Think Wink.

This is an amazing video that concludes a debate on Calvinism. Enjoy.

James White on Steve Gregg

James White on John 3:16-17

James White–Steve Gregg Debate

Today I read a very interesting article on the meaning of he’emin in Genesis 15:6, which in the ESV says,

And he believed [he’emin; LXX: ἐπίστευσεν] the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Read more

A taste of My Friday Morning

The Grace of “euaggelion”

Doxa-Logos: A Glorious Word

Here is last Wednesday night’s sermon on apostasy. It was a great sermon from, surprising, a faithful Five-Point Calvinist. Pastor Tim points out his faith in the Reformed Doctrines of Grace by won’t let them interfere with the point of Hebrews 6:4-6. Hope you enjoy the message as well as I did.

Calvin and Original Sin: Part 1

Objections to Calvinism Part 2 of 5

Here is the audio for the James White vs. Steve Gregg on Calvinism

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5
Follow up Dividing Line Phone Calls

James White on Steve Gregg

James White on John 3:16-17

Can a Person say that?

Here is the “him that pisseth against the wall” preacher again, this time trying to refute the reformed doctrines of grace.

A couple of points on this video. He references John 6:70 to disprove election being unto final salvation (cf. Ephesians 1:4-6). The pastor does not check the context of the statement. Up in John 6:64-65 we see, “‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’” John 6:65 is the explanation as to why those who were with Jesus after the miracle of the feeding of the 5000 were only there for the food that Christ could make and not for Jesus himself. But John 6:64 tells us that John 6:65 also explains why the one who would betray Jesus would do so, God did not grant to Judas to follow after Christ. Thus Jesus could say in John 6:70, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.”

This preacher also states that God did not want Judas to betray Jesus but to follow him. However, look at John 17:12, “While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” Judas was lost so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. It was God’s plan that this happen. Or consider also Acts 2:23, “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” Jesus was delivered over by the Jews to Pilate and crucified “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” Hear also the prayer of that same church in Acts 4:27-28, “In this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” Again what happened to Jesus–including his betrayal by Judas–was done according to “whatever your [Yahweh’s] hand and your plan had predestined to take place.” God determined that Judas would betray Jesus. He revealed it in Scripture. The early church in Acts 4 saw that as part of the fulfillment of Psalm 2:1-2 (cf. Acts 4:25-26).

If you don’t want to hold to the Reformed doctrines of grace and Reformed soteriology, that is fine and I pray for you to see the truth of the Scriptures. But please when you try to refute the theology, do your homework better. Read the context of the passages that you site. The Gospel of John is the most “Reformed” book in all of the New Testament. I will give him this, at least he was trying to speak to doctrine in this video instead of the KJV being the only Word of God.

James White on Calvinism

Trouble in the SBC

Debunking Bad Arguments

Isaiah 44:22 ESV says,

I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you.

During the last few weeks, I have decided to write two texts down from the book of Isaiah on the print outs on the back of my four trucks every morning I come to work; each text is in Hebrew and Greek. For one reason, it helps me study both Greek and Hebrew. Another reason is that it helps me compare LXX with the BHS to see how the theology changed from the days of Malachi to the days of Alexander the Great and beyond. A third reason is that it makes people ask questions about what I am doing. So when I explain to them what I am doing, it gives me a brief moment to speak of Jesus through the prophet Isaiah. One example is that found above, Isaiah 44:22. What I want to do is compare one key word in the Hebrew and Greek and discuss some of its implications.

The Greek term is λυτρώσομαί and the Hebrew term is ga’al. The Hebrew root of ga’al speaks of a “kinsman redeemer.” The verb is a second gutteral, qal perfect verb in the perfect tense. The idea behind this verb tense is completed action. Thus the action of the kinsman redeemer is complete. So what God is saying is that he has performed the action of the redeemer. He became like Boaz to Ruth and Naomi. Boaz purchased Ruth and her inheritance that came to her by paying for the land and marrying Ruth.

The Greek term will be familiar to students of the Greek New Testament. It the verb form of the noun λύτρον from Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” It has with it the lexical idea of being the price paid to purchase back something. In the first century world, it usually meant slaves. Take this situation for example: John accumulates a debt so large that he cannot pay it back; thus he sells himself into slavery in order to pay his debts. His cousin in the neighboring village hears of the enslavement and wishes to free him. John’s cousin pays the local temple the price of the slave and a percentage and the slave belongs to the pagan god. The percentage goes to the temple while the price of the slave goes to the slave owner. By belonging to that pagan god, John is “free” in that the gods don’t really care what he does. Mark 10:45 says that Jesus is that price paid to God to free his people from their enslavement to sin as well as the price paid t God to absorb God’s wrath against sin.

So what Yahweh is saying to Israel in Isaiah 44:22 is that he has purchased Israel. He has taken possession of them. They belong to him. It is on that basis that Yahweh asks them to return to him. He has done what was necessary to take them to be his. Therefore they can come back to him. They can abandon their idolatrous ways and come to Yahweh without fear of being rejected.

The LXX translates this verse like this, “For see, I have blotted out your acts of lawlessness like a cloud and your sins like darkness; return to me, and I will redeem you” (ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἀπήλειψα ὡς νεφέλην τὰς ἀνομίας σου καὶ ὡς γνόφον τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπιστράφητι πρός με καὶ λυτρώσομαί σε; Isaiah 44:22 LXX) The idea of the LXX and the Hebrew is the same: God has forgiven them their sins and commands them to return to him. However there is a change in terminology here that I want to highlight. Where as the Hebrew communicates a completed action, the Greek highlights an action to be completed in the future.

Let me put the two ways of reading the crucial phrase side by side and you might see what I am getting at.

The relationship between the return and the redemption reverses by changing the verb ga’al in the Hebrew Perfect to λυτρόω in the Greek future. The idea of the Hebrew is that Israel returns on the basis of them being redeemed by God. Because God has redeemed them, then can come to God. The LXX says they will be redeemed by God if they return to him.

While on the surface, this may not seem that big of a deal, but in reality this is huge. The Hebrew text of Isaiah really demonstrates God’s free grace and mercy. God has already blotted out sins and transgressions. God has already redeemed idolatrous Israel. They can and now need to return. The LXX says God has forgiven Israel of the lawlessnesses and sins. Now they need to return so that God will redeem her. The Hebrew says all has been done so come. The Greek says that some has been done, so come in order that the rest may be finished.

Now, let us take this understanding of redemption in Isaiah 44:22 and apply it to Christ and his church. Mark 10:45 clearly states that Jesus is the ransom, the price paid to redeem for God a people (cf. Revelation 5:9). Now if we are to follow the LXX understanding of redemption, then this is how we are to apply it to Christ. Come to God so that Christ might be your ransom. If we follow the Hebrew, the application would be like this: come to God because Christ is your ransom. The Greek line of thought would say that Christ is not the ground upon which one approaches God where as the Hebrew understanding would. The LXX understanding would undercut our right and ability to approach God. The Hebrew understanding makes Christ the very ground by which the Christian draws near to God.

Just some food for thought.

The Nature of Prophecy

A Key Term

Son, Son, Or Servant and Mark 1:11 Part 3

Continuing through the lesson I gave my Sunday school class this past Sunday, we come to the second question: How does this “gospel of the glory of Christ” save sinners? We now know what it means when Paul says, “the gospel of the glory of Christ.” He is saying that the gospel of Jesus Christ–his death and burial and resurrection that Paul preached to the Corinthians–puts on display the very glory of God for us to see. In the midst of all of the horror of Golgotha that Good Friday, in the midst of the depression during those hours Jesus lay in the tomb, during the joy of seeing the resurrected Christ and his victory over sin and death, what we saw was the very glory, beauty, splendor of God that Moses was shielded from seeing but told (cf. Exodus 34:1-9). It is that beauty, that splendor, that delight and joy that the human soul was made to enjoy and we have now been able to see it. So how does seeing God’s glory in the cross save us? How does this gospel save sinners? Let’s get the text back in front of us one more time,

4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Read more

No Doctrine But Love?

Three Requests

When I Was Napping…

Well, I want to get this down while I am thinking about it and have some time today and wrap up my brief stint in Malachi 1:2-3 as I revisit my earlier position on the love/hate idiom found here and quoted by Paul. In Part 1, I defended the Reformed understanding of hating Esau as just that, hatred by God toward Esau from the Psalms (specifically Psalm 45:7). In Part 2, I introduced the new line of understanding for the Hebrew term sane’/μισέω (LXX) in Malachi 1:2-3 from Malachi 2:16 and the prophet’s use of the word there as a term for covenant rejection, either a covenant or the object of the covenant. Malachi 1:2-3 LXX is nearly identical to Romans 9:13 in the Greek. Malachi 1:2-3, “I loved Jacob but Esau I hated” (ἠγάπησα τὸν Ιακωβ τὸν δὲ Ησαυ ἐμίσησα); Romans 9:13, “Jacob I loved and Esau I hated” (τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα). So there is very little significance to be seen in light of grammatical construction (One thing that can be seen is Paul’s emphasis on Jacob being loved in placing τὸν Ἰακὼβ before the verb; where as Malachi emphasizes Yahweh loving Jacob by placing the verb ἠγάπησα first). So the question becomes, does Paul see Malachi as saying loved less or does he see Malachi saying that God hated Esau and/or rejected him as part of the covenant?

Well, let us look at Paul’s flow of thought in Romans 9:1-13 (a Greek version can be found here but I will follow the ESV). Paul has just concluded his brilliant argument for the perseverance of the believer in Romans 8. But the terms he applies to this mainly Gentile church in Rome are terms that were used of Israel in the Old Testament. Also the perseverance of the Gentiles in faith to salvation eternity were applied to Israel on the national level, the perseverance of the throne of David and the nation of Israel under David’s reign. Thus questions would arise about Israel, and one can see that in Romans 9:1-2 as Paul is expressing heart-wrenching emotions after such wonderful preaching on God’s love being unable to become separated from his people. But the reason why this is tears at his heart is found in Romans 9:3, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed (ἀνάθεμα) and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Now Paul understands ἀνάθεμα in terms of 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα). Our Lord, come!” or Galatians 1:8-9, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα). As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (ἀνάθεμα).” In the Old Testament it was used to denote objects set apart to Yahweh for destruction. So the Jews have been set apart by God for destruction and it is killing Paul that this is so! Why is Paul so upset when he is the apostle to the Gentiles? Romans 9:4-5 show every reason why they should not have rejected Messiah and become ἀνάθεμα.

So why are the Jews ἀνάθεμα? Romans 9:6, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” Physical lineage that can be traced to Abraham does not make one a child of Abraham. Paul illustrates this with two Old Testament illustrations. First is Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael was older and therefore should have received the blessing God gave to Abraham in Gen. 12:1-3 and Genesis 15. But God promised to supernaturally give Abraham through the barren womb of Sarah, thus making Isaac the child of promise because he was born of a promise by God (Romans 9:8-9). But to further push Paul’s statement in Romans 9:6, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,” he turns to Jacob and Esau. Unlike Isaac and Ishmael who had different mothers, Jacob and Esau were the twin sons of Isaac and Rebekah. Same parents, same birthday. Yet before they were born or did anything to cause God to choose one over the other, God chose Esau to become the servant of Jacob so that God’s electing purpose might stand on the basis of himself, rather on the works of Jacob and Esau. Thus Paul is stating that the reason that the Jews are ἀνάθεμα and, as Romans 9:6 puts it, “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,” is because God did not choose all of Israel to be the true Israel! To further cement this Jacob/Esau illustration, Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This quotation is the source of much debate, especially in understanding the verb ἐμίσησα. Does it mean hate as in intense hostility due to anger or does it just mean loved less? Here is a post from Theology for the Masses defending this position, as the author gives quite a bit of textual evidence for this to be so. It is impressive to say the least.

However, as I have argued in the Psalms, hatred in the hostility due to anger is a perfectly suitable meaning to sane’ as a term and in Malachi 1:2-3. Also, Malachi 1:2-3 signifies that Esau was rejected in terms of the covenant. Now in Malachi, the flow of thought is that from God’s rejection of and hatred towards Esau comes the laying to waste and preventing them from rebuilding, etc. Does Paul mean for his quote to mean that God hated Esau or that God rejected Esau in terms of covenant?

I want to argue both! In regards to covenant rejection, look at how Romans 9:1-13 develops. One was chosen, Isaac and Jacob, one wasn’t chosen, Ishmael and Esau, and thus rejected by God. Isaac and Jacob were heirs to the promised covenant made with Abraham, their father/grandfather. Thus some Jews, like the Eleven and Paul, are chosen as Israel while other Jews are rejected. The word of God still stands because the blessings and promises weren’t made to those Jews whom God rejected; but rather to those who God has chosen to receive salvation through Christ. So God could have “loved less” by rejecting Esau for the covenant, and the Reformed understanding of Romans 9 isn’t weakened at all, but stands.

In regards to intense hostility, look at how Jacob/Esau parallels mercy/hardening in Romans 9:18 and vessels of common use/vessels of mercy in Romans 9:21 and the vessels of wrath/mercy in Romans 9:22-23. Pharaoh being hardened is a reshaping of Esau being hated. The vessel of common use is a reshaping Pharaoh, as well as the vessel of wrath. And consider Romans 9:22, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” God desires to make his wrath known. It is his will and plan to demonstrate his wrath, and therefore vessels of wrath are prepared for destruction. Esau fits this bill, especially when one reads Malachi 1:3-4. Thus this hostility is definitely in Paul’s mind, along with covenant rejection. It isn’t either/or but both/and.

So what about this whole debate of “hated” vs. “loved less”? It seems to me, upon reflecting upon Malachi 1:2-3, Psalm 45:7, Hebrews 1:9, and Romans 9:13, that this debate isn’t needed. The Arminian, in arguing for “loved less,” is forced to argue semantics that doesn’t help his/her argument. In the post linked above at Theology for the Masses, the author reaches the conclusion that Esau was rejected by God for the covenant. But this does not undermine the Reformed understanding, but rather bolsters it. God rejected Esau for the covenant, but this changes not God’s basis upon which he rejected Esau and favored Jacob (namely his own electing purpose; Romans 9:11). This position by Arminians says nothing of their disjointed approach to Romans 9; 9:1-13 is about nations, 9:14-16 is individuals, 9:17-18 is about nations, 9:19-24 is about individuals, 9:25-29 is nations, 9:30-33 is individuals or nations. It does not create a smooth flow in Paul’s thought. If you don’t believe me that Arminians do this, read Dave Hunt’s book What Love is This? or Norm Geisler’s book, Chosen but Free (Moderate Calvinism is an Arminian trying to sound like a Calvinist).

So in summary of this three part mini-series on Malachi 1:2-3 and its use by Paul in Romans 9:13 I have argued thus: first, the term sane’ can and does mean in Malachi 1:2-3 God has intense hostility due to anger towards Esau; second, that sane’ can and does mean that God rejected Esau for the covenant promised and made with Abraham in Malachi 1:2-3; thirdly, that Paul has both meanings in view in his use of Malachi 1:2-3 in Romans 9:13; fourth, that for Arminians to focus on semantics and say that God did not “hate” Esau (intense hostility due to anger) but rather rejected him for covenant has not only failed to undermine the Reformed understanding of Romans 9 but actually bolstered the Calvinist’s understanding of it. Thus to focus on “loved less” vs. “hated” does not really help this debate all that much and only proves that the Arminian position cannot provide a clear and concise exegesis of Romans 9, but will argue moot points in order to attempt to fight a losing battle in exegesis.

“Loved More/Loved Less” Vs. “Loved/Hated”

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 1

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 2

John Piper’s new book, The Future of Justification is now available to read on-line at his website in a PDF format. I have just finished reading through the introductory material and the first chapter and I must say, this is going to be a good book. The sense I have thus far is that Piper really wants the reader to weigh out both sides of the debate and prayerfully and through careful study of Scripture, choose who is most correct. The part that really excited me about this book is the following excerpt from the introductory material,

Most significant of all was the feedback I received from N. T. Wright. He wrote an 11,000-word response to my first draft that was very helpful in clarifying issues and (I hope) preventing distortions.

Piper admits that this book is for the more academic audience and not for the common layperson sitting in the pews of a church. For those who want to understand more about the debate of the New Perspective on Paul (a.k.a. NPP) from the traditional Reformed view, check this out. Remember it is free if you read the PDF. If it is good enough, I’ll probably buy the book (This is one of the good things I like about reading through the on-line version. I can sample as much of the book I need to before I decide to pay for it. This is how I decided to get What Jesus Demands from the World. I read about twelve chapters from his website and felt I needed to have the book in hand to study what it said more in-depth.)

An Excerpt from “The Future of Justification”

Force Unleashed!

Liberalism, Jesus, and Eschatology

Last Sunday, Pastor Tim preached an amazing sermon on John 17 and Jesus’ high priestly prayer for the saints. His text was John 17:14-19,

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

He noted in this text there is positional holiness, which means we have the position before God that we are holy. Jesus prays, the world has hated them because they are not of the world…They are not of the world” (John 17:14, 16). He likens it to marriage. Pastor Tim, everyday he wakes up, he is married. That is his position in life. He has the position of husband. Pastor then pointed out from the text Jesus’ words, “Sanctify them in the truth…And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they may also be sanctified in the truth” (John 17:17, 19). This also said that we must undergo the process of sanctification. We must strive to be holy. Everyday Pastor Tim wakes up, he must live as a husband to his wife. Based upon the fact and knowledge of that fact that he is a husband, he lives as a husband. Thus in the text, based upon the fact and knowledge of the fact that we have the position of being holy, we live and struggle and strive to be holy.

One text that he cited is Hebrews 10:14, “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” But it is the Greek verb tenses that just stood out to me so much in this text. Two verbs are present in this text: τετελείωκεν and τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους. And it is these two verbs that I want to look at today.

First is the verb τετελείωκεν. It is a 3rd person perfect tense active indicative verb. The verb tense suggests an action that has been completed with abiding effects. The term is τελειόω which means to complete and accomplish. What the author is saying about the death of Christ is that it has completed those being sanctified and it that completing is inished and accomplished. There is nothing left to add to it. There is nothing the person who has been completed needs to add. It is done. This is the same tense and verb found in John 19:30, “It is finished.” The context of Hebrews 10:14 is speaking of holiness (see the participle at the end of the verse). We have been made holy. We have been made completely holy and that holiness abides with us. It does not go away. We have the position of perfection, holiness.

The second verb is τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους. This is a present passive, masculine, plural, accusative participle. This is very interesting to me. The accusative article suggests that the participle is a substantive adjective, an adjective that acts like a noun. The present tense of the participle indicates continuous and ongoing action. The passive voice of the participle indicates that the action of the verb is being performed upon the object, not the object is performing the action. The accusative case of the verb indicates that is is the direct object of the verb τετελείωκεν. The verb stem of τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους is ἁγιάζω which means very simply to make holy. The continuous nature of the verb indicates that the making holy here is ongoing and doesn’t end (though yes I know that when we all get to heaven we will have perfect bodies, but I am speaking of just the verb itself). It is a process. What is even more astonishing to me is that the verb is passive. The action isn’t being performed by who the verb is speaking of, it is being received. They are being made holy, they are not making anything holy. We don’t make ourselves holy, someone else does.

Hence we have progressive holiness. There is a process the we undergo during our lives here on earth by which we are being made to conform to the holiness of Christ. Everyday we live is part of this struggle. But this in no way contradicts what was stated in the first part of the verse namely that we are complete, perfect. We have the position of holiness and we undergo the process of being made holy. I think Pastor Tim’s analogy of marriage works perfectly. He is a husband, and based upon that information, he lives as a husband. Everyday we wake up, we know that as believers and lovers of Christ we are holy. And based upon that information, we live holy lives. But that living isn’t by our power. It is from outside of us. Jesus said it is by the truth and that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17, 19)! By reading our Bibles, the Holy Spirit conforms our thinking and thus our actions to be like that of Jesus: holy!

I am so excited to hear what Pastor Tim preaches this morning for his flock!

About Think Wink

Mercy and Equality

Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5