Method of Evangelism (For Robert)

remember... "by faith"...

This post is in response to my friend, Robert, who sent me an e-mail asking me how, practically, I evangelize...

This audio-post is my answer to his e-mail:






God bless you,


Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Evangelism

Charles H. Spurgeon on Particular Redemption

everyone limits the atonement...

It is oftened charged that Calvinism is wicked doctrinal system because it limits the scope of the atonement of Christ. The problem with this charge is that both Arminianism and Calvinism limits the Atonement, they just do it differently. Consider:

We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not.

The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if"—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you.

You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.

(Charles Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, Sermon 181)

The Arminian limits the Atonement by placing faith as a prerequisite; a cute doctrine, but nowhere in Scripture will you find this concept. The Calvinist limits the atonement to those whom God has chosen, His elect. What does the Bible say about that? Consider:

"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (John 10:11)



Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

Revealing The Dispensational Straw Man

can you judge fairly?

Sorry friends, but it was a trick question.

In my last post, I asked: "Can a Calvinist (one who believes in the 5 Doctrines of Grace), reject infant baptism and still be consistent in his/her theology? Or is he/she living with contradictions?" I had a pretty good idea how most of you would answer this question, and now, I'm afraid, I will be using your responses to make a point.

Most of you, in your answers went WAY FARTHER then just answering the question, affirming that there was no Biblical basis in infant baptism. Since I know that most of you are both Baptists and Calvinists, the expression of such views was not a shocking surprise.

The fact of the matter is, there is NO CONTRADICTION in a believer holding to the five Doctrines of Grace while rejecting Infant Baptism. Believer's Baptism does not negate, in any way, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace or the Perseverance of the Saints. Calvinism is a soteriological view, Baptism, both Infant and Believer's, has nothing to do with the Doctrine of Salvation; as in, Baptism does NOT bring about any form of Salvation. Therefore, both doctrines are independent of each other.

The Punch Line:

In the last few weeks, I have been taken to task over my position on eschatology. I have never hid the fact that I was a Dispensationalist, but it would seem that most of you took special notice when I mentioned the fact a few weeks ago. The response was quick, and dare I say harsh. I received a few comments and a number of e-mails in which the basic theme was: "are you crazy? Don't you know that Dispensationalism is contrary to the Reformed view?"

The funny thing is that most of the saints who have authored these comments/e-mails were Baptists, saints that already rejected one of the main tenets of the Reformed view. Now before you all click on the Comment box link of this post, please consider my case carefully.

1- Read this definition of Dispensationalism (this definition, isn't a perfect definition, in that it's too concise, but the basics are there).

2- Find in the above definition a tenet that would make Dispensationalism contrary to any of the five Doctrines of Grace.

Good luck. You can play interpretive gymnastics 'till your brain jams, in the end, any honest soul will come to the very basic conclusion that Dispensationalism is an eschatological view that does not negate, in any shape or form, any of the tenets of the soteriological system called Calvinism. Just like Infant/Believer's Baptism have no bearing on the Doctrines of Grace (and vice-versa), Dispensationalism has no bearing Calvinism.

Some of you here will object: "if Dispensationalism isn't anti-Calvinism, why are most authors who defend the Dispensational view anti-Calvisnist?" To this I will answer: "if Believer's Baptism isn't anti-Calvinist, why are most who defend Believer's Baptism, anti-Calvinist?" The answer to both questions, dear readers, is quite simple. It is not that these doctrines are somehow connected to each other theologically, but rather, it is due to tradition and education. Most of the early reformers, having just come out of Romanism (as my friend Pete mentioned in his comment), continued to profess Infant Baptism, so when studying the Doctrines of Grace, many Christians not only get the Reformers view on Salvation, but they get their view on baptism as well. Similarly, most early Dispensationalists were anti-Calvinism, therefore, while studying the eschatological view, many saints are also influenced by these men's aversion of the Doctrines of Grace.

The fact that Charles Ryrie, Greg Laurie, and other Dispensationalists have written volumes of material against all facets of Reformed Theology means as much to me as the volumes John Calvin, Martin Luther and other reformers wrote against Baptists (or Anabaptists). And for the record: quoting men like Greg Laurie and Tim LaHaye to bash Dispensationalism is like an Arminian quoting Phred Phelps and Karl Barth to bash Calvinism. An honest soul desiring to get the jist of Calvinism reads Calvin's Institutes, Spurgeon's Defense of Calvinism, or R.C. Sproul's Chosen By God. Similarly, an honest soul who desires to get a clear picture of Dispensationalism reads Pentecost's Things To Come, Walvoord's The Blessed Hope And The Tribulation, or the treasury of notes in the New Scofield Bible written by an elite group of Bible scholars which included Charles Feinberg, who incidently, was a Calvinist.

I know that this post will not stop all false accusations against Dispensationalism; the fact of the matter is, it is far easier attacking straw men than shaking off the laziness and actually studying. Some of you will continue to enjoy casting the old "disappearing/raptured airline pilot" scenario in my teeth, and quote endlessly the nonsense Tim LaHaye comes up with in one of his books/movies. So be it. All I ask of such souls is the next time they are faced with an anti-Calvinist, harping on the multiple Calvinist straw men, that they at least TRY to not be to hypocritical.

My fundamental 0.02$,


Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Doctrines of Grace, Premillianism

Salvation Unto Election... What???

you really have to hate the doctrine of election...

These are excerpts from T.P. Simmons' A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrines, a theology book we are studying through on our Wednesday evening prayer meeting (we spend half our time studying, half our time praying):


"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me..." (John 6:37a)

It is manifest that this passage represents the Father's giving of people to the Son as preceding their coming to the Son. The Father's act of giving people to the Son (by which is here meant the divine efficacy in bringing them into the actual possession of the Son through repentance and faith, the verb "giveth" being in the present tense) involves an election of those thus given, inasmuch as all are not given. And since this giving precedes salvation, then election must precede salvation. This giving, of course, proves the eternity of election in the light of the immutability of God. But we are here concerned only with showing that election precedes salvation. The divine efficacy in bringing men to Christ is alluded to in John 6:44,65, and Eph. 1:4.


"...and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48b)

This passage puts ordination to eternal life before faith, and, consequently, before salvation. This ordination to eternal life involves election on the same grounds that the giving of the former passage involves election.

Some have tried to turn the passage around and make it read: "As many as believed were ordained to eternal life," which is the way it would have to read in order to even permit the interpretation that election and salvation take place at the same time. But the Greek construction will not allow this transposition. Thayer says the passage refers to "as many as were appointed to obtain eternal life, or to, whom God had decreed eternal life."


"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

Since men are chosen or elected "unto salvation, their election must precede salvation. This is manifest to all except a certain class of Arminians who are incapable of understanding plain English.


The doctrine that declares salvation and election taking place at the same time is unbiblical; it is heresy.


Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem!

It's all about Israel...

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37)

This is another verse misused by those who reject the Doctrines of Grace. The objection goes something like this: "This verse clearly says God wanted to gather the people of Jerusalem as a hen with her chickens, and THEY WOULD NOT!"

The problem with this objection is that it ignores who this verse is written to. This verse is not to be viewed as God's inability to save the people of Jerusalem, but rather it is a LAMENT over the sins of Israel, His ELECT NATION! Now what do I mean by elect nation? That all Jews (past, present and future) are the elect of God and therefore are going to Heaven? No. The Bible says:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." (Romans 9:6)

Not every individual Jew is elect, but the nation of Israel has been chosen unto a future, and total, salvation:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the ELECTION, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. FOR THE GIFTS AND CALLING OF GOD ARE WITHOUT REPENTANCE." (Romans 11: 25-29)

The Lord Jesus Christ, in Matthew 23:37, laments over the state of His chosen nation at that particular time. There are times in my life I believe the Lord laments over my state; the same applies for Israel here. You will find other such laments in Scripture, and always towards His elect nation. For example:

"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deuteronomy 5:29)

"O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." (Isaiah 48:18)

Israel! God's elect nation! And the day is coming in which the Lord will indeed gather up His Jewish elect as a hen gathers her chicks.


Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

John 3:16 And The "Choose" Verses

which came first, the chicken or the egg...


"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)


John 3:16 is an often quoted Bible verse when one is objecting to Calvinism. The idea being, that if God says "whosoever believeth", then that means God has done everything He could, now He waits for the soul to "believe". The same argument is made with verses like these:


"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Romans 10:9)


So are such verses the Achilles' Heal of Calvinism? Uh...no.

CONTEXT!!! CONTEXT!!! CONTEXT!!! (I warned you that you'd get sick of me writing that...LOL)

Every verse in the Bible has an immediate context, as well as a global context. The problem with the John 3:16 objection to Calvinism is that it disregards the global context of Scripture. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:


"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (Matthew 5:29-30)


So is this verse saying that we Christians should be a mutilated bunch? That whenever we sin with a part of our body, we should cut it off? The immediate context around these verses seem to indicate that it is the case, so what do you think, should we start chopping? Again...no. Why? Because the global context of Scripture does not support such a view. Peter didn't sow his mouth shut after he denied the Lord three times. Thomas didn't pluck out his eyes when he failed to believe, by faith, that the Lord had resurrected.

When reading verses like John 3:16, Romans 10:9 and Joshua 24:15 we must bear in mind the Whole Counsel of God, especially verses like:


"We love him, because he first loved us." (1 John 4:19)

We love God enough to choose Him, because He first loved us. When combined with Romans 5:8, the picture is perfect: God loved us (His elect) before we even cared to know Him (we were yet sinners).


"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)

We choose and work out our salvation only because God gives us the will and the strength to do so. And for what? For His good pleasure.


"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)

Those who choose/believe in God are those who have been ordained or predestined by Him unto eternal life.


"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." (John 15:16)

Really friends, could it be any clearer?


God, in His Scriptures sends out the general call to all men, elect and non-elect, to repent and believe on the Gospel, but only those He regenerates will answer that call. God most likely has done things this way because He has not purposed to speak directly to all His elect (as He did with Paul) to bring them to salvation, but rather, He uses the general "megaphone" method, knowing the reprobate will disregard the Good News, but His elect will "know the voice of the good Shepherd (John 10:14-16).

Praise God that eternal salvation DOESN'T rest in the feeble hands of Man... if it did, who among us could enter His holy rest?


Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

Foreknowledge

how does this figure in Calvinism...

This post isn't going to be long. Why? Because using foreknowledge to bring an objection to the Doctrines of Grace is down right dumb. You see the objection goes something like this: God only foreordains and predestines some to Heaven because the foreknew (knew ahead of time) that the elect would choose to follow God. The following verse is usually used to support this argument:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30)

Okay, everyone knows God is omniscient right? Right. God has, does and will always know everything about the past, the present and the future. Okay, put on your thinking caps on now. Go back to before God created anything; do you really believe that whatever God foresaw would take place in His future Creation, was complete news to Him? Nonsense! God did NOT learn anything through foreknowledge. God is omniscient remember! He has never been surprised, He has never had a new idea, He has never gained any knowledge. God foreknew His elect BECAUSE He foreordained them to be His elect. Denying this is an attack on the omniscience of God.

Still unconvinced? Alright. Try this one: if God chose His elect on the basis of His foreknowledge of their choice, what's the point of Romans 8:29-30? If God foresaw my saving faith before the creation of the world, why not just leave things be? Why complicate things with predestination and election when He foresaw my "decision for Christ"?

Nonsense!

In conclusion, there has been some contentions a few days ago over foreknowledge and foreordination. The debate was over whether these two words were synonymous or not. Three Greek words were presented, two of them coming from the same root word, the other, in effect, came from a different Greek word. The definition of foreknowledge is "to have knowledge beforehand", and the definition of foreordination is "to predetermine". Different definitions, yet both words, when speaking of God's use of foreknowledge or foreordination, are quite synonymous, as my post has argued. That is why the King James Version of the Bible uses the terms interchangeably (see 1 Peter 1:2 and 1 Peter 1:20, "foreknowledge" and "foreordained" are from the exact same Greek word).

When God foresees, He's foreordained.


Take care,

Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

Evangelism? What's the point?

did calvinism kill the evangelism star?

I get it all the time. People who, after reading/hearing that I am involved in street evangelism, and that every week, say: "but you're a Calvinist! why do you bother?" You see the rationale is this: Calvinists believe that God foreordained the salvation and the condemnation of all men before the world began, so why should a Christian be responsible to evangelize the world? When everything is already decided, and nothing can go awry, why bother? Why not just let God take care of it all?

This objection, this whole line of questioning has it's roots in PRIDE. Yep, the sin of pride. We love the concept of being "masters of our own destiny". We like to think we're very, very important in the world. We see our actions as being pretty critical and absolutely necessary. You see, an unsanctified Christian reads the Great Commission in the Gospels, and immediately thinks: "I have to share the Gospel with people, or else they won't be saved!" Note the attitude here: if I don't do "this", then God can't or won't do "that". P-R-I-D-E.

So, why does a Calvinist evangelize?


1. Because God commands us to do it.


Simple enough isn't it? I never could understand why, for so many Christians, obedience to the Word of God only happens if what the Bible teaches makes sense to them. God said:

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)

That's good enough for me. I don't need any promises of results, or any explanations as to why I should bother obeying that commandment. The fact it is there, and in all three other Gospels is all I need to get evangelizing.


2. God has purposed to save His people through the preaching of His Word.


"Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." (Acts 20:26-27)

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17)

"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." (1 Corinthians 1:21)


God saves His elect through human evangelism. He didn't opt to use angels or any other part of His creation to bring His people to salvation. He chose "the foolishness of preaching". It is God's command to us, it is our responsibility. Paul could say that he was pure of the blood of all men because he had faithfully presented the Gospel to everyone around him; he had done all he could do. The rest was up to God. Paul's words and actions didn't effect salvation in any man; it was God using Paul that effected salvation in His elect that heard Paul's words. You want proof? Here it is:

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48)

Note that not everyone believed, though all had heard the exact same message by Paul and Barnabbas. Rather, all whom the Lord had predestined to eternal life, believed.


3. There are blessings/rewards for those who obey the Great Commission, woes to those who don't.


"So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." (1 Corinthians 3:7-8)

"For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:16-18)


Obedience to the Great Commssion will have ABSOLUTELY NO impact on the number of souls that enter Heaven. As seen in previous posts, God has determined the exact number of those He would justify before there even was a world (John 6:39, Ephesians 1:4). Obedience in fulfilling the Great Commission will be used of God to save His elect, and will bring blessings to the faithful soul who did the work of evangelism in obedience. If you will not be that faithful soul, God will use another believer to get the work of salvation done in whom He wills.


Calvinists are not fatalists. We do NOT take the position that God will take care of saving His people minus the involvement of men, and all we have to do is stand by for the day the Lord calls us home. This type of fatalism is sometimes attributed to so-called "hyper-Calvinist" cults, though, to be honest, I never met such a soul. I have however had the displeasure of meeting Calvinists who were quite cold to evangelism and took comfort in the fact that God will nonetheless save His elect. This is sin. But things aren't any prettier on the arminian side, for I have met scores and scores of arminians who are also cold to evangelism, and that, even though they actually believe that the amount (and method) of evangelism will actually save more/or less souls.

In conclusion, the doctrine of Evangelism and the Doctrines of Grace are not in conflict. Both are clearly taught in Scripture, and must be accepted and obeyed by all who call themselves Bible-believeing Christians. When I prepare for my Friday Night of Street Preaching, I pray that the Lord would bring His elect out to hear the Gospel. I preach to all because God did not tattoo His elect for me to know which ones are His. While I preach to all, I know without a shadow of a doubt, that the only place the seed of the Gospel will grow, is in the good ground found in the hearts of those God has regenerated (or quickened - Ephesians 2:1).


My dear readers, I pray that by God's grace, the Holy Spirit would teach you to be faithful to these two very important doctrines: God's Sovereign Election, and His Great Commission.

Take care,

Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

But That's Not Fair ! ! !

another anti-Calvinism staple...

Next to the "robots" objection, the "not fair" argument is the most used one against the doctrine of election/predestination. The argument can be summarized like this: "If God is the One who decides who goes to Heaven, and who is condemned, how can He justly punish the wicked with the Lake of Fire? Would it not be unfair of God to condemn reprobate souls which could never come to him?

Again, logic and Scripture answers this objection.

Logic: I like Michael's blog. Christian Conservative is one of my favorite reads. I like Michael's posts so much, I have just added 3 links to his blog which could move some of my traffic to visit his blog. On the other hand, I do not like Arianna Huffington. I have no time for the Huffington Post's nonsense. I loathe the material on that blog so much, I will not link the dumb-dumb site.

Does this make me unjust? Am I being unfair to Arianna Huffington?

Of course not. This is MY BLOG. I have the right to do whatever I want with it. I don't owe Arianna or Michael anything. If I show favour to one, and not to the other, it is my right. Grace is not an obligation or it is no longer grace.

Apply the exact same reasoning to God's treatment of His elect and the reprobate.


Scripture: In Romans 9:17-20, we read:


"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. THOU WILT SAY THEN UNTO ME, WHY DOTH HE YET FIND FAULT? FOR WHO HATH RESISTED HIS WILL? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"


LOL...look at that, even the apostle Paul had to contend with arminians! Okay, seriously, need I say more? Paul both anticipated the "it's not fair" objection to the doctrine of election/predestination AND gave us the answer to the objection. In summary, the answer is: "Who do you think you are sinner, to tell God what's right? God has full authority over His creation, to do whatever He wills with it, and that includes Man." You may not like this answer, but it's the one God's Word gives, so deal with it!

In conclusion, consider this: when it comes to God's dealings with man, what is fair? Well, fairness is about justice right? So when we speak of justice, what is Man's portion?

Hell.

No doubt.

We are sinners by birth (Psalm 51:5), and sinners by choice (Romans 3:23). All of us. We are, by nature, the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), both physical and spiritual death. If God were "fair" as in 100% just, and without grace, all of human kind would be destined for the Lake of Fire, with NO HOPE of justification.

Praise Him for His gracious salvation! God has never owed anything to any man. As I mentioned above, if grace is an obligation, it is no longer grace.


"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." (Romans 11:33-36)

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

Satan, Adam, Eve and the Fall

back to Calvinism...

A more cerebral objection that often comes up, mostly from people who really work hard at rejecting the doctrine of election/predestination, is one that involves the Fall of Man, and the "necessity" of their "free-will". This objection is closely related to the next objection I am preparing to deal with, the "but that's not fair!" objection.

First off, I feel it is important to deal with the following foundational truth before going any deeper... you may want to sit down now... can't say I didn't warn you... okay, here goes: GOD FORORDAINED THE FALL OF MAN! (I can hear all my arminian readers shrieking in horror here). This idea is NOT something I just dreamed of to fit my "Sovereign God package", but rather I have arrived at this conclusion by logic and by Scripture (again the latter being the most important).

Logic: God is omniscient. He knows everything. Past, present, future, He knows it all. So, during the very act of Creation, God knew everything that would subsequently happen in His Creation. If He didn't, if God said: "whoa! I can't believe what's just happened here!" Well, our God most certainly isn't omniscient. Perish the thought. So, by the Creation of all that exists, God set in motion all the events that would follow, and one of those events, sadly, was the Fall of Man.

Scripture:


"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8)

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." (1 Peter 1:18-20)


Can anyone explain to me how it would be possible for God to forordain the slaying of His Dear Son before the foundation of the world without the knowledge that there would actually be sinners to save? Without the FAll of Man, the work of the Cross becomes absolutely futile. If the atonement was forordained, so was the Fall.

So, is God the Author of sin? If He forordained the Fall of both man and angel (Satan and his hosts), does not the blame for the Fall ultimately land on Him? No. As we have seen in previous posts, God is NOT the Author of sin. God did NOT place sin in the heart of Satan, or Adam of Eve. That much is certain.

How then, did Satan, Adam and Eve come to leave their holy state to become depraved, fallen sinners? Well, I'll be honest, that is a tough question. But let me make this precision, the question isn't any easier to the one who rejects Calvinism (the arminian has to somehow keep God ignorant of what Satan, Adam and Eve were going to do). The key to how I have worked out this difficulty is in this following verse:

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

It is God that supports and upholds His people to any proper standard. If that support disappears, things fall apart. R.L. Dabney puts it this way:

"a finite creature can only be indefectible through the perpetual indwelling and superintendence of infinite wisdom and grace, guarding the finite and fallible attention of the soul against sin."

I believe this is what happened to Satan, and the first human beings. God righteously removed, at least in part, his "indwelling" and "superintendence" allowing His created beings to wander into rebellion. God did NOT work the rebellion, He just allowed for it to happen; again, to fulfill what He had forordained.

Satan, Adam and Eve had a much "free-er" will than ours, in that they did not carry with them a sin nature (prior to the Fall) like we do. That being said, they most certainly did NOT operate independantly from God. No one has or ever will act independant from the God of Heaven. The first living "free agents" were totally dependant on God's grace to keep them from, literally, FALLING.

Think about it, without God keeping Satan from making only one booboo, one mistake, one wrong thought... BOOM! Enter the sin nature.

How totally dependant this Creation is to it's Creator!


Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

God Wants Everyone To Be Saved...Right???

what does God want...

Another popular objection to the doctrine of predestination/election is that it is in contradiction with God's desire for ALL MEN to be saved. The argument isn't based on one, but these two Scriptures:

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4)

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)

So, is the Doctrines of Grace toast? I mean, look at these verses! How could God predestine some to condemnation if He isn't willing that any should perish? How could God keep salvation from some, if He wills to have all men to be saved?

CONTEXT!!! CONTEXT!!! CONTEXT!!! (you're so going to get sick of me saying that...LOL)

First, let's deal with 1 Timothy 2:4, and let's pick up the context in verse 1 and 2:

"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

So, in these verses, Paul explains to Timothy that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving should be made for 'all kinds' of men. Now you may say: "wait a minute Rand, you just added to Scripture! it isn't 'all kinds' but 'all'!" My answer is: "Nope, it's 'all kinds', really!" Turn to 1 Timothy 6:10. Read the verse in the King James version, then read it in the NIV or the NKJV. You'll notice that in the KJV, it's "the root of all evil", and in the modern versions, it's "the root of all kinds of evil". So which one is right? Well, they both are...LOL! You see the Greek word for "all" allows for it to be translated simply "all", or "all kinds". How do we know which one is more appropriate?

CONTEXT!!! CONTEXT!!! CONTEXT!!!

In 1 Timothy 6:10, it is clear that "the root of all evil" isn't money, it is indeed, "the root of all kinds of evil". And in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, it is also clear that Paul wasn't charging Timothy to pray for "all men" (could you imagine the task!), but rather "all kinds" of men, not just for the peasants, but for kings and those who are in authority too!

So, how does this context influence verse 4? Well, there is a very simple hermeneutical rule (Bible interpretation rule) that says, when you interpret a word a certain way in one verse, then you must remain consistent with your interpretation throughout the remaining passage (remaining context). By following this rule 1 Timothy 2:4 now reads like this:

"Who will have all kinds of men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Clearly, this verse is not saying that God wants all men to be saved. In context, it is saying that God will not save only the poor and common, but will also save kings and those who have authority. You have to understand the importance of this charge in the day that Paul wrote it. Most of the civilized world in his day was ruled by the Roman empire, and the Roman army, for the most part was despised. Paul was making it clear that God could and would save even in those who were part, or supported the Romans.

Secondly 2 Peter 3:9. Now this one is much simpler to explain. Actually this is a common way to see how careful a Christian is about respecting the context of a verse. This is actually an easy test.

CONTEXT!!! CONTEXT!!! CONTEXT!!!

Ask yourself, what is the theme or context surrounding verse 9? Hint...hint...what is this "promise" that Peter is referring to? Ok...look at verse 4, 7, and 10. It's the Second Coming!!! Alright, now ask yourself this: "who is the us-ward?" Look at 2 Peter 1:1. "To them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"! Christians! my friends, Christians! God's elect!

So what is Peter saying in 2 Peter 3:9? Simple! God isn't slack concerning His promise to return, but is longsuffering towards His elect, not willing that any of His elect should perish, but that all His elect should come to repentance. If the Lord Jesus Christ had not been longsuffering and had returned 1000 years ago, Rand would never have come to repentance, because Rand wasn't around 1000 years ago. This verse fits well with Romans 11:25 where Paul reminds us that "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in." This is why the church age continues...it continues because there are still Gentiles to be saved.

Let us be clear dear readers, if God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved. We do not serve an impotent God, rather, we serve an omnipotent God! And the Scriptures make it quite clear that God uses his omnipotence and sovereignty in the salvation, and condemnation of man:

"The LORD hath MADE all things for himself: yea, EVEN THE WICKED FOR THE DAY OF EVIL." (Proverbs 16:4)

"For whom HE did FOREKNOW, HE also did PREDESTINATE to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom HE did PREDESTINATE, them HE also CALLED: and whom HE CALLED, them HE also JUSTIFIED: and whom HE JUSTIFIED, them HE also GLORIFIED." (Romans 8:29-30)

"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: WHEREUNTO ALSO THEY WERE APPOINTED. BUT YE ARE A CHOSEN GENERATION, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light." (1 Peter 2:7-9)


Think about it, dear saints,

Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

Watch Out For Them Calvinist Robots!

if no free-will...then what???

You don't have to be debating Calvinism too long before the "robots" argument surfaces. The idea is this: if God forordained and predestined everything for everyone, then are we not all just fulfilling a program already determined by God? Are we indeed mindless robots marching on towards glory or condemnation, depending on our programming?

No.

Calvinists do not believe that we are robots.

We are CLAY.


"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? SHALL THE THING FORMED SAY TO HIM THAT FORMED IT, Why hast thou made me thus? HATH NOT THE POTTER POWER OVER THE CLAY, of the same LUMP to make one VESSEL unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the VESSELS of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the VESSELS of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:19-24)


You may think I'm just being cute here, but I assure you, I'm not. I'm being biblical. A robot is programmed or remote-controlled into action. This cannot be true of us. If it were, God would be the author of sin, which we commit on a daily basis.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)

The fact is (don't faint now) we are all "free agents". Notice that I did not say we have a free will, but rather, we have free agency.


Free Will: the ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition. The natural capacity of the human will to make free moral decisions.

Free Agency: by a free and responsible agent we mean an intelligent person who acts with rational self-determination.


So, why free agency instead of free will? Because the Scriptures make it clear that we DO NOT "make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition":


"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Romans 3:10-12)

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)


We are sinners by birth and by choice. All of us are warped by our sin nature. This nature keeps us from desiring God or anything that involves God. Without the salvation of God, we are LITERALLY by nature the children of wrath (as Ephesians 2:3 puts it). Without God, our sin nature inclines us to sin continually and stay far away from God; with God, the Holy Spirit in the believer inclines him/her to seek God and glorify God with his/her life. Within these confines, a believer, and an unbeliever, can make "rational self-determination". This is free agency.

So no, we ARE NOT ROBOTS. We are CLAY. With that clay, God makes vessels unto honour (those He has chosen unto salvation), and vessels unto dishonour (those He has left in their sin nature). Each group does exactly what they WANT TO DO. One wants to sin, the other wants to live for God. Their wills are directed by their natures.

Finally, let us be clear, no one operates independently of God. NO ONE! Our lives, like everything else in Creation are under the sovereign control of God and exist for the sole purpose of bringing glory to God.


"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Proverbs 16:4)

"For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another." (Isaiah 48:9-11)


This is my God! The God of the Bible. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and SOVEREIGN over ALL His Creation, and that includes a vessel called RAND.

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

Sovereign Election

who chose who???

It never ceases to amaze me. "Christians" who deny the sovereign election of God in the salvation of men. Let me be blunt: as far as I'm concerned, the FACT of God's election of men for salvation is as clear and certain to me as the doctrine of the Trinity. You think I'm exaggerating? Consider this:

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalm 2:7)

At face value, this verse seems to contradict the doctrine of the Trinity, yet no one who dares to call themselves born-again Christians would ever deny, or even question, the FACT that God is triune. So why is it when Christians read verses like Joshua 24:15, or Acts 16:31, sovereign election flies out the window?

Logic and Scripture (the latter being the most important) clearly teach the FACT of God's sovereign election.

First, the logic: is God omniscient (all-knowing)? Does God know everything that is past, present and future? If you answer "yes", logic dictates that you believe in God's election. If God knew everything before He first formed anything, then in the very act of Creation, God has, in effect predestined everything that would take place. I know this is hard to wrap our heads around, but take your time, read this paragraph a few times if you have to. This is an important concept. If God knew everything about you before He created Adam, just by creating Adam, you were destined to be, and to be exactly how God willed you to be (check out Psalm 139:16).

Secondly, the insane amount of Scripture:


"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (Matthew 24:22)

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30)

"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." (Romans 9:11)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:4-6)

"Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering." (Colossians 3:12)

"But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." (2 Thessalonians 2:13)


This is by no means an exhaustive list...not even close! To deny the doctrine of unconditional election, is to deny a key doctrine of the Bible. It is to make a myriad of Bible verses of absolute none effect. So don't fight the Truth, accept it. God has chosen His people, and that since "before the foundation of the world."

Now I understand that accepting God's sovereign election brings a whole lot of other questions like: why is man still responsible to believe? Why do Christians still need to evangelize? What about our "free-will"? My recommendation, don't be afraid to tackle these questions! Don't reject a clear teaching of Scripture just because it causes tough questions. God gave you a brain...use it!

Now please, don't take the "oh! it really doesn't matter" philosophy; if God put election in the Bible, it matters. And also, stay away from accepting contradictory doctrines, this may be an easy way out of a tough issue, but it isn't the way to understanding. God doesn't speak with a forked tongue (it's the devil who took the form of a serpent). God either chose/elected those who are and would be saved, or man must choose God before He grants him the second birth.

Be wise, consider the Scriptures, and may God give you light to understand and receive the truth of His sovereign election.

Take care and God bless,


Rand

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election

The Dark Side of Predestination?

here comes double trouble...

Inspiration for this post came from a very good post found on Christian Conservative, and the subsequent comments left by many regarding Michael's post on predestination.


Now to put some context: I hated the doctrine of election and predestination. I seriously loathed it. It was so important to me to be master of my own destiny, that I rejected the doctrines of grace and argued against all 5 points with passion. But after struggling and fighting with a Calvinist friend for months, I quite simply ran out of arguments/excuses. The Scriptures so clearly teach the reality of election and predestination, that I found myself not only arguing with my friend, I was arguing with God. I eventually ate my slice of humble pie, and accepted the fact that God chooses those He saves, and He predestines them to eternal life.

After coming to this realization, my soteriology was turned upside down. I started questioning everything I believed about salvation to make sure that my beliefs were Scriptural. It wasn't long after accepting the doctrines of grace that I came to hear about double predestination.

I have to say, the attitude surrounding double predestination was as negative as my initial attitude towards the doctrines of grace. I wasn't intimidated by this; rather I was determined to know the truth, regardless of whether it was popular or not.

Now, to avoid confusion, let us define double predestination:

"It is the eternal act of God, whereby the future of every particular person in the human race has been determined beforehand, by God. Whatever the individual wills or does, for good or for evil, is conceived as performing a functional part, or outworking of that ordained purpose. This prior determination applies to both, the elect and the reprobate."

In other words, as far as salvation is concerned, God predestines some to be justified, and others to condemnation. Using this definition, let me be clear:

I BELIEVE IN DOUBLE PREDESTINATION!

I believe it because it is...

1) biblical:

"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory" (Romans 9:18-23)

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." (Proverbs 16:4)


Conclusion: God has prepared/made the wicked to show His righteous wrath, to make his power known, and to show forth His longsuffering. He prepares them for judgement and condemnation.


"Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." (1 Peter 2:7-8)

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. " (Jude 4)


Conclusion: The wicked works of unbelievers and false teachers are no surprise to God, they were appointed/ordained unto condemnation.


2) logical:

God isn't the author of confusion. Most teachings in Scripture are quite sensible and logical. So let's examine predestination logically for a moment. As far as I can see, in the Bible, there are only 2 places souls can go to after the Great White Judgement: Heaven or Hell. Those who are justified unto the Kingdom of God were "chosen before the foundation of world" (Ephesians 1). So what of those who are condemned to the Lake of Fire? By choosing one group for Heaven, does that not instantly place the other group into condemnation?

A few weeks ago, we had election in the US. George W. Bush was elected as president, John Kerry was not. Both are tied in together; one was elected, the other was not. Logical isn't it?

But for some strange reason, many Christians out there refuse to carry this logic to their salvation theology.


Conclusion: There are only 2 final destinations for souls; Heaven and Hell. Those who go to Heaven are those whom God has chosen and predestined in Christ (Romans 8 & 9, Ephesians 1). Those who are non-elect are therefore predestined to the Lake of Fire (there is no other place for them to go).


This subject has a great deal of ramifications, so I will probably post on the subject again soon. But no doubt, I have enough here to get you all thinking a bit. Feel free to comment, but please, be gracious and wise in your words; predestination is one of those doctrines that really get people excited (Hee hee).

Take care,

Labels: Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, Election, Predestination