Why does God do what he does?

Exodus 32:11-12

But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people.

W

hen life gets weird and things just don’t seem to fit our concept of justice, we are prone to ask, “Why?” And I don’t think it’s a problem for us to ask that question from time to time—as long as we realize that God is the Sovereign and has the ultimate right to do as he sees fit. God is also righteous, so everything he does is right—even when it doesn’t necessarily seem that way to us.

This morning I read the Exodus 32 story of Moses pleading with the Lord to relent from his anger against the Israelites. Then I read the following quite from one the early American Puritans. I thought these two went together well. Perhaps God is trying to tell me something.

Why God’s providences are often misunderstood

Take a straight stick, and put it into the water; then it will seem crooked. Why? Because we look upon it through two mediums, air and water: there lies the deception visus; thence it is that we cannot discern aright. Thus the proceedings of God, in His justice which in themselves are straight, without the least obliquity, seem unto us crooked: that wicked men should prosper, and good men be afflicted, that the Israelites should make the bricks, and the Egyptians dwell in the houses; that servants should ride on horse–back, and princes go on foot: these are things that make the best Christians stagger in their judgments.

And why? Because they look upon God’s proceedings through a double medium of flesh and spirit, so that all things seem to go cross, though indeed they go right enough. And hence it is that God’s proceedings, in His justice, are not so well discerned, the eyes of man alone being not competent judges thereof.

—Thomas Fuller

Golden Treasury of Puritan Quotations

 

Merry Christmas - from a Reformed perspective

HT: Sherry Harlan DeFrank

 

Have yourself a contextual Christmas!

1 John 1:1–5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

W

hen we think of the Christmas story, we tend to think of the narratives written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Those are the classic stories of Christ’s birth—the ones we read each year to the kids in our Sunday school classes and to our families on Christmas Day. But the apostle John wrote of Christ’s birth as well. And while John’s gospel has the reputation of being a bit more “warm and fuzzy” because it shows God’s love for mankind so clearly, John’s telling of Christ’s birth doesn’t contain the warm fuzzies that the other gospel narratives contain. We don’t hear about the shepherds, the star, the inn with no room, the manger, the wise men, or the journey for the census. John’s narrative is chock-full of theology and gets to the heart of why Jesus came to the earth.

But the thing that jumped out at me when our pastor preached an Advent sermon from John 1:1–13 this past Sunday was how quickly we can get our theology off-track by pulling things out of context.

It is obvious right from the start that John wants to address some theology in his telling of Christ’s birth. He begins his story not in Judea or Bethlehem, but before the creation of the world. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In so doing, he addresses the fact that Jesus Christ is eternally existent with the Father. Then he goes on to show that Jesus was the actual Creator of all things: All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:9–11

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.

The narrative goes on and talks about John the Baptist, whose job it was to declare the coming of the Christ. And then John’s narrative comes to the part that makes us view John’s gospel as the warm fuzzy—the comfortable gospel. This is the reason that Campus Crusade for Christ and so many others hand out small books containing only the Gospel of John. John presents the gospel message to everyone, just as we are all commanded to do: He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God. These words from John 1:11-12 are so familiar that most Christians can quote them from a very early age. But so many young people grow up with a skewed understanding of the theology John is proclaiming here. They sense the wonderful offer (and it is truly wonderful) being offered to all people: “believe in Jesus and you will be saved.” And this is the good news—the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately, our failure to teach our children the remainder of the sentence (found in verse 13) has caused a tremendous amount of theological problems. Those problems have contributed to the high pressure tactics common at revival meetings and door-to-door evangelism. They have also contributed to many people’s belief that they are saved when in fact they are not. Many Christians tell folks that if they’ll just “pray the prayer” or “walk down the aisle to make a profession of faith” they are saved. They further the problem by telling those folks, “once saved, always saved.” In essence, they tell these folks who walked the aisle or prayed the “Sinner’s Prayer” that they are now in—they don’t have to worry about it any more. That nothing they could do now could separate them from the Father’s love. And while their intentions are honorable, they do these folks a tremendous disservice.

John 1:12–13

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Yes, God’s love is extravagant and free. Yes, He saves believers permanently and “no man can pluck them from [His] hand.” But John 1:13 carries the concept forward a bit and puts a deeper theological twist to the gospel message. John 1:13 explains exactly who will receive Jesus—exactly who will believe in His name and be given the right to become the children of God.

John 1:13 says: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Imagine a discussion of unconditional election and effectual (irresistible) grace right here in the story of Christ’s birth. The gospel message is to be proclaimed to all, but those who will respond will do so not because of their ethnic or religious heritage (not of blood), and not because of the faith of their forefathers (the will of the flesh), and not because of the their own contribution of faith (the will of man), but they will respond because of the will of God. The very God who created the universe and all that is in it came to earth to provide the sacrifice for all those who He himself wills to believe.

This is the birth of the total Sovereign over all. What a wonderful season. What wonderful theological concepts. To God alone be the glory! Soli Deo gloria!

 

Holier than thou? I think not...

1 Corinthians 1:27-31

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

A

man lies on the ground, no pulse, no heartbeat. Medical personnel arrive, administer drugs, CPR, and a defibrilator. His heart rhythm starts once again. Was he dead? Did he choose to come back to life?

It’s the same with men, who are dead in sin. We need God to reach down to us, to “quicken” us, or give us life. Then when He offers us the free gift of salvation, who could ever reject it? But dead men make no choices.

God chose us, and gave us eternal life. “It is because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus” He awakened us from the dead—freed us from the power that sin was exercising over us. Any righteousness we have has been credited to us. Why? So that not one of us will ever be able to say we earned or deserved the grace that He has bestowed on us. We are not able to keep ourselves from falling away, either, only He can do that—and he promised us that He would in John chapter 6. So when we’re tempted to think we’ve got a corner on righteousness, let’s take a look back at what we WERE and realize that what we ARE and what we WILL BE are a result of the work of God’s grace in and through us “so that no one may boast before Him.” Instead, let’s give credit where credit is due—put your boast IN THE LORD!

 

A rose tulip by any other name

I

t is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname “Calvinism,” but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make a pilgrimage into [the] past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me....

Taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God’s own church

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, as quoted by David Steele and Curtis Thomas in The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1963), p. 8.

 

Our God is in control...

M

y father co-authored a book on evangelism. The book project was put on hold a while back, but I was fortunate enough to get my hands on a copy of the first few chapters. What really jumps out at the contemporary reader from this manual is the solid theology needed for a true evangelistic outreach.

Postmodern man vilifies those he disagrees with. In the arena of evangelism, this has mainly been done by those who reject God’s total sovereignty over his creation. The line goes that Calvinists don’t believe in evangelism because they think God is going to handle everything and man doesn’t have a choice. Not only is this wrong, but it is a complete misrepresentation of Calvinistic belief.

We Calvinists believe that man has a choice—he has always had a choice. The problem is that man will choose the wrong thing every time. Only when God has removed man’s “heart of stone” and replaced it with a “heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 11:19) will man seek fellowship with God through repentance of his sins and trust in the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross. (Notice I didn’t say the potential saving work—Jesus’ death on the cross did not create a potential for salvation; it completely paid the penalty for the sins of those who would believe.)

I am very proud of my father and of his strong stand on the truth of God’s Word. My father is the most evangelistic man I know and he is a 5-point Calvinist. In fact, by John Piper’s definition, my father is a 7-point Calvinist. The straw man is exposed and has been burned up by the pragmatic proof. If we believe that God is in complete control of his creation, not only will we share the gospel to all, but we can rest in the assurance that he will draw to him those for whom Christ has shed his blood.

    Our part: evangelize the world.

        God’s part: save the elect.

We don’t need to do God’s part, nor can we. But we must do ours.

Known for its objections

Example 1:  My college, Baptist Bible College and Seminary of Clark Summit, Pa., had an outstanding raison d'être. As proclaimed in BBC's hymn, the school is there to train young people in the task of "Holding Fast the Faithful Word."

Example 2:  When Martin Luther was called to the Diet of Worms, he proffered his defense by proclamation of the truths he saw in scripture. His closing argument was concluded with:

Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture or ... by manifest reasoning, I stand convinced by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God's word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us.

Example 3:  Aaron Tippin sang a song titled, You've Got to Stand for Something Or You'll Fall for Anything.

---

Great heroes of history have always stood for something. Of course, their stands positioned them against the stands of others, but typically the great heroes of the past have stood for something, not against something.

Unfortunately, our society has fallen to the other side of this equation and the fall seems to increase with greater velocity each passing day. We now take pride in standing against things rather than for things. It seems easier, apparently, to demonize and marginalize our opponents rather than to argue the scriptural basis that prompts us to a different position on the issue.

The Southern Baptist Convention, after making a solid conservative comeback from the jaws of liberalism, has taken on a new enemy to oppose—Calvinism. But as the years have passed, the anti-Calvinists have had great difficulty in defending their position from scripture. So they have turned to demonizing and marginalizing the perceived enemy—those who believe in the sovereign God of scripture.

At the outstanding blog Grace and Truth to You, Wade Burleson has posted an article that deals with this sad state of affairs. From Wade's post:

I told a few people privately ... that if people didn't start drawing a line in the sand over attempts to narrow and constrict the doctrinal parameters of Southern Baptist cooperation, then we would eventually get to the place that Calvinists would be told they are no longer welcome in the SBC....

Bottom line, I knew that if a line in the sand was not drawn at some point, those who hold to Calvinism would be targeted next. Three years later, that which I feared has come upon us....

It is my prayer that the ability to cooperate with Southern Baptists who disagree on doctrinal issues didn't die with him. We cannot let the spirit and temperament that demands doctrinal conformity prevail in the SBC. I would much rather build bridges of understanding with those who disagree with me than allow those who disagree with me declare that people on the other side of them are not "orthodox" Southern Baptists and should be removed.

I cannot, I will not, be silent about the need for cooperation among Southern Baptists. Cooperation in the midst of doctrinal diversity is the fabric of who we are as Southern Baptists. It is, if you will, true Southern Baptist identity.

Read the full blog post

May God grant mercy and grace to the Evangelicals in America. May he moves us back to defending and proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than finding myriad things to oppose.

The answer to "Why?"

I think the most difficult part of my "recovery" from my difficult childhood was dealing with the issue of the Sovereignty of God. If God truly loved me, why didn't he spare me from the ugly things? He was the "Good" Shepherd, wasn't He? Yet the Scriptures are very plain in declaring God's sovereignty [check out some of Rich's entries on Calvinism and God's Sovereignty]. Nothing escapes God's eye, nothing surprises Him. I recall spending several hours one day on my bicycle outside my childhood home, trying desparately to remember any good thing that had happened in there. As I mentally walked through each room, I only saw the trauma. Now that I'm older, I understand that my brain was "purging" the repressed memories. Still, it was a very sad day for me.

As I went off to Bible college, I took several theology courses. I devoured the survey courses on the Old and New Testaments. I eagerly "sparred" with my classmates about those biblical issues like election, the perfect will of God, and the meaning of God's foreknowledge. But it wasn't digging into Scripture that solved the issue of my past, but rather several experiences that God used to demonstrate the truths of His Word.

One particular instance stands out in my mind.

I had a very good friend in college, and for reasons too lengthy to deal with here, we hadn't spoken or written in some time. I was concerned that a disagreement had separated us. She was too good a friend to just let her slip away. I went to the lake on campus and poured out my heart to the Lord. I wrote in my journal that day:

"I'm not asking You to change the circumstances, but to change me. I'm not asking that You fill the hole in my heart with another friend, but to mend it and fill it up with YOU."

Feeling a little refreshed, but still heavy in heart from my loss, I walked back to my dorm by way of the mailroom. I checked my mailbox, and of course, as you've guessed, in it was a letter from my friend. Seeing the return address sent a surge of hope through me. But it was far more beautiful than mere correspondence. My dear friend wrote, "I saw this the other day, and it made me think of you." What followed was a poem called, "What is a Friend?" It was a tribute to my faithfulness to her in the good times and bad; my understanding of the contradictions in her and in our relationship; my unconditional love for her.

A flood of tears fell from my eyes in thankfulness to God. But it wasn't just thankfulness for the restoration of our friendship, which, by the way, has lasted over twenty five years, but also because God allowed me to suffer just long enough for me to surrender my will to His. I was ready to release the earthly relationship because I truly wanted what God wanted in my life. The sorrow that I felt softened my heart. I had said goodbye to far too many people already in my life—this one just seemed to hurt more because she was such a valuable person. Yet the event helped me to know that whatever God wanted in my earthly life was secondary to the fact that He wanted my heart.

As I reflected on this, I realized that a great deal of the hurt in my youth brought me to dependence on God. It also taught me no one is "too far gone" for the gospel. It also has given me a unique connection to some young people I am blessed to know. I know from Bible stories like Joseph and Moses, that the circumstances in our lives uniquely fit us for service.

Romans 8:29

For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

There is one verse that sums up my satisfaction in God's Sovereignty. It is Romans 8:29 (in the callout box to the right). God's design in my suffering is to make me like His Son. This one truth is all I need to make sense of the struggles I've faced. What else could I want than to be more like Jesus?

Turning our hearts back to God

Colonists came from many lands and arrived at many different times to build what eventually became the United States of America. Jamestown, Plymouth Rock, and other now famous landing points were colonized over a period of many decades.

The colonists came from all levels of society—the spectrum ranging from slaves and indentured servants to the wealthiest members of society. They came from a variety of nations, each having it's own culture and traditions. And although many colonists did not own much more than the clothing they wore, they did not come empty-handed. They came bearing ideas, philosophies, heritage, tradition, and culture from their native lands.

When the delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention put pen to paper, they were not trying new and untested concepts. These founders of our nation were intelligent, well-educated, and widely read. And they combined the best ideas they had read about governments and citizens and used these to establish a government for the United States.

So, it would be reasonable to ask who influenced those founding fathers? What ideas had the most impact on the formation of our government? Which books did our founding fathers read and which philosophers and theologians did they respect? To which theological, philosophical, and political systems did they subscribe?

Dr. E. W. Smith wrote:

If the average American citizen were asked, who was the founder of America, the true author of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, "John Calvin was the virtual founder of America....

These revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self-government, taught and embodied in the system of Calvin, were brought to America and in this new land where they have borne so mighty a harvest were planted, by whose hands?—the hands of the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America, however strange in some ears the statement of Ranke may have sounded, is recognized and affirmed by historians of all lands and creeds.

E.W. Smith, quoted by Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

George Bancroft, one of the leading historians of the nineteenth century called John Calvin the "founder of America," and added, "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."

Many, if not the vast majority of colonial Americans came from Calvinistic backgrounds. John Calvin died just 50 years prior to the historic Mayflower voyage to the New World. And Calvin's unique two-pronged theology, encompassing both a world view and a view of human nature, had a strong impact on our founding fathers as they sought to establish an effective government.

Total Depravity

The Calvinistic concept of Total Depravity strongly influenced the checks and balances that our founders built into our governmental system. They knew quite well the evil that man is capable of, and they sought to limit the damage that any one man may do.

Priesthood of Believers

The biblical Reformed concept that each person is able to directly approach God without an earthly intermediary or priest impacted our founder's views of education. As Martin Luther had said just a century earlier, "every plowboy should be able to read and interpret the Scripture for himself rather than be bound to follow the interpretation given to him by his priest, for he himself is responsible to God for his own soul."

This idea gave rise to the belief that every plowboy must learn to read. as a result, Protestant (especially Reformed/Calvinistic) societies strongly encouraged universal education.

John Eidsmoe's Christianity and the Constitution describes one of Thomas Jefferson's commissioned studies into the value of education:

Around 1800 Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, founder of the famous Dupont lineage in America, conducted a study on education in America on behalf of Thomas Jefferson. He concluded: "Most young Americans ... can read, write and cipher. Not more than four in a thousand are unable to write legibly—even neatly." He compared the low rate of literacy throughout the world to the relatively high literacy rate in the United States, England, Holland, and the Protestant Cantons of Switzerland. He attributed the different to the fact that "in those countries the Bible is read; it is considered a duty to read it to the children; and in that form of religion the sermons and liturgies in the language of the people tend to increase and formulate ideas of responsibility." He went on to say that for the most part, education in America was accomplished in the home through reading Bibles and newspapers.

John Eidsmore, Christianity and the Constitution, p. 22

The Basis for our Law

The Calvinistic recognition of God's absolute sovereignty over all creation and of man's depravity had a direct and strong impact on the early formation of our judicial system and on our early laws. This was especially apparent in Puritan New England.

Covenant Theology

As laid out in Samuel Rutherford's famous Lex, Rex, all rulers derive their authority from God, whether they recognize that fact or not, and God gives this authority to rulers through the people they govern. The people are responsible for forming a government and for choosing the man who is to lead that government.

2 Samuel 16:18, "Hushai said to Absalom, Nay, but whom the Lord and the people, and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide"; Judges 8:22, "The men of Israel said to Gideon, rule thou over us"; Judges 9:6, "The men of Shechem made Abimelech king"; 2 Kings 14:21, "The people made Azariah king."

Limited Government

Limited government formed the basis for early America's resistance to the British government. Samuel Rutherford stressed the importance of a limited government. The people, acting under the will of God, gave the civil government only limited authority, and that authority was conditional—they reserved the right to terminate their covenant with the ruler if the ruler violated the covenant (republican) terms. Under this system the ruler is acting without legitimate authority if he violates the laws of God and nature by suppressing the basic liberties of the people. In such instances he is not to be obeyed. In fact, he is to be resisted. Our founding fathers believed that it is the Christian's duty to resist—by force, if necessary.

States Rights

The Calvinistic influence of Congregationalists, Baptists, and some Presbyterians, influenced the concept of local governance by the people most directly affected by the governance. So the States were granted far more local authority than the centralized federal government.

Voting for Change

Fast forward to today. Our nation has just pursued the platform of "Change," presented by President-elect Barack Obama. And it is quite clear that a change of course is needed in our nation. But a change back to the governance of Bill Clinton is not the change we need.

The change our nation needs is to return to a Calvinistic understanding of the role of government as provided by God for the protection of the people. We, the people, need to demand righteousness from our government. And recognizing God's supreme authority over all of creation, we Christians must pray for our nation and our nation's leaders. The God we are praying to has told us that "The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will" Proverbs 21:1.

Augustine and Pelagius? Calvin and Arminius?

The elusive search for control

As the debate over whether man's will is free or bound has been fought desperately and sometimes bitterly for hundreds of years. It seems to me that through the benefit of the Holy Spirit's guidance Christians should be the last people to claim any sort of autonomous free will on the part of man. But we still long to control that which we cannot control.

Today I ran across an interesting quote from an early follower of Sigmund Freud. Freudians are worshipers of science, which tries to place everything in known boxes in order to facilitate man's control of the world. But in spite of that high reverence for science, Ernest Jones said:

We are beginning to see man not as the smooth, self-acting agent he pretends to be, but as he really is, a creature only dimly conscious of the various influences that mould his thought and action, and blindly resisting with all the means at his command the forces that are making for a higher and fuller consciousness.

It seems even Freudians have an understanding that man's will is not totally free.

Resources for your spiritual education

Wow! What a fantastic list of recommended resources is available at the Dead Theologian Society. I just discovered this site recently and have found it to be well-written and full of wisdom and insight. And it's written by a pastor to boot. Check it out when you get the chance.

Was Jesus a Calvinist?

I

n yesterday’s post [Hyperbole in action], Daniel L. Aiken commented on some statements that he has heard recently that he found to be irresponsible. Most of the statements had been made by the new breed of virulent anti-Calvinists. These folks make irresponsible statements regularly on many topics. Ergun Caner of Liberty University is quite likely the leader in this crowd of irresponsible statement makers and was the one who proclaimed: “Calvinists are more dangerous than radical Muslims.” I would agree completely with Mr. Aiken that the first four of the statements he listed were irresponsible and hyperbolic.

But the fifth statement he declared as irresponsible was the statement, “Jesus is a Calvinist.” I’d like to consider that statement while discussing what it truly means when someone says, “I am a Calvinist.”

There are at least three ways people respond to the statement, “I am a Calvinist.” They think it means:

1. Calvinists adhere to John Calvin the man
2. Calvinists adhere to the totality of the teaching of the man John Calvin
3. Calvinists adhere to a particular set of doctrines that over time have come to be associated with the name of the man John Calvin

Let’s look at each of these in historic context and determine whether it is irresponsible to say, Jesus is a Calvinist.

Calvinists adhere to John Calvin, the man

This may have been true of a few people who lived in Switzerland at the time of John Calvin. Mentors are a good thing and a protegé could be described as adhering to his mentor. However, John Calvin has been dead for a long time. Everyone who hears someone say, “I am a Calvinist” knows that Calvin is not mentoring that person. So I don’t think anyone makes the mistake of thinking this way.

Is Jesus a Calvinist in this manner? Obviously not. In fact, Calvin was a Christian, not the other way around.

Calvinists adhere to the totality of Calvin’s teaching

This is the most common misunderstanding proclaimed by those who want to vilify John Calvin and the people called Calvinists. I think the vast majority of them know that this is not what those who are called Calvinists are proclaiming. But they say it anyway.

Quite often these folks will say, “How can you be a Calvinist? He believed in burning heretics to death,” or something similar to that. These folks will also argue the other side of this coin, saying that those who are “Calvinists” follow the teachings of a man. They often follow this up by saying, “I’m not a Calvinist. I’m not an Arminian. I’m a Biblicist.”

For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
—1 Cor. 1:11–13

This line of reasoning is completely wrongheaded. First, the vast majority of those who claim to be either Calvinist or Arminian have come to that position because of their understanding of scripture, making them de facto Biblicists. This line of argumentation is actually unscriptural as it is exactly the thing the Apostle Paul was decrying in 1 Corinthians 1:11–13 (seen in the callout box to the right).

Saying I follow Calvin or I follow Arminius is this exact thing. This is not what either of those statements means though.

The reason for saying, “I am a Calvinist” or “I am an Arminian” is theological efficiency. It is no different than saying “I am a Baptist” or “I am a southerner.” It is a shortcut, laden with meaning so we don’t have to waste time explaining Baptist distinctives or geographic features of where we’re from. In typical conversation, folks understand that when you say, “I am a Baptist,” you mean: I hold to Believer’s Baptism, I am a Christian, I oppose a state-run church, and other Baptist distinctives. When a person says, “I am a Calvinist,” he is not saying that he holds to every single teaching or activity of the man John Calvin. In fact, he may be strongly opposed to much of John Calvin’s teaching. What he does mean by saying that he is a Calvinist brings us to our next definition.

But first, Was Jesus a Calvinist in this way—did Jesus hold to all the teachings of John Calvin? Of course not.

Calvinists adhere to a particular set of doctrines that are associated with the name John Calvin

Labels are useful shortcuts. They allow us to describe ourselves quickly. Baptist is a useful label. Conservative or Liberal are somewhat useful labels. American is a useful label. Biblicist is a totally useless label. It means nothing at all. There is not a theological shortcut provided by claiming to be a Biblicist. More likely it means, “I disagree with what you’re saying, but I can’t prove my point with scripture so I’m going to vilify you by implying that you are NOT a Biblicist.” Not a particularly useful way of arguing a theological point.

Labels must be defined by those who use them, not by those who oppose them. So Calvinists must be the ones who define the term Calvinism and Arminians must be the ones who define the term “Arminian.”

When a Calvinist claims that label he means, “I hold to the peculiar doctrines that over time have come to be associated with the man John Calvin.” Those doctrines are:

• Total Inability, sometimes called Total Depravity
• Unconditional Election
• Particular Redemption, sometimes called Limited Atonement
• Effectual Calling, sometimes called Irresistible Grace
• Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints, sometimes inaccurately described by the phrase "once saved, always saved"

These doctrines are scriptural and would require a great deal of time to explain in detail, thus the reason for the theological shortcut—I am a Calvinist. But is it appropriate to use this theological shortcut to describe Jesus Christ? I guess the answer to that question is to determine whether or not Jesus holds to those doctrines.

The main doctrines under contention in Daniel Aiken’s list are Unconditional Election, Particular Redemption, and Effectual Calling. So to determine whether Jesus can be described as a Calvinist, we should look at what Jesus himself taught:

John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

In this verse Jesus teaches Total Inability (“no one can come”) and Unconditional Election combined with Effectual Calling (“unless the Father ... draws him. And I will raise him up”). They can’t come (Total Inability), the Father draws and those he draws (Election) will be raised up (Effectual Calling and Perseverance of the Saints).

So Jesus believed in Total Inability, Unconditional Election, Effectual Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. He’s pretty close to being a Calvinist. But the most hotly contested doctrine is Particular Redemption. Where did Jesus stand on that one?

When he prayed his High Priestly prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was fulfilling the role of the High Priest. When he sacrificed a lamb, the Jewish high priest would pray for God’s chosen people—Israel. He did not pray for the Hittites, the Jebusites, the Amorites, or any of the other people around. The sacrifice was not made for them. In fact, God has specifically told some people that they would not receive the offer of atonement for their sins (the very defnition of “Limited Atonement”). For example: Isaiah 22:14— The Lord of hosts has revealed himself in my ears: “Surely this iniquity will not be atoned for you until you die,” says the Lord God of hosts.

So the high priest prayed for a specific group of people who were to recieve atonement for their sins based on the sacrifice.

As Jesus prepared to become that sacrificial lamb, he prayed: I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours (John 17:9). Jesus knew who he was going to the cross to make atonement for. He was doing it for the chosen ones—the elect. Jesus believes in Particular Redemption. And just in case anyone might not completely get the point, he said, “I am not praying for the world....” There was no doubt in Jesus mind for whom he would be making atonement.

So what is the answer to the question: Is Jesus a Calvinist? I think the answer, quite clearly, is a resounding yes.

Jesus is a Calvinist

Hyperbole in action

President Daniel L. Akin of Southeastern Theological Seminary sent a letter to the students recently. It is an outstanding letter calling for evangelicals to bridle their tongues—to refrain from making outlandish and foolish statements. He lists in his letter a few recent statements that he considers foolish. It’s a good list as many of these are beyond belief in their vindictiveness, their avoidance of the truth, and their sheer stupidity in some cases. This is the list along with a few of his comments:

A Plea For Theological
Responsibility And Integrity

In recent days it has become painfully evident that many Southern Baptists do not “do theology” very well. Some are apparently ill-informed and sloppy. Others trying to be cute, are bombastic and irresponsible. Despite our rhetoric to be “people of the Book,” we do not know the Book very well. We do not grasp its rich theology. We are failing, and failing miserably, to obey 2 Timothy 2:15–16: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth. But avoid irreverent, empty speech, for this will produce an even greater measure of godlessness.”

--SNIP--

If you are wondering what are some of the careless theological statements I have in mind that has moved me to put this challenge before you, let me note just a few that I have heard coming from a number of different directions.

1. You cannot attract a crowd and build a church on expository preaching.
   It is true you can build a crowd without biblical exposition, but you will never build a Christ-honoring New Testament Church without faithful exposition of the whole counsel of God's inerrant Word. Further, a number of churches in our Convention have built both a growing church in terms of breadth and depth. It does not have to be an either/or scenario.
2. Evangelical Calvinism is an oxymoron.
   Anyone who knows church and Baptist history knows how irresponsible this statement is. William Carey, Luther Rice, Adoniram Judson, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, James Boyce, Basil Manly Jr., and John Broadus are just a few of the great missionaries, pastors, and theologians who embraced a Reformed Theology. You may be convinced that Calvinism is wrong. However, do not make yourself look foolish by saying there are no passionate, evangelical Calvinists.
3. Five-point Calvinism is the same as Hyper-Calvinism.
   This statement again demonstrates historical ignorance. Hyper-Calvinism is a particular movement that appeared in the mid 1700s that rejects the mandate to share the gospel, denies man’s responsibility to repent and believe the gospel, and in some instances runs perilously close to making God the author of sin. The overwhelming majority of five-point Calvinists would reject each of these positions. Spurgeon, himself a five-point Calvinist denounced in the strongest measure these errors in Spurgeon and “hyper-Calvinism.” Now, those of you who know my theology know I am not a five-point Calvinist. I believe Unconditional Election is not incompatible with “the free will and responsibility of intelligent creatures” (Abstract of Principles, art. IV), I affirm a Universal Provision with a Limited Application as it pertains to the Atonement, and I believe Effectual Calling to be a much better way to describe a significant aspect of the salvation process than Irresistible Grace. Further, anything that weakens the missionary passion of the church and the evangelistic favor of an individual is both dangerous and useless to the Church. Perhaps what some mean by “hyper-Calvinism” is extreme Calvinism or Calvinists with an attitude. I have met more than a few in my lifetime and to be sure, they were not of much value when it comes to the health of the church and reaching the lost. Still, we need to be honest with history and accurate with the facts. Mischaracterizations are of no value on any level.
4. Calvinists are worse than Muslims.
   The irresponsibility of this statement is tragic. It is one thing to disagree with your brothers and sisters in Christ on a point of theology. It is incredible that you would place them in the category of unbelieving militants who murder innocent victims in the name of Allah.
5. Jesus was a Calvinist.
   Theological foolishness is not limited to one theological perspective. In a Pastor’s Conference a few years ago one of my pulpit heroes made this statement. Recently a friend of mine wrote a book with one of the chapters entitled, “Christ, The Calvinist.” Such statements are wrongheaded, and yes, again irresponsible, at several points. First, the statement is historically anachronistic. Second, it is Christologically disrespectful. Jesus is the Lord. He is the King. He is God. Our Savior is the grand subject of Christian theology. So whether it is Whitefield, Boice (men I greatly love and admire), or whomever, to call Jesus a Calvinist is theologically misguided and pastorally dangerous. Yes, Jesus believes God is sovereign but He also taught man is responsible. Yes, Jesus taught, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44), but He also gave us the Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20).

The list continues, but I will end it there in order to comment on statement number 5 “Jesus was a Calvinist.” I will comment concerning this statement in a post on this blog tomorrow [Was Jesus a Calvinits?]. I will deal with a few potential views about what it means to be a Calvinist—that Calvinists adhere to John Calvin the man; that Calvinists adhere to the totality of the teaching of the man John Calvin; or that Calvinists adhere to a particular set of doctrines that over time have come to be associated with the name of the man John Calvin.

Don't forget providence

Phil Johnson from the Pyromaniacs blog has some perceptive thoughts regarding God's providence—even when it seems that things are going wrong for us. Read the post and remember to remember where God has led in the past. We have all been through very trying times. We all need to remember that as God was leading through those previous stormy waters, so He will lead through our current trials.

Particular Redemption - Wednesday

Why election isn't the big deal

Although most antiCalvinists are hung up on the whole election issue, election really isn't the foundation stone that nonCalvinists make it out to be. Election itself saved no one; it only marked out particular sinners for salvation. Those chosen by the Father and given to the Son had to be redeemed if they were to be saved. In order to make their redemption sure, Jesus Christ came into the world, taking on a human nature so that He might identify himself with his people and act as their legal subsitute. Action on behalf of his people, Christ kept God's law and worked out a perfect righteousness that is credited to them the moment they are brought to faith in him. Because of what Christ did on the cross, they are reckoned righteous before God. They are freed from all guilt and condemnation as the result of what Christ suffered for them. Through his substitutionary sacrifice, he endured the penalty of their sins and thus removed their guilt forever. So when his people are joined to him by faith, they are credited with perfect righteousness and are freed from all guilt and condemnation. They are saved, not because of what they themselves have done or will do, but solely because of Christ's redeeming work.

So then, the verses that speak of this say that Jesus came to save his people. It is clear that the intention is not that Christ in his death is making a potential atonement for people—one that will be applied when they "accept him as their personal Lord and Savior," but one that has been purchased and accomplished. When Jesus on the cross said, "It is finished," it was finished. The salvation has been bought, the penalty had been paid, and the sins of those for whom he was making atonement had been atoned for.

Particular Redemption from the text of scripture:

Luke 19:10
For the Son of man came to seek and to save the lost."

2 Corinthians 5:21
For our sake he [God] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
italics added for emphasis

Tuesday - Unconditional Election

Chosen before time

The Bible declares that God, before the foundation of the world, chose certain individuals from among the fallen members of the human race to be the objects of His undeserved favor. These (and only these) He chose to save. God could have chosen to save all men—He had the authority and power to do so, or He could have chosen to save none of us—He was not obliged to show mercy to any of us. But He did neither of those things. He chose to save some and to exclude others from this salvation. His eternal choice of particular sinners for salvation was not based on any foreseen act or response on the part of those selected, but was based solely on His own good pleasure (it made Him happy to do it) and sovereign will. So then, election was not determined by, or conditioned upon, anything that we might have done, but resulted intirely from God's self-determined purpose.

Those who were not chosen for salvation were passed by and left to their own devices and evil ways.

Unconditional Election from the text of Scripture

Deuteronomy 10:14–15
Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day.
italics added for emphasis

I Can't Do It Monday

Total Inability

As the result of Adam's sin, we are all born in sin and by nature are spiritually dead. So if we are to become children of God and enter His kingdom, we must first be born again by the Spirit of God.

It's not as if we (or our original forefather) weren't warned:

Genesis 2:16–17
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
italics added for emphasis

Preservation of the Saints - Friday

Christians are kept in the faith by the power of God. This makes believers eternally secure in him. Nothing can separate them from the eternal and unchangeable love of God. Those who believe in Christ have been predestined to eternal glory and are therefore assured of heaven.

Not "once saved, always saved"

The typical evangelical church of today proclaims a doctrine that seems similar to this. It is called "eternal security," but it is not based upon the believer's perseverance in the faith nor upon God's preserving work in the life of that believer. It is closer to the concept of "been there, done that."

The typical view of eternal security says that if you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you will go to heaven. No matter what you do for the rest of your life. Preachers will even stress the point by saying such things as, "you don't even have to come to church—going to church doesn't save you." And while that is certainly true, it is misleading and entirely misses the point of the "Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints."

According to the Westminster Confession of the Faith (one of the great creeds of Christendom):

They, whom God hath accepted in His beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nore finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

One of the great Reformed theologians of recent days referred to this doctrine in this way:

This doctrine does not stand alone but is a necessary part of the Calvinistic system of theology. The doctrines of Election and Efficacious Grace logically imply the certain salvation of those who receive these blessings. If God has chosen men absolutely and unconditionally to eternal life, and if His Spirit effectively applies to them the benefits of redemption, the inescapable conclusion is that these persons shall be saved.

—Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 182.

God gives his people eternal life the moment they believe

Believers are kept by God's power through faith and nothing can separate them from His love. They have been sealed by the Holy Spirit, who was given as the guarantee of their salvation, and they are thus assured of eternal inheritance.

Perseverance of the Saints from the text of Scripture:

But now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you sahll not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you. For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior."
Isaiah 43:1–3

"Eisegesis Gets Nasty" or "Arminians Gone Wild"

Perhaps I wasn't watching closely enough, but I don't remember any time in my life when the Calvinism/Arminianism debate has burned so hotly with such nasty, unChristlike rhetoric. It shocked me some years ago when a man desiring to become a preacher told me that he had never heard Calvinism presented and defended in a way that was God-honoring. My understanding of Calvinism is that it is a systematic theology that seeks to give all the glory to God (soli Deo gloria!), so I had trouble getting my mind around his objection.

Now, quite a few years later, I see a tremendous effort underway, especially in the Southern Baptist Convention, to discredit and destroy men who preach Calvinistic doctrine from the pulpits of their churches. Yes, I intentionally said that the effort is an attempt to destroy the men who preach this doctrine—not an effort to overcome the doctrine itself through valid debate.

The action on the part of these vocal Arminians (most of whom will not own up to the title) that causes me to say that they are attacking the men (ad hominem) rather than the doctrine is that they are intentionally misrepresenting the claims of Calvinism to make it appear to be a wholly vile theological system that makes God into a monster. If these men are not intentionally lying about Reformed theology and what it proclaims, then they are terribly incompetant and our concerns should rest more fully on our seminaries than on them. Many Reformed brethren have chosen to give these men the benefit of the doubt and say that they just simply don't understand what Calvinism stands for and therefore cannot explain it properly to their people. But several exchanges over the past few years have led me to believe that this is an intentional campaign to spread lies about the beliefs of Calvinists with the intention of removing the very possibility of valid consideration of these doctrines from the minds of their hearers. These men have seen that they cannot defend their Arminian position from scripture, which opens the people in their congregation up to the possibility of accepting Calvinist teachings since Calvinists tend to present their beliefs with a solid biblical exegetical hermeneutic. Bible believers are persuaded by the clear text of scripture, so to keep their people from considering the clear text of scripture these Arminian church leaders are making a monstrous caricature of Calvinism to scare their people away from the text of Scripture.

This activity has been demonstrated over the past five or so years by the somewhat famous anti-Calvinism rants and publications by such notables as Dave Hunt (What Love Is This?) and Norman Geisler (Chosen But Free). Just this year another example came from the horrific saga of the "Calvinism and Baptists" debate that was to take place on the campus of Liberty University and the Thomas Road Baptist Church. President Ergun Caner of Liberty Theological Seminary has shown himself to be virulently anti-Calvinist, even proclaiming that Calvinists are more dangerous than radical Muslims. Doctor Caner agreed to debate James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries about this topic after Dr. White called him on the carpet for making such terrible statements. When a debate was finally arranged, Dr. Caner's side continually reneged on its commitments and continually misrepresented the negotiations with the intent of making James White the fallguy for the debacle. The entire e-mail exchange leading up to the debate and its eventual cancelation is available in PDF format for those who want to know the truth.

Why am I bringing this up at this time?

The most recent example of horrific (and I believe intentional) misrepresentation of Calvinistic doctrine was recently posted at The Christian Index by Interim Pastor Nelson Price of Marietta, Georgia. What follows is an example Mr. Price has used from the pulpit of his church and is presented in this Christian Index article:

A mass of people are gathered at a bus stop marked “Planet Earth.” Along comes the Celestial Bus marked “Destination Heaven.” It pulls up and stops. The driver, who is God, opens the door, and says, “All destined for heaven get on board.” A number do. A missionary couple who with zeal have served Christ all their lives start on and God says, “Step aside. You haven’t been chosen to ride this bus.” A couple of infants start on and God tells them to step aside. Persons who from youth have loved and ministered in Christ’s name are told to step aside. As the bus is about to depart and the door is closing God says to those not on board, “Catch the next bus.” “No,” they plead, “here comes the next bus and it is driven by Satan and marked ‘Destination Hell.’”

“Sorry,” says God. “I didn’t choose to save you. Your love and commitment to Jesus doesn’t matter.”

Such intentional misrepresentation is inexcusable. We must pray that God will convict the hearts of these men before they cause any more damage to the members of their flock who have been placed in their care.

More blog-chatter about Norman Price's example:

Angelz cartoon answer to the whole thing. Check out Angelz' blog "Torched by an Angel—it's a good one.

• Jame's White's response letter to Dr. Price
• The Calvinist Gadfly notices