Think Wink.

I posted earlier about how in Christian Doctrine I class, we diverted from our topic just so we could go down a major rabbit trail known as Calvinism verses Arminianism. We spent an hour discussing this topic when our lecture was to be on the necessity and sufficeincy of the Scriptures. Well, when we came to the lecture two weeks ago on the attributes of God, our prof was at a meeting for Baptist seminaries to figure out where they are and where they need to go. Another prof stepped up and was a sub for our class. While more appropriate for the discussion of God’s attributes was this debate on election, it was still not necessary. Yet the prof felt it was absolutely needed that he try to strike down Calvinism. Again, it didn’t work however his use of the Scripture instead of philosophy was greatly receive by myself and my Reformed adelphous in the class.

That kind of debate is very annoying to me because it detracts and distracts. We were there to learn about the Scriptures of God and then God’s attributes. We were not there to discuss Reformed soteriology. I find that too many people think that we need to argue over nonrelated subjects for the sake of arguing. I love to debate Calvinism, I love to debate Dispensationalism. However, there is a time when we don’t need to debate it. Thursday in my Prophetis Literature class, one student was wanting to tie things to the great tribulation (notice how its not capitalized). The professor refused to go down that path. Another person asked about the plagues of Egypt and their purpose. But again the prof refused to go down that path. We weren’t talking about the Exodus, we were talking about Jeremiah and the sins of Judah.

Monday in Doctrine, we are discussing God’s providence. In the text, the author gives his views of providence from a Calvinistic view. Then he brings in the Arminian argument and interacts with it. Therefore I will ask questions of the textbook and of the prof in class. It is the appropriate time to debate that issue. Our textbook says so. But I am not going to drag on the discussion so that we cannot cover all of the material we read.

Everything has a proper time. On the blog Theology for the Masses, we are trying to discuss these issues and wrap our heads around them. There it is appropriate to debate these things. We must be mindful of what we bring up, who we are talking to, and the spirit in which the discussion is taking place. If the timing is right, then go for it. But don’t do it in a dishonoring fashion like my substitute prof did two weeks ago. Sometimes people are not in a good spirit to debate and we provoke anger by bringing up something we should not.

If I could encourage people with one thing this weekend and this week, be wise as serpents when beginning a discussion and gentle as doves when discussing it. There is a time and place for everything. Be discerning of when and where that is and there will be much harmony in your life and in your relationships.

My First Post

No Doctrine But Love?

Translation Issues

Last night in my prophetic Lit. I class, we discussed my reading of Jeremiah 8:17-25:38.  Here is an interesting passage for you to chew on.  Jeremiah is know for his blatant honest with God.  Jeremiah does not cover up what he feels from God.  He is open and honest.  He calls God a deceiver and in Jeremiah 20:7-8 he uses language that is similar to a mental raping!  Look at what Jeremiah says in 12:1-2,

Righteous are you, O Lord, when I complain to you; yet I would plead my case before you.  Why does the way of the wicked prosper?  Why do all who are treacherous thrive?  You plant them, and they take root; they grow and produce fruit; you are near in their mouth and far from their heart.

Notice how Jeremiah begins the complaint in v. 1.  He proclaims the truth that God is righteous.  Whatever God does is righteous and we must accept that and bow to him.  But he must ask, “Why does the way of the wicked proper?  Why do all who are treacherous thrive?”  That’s the million-dollar question isn’t it?  Why do good things happen to bad people?  Why is there evil in the world?  Why does Ted Turner who doesn’t give a rip about Jesus Christ have billions and poor old me who is doing your work have nothing?  Why does this world work this way?  That’s the question.

Keep going with Jeremiah in v. 2, “You plant them, and they take root; they grow and produce fruit.”  Jeremiah has said that God has planted these evil people.  God has planted these treacherous people.  God has done this.  This is an act of God!  God why did you do this?  Aren’t you good and don’t you seek to destroy the wicked?  Jeremiah has said that God is responsible for the evil in the world!  It’s a borderline heresy!

Jeremiah goes on to speak of how he has been kept from sin by God and so he’s not asking out of selfish reasons.  He honestly wants to know.  How long must the earth endure.  Now this is where it really hits me hardest.  God’s response in Jeremiah 12:5 is,

If you have raced with men on foot, and they have wearied you, how will you compete with horses?  And if in a safe land you are so trusting, what will you do in the thicket of the Jordan?

God says, “Jeremiah, if you think this is bad, you haven’t seen anything yet!”  He says to Jeremiah, “Cowboy up!”  God is only getting started.  God does not downplay or deny Jeremiah’s statement.  He only says that Jeremiah needs to deal with it and that God will destroy Judah.  That’s his response.  His justice.  He does not say he isn’t responsible and we are left with the impression that God is indeed responsible for those whom he “planted.”  Do we dare try to rescue God from this Scripture with texts like James 1:13 where God neither tempts nor is tempted with evil?  But is James even saying the same thing that Jeremiah is saying?

Some of my classmates approached our prof. about this and he made another great point.  He took us back to Genesis 3:1 in which it says, “Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.”  He said that this text says that the serpent is naturally crafty and was made that way.  But then doesn’t that mean that God made the devil?  He said, “Where in this text is the devil or satan?  Show me.”  Our natural tendency is to turn to Revelation and say there.  But that isn’t reading Genesis now is it.  Ha-satan is only a title that can refer to anyone.  So the Old Testament doesn’t try to rescue God from the problem of evil. 
I must confess that challenges me.  Jeremiah leaves me with the impression that may be God can be behind the reason why evil is in the world and yet he is not guilty of evil at the same time.  Many people will cower at that.  So I issue this challenge, show me where in the Bible that God isn’t responsible.  James just says God doesn’t do the evil.  It says nothing about creating the evil.  Where in the Bible does it say that God didn’t create evil?  Show me a text that refutes Jeremiah’s teaching?

No related posts

In my Prophetic Lit. class we are on our second day of Jeremiah tonight.  I have read Jeremiah 1-25 and I am quite taken by this prophet’s ministry and message.  Last night I read Jeremiah 8:17-25:38, okay I read 8:17-19:15 but that’s pretty much eleven chapters with a Greek quiz to study for also and there is still the sixty pages of commentary I had to read for the class on Jeremiah 8:17-25:38.  It’s crazy.  But I have been captivated by this man’s ministry and what he has to say.  It really hit me last night as I read Jeremiah 18 and the parable of the potter’s house.  That’s the parable that many scholars erroneously point to when interpreting Romans 9:19-21 (the text there that is most influencing Paul is Isaiah 29:16) as the sole influence on Paul.  But there are three verses that I feel I must discuss in this chapter and one in Jeremiah 20:7-9.

The first verse is Jeremiah 18:12, where Jeremiah records that Judah will follow after their own stubborn evil hearts.   Jeremiah has a very critical and negative opinion of man’s heart in his ministry.  I did a word search of “heart” and I found that seven times Jeremiah uses this phrasiology (3:17; 5:23; 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; 23:17).  Jeremiah 16:12 substitutes the word “will” for “heart.”  Going on a survey of Jeremiah 1-25 I am shocked by his condemnation of the human heart.  In Jeremiah 4:4 God pleads with Israel to circumsise their hearts.  Again in 9:26 Jeremiah prophecies that although unlike the Gentiles the body of Judah is circumcised, their hearts were not.  I find that interesting in light of Deuteronomy 30:6.  In Jeremiah 4:14 God pleads that Judah would wash away the evil in their hearts.  In 9:8 Jeremiah says that even though man is peaceful in speech, in his heart he plans “an ambush.”  In 12:2 Jeremiah says that the mouths of men are near to God but their hearts are far away.  Jeremiah 17 is the strongest statement against my heart that I have read thus far.  Sin is engraved onto and into the heart (v. 1).  In v. 9 the heart is said to be deceitful “above all things” and that it is “desperately sick.”  In Jeremiah 22:17 man only has a heart for dishonest gain.  This is indeed a dreadful indictment against the heart of man!  To follow this survey of the heart in Jeremiah 6:15 and 8:12 say that Israel and Judah doesn’t even blush at the sight and thought of her sins!  The most saddest part of Jeremiah’s indictment is found 13:23, man cannot change his evil heart.  All he knows is evil and that is all he will do unless someone else changes it for him.

Also in Jeremiah says that God’s heart has been broken!  Jeremiah 18:15 says that Judah has forgotten the LORD!  In Jeremiah 2:5, God wants to know what he did to have them turn from him!  He says in 2:11 that no other nation has turned away from their God, yet Israel and Judah have done just that.  In 2:20-25, God says that even though he rescued his people from Egypt they abandoned him and worshiped every tree on the hills.  He likens her to one who the nations’ gods need not ”weary” themselves to find her for she is like donkey in heat looking for them!  In Jeremiah 3 we see the anguish of God’s heart.  In v. 1-3 God likens them to a woman who has whored herself out to the foreign gods.  Now compare that to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 where by his own law he cannot take his prostitute wife back!  Look down in Jeremiah 3 to vv. 6-10.  The LORD had hoped that by Judah and Israel would return.  God is shocked and appalled by the fact that after God destroyed Israel for her idolatrous unfaithfulness that Judah still refused to return.  In v. 19ff God calls Israel and Judah his children but they would not make him their Father.  He called them his bride but they would not call him Husband.  Jeremiah 3:21 says that they have forgotten God!  In Jeremiah 5:7-9 the LORD says he has no choice but to punish Judah because despite all he did for them, the whored themselves out to other gods.

Now I have noticed something about Jeremiah in chapter 18, he has abandoned Israel.  In Jeremiah 18:19-23 Jeremiah says in effect, “Hey God, do you remember how I used to pray that you would spare Israel and Judah?  How I thought it was too much to bear the thought of them being destroyed by your wrath?  Well they have tried to kill me and so I am not going to be interceding on their behalf.  In fact I am praying for you wrath to come and consume them, everyone of them.  Take them all, men, women, and children.  It doesn’t matter to me any more!”  That’s a tricky prayer to deal with because I am told to never pray for the damnation of anyone but rather the salvation of everyone!  Oh that struck me hard lastnight when I read that passage.

As you can no doubt tell, Jeremiah is not afraid to where his emotions on his sleeves.  I really like Jeremiah 20:7-9 because of some of the language he uses.  It is brutally honest.  This text is an exchange between Jeremiah and God.  He says that God has “decieved” him and forced him into this minstry.  He has to give this word and Jeremiah doesn’t like it.  He is the one man in all of Judah that is being laughed at and mocked and rejected and dismissed.  In Jeremiah 4, Jeremiah asks how long he has to know that this judgment is coming.  Imagine trying to tell everyone in the WTC that the planes were coming and no one listened to you.  Imagine telling everyone in Southeast Asia that the tsunami  two years ago was coming and they needed to leave and you were laughed at.  That’s Jeremiah.  In fact, in Jeremiah 16, God forbids him to marry because the sons and daughters of Judah and Jerusalem will be destroyed.

I have fallen in love with this book of prophecy.  I am learning that to be a great preacher means you don’t preach what people think they need to hear.  They have corrupt hearts and need to be regenerated by the Spirit of God.  I have to preach what God tells me to preach.  I pray that I will be like Jeremiah.  I want to have such a deep relationship that I can almost see the tears on my LORD’s face when his heart is broken.  I want a burden like Jeremiah had to just preach the word because I am sick if I don’t.  I pray that God will use my preaching like he promised Jeremiah (1:5-19).  I pray that my life reflects Jeremiah 17:7-8 and that my trust is in God alone to see me through it.

I feel the world needs more Jeremiah’s.  The world and the church need people who will ruffle some feathers with the truth of God’s word.  We need people to stand up and defend the truth and fight for souls in the world.  The glory of God must be displayed for all the world to see.  We need people who will preach even if they hate the message themselves because God has placed such a burden upon their heart to get the message out.  I pray for that.  I pray for those who will become the next Jeremiah.

Something to Chew On

Sunday Morning Drive

Tolkien and Predestination

I am a huge VeggieTale’s fan. Dr. Mohler has written a blog on what NBC is doing to my favorite cartoon of all time. Check it out.

BCS Rankings

V-Tech Massacre

Problems with the Sovereignty of God?

It is no secret that I am a Five-Point Calvinist.  Just last week I posted that I hold to all five points that the Synod of Dort put forth.  But I redefined them because the imagery that the TULIP ancronymn carries is very archaic.  So I put them in more modern terms while trying to keep the intent of the the Synod in the five points.  There is one text that is very much a problem to Limited Atonement, or Particular/Definite Atonement.  That is 1 John 2:1-2,

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.  He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

This verse is taken to mean by non-Calvinists to mean that the cross atones for all the sin of the whole world.  And I definitely see where they are coming from in that interpretation.  I can see it and as a Calvinist, it presents a problem.  I have been given two ways to deal with 1 John 2:2.  First, it must be construed to mean something like that found in John 11:52, “and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”  Thus the “world” in 1 John 2:2 is the same as “the children of God who are scattered abroad.”  And it works.  It does.  But more so I personally feel that this text, like John 3:16, speaks of the sufficiency and the efficiency of the Cross.  In other words the cross has the ability to atone for the sins of the whole world but that does not mean that it does atone for the sins of the whole world.

I raise this objection because of that word “propitiation.”  Propitiation is the satisfying of divine anger and wrath by a blood sacrifice.  God’s wrath and anger are burning against us in our sin.  Therefore Christ came to this earth and died upon the cross to take up the wrath of God upon himself.  With him being a perfect being, he was the perfect sacrifice and thus satisfied the wrath of God.

Now those who are opposed to Calvinism say see, all our sins have been atoned for.  All of the sins for everyone who has lived upon this earth (Feel free to correct me if I am misconstruing you).  All a person now needs to do is just believe and live the life that God commands.  That’s it.  In some ways I like that but there arises a serious problem.  Should we construe unbelief as sin?  If we do then did the cross cover our unbelief or all of our sins but our unbelief in the gospel and therefore all who do not believe are going to hell?  The reason I bring this up is because if unbelief is  sin and Christ’s death atoned for all sin, then every one should get to heave because the atonement covers all sin and that has to include the sin of unbelief.  Or it is said that Christ’s death atoned for all the sin of the world except unbelief.  Then the sufficiency of the cross is limited and cannot cover all sin.  This is a very serious theological problem!

Think of it like this: Christ died for all the sins of all men (universalism); Christ died for some of the sins of all men (mainly Arminianism); Christ died for all of the sins of some men (Calvinism); or Christ died for some sins of some men (which I don’t think anyone would hold to, I don’t know).

This comes across very philosophical, more so than I like to do.  But it is very important to understand that in Calvinism, the cross is sufficient for every sin.  In Calvinism the cross fully atones for whom it was meant.  My question to the non-Calvinist is how do they maintain the sufficiency of the cross to atone for all sin for all men?  At some point the nature of the cross to atone for all sin is contradicted.  I am curious how this works.

No related posts

Christianity Today has published two great articles about defining Calvinism and about the resurgence of Reformed Theology.

Calvinism and Prayer

Why Did I Take That Class?

NFL Draft Talk

The five points of Calvinism is as follows: Total depravity; Unconditional election; Limited atonement; Irresistable grace; Perseverance of the saints.  Put as an acronymn, it is TULIP.  However, I find the language to be a bit to archaic and too easy to misunderstand my personal position.  My purpose here is not to so much defend the five points from Scripture but to correct them in such a way to make myself more understood.  I haven’t so much run into a problem in being misunderstood but I rather want to prevent that misunderstanding.

Starting with Total depravity, or TULIP, I want to redefine as Radical depravity.  The acronymn now is RULIP.  The problem I have with “Total” is that it carries with it that I am at the utmost worst sinner when comparing degrees of sin.  It indicates that I am as a total sinner with actions identical with Adolf Hitler or Nero Caesar.  I am in totality, depraved.  I don’t think that is adequate but actually goes to far.  I am a law abiding citizen.  I am a fairly nice person, although I have an Irish temper.  I would never hurt a fly, mainly because I can’t kill one if I try.  I am no Hitler or Sadam Hussein.  However, I am a sinner and I, apart from God’s saving grace, am an enemy of God and resist him.  Therefore my depravity is radical.  my depravity affects me greatly.  It has radically affected me, but not totally.

Next, Irresistable grace, or TULIP, I’d like to redefine it as Effectual grace or Effectual calling.  This makes the acronymn to be RULEP.  The word “irresistable” conjures up the false image that all non-calvinists throw at me that people come to salvation against their will.  I do not adhere to that notion.  Anyone who holds those views or argues that argument have in mind hyper-calvinism and doesn’t understand Calvinism.  There is an external call by the preacher to faith given during an invitation.  There is an internal call of God which effects salvation.  He exercises his sovereign power to open the eyes of the heart to glory and goodness and desirability of the gospel of Jesus so that the person will desire to accept Christ in faith, freely.  However he wouldn’t have known that until God opens his eyes.  Once God begins that work, he sees it through to perfection.  God does not fail at whatever he does.  So his internal call effects faith because that is its purpose.

The next point I’d like to redefine is Limited Atonement, TULIP.  I define it as Particular redemption which makes the acronymn RUPEP.  I don’t like the term “limited” because again it conjures up false images.  I do not deny the universal sufficiency of the atoning death of Christ.  But I will say that the cross effects atonement only for those people who will believe in Christ.  Therefore I affirm both he died for the world in that the cross has the ability to save anyone in the world.  I also affirm that the cross only saves those who take it up in faith.  The cross is particular to those who take it by faith.  If anyone from anywhere at anytime comes to faith, the cross has the sufficeincy to atone for that person’s sin and effects atonement for that person’s sin.

Fourthly is Unconditional Election, or TULIP, which while I like that term in describing what I believe about election.  But I don’t think it goes far enough.  I prefer to describe it as Sovereign election.  The term “sovereign” includes unconditionality but links it closer and more intimately with God.  Election is the choice of God to save his people from their sins.  God does not look at any distinction in man to determine what choice he will make.  It is according to his sovereign will and purpose rooted in his desire to declare his glory.  This makes the acronymn loose its coherancy as it becomes RSPEP.

Lastly there is Perseverance of the saints, or TULIP.  I like what it says and I don’t want to change it. I could change it to Eternal security if I wanted to because it communicates the same idea.  This would change the acronymn to RSPEE, but I will leave it as RSPEP–either are fine.  I do believe that if God has effectually called those to himself, then he will effectually keep them.  Those whom God has chosen to save he saves in total and finally.  That means that God will see them through to the resurrection and will not lose any of them.

I am a Five-Point Calvinist but I prefer to redefine the terms so that the images these archaic terms conjures up is not what myself as a Calvinist believes.  I hope that people will have these terms in mind when they read my posts and I hope that a level of miscommunication has been avoided by making this known.

Apostasy

Why I am a Calvinist

Some Interesting Bits

Every time someone wants to debate my soteriological views with me, they always go to two verses, 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9.  While I might concede 1 Timothy, most people fail to actually read 2 Peter 3:9.  In that verse, Peter states,

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

What people like to do is say, “Look, the text says, ‘not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.’”  Now if a person is to read 2 Peter 3:9 from the point of “not wishing” onward, then the conclusion one must draw is that which is being argued, that God wants all, in a universal sense, to be saved.  However, it fails to read the whole verse.

Go back and read the entire verse with me, “The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness.”  Here Peter is referring to the judgment theme in this chapter.  People will mock God and say that, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation” (3:4).  Yet this mocking overlooks that at one point, the earth stored up water and that water was used by God to purge all but eight people and two of every kind of animal from the planet.  God now has fire reserved and ready to purge the earth of all sinfulness (3:5-7).  God is just biding his time for his economy of time is different as Peter points out in 3:8.

Peter goes on to say, “but is patient toward you.”  Now who is the Lord patient with in this text.  It is “you.”  Who is the you?  It is the you found in 3:1, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.”  This “you” is the audience identified in 2 Peter 1:1-2, “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.”  Peter is talking to those who are saved.

Now read the rest of 3:9 in light of what Peter has just said, “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”  The terms “any” and “all” must be taken in light of “you” or the verse is drawn out of context and out of the flow of thought that Peter had when he wrote this just before he died–or by one of his disciples if you hold that this letter was written in the period of 80-90 AD.

Therefore, what Peter is saying here is this, “While some might mock and say that God hasn’t poured out his wrath and thus he won’t or he even doesn’t exist, this is not true.  They forget that God destroyed the world with a flood and now is ready to do so again with fire.  A day to him is like 1000 years and 1000 years is like a day.  He is just being patient with you guys.  He wants to make sure you have came to repentance before he unleashes his judgment, lest you perish.”  Peter is speaking to the church and God wants all in the church to repent before he unleashes his wrath.  This does not say that God wants every human alive to repent but only his people.  I can remember only reading the last half of the verse.  It was one of my key verses to defeating Calvinism.  But one day, I read the whole text of 2 Peter and my eyes were opened to the context of the verse.  Now it is one of my tools to show that the Bible does teach Election and Particulare Redemption.

Brothers and Sisters, I exhort you today to repent of your sins.  Repent for God will not hold back his wrath forever.  Isaiah 55:6 says, “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near.”  This is the most scariest verse in all of the Bible.  There will be a time when one cannot seek God and call upon him for salvation.  Do it now lest you get caught up in the judgment of unrighteous mankind!

Why Did I Take That Class?

This Time Next Year…

Thoughts of Piper on Proper Exegesis

This is a link to a great analysis and response all Christians should have to the current crisis occurring between the Pope, and now the Church, and Islam. “How Christians Should Respond to Muslim Outrage at the Pope’s Regensburg Message About Violence and Reason“

Conversing with Muslims

Can a Person say that?

Grudem’s Response to Piper

In recent weeks I have had an interesting time blogging at Theology for the Masses.  We had a rather heated discussion on original sin.  I hold to the position and one of the members wanted to refuted.  The discussion got heated when the question of using the Bible was brought up.  Some wanted to argue this from the Bible, myself included; others did not for their own reasons.  During that heated debate, I was accused of what is called prooftexting.  The post that brought this accusation was one in which I made a case from the Bible, citing several verses from both the Old and New Testaments to show that original sin is a biblical doctrine that we have to accept.

This past weekend, I endeavored to exegete Ephesians 5:25.  In the results of my study, I found that Christ’s love for the church is completely different from that of the world.  Indeed Psalms 5:5 and 11:5 both say that all who do wickedness and evil and violence are hated by God.  So it seems that God loving the church is not the same as God loving the world, and I could make a case that he doesn’t.  But in my treatment of Eph. 5:25, I kept the context, both immediate and the larger context, in view.  I kept the original language in view and even checked my reading of the Greek against other verses.  Yet again I am prooftexting to reach my conclusions.

My question is, how many verses must I cited to avoid prooftexting?  Obviously a large number didn’t work, nor did a careful treatment of one text work either.  Should I just not use the Bible and just go with what makes sense to me?  I don’t know.  It gets very aggitating to be accused of prooftexting when you are doing everything to avoid misinterpreting the text.  May be I should have not posted what I see the text saying and just post what will make everyone happy and agree with me.  Concerning my post from this weekend, if I had posted about husbands and their love for their wives no one would have questioned my use of only Ephesians 5:25.  However, since I focused on the second half of the verse, which is the basis for how husbands are to love, I am proof texting.

So I apologize for making proof texts and when I can figure out how not to do it, I will come back and make some posts.

No related posts