Dr. John Piper writes from his book titled above:
“The Father has eternally enjoyed ‘the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature’ (Heb. 1:3) in the Person of his Son. Seeing and savoring this glory is the goal of our salvation. ‘Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me’ (John 17:24). To feast on this forever is the aim of our being created and our being redeemed.”
As we have been studying on Sunday nights God's highest priority throughout the entire Scriptures is His glory!
Friday, November 30, 2007
Be encouraged!
Fellow brothers and sisters in Christ 2Cor. 5:17 says - Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
The life He lived qualified Him for the death that He died. And the life He lived then is the life that we can live now. - Major Ian Thomas
The doctrine of sin
What is sin?
Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude or nature.
Sin is when we desire other things like family, job, money, home or things more that we treasure God Himself!
Sin is our finding glory in other things over and above God.
We all know that sin is harmful to our lives and that it brings pain and destructive consequences to others and us.
However, it much more serious than what it does to others because it is a direct contradiction, violation and rebellion to the very holiness of God.
1 John 3:4 - Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
James 4:17 - Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Romans 14:23 - “…and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Biblical evidence for the doctrine of sin
Genesis 6:5: "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Jeremiah 13:23 (NIV): "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”
Romans 3:10-11: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”
Romans 8:7-9: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."
Ephesians 2:3b: "[We] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
1 Corinthians 2:14: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
Genesis 8:21 - The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
1 Kings 8:46 - “When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near.
Psalms 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
Romans 7:18 - For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not
1 John 1:8- If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Summary Points:
Man is not basically good - Man is bad, evil, wicked and corrupt
Even though we learn in Genesis 1:27 we were created in His image something went terribly and tragically wrong in Genesis 3 when Adam sinned.
From that time until now - man is not a sinner because he sins, but rather man sins because he is a sinner!
Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude or nature.
Sin is when we desire other things like family, job, money, home or things more that we treasure God Himself!
Sin is our finding glory in other things over and above God.
We all know that sin is harmful to our lives and that it brings pain and destructive consequences to others and us.
However, it much more serious than what it does to others because it is a direct contradiction, violation and rebellion to the very holiness of God.
1 John 3:4 - Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
James 4:17 - Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Romans 14:23 - “…and whatever is not from faith is sin.
Biblical evidence for the doctrine of sin
Genesis 6:5: "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Jeremiah 13:23 (NIV): "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.”
Romans 3:10-11: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God.”
Romans 8:7-9: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."
Ephesians 2:3b: "[We] were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind."
1 Corinthians 2:14: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."
Genesis 8:21 - The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.
1 Kings 8:46 - “When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near.
Psalms 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
Romans 7:18 - For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not
1 John 1:8- If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
Summary Points:
Man is not basically good - Man is bad, evil, wicked and corrupt
Even though we learn in Genesis 1:27 we were created in His image something went terribly and tragically wrong in Genesis 3 when Adam sinned.
From that time until now - man is not a sinner because he sins, but rather man sins because he is a sinner!
The doctrine of election - digging for diamonds
When is the last time you heard a pastor preach on Romans 9? The first 23 verses in Romans 9 are generally regarded by the mainstream orthodox church as the clearest teaching in the Bible on the sovereignty of God in election. If you are a Christian then you are elect of God and really no one in the mainstream church is arguing about that fact. The main argument stems from the following question - Did you choose God or did God choose you? I think the answer to this question is very clear as you follow the Biblical logic of the apostle Paul in Romans 9.
In order to assist our study I have included several articles on this subject within this blog site because this is probably the most popular question that is asked among Christians. The most lively and intense discussions that I have had as a teacher has been directly related to the doctrine of election.
Therefore today I thought I would give you some snippets from Dr. John MacArthur's teaching on this subject. John MacArthur has been a pastor of Grace Community Church for 40 years, is a well known author and Bible teacher.
Since Romans 9:1-23 is about the doctrine of election then let's read what Dr. MacArthur has to say about this subject.
What is a good definition for the doctrine of election?
The doctrine of election means to be chosen. We would use the word election in our own culture to refer to someone being chosen. When someone is elected, they are chosen for a specific purpose. And that's exactly what it means. It comes from a Greek verb, eklego, which means to pick out, to choose out. And it is the doctrine that says God chooses those who will be saved. And He does so sovereignly, according to His own will and His own purpose, uninfluenced by any other person, or by anything anyone does. That is to say the choice is apart from any action on the sinner's part, which might render that sinner worthy or deserving of that choice.
Why do so many in the American church bristle about the doctrine defined above?
I think in some ways it's sort of an American thing, sort of a cultural American thing to be free and have free will. I don't even think societies in the past in Europe that were monarchies that knew what it was to be under a sovereign had as big a problem in dealing with the fact that there was such a thing as a sovereign person who did things based upon his own will and his own purpose and made determinations without the consent of the people who were under him. But I think in our culture in America, most of the reaction has come here. The greatest reaction to the doctrine of sovereign election that I can see historically has sort of been Americanized. We're in to freedom, we're in to making our choices, personal autonomy is a big deal to us. And so I think it's just part of the way American people think, that we ought to have the right to choose our own destiny. That's the way it should be because that's the way it is in America.
But I do think also beyond that, and that may be a small element of it, beyond that, fallen human nature bristles, to use the word that you used, bristles at the idea that it isn't in charge of its own destiny. It's the old invictus(?) thing, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul, I will determine my own destiny. This is all part of fallen human pride, that you're in charge of everything and you have the right to make every call and every decision. You hear that reflected in the silly stupid talk on the man on the street interviews today, this is my life and this is how I live it and you can take it or leave it, it's my life and blah, blah, blah. That...that's the...that's the basic idea of human freedom gone amok that wants no restraints. Well that's coming right out of the fallen human heart that reacts against any infringement upon its own personal freedoms and rights to choose its own destinies. So I think the combination of the kind of culture we have lived in and the reality of the fallen human heart with its flawed reason and its rebellious independence makes it hard for the average sinner to acknowledge the truth of this great doctrine.
Is the principle of election consistent throughout the Scriptures?
You can go back in to the Old Testament, the book of Deuteronomy, where God talks about choosing Israel.
Deut. 7:6 “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
Deut. 7:7 ¶ “The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,
Deut. 7:8 but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
In the prophets He calls Israel "Mine elect."
A good starting point and it's found in the words of the Apostle Peter who in the most, I guess, obvious sort of simple normal way introduces an epistle and doesn't make a defense of this doctrine but in just a very, very simple straightforward way says this, "Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen." "And they are chosen according to God's predetermination by the sanctifying work of the Spirit to obey Jesus Christ." And then he goes into the benediction, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again." Not only do you have the choosing, but you have the effecting of that choice. He not only chose us, He caused us to be born again. That's...that's an analogy that is a very important analogy. Nobody causes his own birth. The Lord picked that analogy because it's so air tight. You can't cause your own birth. You show up because of choices and decisions made by someone other than you. I was born into this world with no contribution to that fact. And that is the very reality that our Lord uses to refer to the new birth, it is a being born again. We have no power to do that. And Jesus said that, I love that in John 3, this is another key passage. Nicodemus comes to Jesus and he says, "What do I do to...what do I do to enter the Kingdom? What do I do to receive eternal life?" This is the question of his heart, not what's on his lips. Jesus reads his heart and He said, "You must be born again." And he said, "Well, what do I...how do I get in to my mother's womb and get born all over again?" I don't think he was being silly or superficial, I think he was picking up the analogy and saying, "How do I do that? You're telling me I need to be born again, facetiously he says, Well how do I get into my mother's womb? How do I do that?"
And Jesus' answer is not this, He doesn't say, "Well here are the three steps to being born again. Pray this prayer, say these words, bow your head." He didn't say that. You know what He says, it's astonishing what He says. He says,"Well, the Holy Spirit is like the wind, He blows where He will. And you hear the sound of it but you don't know where it comes from and where it's going." And His answer is, "Nicodemus, that 's the work of the Holy Spirit. And He comes when He will and does what He will when He wills."
That's not an answer that would satisfy an Arminian. That's not an answer that would satisfy a contemporary evangelist. You say, "How do I...how do I become born again?" And the answer is, "It's a work of the Holy Spirit, and it's a sovereign work and He'll do it when and where and with whom He chooses to do it." But it involves believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. And, of course, we add the gospel because it doesn't occur apart from the gospel.
Another important passage along this line would be Ephesians chapter 1 which is an inescapable statement concerning the doctrine of election...which says to us, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ just as He chose us in Him, that is in Christ, before the foundation of the world." That's pretty clear.
You have it also, and I love to go to this particular text because I think its escaped a lot of people, but it's at the beginning of Titus as Paul writes his letter to Titus. He says, "Paul, a bondservant of God and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God." In other words, he says I preach the gospel so that those who are chosen can hear it and believe. That's just as simple as it can be. And this is a divine work of God which He grants to those for whom He has purposed to grant it, that's what it means to be chosen.
The Apostle Paul again doesn't make some kind of explanation when he says this. Second Timothy 1:8, "Do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me," Paul writes Timothy, "his prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose." And again, you're right back, this is God's purpose upon which He based His own election, predestination, calling conversion.
We continue this Sunday night in our discussion of Romans 9:1-23. As we continue to study and think about election let me give you some other verses to consider in regard to this subject.
Matthew 11:25-27
Matt. 11:25 ¶ At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
Matt. 11:26 "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.
Matt. 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Matthew 13:10-17 also (Mark 4:10-13)
Matt. 13:10 ¶ And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
Matt. 13:11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
Matt. 13:12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
Matt. 13:13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Matt. 13:14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
Matt. 13:15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'
Matt. 13:16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
Matt. 13:17 "For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear
John 6:37-40, 44, 65
John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
John 15:16
"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
John 5:20-21
"For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.
John 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life (eternal life) to whom He wishes.
John 17:1-2, 6, 9, 24
John 17:1 ¶ Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
John 17:2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
John 17:6 ¶ "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
John 17:9 "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;
John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
John 10:14-16, 24-30
John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
John 10:16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
John 10:24 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
John 10:26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
John 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
John 10:29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Something to consider:
Does one believe in order to be a sheep or does these verses seem very clear that one has to be a sheep first in order to believe?
Acts 13:44-48
Acts 13:44 ¶ The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.
Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.
Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Acts 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us,
'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES,
THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'"
Acts 13:48 ¶ When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed (ordained) to eternal life believed.
Something to consider:
Look carefully at the Greek rendering in this sentence. They were first appointed to eternal life (when did that happen?) and then they believed. Which comes first and which comes second?
Acts 18:9-11
Acts 18:9 And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, "Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent;
Acts 18:10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city."
Acts 18:11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Romans 8:29-30
Rom. 8:29 For those whom He foreknew (see notes below), He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Rom. 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Something to consider:
Read my earlier blog post on the definition of the word foreknowledge.
Ephesians 1:3-6
Eph. 1:3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
Eph. 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
Eph. 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
Eph. 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Something to consider:
When were we chosen? Who is the Chooser and who is the chosee? For what purpose did He choose us? HInt: it is the purpose of God in all of Scripture
1 Peter 1:1-2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
1 Timothy 2:9 - who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,
Revelation 13:8 - All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Revelation 17:8 - "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come.
In order to assist our study I have included several articles on this subject within this blog site because this is probably the most popular question that is asked among Christians. The most lively and intense discussions that I have had as a teacher has been directly related to the doctrine of election.
Therefore today I thought I would give you some snippets from Dr. John MacArthur's teaching on this subject. John MacArthur has been a pastor of Grace Community Church for 40 years, is a well known author and Bible teacher.
Since Romans 9:1-23 is about the doctrine of election then let's read what Dr. MacArthur has to say about this subject.
What is a good definition for the doctrine of election?
The doctrine of election means to be chosen. We would use the word election in our own culture to refer to someone being chosen. When someone is elected, they are chosen for a specific purpose. And that's exactly what it means. It comes from a Greek verb, eklego, which means to pick out, to choose out. And it is the doctrine that says God chooses those who will be saved. And He does so sovereignly, according to His own will and His own purpose, uninfluenced by any other person, or by anything anyone does. That is to say the choice is apart from any action on the sinner's part, which might render that sinner worthy or deserving of that choice.
Why do so many in the American church bristle about the doctrine defined above?
I think in some ways it's sort of an American thing, sort of a cultural American thing to be free and have free will. I don't even think societies in the past in Europe that were monarchies that knew what it was to be under a sovereign had as big a problem in dealing with the fact that there was such a thing as a sovereign person who did things based upon his own will and his own purpose and made determinations without the consent of the people who were under him. But I think in our culture in America, most of the reaction has come here. The greatest reaction to the doctrine of sovereign election that I can see historically has sort of been Americanized. We're in to freedom, we're in to making our choices, personal autonomy is a big deal to us. And so I think it's just part of the way American people think, that we ought to have the right to choose our own destiny. That's the way it should be because that's the way it is in America.
But I do think also beyond that, and that may be a small element of it, beyond that, fallen human nature bristles, to use the word that you used, bristles at the idea that it isn't in charge of its own destiny. It's the old invictus(?) thing, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul, I will determine my own destiny. This is all part of fallen human pride, that you're in charge of everything and you have the right to make every call and every decision. You hear that reflected in the silly stupid talk on the man on the street interviews today, this is my life and this is how I live it and you can take it or leave it, it's my life and blah, blah, blah. That...that's the...that's the basic idea of human freedom gone amok that wants no restraints. Well that's coming right out of the fallen human heart that reacts against any infringement upon its own personal freedoms and rights to choose its own destinies. So I think the combination of the kind of culture we have lived in and the reality of the fallen human heart with its flawed reason and its rebellious independence makes it hard for the average sinner to acknowledge the truth of this great doctrine.
Is the principle of election consistent throughout the Scriptures?
You can go back in to the Old Testament, the book of Deuteronomy, where God talks about choosing Israel.
Deut. 7:6 “For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
Deut. 7:7 ¶ “The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,
Deut. 7:8 but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
In the prophets He calls Israel "Mine elect."
A good starting point and it's found in the words of the Apostle Peter who in the most, I guess, obvious sort of simple normal way introduces an epistle and doesn't make a defense of this doctrine but in just a very, very simple straightforward way says this, "Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen." "And they are chosen according to God's predetermination by the sanctifying work of the Spirit to obey Jesus Christ." And then he goes into the benediction, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again." Not only do you have the choosing, but you have the effecting of that choice. He not only chose us, He caused us to be born again. That's...that's an analogy that is a very important analogy. Nobody causes his own birth. The Lord picked that analogy because it's so air tight. You can't cause your own birth. You show up because of choices and decisions made by someone other than you. I was born into this world with no contribution to that fact. And that is the very reality that our Lord uses to refer to the new birth, it is a being born again. We have no power to do that. And Jesus said that, I love that in John 3, this is another key passage. Nicodemus comes to Jesus and he says, "What do I do to...what do I do to enter the Kingdom? What do I do to receive eternal life?" This is the question of his heart, not what's on his lips. Jesus reads his heart and He said, "You must be born again." And he said, "Well, what do I...how do I get in to my mother's womb and get born all over again?" I don't think he was being silly or superficial, I think he was picking up the analogy and saying, "How do I do that? You're telling me I need to be born again, facetiously he says, Well how do I get into my mother's womb? How do I do that?"
And Jesus' answer is not this, He doesn't say, "Well here are the three steps to being born again. Pray this prayer, say these words, bow your head." He didn't say that. You know what He says, it's astonishing what He says. He says,"Well, the Holy Spirit is like the wind, He blows where He will. And you hear the sound of it but you don't know where it comes from and where it's going." And His answer is, "Nicodemus, that 's the work of the Holy Spirit. And He comes when He will and does what He will when He wills."
That's not an answer that would satisfy an Arminian. That's not an answer that would satisfy a contemporary evangelist. You say, "How do I...how do I become born again?" And the answer is, "It's a work of the Holy Spirit, and it's a sovereign work and He'll do it when and where and with whom He chooses to do it." But it involves believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. And, of course, we add the gospel because it doesn't occur apart from the gospel.
Another important passage along this line would be Ephesians chapter 1 which is an inescapable statement concerning the doctrine of election...which says to us, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ just as He chose us in Him, that is in Christ, before the foundation of the world." That's pretty clear.
You have it also, and I love to go to this particular text because I think its escaped a lot of people, but it's at the beginning of Titus as Paul writes his letter to Titus. He says, "Paul, a bondservant of God and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, for the faith of those chosen of God." In other words, he says I preach the gospel so that those who are chosen can hear it and believe. That's just as simple as it can be. And this is a divine work of God which He grants to those for whom He has purposed to grant it, that's what it means to be chosen.
The Apostle Paul again doesn't make some kind of explanation when he says this. Second Timothy 1:8, "Do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me," Paul writes Timothy, "his prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose." And again, you're right back, this is God's purpose upon which He based His own election, predestination, calling conversion.
We continue this Sunday night in our discussion of Romans 9:1-23. As we continue to study and think about election let me give you some other verses to consider in regard to this subject.
Matthew 11:25-27
Matt. 11:25 ¶ At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.
Matt. 11:26 "Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.
Matt. 11:27 "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Matthew 13:10-17 also (Mark 4:10-13)
Matt. 13:10 ¶ And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?"
Matt. 13:11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.
Matt. 13:12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
Matt. 13:13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Matt. 13:14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
'YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
Matt. 13:15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'
Matt. 13:16 "But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
Matt. 13:17 "For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear
John 6:37-40, 44, 65
John 6:37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
John 6:39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
John 6:40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."
John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:65 And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."
John 15:16
"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
John 5:20-21
"For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.
John 5:21 "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life (eternal life) to whom He wishes.
John 17:1-2, 6, 9, 24
John 17:1 ¶ Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,
John 17:2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.
John 17:6 ¶ "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word.
John 17:9 "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;
John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
John 10:14-16, 24-30
John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me,
John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
John 10:16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
John 10:24 The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
John 10:26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
John 10:28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
John 10:29 "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Something to consider:
Does one believe in order to be a sheep or does these verses seem very clear that one has to be a sheep first in order to believe?
Acts 13:44-48
Acts 13:44 ¶ The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.
Acts 13:45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.
Acts 13:46 Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, "It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Acts 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us,
'I HAVE PLACED YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES,
THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.'"
Acts 13:48 ¶ When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed (ordained) to eternal life believed.
Something to consider:
Look carefully at the Greek rendering in this sentence. They were first appointed to eternal life (when did that happen?) and then they believed. Which comes first and which comes second?
Acts 18:9-11
Acts 18:9 And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, "Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent;
Acts 18:10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city."
Acts 18:11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Romans 8:29-30
Rom. 8:29 For those whom He foreknew (see notes below), He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
Rom. 8:30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Something to consider:
Read my earlier blog post on the definition of the word foreknowledge.
Ephesians 1:3-6
Eph. 1:3 ¶ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
Eph. 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
Eph. 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
Eph. 1:6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
Something to consider:
When were we chosen? Who is the Chooser and who is the chosee? For what purpose did He choose us? HInt: it is the purpose of God in all of Scripture
1 Peter 1:1-2
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.
1 Timothy 2:9 - who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,
Revelation 13:8 - All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Revelation 17:8 - "The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come.
Examine your relationship with God's word
Keep in mind this is not a list given in order to make you feel guilty or condemned. Romans 8:1 plainly tells us that there in no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. The Bible is not to be read out of a duty mentality but rather out of the delight within the heart! If that is not happening in your Christian walk then would you pray that God would incline, open, unite and satisfy your heart toward His word today.
1. Do you spend more time watching favorite TV shows during the week than in Bible study, reading and devotion?
2. Do you know more facts about companies on the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ than you facts in your Bible
3. Are your recipe books are more marked up and gone through than your Bible?
4. Do you have more songs downloaded on your iPod than verses of Scripture in your heart
5. You think Bible study is dry and boring
8. You don’t remember the last Bible verse that you memorized
9. Your Christian walk is defined more by “what you think” instead of “what the word of God says”
10. You don’t have a system in which to study the Bible
11. The main reason for your lack of Bible devotion time is a due to hectic lifestyle
12. When is the last time (not counting life group) that you carried your Bible to someone’s home and helped them worked through a major issue from the Scriptures?
13. Are you spending more time with the newspaper weekly than with your Bible
14. If another believer asked you about your devotion this morning in terms of what Jesus said to you and what you said to Jesus - you would be hard pressed to give them an answer.
1. Do you spend more time watching favorite TV shows during the week than in Bible study, reading and devotion?
2. Do you know more facts about companies on the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ than you facts in your Bible
3. Are your recipe books are more marked up and gone through than your Bible?
4. Do you have more songs downloaded on your iPod than verses of Scripture in your heart
5. You think Bible study is dry and boring
8. You don’t remember the last Bible verse that you memorized
9. Your Christian walk is defined more by “what you think” instead of “what the word of God says”
10. You don’t have a system in which to study the Bible
11. The main reason for your lack of Bible devotion time is a due to hectic lifestyle
12. When is the last time (not counting life group) that you carried your Bible to someone’s home and helped them worked through a major issue from the Scriptures?
13. Are you spending more time with the newspaper weekly than with your Bible
14. If another believer asked you about your devotion this morning in terms of what Jesus said to you and what you said to Jesus - you would be hard pressed to give them an answer.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
How are we converted?
This is a huge question and one that would take more than one blog article. However, have you ever done a study on the Greek word epistrepho as it relates to conversion? Consider this definition and then look up the word and verses which occurs 48 times in the New Testament.
Epistrepho means to turn back to transform, to convert as a one time event that continues in action where God turns a man to Himself and the man therefore turns back to God. This man's entire nature and essence is changed, his soul is changed progressively back into the image of God that was lost in the garden of Eden.
Conversion therefore includes two things:
1. Regeneration which is the 100% act of God in which there is a supernatural transformation whereby the principle of spiritual life is imparted by bringing a man under the state and dominion of righteousness.
2. Repentance and faith are the two things that issue out from this regeneration. Though it can be said that regeneration is an act of God alone, conversion is an act of God and man. A man cooperates freely because he has been made willing and able by divine grace.
Epistrepho means to turn back to transform, to convert as a one time event that continues in action where God turns a man to Himself and the man therefore turns back to God. This man's entire nature and essence is changed, his soul is changed progressively back into the image of God that was lost in the garden of Eden.
Conversion therefore includes two things:
1. Regeneration which is the 100% act of God in which there is a supernatural transformation whereby the principle of spiritual life is imparted by bringing a man under the state and dominion of righteousness.
2. Repentance and faith are the two things that issue out from this regeneration. Though it can be said that regeneration is an act of God alone, conversion is an act of God and man. A man cooperates freely because he has been made willing and able by divine grace.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
"Chillin" at the beach
I took some pictures of recent trip at the beach.
As I took the pictures of the ocean I was thinking that this is a pointer or an echo to the glory of God.
One does not stand at the shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean in order to improve one's self esteem. As a matter of fact when you are looking at the ocean with the red and blue tint to the sky you find that you are not thinking about yourself at all.
The ocean, grand canyon, and rocky mountains all point to a Creator that wants to attract and fascinate us with Himself!
If you rake you get leaves but...
If you dig then you get diamonds. In this article we are going to dig into the question; (excellent article by Jay Bennett)
Is election based on simple foresight?
The simple foresight view states that God's predestining some to eternal life and some to eternal death is based on his looking forward into history prior to creation in order to see what we would do. In other words, it is asserted that God, prior to creation, looked down through the corridors of time to see who would believe in him and who would not. Based on that information, he chose those whom he knew would choose him. I would like to offer some problems with this view prior to sharing a pertinent quote from Jonathan Edwards. I will begin with a biblical examination and then finish with Edwards's insight.
First, let's consider the biblical doctrine of foreknowledge. A couple of key texts that deal with the doctrine of divine foreknowledge are Amos 3:1-2 and Romans 8:29. In Amos 3:1-2 we read:
Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." (ESV)
The NIV translates Amos 3:2:
"You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.”
Why the difference? Why does the ESV translate a word as "known," while the NIV translates it as "chosen"? Because the idea of "knowing" another person (cf. Gen. 4:1, "Adam knew his wife Eve.") is used in this context to refer to an intimate covenantal love, a special promised loyalty, not a mere awareness. So when God says to Israel through the prophet Amos, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth," he is not referring to simply being aware of them and their actions. If that were true then the text would be implying that God is not aware of the other nations, which is unthinkable. Much more is involved in the biblical doctrine of foreknowledge than simple awareness or foresight. God is saying through Amos that, of all the nations in the world, he has loved Israel with a special, covenantal, loyal, electing love. That is why the NIV translates the word as "chosen" rather than "known."
Let's move forward to Romans 8:29 which reads:
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Many understand the word "foreknew" in this verse to mean simple foresight. In other words, they understand it to refer to God being aware, before he created, who would or would not believe in him and then predestining to save them based on that awareness. One problem with this view is that, as we have already seen, the idea of knowing or foreknowing has a special meaning in Scripture that isn't readily communicated through our English translation. Another problem is that taking the use of the word "foreknowledge" in this passage as foresight of future human decisions contradicts what the text actually says. The text does not say that God foreknew future human decisions. It says that he foreknew certain people, which militates against equivocating foreknowledge with foresight. Surely we don't think that God was aware of some people prior to creation and not others? God has always been aware of all people past, present, and future. But he has foreknown (or loved with a special, intimate, electing love) only some. Those are the one's he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.
But let's take the idea of simple foresight a bit further. If Paul truly has simple foresight in view in Romans 8, then shouldn't we expect him to have the same view in Romans 9? If Paul understands election as God choosing those whom he foresees will choose him, why doesn't he offer that as the solution to the dilemma raised by the doctrine as it relates to God's justice?
After presenting a clear doctrine of unconditional election In Romans 9:1-13, Paul anticipates the typical objection raised against it. Interestingly, it is the same objection raised by those who oppose the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election. Paul writes:
"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Rom. 9:14-16)."
If Paul truly had in mind a simple foresight view of election, it would seem that the easiest way for him to answer the question "Is there injustice on God's part?" would be to say, "Of course not! God chooses you based on your choice of him." That would clear up the issue quite well. But he doesn't reply that way. How does he reply? "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." He replies with the affirmation that God's election of some rather than others has nothing to do with human will or exertion. It has nothing to do with God foreseeing what we will do. It is a matter of God's sovereign decision alone.
Later Paul raises the same question. In Rom. 9:19-21 he writes:
"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"
Again when challenged with the question of how God can find fault with those he hasn't elected since they cannot resist his will, how does Paul respond? If he truly understood election as based on simple foresight why wouldn't he just say, "No, you've misunderstood me. It is not as though people cannot come to God because he did not choose them. He chooses people, if they choose him." That would have cleared up the whole charge. But Paul doesn't respond that way. What does Paul appeal to? He appeals to the sovereign right of God to do whatever he wants with his creatures. He appeals to the sovereign decision of God in election writing, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"
Let's move on to Edwards's insight. Even if we admit a doctrine of simple foresight, in the end the doctrine of election is still just as certain as if it were unconditional. Listen to Edwards:
This is all that follows from an absolute, unconditional, irreversible decree, that it is impossible but that the things decreed should be. The same exactly follows from foreknowledge, that it is impossible but that the thing certainly foreknown should precisely come to pass (The "Miscellanies" no. 74).
Here we see Edwards demonstrating that the idea of simple foresight prior to creation ultimately leaves us with the same result as an unconditional divine decree issued prior to creation. A popular argument mounted against the doctrine of unconditional election is that it teaches that God has created some people for the purpose of damnation. And that is true. The doctrine does include that teaching.
Those who hold to unconditional election see it playing out basically like this:
Prior to creation . . .
(1) God decrees to elect a people out of the total population.
(2) That election is not based on any merit in those people.
(3) Those God elects will, by the appropriate means in due time, come to faith in Christ and be saved.
(4) Those God does not elect will never come to faith in Christ. They will be damned.
. . . then God creates.
Those who hold to simple foresight see election playing out like this:
Prior to creation . . .
(1) God decrees to elect a people out of the total population.
(2) That election is based on his foreseeing who will come to faith in Christ.
(3) Those he elects will come to faith, as he has foreseen, and be saved.
(4) Those God does not elect will never come to faith in Christ. They will be damned
. . . then God creates.
Do you see the how both views lead to the same conclusion? According to the simple foresight view, God knew prior to creation who would not come to faith in Christ, and yet he created those people anyway. Their condition could properly be described as "an inability to believe" since there is no possibility that they will ever believe. What God has foreseen must come to pass just as he has foreseen it. So, the doctrine of simple foresight really does nothing to resolve the "problem" of reprobation, i.e. that there are a non-elect people who are bound by necessity to never believe in Christ, and therefore be damned. Edwards's insight on this point is quite helpful.
Ultimately, in order for a system to resolve the problem of "reprobation," it must deny that God foresees moral human decisions. It must assert that the future is in some sense "open." The Socinians of the 17th century and the Process theologians of the late 19th to mid 20th century recognized this problem and did just that. They denied that God could know future moral human decisions. Today, the same is being asserted by a theological system called Open theism.
Is election based on simple foresight?
The simple foresight view states that God's predestining some to eternal life and some to eternal death is based on his looking forward into history prior to creation in order to see what we would do. In other words, it is asserted that God, prior to creation, looked down through the corridors of time to see who would believe in him and who would not. Based on that information, he chose those whom he knew would choose him. I would like to offer some problems with this view prior to sharing a pertinent quote from Jonathan Edwards. I will begin with a biblical examination and then finish with Edwards's insight.
First, let's consider the biblical doctrine of foreknowledge. A couple of key texts that deal with the doctrine of divine foreknowledge are Amos 3:1-2 and Romans 8:29. In Amos 3:1-2 we read:
Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." (ESV)
The NIV translates Amos 3:2:
"You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.”
Why the difference? Why does the ESV translate a word as "known," while the NIV translates it as "chosen"? Because the idea of "knowing" another person (cf. Gen. 4:1, "Adam knew his wife Eve.") is used in this context to refer to an intimate covenantal love, a special promised loyalty, not a mere awareness. So when God says to Israel through the prophet Amos, "You only have I known of all the families of the earth," he is not referring to simply being aware of them and their actions. If that were true then the text would be implying that God is not aware of the other nations, which is unthinkable. Much more is involved in the biblical doctrine of foreknowledge than simple awareness or foresight. God is saying through Amos that, of all the nations in the world, he has loved Israel with a special, covenantal, loyal, electing love. That is why the NIV translates the word as "chosen" rather than "known."
Let's move forward to Romans 8:29 which reads:
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Many understand the word "foreknew" in this verse to mean simple foresight. In other words, they understand it to refer to God being aware, before he created, who would or would not believe in him and then predestining to save them based on that awareness. One problem with this view is that, as we have already seen, the idea of knowing or foreknowing has a special meaning in Scripture that isn't readily communicated through our English translation. Another problem is that taking the use of the word "foreknowledge" in this passage as foresight of future human decisions contradicts what the text actually says. The text does not say that God foreknew future human decisions. It says that he foreknew certain people, which militates against equivocating foreknowledge with foresight. Surely we don't think that God was aware of some people prior to creation and not others? God has always been aware of all people past, present, and future. But he has foreknown (or loved with a special, intimate, electing love) only some. Those are the one's he predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.
But let's take the idea of simple foresight a bit further. If Paul truly has simple foresight in view in Romans 8, then shouldn't we expect him to have the same view in Romans 9? If Paul understands election as God choosing those whom he foresees will choose him, why doesn't he offer that as the solution to the dilemma raised by the doctrine as it relates to God's justice?
After presenting a clear doctrine of unconditional election In Romans 9:1-13, Paul anticipates the typical objection raised against it. Interestingly, it is the same objection raised by those who oppose the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election. Paul writes:
"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Rom. 9:14-16)."
If Paul truly had in mind a simple foresight view of election, it would seem that the easiest way for him to answer the question "Is there injustice on God's part?" would be to say, "Of course not! God chooses you based on your choice of him." That would clear up the issue quite well. But he doesn't reply that way. How does he reply? "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." He replies with the affirmation that God's election of some rather than others has nothing to do with human will or exertion. It has nothing to do with God foreseeing what we will do. It is a matter of God's sovereign decision alone.
Later Paul raises the same question. In Rom. 9:19-21 he writes:
"You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"
Again when challenged with the question of how God can find fault with those he hasn't elected since they cannot resist his will, how does Paul respond? If he truly understood election as based on simple foresight why wouldn't he just say, "No, you've misunderstood me. It is not as though people cannot come to God because he did not choose them. He chooses people, if they choose him." That would have cleared up the whole charge. But Paul doesn't respond that way. What does Paul appeal to? He appeals to the sovereign right of God to do whatever he wants with his creatures. He appeals to the sovereign decision of God in election writing, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?"
Let's move on to Edwards's insight. Even if we admit a doctrine of simple foresight, in the end the doctrine of election is still just as certain as if it were unconditional. Listen to Edwards:
This is all that follows from an absolute, unconditional, irreversible decree, that it is impossible but that the things decreed should be. The same exactly follows from foreknowledge, that it is impossible but that the thing certainly foreknown should precisely come to pass (The "Miscellanies" no. 74).
Here we see Edwards demonstrating that the idea of simple foresight prior to creation ultimately leaves us with the same result as an unconditional divine decree issued prior to creation. A popular argument mounted against the doctrine of unconditional election is that it teaches that God has created some people for the purpose of damnation. And that is true. The doctrine does include that teaching.
Those who hold to unconditional election see it playing out basically like this:
Prior to creation . . .
(1) God decrees to elect a people out of the total population.
(2) That election is not based on any merit in those people.
(3) Those God elects will, by the appropriate means in due time, come to faith in Christ and be saved.
(4) Those God does not elect will never come to faith in Christ. They will be damned.
. . . then God creates.
Those who hold to simple foresight see election playing out like this:
Prior to creation . . .
(1) God decrees to elect a people out of the total population.
(2) That election is based on his foreseeing who will come to faith in Christ.
(3) Those he elects will come to faith, as he has foreseen, and be saved.
(4) Those God does not elect will never come to faith in Christ. They will be damned
. . . then God creates.
Do you see the how both views lead to the same conclusion? According to the simple foresight view, God knew prior to creation who would not come to faith in Christ, and yet he created those people anyway. Their condition could properly be described as "an inability to believe" since there is no possibility that they will ever believe. What God has foreseen must come to pass just as he has foreseen it. So, the doctrine of simple foresight really does nothing to resolve the "problem" of reprobation, i.e. that there are a non-elect people who are bound by necessity to never believe in Christ, and therefore be damned. Edwards's insight on this point is quite helpful.
Ultimately, in order for a system to resolve the problem of "reprobation," it must deny that God foresees moral human decisions. It must assert that the future is in some sense "open." The Socinians of the 17th century and the Process theologians of the late 19th to mid 20th century recognized this problem and did just that. They denied that God could know future moral human decisions. Today, the same is being asserted by a theological system called Open theism.
What Christmas is all about
This is a clip from "A Charlie Brown Christmas." I once heard a Bible teacher in Charlotte relate the story of his small child wanting to watch this particular show on TV. Both he and his wife were very hesitant but finally reluctantly agreed. After a while the small child was seen going to the bedroom with an expression of great disappointment. When they asked "what's the problem?" they heard this response - "they never mentioned the Lord Jesus." Well if that little fellow is reading this blog as a grown up today let me tell you this - you went to bed too soon!
Watch and listen carefully
Watch and listen carefully
The theology of Joyce Meyer
Joyce Meyer is part of the word of faith movement. In this video clip you will be listening to her teaching on the power of words. This theology is sometimes called "name it and claim it." Now be good Bereans and see if the Bible teaches what Joyce Meyer is saying in this video clip. Here is a question - if a glass of water is 99% pure but has 1% of arsenic is it safe to drink that water?
If some people teach what is mostly true but have a degree of false teaching then is that teaching safe to partake of?
Here is the LINK to the video clip of Joyce Meyer.
If some people teach what is mostly true but have a degree of false teaching then is that teaching safe to partake of?
Here is the LINK to the video clip of Joyce Meyer.
Becoming a Berean
Read the following verses from Acts Chapter 17;
Acts 17:10 ¶ The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
We all need to be very careful when we listen to others who preach and teach the word. Especially those who have a flair to communicate and influence us with their speech. Therefore I am dedicating part of my blog this week to those in the church "universal" who seem to have some of the greatest influence.
My point is that we all must be like the Bereans when hearing the message. Take what is said and examine it under the "light" of the Scriptures.
Acts 17:10 ¶ The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
We all need to be very careful when we listen to others who preach and teach the word. Especially those who have a flair to communicate and influence us with their speech. Therefore I am dedicating part of my blog this week to those in the church "universal" who seem to have some of the greatest influence.
My point is that we all must be like the Bereans when hearing the message. Take what is said and examine it under the "light" of the Scriptures.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The failure of church discipline
Have you ever done a study on the phrase "one another" from the New Testament? It is really amazing to see what these one another's are and how we should be living together in fellowship within the local church. There is one overall serious problem in the American church today that is known but rarely spoken. And this is in the area of church discipline as it relates to the one anothers. As a pastor and elder for the last 4 years I have much experience in this particular area. In many homes there is little honoring or acknowledgment of the role of the elders especially when it comes to this subject of discipline. Some of the most hurtful and disappointing situations I found about professing Christians is what they say and how they respond when confronted with sin. Alan Redpath said it best "the American church can not agree on what sin is." Based on this statement is there any wonder why the church is not influencing the culture but rather why the culture is influencing the church.
I once was counseling a person in our home when I told them that it was Biblical to obey the leadership in the church. Obviously this means you should trust the leadership unless you have a reason not to trust them. When this particular person heard that statement from my mouth that said in a rather caustic manner "where is that in the Bible." I tried to as gently and patiently as possible refer them to Heb. 13:17 ¶ Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
Unfortunately it fell on ears that were unwilling to hear!
What is the church discipline policy of the church you attend?
Do you agree with it?
Are you willing to submit to it assuming that the statement is Biblical?
How will others be allowed into your life that can admonish and teach you?
Is this even part of your decision criteria when picking a church?
I once was counseling a person in our home when I told them that it was Biblical to obey the leadership in the church. Obviously this means you should trust the leadership unless you have a reason not to trust them. When this particular person heard that statement from my mouth that said in a rather caustic manner "where is that in the Bible." I tried to as gently and patiently as possible refer them to Heb. 13:17 ¶ Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
Unfortunately it fell on ears that were unwilling to hear!
What is the church discipline policy of the church you attend?
Do you agree with it?
Are you willing to submit to it assuming that the statement is Biblical?
How will others be allowed into your life that can admonish and teach you?
Is this even part of your decision criteria when picking a church?
The theology of Beth Moore
OK enough of Joel Osteen and enough of Oprah Winfrey how about someone who has a real solid theology. Well one of the finest women teachers of God's word is Beth Moore. In her study guide called "Beloved Disciple" Beth quotes two of her favorite theologians. One is from the 1700's and his name is Jonathan Edwards and the other is her personal favorite from the 21st Century and his name is John Piper.
Here is her quote from Jonathan Edwards - "God is glorified not only by His glory's being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those who see it delight in ti, God is more glorified than if they only see it."
Here is her quote from John Piper - God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him."
Don't you love great, solid and foundation theology that is what the Bible teaches?
The theology of Joel Osteen
I have posted two extremely popular personalities in America. One is the wealthiest woman with the best known talk show and the other is the most popular preacher with the largest church. How would you compare their theologies? Let me give you one verse of Scripture to consider and after seeing Oprah and Joel where would you say they stand on this verse.
In John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
In John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
The theology of Oprah
If you are a Christian fan of the Oprah Winfrey show then you need to watch and hear what she admits is her theology. My question to you is simply this - do you agree?
Check out this LINK
This is how most of the American mainstream thinks and it is invading and influencing the church in a radical way!
Check out this LINK
This is how most of the American mainstream thinks and it is invading and influencing the church in a radical way!
Monday, November 26, 2007
God's greatest passion
Sam Storms writes;
What is the pre-eminent passion in God's heart? What is God's greatest pleasure? In what does God take supreme delight? I suggest that the pre-eminent passion in God's heart is his own glory. God is at the center of his own affections. The supreme love of God's life is God. God is pre-eminently committed to the fame of his name. God is himself the end for which God created the world.
What is the pre-eminent passion in God's heart? What is God's greatest pleasure? In what does God take supreme delight? I suggest that the pre-eminent passion in God's heart is his own glory. God is at the center of his own affections. The supreme love of God's life is God. God is pre-eminently committed to the fame of his name. God is himself the end for which God created the world.
Better, still, God's immediate goal in all he does is his own glory. God relentlessly and unceasingly creates, rules, orders, directs, speaks, judges, saves, destroys and delivers in order to make known who he is and to secure from the whole of the universe the praise, honor and glory of which he and he alone is ultimately and infinitely worthy.
The question I most often hear in response to this is that if God loves himself pre-eminently, how can he love me at all? How can we say that God is for us and that he desires our happiness if he is primarily for himself and his own glory? I want to argue that it is precisely because God loves himself that he loves you. Here's how.
I assume you will agree that your greatest good consists of enjoying the most excellent Being in the universe. That Being, of course, is God. Therefore, the most loving and kind thing that God can do for you is to devote all his energy and effort to elicit from your heart praise of himself. Why? Because praise is the consummation of enjoyment. All enjoyment tends towards praise and adoration as its appointed end. In this way, God's seeking his own glory and God's seeking your good converge.
Listen again. Your greatest good is in the enjoyment of God. God's greatest glory is in being enjoyed. So, for God to seek his glory in your worship of him is the most loving thing he can do for you. Only by seeking his glory pre-eminently can God seek your good passionately.
For God to work for your enjoyment of him (that's his love for you) and for his glory in being enjoyed (that's his love for himself) are not properly distinct.
So, God comes to you in his Word and says: "Here I am in all my glory: incomparable, infinite, immeasurable, unsurpassed. See me! Be satisfied with me! Enjoy me! Celebrate who I am! Experience the height and depth and width and breadth of savoring and relishing me!"
Does that sound like God pursuing his own glory? Yes.
But it also sounds like God loving you and me perfectly and passionately. The only way it is not real love is if there is something for us better than God: something more beautiful than God that he can show us, something more pleasing and satisfying than God with which he can fill our hearts, something more glorious and majestic than God with which we can occupy ourselves for eternity. But there is no such thing! Anywhere! Ever!
Living out the hard verses in the Bible
When you commit to lay your life down for Jesus in building the kingdom...
John 16:33 - "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."
Matthew 16:24 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
Matthew 7:13-14 - "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
John 15:20 - "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
Luke 6:22 - "Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.
Luke 9:24 - "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.
Matthew 24:9 - "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
Luke 14:26 - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Luke 14:28 - "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
Luke 14:33 - So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.
John 16:33 - "These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."
Matthew 16:24 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
Matthew 7:13-14 - "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
John 15:20 - "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.
Luke 6:22 - "Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man.
Luke 9:24 - "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.
Matthew 24:9 - "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.
Luke 14:26 - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Luke 14:28 - "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
Luke 14:33 - So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.
APTAT-a practical way to start the day
Many times I am asked about the "how to's" of the Christian life. When I started teaching on the major doctrines of the Bible in September 2006 my motto became "what we believe is how we behave." Therefore we need to have a strong foundation in basic Biblical doctrine so that our lives will reflect and display the glory of God! One of the most practical theologians, pastors and teachers that I have ever seen or heard is Dr. John Piper. I recently read an article on how he begins each new day in Christ.
Just remember the acronym APTAT
Just remember the acronym APTAT
- "A" -
- I acknowledge that apart from Christ I can do nothing of eternal value (John 15:5). I acknowledge with Paul in Romans 7:18, "In me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing." I acknowledge that the old "I" which loved to deny this fact was crucified with Christ.
- "P" -
- I pray. I pray with Paul in 1 Thessalonians 3:12 that Christ would make me abound in love. I pray that grace might reign in my life through righteousness (Romans 5:21). I pray that God would produce in me the obedience he demands (Hebrews 13:21; 2 Thessalonians 1:11).
- "T" -
- I trust. This is the key because Galatians 3:5 says, "Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?" In other words, the ongoing work of the Spirit to enable us to love as we ought happens only as we trust the promises of God (Galatians 5:6). So by faith I lay hold on a promise like Isaiah 41:10: "Fear not, for I am with you, be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my victorious right hand." I trust that as I act, it will not be I but the power of Christ in me and me only clinging to him in faith.
- "A" -
- I act in obedience to God's Word. But, O, what a world of difference now between such an act and what Paul calls works of law. The acknowledgment that I am helpless, the prayer for divine enablement, the trust that Christ himself is my help and strength—these transform the act so that it is a fruit of the Spirit, not a work of the flesh.
- "T" -
- Finally, when the deed is done and the day is over, I thank God for whatever good may have come of my life (Colossians 1:3–5). I thank him for conquering, at least in some measure, my selfishness and pride. I give him the glory (1 Peter 4:11).
Sunday, November 25, 2007
A return to the word of God
One of the key themes of my message to our former church was a need for the people of God to return to the word of God. How many times did I say on Sunday that we are as close to Christ as we are close to His word. When I read articles that reinforce these basics then I sense a need to share them with you on this blog site.
This excellent article is by Trevor Almer is one in which I can only say amen brother!
Amidst the cacophany of evangelical music trends, one noticably missing element stands out in our corporate worship: Spirit-empowered preaching. Somehow, our churches have gotten away from the centrality of the Word of God in worship and instead replaced it with praise bands, drama skits, testimonies, DVD clips and so forth. We have more programs than we know what to do with yet when it comes to personal holiness and public evangelism we are as stagnant as ever.
Long forgotten is the fundamental tenant of Historic Protestantism of sola scriptura and the primacy of preaching. Instead, we are more concerned with our Senior Citizens program, our Youth Group, the Sunday School department and the Movie Night events. We have obscured the aim and objective of the people of God: to exult over Holy Writ. As a result, many in the church do not even question when our worship services become reduced to singing and self-help talks. Is it any wonder that we haven't seen revival in our churches? Is it any wonder that the Spirit of God hasn't come down from heaven and blown over the dry bones around us? If we expect to see such a change in our churches, we would do well to heed the words of the apostle Paul in his second epistle to Timothy. In chapter three, Paul reminds Timothy of the "sacred writings" and points to them as the ultimate and authoritative source to guide him in his faith and practice. Then, the apostle makes this bold claim:
"16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." -2 Timothy 3:16-17
Here, we will examine three points Paul makes concerning Holy Scripture: its origin, its function, and its goal.
1. Its Origin
First, notice in verse 16 that Paul says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God." The Greek word here is theopneustos, which means Scripture is divine in nature. It has as its very source God. Though brought to us through human instruments, the Bible is the revelation of the Creator to His creation. Thus, we should tremble with fear when we hear it read aloud! We should bow our heads in reverence as we contemplate its truth. We should fasten it to our hearts and delight in its riches for this is God speaking to us. To reject Scripture is, in essence, to reject God. Calvin said that we ought to show the same amount of reverence to Scripture as we do to God himself. And since we owe that kind of reverence to Scripture, it follows that we owe that kind of reverence to all of Scripture. "All Scripture" Paul says is "breathed out by God." We must not shrink back from declaring the whole counsel of God but preach the whole gamut of Scriptural truth.
2. Its Function
After asserting the authoritative origin of Scripture, Paul then begins to list the function or the role of Scripture. Pay close attention to four things he mentions: "...profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Consider that three of the four functions of Scripture have negative connotations in most evangelical minds. It is only the fourth that seems positive: "training in righteousness." The word that is used for teaching in the KJV is the notorious "doctrine." In our postmodern age where authority is rejected and egalitarianism is espoused, no one wants to think of having to be taught, much less reprooved or corrected. However, that is precisely what Paul says the function of Scripture is and if we are to be faithful to it, we will allow it to do its sharpening work.
3. Its Goal
To prevent us from thinking that the teaching, reprooving, correcting and training proccess is for no purpose, Paul inform us that it is so "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." The Greek word here for "competent" has as its meaning the idea of completeness or wholeness. It means one who has reached a point of spiritual maturity. This person who has reached spiritual maturity is "equipped for every good work." Thus, the goal and end of Scripture is not just so we can have theological knowledge. The goal and end of Scripture is so that we can have knowledge and have it "equipped." The Bible's goal is never to sever doctrine from practice but rather doctrine is foundational to all our Christian practice. Paul would have had a hard time imagining an ivory tower theologian.
In light of Paul's words, let us then be about the reforming work of our churches. Trusting that fidelity to God's Word is our priority and that Christ, not us, will build His church. Soli deo gloria!
This excellent article is by Trevor Almer is one in which I can only say amen brother!
Amidst the cacophany of evangelical music trends, one noticably missing element stands out in our corporate worship: Spirit-empowered preaching. Somehow, our churches have gotten away from the centrality of the Word of God in worship and instead replaced it with praise bands, drama skits, testimonies, DVD clips and so forth. We have more programs than we know what to do with yet when it comes to personal holiness and public evangelism we are as stagnant as ever.
Long forgotten is the fundamental tenant of Historic Protestantism of sola scriptura and the primacy of preaching. Instead, we are more concerned with our Senior Citizens program, our Youth Group, the Sunday School department and the Movie Night events. We have obscured the aim and objective of the people of God: to exult over Holy Writ. As a result, many in the church do not even question when our worship services become reduced to singing and self-help talks. Is it any wonder that we haven't seen revival in our churches? Is it any wonder that the Spirit of God hasn't come down from heaven and blown over the dry bones around us? If we expect to see such a change in our churches, we would do well to heed the words of the apostle Paul in his second epistle to Timothy. In chapter three, Paul reminds Timothy of the "sacred writings" and points to them as the ultimate and authoritative source to guide him in his faith and practice. Then, the apostle makes this bold claim:
"16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." -2 Timothy 3:16-17
Here, we will examine three points Paul makes concerning Holy Scripture: its origin, its function, and its goal.
1. Its Origin
First, notice in verse 16 that Paul says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God." The Greek word here is theopneustos, which means Scripture is divine in nature. It has as its very source God. Though brought to us through human instruments, the Bible is the revelation of the Creator to His creation. Thus, we should tremble with fear when we hear it read aloud! We should bow our heads in reverence as we contemplate its truth. We should fasten it to our hearts and delight in its riches for this is God speaking to us. To reject Scripture is, in essence, to reject God. Calvin said that we ought to show the same amount of reverence to Scripture as we do to God himself. And since we owe that kind of reverence to Scripture, it follows that we owe that kind of reverence to all of Scripture. "All Scripture" Paul says is "breathed out by God." We must not shrink back from declaring the whole counsel of God but preach the whole gamut of Scriptural truth.
2. Its Function
After asserting the authoritative origin of Scripture, Paul then begins to list the function or the role of Scripture. Pay close attention to four things he mentions: "...profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Consider that three of the four functions of Scripture have negative connotations in most evangelical minds. It is only the fourth that seems positive: "training in righteousness." The word that is used for teaching in the KJV is the notorious "doctrine." In our postmodern age where authority is rejected and egalitarianism is espoused, no one wants to think of having to be taught, much less reprooved or corrected. However, that is precisely what Paul says the function of Scripture is and if we are to be faithful to it, we will allow it to do its sharpening work.
3. Its Goal
To prevent us from thinking that the teaching, reprooving, correcting and training proccess is for no purpose, Paul inform us that it is so "that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." The Greek word here for "competent" has as its meaning the idea of completeness or wholeness. It means one who has reached a point of spiritual maturity. This person who has reached spiritual maturity is "equipped for every good work." Thus, the goal and end of Scripture is not just so we can have theological knowledge. The goal and end of Scripture is so that we can have knowledge and have it "equipped." The Bible's goal is never to sever doctrine from practice but rather doctrine is foundational to all our Christian practice. Paul would have had a hard time imagining an ivory tower theologian.
In light of Paul's words, let us then be about the reforming work of our churches. Trusting that fidelity to God's Word is our priority and that Christ, not us, will build His church. Soli deo gloria!
Natural disasters and the sovereignty of God
What is your theology when it comes to adversity and calamity in natural disasters? Here is an audio that is a must listen when it comes to the question - "where is God when a tsunami hits?Dr. John Piper is interviewed by NPR radio as they seek to get a Christian understanding of God's involvement when bad things happen. To listen click HERE.
"The cross saved; the cross saves"
J. I. Packer writes in "The Quest for Godliness"
“It cannot be over-emphasized that we have not seen the full meaning of the cross till we have seen it as the center of the gospel, flanked on the one hand by total inability and unconditional surrender and on the other by irresistible grace and final preservation.
Christ died to save a certain company of helpless sinners upon whom God had set his free saving love. Christ’s death ensured the calling and keeping - the present and final salvation - of all whose sins he bore. That is what Calvary meant, and means. The cross saved; the cross saves.”
Charles Spurgeon on the doctrine of election
(From a sermon by Charles Spurgeon)
“But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2Thessalonians 2:13-14).
If there were no other text in the sacred word except this one, I think we should all be bound to receive and acknowledge the truthfulness of the great and glorious doctrine of God’s ancient choice of His family. But there seems to be an ongoing prejudice in the human mind against this doctrine, and although most other doctrines will be received by professing Christians, some with caution, others with pleasure, yet this one seems to be most frequently disregarded and discarded. . . .
My friends, I think that this overwhelming mass of Scripture testimony must stagger those who dare to laugh at this doctrine. What shall we say of those who have so often despised it, and denied its divinity, who have mocked its justice and dared to defy God and call Him an Almighty tyrant, when they have heard of His having elected only so many to eternal life. Can you, O rejecter! tear it out of the Bible? Can you take the penknife of Jehudi and cut it out of the Word of God? Would you be like the woman at the feet of Solomon, and have the child cut in halves, that you might have your half? Is it not here in Scripture? And is it not your duty to bow before it? To receive it as the truth even though you can’t understand its meaning?
I will not attempt to prove the justice of God in having thus elected some and left others. It is not for me to argue with my Master. He will speak for Himself, and He does so: “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” Who is he that shall say to his father, “What have you procreated?” Or to his mother, “What have you brought forth?” I am the Lord your God, I create light and I create darkness. I the Lord do all of these things. Who are you that answers back to God? Tremble and kiss His rod; bow down and submit to His scepter; do not challenge His justice, and do not accuse His actions before your bar, O man!
But there are some who say, “It is hard for God to choose some and leave others.” Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any one of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave their life of sin and walk in holiness? “Yes, there is,” says some one, “I do.” Then God has elected you. But another says, “No: I don’t want to be holy; I don’t want to give up my lusts and my vices.” Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you to it? For if you were elected you would not like it, according to your own confession. If God, this morning, had chosen you to holiness, you say you would not care for it. Do you not acknowledge that you prefer drunkenness to sobriety, dishonesty to honesty? You love this world’s pleasure better than religion; then why should you grumble that God has not chosen you to religion? If you love religion, He has chosen you to it. If you desire it, He has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for?
Supposing I had in my hand something which you do not value, and I said I shall give it to such-and-such a person: you would have no right to grumble that I did not give it to you. You could not be so foolish as to grumble that the other has got what you did not care about. According to your own confession, many of you do not want religion, do not want a new heart and a right spirit, do not want the forgiveness of sins, do not want to be holy, you do not want to be elected to these things: then why should you grumble? You count these things as worthless, and why should you complain of God who has given them to those whom He has chosen?
If you believe them to be good, and desire them, they are there for you. God gives liberally to all those who desire; and first of all, He makes them desire, otherwise they never would. If you love these things, he has elected you to them, and you may have them; but if you do not, who are you that you should find fault with God, when it is your own headstrong will that keeps you from loving these things–your own simple self that makes you hat them? Suppose a man in the street should say, “What a shame it is I cannot have a seat in the church to hear what the preacher has to say.” And suppose he says, “I hate the preacher; I can’t stand his doctrine; but still it’s a shame I don’t have a seat.” Would you expect a may to say such a thing? No: you would quickly say, “That man doesn’t care for it. Why should he trouble himself about other people having what they value and he despises?” You don’t like holiness, you do not like righteousness: if God has elected me to these things, has He hurt you by it?
“Ah, but,” some say, “I thought it meant that God elected some to heaven and some to hell.” That ’s a very different matter from the gospel doctrine. He has elected men to holiness and to righteousness, and through that to heaven. You must not say that He has elected them simply to heaven, and others only to hell. He has elected you to holiness, if you love holiness. If any of you love to be saved by Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ has elected you to be saved. If any of you desire to have salvation, you are elected to have it, if you sincerely and earnestly desire it. But, if you don’t desire it, why on earth should you be so incredibly foolish as to complain because God gives that which you don’t like to other people?
Sunday night Bible study - notes part 2
Bible study group,
We are studying "how to be the Christian that you say you have become. Obviously that leads us to the natural question of how does one become a Christian? In Romans 9:1-23 we have the clearest explanation of the doctrine of election in the New Testament. If someone ever asks you do you believe in election then the easy answer to that is yes. Now it gets a bit more complicated should someone ask you to explain what you believe election to be from a Biblical perspective. In our study time last Sunday night we tried to follow Paul's flow of thought in Romans 9. Paul starts out by saying that he knows that many of his Jewish brethren are accursed and cut off from Christ. If he could he would trade his own salvation in order that they could be saved he would. Wow! Doesn't that show us the love that the apostle Paul has for the unsaved? Now the question comes up from a silent objector - "hey Paul aren't you saying that the Jews are God's chosen people, they have the covenant , glory, temple, and even the Lord Jesus Himself was a Jew." And if the previous statement is true and yet most of the Jews aren't saved but rather cut off from Christ then that can only mean one thing - "the word of God has failed." If you miss this in Paul's flow of thought then you are going to miss the rest of Romans 9-11. So what Paul now is going to prove through a Biblical flow of thought is how the word of God has not failed. And he does this by first of all bringing in a distinction between:
1. Those who are ethnic or biological Israel and a smaller group who he calls spiritual Israel.
2. He then moves to another illustration between the descendants of Abraham and a smaller group called the children of Abraham
3. Finally Paul gives an overarching principle between the children of the flesh (ethnic and biological) and the smaller group called children of the promise.
Do you understand this part of the argument so far? It appears to the Jews that Paul's teaching is way off base. I mean how can the Jews who are God's chosen people and people of the covenant not be saved or even worse cut off from Christ. And Paul replies because not all the Jews are considered to be God's elect. What? Is this some kind of heresy that Paul is teaching? I mean if you preach like that in America you could get stoned? Paul is using a very systematic argument to show that there is a smaller group who have received His promise (the elect) but a larger group are those who are unsaved and cut off from Christ.
Many of these Jews had the following theology - since I am a biological descendant of Abraham that automatically means that I am saved. And Paul comes out and preaches something very different. He says that if you are not part of God's elect then you are unsaved and cut off from Christ. A persons election from God is not based on merit, reputation, ethnic origin, parents or anything they do whether good or bad, this is based on God's decision alone! If that upsets you and bothers you then I would ask you to examine how man centered you heart has become living in a culture that is all about "self."
Paul goes on to support this doctrine of unconditional election by using two Scriptures and two illustrations. Before we go into the Old Testament Scriptures and illustrations allow me to encourage you to study these on your own. If you are using a study Bible then you can pick up these verses in the cross reference section of your Bible. Remember that whenever a verse appears in all caps in the New Testament then it is referring you back to the Old Testament.
As Dr. John Piper writes in his exegesis of Romans 9:
Paul gives two illustrations in verses 6-9 (and another one in verses 10-13). The first is in verse 7. After Paul says, "Nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants," he quotes Genesis 21:12. "But: ‘Through Isaac your descendants will be named.’" The context here in the Old Testament is where God is saying to Abraham, even though you have an older son, Ishmael, he will not be the heir of the promise. Rather "through Isaac your descendants will be named (or called)." What Paul sees here is that being a physical child of Abraham, and even being the oldest, did not make Ishmael an heir of the promise to the covenant people.
Then Paul adds another insight from Genesis 18:10 in verse 9. After saying in verse 8 that "the children of promise are regarded [God says] as descendants," then he quotes Genesis 18:10, "For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.’" The context here is tremendously important. God had promised Abraham that all the families of the earth would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3) and that his descendants would be like the stars in the sky (Genesis 15:5). But Abraham had no offspring and his wife Sarah was barren. What was the solution? Abraham’s answer should have been, "I’ll trust God for a child of promise. I’ll trust God that the divine promise itself is powerful enough to bring itself to pass." But instead Abraham did what he could do in his own strength: he used Hagar, a maid of Sarah, as a concubine and produced a child named Ishmael. Abraham helped God out of his dilemma. And therefore Paul produced a "child of the flesh." He was "born according to the flesh" (Galatians 4:29). That is, his position was owing to no more than what man could do.
Abraham wanted Ishmael to be the heir God had promised. In Genesis 17:18 Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac." That’s the context of Paul’s quote in Romans 9:9. God promises: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." You see the sovereign purpose of God’s word here. I make the promise, God says. And I bring it to pass. My promises are not predictions of what may come about with your help. My promises are declarations of what I intend to bring about by my sovereign power. "I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." Barren Sarah and old Abraham will have not a child of the flesh, but a child of promise.
So what is a child of promise (child of God)? A child of promise is an heir of God’s saving grace, not because of ethnic origin or physical birth but because of God’s sovereign word. The birth of Isaac is a picture of how every child of God spiritually comes into being. The decisive work is God’s work. Not Abraham’s and not Isaac’s and not ours. But God’s.
So what is the answer to the problem that the apostle Paul creates for us in Romans 9:1-5? Has the word of God failed because many Israelites are accursed and cut off from Christ? Have the promises of God come to naught? The answer is no. And the reason Paul gives three times is that the promise of God itself accomplishes its purpose, and that purpose is make for himself a true Israel. The promise and purpose of God was never that every Israelite would be guaranteed salvation. The promise was: God will see to it that the true Israel is brought into being and saved. And we have seen, and will see again; this true Israel includes Jews and Gentiles.
Keep moving in the argument and in Paul's illustration of why God's word has not failed as we study verses 10-13.
Paul is still illustrating that within the physical descendants of Israel there is a true Israel chosen by God. Here, more clearly than ever, Paul makes it plain that God’s election – God’s free and unconditional choosing of the children of promise – is what guarantees that the word of God does not, and never can, fail. Bible study group this is where we can grab hold of the assurance that the grace that brings us to God in justification by faith alone will keep us unto glorification throughout eternity!
Let’s start reading at verse 10. "And not only this, [not only do we see the point in the case of Isaac and Ishmael] but there was Rebekah also [the wife of Isaac], when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac." Notice what Paul is doing here. He is pointing out two things that make the choice of Jacob over Esau an even more compelling illustration of God’s unconditional election than the illustration of Isaac and Ishmael.
The first is that Jacob and Esau were twins. They were in the same womb. This draws attention to the fact that the distinctions between them were minimal. The conditions of their birth are going to be almost identical. So any choice between them would be based on God, not on them.
The second difference from Isaac and Ishmael is was that Jacob and Esau were conceived of the same parents. Notice the words in verse 10, "conceived by one man." Somebody might have said about Ishmael, "Of course God didn’t choose him as a child of promise. He didn’t have a Jewish mother. Hagar was a Gentile." But Paul says, "No, you missed the point, and I will clarify that with Jacob and Esau. They were in the same womb and had one father, not two different fathers." He is systematically doing away with the human distinctives that might constrain God’s election of one over the other. He is saying that election is based on God, not man.
Then in verse 11 he makes this unconditionality of his election crystal clear: "For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad" – skip to the main clause in verse 12 – "it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger.’" The quote from Genesis 25:23 simply makes clear that God decides the destiny of these two sons and the nations they represent before they are born. And to make it even clearer for us, Paul does not just say, they were not yet born when God decided their destinies, he also says, "they had done nothing good or bad." And to remove the possible objection that he chose the older because the older deserves it, he chose the younger.
This is why we speak of the biblical doctrine of unconditional election. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born or had done anything good or bad. It was not their behavior or their attitude or their faith or their parents that moved God to choose Jacob and not Esau. The choice was unconditional. It was rooted in God alone and not in man.
This Teaching Nullifies Neither the Genuineness of Our Choices Nor the Necessity of the Obedience of Faith
Before we look at the rest of the text let me make sure you are not jumping to unwarranted and unbiblical conclusions. This teaching of Romans 9 does not contradict the truth that Jacob and Esau and you and I make choices in life and will be held responsible for those choices. If Jacob is saved he will be saved by faith. And if Esau is finally condemned, he will be condemned for his evil deeds and unbelief. Our final judgment will accord with the way we have responded to the gospel in this life. Which means that our final entry into heaven or to hell is not unconditional. To be finally saved we must have believed. And to be lost we must have sinned and not believed. No one will stand on the precipice of hell and be able to say, "I don’t deserve this."
Just one text to show this: Romans 2:7-8, "To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." In other words, unconditional election does not contradict the necessity of the obedience of faith for final salvation, or the necessity of the disobedience of unbelief for damnation. What unconditional election does is knock from underneath salvation every ground of human boasting, and replaces it with the unshakable electing love and purpose of God (v. 11b).
The will to believe is saving, and the will not to believe is damning. We are held responsible for both. But underneath both is God’s free and unconditional election of who will be saved and who will not. The elect believe. The non-elect do not believe. We are not sovereign, self-determining, autonomous beings. Only God is. God renders certain the belief and unbelief of men without undermining their personal accountability. This is not something the finite mind can fully understand because it is an infinite principle that resides in God and His ways are higher than our ways.
(all footnotes, commentaries and ministry resources have not been listed in these study notes)
We are studying "how to be the Christian that you say you have become. Obviously that leads us to the natural question of how does one become a Christian? In Romans 9:1-23 we have the clearest explanation of the doctrine of election in the New Testament. If someone ever asks you do you believe in election then the easy answer to that is yes. Now it gets a bit more complicated should someone ask you to explain what you believe election to be from a Biblical perspective. In our study time last Sunday night we tried to follow Paul's flow of thought in Romans 9. Paul starts out by saying that he knows that many of his Jewish brethren are accursed and cut off from Christ. If he could he would trade his own salvation in order that they could be saved he would. Wow! Doesn't that show us the love that the apostle Paul has for the unsaved? Now the question comes up from a silent objector - "hey Paul aren't you saying that the Jews are God's chosen people, they have the covenant , glory, temple, and even the Lord Jesus Himself was a Jew." And if the previous statement is true and yet most of the Jews aren't saved but rather cut off from Christ then that can only mean one thing - "the word of God has failed." If you miss this in Paul's flow of thought then you are going to miss the rest of Romans 9-11. So what Paul now is going to prove through a Biblical flow of thought is how the word of God has not failed. And he does this by first of all bringing in a distinction between:
1. Those who are ethnic or biological Israel and a smaller group who he calls spiritual Israel.
2. He then moves to another illustration between the descendants of Abraham and a smaller group called the children of Abraham
3. Finally Paul gives an overarching principle between the children of the flesh (ethnic and biological) and the smaller group called children of the promise.
Do you understand this part of the argument so far? It appears to the Jews that Paul's teaching is way off base. I mean how can the Jews who are God's chosen people and people of the covenant not be saved or even worse cut off from Christ. And Paul replies because not all the Jews are considered to be God's elect. What? Is this some kind of heresy that Paul is teaching? I mean if you preach like that in America you could get stoned? Paul is using a very systematic argument to show that there is a smaller group who have received His promise (the elect) but a larger group are those who are unsaved and cut off from Christ.
Many of these Jews had the following theology - since I am a biological descendant of Abraham that automatically means that I am saved. And Paul comes out and preaches something very different. He says that if you are not part of God's elect then you are unsaved and cut off from Christ. A persons election from God is not based on merit, reputation, ethnic origin, parents or anything they do whether good or bad, this is based on God's decision alone! If that upsets you and bothers you then I would ask you to examine how man centered you heart has become living in a culture that is all about "self."
Paul goes on to support this doctrine of unconditional election by using two Scriptures and two illustrations. Before we go into the Old Testament Scriptures and illustrations allow me to encourage you to study these on your own. If you are using a study Bible then you can pick up these verses in the cross reference section of your Bible. Remember that whenever a verse appears in all caps in the New Testament then it is referring you back to the Old Testament.
As Dr. John Piper writes in his exegesis of Romans 9:
Paul gives two illustrations in verses 6-9 (and another one in verses 10-13). The first is in verse 7. After Paul says, "Nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants," he quotes Genesis 21:12. "But: ‘Through Isaac your descendants will be named.’" The context here in the Old Testament is where God is saying to Abraham, even though you have an older son, Ishmael, he will not be the heir of the promise. Rather "through Isaac your descendants will be named (or called)." What Paul sees here is that being a physical child of Abraham, and even being the oldest, did not make Ishmael an heir of the promise to the covenant people.
Then Paul adds another insight from Genesis 18:10 in verse 9. After saying in verse 8 that "the children of promise are regarded [God says] as descendants," then he quotes Genesis 18:10, "For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.’" The context here is tremendously important. God had promised Abraham that all the families of the earth would be blessed through him (Genesis 12:3) and that his descendants would be like the stars in the sky (Genesis 15:5). But Abraham had no offspring and his wife Sarah was barren. What was the solution? Abraham’s answer should have been, "I’ll trust God for a child of promise. I’ll trust God that the divine promise itself is powerful enough to bring itself to pass." But instead Abraham did what he could do in his own strength: he used Hagar, a maid of Sarah, as a concubine and produced a child named Ishmael. Abraham helped God out of his dilemma. And therefore Paul produced a "child of the flesh." He was "born according to the flesh" (Galatians 4:29). That is, his position was owing to no more than what man could do.
Abraham wanted Ishmael to be the heir God had promised. In Genesis 17:18 Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac." That’s the context of Paul’s quote in Romans 9:9. God promises: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." You see the sovereign purpose of God’s word here. I make the promise, God says. And I bring it to pass. My promises are not predictions of what may come about with your help. My promises are declarations of what I intend to bring about by my sovereign power. "I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." Barren Sarah and old Abraham will have not a child of the flesh, but a child of promise.
So what is a child of promise (child of God)? A child of promise is an heir of God’s saving grace, not because of ethnic origin or physical birth but because of God’s sovereign word. The birth of Isaac is a picture of how every child of God spiritually comes into being. The decisive work is God’s work. Not Abraham’s and not Isaac’s and not ours. But God’s.
So what is the answer to the problem that the apostle Paul creates for us in Romans 9:1-5? Has the word of God failed because many Israelites are accursed and cut off from Christ? Have the promises of God come to naught? The answer is no. And the reason Paul gives three times is that the promise of God itself accomplishes its purpose, and that purpose is make for himself a true Israel. The promise and purpose of God was never that every Israelite would be guaranteed salvation. The promise was: God will see to it that the true Israel is brought into being and saved. And we have seen, and will see again; this true Israel includes Jews and Gentiles.
Keep moving in the argument and in Paul's illustration of why God's word has not failed as we study verses 10-13.
Paul is still illustrating that within the physical descendants of Israel there is a true Israel chosen by God. Here, more clearly than ever, Paul makes it plain that God’s election – God’s free and unconditional choosing of the children of promise – is what guarantees that the word of God does not, and never can, fail. Bible study group this is where we can grab hold of the assurance that the grace that brings us to God in justification by faith alone will keep us unto glorification throughout eternity!
Let’s start reading at verse 10. "And not only this, [not only do we see the point in the case of Isaac and Ishmael] but there was Rebekah also [the wife of Isaac], when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac." Notice what Paul is doing here. He is pointing out two things that make the choice of Jacob over Esau an even more compelling illustration of God’s unconditional election than the illustration of Isaac and Ishmael.
The first is that Jacob and Esau were twins. They were in the same womb. This draws attention to the fact that the distinctions between them were minimal. The conditions of their birth are going to be almost identical. So any choice between them would be based on God, not on them.
The second difference from Isaac and Ishmael is was that Jacob and Esau were conceived of the same parents. Notice the words in verse 10, "conceived by one man." Somebody might have said about Ishmael, "Of course God didn’t choose him as a child of promise. He didn’t have a Jewish mother. Hagar was a Gentile." But Paul says, "No, you missed the point, and I will clarify that with Jacob and Esau. They were in the same womb and had one father, not two different fathers." He is systematically doing away with the human distinctives that might constrain God’s election of one over the other. He is saying that election is based on God, not man.
Then in verse 11 he makes this unconditionality of his election crystal clear: "For though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad" – skip to the main clause in verse 12 – "it was said to her, ‘The older will serve the younger.’" The quote from Genesis 25:23 simply makes clear that God decides the destiny of these two sons and the nations they represent before they are born. And to make it even clearer for us, Paul does not just say, they were not yet born when God decided their destinies, he also says, "they had done nothing good or bad." And to remove the possible objection that he chose the older because the older deserves it, he chose the younger.
This is why we speak of the biblical doctrine of unconditional election. God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born or had done anything good or bad. It was not their behavior or their attitude or their faith or their parents that moved God to choose Jacob and not Esau. The choice was unconditional. It was rooted in God alone and not in man.
This Teaching Nullifies Neither the Genuineness of Our Choices Nor the Necessity of the Obedience of Faith
Before we look at the rest of the text let me make sure you are not jumping to unwarranted and unbiblical conclusions. This teaching of Romans 9 does not contradict the truth that Jacob and Esau and you and I make choices in life and will be held responsible for those choices. If Jacob is saved he will be saved by faith. And if Esau is finally condemned, he will be condemned for his evil deeds and unbelief. Our final judgment will accord with the way we have responded to the gospel in this life. Which means that our final entry into heaven or to hell is not unconditional. To be finally saved we must have believed. And to be lost we must have sinned and not believed. No one will stand on the precipice of hell and be able to say, "I don’t deserve this."
Just one text to show this: Romans 2:7-8, "To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." In other words, unconditional election does not contradict the necessity of the obedience of faith for final salvation, or the necessity of the disobedience of unbelief for damnation. What unconditional election does is knock from underneath salvation every ground of human boasting, and replaces it with the unshakable electing love and purpose of God (v. 11b).
The will to believe is saving, and the will not to believe is damning. We are held responsible for both. But underneath both is God’s free and unconditional election of who will be saved and who will not. The elect believe. The non-elect do not believe. We are not sovereign, self-determining, autonomous beings. Only God is. God renders certain the belief and unbelief of men without undermining their personal accountability. This is not something the finite mind can fully understand because it is an infinite principle that resides in God and His ways are higher than our ways.
(all footnotes, commentaries and ministry resources have not been listed in these study notes)
Saturday, November 24, 2007
faith does not equal righteousness
This is an important point and one that needs clarification if we are to understand Romans 4. In our Bible study on Sunday nights we are studying " Becoming the Christian that you say you have become." And the question we are now dealing with in our study is how someone becomes a Christian? Therefore we have been looking specifically at Romans 9 and Romans 4. In this short article I want to address the theme of Romans 4 - "his faith was credited as righteousness" and try and determine what this means. The reason I think this is the theme for Romans 4 is because this phrase basically appears 4 times:
Rom. 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Rom. 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Rom. 4:9 ¶ Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Rom. 4:22 Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
I think we need to get a better understanding of faith and righteousness and how they relate to one another from the apostle Paul's perspective.
A few weeks ago I hit on this theme in our Bible study and then wrote a review a couple of days later. The following is basically what I said in my review notes but the phrasing is a little different.
Sometimes it helps to read from several different people and here is what the folks at "Reformed Mafia" write about "faith credited as righteousness."
"His faith is counted as righteousness." : The word "counted" there refers to imputation, and is often translated as "accounted." We really can think of this in terms of bookkeeping. It's all about what is laid to your account and what isn't. In the verses that follow this one, for instance, Paul shows from Psalms 32 that it's really not about whether you sin or not (since all have sinned--Romans 3:23,) but it's about what God chooses to record on your heavenly book, so to speak.
God justifies the ungodly by counting them righteous, or by imputing righteousness to their account. They are not actually righteous: they are ungodly, remember. But He calls them righteous, innocent, godly. Then, after this imputation, in which they are justified, He sets about the work of making them what He has called them (and this is referred to as "sanctification.")
Now, in my short time as a Southern Baptist pastor, I think I have detected a common misunderstanding here. The verse says the ungodly man's faith is counted as righteousness. So, from this, many have concluded that God has decided to equate faith and righteousness. Righteousness is faith, and vice versa. The theory is that God used to count law-keeping as righteousness, but when that didn't work out so well, He simply changed the rules in the middle of the game and has agreed to accept faith as if it was righteousness. So, then, if God looks upon a man who has faith, He says, "Ah, here is a righteous man."
Here is why this is wrong:
For one, it ignores the context of what has come before in this letter to the Romans. Specifically, it ignores the fact that Paul has previously made it plain that we are saved by the righteousness of God, as revealed in Christ, and not by any supposed righteousness that dwells in us. (See for instance, Romans 3:21-22.) Faith is not that righteousness. Faith receives that righteousness of Jesus Christ "whom God put forward...to be received by faith." Romans 3:25.
So then, when faith is imputed to us for righteousness, it is specifically the righteousness of Christ which is laid to our account. It is as perfect, holy, and spotless as the Lord Himself.
For another thing, if faith equals righteousness, then Paul's entire argument is overturned here. Paul has already said that it is not the righteous man who is justified: it is rather the ungodly man who believes and trusts. But if faith equals righteousness, how can the man who has faith be called "ungodly?" Wouldn't you have to call him righteous, if faith is that righteousness?
If faith is righteousness, then what you have in justification is simply God rewarding righteousness with the wages it deserves. If faith is righteousness, then it deserves to be justified, you see, and so Paul's whole argument that justification is a gift of God's grace is turned on its head. (As in Romans 4:4, for instance.)
No, faith is not righteousness. Faith is that by which the righteousness of Christ is apprehended, or grasped.
So this is really the crux of the Gospel invitation. Recognize how stinkin' ungodly you are and trust in the One who justifies the ungodly, by imputing the righteousness of Christ to their account.
If you already know and believe all of this, tell me, why are you not rejoicing?
Rom. 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Rom. 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Rom. 4:9 ¶ Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Rom. 4:22 Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
I think we need to get a better understanding of faith and righteousness and how they relate to one another from the apostle Paul's perspective.
A few weeks ago I hit on this theme in our Bible study and then wrote a review a couple of days later. The following is basically what I said in my review notes but the phrasing is a little different.
Sometimes it helps to read from several different people and here is what the folks at "Reformed Mafia" write about "faith credited as righteousness."
"His faith is counted as righteousness." : The word "counted" there refers to imputation, and is often translated as "accounted." We really can think of this in terms of bookkeeping. It's all about what is laid to your account and what isn't. In the verses that follow this one, for instance, Paul shows from Psalms 32 that it's really not about whether you sin or not (since all have sinned--Romans 3:23,) but it's about what God chooses to record on your heavenly book, so to speak.
God justifies the ungodly by counting them righteous, or by imputing righteousness to their account. They are not actually righteous: they are ungodly, remember. But He calls them righteous, innocent, godly. Then, after this imputation, in which they are justified, He sets about the work of making them what He has called them (and this is referred to as "sanctification.")
Now, in my short time as a Southern Baptist pastor, I think I have detected a common misunderstanding here. The verse says the ungodly man's faith is counted as righteousness. So, from this, many have concluded that God has decided to equate faith and righteousness. Righteousness is faith, and vice versa. The theory is that God used to count law-keeping as righteousness, but when that didn't work out so well, He simply changed the rules in the middle of the game and has agreed to accept faith as if it was righteousness. So, then, if God looks upon a man who has faith, He says, "Ah, here is a righteous man."
Here is why this is wrong:
For one, it ignores the context of what has come before in this letter to the Romans. Specifically, it ignores the fact that Paul has previously made it plain that we are saved by the righteousness of God, as revealed in Christ, and not by any supposed righteousness that dwells in us. (See for instance, Romans 3:21-22.) Faith is not that righteousness. Faith receives that righteousness of Jesus Christ "whom God put forward...to be received by faith." Romans 3:25.
So then, when faith is imputed to us for righteousness, it is specifically the righteousness of Christ which is laid to our account. It is as perfect, holy, and spotless as the Lord Himself.
For another thing, if faith equals righteousness, then Paul's entire argument is overturned here. Paul has already said that it is not the righteous man who is justified: it is rather the ungodly man who believes and trusts. But if faith equals righteousness, how can the man who has faith be called "ungodly?" Wouldn't you have to call him righteous, if faith is that righteousness?
If faith is righteousness, then what you have in justification is simply God rewarding righteousness with the wages it deserves. If faith is righteousness, then it deserves to be justified, you see, and so Paul's whole argument that justification is a gift of God's grace is turned on its head. (As in Romans 4:4, for instance.)
No, faith is not righteousness. Faith is that by which the righteousness of Christ is apprehended, or grasped.
So this is really the crux of the Gospel invitation. Recognize how stinkin' ungodly you are and trust in the One who justifies the ungodly, by imputing the righteousness of Christ to their account.
If you already know and believe all of this, tell me, why are you not rejoicing?
A look at the husband-wife relationship
In serving as a pastor in a church start up for 4 years I was able to observe and engage with a variety of marriages and circumstances. It seems that in our westernized culture marriage and the roles between the husband and wife have become very blurred. The women tend to be vocal and dominant while the men are becoming increasingly passive. The elders in our church noticed and commented that in congregational meetings the women were the most outspoken and verbal. We only need look at the statistics within the evangelical church regarding marriage and we see that the divorce rate is at 50%.
Therefore the following article by Joshua A. Hitchcock which I recently read may provide some helpful insight on the husband-wife relationships!
The result of reversing the roles in the husband-wife relationship:
In this post I want to examine what actually caused the fall of man. Was it simply that Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit? I suggest that the answer is no. Obviously, God had commanded Adam not to ea of the fruit, and they disobeyed, and certainly that was a cause of the fall. But in the middle of the passage of the curses for the fall, we find Genesis 3:17.
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat from it": Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you wil eat of it all the days of your life."
Verse 18 and 19 continue the curses upon Adam, but I particularly want to exame verse 17. Verse 17 provides two reasons for the curse upon Adam.
1. Adam listened to the voice of his wife.
2. Adam ate from the forbidden tree, he disobeyed God's command.
Number 2 is readily observed. Adam was in rebellion to God's special revelation, God's revealed will. It is important to see that special revelation existed before the fall. General revelation would not reveal to Adam to not eat from the tree, rather God had a specific command to a specific person at a specific time, thus Adam was the recipient of special revelation, and he disobeyed. Certainly this is deserving of God's justice.
But let us examine number one. Why would is Adam being punished for listening to his wife? God is not suggesting that it is sinful for a husband to listen to his wife, because this would be absurd. Rather, I want to show that God has established a hierachy in the Bible, and the fall is an inversion, a reversal of this divine hierarchy.
Obviously, God in three persons is at the top. Next in line is humanity, being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28). Within humanity, Man is head of the woman. Genesis 2:18, though not explicit, implicity sets up this truth. The woman is a helper to Adam. Not an authority over Adam, but a helpmate. Woman is subordinate to man in this passage. Woman is made from man, thus man has dominion over the woman, being a part of him. Third, humanity has dominion over the Animal Kingdom (Genesis 1:28).
Within the Divine Hierarchy the God has established: God (Father --> Son --> Holy Spirit)
-->Humanity (Man --> Woman) --> Animals.
But notice whats going on in the fall: The Man is listening and submitting to the woman, doing what the woman says. The woman is submitting to the serpent (a member of the animal kingdom). It is no coincidence that that Satan disguised himself as a serpent, for he purposefully was seeking to distort what God has established.
The fall was caused, yes by disobedience to God's command, but also by a reversal of authority. This is why the apostle Paul commands believers to submit to governing authorities.
In our culture, this inverted hierarchy still exists. Evangelical Feminism seeks to continue the inversion of the fa,l. Believing woman to be authoritatively equal to man, evangelical feminism is simply listening to the lies of the serpent, rebelling against God's special revelation...the same thing happening at the fall.
At the fall Adam was just as guilty, if not more guilty, than Eve. Adam was suppose to be the representative of God has ruler over the woman and the animals. Yet Adam cowardly concedes his authority and gives it to the woman.
As believers, as we are being sanctified, recovering this hierarchy should be a serious priority. We do not need dictatorial men, but men who are godly examples of authority and women who willingly submit to their authority. We should all be in submission to God's special revelation, the word of God.
This is what caused the fall, this is what the problem is with our culture today. May we as believers seek to recover what God has established in and through Jesus Christ!
Therefore the following article by Joshua A. Hitchcock which I recently read may provide some helpful insight on the husband-wife relationships!
The result of reversing the roles in the husband-wife relationship:
In this post I want to examine what actually caused the fall of man. Was it simply that Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit? I suggest that the answer is no. Obviously, God had commanded Adam not to ea of the fruit, and they disobeyed, and certainly that was a cause of the fall. But in the middle of the passage of the curses for the fall, we find Genesis 3:17.
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat from it": Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you wil eat of it all the days of your life."
Verse 18 and 19 continue the curses upon Adam, but I particularly want to exame verse 17. Verse 17 provides two reasons for the curse upon Adam.
1. Adam listened to the voice of his wife.
2. Adam ate from the forbidden tree, he disobeyed God's command.
Number 2 is readily observed. Adam was in rebellion to God's special revelation, God's revealed will. It is important to see that special revelation existed before the fall. General revelation would not reveal to Adam to not eat from the tree, rather God had a specific command to a specific person at a specific time, thus Adam was the recipient of special revelation, and he disobeyed. Certainly this is deserving of God's justice.
But let us examine number one. Why would is Adam being punished for listening to his wife? God is not suggesting that it is sinful for a husband to listen to his wife, because this would be absurd. Rather, I want to show that God has established a hierachy in the Bible, and the fall is an inversion, a reversal of this divine hierarchy.
Obviously, God in three persons is at the top. Next in line is humanity, being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28). Within humanity, Man is head of the woman. Genesis 2:18, though not explicit, implicity sets up this truth. The woman is a helper to Adam. Not an authority over Adam, but a helpmate. Woman is subordinate to man in this passage. Woman is made from man, thus man has dominion over the woman, being a part of him. Third, humanity has dominion over the Animal Kingdom (Genesis 1:28).
Within the Divine Hierarchy the God has established: God (Father --> Son --> Holy Spirit)
-->Humanity (Man --> Woman) --> Animals.
But notice whats going on in the fall: The Man is listening and submitting to the woman, doing what the woman says. The woman is submitting to the serpent (a member of the animal kingdom). It is no coincidence that that Satan disguised himself as a serpent, for he purposefully was seeking to distort what God has established.
The fall was caused, yes by disobedience to God's command, but also by a reversal of authority. This is why the apostle Paul commands believers to submit to governing authorities.
In our culture, this inverted hierarchy still exists. Evangelical Feminism seeks to continue the inversion of the fa,l. Believing woman to be authoritatively equal to man, evangelical feminism is simply listening to the lies of the serpent, rebelling against God's special revelation...the same thing happening at the fall.
At the fall Adam was just as guilty, if not more guilty, than Eve. Adam was suppose to be the representative of God has ruler over the woman and the animals. Yet Adam cowardly concedes his authority and gives it to the woman.
As believers, as we are being sanctified, recovering this hierarchy should be a serious priority. We do not need dictatorial men, but men who are godly examples of authority and women who willingly submit to their authority. We should all be in submission to God's special revelation, the word of God.
This is what caused the fall, this is what the problem is with our culture today. May we as believers seek to recover what God has established in and through Jesus Christ!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
