33Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect [when it is] God Who justifies [that
is, Who puts us in right relation to Himself? Who shall come forward and accuse or
impeach those whom God has chosen? Will God, Who acquits us?]
He, in the splendor of his electing grace having chosen some of them before the
foundation of the world, will not rest till He has justified them, and made them to be
accepted in the Beloved. Is it not written, " Whom he did predestinate, them he also
called: and whom he called them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified"? Thus you see there are some whom the Lord resolves to justify: why should
not you and I be of the number?
Wednesday 28 September 2011
READING DEAD GUYS
There is nothing more enjoyable than when you combine the two things you love. I'n my case it's running and reading, the two "R" 's. A great way to stimulate both heart and mind.
You will have noticed i'n my previous post on " Repentance" that I've been reading Eugene Petersons book, " The Word Made Flesh" , which I have found to be a surprisingly good read considering the fact its been sitting on my bookshelf for a year or so.
During my run I have been listening to a series of talks that Peterson gave on prayer at the Reformed Theological College in the USA . During the introduction it was mentioned that Peterson had for many years made it a practice to read Calvins " Institutes Of The Christian Religion" through once a year. This surprised me. Of course this is by no means uncommon , the great baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon made it a practice to read through Bunyans "Pilgrims PRogress" once a year.
Is there a book that resonates and calls you to read it through once a year? Of course the bible springs to mind, even particular books like Ecclesiastes which resonates with theologian J I Packer. The one thing that these books have i'n common is that they're were all written by dead guys, other than the living word which although written by human hand's had the Holy Spirit as it's author.
C.S Lewis once said "It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.....Keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through your mind.....by reading old books".
I find it encouraging that someone like Peterson who has received so much criticism from the conservative christian right has grounded himself i'n the thoughts of John Calvin i.e. reformed theology. Indeed how many of his critics would make it a regular yearly practice to read John Calvin? Peterson has often been lumped by his critics with those of the left like the emergent church and i realise that his endorsement of "The Shack" drew ctriticism, but how many of these same critics have actually taken the time to read his books other than his well known "The Message" bible?
You will have noticed i'n my previous post on " Repentance" that I've been reading Eugene Petersons book, " The Word Made Flesh" , which I have found to be a surprisingly good read considering the fact its been sitting on my bookshelf for a year or so.
During my run I have been listening to a series of talks that Peterson gave on prayer at the Reformed Theological College in the USA . During the introduction it was mentioned that Peterson had for many years made it a practice to read Calvins " Institutes Of The Christian Religion" through once a year. This surprised me. Of course this is by no means uncommon , the great baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon made it a practice to read through Bunyans "Pilgrims PRogress" once a year.
Is there a book that resonates and calls you to read it through once a year? Of course the bible springs to mind, even particular books like Ecclesiastes which resonates with theologian J I Packer. The one thing that these books have i'n common is that they're were all written by dead guys, other than the living word which although written by human hand's had the Holy Spirit as it's author.
C.S Lewis once said "It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.....Keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through your mind.....by reading old books".
I find it encouraging that someone like Peterson who has received so much criticism from the conservative christian right has grounded himself i'n the thoughts of John Calvin i.e. reformed theology. Indeed how many of his critics would make it a regular yearly practice to read John Calvin? Peterson has often been lumped by his critics with those of the left like the emergent church and i realise that his endorsement of "The Shack" drew ctriticism, but how many of these same critics have actually taken the time to read his books other than his well known "The Message" bible?
Rather than following the critics we should endeavor to be like the Bereans and search for ourselves to see if these things which are written are true. What do you think?
Tuesday 27 September 2011
Thursday 22 September 2011
CHOSEN OR FREE?
In this critique i will attempt to respond to an article posted on the blog "On My Walk", by Kevin Lane.http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2011/09/can-one-choose-to-believe-or-just-to.html
This article was written as a critique of the calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Kevin provides various scriptures as his proofs that man is capable of beleiving or even disbelieving the gospel message. I will attempt to respond by showing from scripture that man is incapable of responding to the gospel unless God enables us by his grace. Kevins post can be read at the abovementioned blog, but will be shown here in bold face letters.
"In conversations with Calvinists I will often be accused of attributing a person's Eternal Salvation to being the result of a "good choice" that they made to believe the Gospel, or accept Christ or however they want to express how one becomes saved. "
The two points of view contrasted are the calvinist doctrine of mans total inability, that man can do nothing to please God and the opposite view which allows man a free choice, a "good choice" in his salvation i.e he is able to believe, although this "good choice" these people would argue is still a result of faith and believing the gospel. So the whole argument is not one of faith or grace but an attempt to rebut the calvinist doctrine of total inability.
"I invariably point them to Romans 4:16 which shows us that salvation had to be accessible through faith alone in order that it could bey by grace, or unmerited favor. I explain that this shows that no one can boast, or feel good about, having faith. Only works give us reason to brag or expect rewards. Rom 4:1-25, and Eph 2:8-9 show this clearly."
Salvation is indeed as noted by grace. Grace is a gift that is undeserved and unmerited on our part that is why Romans 4:16 is preceded with a therefore which looks back to vs 13 where we are told that Abraham received the promise or inheritance not by observing the law but by faith! Verse 14 Paul tells us that if adherants of the law are to be heirs then faith is made futile. Therefore as Paul starts vs 16 the promise or the inheritance is the outcome of faith and depends on faith, in order that it might be given as an act of grace (unmerited favour).
I dont think that anybody would argue with the point that Kevin has made unless i am missing his point, the gift is given by grace in response to our faith or believing the gospel message . Ephesians only reinforces this point that salvation is a gift and it is recieved through faith.
"So if my faith is "MY faith" "
This is the question, is faith my faith, can i believe the gospel message without any outward help? My reply would be based on the scriptures "NO"!!!
One of the scriptures that Kevin draws on for support is Acts 28:24. Paul had been invited to explain the gospel message to a group and they came in large numbers and he set explained the matter to them from morning until night, trying to persuade them about Jesus. Yet as vs 24 tells us some were convinced and believed what he said and others did not believe. What was the difference between those who believed and those who did not? There is certainly no evidence to support Kevins contention that believing or not believing were free choices on the part of the listeners.
If we read the next verse Paul explains from prophesy why these people disbelieved. vs 26 starts with the fact that they will indeed hear but not understand and look but not see, for there hearts had grown dull and there ears were heavy and hard of hearing and they had shut tight their eyes so that they may not percieve and hear with there ears and understand with their souls and turn to Christ.
A further explaination is offered by Paul in 2 Cor 4:4. If as Kevin propses that my faith is indeed "my faith" and something that i am capable of unaided, How do i explain the blindness that Paul speaks about here? By listening to Pauls pursasive arguments in the Acts passage how am i able to overcome the blindness that the god of this world has placed over my mind to prevent me from seeing the light of the gospel of the glorey of Christ (2 Cor4:4). Verse 6 in harkening back to creation, tells us that God has shone in our hearts so that the where there was once darkness the light of the gospel should shine forth.
I beleieve like Kevin that faith comes from hearing the gospel and much reasoning and preaching can bring a person to believe. This is Gods means. But it is what goes on "behind the scenes" so to speak that causes so much debate.
"Romans 1:18-32 shows us that people do know there is a God and choose not to worship Him. Acts 28:24 says that some believed because they were persuaded and others "disbelieved." In John 3:18 the Lord says that those who have "not believed" are condemned but in John 3:20 He explains that those who do not believe actually refuse to believe".
Once again my previous comment probably addreses most of the points here. Romans 1:18-32 is Pauls description of mans devolution away from the perfect relationship that Adam enjoyed with God to the present state where man suppresses the truth and prefers the darkness to the light. So what did God do? He gave them up a number of times in this passage to the lusts of their hearts,he gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions,he gave them over to a base and condemned mind until they were filled with every kind of unrighteousness, hating God. Can this man respond to the gospel on his own?
It does not tell us that man is unable, but someone who hates God would certainly need a lot of persuading? but would Pauls persuasion be enought? These people have a knowledge of God as we know from experience many people will see "a god" in creation, but is this knowledge sufficient to overcome there rebellion and the blindness that the god of this world has inflicted them with?
"I don't think that one "chooses" to believe. I think one is persuaded (as per Acts 28:24) God and His agencies (Creation, the Bible, Preachers, Situations...) persuade someone and that person then passively believes. Other people will refuse to believe, they will harden their hearts"
Man is indeed persuaded, but is argument, even Pauls in Acts sufficient to overcome mans inability to believe? There has to be some work on Gods part to move us from sinner to saint, to remove the blindness that the god of this world has given us which prevents us from seeing the glorey of the gospel of Christ.
The only human will involved was to make the choice to not believe. Believing is passive, no will required. Rom 9:16 One doesn't choose to believe, they are convinced by whatever God does to convince them. There is no "ability" involved. One does not exercise some skill, ability or goodness to believe. They are persuaded.
"One doesn't choose to believe, they are convinced by whatever God does to convince them" You sound like a calvinist. Kevin is starting to sound like a calvinist, although i dont think he would agree.
Lets look at some additional scriptures to prove my point. I think that Kevins basic premise is flawed as he looks to prove that man can believe or disbelive, wheras the main point should be is man capable of believing?
John 10:25- Here Jesus is surrounded by some Jews who still did not believe inspite of the works that he did in the Fathers name to bear witness or provide evidence of who he was. Jesus then said "I have told you so, yet you CHOSE not to believe me". Was this what Jesus said? No he said "you do not believe". And why dont they believe?. Verse 26 says "But you do not believe because you (chose not to?) DO NOT BELONG TO MY FOLD i.e you are no sheep of mine. So in order to believe to hear Gods voice we need to belong to Gods fold. How do become part of the fold? Well thats where Gods grace comes in because the Father gives the sheep to Jesus and the sheep that are my own hear my voice, and i know them and they follow me.
It is quite clear that the reason here why Gods miracles or persuasive arguments did'nt work was not because the listeners could not generate enough faith to believe but because they were unable, blinded by the god of this world and preferring darkness to light.
John 6 is a classic, clear passage which further addresses the issue. Jesus has once again been hassled by a group looking for more signs. Jesus tells them that inspite of this still they did not believe vs36. He then says "Äll whom My Father gives to Me will come to Me; and the one who comes to Me I will most certainly not cast out". The point here is showing God the Fathers absolute soveriegnty in salvation. Who are the ones who come to Jesus? The ones given by the Father. The giving preceded the coming. The ones given are the elect, they are the ones who will be raised up at the last day vs 39. The everyones who believe in vs 40 are also those who are given by the Father to the Son, these are the ones who have had there eyes opened from the blindness inflicted by the god of this world, these are the sheep of the fold who hear the Shepherds voice.
This article was written as a critique of the calvinist doctrine of total depravity. Kevin provides various scriptures as his proofs that man is capable of beleiving or even disbelieving the gospel message. I will attempt to respond by showing from scripture that man is incapable of responding to the gospel unless God enables us by his grace. Kevins post can be read at the abovementioned blog, but will be shown here in bold face letters.
"In conversations with Calvinists I will often be accused of attributing a person's Eternal Salvation to being the result of a "good choice" that they made to believe the Gospel, or accept Christ or however they want to express how one becomes saved. "
The two points of view contrasted are the calvinist doctrine of mans total inability, that man can do nothing to please God and the opposite view which allows man a free choice, a "good choice" in his salvation i.e he is able to believe, although this "good choice" these people would argue is still a result of faith and believing the gospel. So the whole argument is not one of faith or grace but an attempt to rebut the calvinist doctrine of total inability.
"I invariably point them to Romans 4:16 which shows us that salvation had to be accessible through faith alone in order that it could bey by grace, or unmerited favor. I explain that this shows that no one can boast, or feel good about, having faith. Only works give us reason to brag or expect rewards. Rom 4:1-25, and Eph 2:8-9 show this clearly."
Salvation is indeed as noted by grace. Grace is a gift that is undeserved and unmerited on our part that is why Romans 4:16 is preceded with a therefore which looks back to vs 13 where we are told that Abraham received the promise or inheritance not by observing the law but by faith! Verse 14 Paul tells us that if adherants of the law are to be heirs then faith is made futile. Therefore as Paul starts vs 16 the promise or the inheritance is the outcome of faith and depends on faith, in order that it might be given as an act of grace (unmerited favour).
I dont think that anybody would argue with the point that Kevin has made unless i am missing his point, the gift is given by grace in response to our faith or believing the gospel message . Ephesians only reinforces this point that salvation is a gift and it is recieved through faith.
"So if my faith is "MY faith" "
This is the question, is faith my faith, can i believe the gospel message without any outward help? My reply would be based on the scriptures "NO"!!!
One of the scriptures that Kevin draws on for support is Acts 28:24. Paul had been invited to explain the gospel message to a group and they came in large numbers and he set explained the matter to them from morning until night, trying to persuade them about Jesus. Yet as vs 24 tells us some were convinced and believed what he said and others did not believe. What was the difference between those who believed and those who did not? There is certainly no evidence to support Kevins contention that believing or not believing were free choices on the part of the listeners.
If we read the next verse Paul explains from prophesy why these people disbelieved. vs 26 starts with the fact that they will indeed hear but not understand and look but not see, for there hearts had grown dull and there ears were heavy and hard of hearing and they had shut tight their eyes so that they may not percieve and hear with there ears and understand with their souls and turn to Christ.
A further explaination is offered by Paul in 2 Cor 4:4. If as Kevin propses that my faith is indeed "my faith" and something that i am capable of unaided, How do i explain the blindness that Paul speaks about here? By listening to Pauls pursasive arguments in the Acts passage how am i able to overcome the blindness that the god of this world has placed over my mind to prevent me from seeing the light of the gospel of the glorey of Christ (2 Cor4:4). Verse 6 in harkening back to creation, tells us that God has shone in our hearts so that the where there was once darkness the light of the gospel should shine forth.
I beleieve like Kevin that faith comes from hearing the gospel and much reasoning and preaching can bring a person to believe. This is Gods means. But it is what goes on "behind the scenes" so to speak that causes so much debate.
"Romans 1:18-32 shows us that people do know there is a God and choose not to worship Him. Acts 28:24 says that some believed because they were persuaded and others "disbelieved." In John 3:18 the Lord says that those who have "not believed" are condemned but in John 3:20 He explains that those who do not believe actually refuse to believe".
Once again my previous comment probably addreses most of the points here. Romans 1:18-32 is Pauls description of mans devolution away from the perfect relationship that Adam enjoyed with God to the present state where man suppresses the truth and prefers the darkness to the light. So what did God do? He gave them up a number of times in this passage to the lusts of their hearts,he gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions,he gave them over to a base and condemned mind until they were filled with every kind of unrighteousness, hating God. Can this man respond to the gospel on his own?
It does not tell us that man is unable, but someone who hates God would certainly need a lot of persuading? but would Pauls persuasion be enought? These people have a knowledge of God as we know from experience many people will see "a god" in creation, but is this knowledge sufficient to overcome there rebellion and the blindness that the god of this world has inflicted them with?
"I don't think that one "chooses" to believe. I think one is persuaded (as per Acts 28:24) God and His agencies (Creation, the Bible, Preachers, Situations...) persuade someone and that person then passively believes. Other people will refuse to believe, they will harden their hearts"
Man is indeed persuaded, but is argument, even Pauls in Acts sufficient to overcome mans inability to believe? There has to be some work on Gods part to move us from sinner to saint, to remove the blindness that the god of this world has given us which prevents us from seeing the glorey of the gospel of Christ.
The only human will involved was to make the choice to not believe. Believing is passive, no will required. Rom 9:16 One doesn't choose to believe, they are convinced by whatever God does to convince them. There is no "ability" involved. One does not exercise some skill, ability or goodness to believe. They are persuaded.
"One doesn't choose to believe, they are convinced by whatever God does to convince them" You sound like a calvinist. Kevin is starting to sound like a calvinist, although i dont think he would agree.
Lets look at some additional scriptures to prove my point. I think that Kevins basic premise is flawed as he looks to prove that man can believe or disbelive, wheras the main point should be is man capable of believing?
John 10:25- Here Jesus is surrounded by some Jews who still did not believe inspite of the works that he did in the Fathers name to bear witness or provide evidence of who he was. Jesus then said "I have told you so, yet you CHOSE not to believe me". Was this what Jesus said? No he said "you do not believe". And why dont they believe?. Verse 26 says "But you do not believe because you (chose not to?) DO NOT BELONG TO MY FOLD i.e you are no sheep of mine. So in order to believe to hear Gods voice we need to belong to Gods fold. How do become part of the fold? Well thats where Gods grace comes in because the Father gives the sheep to Jesus and the sheep that are my own hear my voice, and i know them and they follow me.
It is quite clear that the reason here why Gods miracles or persuasive arguments did'nt work was not because the listeners could not generate enough faith to believe but because they were unable, blinded by the god of this world and preferring darkness to light.
John 6 is a classic, clear passage which further addresses the issue. Jesus has once again been hassled by a group looking for more signs. Jesus tells them that inspite of this still they did not believe vs36. He then says "Äll whom My Father gives to Me will come to Me; and the one who comes to Me I will most certainly not cast out". The point here is showing God the Fathers absolute soveriegnty in salvation. Who are the ones who come to Jesus? The ones given by the Father. The giving preceded the coming. The ones given are the elect, they are the ones who will be raised up at the last day vs 39. The everyones who believe in vs 40 are also those who are given by the Father to the Son, these are the ones who have had there eyes opened from the blindness inflicted by the god of this world, these are the sheep of the fold who hear the Shepherds voice.
Tuesday 20 September 2011
JOHN CALVIN ELECTION
"God preordained, for his own glory and the display of His attributes of mercy and justice, a part of the human race, without any merit of their own, to eternal salvation, and another part, in just punishment of their sin, to eternal damnation." - John Calvin
CHAPTER 3 OF ALL OF GRACE - JUSTIFYING THE UNGODLY
I never cease to wonder at it. It does sound surprising, does it not, that it should be possible for a holy God to justify an unholy man? We, according to the natural legality of our hearts, are always talking about our own goodness and our own worthiness, and we stubbornly hold to it that there must be somewhat in us in order to win the notice of God. Now, God, who sees through all deceptions, knows that there is no goodness whatever in us. He says that "there is none righteous, no not one." He knows that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags," and, therefore the Lord Jesus did not come into the world to look after goodness and righteousness with him, and to bestow them upon persons who have none of them. He comes, not because we are just, but to make us so: he justifieth the ungodly
Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. It is a very surprising thing--a
thing to be marveled at most of all by those who enjoy it. I know that it is to me even to this day the greatest wonder that I ever heard of, that God should ever justify me. I feel myself to be a lump of unworthiness, a mass of corruption, and a heap of sin, apart from His almighty love. I know by a full assurance that I am justified by faith which is in Christ Jesus, and treated as if I had been perfectly just, and made an heir of God and a joint heir with Christ; and yet by nature I must take my place among the most sinful. I, who am altogether undeserving, am treated as if I had been deserving.
If God justifieth the ungodly, then, dear friend, He can justify you. Is not that the
very kind of person that you are? If you are unconverted at this moment, it is a very proper description of you; you have lived without God, you have been the reverse of godly; in one word, you have been and are ungodly
Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. It is a very surprising thing--a
thing to be marveled at most of all by those who enjoy it. I know that it is to me even to this day the greatest wonder that I ever heard of, that God should ever justify me. I feel myself to be a lump of unworthiness, a mass of corruption, and a heap of sin, apart from His almighty love. I know by a full assurance that I am justified by faith which is in Christ Jesus, and treated as if I had been perfectly just, and made an heir of God and a joint heir with Christ; and yet by nature I must take my place among the most sinful. I, who am altogether undeserving, am treated as if I had been deserving.
If God justifieth the ungodly, then, dear friend, He can justify you. Is not that the
very kind of person that you are? If you are unconverted at this moment, it is a very proper description of you; you have lived without God, you have been the reverse of godly; in one word, you have been and are ungodly
Reconciling Truths
"Spurgeon was once asked if he could reconcile these two truths to each other. 'I wouldn’t try,' he replied; 'I never reconcile friends.' Friends? – yes, friends. In the Bible, divine sovereignty and human responsibility are not enemies. They are not uneasy neighbors; they are not in an endless state of cold war with each other. They are friends, and they work together." - J I. Packer
Thursday 15 September 2011
LOUIS BERKHOF AND PREDESTINATION
"It is sometimes said that the doctrine of predestination exposes God to the charge of injustice. But this is hardly correct. We could speak of injustice only if man had a claim on God, and God owed man eternal salvation. But the situation is entirely different if men have forfeited the blessings of God, as they have. No one has the right to call God to account for electing some and rejecting others. He would have been perfectly just, if He had not saved any" - Louis Berkhof
This is the point that Arminians miss when they criticise reformed theology.The arminian cries "its not fair". We all deserve Gods wrath and damnation but God by his soveriegn decree has chosen to show mercy on those he choses to show mercy on.
This is the point that Arminians miss when they criticise reformed theology.The arminian cries "its not fair". We all deserve Gods wrath and damnation but God by his soveriegn decree has chosen to show mercy on those he choses to show mercy on.
GOD JUSTIFIETH THE UNGODLY ( Chapter 3 "ALL OF GRACE" )
"To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.'
"I call your attention to those words, "Him that justifieth the ungodly." They seem to me to be very wonderful words. Are you not surprised that there should be such an expression as that in the Bible, "That justifieth the ungodly?" I have heard that men that hate the doctrines of the cross bring it as a charge against God, that He saves wicked men and receives to Himself the vilest of the vile. See how this Scripture accepts the charge, and plainly states it! By the mouth of His servant Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, He takes to Himself the title of "Him that justifieth the ungodly."
He makes those just who are unjust, forgives those who deserve to be punished, and favors those who deserve no favor
"I call your attention to those words, "Him that justifieth the ungodly." They seem to me to be very wonderful words. Are you not surprised that there should be such an expression as that in the Bible, "That justifieth the ungodly?" I have heard that men that hate the doctrines of the cross bring it as a charge against God, that He saves wicked men and receives to Himself the vilest of the vile. See how this Scripture accepts the charge, and plainly states it! By the mouth of His servant Paul, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, He takes to Himself the title of "Him that justifieth the ungodly."
He makes those just who are unjust, forgives those who deserve to be punished, and favors those who deserve no favor
AUGUSTINE AND JOHN 6:44
"When the gospel is preached, some believe, some believe not; they who believe at the voice of the preacher from without, hear of the Father from within, and learn; while they who do not believe, hear outwardly, but inwardly do not hear and learn. That is to say, to the former it is given to believe; to the latter it is not given. Because "no man," cometh to me, except the Father which sent me draw him."
How often have i read and heard the exergetical gymnastics of those whose tradition teaches mans free will to chose salvation and try to explain John 6 or even Romans 8 and 9. One thing that offended Augustine when he first read the bible was its simplicity. Offended? Yes Augustine was expecting something high brow and mystical yet was he discovered was something that even the ploughman could understand it (Tyndale)
How often have i read and heard the exergetical gymnastics of those whose tradition teaches mans free will to chose salvation and try to explain John 6 or even Romans 8 and 9. One thing that offended Augustine when he first read the bible was its simplicity. Offended? Yes Augustine was expecting something high brow and mystical yet was he discovered was something that even the ploughman could understand it (Tyndale)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)