Blog | Reproach of Men

The Hebrew and the Greek

You call yourself a student of the bible, and do not have the original Hebrew/Greek translation? Are you serious? I forgot, its KJV, or nothing for Paul. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 20 Feb. 2009))

The Interlinear Bible is the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek, translated in literal English by Jp(sic) Green.You would no(sic) this if you had one. It is not a study bible, it is the original Hebrew/Greek translation of God’s Word! Every serious Bible student would have this original translation and would no(sic) this. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 19 Feb. 2009))

I get challenged from time to time about where I stand on the Scripture, as I am King James Version only. Specifically, I use the 1769 Edition of the KJV, which is the last edition and incorporates standardized modern punctuation and spelling. I hold to the King James Version for several reasons that are well-grounded Scripturally, of which I will address a couple. Unfortunately, it means that I am going to get hammered as being “backward” and a “stick in the mud” as I steadfastly refuse to use any modern version, except to show the corruption of those versions. Worse yet, I am even more uneducated and unlearned as I also refuse to use interlinear bibles, commentaries and such like, choosing to remain with the Bible and a couple of authoritative unabridged English dictionaries and a thesaurus.

In the minds of some, this makes me ignorant, presumptuous and a bit of a dunce. However, that would fly in the face of certain facts about my abilities as a technician, able to grasp complex technical subjects like interferometric principles and laser interferometry, machine geometry and design, electronics, control systems, etc. It also is to have an attitude devoid of understanding some very significant things the LORD God has declared in His word. What I am stating here is plain: I deliberately chose this particular route to take against advice to the contrary, as I see certain things in Scripture that confirm and validate what I believe. With that stated, here is a portion of my case laid before you:

First, it is essential to understand that the LORD God is the Author of all languages, no matter when and where they come into existence. The LORD demonstrated this at Babel:

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. (Genesis 11:5-9)

Additionally, the LORD God performed the reverse of Babel on the day of Pentecost:

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:1-11)

At Pentecost the LORD did not undo the languages. Rather, He ensured that everyone present, regardless of where in the world they originated from, heard what was spoken in their own language, even down to the particular dialect they spoke. Thus we find the LORD fully capable of controlling and commanding not only the language, but the way we hear what is spoken, regardless of what language the words are spoken in.

The day of Pentecost had a specific and express function for the New Testament church, but is also applicable to the issue of what Bible we use and whether we need the Greek and Hebrew source texts to refer back to. At Pentecost the LORD made it very plain to all who heard, and to the apostles who spoke, that He intended to have His word in every language on the face of the earth. That is, after all, the only reason for having anyone speak in tongues on that particular day or any other day. We find this confirmation to spread the Scripture throughout the entire world confirmed and reinforced by the Lord Jesus Christ when He stated:

Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:45-47)

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (Matthew 28:16-20)

Now, it would be quite the stretch to believe the Lord Jesus Christ plainly commanded and intended for the gospel and all of the word of God to go to every single nation on the face of the earth, and then believe that everyone needs to learn ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek so they can understand what the LORD God requires of us, and what Jesus Christ did for us. Somehow, that simply does not work — at all. Thus we are forced to ask another question:

Did the LORD know that His word would need to be translated?

The answer is an obvious “Yes.” Certainly He knew. The only other option would be to require everyone on earth to learn ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek. Certainly we find that not practical, nor do we find anywhere in Scripture the LORD God requiring any particular language to be learned before one can learn of Him. Instead, what we do find is an outreach to every nation on earth, regardless of the language spoken. The particular preservation of the Old Testament Scripture was in Hebrew as the LORD’s covenant was with Israel. ((There are the minor exceptions of part of the book of Daniel, minor portions of Ezra, and a verse in Jeremiah.)) After all, what could we make of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon? Certainly it would be far, far from reason to assume that his court and kingdom spoke Hebrew, or that he allowed Hebrew to be spoken in His court during the conduct of business. Rather, they spoke Chaldee, or Aramaic and conducted business accordingly. So then another question arises which we ought to consider seeing the following declaration is in the Scripture:

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)

And again:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:6-7)

Since all the words of the LORD are pure and unadulterated, how did the LORD God intend for everyone in the world to have His word? Certainly the LORD God knows of the problems inherent in translating anything from one language to another, and certainly He has a plan for insuring that all who want His word can have it. If we care to note the passage from Psalm 12, where it is stated:

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalm 12:7)

We will understand that the preservation of the Scripture lies within the province of the LORD God, and is not given unto man. Moreover, we should understand that the Scripture is not given to man to have and to hold, rather what is given to man is actually a copy of the Scripture, and not the original. Whether we wish to understand it or not, the original is held inviolate in Heaven:

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psalm 119:89)

And again:

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. (Psalm 119:160)

Thus man has absolutely no power to change the original which is in Heaven. Moreover, all that results in men changing the Scripture to suit themselves, is to bring utter condemnation upon their own heads. Because the Scripture is so held inviolate, the Lord Jesus Christ made it utterly clear the standard by which man is to be judged:

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:47-48)

If then, these things are true (and they are) and the LORD God is a righteous Judge, then He will insure that man always has access to His written word — the Scripture. Moreover, we can plainly see that the LORD fully intended for people to have His word in their native language so they know and understand how and why He judges them. Here then we turn to the problem of translating the Scripture, and yet retaining the purity of the word of God. However, before proceeding, we should consider how the LORD God views His own word, and consequently what our view of His word ought to be:

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. (Psalm 138:2)

By this we should understand that mishandling the word of God — the Scripture, is worse than blaspheming the name of God. Therefore, we should be the more careful and cautious how we handle the Scripture, lest we outright condemn ourselves.

What this means is that those who do any translating of the Scripture into another language must be led and guided of the LORD God to do the translating, and must do it on a proper basis, else the work they undertake will not be blessed and will not result in an accurate and proper translation. Moreover, we do have examples in Scripture that demonstrate plainly the LORD’s ability to use individuals to present His word in multiple languages accurately. First, we have the several incidents recorded in Acts where Hebrew, or other known tongue was spoken and it was recorded in Greek. (Acts 22:1-2, 26:14, 10:44-46, 19:1-6) And, we have the apostle Paul’s own testimony of speaking the word of God to others who did not speak Hebrew, in which he effectively and accurately translated what is stated in the Old Testament:

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. (I Corinthians 14:18-20)

Here the apostle Paul testifies to the Corinthians that he spoke the word of God in several different languages, and refused to speak in an unknown language. This would not, and should not be surprising as the ministry of the apostle Paul encompassed a number of countries, and the LORD God equipped and enabled him to carry out that ministry. The one “language” the apostle Paul refused to speak was the “unknown” tongue, as there was and is no profit in it.

What this plainly demonstrates is the ability of the LORD God to carry forth His word into many different languages utilizing the individuals He has called and gifted for particular ministries. Moreover, the LORD is able to do so and maintain the purity of His word, all without the need for interlinear Bibles and constantly referring back to the Hebrew and Greek. Rather, what the LORD plainly intended was the translation of His word into every language on earth.

Though there is much more to be said about this, particularly as to why I hold to the King James Version only, for now this will suffice as I certainly am no better than the Waldensians, who had a Bible in their own language, and their doctrine was sound for quite a long time. However, we should also note that merely having a right Bible, or the correct underlying Scripture text, or even having the originals (which do not exist anymore) does not in any way guarantee that one will have right doctrine. Rather, having right doctrine is a matter of attentiveness and obedience to the LORD and His word, not merely possessing it and reading it.

There is one further item of note here as to why the particular interlinear Bible Aaron chose to use is J.P. Green’s “literal” interlinear. It really is quite simple, and it has everything to do with the doctrine interwoven in the English text of the “literal” interlinear Bible:

FOUNDER OF SOVEREIGN GRACE PUBLISHERS, INC
JAY P. GREEN, SR. ((J.P. Green Study Archive @ PreteristArchive.com – The Internet’s Only Balanced Look at Preterism – WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID))

Hmmm . . . . a Bible that would validate Augustinian/Calvinist/Reformed/Sovereign Grace/Primitive Baptist theology. What better way to insure your doctrine is “valid.” After all, the “Bible” says so.

Oh, and Mr. Green had to attack the King James Version to support his new version (else why would we need a new version):

Although it is admitted that Erasmus has added to his Received Text two or three readings from the Latin Vulgate, without Greek manuscript authority (e.g. Acts 9: 5, 6), and one from the Complutension Bible which as no Greek manuscript authority (1 John 5: 7), we have not deleted these from the Greek text as supplied by the Trinitarian Bible Society – though we do not accept them as true Scripture. ((J.P. Green Study Archive @ PreteristArchive.com – The Internet’s Only Balanced Look at Preterism – THE GREEK TEXT IN THIS VOLUME))

And, we also see that J.P. Green ignores the Formal Translation method and lumps it in with Dynamic Translation, smearing both the KJV translators and the Bible they produced (Should we wonder why?):

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

There are two translations in this volume, one appearing as the literal translation of the Greek words, with English equivalents directly under each of the Greek words, and the other, The King James 2 Version, on the side of the page, which serves to provide a straight-forward translation for the purpose of making it easy for the reader to see the proper word order in English, and to thus easily essiminate the message given in God’s word on that page. Both translations are accomplished in a word-for word translation.

The ‘conceptual idea’ form of “translating” the word of God has been rejected, studiously avoided because no person has the right, nor the inspiration, to rewrite God’s word to conform it to his own concepts.

Those passing off their conceptual ideas are, in our opinion, despising the words originally given, and carefully preserved……. It is hoped that these literal word-for-word translations will demonstrate that a true word-for-word translation can also be a readable and easily understood representation of the Scriptures. ((J.P. Green Study Archive @ PreteristArchive.com – The Internet’s Only Balanced Look at Preterism – THE ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS))

Now we have somewhat of the rest of the story. . . .

Unteachable?

NOTE: I underline for emphasis. All emphasis is mine.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thessalonians 5:21)

Well, it’s not the first time I have been called “unteachable,” and I am certain it won’t be the last.

What is the problem?

I demand proof — not assertions. I also demand that competency be demonstrated in the English language and in knowledge of the Scripture. Additionally, honesty is paramount, along with a strong sense of respect for the rights of others. What this means is you do not take the materials of others and appropriate them for your use, not acknowledging they are not your own. Moreover, when using the material of others, citation is given as to the author and publisher. Failure to abide by the foregoing will certainly cause me to lose respect for whosoever it is that is attempting to teach me. This is when I become “unteachable.”

What I was told was this:

Paul, your spirit is unteachable, and I”m(sic) no longer going to bang my head against the wall for someone who has no respect for me. ((http://www.reproachofmen.org/blog/?p=788&cpage=1#comment-1370))

And:

You are unbelievable. Paul, I have a feeling you have to be right and argue about everything. That is a sign of an unteachable spirit. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 13 Feb. 2009))

Of course, there is a reason for my “unteachable spirit,” which is duly noted above and in my personal testimony. When I was saved back in 1996, I determined that I would never be deceived again — and I have steadfastly, rigorously tested everything that I encounter. Initially, I had a learning curve which coincided with my learning of the doctrine. However, as time has gone on, I have come to know why certain doctrines, no matter how they are presented, are inherently wrong. Additionally, I have also learned when someone is dodging questions and not being honest with the Scripture.

Of course, my willingness to listen and understand what they are teaching diminishes greatly when I am given “correction” like the following:

No Paul, my analogy is not saying we control God, really bad understanding of my analogy. God controls our decisions to further his will. Our will is the hand and God’s will is the glove, His will and purpose are behind our decisions. We can’t make a decision with out God’s will and purpose being behind it, hense(sic) the glove over the hand. Why did you erase all the evidence that refuted your commentary? When are you going to give scripture reference to your view of foreknowledge? When are you going to explain how one receives Jesus by grace alone without merit according to your foreknowledge view? ((http://www.reproachofmen.org/blog/?p=579&cpage=1#comment-1328))

In looking at Aaron’s analogy of the hand and the glove, I really have to raise the question of which is in actual control: the glove — or the hand. The fact that a glove covers a hand does not and cannot change the reality that it is the hand which is in control. The glove has no actual ability to influence what the hand does, it simply is a slave to the hand — which was my point to Aaron. However, as you can plainly see, he missed it totally. The problem here is the analogy stinks, especially for the point Aaron is attempting to make.

As for the erasing of the commentary, I didn’t. It was held in Moderation until I decided what to do with it. The reason I could not decide what to do was the comments were plagiarized. There was absolutely no citation or acknowledgment that the comments made belonged to someone else, and were being appropriated for use as “Comments.” This is theft of intellectual property. This was not the first instance either. Back when this whole debate started some months ago, Aaron plagiarized R.C. Sproul’s work, and when called on it, blew it off with this remark:

First, I never claimed the questions to be originally to be my own, Second, Who cares if the commentary did not come from me originally, where the truth comes from is irrelevant if I believe the content. ((private e-mail dated 24 Nov. 2008))

To which I replied:

You have a very real problem that you don’t even see. Using or sending material that you do not cite the source, and allowing someone to think it is your own is called “plagiarism” and it is fundamentally dishonest. Everyone who has ever gone through school and written any paper that used other sources has been instructed as to what constitutes plagiarism, and that it is fundamentally wrong. It constitutes intellectual theft of property.

What is even more distressing is that you don’t see a problem with appropriating other people’s material as your own. This is very disturbing and indicates plainly that you have no problem with dishonesty. None of this is “irrelevant” and is not mitigated in any way by whether you agree with the authors of the material or not. You took of their labor, and appropriated it for your own, passing it off as your own after citing J.I. Packer, which means that you knew you should cite your sources. ((e-mail to Aaron dated 24 Nov. 2008))

To which I received the following reply:

I’m not in school writing a paper for you to grade, therefore, in the future I will recite the source if that makes you happy. I did not realize this was important to you. Again, I was not in any form trying to take credit for anyone’s work, just giving you information that I agree with and asking you to respond. If I gave that impression I apologize. If I believe in the content, what does it matter where it comes from? If I can copy and paste someone elses commentary that I believe in and save typing time, whats wrong with that. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 24 Nov. 2008))

When I pushed for an acknowledgment of wrongdoing in the midst of addressing a closely related issue, I received the following:

Still waiting for you to respond to my foreknowledge/predestination and Romans Chapter 9 emails, quit dodging PAUL and answer the emails. Who is plagiarizing? Not me, I have sited(sic) all my sources professor Davis. Quit shifting the attention on false non-issues and answer the emails that are fatal to your theology. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 26 Nov. 2008))

The supposed “false non-issue” is a reference to the thread of discussion in which I pressed for an answer to the following contradiction in Calvinist/Reformed doctrine:

Even though you cannot seem to see the inherent contradiction in this (Just like you cannot seem to see how plagiarism is theft and wicked sin.):

“People make decisions for themselves. OK Paul, Good. People are responsible for the decisions they make,”

and

“WHO DECIDES? GOD DOES, AND HE DOESN’T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT IT.”

We will go on, specifically since you stated the following:

“Ok, Good. Every decision a person makes good or evil fulfills God’s will.”

So, this was all God’s will:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea , hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons . And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:1-8)

By your words, it was the will of God that Adam fell, and sin entered into the world. Correct? ((e-mail to Aaron dated 26 Nov. 2008))

Now, for those who are familiar with Mormonism and the Book of Mormon, my question should ring a bell. Additionally, if we understand the point of the question, we will understand that this is one of the core issues of Calvinist/Reformed doctrine concerning salvation. It is not, as Aaron claimed, a non-issue. Nonetheless, my bringing up again the unresolved issue of Aaron’s plagiarism touched a nerve, and I was called “professor Davis” in reply.

After cutting communication with him and rebuking him sharply, he finally sent this “apology” of sorts:

I did not realize I was not being honest and decent ,and discussing docrine(sic), I am willing to do that. We got on the wrong foot some how, I apologize for my part. I would like for you to respond to this email and the others. Thank you ((e-mail from Aaron dated 1 Dec. 2008))

To which I replied:

Do you understand how wrong plagiarism is? And that one should never do it, no matter how much you agree with the source?

The only exception to this rule is to protect the identity of an individual that may not, or does not wish to have their name published. Obviously, this does not apply to published materials. When I quoted you in the blog post, I did not name you expressly, only stated that “a Calvinist” sent me an e-mail. That way, you were cited without focusing on your name, only on what you said. ((e-mail to Aaron dated 1 Dec. 2008))

And I also sent another letter to him detailing the problem with Westboro Baptist Church and Fred Phelps, where they outright lied about a meaning to an underlying Greek word:

My larger point here was that Westboro lied – outright lied. Westboro claimed that a meaning didn’t exist, when it plainly does exist. Once you lie, it really doesn’t matter about your argument. Bald-faced lying will kill any credibility one has. I could have ended the whole series about Westboro with the point below, and been fully justified.

My second point was this:

“Since we now know that outright distortion of the meaning of passages and verses is not beyond them . . .”

If someone will lie about one thing, especially something so obvious, what else will they lie about and distort? Why should I believe anything Westboro Baptist Church says?

If we want to discuss whether the context of the passage is “all men everywhere” or only “the elect,” that is a separate discussion altogether. ((e-mail to Aaron dated 1 Dec. 2008))

Aaron then agreed that he knew plagiarism is wrong:

1) Yes, I know plagiarism is wrong. 2) My intentions were not to plagiarize, but to simply challenge your views with other people’s commentary that I believe refute your thinking. My mistake was not telling you in advance my sources, which I have since aplologized(sic) for. ((e-mail from Aaron dated 1 Dec. 2008))

However, I should have known that he was not sincere, and that plagiarism is the normal mode of operation for him as is shown by the comments referenced above that are plagiarized. They were posted in late December well after he stated he knew what plagiarism was and that it is wrong. The comments can be found here and here.

The long and short of this is that I am “unteachable” when someone has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt they are a thief and a liar. I simply refuse to take anything they state with anything other than a grain of salt. Why should I accept what they say? If I allow myself to receive “teaching” from a thief and liar, then I too will become like the thief and liar. The Scripture tells me that. Before I will believe any man, I will look to Scripture for my instruction. I expect everyone else to do the same.

I do not expect anyone to believe what I say simply because I say it or write it. Rather, I expect it to be tested and rigorously examined by the standard of Scripture. I firmly believe that, if I am correct, the LORD will confirm it without question in His word. In this sense, I expect everyone else to be “unteachable” as well. After all, the Scripture, the word of God instructs us with the following:

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (John 6:45)

And again:

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (II Peter 1:19-21)

And yet again:

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (II Timothy 3:13-17)

The reason for this is summed up in the following statement by the Lord Jesus Christ:

Hence, whether anyone listens to me or not, a failure to adhere to the Scriptures will cause one to be judged and condemned by the very Scriptures they failed to pay heed to and handle properly.

As for Aaron, well . . . . he obviously thinks he has something in him folks want as this statement was in one of the final comments he left:

There are people that are starving to have what is inside of me. ((http://www.reproachofmen.org/blog/?p=788&cpage=1#comment-1370))

Oooo-kay. It’s breathtakingly arrogant, but if you believe it . . . . . . . . . . Hell awaits.

A Golden Chain? – Part 3

Since the ‘chain of events’ here described concerns all the LORD God foreknew, we need to return to the statement made earlier where it was briefly mentioned:

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.

Though the “foreknow” that was addressed earlier could be applied to any and all individuals on the earth as the LORD God does know everyone that would ever be conceived, in the context of the passage and by the specific statement “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. . .” it applies only to those who are born again. However, there is that “portion” of foreknow which I did not address which resides outside of any context and applies only to a certain class, or set of individuals which the Scripture describes as being “in Christ” and not “in Adam.” The reason it is expressly applied is due to the particular meaning of the words “know” and “knew” as they are used by the LORD to address those who have obeyed the gospel. As we are told in Matthew, Chapter 7, when the Lord Jesus Christ delivered the Sermon on the Mount, there is a ‘knowing’ that is not simply ‘knowing about,’ but a personal, intimate knowledge of, and fellowship with, another person:

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. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Here, the Lord Jesus Christ instructs those hearing Him that it is not a matter of “good” or powerful works that gain one entrance into heaven. Rather, it is that one is personally known of or by the Lord Jesus Christ. This concept of “knowing” which is having a personal relationship with, is further reinforced in several other places in Scripture:

Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? (Galatians 4:8-9)

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. (I Corinthians 8:1-3)

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? (John 14:6-9)

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (Hebrews 8:10-12)

. . . 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 9:24)

Thus, knowing the LORD, and being known by the LORD is the hallmark and defining feature of a born-again child of God. No matter how much one may claim to serve the LORD, no matter what works they do, without being known of God personally, the claims of having fellowship with Him are not true, and thus those persons are dead in trespasses and sins. There is no way to come to knowing God, and being known of Him, except in faith and in repentance, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ for your salvation. This belief must be from the heart, voluntarily of one’s own free will. Nothing less is acceptable to the LORD God.

Therefore, we now go back and examine verse 29 and what it states again to look at the other part of “foreknow,” which is that personal relationship with Him, and see what the LORD means by that:

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. (Romans 8:29)

Before continuing, we must understand that the LORD God sees all time, all at once. And differentiates every point in time, from every other point in time. Thus, from eternity past to eternity future, the LORD God is present there, even as He is present here and now. The perspective of the LORD God is that all time is present, and yet there is a past, present and future. The LORD God is the author and master of time as He initiated time, and will, as the Scripture states, end time at a certain point:

And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. (Revelation 10:5-7)

And we are shown that from before time, the LORD was there:

Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. (Isaiah 48:16)

And this is confirmed by other Scripture as well, as Proverbs speaks of wisdom personified:

The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. (Proverbs 8:22-23)

So it is when foreknowledge is spoken of, it is done so for two reasons:

1. We cannot mentally digest the concept and idea of all time being “present” time.

We simply cannot conceive of something being at once: past, present and future. We were created to exist within a frame of time, and cannot operate outside of that. We are simply mentally not able to comprehend it. We would mentally go “off the deep end” trying to grasp what we perceived.

2. Physical creation demands time.

It is impossible for physical events to occur, except in a framework wherein time delineates and defines those events. Since the LORD God brought into existence the physical law that no two objects can occupy the same space at the same time, time is essential for the physical creation to operate, else everything would remain exactly as it was when created.

Hence, though in eternity past, the LORD God saw everything that is happening right now — in relation to physical creation, it was yet to happen. Moreover, since no soul that descended from Adam had come into existence as yet, and even Adam himself was yet to be created, all that is spoken of here is classed as “foreknowledge” and from the perspective of creation and events in creation, it is indeed foreknowledge. However, in the heart and mind of the LORD God, He sees (saw) it as immediately present.

Thus, when it states “whom he did foreknow,” not only is it speaking of simply knowing beforehand, but it is relating to us that the LORD God knew those who would be saved in eternity past as if they were in existence at that time. In sum, He had personal intimate knowledge of their souls. This then, reinforces the understanding that verses 29 and 30 of Chapter 8 do not address anyone who would not receive the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour, but confirms that the sequence of events which follows, applies to believers only.

Now, being assured the context is specifically and only believers, we must further examine whether this is a sequence of salvation, or simply relating to the believer what is happening in their life as they “work out their own salvation” while living on this earth. Thus, to begin this examination we must set forth the sequence as it is, and see if the rest of Scripture bears out that this is actually the sequence of salvation, or it is indeed the process that occurs as the born-again child of God is increasingly conformed to the image of the Saviour. That sequence is as follows:

Foreknowledge
Predestination
Called
Justified
Glorified

However, again we must understand yet another crucial issue before continuing forward as it bears heavily upon the very existence of not only Chapter 8, and the specific passage in question, but upon the existence of Chapters 5, 6, and 7 as well:

Being born-again in Christ is a brand new experience wherein the believer has no previous experience and has no understanding of what to expect. This is why the newly born-again believer is referred to as a “babe” meaning baby, as we are told in Hebrews, Chapter 5:

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14)

Knowing all this, it is entirely proper to consider the following question which is now posed:

If the events of the new believer’s condition are not clarified and explained, do you think it could and would cause considerable disconcert and unease at certain events that inevitably occur in the life of that individual?

I should say the answer is a resounding “YES!”

The reason for that is confirmed in the following passage from Hebrews, which is only necessary to relate, if, and only if, one must be both comforted about events that occur, and taught the “why” of their occurrence:

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. (Hebrews 12:4-13)

And again this view of born-again believers as children is reinforced:

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. (Hebrews 2:10-13)

Which also is confirmed in the passage from Isaiah:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

And again by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself after His resurrection:

Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. (John 21:3-6)

Hence, we should understand that we are little children in need of much instruction so we do not wander away or become discouraged, but are led in the right way and encouraged to “make straight paths for your feet.” These things should then give us a far better understanding of why Romans, Chapters 5 through 8 exist, and why they are structured in the particular manner they are.

To be continued . . .

Invalid Questions – Part 1

Whether we choose to believe it or not, there is such a thing as an invalid question. It has been said that “There are no stupid questions.” however, since there are invalid questions, we could well say that knowingly asking an invalid question to elicit a particular response, is indeed ends up being a stupid question that is only designed to benefit the questioner, and not actually used to determine the truth of a matter. Such questions are like the following:

Please answer YES or NO:

Have you stopped beating your wife? (Presumes one beats his wife, regardless of the answer given.)
The last time you drank, were you violent? (Presumes one drinks, and one has been violent when drunk.)
Would you favor abortion over infanticide? (Presumes one supports the killing of innocent children.)

And the list could go on. Without getting into every example of an invalid question, it can be accurately stated that there are a number of questions that are designed to lead a person into unwittingly admitting something they know is not true, and do not even agree with. Hence, there are invalid questions.

The following questions are also invalid, as they presume things that are not in evidence Scripturally. They are asked knowing there is no answer to them (at least from the Calvinist perspective), and thus are given under the express condition:

I will admit defeat and repent, if you can answer these questions biblically. “I don’t know” is not an answer. ((Private e-mail from Aaron referencing the following questions.))

And here are some of the questions:

Why is it that one unregenerate person believes the gospel and not another?

Was he able to generate a right thought, produce a right affection, create right belief, while at the same time man #2 did not have the natural wherewithal to come up with the faith to be saved?

If they both made use of the same grace, did one make better use of it than the other?

If God’s grace places us in a neutral state, then what motivates one man to believe and not another?

What principle in him made him choose what he did?

If all men are neutral in God’s grace was it by chance that one believed and not another?

Is it the grace of God that makes you differ from unbelievers or is it your faith? ((http://reproachofmen.org/blog/?p=593&cpage=1#comment-1333))

Now, we should understand that there are reasons why the LORD states some things plainly in His word, and other things he is totally silent on. Those things that are plain, those things that can be derived from principles and statements, and those things there is ample evidence for in Scripture, do belong to us, as the LORD stated through Moses:

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

Now, there are limitations to what each of us learn, as we are often not ready for the teaching:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16:12-15)

And again:

But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. (Ephesians 4:20-24)

So it is that the LORD is actually the Teacher of His children, and He uses those He has gifted to teach and preach to accomplish that task, as the Scripture also instructs:

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; . . . (Ephesians 4:11-14)

So it is that the education of the born-again child of God is accomplished by the LORD Himself, at a rate he determines we can handle. Since He truly does know how fast we learn the lessons He desires to impart to us, He is able to “tailor make” the lessons to fit each and every one of His children, and use both the Scripture, and the events of our individual lives to “drive the point home” as it were. ((There is a context in which this teaching occurs at its optimum, but the discussion of that is best left to another article.))

However, there are things the LORD reserves to a set period of time, or even a stage in a person’s life. Nowhere is the LORD compelled to reveal any or all of His mind, except by what His own righteousness, love, mercy, and judgement bring forth from Him. We see this also in Scripture:

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Daniel 12:4)

And, we see that the LORD has spoken things men have heard, but are not allowed to repeat at any time, in any context:

And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not. (Revelation 10:1-4)

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (II Corinthians 1-4)

And, there are times the LORD has commanded men to record and disseminate everything He told them:

And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. (Exodus 17:14)

Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us. (Isaiah 30:8-11)

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. (Jeremiah 30:1-2)

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (Revelation 21:5)

And so it is that the LORD God retains full control over His word, and reveals it as He will, even to the point of sealing it up when people do not appreciate it and lay it to heart:

Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink. For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned. Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (Isaiah 29:9-14)

Thus, we can conclude by the foregoing, that if the LORD has not spoken of something in His word, He has plainly chosen to retain that unto Himself, and we are never to be privy to it. This reservation of His word, and how the LORD God chooses to deal with individuals was aptly illustrated in the incident of the woman caught in adultery in John, Chapter 8:

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? (John 8:4-10)

What I will state here is extracted from the article “The Impossible Command” and addresses directly this issue:

The writing upon the ground
Regarding what the Lord wrote on the ground, I note that many have made comment as to what the Lord wrote and have speculated much upon it. Personally, my thought is that the Lord did not see fit to tell us. Thus it is none of our business and we ought to leave it alone. We should remember that God is under no obligation to tell us anything, let alone what He writes during a particular instance.

We could, however, take some lessons from the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ wrote upon the ground, in full view of the accusers and the woman, but spoke not a word to the crowd and the disciples at large. It is also notable that it is not recorded that the apostles asked what He wrote. What can be drawn from this is that the Lord was dealing with those accusers and the woman, but what He desired to convey to them was no one else’s business.

It is clear, whatever He wrote had its particular effect upon those who saw it. We should note, whatsoever the Lord addressed to an individual or group of individuals frequently was for them alone. If we remember, the Lord rebuked Peter after the resurrection when he asked about John and what John was supposed to do, to wit: “Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?” (John 21:21) to which the Lord answered “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.” (John 21:22) Thus, the Lord reminded Peter (and us as well), what He has for one is not necessarily anyone else’s business. Those things pertaining to all, He has insured they are contained, in full, in the Scripture. Incidentally, anything that the Lord would lay upon any individual or group would not be contrary to the already completed Scripture.

Finally, what we do know about the Lord’s dealing with individuals is this: The Lord deals with everyone individually as they are able to understand what he must tell them. We also know the Lord does not deal haphazardly or randomly with anyone. Nothing the Lord does is ‘in isolation’ or unconnected with anything else, but all drives toward the purpose of reconciling that person to the Lord through recognition of their sin, understanding of who God really is, repentance of sin, and trust in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. To that end, we can understand that whatever the Lord Jesus wrote upon the ground was for those individuals and them alone. What He wrote did not and does not apply to us as He did not make us privy to it. In short, we need to learn to mind our place and not delve into situations the Lord has not seen fit to reveal to us lest we sin in the manner of Job and speak words without knowledge. ((emphasis mine, not in the original article))

Here now, we arrive at the point of the questions, having somewhat examined the LORD’s view on the handling of His word, which is the Scripture, and whether the questions can be answered, should be answered, and if the LORD God would honor such inquiry. Here again are the questions, which I have numbered to track the answering of them:

1. Why is it that one unregenerate person believes the gospel and not another?

2. Was he able to generate a right thought, produce a right affection, create right belief, while at the same time man #2 did not have the natural wherewithal to come up with the faith to be saved?

3. If they both made use of the same grace, did one make better use of it than the other?

4. If God’s grace places us in a neutral state, then what motivates one man to believe and not another?

5. What principle in him made him choose what he did?

6. If all men are neutral in God’s grace was it by chance that one believed and not another?

7. Is it the grace of God that makes you differ from unbelievers or is it your faith?

Bear in mind now that questions 3, 4, 6, and 7 all address grace and its operation in some way, and thus will be addressed together in a discussion of grace and its operation upon a person. This leaves questions 1, 2, and 5 to be discussed separately. However, questions 1 and 5 speak of the heart, and the secrets of a man’s heart, and thus will be discussed together. This leaves question 2 to be discussed by itself, and it will touch upon several areas, including faith.

To be continued . . .

A Golden Chain? – Part 2

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:

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 . . .

Wednesday Night Lesson – The Will of God?

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

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.

A Challenge – Part 1

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 . . .

A Golden Chain? – Part 1

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:

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 . . .

Really? You Think So?

I trust you will understand the title of this article by the time you’re done reading it. If not, well, not to be flippant, but I can’t help you there. I am going to be as plain as I can be, without venturing into ridicule (I hope).

I’ve been working on reformatting the articles on the website to make them far more readable and compatible with every browser out there. In the process of that, this week I have worked on the Apologetics section and have reformatted several of the “Contradictions” articles. While reformatting the introductory articles that address the “non-tract” (which is really a tract for atheism), I reread the introduction of the “non-tract” and was struck by the statement:

“The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself.”

Which sets in the middle of their argument against the Scriptures, which states:

Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn’t a “divinely inspired” document be as clear as possible?
The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies.

Notice the thing about the statement that caught my eye? The statement claims that problems with the Bible and interpreting it are not caused by human limitations.

Really?

How absolutely arrogant can we be here? So, the supposition here is that man, or some men, are perfect? Some of the approximately 6 billion people that walk this earth are actually unlimited in their perspective and ability? How is that now?

If this is the case, then why don’t we have an answer to some of the problems that have given man grief ever since man has been on this earth? Just where are these supposed “enlightened, perfected ones” that are so perfect they are “free from theological bias?”

You know, I grew up on a farm, and I know it when I see it and smell it. No one, but no one is “free from theological bias.” Everyone has some opinion, idea or knowledge of God. Everyone — PERIOD. There are no exceptions. Thus, logically, everyone has a “theological bias” of some sort. Even the atheist has an opinion about God — he doesn’t believe God exists. This, in itself, is a “theological bias,” an opinion that holds that God is not there.

Perhaps then, this explains somewhat the outlandish statement “The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim.” After all, only someone with an overinflated sense of self worth would even contemplate making such a statement. This statement really does defy all evidence. All we have to do is look at the stock market and the economy and we will have sure and certain evidence that man has plenty of limitations. Moreover, the statement contradicts the evidence given in the preceding paragraph of the “non-tract.” Thus, it is a real hoot to state:

“Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn’t a “divinely inspired” document be as clear as possible?”

And then turn right around and state:

“The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim.”

If man were so stinking “unlimited,” wouldn’t we have found out the conclusive, irrefutable, inarguable truth by now? After all, according the atheists, man have been around for far longer than 6000 years. No, according to the theory of evolution subscribed to by atheists, man has been around plenty long enough to have come to conclusive and irrefutable truth by now. After all, “some” of us are “unlimited” and “free from theological bias” and thus able to see infinitely, and determine the truth of all things.

Now I know that the atheists and freethinkers try to warp and twist the meaning of “inspiration” as it is used in Scripture, so that it somehow means that man wasn’t involved in the LORD’s working on earth. After all, the vast majority of the Scripture is about man, and the failings of man, and why man needs (indeed, must have) a redeemer. I also know that the atheists and freethinkers totally discount the spiritual, even though the Scripture deals with the spiritual, and shifts from the physical to the spiritual from one verse to the next.

Ahh, but the atheists and freethinkers are not limited and are “free from theological bias” so that they can discount and intentionally ignore all rules of logic and common sense when it comes to the Scripture. Gee, I wonder if they do this with the owner’s manual for their vehicles? Or is it that they assume they already know, and thus aren’t required to read?

Logically, it is demanded that one must take into account the spiritual when reading the Scripture. This is no different than any other book. If I am reading a book about electrical theory and practice, I am not free to argue with it because it doesn’t address things from a mechanical or hydraulics point of view. It’s kind of like looking at the owner’s manual for a Dodge truck and thinking it’s wrong because you own a Ford, and your vehicle isn’t like that; meanwhile, ignoring all evidence and firmly convincing yourself that the manual must be wrong.

Actually, it is really sad that such hubris exists in man, to move him to claim that the problems people experience with understanding Scripture are not due to man. The really sad part is the lack of understanding of just how limited man really is. We are very nearly deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid, and we really don’t perceive that at all. This goes back to the old adage that “the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.” By that old adage, the folks that wrote, approved of and utilize this tract, really don’t know anything — they just think they do.

Of course, this is in reality, nothing new. There have always been those who cavil the word of God, and the LORD God has always known that. That is why we find the following passage in the Old Testament:

Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you. (Isaiah 41:21-24)

You know, none of us have a clue what tomorrow will bring. In fact, none of us really know what will happen an hour from now. So much for not having limitations. However, the LORD God does know, and He has caused much of things to come to be recorded in His word.

However, if the atheist is so smart and not limited in his perception, let the atheist tell us what will be on the morrow, and of things to come. However, no man has been able to do that yet, despite the “unlimited” powers of some.

If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. However, I don’t think it’s going to be all that funny when the atheist stands at the white throne of judgement and is face to face with the LORD — and is proven dead wrong. Somebody is going to eat the words of the “non-tract,” and regret the day they ever thought them up.

Really, You think so?

No. Unlike the authors of the “non-tract,” I know so.