presenting it in the context of his audience and with a captivating way of presentation. Near the end of his presentation, he mentions something that I found interesting and very, very insightful. Dr. White does not even mention such terms as these: Reformed Theology, Predestination, Divine Election, Reprobation, John Calvin (only once at the end), Calvinism, Arminianism: he simply approaches the text of Scripture. I love that about him. He doesn’t need to be embroiled in a debate with a Synergist to be able to present exactly what the text is saying. Indeed, he mentions that this text is not a hard text if one really considers it. If one would put forth some effort, he would find that the text is unambiguous and clear. Dr. White is on my Top 5 Contemporary Theologians, and I think you can begin to see why.
I’ll just highlight some of the points he camped on.
People opposed to Reformed Theology often dismiss Romans 9 as a text that displays the electing purposes of God and the process of election. In the same motion they disregard the closely tied doctrine of Limited Atonement. They instead seek to justify the notion that Romans 9 is simply talking about nations. Verse 13, they say, refers to Jacob and Esau as the nations of Israel and Edom. What is sad is that if they would simply walk through the text, they would see their errors. The reason Paul was writing this chapter was because the people who raised up arguments against his theology of Romans 8 had one thing in mind: the promises to God’s people are void because the Jews are apostates. Let me just point out that the context of any passage of Scripture is exceedingly important. Back to business. So God’s promises are of no value at all, Paul, because these so-called people of God (the Jews) rejected their God on innumerable occasions! Read the book of Kings and you will see! So what did Paul do? He eloquently and easily refutes these arguments by appealing to the theology of election. How does he do this? He mentions the obvious truth that not every son of Abraham is a partaker of the covenant blessing. Verse 6: “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Just as God elected Isaac over Ishmael, so does God act with every man! God preserves for Himself a people, that is the whole point of the nation of Israel and the Remnant. Going even further, God chose Jacob over Esau. This is the next point.
The election of Jacob over Esau is a very curious thing in Scripture. Let’s look at it from three different perspectives.
First, the aesthetic appeal of Jacob versus Esau. This is an easy one, I mean come on. Especially in today’s Hollywood dominated society. Esau is muscular, physically fit, physically oriented, he’s an outdoorsman, he’s a hunter, he had good looks; he had just about everything going for him. Jacob on the other hand? He was probably a pale-faced, skinny boy. He was a momma’s boy and a deceiver and a liar. Really, who would you rather want on the team? Who would lead God’s people to victory over the nations? Esau hands down.
Second, the Arminian view of election. When Arminians face Romans 8 and the clear word “elect” they attempt pitifully to create an extra-Biblical, man-centered doctrine of election. God simply looks down the corridors of time and sees who will choose Him; that’s how He chooses the elect! Really? Is that how it works? There’s really no reason to go into how utterly bankrupt this ideology is; perhaps I can do it later. This “theology” is not a theology, but an anthropology. It is a completely man-centered doctrine of salvation, and I hate such a doctrine. Verse 11 seems to deal directly with this. It was not by any works that they did but by His call. The text really couldn’t be any more clear. Indeed, when Paul refers to God as a Potter, any idea that somehow the clay calls out to the Potter what to make him into is easily dismissed as laughable.
Finally, the last point: God’s freedom in election. This is really the only logical formulation of thought. To be more forward, this is the only biblical formulation of thought. God is the free agent of the universe, NOT man. Again we look to verse 11; it mentions God’s purpose. God has a purpose, and that purpose is going to be accomplished. There will be no “free will” of man to frustrate the designs of the Almighty. The doctrine of election is the only soteriology that allows for the freedom of God. Are you, Mr. Arminian, going to blatantly deny the freedom and sovereignty of God with such debonair? Perhaps you should look more clearly into Reformed Theology. Verse 13 is one of the most powerful verses in Scripture. “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’” Yes there is the argument that Malachi is referring to the countries produced by Jacob and Esau, but that is not the case. In the Jacob and Esau narrative, God spoke to Rebekah before her sons were even born and told her whom He had elected. God loved Jacob and at the same time He hated Esau. What a powerful statement. Before they were even born, before either of them took a single breath, their fate was sealed by the Almighty God. This is how God chooses a people; not everyone of Abraham is truly of Abraham. Not everyone of Isaac is truly of Isaac.
So we have discussed the three ways of looking at how God chose His elect, two man-centered ways and one God-centered way. Anthropology versus Theology; which is more important? Let me get to another point that Dr. White is known for making about Romans 9, and I love this.
Look again at verse 13. God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Those are powerful words. Do you see the power? Do you really? Look closer, you may have missed it. The amazing thing about Romans 9:13 is NOT that God HATED Esau. God had every reason to hate Esau; He would have been completely just in sending Esau straight into infinite and undying torment as soon as he entered into the world. He would have been just in killing Rebekah in child birth for her wickedness as a human being. He would have been just in sending the earth up in a ball of flame that very moment for the sins that would be committed by Edom AND Israel. Do you see the absolutely amazing thing in Romans 9:13? It is not that God hated Esau, because every man deserves the hatred of Almighty God. The utterly AMAZING thing about Romans 9:13 is that He loved Jacob! Why would God even choose any man? Why would God choose a multitude of people? Because God has a purpose that is not able to be seen outside of Reformed Theology. God is wishing to display the panorama of His glory to all things created. God could have saved no man, thus displaying the awesome power of His wrath (Romans 9:22). If this is the case, where is God’s love? God could have saved every man, thus displaying His infinite love and mercy (Romans 9:23)! Where, then, is God’s justice? What must be the case is a combination of these two. God, being completely free, chooses for Himself a people. God will mercy whom He will mercy, and He will harden whom He hardens. I hate the autonomy of man; not that it exists. I hate that man seeks to perpetuate the sickening idolatry of autonomy.
The traditions of men are exceedingly difficult to get past, but the Scripture behooves you to let your traditions about God go. If your traditions are not based on the biblical view of God, than it is rooted and based in the amorphous view of the “Grandfather in the Sky.” People opposed to Reformed Theology are so used to hearing about God as the God of love, that they do not see that He is an angry and furiously provoked God. When a person’s theology is better described as an anthropology, they will hear their echoed voice in Romans 9:19. “Who is at fault, for who can resist the will of a freely acting God?” Perhaps one of the greatest verses in all of Scripture is Romans 9:20, “Who are you, O man, that you answer back to God?”
I love the Doctrines of Grace, and I will embrace the biblical apologetic of Calvinism till the very end. I have no fealty to Calvin, though I revere the man of God that he was. Calvin would be the first to condemn anyone who would swear allegiance simply to his name. John Calvin was a man who faithfully and incomparably studied the Scriptures. His passion for God’s glory is unfathomable. Calvin’s devotion to God’s Word is the reason we credit our theology with his name. Calvin would surely agree, however, that he was simply working to expound the truth of God’s perfect and beautiful revelation.
Dr. White had many other wonderful things to say in this presentation, and I highly recommend his materials if you are willing to allow the Bible to scrutinize your traditions and your life.
Here’s the link to his presentation
Grace and Peace
~Rich
Sunday, October 18, 2009
The link on the side
If you are one of the few who follow my blog, and you are a member of an exceedingly small category :), you will now notice the link at the side of my web page. Allow me to explain.
I have titled it "the greatest youtube channel out there; hands down". it is no small feat for someone to have such a title. I am a critical person, and as one who aspires to the profession of Christian Apologetics, such a thing is to be expected. I am critical for a number of reasons, but one of them is this very youtube channel. It is the youtube channel operated by James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (aomin.org). James White is, without a doubt, the greatest Christian Apologist of our day. I do not know of any other apologist that has committed himself so highly to his calling in our day. And if I could come up with a word that describes Dr. White, one certain word always comes to my mind: consistency. Dr. White is the greatest example of consistency in a man that I have ever seen. He absolutely does not fudge on anything. He debates Mormons, he debates Jehovah's Witnesses, he debates Muslims, he dives into those untouchable realms of Christianity such as Roman Catholicism, King James Onlyism, and Arminianism. James White has also done work and has shown himself to be an absolutely excellent scholar on the topic of Textual Criticism, a topic that Christians today know almost nothing at all about. He has debated numerous atheists as well, but that is not his favored area.
As someone feeling the call to Christian apologetics, James White is the foremost example of a man devoted to the truth of Scripture. James White is more than just an apologist, however, he is a Reformed Apologist. Reformed Apologetics are hard to come by these days, and James White is the beacon of hope for that rare breed. I mentioned that James is consistent, let be expand on that. In light of him being Reformed, or a Calvinist, James has convictions that stand in the face of modern Christianity. James does not beat around the bush and I love that about him. He is not the man who will indulge an Arminian who is making claims that twist and slaughter the text of Scripture. He is not afraid to call out R.C. Sproul or John Piper when they say certain things. I love that about him! Does James White radically oppose John Piper? NO! Anyone who radically opposes John Piper and calls himself a Christian should get himself straight! James White is simply the man who would call out his closest friend should he show signs of theo-philosophical error. James doesn't mess around with the truth of Scripture. As a side note, the incidents where James disagrees with John Piper are EXTREMELY minor, I merely mention them to show that he is single-minded.
James' consistency is what allows him to win debates, and he is a VERY prolific debater. In his dealings with Muslims, he shows time and time again that they cannot argue their points from the standard of scrutiny they apply to Christendom. James would willingly embrace Islam if their apologists could consistently and accurately represent the so-called "errors" in the text of Scripture. He would embrace atheism if the facts pointed out that Scripture is false, that's just the guy he is. His opponents are unfortunate in that they cannot represent Christianity accurately. They can't do it. Even Arminians; he would accept their claims if they would properly exegete John 6, or Romans 8. The fact of the matter is, James has shown on myriads of occasions, that Reformed Christian Apologetics stands any and all tests of scrutiny and because of this, he places his faith in them.
James is not afraid to confront falsehoods with satire (never ad hominem) and harsh truth (never erratic dogma). To most people he would seem like the most arrogant bigoted jerk on the face of the planet, simply because he does not back down from truth. It is unfortunate that that is the case, but that is the world we live in.
I encourage you to check out the link, watch some of his youtube videos, subscribe to his webcast The Dividing Line, and do your homework! That is the job of the Christian: work, hard laborious work. James White has done his homework, and if you disagree with what he has to say, you can bet that you will lose your fight unless you do your own. If you make an allegation, you better believe that he's going to hold you to your word and demand evidence from Scripture and history. I love that about him; everyone is fair game, and it's not because he is arrogant or some theocratic monster, it's because Christ was the same way. All in all, I encourage you to check him out! He is the foremost apologist of our day, if not the most underrated one! His resources are excellent, but his ministry is very small so they can cost money. If you want absolutely excellent Christian apologetics that are not afraid to tackle anything, subscribe to The Dividing Line (http://aomin.org/articles/webcast.html) and listen in. Carve out some time, because the sessions are long and VERY meaty. This is excellent material for all Christians. The best part about his ministry is the youtube channel, because it's all free and there is a HUGE amount of material there ranging from Mormonism, Calvinism, Islam, and many other topics, all free to watch.
~Grace and Peace
I have titled it "the greatest youtube channel out there; hands down". it is no small feat for someone to have such a title. I am a critical person, and as one who aspires to the profession of Christian Apologetics, such a thing is to be expected. I am critical for a number of reasons, but one of them is this very youtube channel. It is the youtube channel operated by James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (aomin.org). James White is, without a doubt, the greatest Christian Apologist of our day. I do not know of any other apologist that has committed himself so highly to his calling in our day. And if I could come up with a word that describes Dr. White, one certain word always comes to my mind: consistency. Dr. White is the greatest example of consistency in a man that I have ever seen. He absolutely does not fudge on anything. He debates Mormons, he debates Jehovah's Witnesses, he debates Muslims, he dives into those untouchable realms of Christianity such as Roman Catholicism, King James Onlyism, and Arminianism. James White has also done work and has shown himself to be an absolutely excellent scholar on the topic of Textual Criticism, a topic that Christians today know almost nothing at all about. He has debated numerous atheists as well, but that is not his favored area.
As someone feeling the call to Christian apologetics, James White is the foremost example of a man devoted to the truth of Scripture. James White is more than just an apologist, however, he is a Reformed Apologist. Reformed Apologetics are hard to come by these days, and James White is the beacon of hope for that rare breed. I mentioned that James is consistent, let be expand on that. In light of him being Reformed, or a Calvinist, James has convictions that stand in the face of modern Christianity. James does not beat around the bush and I love that about him. He is not the man who will indulge an Arminian who is making claims that twist and slaughter the text of Scripture. He is not afraid to call out R.C. Sproul or John Piper when they say certain things. I love that about him! Does James White radically oppose John Piper? NO! Anyone who radically opposes John Piper and calls himself a Christian should get himself straight! James White is simply the man who would call out his closest friend should he show signs of theo-philosophical error. James doesn't mess around with the truth of Scripture. As a side note, the incidents where James disagrees with John Piper are EXTREMELY minor, I merely mention them to show that he is single-minded.
James' consistency is what allows him to win debates, and he is a VERY prolific debater. In his dealings with Muslims, he shows time and time again that they cannot argue their points from the standard of scrutiny they apply to Christendom. James would willingly embrace Islam if their apologists could consistently and accurately represent the so-called "errors" in the text of Scripture. He would embrace atheism if the facts pointed out that Scripture is false, that's just the guy he is. His opponents are unfortunate in that they cannot represent Christianity accurately. They can't do it. Even Arminians; he would accept their claims if they would properly exegete John 6, or Romans 8. The fact of the matter is, James has shown on myriads of occasions, that Reformed Christian Apologetics stands any and all tests of scrutiny and because of this, he places his faith in them.
James is not afraid to confront falsehoods with satire (never ad hominem) and harsh truth (never erratic dogma). To most people he would seem like the most arrogant bigoted jerk on the face of the planet, simply because he does not back down from truth. It is unfortunate that that is the case, but that is the world we live in.
I encourage you to check out the link, watch some of his youtube videos, subscribe to his webcast The Dividing Line, and do your homework! That is the job of the Christian: work, hard laborious work. James White has done his homework, and if you disagree with what he has to say, you can bet that you will lose your fight unless you do your own. If you make an allegation, you better believe that he's going to hold you to your word and demand evidence from Scripture and history. I love that about him; everyone is fair game, and it's not because he is arrogant or some theocratic monster, it's because Christ was the same way. All in all, I encourage you to check him out! He is the foremost apologist of our day, if not the most underrated one! His resources are excellent, but his ministry is very small so they can cost money. If you want absolutely excellent Christian apologetics that are not afraid to tackle anything, subscribe to The Dividing Line (http://aomin.org/articles/webcast.html) and listen in. Carve out some time, because the sessions are long and VERY meaty. This is excellent material for all Christians. The best part about his ministry is the youtube channel, because it's all free and there is a HUGE amount of material there ranging from Mormonism, Calvinism, Islam, and many other topics, all free to watch.
~Grace and Peace
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The Twelve
“And He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff — no bread, no bag, no money in their belts — but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. And He said to them, ‘Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.’ So they went out and proclaimed that the people should repent. And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.” Mark 6:7-13
We will see here the edict of evangelism and the telling of God’s Kingdom to the people. The Twelve Disciples left everything to God, as Christ instructed them to in this verse. We will take note of this later on.
To the text.
The immediate context of this account in terms of location is the area around Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown. Christ and His disciples had witnessed the faithlessness of the people there and would do no great works for such a group. They left Nazareth and began teaching in other towns nearby (6:6). While in an unspecified location, Christ calls His special Disciples to His side. He summoned the twelve and set them on their mission. This is the initial stage of the greater design of the Father, for what was to take place had not taken place yet. The Disciples here are being trained for their future work. It is obvious that this was not the great mission of the Church as the Betrayer Iscariot was among them still. It is interesting to think about what he was doing during this time and interesting to think about the poor disciple paired with him. I digress.
He called the Twelve and sent them out two by two. This is curious. Why would He send them out in pairs? In considering this, we might come to a few conclusions. Christ sent out the disciples in pairs for a reason. These men were to be testimonies to the people of the nearby villages. They needed to be held accountable in order that they might provide a witness that was in no need of repudiation. This is powerful. Accountability partners, friends, fellowship; all these things are necessary! Christ Himself advocates them here. The Christian walk is not one to walk alone. When out in the open, like the Twelve would be, they would need a fellow disciple with them so that they could make sure the others were in line with the message that they were preaching. If they did get out of line, the other was right there to rebuke and correct. It is also worth noting that the Christian life is a difficult one, one full of hardships. The disciples would likely face numerous challenges, and the text bears this out. They would inevitably come to towns full of hardened people, they would encounter terribly sick people, and they would combat demons. Such a calling is not worth going at alone; one needs encouragement! Christ knew what He was doing when He commissioned the disciples on this mission. He knew that they were yet weak. They did not have the Holy Spirit in them quite yet. What encouragement that their fellows could provide would be welcomed warmly on this harrowing path ahead of them. Is it not wonderful that our God knows exactly how to deal with His creation?
What we have is Christ organizing His troops and deploying them strategically. With two people together, any charge against the one would have to be taken up also with the other. This was not only an accountability and an encouragement safety, it was a legal guard. Deuteronomy 19:15 requires that two or three witness be present to make a claim. In a pair the disciples would be able to bypass the rhetoric and accusations of men in a way that a single man could not. Christ again knew exactly what He was doing.
What else does this verse say? He gave them authority over the unclean spirits. Christ had just done away with Legion and the disciples saw it all. Now they had this power. Christ is pouring out His spirit on these men for the purpose of furthering the Kingdom of God. If a witness of Christ’s miracle with Legion were to ask of the Twelve to do a similar miracle, what would happen if they couldn’t do it? The ministry would be in jeopardy! Christ wisely gifted these men with authority over demons so that they would be able to perform a mighty work where one was needed. Christ did not give them perfection or full control over situations, but He equipped them with what they would need in order to do their duties. Again, this was not Pentecost, but they were getting closer.
This next statement is powerful. They were charged to take nothing with them, nothing but a staff. He instructed them, the NASB says. Perhaps they objected to this at first. “Teacher, may we take food and drink? May we take with even a small bit of money?” Christ would tell them that they did not need those things. “What need do you have for food when your Father is in Heaven? Is money ever an issue when He reigns so mightily?” I don’t doubt that the disciples had as hard a time with this as we might have today. In fact, I doubt anyone would respond to such an edict these days! How attached are we to our belongings? Think of Christ’s words in a modern context. “Child, on your journey I charge you to leave behind your cell phone. Do not bother taking your credit card. Don’t grab Starbucks before you head off. Don’t even take your nice clothes; you’re going to get dirty. Don’t bother with an I-pod either.” How might we respond to this? I know that I would be sorely hesitant! We become too attracted to our material possessions in this day where technology is so “important.” I wish that I could be at a position where all I needed in my day is the Bible. I don’t believe that Christ is ordering a universal call to all saints, but He is saying, “Don’t rely on these things, I am with you, your Father in Heaven is with you always and He will provide.” That needs to be our mindset always. No food; no possessions; no money; just God.
He told them to wear sandals and to go with a staff. These are the belongings of a traveler. They are meager and simplistic. The disciples were not men of show and prestige, not by a long shot. Their work would be dirty and the path would be rough. Grab a walking stick and comfortable shoes, says Christ. We note that a staff is a shepherd’s sheep defender as well. It is likely that the disciples would be facing danger and a staff was a weapon. Brigands and wild animals were a possibility and they needed some way to defend themselves. Christ also mentions something peculiar. He charged them to wear only one tunic. This is likely to avoid putting on an appearance of extravagance. If anything can damage a ministry it is pride, and the disciples were as human as we are. They were prone to capitalize on anything that their fleshly natures saw as good in themselves. They needed to strip themselves of anything that might hinder their ministry and extravagance is worth getting rid of. This is hugely applicable today. It is strange to me that many mega-church pastors have huge houses, extremely expensive cars, unbelievably lavish churches, extravagant clothing, and all sorts of other worldly things. What use are those things? I admire John Piper, who was known for wearing the same suit jacket to preach on Sunday’s for weeks on end. In an era where “stuff” is so important to us, this passage is exceedingly applicable. Let us throw off every hindrance, if it causes us to stumble. If the phone takes priority over God, toss it away! If the computer is absorbing more time than the Bible, fast from it! It doesn’t matter what it is, put it under God.
Two things can be taken from these verses. Trust God for provision and do not let extravagance get the better of you.
Let’s look at Christ’s spoken words now. I believe that the NASB renders this more clearly than my beloved ESV. Christ tells them to remain in a single house until they depart from that town. Why is this significant? I suppose it would help to consider the conditions. The pair of disciples enters a town and a family kindly and humbly accepts them into their home. What would it say about the disciples if they went and lived with another family? It would not only disgrace the family of the home, but it would seem as though the disciples were ungrateful. If the disciples had some sort of problem with the family, they were charged to stick it out to the end. The disciples were to try their hardest to reconcile the problems, should one arise. They were also to be content with their furnishings. If a family was kind enough to open their home, the disciples were to be good stewards of their blessings. If the family was poor, the disciples had something in common. If the family was rich, so be it, the disciples would be blessed. In any and all cases, this was a call to humility and contentedness. Christ’s Kingdom has no room for ungrateful people.
The next phrase is equally important. If a town would not receive them, if the people mocked and slandered them, they had but one option. They were to leave quietly and simply shake the dust from their feet. In this, they would sever any tie that they had with the city, and testify that the city had rejected their message. This is a frightening judgment to have bestowed upon your city. A wise man would depart from such a city, knowing that God’s judgment would be upon it, for they had not simply rejected the disciples, they had rejected God Himself. This is a powerful statement concerning the Christian’s relation with nonbelievers. It was extremely important that they leave quietly. There is no charge to ardently defend and bitterly nuance the message. This is a powerful yet indirect text regarding Divine Election. The disciples were to shake the dust off their feet and leave the rest to God. If it would be God’s will to rescue the righteous few from that city under judgment, He would do so. The vengeance of God is rarely displayed in the New Testament, especially when compared to the Old. The judgment of God that is at hand even now is still yet to come, and God is still working. I believe that it is safe to say that America and the West in general has rejected the disciples, they have rejected God. Has God immediately incinerated our lands? Obviously not, and we can infer from this that He still has a plan for His remnant. He will call a people to Himself by His own will and decree. It was by His grace alone that men accepted the message of the disciples and the same is true today. It was in God’s hands then, and it is in His hands even as I type this.
So they went out, the text says. Christ had equipped them for the work at hand, and once He had done so, He deployed His soldiers. This verse, verse 12, is absolutely full of meaning. This one little verse nestled in this passage refutes much of the modern “Christianity” that we see today. So often the Gospel is presented as “making a decision for Christ” or “accepting Jesus as your savior” or “waiting for that Spirit laced experience.” This is NOT the message that Christ preached, and it is NOT the message that He personally instructed His disciples to proclaim. The disciples, after having been taught by Christ in an extremely important discourse on evangelism, were to proclaim to the people a single word: REPENT. This is the message of evangelism that Christ is teaching! Those who would follow the lead of the disciples and thus follow Christ were those who were willing to repent of their sins. Only the brokenhearted people were aloud in the Kingdom and the same holds true for today. Abraham brokenheartedly consented to sacrificing his son on faith alone. It is this brokenhearted nature that accompanies repentance. This repentance is not merely a change of logical thinking, it is a change of life. Repentance is a turning to Christ from sin; repentance is taking hold of the blood bought joy on Christ’s behalf! It is a sorrowful yet supremely joyous act. When we realize that Christ died His death on the cross for our joy, what does that make sin look like? Our duty is to repent. This was God’s message from day one and Christ proclaimed it on this earth, and the Spirit testifies to that message and causes us to take hold of it. So much could be said on repentance. I highly recommend checking out one28ministries.org, the 2009 Snow Retreat section for messages on repentance.
So the disciples were proclaiming this message of repentance, but they were doing more. With the power that Christ bestowed on them, they cast out many demons and healed the sick people among them. With the Spirit of Christ upon them, they were able to do mighty works in Christ’s name. Notice the chronology of this text. The cleansing of demons and the absolute healings are secondary to the proclamation of repentance. Dealing with sin is of far greater importance than ridding demonic possession and healing sickness. The proclamation of repentance does not discount these mighty works, but it is more important in the long run.
This passage is a stark contrast to what we have just read about. The disciples were on their mission and they were getting a taste of what they would give their lives to in the near future. This is indeed a wonderful passage. Christ’s ministry is flourishing here as the disciples are sent out on duty, whereas in Nazareth the faithlessness of the people impeded Christ’s work. We will notice, though, the intense focus on the sovereignty of God in the work of evangelism. As a Calvinist, I do not believe that men are able to choose of their own volition the gift of salvation. Romans 8 deals with the fact that God actively works in salvation, and that it is His work alone, but this text indirectly deals with it. When the disciples went to the towns, they were to proclaim their message with the preconception that God would do what He would do. Christ gave them instructions on what to do if the people supposedly “rejected the message of their own free will.” He did not, however, instruct them on what to do when the message was well received. It is obvious that wherever they went, they would be facing opposition, because the free will of man is consistently exercised in rebellion against the Creator. That is the Calvinistic view of the will. Just as the disciples were charged in leaving their well being up to God (take no food or money), the disciples were given the instructions on what to do when they would face inevitable rejection. Shake the dust of your feet and let God do the rest; they were merely messengers. The people would not accept the message unless the One Who wrote it caused it to seem irresistible to them. Honestly, who would willingly accept a message of self-denial and repentance from sin of their own will? The people of Nazareth are an excellent example of this “free will.” Christ mocked the “free will” of man by performing no miracles for them. He then, in the immediate context of the written book, charged the disciples with this: people will not accept it, so shake the dust from your feet and let God be God.
We will see here the edict of evangelism and the telling of God’s Kingdom to the people. The Twelve Disciples left everything to God, as Christ instructed them to in this verse. We will take note of this later on.
To the text.
The immediate context of this account in terms of location is the area around Nazareth, Jesus’ hometown. Christ and His disciples had witnessed the faithlessness of the people there and would do no great works for such a group. They left Nazareth and began teaching in other towns nearby (6:6). While in an unspecified location, Christ calls His special Disciples to His side. He summoned the twelve and set them on their mission. This is the initial stage of the greater design of the Father, for what was to take place had not taken place yet. The Disciples here are being trained for their future work. It is obvious that this was not the great mission of the Church as the Betrayer Iscariot was among them still. It is interesting to think about what he was doing during this time and interesting to think about the poor disciple paired with him. I digress.
He called the Twelve and sent them out two by two. This is curious. Why would He send them out in pairs? In considering this, we might come to a few conclusions. Christ sent out the disciples in pairs for a reason. These men were to be testimonies to the people of the nearby villages. They needed to be held accountable in order that they might provide a witness that was in no need of repudiation. This is powerful. Accountability partners, friends, fellowship; all these things are necessary! Christ Himself advocates them here. The Christian walk is not one to walk alone. When out in the open, like the Twelve would be, they would need a fellow disciple with them so that they could make sure the others were in line with the message that they were preaching. If they did get out of line, the other was right there to rebuke and correct. It is also worth noting that the Christian life is a difficult one, one full of hardships. The disciples would likely face numerous challenges, and the text bears this out. They would inevitably come to towns full of hardened people, they would encounter terribly sick people, and they would combat demons. Such a calling is not worth going at alone; one needs encouragement! Christ knew what He was doing when He commissioned the disciples on this mission. He knew that they were yet weak. They did not have the Holy Spirit in them quite yet. What encouragement that their fellows could provide would be welcomed warmly on this harrowing path ahead of them. Is it not wonderful that our God knows exactly how to deal with His creation?
What we have is Christ organizing His troops and deploying them strategically. With two people together, any charge against the one would have to be taken up also with the other. This was not only an accountability and an encouragement safety, it was a legal guard. Deuteronomy 19:15 requires that two or three witness be present to make a claim. In a pair the disciples would be able to bypass the rhetoric and accusations of men in a way that a single man could not. Christ again knew exactly what He was doing.
What else does this verse say? He gave them authority over the unclean spirits. Christ had just done away with Legion and the disciples saw it all. Now they had this power. Christ is pouring out His spirit on these men for the purpose of furthering the Kingdom of God. If a witness of Christ’s miracle with Legion were to ask of the Twelve to do a similar miracle, what would happen if they couldn’t do it? The ministry would be in jeopardy! Christ wisely gifted these men with authority over demons so that they would be able to perform a mighty work where one was needed. Christ did not give them perfection or full control over situations, but He equipped them with what they would need in order to do their duties. Again, this was not Pentecost, but they were getting closer.
This next statement is powerful. They were charged to take nothing with them, nothing but a staff. He instructed them, the NASB says. Perhaps they objected to this at first. “Teacher, may we take food and drink? May we take with even a small bit of money?” Christ would tell them that they did not need those things. “What need do you have for food when your Father is in Heaven? Is money ever an issue when He reigns so mightily?” I don’t doubt that the disciples had as hard a time with this as we might have today. In fact, I doubt anyone would respond to such an edict these days! How attached are we to our belongings? Think of Christ’s words in a modern context. “Child, on your journey I charge you to leave behind your cell phone. Do not bother taking your credit card. Don’t grab Starbucks before you head off. Don’t even take your nice clothes; you’re going to get dirty. Don’t bother with an I-pod either.” How might we respond to this? I know that I would be sorely hesitant! We become too attracted to our material possessions in this day where technology is so “important.” I wish that I could be at a position where all I needed in my day is the Bible. I don’t believe that Christ is ordering a universal call to all saints, but He is saying, “Don’t rely on these things, I am with you, your Father in Heaven is with you always and He will provide.” That needs to be our mindset always. No food; no possessions; no money; just God.
He told them to wear sandals and to go with a staff. These are the belongings of a traveler. They are meager and simplistic. The disciples were not men of show and prestige, not by a long shot. Their work would be dirty and the path would be rough. Grab a walking stick and comfortable shoes, says Christ. We note that a staff is a shepherd’s sheep defender as well. It is likely that the disciples would be facing danger and a staff was a weapon. Brigands and wild animals were a possibility and they needed some way to defend themselves. Christ also mentions something peculiar. He charged them to wear only one tunic. This is likely to avoid putting on an appearance of extravagance. If anything can damage a ministry it is pride, and the disciples were as human as we are. They were prone to capitalize on anything that their fleshly natures saw as good in themselves. They needed to strip themselves of anything that might hinder their ministry and extravagance is worth getting rid of. This is hugely applicable today. It is strange to me that many mega-church pastors have huge houses, extremely expensive cars, unbelievably lavish churches, extravagant clothing, and all sorts of other worldly things. What use are those things? I admire John Piper, who was known for wearing the same suit jacket to preach on Sunday’s for weeks on end. In an era where “stuff” is so important to us, this passage is exceedingly applicable. Let us throw off every hindrance, if it causes us to stumble. If the phone takes priority over God, toss it away! If the computer is absorbing more time than the Bible, fast from it! It doesn’t matter what it is, put it under God.
Two things can be taken from these verses. Trust God for provision and do not let extravagance get the better of you.
Let’s look at Christ’s spoken words now. I believe that the NASB renders this more clearly than my beloved ESV. Christ tells them to remain in a single house until they depart from that town. Why is this significant? I suppose it would help to consider the conditions. The pair of disciples enters a town and a family kindly and humbly accepts them into their home. What would it say about the disciples if they went and lived with another family? It would not only disgrace the family of the home, but it would seem as though the disciples were ungrateful. If the disciples had some sort of problem with the family, they were charged to stick it out to the end. The disciples were to try their hardest to reconcile the problems, should one arise. They were also to be content with their furnishings. If a family was kind enough to open their home, the disciples were to be good stewards of their blessings. If the family was poor, the disciples had something in common. If the family was rich, so be it, the disciples would be blessed. In any and all cases, this was a call to humility and contentedness. Christ’s Kingdom has no room for ungrateful people.
The next phrase is equally important. If a town would not receive them, if the people mocked and slandered them, they had but one option. They were to leave quietly and simply shake the dust from their feet. In this, they would sever any tie that they had with the city, and testify that the city had rejected their message. This is a frightening judgment to have bestowed upon your city. A wise man would depart from such a city, knowing that God’s judgment would be upon it, for they had not simply rejected the disciples, they had rejected God Himself. This is a powerful statement concerning the Christian’s relation with nonbelievers. It was extremely important that they leave quietly. There is no charge to ardently defend and bitterly nuance the message. This is a powerful yet indirect text regarding Divine Election. The disciples were to shake the dust off their feet and leave the rest to God. If it would be God’s will to rescue the righteous few from that city under judgment, He would do so. The vengeance of God is rarely displayed in the New Testament, especially when compared to the Old. The judgment of God that is at hand even now is still yet to come, and God is still working. I believe that it is safe to say that America and the West in general has rejected the disciples, they have rejected God. Has God immediately incinerated our lands? Obviously not, and we can infer from this that He still has a plan for His remnant. He will call a people to Himself by His own will and decree. It was by His grace alone that men accepted the message of the disciples and the same is true today. It was in God’s hands then, and it is in His hands even as I type this.
So they went out, the text says. Christ had equipped them for the work at hand, and once He had done so, He deployed His soldiers. This verse, verse 12, is absolutely full of meaning. This one little verse nestled in this passage refutes much of the modern “Christianity” that we see today. So often the Gospel is presented as “making a decision for Christ” or “accepting Jesus as your savior” or “waiting for that Spirit laced experience.” This is NOT the message that Christ preached, and it is NOT the message that He personally instructed His disciples to proclaim. The disciples, after having been taught by Christ in an extremely important discourse on evangelism, were to proclaim to the people a single word: REPENT. This is the message of evangelism that Christ is teaching! Those who would follow the lead of the disciples and thus follow Christ were those who were willing to repent of their sins. Only the brokenhearted people were aloud in the Kingdom and the same holds true for today. Abraham brokenheartedly consented to sacrificing his son on faith alone. It is this brokenhearted nature that accompanies repentance. This repentance is not merely a change of logical thinking, it is a change of life. Repentance is a turning to Christ from sin; repentance is taking hold of the blood bought joy on Christ’s behalf! It is a sorrowful yet supremely joyous act. When we realize that Christ died His death on the cross for our joy, what does that make sin look like? Our duty is to repent. This was God’s message from day one and Christ proclaimed it on this earth, and the Spirit testifies to that message and causes us to take hold of it. So much could be said on repentance. I highly recommend checking out one28ministries.org, the 2009 Snow Retreat section for messages on repentance.
So the disciples were proclaiming this message of repentance, but they were doing more. With the power that Christ bestowed on them, they cast out many demons and healed the sick people among them. With the Spirit of Christ upon them, they were able to do mighty works in Christ’s name. Notice the chronology of this text. The cleansing of demons and the absolute healings are secondary to the proclamation of repentance. Dealing with sin is of far greater importance than ridding demonic possession and healing sickness. The proclamation of repentance does not discount these mighty works, but it is more important in the long run.
This passage is a stark contrast to what we have just read about. The disciples were on their mission and they were getting a taste of what they would give their lives to in the near future. This is indeed a wonderful passage. Christ’s ministry is flourishing here as the disciples are sent out on duty, whereas in Nazareth the faithlessness of the people impeded Christ’s work. We will notice, though, the intense focus on the sovereignty of God in the work of evangelism. As a Calvinist, I do not believe that men are able to choose of their own volition the gift of salvation. Romans 8 deals with the fact that God actively works in salvation, and that it is His work alone, but this text indirectly deals with it. When the disciples went to the towns, they were to proclaim their message with the preconception that God would do what He would do. Christ gave them instructions on what to do if the people supposedly “rejected the message of their own free will.” He did not, however, instruct them on what to do when the message was well received. It is obvious that wherever they went, they would be facing opposition, because the free will of man is consistently exercised in rebellion against the Creator. That is the Calvinistic view of the will. Just as the disciples were charged in leaving their well being up to God (take no food or money), the disciples were given the instructions on what to do when they would face inevitable rejection. Shake the dust of your feet and let God do the rest; they were merely messengers. The people would not accept the message unless the One Who wrote it caused it to seem irresistible to them. Honestly, who would willingly accept a message of self-denial and repentance from sin of their own will? The people of Nazareth are an excellent example of this “free will.” Christ mocked the “free will” of man by performing no miracles for them. He then, in the immediate context of the written book, charged the disciples with this: people will not accept it, so shake the dust from your feet and let God be God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
