A Golden Chain? – Part 2

image_pdfimage_print

NOTE: Here we finally return to addressing the issue of Romans 8:29-30 and what they are about, and whether those verses actually support the Calvinist/Reformed theology concerning the foreknowledge of God and the predestination of the lives of persons, some to salvation, and others to damnation. Here we pick back up at establishing the context of Romans, Chapter 8, as it is crucial to understanding the passage of verses 29-30.

In examining the context of Romans, Chapter 8, we find that it begins with the believer, and how the believer is distinct from the lost, and what that change was under the law, or legally.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)

Where before, the law, especially the law of sin and death applied to the believer, upon believing the gospel, that law was done away with in Christ, and now the law of the spirit of life in Christ applies. It is confirmed that this belongs specifically to the believer, and not all men generally as evidenced by the following passage from I Corinthians, Chapter 15:

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (I Corinthians 15:20-22)

Thus, to the LORD God there are two separate and distinct classes, or sets of people in this earth: those who are alive in Christ, and those who in Adam, are in their trespasses and sins and are dead. ((This death is not a cessation of function. Rather it is a separation from fellowship with the LORD God. This is more fully discussed in the post “Adam and the Fall – Part 6“)) The distinction between these two sets cannot be overstated as it is quite radical spiritually. There is limited, one-way transference between the classes, and that is from the set of “in Adam” to the set of “in Christ.” There is no “reverse” of this transference as multiple passages of Scripture confirm, one of which is John, Chapter 5, verse 24:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

The use of the terms “everlasting life” and “shall not come into condemnation” in conjunction with “is passed from death unto life” clearly demonstrate the permanent, one-way transference or translation of the individual from being part of the set of “in Adam” to being part of the set of “in Christ.” If we then understand the distinction between to two classes, or sets, we will understand that they are radically different spiritually, and what applies to one, does not, and cannot apply to the other. Moreover, we must also understand that the sets are “mutually exclusive” and there is no reconciliation between the two.

In examining the differences between the two sets or classes, we do so again as it weighs heavily on what the Scripture teaches about “predestination” and “foreknowledge” and whether the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of Romans, Chapter 8, verses 29-30 is correct, and hence, their understanding of predestination and foreknowledge is correct. In explaining the differences, it is perhaps easier to provide brief statements of the particulars. There are three main differences that will be listed.

Inclusion or membership

In Adam
All individuals of the race of man, saving one, were or are members of this set. No person of the race of man is ever not in this set, save the Lord Jesus Christ. No man has a choice in belonging to this set for at least some portion of their life. Adam is the progenitor of this set.

In Christ
Only those who have repented and believed the gospel belong in this set. There is no person in this set who does not wish to be in this set. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Progenitor of this set.

Destiny

In Adam
The destiny of this set was foreordained to be suffering in Hell and the Lake of Fire. There is no other destination for the members of this set.

In Christ
The destiny of this set is Heaven, then the new heaven and new earth. There is no other destination for this set.

Character or Nature

In Adam
The nature the members of this set were born with does not change. Moreover, there are no changes predestined, or foreordained for this set. One does not have to do anything to remain in this set, and everything will correspondingly remain the same as when they first entered the set.

In Christ
The members of this set do not have the same nature as they were born with, as it was changed upon entering into this set. Thus, there is a continual process of growth for the members of this set, and certain changes are foreordained for each individual in this set.

Hence we see that there are things predestined, or foreordained for the members of each set, but of the set of “in Christ” there are a number of things additionally foreordained to take place, that can never be applied to those who are “in Adam.”

Now, to return specifically to the context of Romans 8, we find that, after briefly touching on the focus of a believer versus those who are not born-again (verses 3 through 9), it continues to focus on the changes that took place at salvation, and what effect those changes have on the believer, to wit:

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Romans 8:10-14)

Here we are reminded that, though we live in this flesh, we are not to allow it to rule, and are able to rule over it. This strength to rule over the flesh is so strong that, if we are failures in it, volumes are spoken about whether we are actually in Christ or not. Hence, this addresses a condition that only believers would know about and struggle with, having been previously instructed (Chapter 7) concerning the war between the flesh and the soul. The chapter then continues on from this point addressing items that are even more specific to believers only, and speaking nothing about those who are not in Christ. As we can see, the chapter ends on a very high note for the child of God, in that it states:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

In all, Chapter 8 is addressed to believers, and concerns subjects that only believers are concerned about, and only believers struggle with. After all, the lost, which are those in Adam, have no struggle between their flesh and their soul, nor are they concerned about failing in the flesh. Moreover, it is no concern of theirs to make sure the salvation they professed, as they professed no salvation in Christ, and have experienced no change of heart and soul. These things are exclusive to those who are in Christ, who yet live in this world.

So then, let us ask, if verses 29-30 only apply to, and sit specifically in the context of those who are in Christ, and address nothing about mankind in general, why then is this exercise engaged in:

Let’s review the bidding. If we supply the word some to the Golden Chain the result is fatal to the foreknowledge view of predestination because it would have God predestinating some people who are not called. Since the view teaches that God’s predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge of people’s positive responses to the call of the gospel, then clearly the view collapses if some are predestined with a call.

The supplying of the word all is equally fatal to the foreknowledge view. This difficulty centers on the relationship of calling to justification. If all who are called are justified, then the passage could mean one of two things:

A) All who hear the gospel outwardly are justified; or
B) All who are called by God inwardly are justified. ((pp. 129-133, Chosen of God, R.C. Sproul, Tyndale House, 1994, ISBN 0842313354))

and again,

If you believe option A, you are a universalist, that everyone will be saved.
If you believe option B, all who are called inwardly by God are justified.

If all whom God calls inwardly are justified and all whom God predestines are called inwardly, then it follows that God’s foreknowledge concerns more than a mere prior awareness of the free decisions humans will make. God knows from eternity whom he will inwardly call. All who he inwardly calls he will also justify. If option B is the correct understanding of the Golden Chain, then it is clear that God gives one kind of call to some people that he does not give to everyone. Since all who are called are justified and since not everyone is justified, the it follows that calling is a rather significant divine activity that some human beings receive and others do not. ((quoted from Aaron, post comments, part belongs to R.C. Sproul, part to Aaron))

when the passage plainly states:

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)

which only and ever addresses those who are in Christ, and touches nothing concerning mankind in general?

Since there are such distinct differences between those in Christ, and those in Adam, why would any exercise in attempting to apply verses 29-30 to all men everywhere be done? What would be the point of trying to draw a conclusion about those who are in Adam?

But, the Calvinist argues: What about the calling?

Here then is their point, and a point that requires answer about going beyond Scripture, and putting words in the mouth of God. They claim:

FOREKNOWLEDGE-PREDESTINATION-CALLING-JUSTIFICATION-GLORIFICATION. The crucial problem here has to do with the relationship of calling and justification. What does Paul mean by “calling”. In theology we distinguish between God’s external call and God’s internal call. We find the external call in the preaching of the gospel. Not everyone who hears the outward call of the gospel becomes a believer. Sometimes the gospel falls on deaf ears.

Now we know that only those who respond to the outward call of the gospel in faith our justified. Justification is by faith. But again, not everyone who hears the outward preaching of the gospel responds in faith. Therefore we must conclude that not all who are CALLED outwardly are justified.

But Paul says in Romans that those whom God CALLS, he JUSTIFIES. If Paul does not mean that ALL who are CALLED are JUSTIFIED, the only alternative would be that SOME who are justified. If we supply the word Some in the GOLDEN CHAIN it would read like this:

Some of those he foreknew, he also predestined. Some of those he predestined, he also called. Some of those he called, these he also justified. Some of those he justified, he also glorified. ((pp. 129-133, Chosen of God, R.C. Sproul, Tyndale House, 1994, ISBN 0842313354))

However, to pick up on “calling” and try to work out who is called, how and why they are called, and determine that this “proves” predestination and election, is to start in the middle of a statement that only applies to those in Christ, and attempt to apply to mankind in general. This is equivalent to digging into a barrel of apples and then attempting to conclude something about oranges. Here the apostle Paul, by the Holy Ghost, is explaining the work of God in the life of the believer. He is not attempting to show how people come to Christ, or how the LORD God brings people to Christ. We know this by the context of the chapter, and the specific construction of the passage:

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)

Here we start with “whom he did foreknow” which is to say those known before. Now, there is much to state about this, but for now we shall leave it with simply “knowing beforehand” which is a portion of what is stated in “whom he did foreknow” and is certainly applicable here. Thus, those He knew beforehand, “he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,” which is to state there is an end for those He knew beforehand, which He predetermined that they should be, indeed will be, conformed to the image of Christ.

Notice now that the focus is expressly on the believer, and on the work of God in the life of the believer, and this focus is not directed elsewhere at any time. Just as the Calvinist thinks it is crucial to focus on the middle of the statement and start from there, it is far more crucial, and infinitely more correct to follow the set sequence of Scripture and how the passage is laid out. Hence, there is a sequence defined here which we would do well to pay heed to. This sequence sets in the larger context of the foreknowledge of God, and is defined by the phrase “to be conformed to the image of his Son” and is tied together by a series of connectives which is the phrase “he also.” Therefore, to follow the logic of the passage we find:

Whom he did foreknow:

he also

did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son

he also

called

he also

justified

he also

glorified

Unlike the Calvinist/Reformed reconstruction of the passage, the passage remains totally silent concerning anyone, or anything else outside of “in Christ.” What the passage conveys concerns everyone who is predestined to be conformed to the image of His dear Son, who is Jesus Christ. Thus, everyone He did predestinate to be conformed to the image of Christ, was called, was justified, was glorified. Or, put differently, everyone predestinated to be like Christ, is:

called
justified
glorified.

We can see then that to focus on “called” and then try to work some logic about those who do not respond to the call of God, is to step totally outside of the sequence and flow of the passage and apply it to something it was never intended to be applied to.

To be continued . . .

Without Merit

image_pdfimage_print

This is one of those articles where I would just like to scream. Yes, I know, that’s unprofessional, and somewhat unbecoming (well, considerably more than “unbecoming”). It is borne out of the general frustration of dealing with Calvinist/Augustine/Reformed/Sovereign Grace/Primitive Baptist theology. ((I have to list all those labels as the adherents of this theology do tend to lie about what they believe as it is so odious to the vast majority of folk out there. I will say, at least Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church has the guts to own up to what he believes and carry it to its logical conclusion)) However, that is not the only source of frustration that generates this post, as there are a number of fundamental, unaffiliated Baptists out there who are just as clueless about what this article will address. Now, to be fair, and utterly so, the Arminians and Universalists are not exempt here either.

Now, before anyone thinks that I believe that I have a lock on all kinds of Scriptural knowledge, allow me to disabuse you of that notion. I am constantly learning, and constantly finding out how much more I don’t know, than I do know. In short, I still have lots to learn. Nevertheless, this lesson is so basic that it should be taught to everyone, lost or saved from Day One. Why do I say this?

Let’s find out.

To be honest and fair, I really had not put this lesson into an organized pattern of thought and teaching ((This is not to say I didn’t teach it. Rather, it is to say that I only taught it piecemeal.)) prior to dealing with Aaron the Calvinist, who has taken it upon himself to attempt to “correct” the supposed “error of my ways.” But, I am a hard-headed little snot ((Well, maybe not so “little” at 6ft., 185lbs))and such admonitions tend only to make me dig deeper the prove out whether what I believe is true or false. In short, I am one of “them.” ((I trust you all will know who I am talking about here: you know, those folks who are simply difficult to get along with cause everything has to be proved to them.)) What is this supposed “error?” It has to do with merit before God, and whether we have any or not.

Now, the adherent of Calvinist theology believes we have no merit before God. But, the basis of having no merit has everything to do with man being utterly incapable of anything, and God foreordaining who will be saved, and who will not. In sum, if you claim that you come to God on any other basis than God foreordaining you to salvation and choosing you in eternity past, and then regenerating your heart so you will believe, you are claiming merit before God.

That doctrine is not what I believe, and it is not the historic Baptist and Baptistic doctrine that has held firm ever since Jerusalem. ((Actually, historic “Baptist” doctrine is essentially the same doctrine the LORD preached to Adam and Eve in the Garden. However, for the sake of New Testament dispensation, we will start at Jerusalem.)) What I believe is that the LORD foreknows who will and will not come to Christ for salvation, but He very plainly leaves that choice up to the individual as to whether they will believe the Gospel or not. Now, the Scriptures are express that the LORD God grants faith, which is necessary for salvation, and He also grants repentance, which is necessary for salvation. However, what the individual does with the faith and repentance that are granted, is entirely up to them. They can choose to believe what faith shows them, and they can choose to exercise the repentance and believe the Gospel, and be born again in Christ. Being born again in Christ is a work of the Holy Ghost, and not of the individual. In this process, all the individual ever does is make a series of choices:

  • Choose to believe what faith shows them (faith pretty much works automatically at this point).
  • Choose to exercise the repentance granted.
  • Choose to believe the Gospel.

Everything else is a work of the LORD God:

  • He brings the message of salvation through His servants
  • He grants the faith.
  • He grants the repentance.
  • He causes the individual who believes the Gospel to be born-again.

So the real question here is:

Is there any merit before God in making the right choices?

The challenge I was given is as follows, and its pretty presumptuous:

“When are you going to give scripture support of your foreknowledge view? When are you going to explain to me and your congregation how one receives Jesus by grace alone without merit according to your foreknowledge view?”

Now, I have to tell you, I really get a kick out of this part:

“When are you going to explain to me and your congregation . . .”

Like I don’t teach . . . Suffice to say those whom I teach well know and understand the basis of salvation and they are familiar with the message “Our Motivation” which is on the website, which one could listen to, if they were a mind to, as it does explain some of what I will cover here.

Now, this does come after I had already issued a request to Aaron to explain the principles and logic of the following verse, with a specific question:

So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)

And then I asked:

What in the world is the “whole duty of man?”

What should have happened was an instant recall of a specific passage of Scripture that used the exact words in the quotation marks. Should I say that it didn’t? Well, it didn’t. What I was hoping to come to mind is one of the more well known quotes from the Scripture, namely this one:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

Now, the question we must address is:

How do these two passages of Scripture fit together, if they fit together?

First, they do fit together, and in explaining how they fit together, it will be plain precisely how. Now, we must understand that I asked for the principles and logic underlying the statement of the LORD:

So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)

In looking at this, we need to be clear that this statement follows on the heels of a parable about a master and servant relationship in illustrating why the LORD refused to even entertain the idea of increasing the apostle’s faith. Please understand, what the LORD states here does run counter to modern American thinking, but modern American thinking is dead wrong:

And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith. And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you. But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:5-10)

Virtually everyone, to one degree or another, understands or knows about the illustration of having the faith of a grain of mustard seed. However, following hard after that is the word “but” which is a contrasting connective, and then the illustration begins:

But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. (Luke 17:7-9)

Now, here we see that a servant is expected, after working the fields, to come in and fix supper for his master, and that before the servant can eat. Moreover, after all is said and done, a question is asked by the LORD:

Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? (Luke 17:9a)

And the LORD answers His own question:

I trow not. (Luke 17:9b)

Meaning, ‘I think not’ or ‘I don’t think so’ whichever you prefer. In summary, the servant is commanded to do all this work, and when all is said and done, the LORD says that he, the servant, should not, indeed will not, be thanked for his service. Moreover, that is the way it should be. But, the LORD does not stop there. Now He makes application to the apostle’s request for more faith:

So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)

Not to be smart about it, but if you cannot see the “No” answer here, you’re blind. Yes, the LORD told the apostles by way of illustration, ‘No, I will not increase your faith.’ But He really didn’t stop there either. Instead, the statement He made contained a principle that is applicable to all times and all places. This principle is clearly laid out in the following portion of the statement:

when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10b)

Which is to say: if you get everything done, which you were ordered, or commanded to do, then you are not worth any more to your master than what you were before you were ordered to do those things. Why? The reasoning follows:

we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10d)

You did everything you were supposed to, ordered to, commanded to do. Yet, you never increased your value to your master, because he expected you to do what he ordered you to do. After all, isn’t that why you are a servant, retained in his service? If you don’t do what you are supposed to, here’s what you can expect:

And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. (Luke 12:47)

Hence, the principle here is a principle applicable everywhere, at all times, in all places: Servants are not rewarded for doing all they are ordered, commanded to do — they are, after all, merely fulfilling the will of their master, which is what is expected of them. They are, when all is said and done and having done all commanded them, worth no more than they were when they were placed in their position of servitude — they are unprofitable.

Now, to be certain, the word “profit” is tied to the word “merit” because a couple of synonyms of “merit” are “value” and “worth” which directly tie to “profit.” Additionally, “merit” is also synonymous with “earn,” and one of the definitions of “merit” is “deserve.” All these words tie together to show that which is “profitable,” which is to say meritorious or entitled to praise, gratitude, and/or commendation. In this case, it would mean acceptance by the LORD based upon one’s valuable service

Now then, shall the question be asked? Certainly it should:

Does man have a duty toward God?

Absolutely.

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

Here we are clearly and inescapably told that our “whole duty” is to “fear God and keep his commandments” — end of story.

So then, just who has done that? Perhaps it should be clarified as to what the commandments of the LORD are? Without going into excessive detail, the following verses suffice:

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:35-40)

We should note here the requirement given is expressly “all” and not “some” of your heart, soul and mind. Additionally, this “all” is inclusive, meaning “all, all the time” and not “all, some of the time.” Briefly comprehended, this leaves no room for anything else. Thus, I ask again:

So then, just who has done that? And, even if you did, what could you possibly say to the LORD God?

However, since none of us have kept either of those two commandments, the LORD gave man another commandment:

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: . . . (Acts 17:30)

And:

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. (Mark 1:14-15)

Now, this commandment has been in force ever since the fall of Adam in the Garden, and the evidence for that is more fully discussed in the article “What Does God Require of Us?” The long and short of it is that all men everywhere, at all times are commanded to repent and believe the Gospel. To fail to do so, is to disobey the commandment. To do so, is merely to fulfill the duty the LORD God requires of every man.

Now, supposing you do that, you know — repent and obey the Gospel: just what can you say to the LORD God?

How about:

So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:10)

How is it now that anyone, lost or saved, besides the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, has any merit, any profitability before the LORD God?

They don’t. No one does.

At some point, I will address the Lord Jesus Christ’s merit and profitability before the Father, as His work was worthy of all praise and honor, but I will not at this time. Suffice to say, when we have obeyed the Gospel, and done all our service to the LORD God, all we can say is:

We are without merit and unprofitable before the LORD, as we have done that which we were commanded to do.

A Problem Resolved – (Or should be)

image_pdfimage_print

I use an extension for WordPress (plugin) called Subscribe2 that automatically sends e-mails of the posts written, when they are published. However, since I upgraded to version 2.7 of WordPress, the plugin has been sending the HTML e-mail version with the background image of the blog. That would not be so bad, except the background image is dark purple and the text is black.

It makes for really nice reading, but only if your vision is somewhere in the near UV or UV range.

I have been doing the proverbial banging my head against the wall trying to think of a solution that would work, and not break the blog. Since I am not a “script kiddie” or a PHP whiz, this took a bit of time.

What I figured was the plugin had to be picking up the <body> callout in the CSS file and utilizing the graphic and background color defined there. I figured this had to be the case since I have background images for the sidebar and post, and it never picks that image up. However, that image is the background for the <div> that wraps the content of the post page.

Hmmmmm. . .

Hence, the solution would have to lie in wrapping the entire blog template with a <div> and then removing the background color and graphic from the <body> of the HTML document and applying it to the <div>. Since I maintain a development and testing blog, I tried it. After all, if I trash the development blog it really is no big deal and I will simply wipe it out and start over. Apparently, it worked. This post is the first post with the reworked Template and CSS files.

Thus, if your e-mail of the post is unreadable, drop me a line and I will rework the solution. But, I think it will work as it did on the Dev. blog.

Wednesday Night Lesson – The Will of God?

image_pdfimage_print

NOTE: This study is about the implications of doctrine, and how not thinking through statements of doctrine will lead to false doctrine and bad conclusions.

But does this mean that God has ultimately left it up to Solomon to follow Him or not? No, because in the next chapter we see David acknowledging that it is ultimately God who gives a person a heart to obey, for He prays “give to my son Solomon a perfect heart to keep Thy commandments” (29:19). There would be no use in asking God to cause Solomon to obey if God had ultimately left the choice up to Solomon. In light of all that we have seen, it seems best to conclude that since God controls all things, He causes us to make willing choices so that His will is always done, yet these choices are genuine, and we are accountable for them. Again, we do not need to necessarily see how these truths fit together, but if we are going to believe the Bible, it seems that we must believe them. ((http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/providen.html))

Here we see the Calvinist/Reformed theologian stating that David asked the LORD God to make Solomon’s heart right, and implying that God did so (It might be just me that perceives an implication here, but I asked someone else, and they perceived the same thing), when he states:

“There would be no use in asking God to cause Solomon to obey if God had ultimately left the choice up to Solomon.” ((Ibid))

And citing the following passage as proof:

O LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee: And give unto Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep thy commandments, thy testimonies, and thy statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for the which I have made provision. (I Chronicles 29:18-19)

However, if God did so make Solomon’s heart perfect, it sure didn’t stick, either that, or it was simply David asking for something that was more a hope than anything else. Besides that, we are told to ask:

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? (Matthew 7:7-11)

All David is asking for here is for the LORD to prevail upon Solomon, not that he expects the LORD to change Solomon’s heart, but that it would be good if Solomon’s heart was perfect and remained so.

It is real shaky ground to assume what is going through David’s heart and mind and then draw doctrine from that. It is assumed here that David knew that God changed hearts without the express consent of the individual, and thus asked for Solomon’s heart to be changed. However, there is nothing in Scripture that tells us what David knew concerning the LORD changing hearts without the consent of the individual. Moreover, no matter what David knew, it is quite the assumption to purport that David is asking strictly by doctrine and not out of any desire for Solomon to do well, doctrine notwithstanding. It would be quite the stretch to take everything David says as doctrine, even in his prayers, especially since we can easily point to several instances where David was doctrinally wrong, even to the point of committing wicked sin.

In any case, we see the result of David’s request:

For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. (I Kings 11:4)

However, there are other things that go beyond that in the assertions of Calvinists, where they do not consider the end of their doctrinal stance, and by Scripture, what they are actually saying. We are told:

“God has ordained every step of your life ____, every bad and good decision, everything. He has your life written in a book.” ((e-mail from Aaron))

“People make decisions for themselves. OK ____, Good. People are responsible for the decisions they make, Ok, Good. Every decision a person makes good or evil fulfills God’s will. GOD IS BEHIND EVERY DECISION A HUMAN BEING MAKES. IT IS LIKE SLIPPING A GLOVE OVER YOUR HAND.” ((Ibid. Really bad analogy here. It is the hand that controls the glove that covers it. By using this analogy, Aaron is saying we control God!))

“He causes us to make willing choices so that His will is always done, yet these choices are genuine, and we are accountable for them.” ((http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/providen.html))

Yet, the Scripture states:

Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. (Isaiah 65:12)

Obviously, it was not God’s will what Israel did, and the LORD said so. How then did Israel fulfill God’s will? By the Scripture, they didn’t, and God said so.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s let their contention stand, and give them the holding that everything anyone does, good or evil, is fulfilling God’s will.

What are we then to make of this:

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30)

For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. (John 6:38)

Obviously, the above two verses are a claim that, according to the Calvinist/Reformed quotes above, can not be unique as everyone fulfills the will of God, even when they attempt to work cross purposes. Now, why is it Christ came? But let us go on:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21)

For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. (Mark 3:35)

And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. (I John 2:17)

But according to the Calvinist, everyone does the will of God, hence they are either in direct contradiction with Scripture here, or they to believe in universal salvation. After all, the Lord Jesus Christ said that only those who do the will of God actually go to heaven. Ergo, by the quotes above that belong to those of Calvinist/Reformed theology, everyone fulfils the will of God. Hence, everyone goes to heaven. Isn’t this the doctrine called “Universal Salvation?” Calvinists have quite the conundrum here. But, let us proceed further:

Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: . . . (I Peter 4:1-3)

Obviously, according to I Peter, chapter 4, there is a distinct difference between the will of God and the will of the Gentiles, which is equated to the workings of the flesh. If you are doing the will of the flesh, you are NOT doing the will of God.

Now we have some possibilities here:

A.) The Calvinists don’t care what Scripture states, and thus don’t care about the contradiction, and how they clearly contradict Scripture.

B.) The Calvinists cannot think through the logic of their doctrinal position and see that ultimately they end up at the same place as those holding Universal Salvation doctrine.

C.) The Calvinists cannot reason out that the following is a terrible contradiction:

“He causes us to make willing choices so that His will is always done, . . .” ((Ibid))

One cannot “cause” another to make a “willing” choice. Will is volition, and thus to “cause” another’s volition to do your volition is not for them to be “willing” in any sense of the term.

Moreover, when “God” “causes” a person to commit “willing” sin, no matter how you try to reason it away, it cannot be gotten around that “God” becomes the author of sin.

D.) The Calvinists cannot reason through to see that if everyone ultimately does the will of God, then they negate the very reason Christ came — which was to do the will of the Father because man cannot. The Lord Jesus Christ came to fulfill the will of the Father, which is expressed in Ecclesiastics, Chapter 12, verse 13:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastics 12:13)

Which is the same as this:

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. (Matthew 22:35-38)

Therefore, whether the holder of Calvinist/Reformed/Sovereign Grace/Primitive Baptist theology realizes it or not, they make everyone as righteous as Christ, and thus in no need of salvation. Hence, Christ’s coming was pointless, and Christ died for nothing as all men ultimately fulfill the will of “God,” thus pleasing “God.”

What you say, that is wrong? I don’t think so. Isn’t God pleased when His will is done? Certainly he is, as the Scriptures are full of references to that fact. Hence, why should anyone be condemned as all men and angels, even the Devil himself ultimately do the will of “God” according to the adherents of Calvinist/Reformed theology.

You know, there is a Scriptural label for this doctrine:

ANTICHRIST

Either Calvinists are antichrist, and hide that fact. Or, they are so abysmally stupid they cannot reason out the end result of their doctrine, and are thus used freely of the Devil.

Of course, they have their grand “escape clause:”

Again, we do not need to necessarily see how these truths fit together, but if we are going to believe the Bible, it seems that we must believe them. ((Ibid))

Blind belief — no better than the Catholic Church’s pat “It’s a mystery.” answer to anything in their doctrine that is inherently contradictory.

You know, if a doctrine has unworkable logic in it, on top of contradicting plain Scripture, perhaps it’s time to change your doctrine?

A Challenge – Part 2

image_pdfimage_print

Here now, we must seek the evidence which verifies that Jeremiah 17:10 as it is in Scripture, and the reworded verse which follows, are conformable:

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, moreover to give each individual person of the race of man, in conformity with that person’s ways, in conformity with the fruit of that person’s doings.

We must now go to other passages of Scripture and see if they make a statement with an identical meaning. In pursuing this, one of the first passages we find is in II Chronicles, where Solomon prays unto the LORD God at the dedication of the Temple. Please note the wording of the request Solomon makes:

Then hear thou from heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and render unto every man according unto all his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men:) (II Chronicles 6:30)

And, as recorded in I Kings:

If there be in the land famine, if there be pestilence, blasting, mildew, locust, or if there be caterpiller; if their enemy besiege them in the land of their cities; whatsoever plague, whatsoever sickness there be; What prayer and supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart, and spread forth his hands toward this house: Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;) That they may fear thee all the days that they live in the land which thou gavest unto our fathers. (I Kings 8:37-40)

Here again we see the use of possessive pronouns. In this case, “thou” is the pronoun for the LORD God, and “his” is the pronoun for “every man.” Hence, again we see that the LORD God grants to every man according to that person’s ways. Moreover, Solomon is in perfect agreement with the statement the LORD God made through Jeremiah, that it is the LORD only that searches and knows the hearts of men. Let us then go back in time to King David and the 28th Psalm, which states:

Draw me not away with the wicked, and with the workers of iniquity, which speak peace to their neighbours, but mischief is in their hearts. Give them according to their deeds, and according to the wickedness of their endeavours: give them after the work of their hands; render to them their desert. Because they regard not the works of the LORD, nor the operation of his hands, he shall destroy them, and not build them up. (Psalm 28:3-5)

Here we see David’s prayer to the LORD God, and his statement which is in conformity to the LORD’s through Jeremiah, and Solomon’s during the dedication of the temple. Here “the wicked” is the noun, and “their” and “them” are the pronouns that address, or identify with “the wicked.” In this, David requests of the LORD to give the wicked in conformity with their own hearts and ways. Moreover, even in the New Testament this is confirmed, as Romans, Chapter 2 plainly states:

But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. (Romans 2:5-11)

In the above passage from Romans, even though it draws back to the external and does not address the heart, but addresses the deeds of the individual, it adds the statement “For there is no respect of persons with God.” which is to say that the LORD God does not treat any one person, any different than any other person. Even in this passage, the relation of possessive pronouns to the nouns remains the same, for we see:

“revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds:”

Yet again, we see that the pronoun “who” applies to God, and God will render “every man according to his deeds:” which being consistent with the Scripture thus far, means that “his deeds” belongs to “every man.” Though this passage could be taken differently, to do so, would be quite jarring as it would have to mean thus:

“revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who (God) will render to every man according to his (God’s) deeds:”

Which would mean nothing less than men were puppets on a string, to be manipulated whensoever, and howsoever God pleases, without regard to that person’s own heart and mind. This would be in direct conflict with the Scriptures we have covered thus far, and would make the LORD God the author of confusion. Moreover, this would also be in direct conflict with the LORD’s creation of man in His own image. Even as the LORD God is free within his own dominion to choose what He wants to do, even so, man was given by the LORD God the liberty to choose within his own dominion whatsoever he would do. The significant difference being that the LORD’s dominion is everything that exists, and man’s is only within his own heart and the physical creation he can reach. In addition to all that, since God cannot lie, and there cannot be contradiction in His word, we know this situation cannot be.

In continuing, let us now return to Jeremiah, and the Lamentations, where Jeremiah confirms the correct reading of Romans, Chapter 2:

Behold their sitting down, and their rising up; I am their musick. Render unto them a recompence, O LORD, according to the work of their hands. (Lamentations 3:63-64)

And again in Proverbs:

If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works? (Proverbs 24:11-12)

Noting here the pronoun usage and ownership, we see again that the LORD is asked to render unto certain persons according to the way they are, not according to the way the LORD God is, or wants it to be. In this situation, as in all others that we have seen thus far, we should come to a certain realization: that is, the fruits of a man’s life are wholly dependent upon that persons heart, and the way they are in their heart. Thus, the burden of our condition lies solely upon us, even as the responsibility for the Fall rests solely upon Adam. This situation was made clear to Solomon when the LORD appeared unto him:

And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the LORD, and the king’s house, and all Solomon’s desire which he was pleased to do, That the LORD appeared to Solomon the second time, as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon. And the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel. (I Kings 9:1-5)

Examining the statements the LORD makes to Solomon, it is abundantly clear the LORD placed the burden upon Solomon for following Him, and adhering to all that was commanded. In this, the will of God is express: Obey my voice. It is also plain that the LORD desired to do good to Solomon and establish Solomon’s throne forever. By this, it would be quite puzzling if we are to believe that, in eternity past, the LORD God predetermined that Solomon should transgress and depart, despite the LORD’s clear command not to. It would seem quite plain that the LORD God is working at cross purposes to Himself if that is true. This also is confusion, especially since we are so clearly told the following:

Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 9:23-24)

Before continuing, I think it essential that all understand what the LORD God stated through Jeremiah in the above passage, and it has everything to do with the words “understandeth” and “knoweth” which today we would simply state “understand” and “know.” Here, the LORD God, not Jeremiah, but the LORD God states plainly and clearly that we, each and every one of us individually, can know Him, and understand Him. If then we know Him, and we understand Him, then it necessarily follows that we can understand His judgements, and why He does what He does — that they are not mysteries to us.

This is why the word of God, the Scripture is given to us, so that we may understand Who the LORD God is, and how He determines who receives what, and what the standards of His judgement are. Thus, in all that is stated to this point, the following passage from Ezekiel reinforces quite well, and further explains what the LORD meant when He stated He will “render to every man according to his ways.” Again, here as before, note the personal possessive pronouns and what they possess:

Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the LORD will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; That I may take the house of Israel in their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols. (Ezekiel 14:4-5)

It should have also been noted where the idols came from, and who it is the LORD is pointing out as being the one setting up those idols. The LORD shows that it is not He that gives the idols to those individuals. Rather, the individuals themselves choose their own idols and set them up, in plain opposition to the LORD God. Moreover, the LORD also gives us another insight to how He deals with each and every one of us.

In the above passage, the LORD God states that He will answer the individuals in the house of Israel according to the multitude of idols in each and every person’s heart. In so doing, the LORD is reflecting back to that individual who and what they are. In short, they will perceive the LORD to be something He is not if their heart is not right. The Lord clarified and confirmed that this is indeed how He works with man through King David, a prophet of God:

With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright. With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself unsavoury. And the afflicted people thou wilt save: but thine eyes are upon the haughty, that thou mayest bring them down. (II Samuel 22:26-28)

And again (just so we won’t miss it):

With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright; With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward. For thou wilt save the afflicted people; but wilt bring down high looks. (Psalm 18:25-27)

In dealing with man this way, it makes it impossible for man to figure out the LORD God if his heart is not right. If a man does not wish to truly understand the LORD God, the LORD God is going to allow him to continue on in his error, so long as that person’s heart is unchanged by the truth the LORD continually puts in front of him. In fact, what this means, is that as long as someone is convinced in their own heart, in opposition to plain Scripture, all they will perceive of the LORD is that He is exactly what they think Him to be. Hence:

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matthew 6:23)

Now, knowing all this, let’s go back to the original challenge, where I stated:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

You know, for Calvinism to be true, the pronoun “his” would have to be changed and the wording of the passage changed significantly, would it not?

We should now see, for Calvinist/Reformed/Sovereign Grace/Primitive Baptist theology to be correct concerning their view of predestination and the sovereignty of God, the passage would have to be rewritten thus:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to my ways, and according to the fruit of my doings.

Not only that, we would have to rewrite and change the possessive pronouns of a number of other passages of Scripture, and completely rewrite the passage of Ezekiel, Chapter 14, verses 4-5 so that it reads appropriate to what Calvinist theology purports the LORD God’s ways and behavior to be.

What does Calvinist/Reformed/Sovereign Grace/Primitive Baptist theology have to say about God’s ways and behavior (emphasis mine)?

25) There is a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. We know that God is sovereign, yet man is free to follow the dictates of his own will. Where the two lines meet is not for us to say. Calvinist ignorance on the matter is to be excused on the basis of Deuteronomy 29:29

26) Although Calvinists believe that even sinful acts are ordained by God (Ephesians 1:11 / Proverbs 16:4) yet such makes the event certain, but not necessary. This clears God from being the author of sin. This view best explains the Cross (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28 / Luke 22:22). ((http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/avoidingconfusion.html))

No, I think the Scripture is quite plain. The LORD God has shown us where the “lines meet” and who the burden falls upon, and how He deals with the free will He granted to man. Moreover, try as they might, attempting to explain that ordaining sin is not virtually the same as being the “author of sin” is a wash. The word “ordain” means:

or·dain (ôr-dn) ((http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ordain))
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains

1. a. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
b. To authorize as a rabbi.
2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
3. To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained.

See Synonyms at dictate.
[Middle English ordeinen, from Old French ordener, ordein-, from Latin rdinre, to organize, appoint to office, from rd, rdin-, order; see ar- in Indo-European roots.]
or·dainer n.
or·dainment n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Hence, to say that God “ordained sin” is to say that God is the author of sin, the author of the fall, and the author of all wickedness and iniquity — and it cannot be excused or explained away.

I’m sorry, that’s not the LORD God I know and love.

Back to Posting

image_pdfimage_print

Unfortunately, the last several days have been consumed with assisting with a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. I say that it is unfortunate, because it should not be required to put forth to the highest court in the land that the following words mean exactly what they state:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I will probably repeat myself ten thousand times over:

The problem is not the arms an individual possesses or carries. The problem lies in the heart of the individual.

Let’s put it this way:

If men had the nature of angels (and not the fallen ones), then every person could have their own nuclear weapon and keep it personally, and no one would ever be in danger.

Strange, the founders of the United States of America knew this:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” (Federalist 51)

The problem is, men are not, neither do they have the nature of angels. No, the truth of every person of the race of man is this:

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. (Genesis 8:21)

And so it is that “gun control” will ever and always be an utter failure. Until the hearts of men change, and that will only happen in Christ, the idea that somehow we can control bad behavior by controlling the objects individuals have access to, is doomed to total failure.

I should be able to return to writing and posting, among other things, more regularly — saving that I have another interruption coming up soon.

A Challenge – Part 1

image_pdfimage_print

I originally was not going to do any of the following, but when questioned about a challenge I gave, and the respondent indicated plainly that he didn’t understand; I presented it to my editor. The reply I got back was that I was not being at all clear, and was being somewhat difficult. I protested. I was then told that I could not expect other people to “read my mind” and should be more clear about what I am after.

What I am after here, is this:

I seek to make people think about what the LORD actually states, and consider the ramifications of all He has stated; that they may come to know the LORD and honor Him in a deeper way than what they currently do.

After all, whether we realize it or not, it is a form of honor to think upon the things others say. To disregard or ignore someone is the most insulting form of dishonor. It is not necessarily the worst form of dishonor, but it is terribly insulting to someone to ignore them as if they don’t exist. And, as we can see, the LORD God made His views on being ignored abundantly plain to Jeremiah and Judah:

Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father, which he commanded them; but this people hath not hearkened unto me: Therefore thus saith the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon Judah and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem all the evil that I have pronounced against them: because I have spoken unto them, but they have not heard; and I have called unto them, but they have not answered. (Jeremiah 35:16-17)

With that, let’s look at the challenge and what the end of it is.

Paul,

You said:

Now, pertaining to the false doctrine of Calvinism, perhaps those holding the doctrine could explain the wording and construction of the following passage, particularly the use of personal pronouns? Oh, and don’t shortcut and divert and say that I do not understand the sovereignty of God. I certainly do, and you can find the evidence in the article “God’s Box.”

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:9-10)

You know, for Calvinism to be true, the pronoun “his” would have to be changed and the wording of the passage changed significantly, would it not?

_____, I’m not following you here. Why would the pronoun “his” have to be changed for Calvinism to be true? If my theology is true or not true because of one scripture, obviously my theology would be wrong. Please explain yourself.

To begin looking at this passage, we must note couple of things immediately. First, that verses 9 and 10 go together and form a challenge/response arrangement. This is more than merely question/answer as the tone clearly indicates a challenge. The statement is given “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:” and the challenge is rhetorical “who can know it?” meaning the unspoken response is a given “No one.”

It is not the unstated, obvious response we will focus on here, as that is not part of my challenge to those holding a Augustinian/Calvinist/Reformed/Sovereign Grace/Primitive Baptist view of God’s sovereignty and predestination. Rather, it is the actual stated response of the LORD and what His use of the pronouns plainly demonstrate.

Now, every method we must use here is going to involve grammar. If you don’t like that, yet you want to understand what the LORD God is stating in His word, then you need to get over your aversion to grammar. The English grammar book (older ones are better) and a good unabridged dictionary are your friends, and will remain your friends for life. Please accept this and go on. Here is where we ditch the commentaries and learn to walk/run/swim with only the LORD guiding us.

One of the methods for determining what sentences state is the use of equivalent replacement of words. So long as we ensure the words are in their correct tense, form, and meaning, we can determine with certainty what a sentence states by substitution of words. This is a method that used to be common in English and Grammar classes in both Elementary and High School and is quite effective for teaching about our language, and learning what a sentence is all about. So then, in determining the doctrine put forth in passages of Scripture, we can use the equivalent words, or definitions of words to see if it confirms what we think we are reading.

In the above passage from Jeremiah, verse 10, we see that the LORD speaks here as first person and those the LORD speaks of are second person. Thus, for the LORD to be truthful (which He is) he cannot speak or apply any second person pronouns to Himself, but must remain in the first person. Hence, only the pronouns I, me, my, myself, we, ours, and us would apply to the LORD.

In the passage from Jeremiah, there is a construction that plainly indicates how the LORD God works in the lives of individuals. The LORD states here that He searches the heart, He tries the reins (mind); He then uses the word “even” which means “moreover”as it is the adverb usage of the word in this context, which is synonymously, “moreover to give.” We then read the phrase “every man” and going on, find the word “according” which means “in conformity with” which also synonymously is “in conformity with his ways”

Which sentence would now read:

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, moreover to give every man in conformity with his ways, in conformity with the fruit of his doings.

Now, in turning to the pronouns particularly, we see the use of “I” given as a possessive of “search the heart,” “try the reins,” and “give every man in conformity with his ways, in conformity with the fruit of his doings.” Thus the possessor or doer of these actions is the LORD God.

Contained within the last action of the LORD “give every man in conformity with his ways, in conformity with the fruit of his doings.” is the personal pronoun “his.” At this point, we turn our attention to this word and its usage in this context.

The word “his” is a second person, personal possessive pronoun, and used in this verse, is possessive of “ways” and “doings.” Here we find that “man” is the noun and “his” is the pronoun that applies to “man.” The noun “man” is modified by the adjective “every” meaning “all” singularly or individually. The word “man” as used here does not apply to only the male of the species, but to the race of man. Hence, in long form the sentence would read thus:

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, moreover to give each individual person of the race of man, in conformity with that person’s ways, in conformity with the fruit of that person’s doings.

In supporting the rewritten verse, the following definitions are given. For the sake of time and space, they are copied from the Online Free Dictionary, and are consistent with the longer definitions given in the Oxford Unabridged.

e·ven 1 (vn) adj.
1.
a. Having a horizontal surface; flat: an even floor.
b. Having no irregularities, roughness, or indentations; smooth. See Synonyms at level.
c. Being in the same plane or line; parallel: The picture is even with the window.
2.
a. Having no variations or fluctuations; uniform: the even rhythm of his breathing.
b. Of uniform distribution: an even application of varnish.
c. Placid; calm: an even temperament.
3.
a. Equal or identical in degree, extent, or amount: Use even amounts of butter and sugar.
b. Equally matched or balanced: an even fight.
c. Just; fair: an even bargain.
d. Having nothing due on either side; square: If we each take half, then we’ll be even.
e. Having exacted full revenge.
4. Having equal probability; as likely as not: an even chance of winning.
5. Sports
a. Having an equal score: The teams are even at halftime.
b. Being equal for each opponent. Used of a score.
6. Mathematics
a. Exactly divisible by 2.
b. Characterized or indicated by a number exactly divisible by 2.
7.
a. Having an even number in a sequence.
b. Having an even number of members.
8. Having an exact amount, extent, or number; precise: an even pound; an even foot.
adv.
1.
a. To a greater degree or extent. Used as an intensive with comparative adjectives and adverbs: Looked sick and felt even worse.
b. Indeed; moreover. Used as an intensive: He was depressed, even suicidal. Even a child knows better.
c. Used as an intensive to indicate something that is unexpected: declined even to consider the idea.
2. At the same time as; already; just: Even as we watched, the building collapsed.
3. To a degree that extends; fully: loyal even unto death.
4. Exactly; precisely: It was even as he said: the jewel was gone.
tr. & intr.v. e·vened, e·ven·ing, e·vens
To make or become even.
Idiom:
on an even keel
In a stable or unimpaired state: “There was good reason to keep relations with Washington on an even keel” Helen Kitchen.
[Middle English, from Old English efen.]
even·er n.
even·ly adv.
even·ness n.
e·ven 2 (vn)
n. Archaic
Evening.

[Middle English, from Old English fen.] ((The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.))

even 1, Adjective
1. level and regular; flat
2. on the same level: make sure the surfaces are even with one another
3. regular and unvarying: an even pace
4. equally balanced between two sides
5. equal in number, quantity, etc.
6. (of a number) divisible by two
7. denoting alternatives, events, etc., that have an equal probability: they have a more than even chance of winning the next election
8. having scored the same number of points
9. even money or evens a bet in which the winnings are exactly the same as the amount staked
10. get even with Informal to exact revenge on; settle accounts with

Adverb
1. used to suggest that the content of a statement is unexpected or paradoxical: it’s chilly in Nova Scotia, even in August
2. used to intensify a comparative adjective or adverb: an even greater demand
3. used to introduce a word that is stronger and more accurate than one already used: a normal, even inevitable aspect of ageing
4. used preceding a hypothesis to emphasize that whether or not the condition is fulfilled, the statement remains valid: the remark didn’t call for an answer even if he could have thought of one
5. even so in spite of any assertion to the contrary; nevertheless
6. even though despite the fact that
See also even out, even up [Old English efen]
evenly adv
evenness n
even 2
Noun
Poetic or old-fashioned
1. eve

2. evening [Old English fen] ((Ibid))

even (vn)

Divisible by 2 with a remainder of 0, such as 12 or 876. ((Ibid))

his (hz) adj. The possessive form of he

1.
Used as a modifier before a noun: his boots; his plans.
pron. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
Used to indicate the one or ones belonging to him: If you can’t find your hat, take his.

[Middle English, from Old English; see ko- in Indo-European roots.] ((Ibid))

To be continued . . .

Here is Love

image_pdfimage_print

I really don’t know what to say. It’s Welsh, very Baptist, and very beautiful. It is known as the “Love song of the Welsh Revival.”

You can listen to the midi file by clicking on the player below or the hymn title below the player.

Here is Love

Here is love, vast as the ocean,
Lovingkindness as the flood,
When the Prince of Life, our Ransom,
Shed for us His precious blood.
Who His love will not remember?
Who can cease to sing His praise?
He can never be forgotten,
Throughout Heav’n’s eternal days.

On the mount of crucifixion,
Fountains opened deep and wide;
Through the floodgates of God’s mercy
Flowed a vast and gracious tide.
Grace and love, like mighty rivers,
Poured incessant from above,
And Heav’n’s peace and perfect justice
Kissed a guilty world in love.

Let me all Thy love accepting,
Love Thee, ever all my days;
Let me seek Thy kingdom only
And my life be to Thy praise;
Thou alone shalt be my glory,
Nothing in the world I see.
Thou hast cleansed and sanctified me,
Thou Thyself hast set me free.

In Thy truth Thou dost direct me
By Thy Spirit through Thy Word;
And Thy grace my need is meeting,
As I trust in Thee, my Lord.
Of Thy fullness Thou art pouring
Thy great love and power on me,
Without measure, full and boundless,
Drawing out my heart to Thee.

A Golden Chain? – Part 1

image_pdfimage_print

NOTE: The title of this series is taken from R.C. Sproul, et al who define the passage of Romans 8:29-30 as a “Golden Chain of Salvation” and use it to support their belief in the Calvinist/Reformed definition of “predestination.”

In dealing with Calvinism, whether it is called Reformed Theology, Sovereign Grace, Augustinian Theology, or Primitive Baptist Theology, one will almost immediately come face to face with the following passage of Scripture, and the subsequent Calvinist interpretation of it:

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)

Which they then turn around and explain that the passage means this ((I apologize for the long quotes, but to understand what has been done, and why it is in error, this is utterly necessary. Also, the all CAPS emphasis was in the original e-mail and comment)):

This well known passage in Romans has been called the” Golden Chain Of Salvation”. It is crucial to the foreknowledge view that in this text God’s foreknowledge comes BEFORE God’s predestination.

First, the conclusion that God’s predestination is determined by God’s foreknowledge is not taught by the passage. Paul does not say that God chooses people on the basis of his prior knowledge of their choices. That idea is neither stated nor implied by the text. All the text declares is that God predestines those he foreknows. No one disputes that God has foreknowledge. Even God could not choose poeple he didn’t know anything about. Before he could choose Jacob he had to have some idea in his mind of Jacob. But the text does not teach that God chose Jacob on the basis of Jacob’s choice.

Note the order of events in the passage.

FOREKNOWLEDGE-PREDESTINATION-CALLING-JUSTIFICATION-GLORIFICATION. The crucial problem here has to do with the relationship of calling and justification. What does Paul mean by “calling”. In theology we distinguish between God’s external call and God’s internal call. We find the external call in the preaching of the gospel. Not everyone who hears the outward call of the gospel becomes a believer. Sometimes the gospel falls on deaf ears.

Now we know that only those who respond to the outward call of the gospel in faith our justified. Justification is by faith. But again, not everyone who hears the outward preaching of the gospel responds in faith. Therefore we must conclude that not all who are CALLED outwardly are justified.

But Paul says in Romans that those whom God CALLS, he JUSTIFIES. If Paul does not mean that ALL who are CALLED are JUSTIFIED, the only alternative would be that SOME who are justified. If we supply the word Some in the GOLDEN CHAIN it would read like this:

Some of those he foreknew, he also predestined. Some of those he predestined, he also called. Some of those he called, these he also justified. Some of those he justified, he also glorified.

This reading of the text leaves us with a theological nightmare. It would mean that only some of the predestined ever hear the gospel and that only some of the justified are ultimately saved. These notions are in conflict with what the Bible teaches on these matters.

Yet the foreknowledge view suffers an even bigger problem from supplying the word some. If God’s predestination is based on his foreknowledge of how people will respond to the outward call of the gospel, how is it that only some of the predestined are even called? It would demand that God predestines some who are not called. If some of the predestined are predestined without being called, then God would not be basing his predestination on a prior knowledge of their response to his call. They could have no response to a call they never receive! God cannot have foreknowledge of a person’s non-answer to a non-call.

Whew! If we follow all that, then we will see the conclusion screaming a us. Paul cannot be implying the word some. Rather, the Golden Chain necessarily implies the word all.

Let’s review the bidding. If we supply the word some to the Golden Chain the result is fatal to the foreknowledge view of predestination because it would have God predestinating some people who are not called. Since the view teaches that God’s predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge of people’s positive responses to the call of the gospel, then clearly the view collapses if some are predestined with a call.

The supplying of the word all is equally fatal to the foreknowledge view. This difficulty centers on the relationship of calling to justification. If all who are called are justified, then the passage could mean one of two things:

A) All who hear the gospel outwardly are justified; or
B) All who are called by God inwardly are justified. ((pp. 129-133, Chosen of God, R.C. Sproul, Tyndale House, 1994, ISBN 0842313354))

They (the Calvinists) then go on to conclude:

If you believe option A, you are a universalist, that everyone will be saved.
If you believe option B, all who are called inwardly by God are justified.

If all whom God calls inwardly are justified and all whom God predestines are called inwardly, then it follows that God’s foreknowledge concerns more than a mere prior awareness of the free decisions humans will make. God knows from eternity whom he will inwardly call. All who he inwardly calls he will also justify. If option B is the correct understanding of the Golden Chain, then it is clear that God gives one kind of call to some people that he does not give to everyone. Since all who are called are justified and since not everyone is justified, the it follows that calling is a rather significant divine activity that some human beings receive and others do not.

It is crucial to remember that the inward call of God is given to people before they believe, before they respond in faith. If it influences the response in any way, then God is predestinating an advantage to the elect. If it does not influence the human decision, then what does it do?

The Golden Chain Of Salvation teaches from all eternity God foreknew his elect.He had an idea of their identities in his mind before he created them. He not only foreknew them in the sense of knowing them, but he also foreknew them in a sense of foreloving (sic) them.

In conclusion I believe that all whom God has thus foreknown he has also predestined to be inwardly called, to be justified, and to be glorified. God sovereignly brings the salvation of his elect and only his elect. ((quoted from Aaron, post comments, part belongs to R.C. Sproul, part to Aaron))

Additionally, some other Calvinist sources go further and state:

I. The first important thing to notice is the five things are linked together into one unbreakable chain. If one of them is true then they are all true. The word “for” in verse 29 begins the argument that proves beyond question that all things have to work together for good for the people of God. The Apostle lists five things that are certain to happen because of God’s sovereign purpose. God’s people are (1) all foreknown, (2) all predestined, (3) all called, (4) all justified, and (5) all glorified.

All five of these things are set forth as not only essential to God’s eternal purpose of salvation but also as absolutely certain of fulfillment. They summarize the salvation of sovereign grace that has it’s origins in eternity with God’s foreknowledge and ends in eternity with our full glorification. Each link grows out of the former link to form one unbreakable chain. Every sinner who is “foreknown” is going to eventually be totally “glorified.” Notice how all five links fit nicely together.

When verse 29 says, “For those whom He foreknew,” it must be referring to a specific identifiable people. They are the identical same people who in verse 28 “love God” and have been “called.” All of those who are “foreknown” are also “predestined to become conformed into the image of His Son.” The foreknown ones and the predestined are the same identical people. All those who are foreknown and then predestined are next “called.” Being effectually called is the first step taken to bring guilty sinners out of the graveyard of sin and death and ultimately glorify them in heaven in full redemption. The order of these things is important. It is especially important in the next step. All those who are called, because they have been foreknown and predestined, are also all “justified.” In other words, everyone, without a single exception that is effectually called by the Holy Spirit unto salvation will always be justified. ((A Reformed Theologian))

Non-Reformed theology teaches that God calls all men without exception and those who, with their free will, decide to respond were then justified and predestined to be eternally secure. The predestining purpose of God always came after the sinner’s willingness to answer God’s call. It is obvious that this idea is not possible in this passage of Scripture. According to Paul, our calling unto salvation by the Holy Spirit comes after and grows out of our predestination and not vice versa. If that were not true, the text would say, “God calls all men, and justifies only those who are willing to believe.” However, the text puts the order exactly in the reverse order. We were not predestined to final glorification because we were willing to believe, but we were made willing to believe only because we had already been predestined. Calling is merely the first step towards the foreordained end of total glorification and all who have been foreordained to that end will be called and justified. The Holy Spirit clearly states that all without exception who are called are also justified. It is impossible to be called, in the sense that Paul is using the word “called,” without also being justified. ((Ibid))

To review what we have seen thus far, the biblical order of salvation is:

Foreknowledge = Foreordination that is based in God’s eternal decree.

Predestination/Election – God’s sovereign determination of who would be saved by His own good pleasure and not based upon anything in those who are chosen (Rom. 9:11).

Effectual Calling – the outward call of the gospel comes to the sinner through evangelism and the inward call of the Holy Spirit experienced in the heart of the person brings about spiritual regeneration (John 6:44). This inward call is the “call” of Romans 8:29-30. This effectual calling leads to (a) spiritual regeneration which logically leads to (b) Repentance unto life/faith in Jesus Christ. Regeneration, saving faith, and repentance all occur simultaneously in time but logically, regeneration comes before faith/regeneration (1 John 5:1; 2 Tim. 2:25).

Justification – the declaration of a sinner as righteous before God on the basis of Christ’s righteousness credited to them. The believer is also declared completely sanctified (holy) at the moment of justification but also continues to grow in holiness practically throughout life. Conversion immediately follows regeneration/repentance/faith and justification as expressed in an outward profession of faith and water baptism.

Glorification (sinless perfection that only occurs when in heaven).
It is important to realize that the “Golden Chain of Redemption”/Order of Salvation has as much to do with salvation stages as it does with the cause(s) of salvation itself. Thus, a person is regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to be gifted with faith, but there is no such thing as a regenerated person that is walking about without saving faith. ((Ibid))

Now, I do apologize for the long quotes. However, as can be seen, there is a string of logic here that seems to start with a certain supposition, that being:

The passage of Romans 8:29-30 sits in the context of all mankind.

We can see and know that by the following argument presented:

But Paul says in Romans that those whom God CALLS, he JUSTIFIES. If Paul does not mean that ALL who are CALLED are JUSTIFIED, the only alternative would be that SOME who are justified. If we supply the word Some in the GOLDEN CHAIN it would read like this:

Some of those he foreknew, he also predestined. Some of those he predestined, he also called. Some of those he called, these he also justified. Some of those he justified, he also glorified.

This reading of the text leaves us with a theological nightmare. It would mean that only some of the predestined ever hear the gospel and that only some of the justified are ultimately saved. These notions are in conflict with what the Bible teaches on these matters.

Yet the foreknowledge view suffers an even bigger problem from supplying the word some. If God’s predestination is based on his foreknowledge of how people will respond to the outward call of the gospel, how is it that only some of the predestined are even called? It would demand that God predestines some who are not called. If some of the predestined are predestined without being called, then God would not be basing his predestination on a prior knowledge of their response to his call. They could have no response to a call they never receive! God cannot have foreknowledge of a person’s non-answer to a non-call.

Whew! If we follow all that, then we will see the conclusion screaming a us. Paul cannot be implying the word some. Rather, the Golden Chain necessarily implies the word all.

Let’s review the bidding. If we supply the word some to the Golden Chain the result is fatal to the foreknowledge view of predestination because it would have God predestinating some people who are not called. Since the view teaches that God’s predestination is based upon God’s foreknowledge of people’s positive responses to the call of the gospel, then clearly the view collapses if some are predestined with a call.

The supplying of the word all is equally fatal to the foreknowledge view. This difficulty centers on the relationship of calling to justification. If all who are called are justified, then the passage could mean one of two things:

A) All who hear the gospel outwardly are justified; or
B) All who are called by God inwardly are justified. ((pp. 129-133, Chosen of God, R.C. Sproul, Tyndale House, 1994, ISBN 0842313354))

This argument would be and is, totally unnecessary unless one believes that the context of Romans, Chapter 8 has the context of all mankind. If the context of Romans, Chapter 8 is only believers, then the above argument is pointless as one would be arguing against a condition or situation that does not exist in the chapter. However, if one believes that both believers and non-believers are addressed in this chapter, then the argument makes sense in that one would be demonstrating how that some come to salvation, and others do not. Otherwise, the whole argument presented above, by both R.C. Sproul and A Reformed Theologian, is like presenting an argument about non-coffee drinkers, by referencing coffee drinkers (or any other such thing), which really doesn’t follow at all. In short, unless the context of Chapter 8 is all mankind, the entire argument about a “chain of salvation” as presented above, is a non-sequitur — it simply does not follow, and is utterly pointless.

To be continued . . .

Translate »