A sign of the times

From Old Truth blog site:

There is such a "falling away" in the number of genuine conversions -- we say "genuine" conversions because there are multitudes of those who come forward to shake some popular preacher by the hand, multitudes of card-signers, [hand-raisers] etc., etc. Hence it is that there has been such a sad and such a wide-spread "falling away" from the old time family worship. Hence it is that we now witness such a lamentable "falling away" from the mid-week prayer-meeting. Hence it is that there is such an awful "falling away" from the observance of the Holy Sabbath. Hence it is that there is such a fearful "falling away" from the moral standards of former days. Hence it is that there is now such an ever-growing "falling away" from Sunday School attendance all over the land. Yes, the "falling away" has commenced and is already far advanced. - A.W. Pink

The "falling away" which characterizes our day was referred to by the apostle when he said, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they, heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:8). That time has arrived! Church-goers today will not endure "sound doctrine."

Those who preach the total depravity of man, who insist upon the imperative necessity of the new birth, who set forth the inflexible righteousness and holiness of God, and who warn against the Eternal and conscious torment awaiting every rejector of Christ, find it almost impossible to obtain a hearing.

Such preachers are regarded as puritanical pessimists, and are not wanted. In these degenerate times, the masses demand that which will soothe them in their sins and amuse them while they journey down the Broad Road. The multitude is affected with "itching ears" which crave novelty and that which is sensational.

They have ears which wish to be "tickled," ears which eagerly drink in the songs of professional and unsaved soloists and [bands], ears which are well pleased with the vulgar slang of our modern evangelists.

Great theology in hymns

This is a hymn by A.B. Simpson.

The words of these hymns contain such great theology. Read carefully and slowly and drink deeply from these lyrics.

Once it was the blessing, Now it is the Lord;
Once it was the feeling, Now it is His Word.
Once His gifts I wanted, Now the Giver own;
Once I sought for healing, Now Himself alone.

Once 'twas painful trying, Now 'tis perfect trust;
Once a half salvation, Now the uttermost.
Once 'twas ceaseless holding, Now He holds me fast;
Once 'twas constant drifting, Now my anchor's cast.

Once 'twas busy planning, Now 'tis trustful prayer;
Once 'twas anxious caring, Now He has the care.
Once 'twas what I wanted, Now what Jesus says;
Once 'twas constant asking, Now 'tis ceaseless praise.

Once it was my working, His it hence shall be;
Once I tried to use Him, Now He uses me.
Once the power I wanted, Now the Mighty One;
Once for self I labored, Now for Him alone.

Once I hoped in Jesus, Now I know He's mine;
Once my lamps were dying, Now they brightly shine.
Once for death I waited, Now His coming hail;
And my hopes are anchored, Safe within the vail.

Devotion time in 2 Samuel

Occasionally I will write a note to our men's Bible study group after a devotion time in God's word. I don't think they would mind me sharing this with you so I decided to put it on the blog site. I am no theologian or great Biblical scholar. My purpose is to encourage you to have a daily time in the Bible. Don't rush it and don't make it a task that you check off on your to do list. This needs to be a precious time of fellowship and private prayer and worship with you and God Himself. Most of you could not get a meeting with President George Bush but Jesus Christ is willing and able to meet with you anytime, both day and night. Does that not bring you to some level of thankfulness and praise? I hope this devotion sharing will encourage you in your ongoing walk with our Lord Jesus.

This morning my devotion time was in 2 Samuel Chapters 11-14. It is the section of Scripture that deals with David's wrongdoing, Nathan's rebuke and then David's regret.
What more could King David have had a the time of his tremendous fall into sin:
- He had material wealth
- He had the best credentials as a military commander
- He was socially successful
- He had future prosperity
- In essence King David had it all

But what was on the outside does not always reflect what is happening on the inside. There was a steady erosion in the heart of King David in his ability to withstand temptation. And then one fateful day he found himself viewing a beautiful women that was bathing, instead of being on the battlefield with his men which is where he belonged. Isn't that the message of sin in our lives? It takes us to the wrong place, at the wrong time and encourages us to do the wrong things. Guys this was King David the man who is described in the Bible as one who was after the heart of God.

There is a lesson here for each of us. Where is spiritual erosion taking place in our lives? Where are we setting ourselves up for future heartaches by ignoring the warning signs from God? What tragedy could happen to me or to you by taking our eyes squarely off of God? Shouldn't someone have been around King David to speak truth into his life? If you read the story you see that God provided the prophet Nathan to speak truth in his life after these events. Which side of that would you rather be on, the speak truth to me before it happens or proclaim the word of God to me after it happens?

convicted by His word,

Miracle water to shot glasses

After scoping the internet it just seems that ministry today ranges from miracle water to shot glasses. Believe it or not the fakes and the foolish still occupy much of what people see when they think about religion. So with that in mind I put together a hybrid video that could be a mission statement for those that think church should shake and bake, sell and tell, rock and roll, move and groove, slam and jam, bring and brag, and wheel and deal. It's all here in this new video called "From miracle water to shot glass ministry."

Church marketing at its flat out worst

It is sad to see how the "Emergent" Church types are having to copy their marketing techniques from each another. In the past week I have come across several supposedly unique church marketing strategies that are just recycled gimmicks. Here is one from Flipside Church located in California and pretty soon you will see "shot glass" ministry in Charlotte. What? Really? Could it already be that a church in Charlotte has actually been creative enough to copy it and pull it off as a recycled gimmick?
What will be next the next church marketing technique, going to the local porn shop and putting a bulletin into the videos and magazines?

Stay tuned for more details...

Dedicated to our troops

The holiness of God

I was reading, meditating and praying over my devotion today which was in 2 Samuel Chapters 5-7. In 2 Samuel Chapter 6 we read the story of David and all the people of the Lord dancing, singing and celebrating. And two verses later Uzzah sticks out his hand to keep the Ark of God steady and the anger of the Lord blazed forth and struck him dead. Just let the scene play out in the video camera of your mind before we move on. Do we understand the importance when it comes to the holiness of God? Have you ever followed up on the cross references in this particular story? Well, if you are reading in a study Bible there should be a cross reference that takes you to Numbers 7:4-9 and then Numbers 4:5-15. By reading the cross reference you come to understand that God told Moses "who" was to carry the sacred objects of the Tabernacle and "how" they were to be carried. When God gives instructions He expects them to be followed out exactly as He has given them.

Can you think of any other Old Testament narratives that display the holiness of God in this way?
Leviticus 10:1-3 is the story of Aaron's two sons who were stuck down by fire from God because they offered a strange first before the Lord in relation to the incense.

How about in 1 Samuel 6:19 when the Ark of the Covenant came back to Israel on the back of a cow. Apparently the Israelites decided to take a look and in the NASB translation is says that over 50,000 men were killed by God.

What the message? God's holiness is to be honored, praised and exalted and it must not ever be tainted, besmirched or trampled. Have you ever caused harm to the holiness of God with your thoughts, speech or actions? Why did He allow you to live? Isn't the only correct Biblical answer to that question because of His mercy and grace? Do you have a fear of God to the point that you tremble in view of offending His holiness? We American Christians have become so encapsulated within this sinful and evil culture that we don't have a proper fear of God. This doesn't mean a cowering fear as if God was an abusive Father, but a fear in reverence of His greatness, and His glory.

So is this just the God of the Old Testament? You should know better than that just look at Acts 5 and the story of Ananias and Sapphira. They according to Peter lied to the Holy Spirit about the sale of their property and God struck them both dead.

Keep reading and go to Acts 12 and the story of Herod the king. He received glory from the people that should have gone to God and God struck him with worms that ate him from the inside out and he died 3 days later.

Is the church today preparing the people of God in the importance of holiness training? It seems that we are much more concerned about how we can relate, appease and appeal to the culture. There is little concern about holiness when you compare the stats of those who aren't Christian as opposed to those who say they are Christians.

Do you know what the disconnect is in the church? We have abandoned the intense and ongoing training in the doctrine of God. Many American Christians have an imaginary picture of the God they would like instead of the God of the Bible. I personally have seen in my last 4 years of intense pastoral ministry the need for people to know the God of the Scriptures. In several sermon series, one on the Trinity and the other on the sovereignty of God a number of people commented how they never knew these things or ever studied them.

It is time for the church to get back to the basics of the God of the Bible. I have done this in the past several years but ask the average Christian to give the following definitions regarding the following attributes of God:
1. Sovereignty
2. Immutability
3. Holiness
4. Glory
5. Omniscience
6. Omnipotence
7. Omnipresence
8. Grace
9. Mercy
10. Wrath
11. Justice
12. Love

In conclusion, I must say that the devotion today in 2 Samuel brought me to a sense of God holiness in a powerful way. There are many examples of His justice and I remain on planet earth today as an example of His great mercy. I pray that these kind of devotion times continue to bring me to my knees in thankful exaltation of my great God!

Therefore when we take on a subject like in this blog that is related to the holiness of God there is an overall lack of understanding and study on this subject.

The church needs this kind of preaching!

I appeal to you in the strongest way possible to take the time necessary and listen to this message. You may have never heard the gospel presented in such a strong and straight forward manner but it is God honoring, Christ exalting and Holy Spirit empowered. We don't understand the word salvation in the church today. The phrase "born again" is thrown around in such a casual manner. Well grab a notebook and a cup of coffee and meet brother Paul Washer (seat belts and crash helmets not included). It takes about 13 seconds for the video to start. Preach it, brother Paul!

Conversion focused or Christ focused?

From the OldTruth blog site;

If you've been around Old Truth long enough, you know that unsubstantiated convert counting is something that I'm passionate about, in a negative sense. First of all, only God knows the real numbers and we could be way off when we count microwavable 'decisions'. Usually the same people who are so geared-up to rebuke anyone for saying that some deviant bible teacher is NOT saved, all too often make the same category mistake by assuming someone IS saved when they really have no idea whether they are or not. Secondly, it too often leads to boasting and assuming that our own methodologies are the reason for people being born again, rather than it being 100% the work of the Holy Spirit. Those are just a couple of reasons why this "counting of unhatched chickens" is wrong. Let's take a look at a few examples of it in action, from yesterday's Easter services.

As always, this isn't intended to impugn the motives of these churches and their leaders, I understand that they are doing what they think is the most effective thing to win souls. Unfortunately, their practices lead many of their followers into a false sense of security about an assumed-salvation which they afterward stop seeing an urgency for. I happen to know that several of these pastors have read what I have to say about these practices of theirs, and they have chosen to simply blow it off as the criticism of a Pharisee without the careful sober consideration that the bible calls for from men in their positions. That's very sad when that happens.

I think you'll also notice that many of these church leaders have established their own unofficial "denomination" of sorts, which is evident in the obvious franchising of each other's ideas. Just one tiny example: Perry Noble preached part of a sermon from within a coffin a while ago, and not long afterwards Pastor Bryson Butts from another church copied the idea and did the same. Some of the first words out of Bryson's mouth, from within the coffin, were the same as Perry's: "WHAAAAZZUP?" (followed by a laugh from the audience).

This year for Easter the thing to do within this unofficial denomination was an Easter Egg drop from a Helicopter. But even more than me demonstrating how little innovative and independent thought there is in the Church Growth Movement today, what I really want to demonstrate in this post is some of the dangerous convert counting that goes on, and in fact - went on over Easter Sunday. Here are some examples from their pastor-blogs:

Michael at Oak Leaf Church said "It was awesome to see hundreds of people come down front and write their name on a giant cross, affirming their allegiance to Jesus Christ." Is he saying that signing your name to a cross makes you born again? Even if he doesn't think so, how many of those who came forward went home thinking so? Apparently he doesn't believe that swearing allegiance or signing your name to a cross makes you saved, because elsewhere on the same page he says that he had prayed for 50 salvations but God gave him 60 instead. And there is the crux of my main point; how does he know, later that very same night, that God gave him 60 salvations? Shouldn't he give it a while, and see if those 60 end up sticking around? Incidentally, Michael did the easter egg drop, and next week he's starting a "I Love the 80's" sermon series just like the Def Leopard t-shirted Steven Furtick preached a few months ago at his church.

Gary Lamb at Revolution Church had his own egg drop and just like Michael gave his attendance stats including "around 20 people accepted Christ as their personal Savior!!!". Once again - we are given a convert count, right away on Sunday night. Gary also says of their worship service: the band was "insane" and they had "a ton of new moving lights today and [they] were awesome".

Perry Noble at Newspring says that 120 prayed to receive Christ at his Easter services. But we've seen Perry claim numbers like this before after preaching sermons that never even talked about repentance. Did he present a full evangelistic message this time? I suppose you could wait a couple of days until the the video of his service is online and listen for things like "repentance" to be mentioned. But my main point again is: Someone passes from death unto life, for all of eternity, and you are sure that the prayer that you had them pray was reason enough to assume that it has happened? For exactly 120 people? And you know right away that this is the case? Apparently their band also played a "death metal version of the classic hit, Here Comes Peter Cottontail!". Perhaps that's worth watching the video for right there. Tony Morgan works for Perry and has published some of the Easter Perryisms that came from the sermon including "Jesus is a man's man. He's the ultimate fighter".

Tadd Grandstaff is a former pastor under Gary Lamb and now has his own start-up church. Amongst his various numeric statistics he mentions the 11 people that "made decisions for Christ".

Steven Furtick of Elevation Church has never been known as one who will disappoint you if salvation statistics are what you want to see. For this weekend he says "over 500 people accepted Christ as Savior" and those 500 people "placed their faith in Christ". Does he really know what's in their heart, and what they placed their faith in? He says that 4,800 attended his services, so that means over 10 percent of his church-goers got saved yesterday. Likewise they planned a massive airborne Easter egg drop.

Danny Echol's church had eggs dropping from the sky too, so did Bryson Butts (the pastor who earlier preached in a coffin after seeing Perry do it) who says tons of people made first time commitments to Christ. Granger gave everyone in the crowd a chem light and then made them sit in the dark (perhaps that qualifies as innovative and "original thought" at least).

I couldn't help but highlight some of the pseudo-denominational copy-catting that goes on in these churches that are supposed to be known for their own innovative thought, but that was really not my main point. They can copy each other's clothes, and download each other's sermons, and borrow each other's stage sets as much as they want, but all of that is a lesser issue than the concerns I've expressed on this page, and elsewhere here on Old Truth about convert counting. It's a practice that Charles Spurgeon called "a counting of unhatched chickens", and it's a practice that the Puritans would have said is a detriment to the soul. Such was the case with Matthew Mead's classic book entitled "The Almost Christian Discovered" which asks of you "are you ALMOST a Christian, but not really?". Let each man test his faith, and count the costs, and be made sure what exactly it is we are being saved from. Unfortunately today, that happens all too infrequently, and herein the church needs to be "always reforming" because it is clearly off the rails in this regard, and statistics reveal a harvest that is mostly rotten.

If you are a pastor or church member questioning these things, I invite you to watch the two videos on this page. Then introduce yourself in the comments below and join with us in a discussion. Don't make the mistake however, of assuming that this page is written by someone who is anti-evangelistic, or doesn't want to see as many souls saved as you do. If that's your thinking, you couldn't be more wrong.

When culture becomes king

This is not a new subject. It plays out like this, same song second verse it's not getting better and it will probably get worse. Why? Because culture invades and continues to influence the church and it should be the church that is influencing the culture. The culture has said you need to be more like us if you want us to attend. And so we in the church give them media driven, entertainment driven and consumer driven worship. It called "conference" church or "buffet" church, pick out what you like and consume.

Forget teaching on the holiness of God, or the wrath of God, or the sovereignty of God because someone might get offended and leave. Instead no one is convicted and they stay and that is worse. The culture demands a love affair with self and it endorses and pays homage to TV shows like American Idol. We so relate to American Idol at the large cultural level because it is how most Americans think and feel on the individual level. I want to be the center of attention and all applause, have lots of money and live my life, under my terms, my way!

The real Christian life means that nothing here on planet earth is as valuable to you as the Lord Jesus. This is the "it's not about me" and all about Him life! Plain and simple you demand nothing and yet receive everything in order that Christ might be demonstrated as great. It's the most valuable prize a person can obtain and yet they can't purchase it but can only receive it. The culture doesn't want it and those who love the Lord can't get enough of it. It is a knowing, loving God and serving others in such a way that when others see you, they see Christ. It is being what you have already become, righteous in Christ. But when the culture becomes king of the heart instead of the Lord Jesus then we start to get more and more of the things we serve. And pretty soon we start to think, speak and act so much like the culture that we can no longer be distinguished from it. We spend our money on the same things, our eyes watch and read the same things, when you hear us talk we basically talk about the same things.

Have you been culture saturated to the point that you are lukewarm for the things of God?

Is your passion growing for the word of God in your own private devotions?

Is your prayer life invigorated with God honoring, Christ exalting and Holy Spirit empowered supplications?

Are you part of a community of intimate fellowship that is growing out of an affection for the Lord Jesus?

Is is possible that you are being lulled to sleep by the disease of mediocrity when it comes to your spiritual life?

May I urge you to wake up, be alert and place the Lord Jesus back on the throne of your heart where He belongs. And may we as the church start experiencing real joy, which is the flag that flies over the castle of the heart when the "real" King is in residence!

Just Give Me Jesus

Anne Graham Lotz

Happy Easter!

Question: What Day do we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?



Answer: Every Day. Happy Easter.

He is risen, He is risen indeed

This is Easter Sunday and Christians all over the world will be celebrating the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Do we know why this is so important? Read what the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:17 - and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. The resurrection of the Lord Jesus was the reward of His sacrifice. Therefore He sat down at the right hand of the Father. The resurrection was the Father's reward for the complete and finished work of Christ on the cross. If Christ had not been raised then the sacrifice would have been deficient and we would still have to carry our condemnation, judgment and guilt not only now but into eternity. The message of Easter is found several verses later in 1 Corinthians 15:20 - "but Christ has been raised." And we as Christians can celebrate knowing that the life He lived qualified Him for the death that He died, but the death that He died and His marvelous resurrection qualify us to live the life NOW and Forever that He lived then.
Therefore would you say with me this morning: HE IS RISEN, HE IS RISEN INDEED!

Jesus is the King-Do you know Him?

The emergent church speaks...

What is Oprah teaching about Easter?

Check out this from the Herescope blog site;

During this Easter week, it is important to understand what Oprah Winfrey, Marianne Williamson and Eckhart Tolle are teaching about Jesus Christ and Easter.

This week and daily throughout this whole year, Oprah has enlisted Marianne Williamson to teach from the A Course in Miracles, on her Oprah & Friends XM Satellite Radio. A Course in Miracles is reputedly "new revelation" that was channeled from a "Jesus" through a New York psychologist by the name of Helen Schucman.

Oprah is also in the midst of a ten-week New Age Internet class that she is co-teaching with "spiritual teacher" Eckhart Tolle, which is based on his new book The New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose (Plume, 2006). According to Tolle, Jesus' teaching of "salvation" means "a radical transformation of human consciousness" (p. 13) and the process of "rebirth" is "reincarnation." (p. 252)

The "Jesus" of A Course in Miracles teaches the following things about the Easter story:

"This is Palm Sunday, the celebration of victory and the acceptance of the truth. Let us not spend this holy week brooding on the crucifixion of God's Son, but happily in the celebration of his release. For Easter is the sign of peace, not pain. A slain Christ has no meaning." (ACIM Text, p. 425)

"In you the knowledge lies, ready to be unveiled and free from all the terror that kept it hidden. There is no fear in love. The song of Easter is the glad refrain the Son of God was never crucified. Let us lift up our eyes together, not in fear but in faith." (ACIM Text, p. 428)

"The crucifixion did not establish the atonement; the resurrection did. Many sincere Christians have misunderstood this." (ACIM Text, p. 36)

"For the undoing of the crucifixion of God's Son is the work of redemption, in which everyone has a part of equal value." (ACIM Text, p. 209)

"Sacrifice is a notion totally unknown to God. It arises solely from fear, and frightened people can be vicious." (ACIM Text, p. 37)

"The journey to the cross should be the last 'useless journey.'" (ACIM Text, p. 52)

"Do not make the pathetic error of 'clinging to the old rugged cross.'" (ACIM Text, p. 52)

"The Atonement is the final lesson he [man] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation." (ACIM Text, p. 237) [all emphasis added]

This is not what Easter is about. This is not what salvation is.

"The Basin and the Towel"-Michael Card

Christ's intentional death for us

As Easter Sunday approaches we consider the life, death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus. There would have been no resurrection had He not died. And therefore in this article by Dr. John Piper we read five ways that the death of Jesus was intentional for us.
First, look at what Jesus said just after that violent moment when Peter tried to cleave the skull of the servant, but only cut off his ear.

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” (Matthew 26:52-54)

It is one thing to say that the details of Jesus’ death were predicted in the Old Testament. But it is much more to say that Jesus himself was making his choices precisely to see to it that the Scriptures would be fulfilled.

That is what Jesus said he was doing in Matthew 26:54. “I could escape this misery, but how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” I am not choosing to take the way out that I could take because I know the Scriptures. I know what must take place. It is my choice to fulfill all that is predicted of me in the Word of God.

A second way this intentionality is seen is in the repeated expressions to go to Jerusalem—into the very jaws of the lion.

Taking the twelve again, he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.” (Mark 10:32-34)

Jesus had one all-controlling goal: to die according the Scriptures. He knew when the time was near and set his face like flint: “When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51).

A third way that we see the intentionality of Jesus to suffer for us is in the words he spoke in the mouth of Isaiah the prophet:

I gave my back to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pull out the beard;
I hid not my face from disgrace and spitting. (Isaiah 50:6)

I have to work hard in my imagination to keep before me what iron will this required. Humans recoil from suffering. We recoil a hundred times more from suffering that is caused by unjust, ugly, sniveling, low-down, arrogant people. At every moment of pain and indignity, Jesus chose not to do what would have been immediately just. He gave his back to the smiter. He gave his cheek to slapping. He gave his beard to plucking. He offered his face to spitting. And he was doing it for the very ones causing the pain.

A fourth way we see the intentionality of Jesus’ suffering is in the way Peter explains how this was possible. He said, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23).

The way Jesus handled the injustice of it all was not by saying, “Injustice doesn’t matter,” but by entrusting his cause to “him who judges justly.” God would see that justice is done. That was not Jesus’ calling at Calvary. (Nor is it our highest calling now. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord, Romans 12:19.)

The fifth and perhaps the clearest statement that Jesus makes about his own intentionality to die is in John 10:17-18:

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.

Jesus’ point in these words is that he is acting completely voluntarily. He is under no constraint from any mere human. Circumstances have not overtaken him. He is not being swept along in the injustice of the moment. He is in control.

Therefore, when John says, “By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16), we should feel the intensity of his love for us to the degree that we see his intentionality to suffer and die. I pray that you will feel it profoundly. And may that profound experience of being loved by Christ have this effect on you:

The love of Christ controls us . . . . He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)

Ruthie "the frisbee chasing" lab

About 3 years ago we went to Hickory, NC and picked out a silver lab. Nancy and I had never heard of silver labs but on that day we fell in love with Ruthie. Here she is in December 2007 doing what she does best - "retrieving whatever I throw."

Apart from Jesus you can do nothing

An article by Dan Phillips
When we read John 6, sometimes we tend to race down to verse 44. But let's slow up a bit and not rush by this:

Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd was coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, "Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?" 6 He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. (John 6:5-6)

On one level, I think we can look at this as a charming little story: dumb disciple, amazing Lord, big miracle. Cool! Jesus is great and powerful. Can we do verse 44 now?

When we read it that way, we feel no connection whatever between ourselves and the story itself. Which one of us has ever been in this situation? None of us. We've never been physically standing with Jesus, in immediate communication with Him; never been faced with a huge obstacle, and had Him verbally ask us, one-on-one, what we propose to do about it. Never. Huge gap between the Then and the Now, the There and the Here.

So let's step 'way back and paint the situation with a very broad brush:

1. A disciple is pursuing God's will
2. Providence puts a difficulty on his plate
3. The difficulty is insurmountable
4. He must make a decision
   

When we put it that way, the gap 'twixt it and us rather narrows, doesn't it?

"Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?", Jesus asks.

Today, we'd say reverently that Jesus' question was a trick-question. Not deceptive or insincere; but effective on two levels. Jesus means to teach Philip something, and He has to put him in a test-spot to do it. So Jesus in effect takes Himself out of the lead, approaches Philip as if He were observing the situation (instead of controlling it), and makes Philip deal with it.

Now, has that ever happened to us? "In the last five minutes, no," you say. "But before that, oh, about a zillion times."

Indeed yes. We're not pursuing sin in a brothel, or selling our souls to land a book-contract to peddle heresy, or waiting to rob a liquor store. We're doing something within God's will — preaching the Word, raising our children, loving our wives, doing our jobs. And then Providence drops a knotty dilemma on our plate, with no divine answer in sight.

"What are you going to do about this?", comes the question. How do we field it? Do we panic, because the train is clearly off the tracks? Do we lose all hope, all faith? Do we approach the situation as if we were indeed facing it alone, as it seems to the naked eye?

Well, look: if it weren't hard, it wouldn't be a test, would it? Do you build muscles by hefting a piece of typing paper, or by groaning over something that taxes your strength?

Nor do we grow as disciples by easy-answer situations. We grow by dealing with dilemmas, insolubles, dead-ends.

Are there promises of God's goodness, His kindness, His sovereignty, His invincible benevolence towards His elect? Is He panicked? Has He already made provision, in His eternal plan? Is there not, even in this "trick" question, a subtle hint: "Where are we to buy bread?" Philip isn't actually alone in the situation. Will he deal with it as if he were, or will he factor Jesus into the solution?

And so, in our situation: has God granted to us exceedingly great and precious promises to hold onto?

Now's the time to reach for them. The hopelessness of the situation is the illusion; the promises are the reality.

This dilemma that Providence has posed — it's a trick-question.

Careful how you answer.

Thinking through your theology

My devotion time this morning was in 1 Samuel Chapters 13-15. I am presently using the "Daily Walk Bible" and am reading in the New Living Translation.
So far in 1 Samuel we have seen how God revealed to Samuel that He ordained that Saul be king of Israel. Here is what the Scriptures says in 1 Samuel 9 verse 27 "...After the servant was gone, Samuel said, "Stay here, for I have received a special message for you from God." Then it Chapter 10 this continues "Then Samuel took a flask of olive oil and poured it over Saul's head. He kissed Saul on the cheek and said, "I am doing this because the LORD has appointed you to be the leader of His people Israel."
When I read that statement I paused to reflect on several other statements in the Bible that have to do with the "sovereignty of God."

Psalm 115:3 - But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.

Psa. 33:10 - The LORD nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples.
Psa. 33:11 - The counsel of the LORD stands forever,The plans of His heart from generation to generation.

Isaiah 46:9-10 - “Remember the former things long past,For I am God, and there is no other;I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done,Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

There are many other verses that could be brought to bear but just meditate on those we have listed above. If God is really sovereign (and I believe with all my heart that is true) then it means that He can do anything that pleases Himself and nothing can frustrate that purpose.
Now bring that theology along with you as you read 1 Samuel Chapters 13-15. In 1 Samuel Chapter 15 both in verse 10-11 and 35 you have the following statements.
1Sam. 15:10 ¶ Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying,
1Sam. 15:11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night.
1Sam. 15:35 Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.

Now put on your thinking cap and bring along your theology on the "sovereignty of God." Ask the following question, which is a necessary question and one that has a most remarkable answer.

Allow me to paraphrase what God said about Saul in verses 11 and 35. God says "I am sorry that I ever made Saul king." Hmmm....did you catch that statement? If God knows the beginning from the end and He ordains that which happens due to the fact that He is sovereign, then how can God be sorry about something that He ordained? Does that give you a brain cramp? Is that too much for the cranium to process? I think I can provide some help for you if you will remain somewhat open minded.

There are two lens for lack of a better illustration that I believe God has when looking at the world. The narrow lens sees the grief, sorrow and tragedy of Saul's disobedience. And in that narrow lens God is very sorrow that He has made Saul the king of Israel. But now go to the wide angle lens that God is also able to see the world. Even though He is sorry in the narrow lens this sorrow has a bigger and better purpose in that now King David is going to arrive on the scene. Doesn't that make sense? God has a way of ordaining His own displeasure.

Brothers and sisters doesn't it say in Isaiah 55 that His way and His thoughts are higher than ours? I bow before the sovereignty of God who is able to accomplish all things for His own good and pleasing will. And I will not tell the God of the universe how He can do it because He is God. If we would just take the text and understand what the author meant by what he wrote it will save us much grief and heart ache. According to 1 Samuel Chapter 15 a sovereign God is able to be sorry for what He ordained to happen even before the very foundations of the earth. Hopefully the Spirit will give you an illumination on these precious things so that your response can be to bow down and worship our great God!

Are there two wills of God?

If you are working and wrestling through doctrine in the Bible then I highly recommend this book by Dr. Bruce Ware and Thomas Schreiner.

One of the best chapters in the book concerns the question of the two wills of God. Think about this for a minute. 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. But since we know that all men aren't saved then how can we interpret this verse? It should be obvious from this verse that God desires something that He does not do. Is that hard for your brain to absorb? Could it be that God does in fact have a sovereign will that is hidden from us and a revealed will that is made available to us through His word. And sometimes He ordains that which is in fact in opposition to His revealed will. The best explanation I have read on this subject is by Dr. John Piper and I have posted the article in hopes that some will read it, study it and take notes on it. This is not easy reading but it will yield treasure for you in the understanding of the Scriptures.

So here is the chapter in full - PLEASE READ SLOWLY AND TAKE TIME TO STUDY
My aim here is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all persons to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people, and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.
1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, and Ezekiel 18:23 might be called the Arminian pillar texts concerning the universal saving will of God. In 1 Timothy 2:1-4 Paul says that the reason we should pray for kings and all in high positions is that this may bring about a quiet and peaceable life which "is good, and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills (thelei) all persons to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." In 2 Peter 3:8-9 the apostle says that the delay of the second coming of Christ is owing to the fact that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not willing (boulomenos) that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." And in Ezekiel 18:23 and 32 the Lord speaks about his heart for the perishing: "Do I indeed delight in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather in his turning from his way that he might live? . . . I do not delight ()ehephoz) in the death of the one who dies, says the Lord; so turn and live" (cf. 33:11).

It is possible that careful exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:4 would lead us to believe that "God's willing all persons to be saved" does not refer to every individual person in the world, but rather to all sorts of persons, since the "all persons" in verse 1 may well mean groups like "kings and all in high positions" (v. 2). It is also possible that the "you" in 2 Peter 3:9 ("the Lord is longsuffering toward you, not wishing any to perish") refers not to every person in the world but to "you" professing Christians among whom, as Adolf Schlatter says, "are people who only through repentance can attain to the grace of God and to the promised inheritance."

Nevertheless the case for this limitation on God's universal saving will has never been convincing to Arminians and likely will not become convincing, especially since Ezekiel 18:23, 32 and 33:11 are even less tolerant of restriction. Therefore as a hearty believer in unconditional, individual election I rejoice to affirm that God does not delight in the perishing of the impenitent, and that he has compassion on all people. My aim is to show that this is not double talk.

The assignment in this chapter is not to defend the doctrine that God chooses unconditionally whom he will save. I have tried to do that elsewhere and others do it in this book. Nevertheless I will try to make a credible case that while the Arminian pillar texts may indeed be pillars for universal love, nevertheless they are not weapons against unconditional election. If I succeed then there will be an indirect confirmation for the thesis of this book. In fact I think Arminians have erred in trying to take pillars of universal love and make them into weapons against electing grace.

Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least "two wills" in God, or two ways of willing. It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass. This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.

Clark Pinnock refers disapprovingly to "the exceedingly paradoxical notion of two divine wills regarding salvation." In Pinnock's more recent volume (A Case for Arminianism) Randall Basinger argues that, "if God has decreed all events, then it must be that things cannot and should not be any different from what they are." In other words he rejects the notion that God could decree that a thing be one way and yet teach that we should act to make it another way. He says that it is too hard "to coherently conceive of a God in which this distinction really exists"

In the same volume Fritz Guy argues that the revelation of God in Christ has brought about a "paradigm shift" in the way we should think about the love of God—namely as "more fundamental than, and prior to, justice and power." This shift, he says, makes it possible to think about the "will of God" as "delighting more than deciding." God's will is not his sovereign purpose which he infallibly establishes, but rather "the desire of the lover for the beloved." The will of God is his general intention and longing, not his effective purpose. Dr. Guy goes so far as to say, "Apart from a predestinarian presupposition, it becomes apparent that God's 'will' is always (sic) to be understood in terms of intention and desire [as opposed to efficacious, sovereign purpose]."

These criticisms are not new. Jonathan Edwards wrote 250 years ago, "The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the distinction between the decree and the law of God; because we say he may decree one thing, and command another. And so, they argue, we hold a contrariety in God, as if one will of his contradicted another."

But in spite of these criticisms the distinction stands, not because of a logical or theological deduction, but because it is inescapable in the Scriptures. The most careful exegete writing in Pinnock's Case for Arminianism concedes the existence of two wills in God. I. Howard Marshall applies his exegetical gift to the Pastoral Epistles. Concerning 1 Timothy 2:4 he says,

To avoid all misconceptions it should be made clear at the outset that the fact that God wishes or wills that all people should be saved does not necessarily imply that all will respond to the gospel and be saved. We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and both of these things can be spoken of as God's will. The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe.

In this chapter I would now like to undergird Marshall's point that "we must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen, and [that] both of these things can be spoken of as God's will." Perhaps the most effective way to do this is to begin by drawing attention to the way Scripture portrays God willing something in one sense which he disapproves in another sense. Then, after seeing some of the biblical evidence, we can step back and ponder how to understand this in relation to God's saving purposes.

Illustrations of Two Wills in God

The Death of Christ
The most compelling example of God's willing for sin to come to pass while at the same time disapproving the sin is his willing the death of his perfect, divine Son. The betrayal of Jesus by Judas was a morally evil act inspired immediately by Satan (Luke 22:3). Yet in Acts 2:23 Luke says, "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan (boule) and foreknowledge of God." The betrayal was sin, and it involved the instrumentality of Satan; but it was part of God's ordained plan. That is, there is a sense in which God willed the delivering up of his Son, even though the act was sin.

Moreover Herod's contempt for Jesus (Luke 23:11) and Pilate's spineless expediency (Luke 23:24) and the Jews' "Crucify! Crucify him!" (Luke 23:21) and the Gentile soldiers' mockery (Luke 23:36) were also sinful attitudes and deeds. Yet in Acts 4:27-28 Luke expresses his understanding of the sovereignty of God in these acts by recording the prayer of the Jerusalem saints:

Truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel to do whatever thy hand and thy plan (boule) had predestined to take place.

Herod, Pilate, the soldiers and Jewish crowds lifted their hand to rebel against the Most High only to find that their rebellion was unwitting (sinful) service in the inscrutable designs of God.

The appalling death of Christ was the will and work of God the Father. Isaiah wrote, "We esteemed him stricken, smitten by God . . . It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief" (Isaiah 53:4,10). God's will was very much engaged in the events that brought his Son to death on the cross. God considered it "fitting to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings" (Hebrews 2:10). Yet, as Jonathan Edwards points out, Christ's suffering "could not come to pass but by sin. For contempt and disgrace was one thing he was to suffer."

It goes almost without saying that God wills obedience to his moral law, and that he wills this in a way that can be rejected by many. This is evident from numerous texts: "Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will (thelema) of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, he is my brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50). "The one who does the will of God abides forever" (1 John 2:17). The "will of God" in these texts is the revealed, moral instruction of the Old and New Testaments, which proscribes sin.

Therefore we know it was not the "will of God" that Judas and Pilate and Herod and the Gentile soldiers and the Jewish crowds disobey the moral law of God by sinning in delivering Jesus up to be crucified. But we also know that it was the will of God that this come to pass. Therefore we know that God in some sense wills what he does not will in another sense. I. Howard Marshall's statement is confirmed by the death of Jesus: "We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen."

The War Against the Lamb
There are two reasons that we turn next to Revelation 17:16-17. One is that the war against the Son of God, which reached its sinful climax at the cross comes to final consummation in a way that confirms what we have seen about the will of God. The other reason is that this text reveals John's understanding of God's active involvement in fulfilling prophecies whose fulfillment involves sinning. John sees a vision of some final events of history:

And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the harlot; they will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and giving over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled (Revelation 17:16-17).

Without going into all the details of this passage, the relevant matter is clear. The beast "comes out of the abyss" (Revelation 17:8). He is the personification of evil and rebellion against God. The ten horns are ten kings (v. 12) and they "wage war against the Lamb" (v. 14).

Waging war against the Lamb is sin and sin is contrary to the will of God. Nevertheless the angel says (literally), "God gave into their [the ten kings'] hearts to do his will, and to perform one will, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled" (v. 17). Therefore God willed (in one sense) to influence the hearts of the ten kings so that they would do what is against his will (in another sense).

Moreover God did this in fulfillment of prophetic words. The ten kings will collaborate with the beast "until the words of God shall be fulfilled" (v. 17). This implies something crucial about John's understanding of the fulfillment of "the prophesies leading up to the overthrow of Antichrist." It implies that (at least in John's view) God's prophecies are not mere predictions which God knows will happen, but rather are divine intentions which he makes sure will happen. We know this because verse 17 says that God is acting to see to it that the ten kings make league with the beast "until the words of God shall be fulfilled." John is exulting not in the marvelous foreknowledge of God to predict a bad event. Rather he is exulting in the marvelous sovereignty of God to make sure that the bad event comes about. Fulfilled prophecy, in John's mind, is not only prediction, but also promised performance.

This is important because John tells us in his Gospel that there are Old Testament prophecies of events surrounding the death of Christ that involve sin. This means that God intends to bring about events that involve things he forbids. These events include Judas' betrayal of Jesus (John 13:18; Psalm 41:9), the hatred Jesus received from his enemies (John 15:25; Psalm 69:4; 35:19), the casting of lots for Jesus' clothing (John 19:24; Psalm 22:18), and the piercing of Jesus' side (John 19:36-37; Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). John expresses his theology of God's sovereignty with the words, "These things happened in order that the scripture be fulfilled." In other words the events were not a coincidence that God merely foresaw, but a plan which God purposed to bring about. Thus again we find the words of I. Howard Marshall confirmed: "We must certainly distinguish between what God would like to see happen and what he actually does will to happen."

The Hardening Work of God
Another evidence to demonstrate God's willing a state of affairs in one sense that he disapproves in another sense is the testimony of Scripture that God wills to harden some men's hearts so that they become obstinate in sinful behavior which God disapproves.

The most well known example is the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. In Exodus 8:1 the Lord says to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD, "Let my people go, that they may serve me."'" In other words God's command, that is, his will, is that Pharaoh let the Israelites go. Nevertheless from the start he also willed that Pharaoh not let the Israelites go. In Exodus 4:21 God says to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in your hand; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go." At one point Pharaoh himself acknowledges that his unwillingness to let the people go is sin: "Now therefore forgive, I pray, my sin" (Exodus 10:17). Thus what we see is that God commands that Pharaoh do a thing which God himself wills not to allow. The good thing that God commands he prevents. And the thing he brings about involves sin.

Some have tried to avoid this implication by pointing out that during the first five plagues the text does not say explicitly that God hardened Pharaoh's heart but that it "was hardened" (Exodus 7:22; 8:19; 9:7) or that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15,32), and that only in the sixth plague does it say explicitly "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" (9:12; 10:20,27; 11:10; 14:4). For example R.T. Forster and V.P. Marston say that only from the sixth plague on God gave Pharaoh "supernatural strength to continue with his evil path of rebellion"

But this observation does not succeed in avoiding the evidence of two wills in God. Even if Forster and Marston were right that God was not willing for Pharaoh's heart to be hardened during the first five plagues, they concede that for the last five plagues God does will this, at least in the sense of strengthening Pharaoh to continue in the path of rebellion. Thus there is a sense in which God does will that Pharaoh go on refusing to let the people go, and there is a sense in which he does will that Pharaoh release the people. For he commands, "Let my people go." This illustrates why theologians talk about the "will of command" ("Let my people go!") and the "will of decree" ("God hardened Pharaoh's heart").

The Exodus is not a unique instance of God's acting in this way. When the people of Israel reached the land of Sihon king of Heshbon, Moses sent messengers "with words of peace saying, Let me pass through your land; I will travel only on the highway" (Deuteronomy 2:26-27). Even though this request should have lead Sihon to treat the people of God with respect, as God willed for his people to be blessed rather than attacked, nevertheless "Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as at this day" (Deuteronomy 2:30). In other words it was God's will (in one sense) that Sihon act in a way that was contrary to God's will (in another sense) that Israel be blessed and not cursed.

Similarly the conquest of the cities of Canaan is owing to God's willing that the kings of the land resist Joshua rather than make peace with him. "Joshua waged war a long time with all these kings. There was not a city which made peace with the sons of Israel except the Hivites living in Gibeon; they took them all in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses" (Joshua 11:19-20). In view of this it is difficult to imagine what Fritz Guy means when he says that the "will of God" is always to be thought of in terms of loving desire and intention rather than in terms of God's effective purpose of judgment. What seems more plain is that when the time has come for judgment God wills that the guilty do things that are against his revealed will, like cursing Israel rather than blessing her.

The hardening work of God was not limited to non-Israelites. In fact it plays a central role in the life of Israel in this period of history. In Romans 11:7-9 Paul speaks of Israel's failure to obtain the righteousness and salvation it desired: "Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day." Even though it is the command of God that his people see and hear and respond in faith (Isaiah 42:18), nevertheless God also has his reasons for sending a spirit of stupor at times so that some will not obey his command.

Jesus expressed this same truth when he explained that one of the purposes of speaking in parables to the Jews of his day was to bring about this judicial blinding or stupor. In Mark 4:11-12 he said to his disciples, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven." Here again God wills that a condition prevail which he regards as blameworthy. His will is that they turn and be forgiven (Mark 1:15), but he acts in a way to restrict the fulfillment of that will.

Paul pictures this divine hardening as part of an overarching plan that will involve salvation for Jew and Gentile. In Romans 11:25-26 he says to his Gentile readers, "Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved." The fact that the hardening has an appointed end—"until the full number of the Gentiles comes in"—shows that it is part of God's plan rather than a merely contingent event outside God's purpose. Nevertheless Paul expresses not only his but also God's heart when he says in Romans 10:1, "My heart's desire and prayer to God for them [Israel] is their salvation." God holds out his hands to a rebellious people (Romans 10:21), but ordains a hardening that consigns them for a time to disobedience.

This is the point of Romans 11:31-32. Paul speaks to his Gentile readers again about the disobedience of Israel in rejecting their Messiah: "So they [Israel] have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you [Gentiles] they also may receive mercy." When Paul says that Israel was disobedient "in order that" Gentiles might get the benefits of the gospel, whose purpose does he have in mind? It can only be God's. For Israel did not conceive of their own disobedience as a way of blessing the Gentiles or winning mercy for themselves in such a round about fashion. The point of Romans 11:31 therefore is that God's hardening of Israel is not an end in itself, but is part of a saving purpose that will embrace all the nations. But in the short run we have to say that he wills a condition (hardness of heart) which he commands people to strive against ("Do not harden your heart" (Hebrews 3:8, 15; 4:7).

God's Right to Restrain Evil and His Will Not To
Another line of Biblical evidence that God sometimes wills to bring about what he disapproves is his choosing to use or not to use his right to restrain evil in the human heart.

Proverbs 21:1 says, "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord; he turns it wherever he wishes." An illustration of this divine right over the king's heart is given in Genesis 20. Abraham is sojourning in Gerar and says to king Abimelech that Sarah is his sister. So Abimelech takes her as part of his harem. But God is displeased and warns him in a dream that she is married to Abraham. Abimelech protests to God that he had taken her in his integrity. And God says (in verse 6), "Yes, I know that in the integrity of your heart you have done this, and I also kept you from sinning against me; therefore I did not let you touch her."

What is apparent here is that God has the right and the power to restrain the sins of secular rulers. When he does, it is his will to do it. And when he does not, it is his will not to. Which is to say that sometimes God wills that their sins be restrained and sometimes he wills that they increase more than if he restrained them.

It is not an unjust infringement on human agency that the Creator has the right and power to restrain the evil actions of his creatures. Psalm 33:10-11 says, "The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nought; he frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the LORD stands for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations." Sometimes God frustrates the will of rulers by making their plans fail. Sometimes he does so by influencing their hearts the way he did Abimelech, without them even knowing it.

But there are times when God does not use this right because he intends for human evil to run its course. For example, God meant to put the sons of Eli to death. Therefore he willed that they not listen to their father's counsel: "Now Eli was very old; and he heard all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting. And he said to them, `Why do you do such things, the evil things that I hear from all these people? No, my sons; for the report is not good which I hear the Lord's people circulating. If one man sins against another, God will mediate for him; but if a man sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?' But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired to put them to death" (1 Samuel 2:22-25).

Why would the sons of Eli not give heed to their father's good counsel? The answer of the text is "because the Lord desired to put them to death." This only makes sense if the Lord had the right and the power to restrain their disobedience—a right and power which he willed not to use. Thus we must say that in one sense God willed that the sons of Eli go on doing what he commanded them not to do: dishonoring their father and committing sexual immorality.

Moreover the word for "desired" in the clause, "the Lord desired to put them to death," is the same Hebrew word (haphez) used in Ezekiel 18:23,32 and 33:11 where God asserts that he does not desire the death of the wicked. God desired to put the sons of Eli to death, but he does not desire the death of the wicked. This is a strong warning to us not to take one assertion, like Ezekiel 18:23 and assume we know the precise meaning without letting other scripture like 1 Samuel 2:25 have a say. The upshot of putting the two together is that in one sense God may desire the death of the wicked and in another sense he may not.

Another illustration of God's choosing not to use his right to restrain evil is found in Romans 1:24-28. Three times Paul says that God hands people over (paredoken) to sink further into corruption. Verse 24: "God handed them over to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves." Verse 26: "God handed them over to dishonorable passions." Verse 28: "And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to a base mind and to improper conduct." God has the right and the power to restrain this evil the way he did for Abimelech. But he did not will to do that. Rather his will in this case was to punish, and part of God's punishment on evil is sometimes willing that evil increase. But this means that God chooses for behavior to come about which he commands not to happen. The fact that God's willing is punitive does not change that. And the fact that it is justifiably punitive is one of the points of this chapter. There are other examples we could give, but we pass on to a different line of evidence.

Does God Delight in the Punishment of the Wicked?
We just saw that God "desired" to put the sons of Eli to death, and that the word for desire is the same one used in Ezekiel 18:23 when God says he does not "delight" in the death of the wicked. Another illustration of this complex desiring is found in Deuteronomy 28:63. Moses is warning of coming judgment on unrepentant Israel. What he says is strikingly different (not contradictory, I will argue) from Ezekiel 18:23. "And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you."

Here an even stronger word for joy is used (yasis) when it says that God will "take delight over you to cause you to perish and to destroy you." We are faced with the inescapable biblical fact that in some sense God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18), and in some sense he does (Deuteronomy 28:63; 2 Samuel 2:25).

How Extensive Is the Sovereign Will of God?

Behind this complex relationship of two wills in God is the foundational biblical premise that God is indeed sovereign in a way that makes him ruler of all actions. R.T. Forster and V.P. Marston try to overcome the tension between God's will of decree and God's will of command by asserting that there is no such thing as God's sovereign will of decree: "Nothing in Scripture suggests that there is some kind of will or plan of God which is inviolable." This is a remarkable claim. Without claiming to be exhaustive it will be fair to touch on some scriptures briefly that do indeed "suggest that there is some kind of will or plan of God which is inviolable."

There are passages that ascribe to God the final control over all calamities and disasters wrought by nature or by man. Amos 3:6, "Does evil befall a city, unless the LORD has done it? Isaiah 45:7, "I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things." Lamentations 3:37-38, "Who has commanded and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?" Noteworthy in these texts is that the calamities in view involve human hostilities and cruelties that God would disapprove of even as he wills that they be.

The apostle Peter wrote concerning God's involvement in the sufferings of his people at the hands of their antagonists. In his first letter he spoke of the "will of God" in two senses. It was something to be pursued and lived up to on the one hand. "Such is the will of God, that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men" (1 Peter 2:15). "Live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men but for the will of God" (4:2). On the other hand the will of God was not his moral instruction, but the state of affairs that he sovereignly brought about. "For it is better to suffer for doing right, if that should be God's will, than for doing wrong" (3:17). "Let those who suffer according to God's will do right and entrust their souls to a faithful Creator" (4:19). And in this context, the suffering which Peter has in mind is the suffering which comes from hostile people and therefore cannot come without sin.

In fact the New Testament saints seemed to live in the calm light of an overarching sovereignty of God concerning all the details of their lives and ministry. Paul expressed himself like this with regard to his travel plans. On taking leave of the saints in Ephesus he said, "I will return to you if God wills," (Acts 18:21). To the Corinthians he wrote, "I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills" (1 Corinthians 4:19). And again, "I do not want to see you now just in passing; I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord permits" (1 Corinthians 16:7).

The writer to the Hebrews says that his intention is to leave the elementary things behind and press on to maturity. But then he pauses and adds, "And this we will do if God permits" (6:3). This is remarkable since it is hard to imagine one even thinking that God might not permit such a thing unless one had a remarkably high view of the sovereign prerogatives of God.

James warns against the pride of presumption in speaking of the simplest plans in life without a due submission to the overarching sovereignty of God in whether the day's agenda might be interrupted by God's decision to take the life he gave. Instead of saying, "Tomorrow we will do such and such . . . you ought to say, `If the Lord wills, we shall live and we shall do this or that'" (James 4:15). Thus the saints in Caesarea, when they could not dissuade Paul from taking the risk to go to Jerusalem " ceased and said, 'The will of the Lord be done'" (Acts 21:14). God would decide whether Paul would be killed or not, just as James said.

This sense of living in the hands of God, right down to the details of life was not new for the early Christians. They knew it already from the whole history of Israel, but especially from their wisdom literature. "The plans of the mind belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord" (Proverbs 16:1). "A man's mind plans his way, but the LORD directs his steps" (Proverbs 16:9). "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will be established" (Proverbs 19:21). "The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the LORD" (Proverbs 16:33). "I know, O LORD, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23). Jesus had no quarrel with this sense of living in the hand of God. If anything, he intensified the idea with words like Matthew 10:29, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."

This confidence that the details of life were in the control of God every day was rooted in numerous prophetic expressions of God's unstoppable, unthwartable sovereign purpose. "Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose'" (Isaiah 46:9-10; cf. 43:13). "all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What doest thou?'" (Daniel 4:35). "I know that thou canst do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted" (Job 42:2). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3).

One of the most precious implications of this confidence in God's inviolable sovereign will is that it provides the foundation of the "new covenant" hope for the holiness without which we will not see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). In the old covenant the law was written on stone and brought death when it met with the resistance of unrenewed hearts. But the new covenant promise is that God will not let his purposes for a holy people shipwreck on the weakness of human will. Instead he promises to do what needs to be done to make us what we ought to be. "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live" (Deuteronomy 30:6). "I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances" (Ezekiel 36:27). "I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me" (Jeremiah 32:40). "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13).

In view of all these texts I am unable to grasp what Forster and Marston might mean by saying, "Nothing in Scripture suggests that there is some kind of will or plan of God which is inviolable" (see note 26). Nor can I understand how Fritz Guy can say that the "will of God" is always a desiring and intending but not a sovereign, effective willing (see note 12). Rather the Scriptures lead us again and again to affirm that God's will is sometimes spoken of as an expression of his moral standards for human behavior and sometimes as an expression of his sovereign control even over acts which are contrary to that standard.

This means that the distinction between terms like "will of decree" and "will of command" or "sovereign will" and "moral will" is not an artificial distinction demanded by Calvinistic theology. The terms are an effort to describe the whole of biblical revelation. They are an effort to say Yes to all of the Bible and not silence any of it. They are a way to say Yes to the universal, saving will of 1 Timothy 2:4 and Yes to the individual unconditional election of Romans 9:6-23.

Does It Make Sense?

I turn now to the task of reflecting on how these two wills of God fit together and make sense—as far this finite and fallible creature can rise to that challenge.

The first thing to affirm in view of all these texts is that God does not sin. "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts, the whole earth is full of his glory." (Isaiah 6:3). "God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). In ordering all things, including sinful acts, God is not sinning. For as Jonathan Edwards says, "It implies no contradiction to suppose that an act may be an evil act, and yet that it is a good thing that such an act should come to pass. . . As for instance, it might be an evil thing to crucify Christ, but yet it was a good thing that the crucifying of Christ came to pass." In other words the Scriptures lead us to the insight that God can will that a sinful act come to pass without willing it as an act of sin in himself.

Edwards points out that Arminians, it seems, must come to a similar conclusion.

All must own that God sometimes wills not to hinder the breach of his own commands, because he does not in fact hinder it . . . But you will say, God wills to permit sin, as he wills the creature should be left to his freedom; and if he should hinder it, he would offer violence to the nature of his own creature. I answer, this comes nevertheless to the very same thing that I say. You say, God does not will sin absolutely; but rather than alter the law of nature and the nature of free agents, he wills it. He wills what is contrary to excellency in some particulars, for the sake of a more general excellency and order. So that the scheme of the Arminians does not help the matter.

This seems right to me, and it can be illustrated again by reflecting directly on 1 Timothy 2:4 where Paul says that God wills all persons to be saved. What are we to say of the fact that God wills something that in fact does not happen. There are two possibilities as far as I can see. One is that there is a power in the universe greater than God's which is frustrating him by overruling what he wills. Neither Calvinist nor Arminian affirms this.

The other possibility is that God wills not to save all, even though he is willing to save all, because there is something else that he wills more, which would be lost if he exerted his sovereign power to save all. This is the solution that I as a Calvinist affirm along with Arminians. In other words both Calvinists and Arminians affirm two wills in God when they ponder deeply over 1 Timothy 2:4. Both can say that God wills for all to be saved. But then when queried why all are not saved both Calvinist and Arminian answer that God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all.

The difference between Calvinists and Arminians lies not in whether there are two wills in God, but in what they say this higher commitment is. What does God will more than saving all? The answer given by Arminians is that human self-determination and the possible resulting love relationship with God are more valuable than saving all people by sovereign, efficacious grace. The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God's glory in wrath and mercy (Romans 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all credit to God for his salvation (1 Corinthians 1:29).

This is utterly crucial to see, for what it implies is that 1 Timothy 2:4 does not settle the momentous issue of God's higher commitment which restrains him from saving all. There is no mention here of free will. Nor is there mention of sovereign, prevenient, efficacious grace. If all we had was this text we could only guess what restrains God from saving all. When free will is found in this verse it is a philosophical, metaphysical assumption not an exegetical conclusion. The assumption is that if God wills in one sense for all to be saved, then he cannot in another sense will that only some be saved. That assumption is not in the text, nor is it demanded by logic, nor is it taught in the rest of Scripture. Therefore 1 Timothy 2:4 does not settle the issue; it creates it. Both Arminians and Calvinists must look elsewhere to answer whether the gift of human self-determination or the glory of divine sovereignty is the reality that restrains God's will to save all people.

The Calvinists which I admire do not claim to have simple, easy solutions to complex Biblical tensions. When their writing is difficult this is because the Scriptures are difficult (as the apostle Peter admitted that, in part, they are, 2 Peter 3:16). These Calvinists are struggling to be faithful to diverse (but not contradictory) scriptures. Both Calvinists and Arminians feel at times that the ridicule directed against their complex expositions are in fact a ridicule against the complexity of the scriptures.

I find the effort of Stephen Charnock (1628-1680), a chaplain to Henry Cromwell and non-conformist pastor in London, to be balanced and helpful in holding the diverse scriptures on God's will together.

God doth not will [sin] directly, and by an efficacious will. He doth not directly will it, because he hath prohibited it by his law, which is a discovery of his will; so that if he should directly will sin, and directly prohibit it, he would will good and evil in the same manner, and there would be contradictions in God's will: to will sin absolutely, is to work it (Psalm 115:3): "God hath done whatsoever he pleased." God cannot absolutely will it, because he cannot work it. God wills good by a positive decree, because he hath decreed to effect it. He wills evil by a private decree, because he hath decreed not to give that grace which would certainly prevent it. God doth not will sin simply, for that were to approve it, but he wills it, in order to that good his wisdom will bring forth from it. He wills not sin for itself, but for the event.

Similarly Jonathan Edwards, writing about 80 years later comes to similar conclusions with somewhat different terminology.

When a distinction is made between God's revealed will and his secret will, or his will of command and decree, "will" is certainly in that distinction taken in two senses. His will of decree, is not his will in the same sense as his will of command is. Therefore, it is no difficulty at all to suppose, that the one may be otherwise than the other: his will in both senses is his inclination. But when we say he wills virtue, or loves virtue, or the happiness of his creature; thereby is intended, that virtue, or the creature's happiness, absolutely and simply considered, is agreeable to the inclination of his nature.

His will of decree is, his inclination to a thing, not as to that thing absolutely and simply, but with respect to the universality of things, that have been, are or shall be. So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, may incline to it with reference to the universality of things. Though he hates sin in itself, yet he may will to permit it, for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality, including all things, and at all times. So, though he has no inclination to a creature's misery, considered absolutely, yet he may will it, for the greater promotion of happiness in this universality.

Putting it in my own words, Edwards said that the infinite complexity of the divine mind is such that God has the capacity to look at the world through two lenses. He can look through a narrow lens or through a wide-angle lens. When God looks at a painful or wicked event through his narrow lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin for what it is in itself and he is angered and grieved. "I do not delight in the death of anyone, says the Lord God" (Ezekiel 18:32). But when God looks at a painful or wicked event through his wide-angle lens, he sees the tragedy or the sin in relation to everything leading up to it and everything flowing out from it. He sees it in all the connections and effects that form a pattern or mosaic stretching into eternity. This mosaic, with all its (good and evil) parts he does delight in (Psalm 115:3).

God's emotional life is infinitely complex beyond our ability to fully comprehend. For example, who can comprehend that the Lord hears in one moment of time the prayers of ten million Christians around the world, and sympathizes with each one personally and individually like a caring Father (as Hebrews 4:15 says he will), even though among those ten million prayers some are broken-hearted and some are bursting with joy? How can God weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice when they are both coming to him at the same time—in fact are always coming to him with no break at all?

Or who can comprehend that God is angry at the sin of the world every day (Psalm 7:11), and yet every day, every moment, he is rejoicing with tremendous joy because somewhere in the world a sinner is repenting (Luke 15:7,10,23)? Who can comprehend that God continually burns with hot anger at the rebellion of the wicked, grieves over the unholy speech of his people (Ephesians 4:29-30), yet takes pleasure in them daily (Psalm 149:4), and ceaselessly makes merry over penitent prodigals who come home?

Who of us could say what complex of emotions is not possible for God? All we have to go on here is what he has chosen to tell us in the Bible. And what he has told us is that there is a sense in which he does not experience pleasure in the judgment of the wicked, and there is a sense in which he does.

Therefore we should not stumble over the fact that God does and does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. When Moses warns Israel that the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon them and destroying them if they do not repent (Deuteronomy 28:63), he means that those who have rebelled against the Lord and moved beyond repentance will not be able to gloat that they have made the Almighty miserable. God is not defeated in the triumphs of his righteous judgment. Quite the contrary. Moses says that when they are judged they will unwittingly provide an occasion for God to rejoice in the demonstration of his justice and his power and the infinite worth of his glory (Romans 9:22-23).

When God took counsel with himself as to whether he should save all people, he consulted not only the truth of what he sees when looking through the narrow lens but also the larger truth of what he sees when all things are viewed through the wide-angle lens of his all-knowing wisdom. If, as Calvinists say, God deems it wise and good to elect unconditionally some to salvation and not others, one may legitimately ask whether the offer of salvation to all is genuine. Is it made with heart? Does it come from real compassion? Is the willing that none perish a bona fide willing of love?

The way I would give an account of this is explained by Robert L. Dabney in an essay written over a hundred years ago. His treatment is very detailed and answers many objections that go beyond the limits of this chapter. I will simply give the essence of his solution which seems to me to be on the right track, though he, as well as I, would admit we do not "furnish an exhaustive explanation of this mystery of the divine will."

Dabney uses an analogy from the life of George Washington taken from Chief-Justice Marshall's Life of Washington. A certain Major André had jeopardized the safety of the young nation through "rash and unfortunate" treasonous acts. Marshall says of the death warrant, signed by Washington, "Perhaps on no occasion of his life did the commander-in-chief obey with more reluctance the stern mandates of duty and of policy." Dabney observes that Washington's compassion for André was "real and profound". He also had "plenary power to kill or to save alive." Why then did he sign the death warrant? Dabney explains, "Washington's volition to sign the death-warrant of André did not arise from the fact that his compassion was slight or feigned, but from the fact that it was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior judgments . . . of wisdom, duty, patriotism, and moral indignation [the wide-angle lens]."

Dabney imagines a defender of André, hearing Washington say, "I do this with the deepest reluctance and pity." Then the defender says, "Since you are supreme in this matter, and have full bodily ability to throw down that pen, we shall know by your signing this warrant that your pity is hypocritical." Dabney responds to this by saying, "The petulance of this charge would have been equal to its folly. The pity was real, but was restrained by superior elements of motive. Washington had official and bodily power to discharge the criminal, but he had not the sanctions of his own wisdom and justice." The corresponding point in the case of divine election is that "the absence of volition in God to save does not necessarily imply the absence of compassion." God has "a true compassion, which is yet restrained, in the case of the . . . non-elect, by consistent and holy reasons, from taking the form of a volition to regenerate." God's infinite wisdom regulates his whole will and guides and harmonizes (not suppresses) all its active principles."

In other words, God has a real and deep compassion for perishing sinners. Jeremiah points to this reality in God's heart. In Lamentations 3:32-33 he speaks of the judgment that God has brought upon Jerusalem: "Though he causes grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the sons of men." The word "willingly" translates a composite Hebrew word (milibo) which means literally "from his heart" (cf. 1 Kings 12:33). It appears that this is Jeremiah's way of saying that God does will the affliction that he caused, but he does not will it in the same way he wills compassion. The affliction did not come "from his heart." Jeremiah was trying, as we are, to come to terms with the way a sovereign God wills two different things, affliction and compassion.

God's expression of pity and his entreaties have heart in them. There is a genuine inclination in God's heart to spare those who have committed treason against his kingdom. But his motivation is complex, and not every true element in it rises to the level of effective choice. In his great and mysterious heart there are kinds of longings and desires that are real— they tell us something true about his character. Yet not all of these longings govern God's actions. He is governed by the depth of his wisdom expressed through a plan that no ordinary human deliberation would ever conceive (Romans 11:33-36; 1 Corinthians 2:9). There are holy and just reasons for why the affections of God's heart have the nature and intensity and proportion that they do.

Dabney is aware that several kinds of objections can be raised against the analogy of George Washington as it is applied to God. He admits that "no analogy can be perfect between the actions of a finite and the infinite intelligence and will." Yet I think he is right to say that the objections do not overthrow the essential truth that there can be, in a noble and great heart (even a divine heart), sincere compassion for a criminal that is nevertheless not set free.

Therefore I affirm with John 3:16 and 1 Timothy 2:4 that God loves the world with a deep compassion that desires the salvation of all men. Yet I also affirm that God has chosen from before the foundation of the world whom he will save from sin. Since not all people are saved we must choose whether we believe (with the Arminians) that God's will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to human self-determination or whether we believe (with the Calvinists) that God's will to save all people is restrained by his commitment to the glorification of his sovereign grace (Ephesians 1:6,12,14; Romans 9:22-23).

This decision should not be made on the basis of metaphysical assumptions about what we think human accountability requires. It should be made on the basis of what the scriptures teach. I do not find in the Bible that human beings have the ultimate power of self-determination. As far as I can tell it is a philosophical inference based on metaphysical presuppositions. On the other hand this book aims to show that the sovereignty of God's grace in salvation is taught in Scripture.

My contribution has simply been to show that God's will for all people to be saved is not at odds with the sovereignty of God's grace in election. That is, my answer to the above question about what restrains God's will to save all people is his supreme commitment to uphold and display the full range of his glory through the sovereign demonstration of his wrath and mercy for the enjoyment of his elect and believing people from every tribe and tongue and nation.