Building Blocks: Calvinism: Perseverance of the Saints

Our fifth point of Calvinism for discussion is the Perseverance of the saints.  This is a doctrine that means that once a person is truly saved, they are God’s forever.  This doctrine begs a few questions.  First, what is the function of Baptism?  Next, when does justification occur?  How do you know that you are one of the elect?  What happens when a person turns away from God?  Was that person truly saved?  What if he was already Baptized?  These are all tough questions, but they need answers.

Baptism is the sacrament through which a person enters into covenant relationship with God.  This is the same as signing a contract.  You have no access to the benefits of the contract if you didn’t sign it.  The issues next become who has access to a contract for signing and what happens when a person breaks the contract?  Justification occurs when the elect person is Baptized, infant or adult, but Baptism does not confer justification.  You know that you are one of the elect, really, if you care about the answer to that question.  The reprobate probably doesn’t care about that question.  But that’s just a flippant answer.  The answer is that the elect believe in Christ’s redeeming work on the Cross as testified in Scripture.  The elect attempts to live in obedience to His will and struggles with sin, repents of this sin and receives Grace regularly by hearing the preached Word and receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

What about the person who is Baptized, but who is actually reprobate and turns from God?  Clearly this will happen.  Why is Baptism not 100% effective while the atonement was 100% effective?  The answer is simple.  Man will baptize whoever will receive the sacrament; but man does not know the movings of the Holy Spirit.  It is clearly possible that many will be baptized and not receive the Holy Spirit.  This leads to a dangerous place that Pentecostalism has clearly exploited, and that is the issue of the fruits of the spirit.

In this Calvinist model, it is important to understand the distinctions of category.  We have defined two types of reprobate and one type of Christian.  There is the reprobate who is never Baptized and also the one who is baptized, but never really believes.  The Pentecostal describes two types of reprobate and two types of Christian, because Pentecostals are Arminian on their best day and Pelagian on their worst.  The Holy Spirit does something different for the Pentecostal than reveal the truth of the Gospel concerning Christ Jesus.  The decision to be Christian for the Pentecostal is a self contribution, one that can be retracted at a later date.  The Holy Spirit is involved in other things besides the gathering of Christ’s elect to Him and the revelation of the truth of the Gospel to those elect.  This something extra that they argue is contributed by the Holy Spirit stratifies the Christian community into carnal and higher Christians, a demarcation that has no Biblical support.

Therefore, back to the Calvinism model, when a person is baptized but falls away from Christ after however many years, it is clear that the Holy Spirit did not give that person belief.  It is therefore possible to have a person attend church every week for their whole life and not ever receive the gift of belief from the Holy Spirit.  It is likewise possible for a person to be Baptized and believe in the truth of the scripture without attending a church since their Baptism.  This violates the scriptural mandate for the life of the believer to remain in community with other believers, but it is still possible.  The main issue here is that once the Holy Spirit has revealed the truth of the scripture to a person, God will not lose that person.  The truth will persevere in that person regardless.  That person remains a believer even if they appear to wander away from church for a time.  The Holy Spirit will gather them back to Christ before their death or the Last Day, whichever comes first.  That is the meaning of the perseverance of the saints.

The fruit of the spirit, then, is that a person cares about his sin and understands his imperfections while trying to obey the simplified mandate of the Law as given by Jesus: Love God and Love your neighber, as if that were easy.  The reprobate has no regard for his sin.  This does not mean that a believer is without sin, quite the contrary.  This means that a believer has great concern over his failure to be obedient to Christ.  This is not to say, in the mind of a Calvinist, that there is a fear over the loss of salvation over sin.  On the contrary, salvation is assured by his justification through the blood of Jesus.  But in his sanctification, as he struggles throughout life with the fact that his body, mind and soul are still currently under the curse of Adam, he recognizes that he falls short of the standard and repents of these sins and the condition of sin regularly and receives absolution for this sin.  This turning away from sin requires constant support and encouragement.  We receive Grace from the hearing of the Word and the Sacrament, but this is after repentance.  This is a minidrama of salvation that occurs regularly, to renew us in the Grace and Love of God.

One final question that is often asked is what happens if a believer dies with unconfessed sin in his life.  If a Calvinist is asked this question, there is a slam dunk easy answer.  Of course he will die with unconfessed sin.  We will die in the condition of sin.  It is unavoidable.  If our salvation was dependent upon our own perfection, we would be totally without hope.  Fortunately, this is not a problem.  Due to the propitiating, vicarious, penal sacrifice of Jesus, known as the Atonement, our Advocate Christ Jesus imputes His perfection to us and our sinfulness is imputed to Him.  Therefore, the Holy Spirit who gives us this belief, seals the deal on our salvation.  In this way, through the righteousness given to us through the blood of Jesus, we may approach judgment with confidence and certainty.  This is not the sin of arrogance.  The sin of arrogance is the sin of self righteousness.  Our righteousness is in the blood of Christ.  That is how we saints may persevere.

--Troll--

Building Blocks: Calvinism: Irresistible Grace

Our fourth point of Calvinism for discussion is Irresistible Grace.  The essence of this point is that Grace is more powerful than free will.  To truly flesh out this topic, we will need to look at the condition of man, the state of the heart, the condition of free will, the definition of Grace and the power of the Holy Spirit to give this Grace to His elect.

As we continue developing the five points, let’s look at the picture of the first three points once again.  We have God looking out from eternity over mankind and seeing a vast graveyard of death.  Jesus comes and becomes a shining light.  The Holy Spirit comes and transforms a host of elect into belief.  This elect is justified by the atonement of Jesus, but only the elect.  Now, we come to the issue of how we respond to the Holy Spirit.

A helpful paradigm to remember as we work through this is that if we are reprobate, we have no one to blame but ourselves; but if we are elect, we have no one to whom to give credit but the Holy Spirit.  Free will is a concept that we embrace and are reluctant to relinquish.  It is important to understand from the outset that Calvinism does NOT deny free will.  Calvinism deals with free will acting vertically, not horizontally.  What this means is that this present world is fallen in Adam.  Therefore, all things in it are fallen in Adam.  Within this system, we may make choices based upon our fallen perceptions of this fallen world.  No one is denying that humans make decisions.  The problem is that our hearts are fallen.  Deep down we are evil.  We cannot choose God, we don’t even see it as an option.

The Gospel is foreign to man, it is external to man, it is contrary to what man would contrive on his own, it is offensive to man.  In short, the Gospel is not of this world; therefore, man would never consider it an option, let alone choose it.  This is what free will can accomplish: nothing in terms of the Gospel.  The Holy Spirit is sent to the elect to allow them to receive the Gospel and believe the truth of it.  This act of Grace, moderated by the Holy Spirit, is a gift.  There is no action in receiving it.  We are not seeking it, we are not even reaching out for it.  This Grace comes upon us and we are powerless to stop it.  We are powerless to stop it because it is external to our experience and foreign to anything we can encounter in this world in this present age.  This is what irresistible grace means, that we cannot prevent Grace from having its effect on us.  If we are among the elect, the Holy Spirit will find us.  Events will move in such a way that we come in contact with the Gospel.  We will hear the Gospel and eventually we will believe the Gospel.  That is Grace, and it is irresistible.

In this topic and the last, I have not spent much time quoting passages.  That is because as controversial as these topics may be, the last topic, Perseverance of the Saints, will contain by necessity all of the passages that weigh upon this discussion.  Your indulgence is appreciated.

--Troll--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 2

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

Following my own advice, I will try to reframe from commenting on this until he is finished, but at this point it might be appropriate to interject some comments.

First, while he is clearly reading about Calvin on the one hand, his interjection of his own opinion into his narrative at times comes across as a representation of Calvin when it is his own opinion. This is rather confusing and perhaps it was intentionally misleading. We will have to see as he develops his arguments next week.

Second, it is also clear that the author lacks reformed categories. This is problematic when discussing other systems. For instance, when a Roman Catholic talks to a Reformed theologian about justification, there has to be a clarification of the semantics and typology in regards to Grace. The Roman Catholic describes justification in terms of events that are broader and with different nomenclature than the Reformed theologian. Both sides have to understand how the other uses the word justification in order to make sense of the interaction. Similarly, the author here appears to lack this understanding of Calvin's categories.

Third, this whole series has to be viewed in light of the agenda of the website. It must be remembered that framework is not even presented by BioLogos as a creation interpretation. His treatment of genre in the second piece fails to make the key claim that there are more genres present in the Old Testament than just historical and allegorical types.

Therefore, it is becoming clear how this line of logic will fall short. Nonetheless, I will allow the argument to conclude before my final word on this topic.

--Ogre--

My Advocate

A man is sitting in a holding cell at a court, awaiting his arraignment and trial.  Another man is brought into the cell and sits next to the first man.  Both of them are looking pretty confident and care free.

The first man says to the second, “You are looking good, happy, even.  Are you innocent?”

“Absolutely.  They say the innocent have nothing to fear.”

The first man chuckles a moment, to which the second man says, “Why do you laugh?  Are you innocent?”

“Absolutely not!”

“Then why are you chuckling and acting so unconcerned?”

“I have a great attorney.”

“Really?  Who is it?”

“That’s Him over there.”

“Dude, that’s the judge!”

“I know!  Great attorney, isn’t He!”

--Ogre--

National Apostasy by John Keble

Today’s saint from our homily was John Keble, whose sermon on the relationship between the church and the state in 1833 is honored to this day by the Church of England.  Here is a link to an online version of that sermon.  The lessons and the saint are not strongly related today so we will deal with them separately.

The sermon by Keble needs to be put in historical context, denominational and doctrinal context and redemptive historical context.  First, the year 1833 is important from the perspective of the relationship between the monarchy and parliament as well as the Church of England and government.  This was very much a transition period in English government with a further loss of power of the monarchy to Parliament causing a concomitant loss of influence of the Church.  In fact, there was a good deal of secular and even atheistic backlash against the Church.  Second, this is the Church of England which is a Sacerdotal model, believing that priests act as mediators between God and the laity, so that some of the categories for consideration are different.  Whether or not a true two kingdom doctrine existed in early nineteenth century England is beyond my ability to check.  If the current evidence is to be believed, the answer is no, but that is not fair given the doctrinal erosion of the last 60 years.  Finally, this is pre-1948 by a century.  The Holocaust and the post-War establishment of a Jewish state were not even dreamed of being possible considerations by the most premillennial theologian of that day.  Therefore, the specific arguments that are made concerning the treatment of the Old Testament, while interesting, may not reflect current tensions, nor truly reformed categories.

Having said that, after bemoaning the decay not only of the civic moral standard, but also of the doctrinal sophistication of the laity, Keble poses two questions.  First, he asks if a theocracy is necessarily desirable.  This is an interesting question considering all of the historical issues and the title of the sermon.  But a question that bears a look.  Using reformed categories, this is a very simple discussion.  In a two kingdom model with Christians being members in both kingdoms, it is clear that government, being in the Present Age, the Kingdom of this world, is not subject to the Laws of God, but rather to the laws of man.  This in no way lessens the Christian’s obligation to participate in this realm, bringing to bear any and all principles he holds dear, including Christian ethics, such as they are.  It is important, though, to have both a clear Law and Gospel distinction and a two kingdom model with its categories before determining how to impose Law in civic decision making.  Still, as an institution, there is no particular interest of the church in the affairs of state, except in specific issues in which the Law is clearly at question.  There is a great danger for the church being draw into pietistic missions that can run contrary to the Great Commission, which is the true mission of the church.  The Oxford movement seems to have been grounded in this distinction, whether or not the reformed categories existed within the movement.

Secondly, he asks how an individual placed in a position of civic responsibility who is also a Christian should behave in issues where civic interest are in conflict with Law.  Again, this seems to be a discussion greatly helped by the reformed categories and the two kingdom model.  The number of potential conflicts is greatly reduced after sifting through much of the pietistic baggage and reevaluating in light of Law and Gospel distinction, Christian liberty and the reformed categories of justification and sanctification.  In issues that still seem to present a dilemma to the Christian, Keble encourages Englishmen to stick to their principles, regardless of the odds.  I would maintain that no issue of this present age in terms of civic righteousness is sufficient to sacrifice a belief based on the knowledge of Jesus’ redemptive work on the Cross as revealed by scripture.

The relationship between the Episcopal Church USA and the federal government is well documented.  However, it has been a great violation of two kingdom thinking that allowed this to persevere.  The mission of the church has nothing to do with the national government of any nation, including Israel.  The theocracy known as Israel was destroyed utterly in 70 A.D.  The current state of Israel is a geopolitical entity created by man, not by an edict of God, and is not in any Covenant relationship with God.  The juxtaposition of the US flag and the cross in many Episcopal churches is a clear intrusion of this present age in the one place where the Age to Come is supposed to be most visibly intruding into this present Age.  This is man intruding into God’s space, God’s sovereign ground.  Whether symbolically, or in terms of actual corporate influence, this situation should be remedied and viewed as anathema.

Totally switching gears, the messages for today are listed on this website for your perusal.  It is an interesting group of readings.  This is clearly one of those lists that we get because it is almost always Lent for this feast.  All of the passages are Law passages.  Surprisingly, it is the Psalter that gives the best glimpse of redemptive history of the lot.  The Matthew passage stops too soon and Romans 12 without Romans 1-11 is similarly Law without being anchored by the indicatives.  I’ve railed on about his Law-Gospel distinction plenty of times, so I will let it go for tonight.

--Ogre--

John MacArthur: an excerpt from his new book

This link is to the Pyromaniacs blog.  Although most of these guys are dispensationalists, on issues of Truth and Gospel, they are usually dead on target.  John MacArthur is the senior pastor of Grace Community Church in California.  Phil Johnson is one of his guys and is also one of the Pyromaniacs guys.  That is why they have an affinity for MacArthur.  Incidently, Phil Johnson also runs an online archive of Charles Spurgeon, one of the more renown preachers of the nineteenth century.  That website is also worth a visit. 

Enjoy this excerpt from MacArthur's book.

--Ogre--

BioLogos on Calvinism, Part 1

Evolution and Our Theological Traditions: Calvinism | The BioLogos Forum

I don't often go to BioLogos, but there is a timely series appearing there and it will be interesting to see how they tie this into their own hermeneutic concerning Genesis 1-2.  I have read this first installment and, minus the quips, it is an honest enough representation of Calvin thus far.

Please leave this alone if you want to debate Genesis 1-2 at this point.  We will come to that after they are finished making their presentation.  They have promised at least 3 parts to this series on Calvinism.  Likely, I will be commenting on their site when they are done.

--Ogre--

Building Blocks: Calvinism: Limited Atonement

Our third point of Calvinism to discuss is Limited atonement.  While we go through this point, it is important to keep the first two points in view.  Total depravity and Unconditional election have given us the following picture.  God is looking out from eternity on a vast sea of dead people who are all fallen in Adam.  Jesus comes into the picture and becomes a singular light.  He sends the Holy Spirit who brings some huge number of the dead back to life, due to no merits of their own.  And now we come to the How was it done section. 

The atonement is a short hand for the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross.  The Calvinist view of the atonement is a propitiating vicarious penal sacrifice.  Let’s go through these three adjectives.  Propitiation is a combination of two ideas.  The first idea is that the sacrifice of Jesus did more than cover up our sins; it washed away or cleansed our sins completely.  The second idea is that our relationship with God that was damaged by the outrage of our sin against God is repaired and fully restored by Jesus.  Vicarious means just what Webster says that it means.  Jesus acted on our behalf, as a substitute for us.  Penal means that this is a legal declaration; this implies rather directly that a judgment has occurred.  This idea of judgment is hugely important in terms of the redemptive history that unfolds throughout the Bible.  And finally, the noun sacrifice refers back to the OT sacrificial system that was set up as a type and shadow of the true sacrifice that was to come, so that we would recognize the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross for what it is.

The next question that is often asked is for whom did Jesus die and rise again?  For whom is this ultimate sacrifice?  Going back to the first image above, of the sea of dead people, some of whom have now been raised with Jesus, it is clear that the atonement was for these people.  That is what is meant by Limited atonement.

Paul discusses this topic in great detail in Romans, but let us go through the usual arguments against limited atonement.  The first issue is that there are passages that state that Jesus died to take away the sins of the world.  The term world is viewed to mean by some that all men receive this atonement from Jesus.  This idea is extended by some Universalists to mean that the Gospel must spread not only to all corners of the world, but that all men must be converted before the Last Day.  This is not the view of redemptive history that we get in the Bible.  Jesus tells us plainly, in many places, that not all men will be saved.  If that is the case, why would Jesus die for people that He knows will not be saved?  Calvin’s answer is that He didn’t.  Die He did and for all of His people from all corners of the world.  That is the view of all the world that Calvinists take, that Jesus died for all of the elect from all times from all corners of the world.

Another issue is that raised by Arminius.  The above paragraph is wrong in his mind.  Jesus did die for all of the people, but His sacrifice did not necessarily provide salvation.  A person must accept the gift.  This turns the gift of Grace into a work of acceptance instead of the passive receiving of Grace through the work of the Holy Spirit.  Paul has stated quite plainly that man contributes nothing to the equation.  But there is a second more insolent problem with the Arminius formulation.  By definition, this would mean that Jesus was not powerful enough to save everyone that He set out to save.  This conception of Arminius diminishes God, and it makes God impotent in many instances.  That is not a picture of the God that I worship.  My God created the universe and stretches out beyond time.  Such a God as this cannot be impotent in any regard.  Such a God does exactly what He means to do, no more and no less.  Therefore, Calvinists view the receivers of the benefits of the atonement to be the elect, and only the elect.

Another more liberal argument is from Charles Finney, who was a lawyer.  He could not conceive of a legal justification that involved substitution.  There is no justice, in Finney's mind, if Jesus acted vicariously on the behalf of anyone else.  Jesus’ sacrifice was efficacious solely for Himself.  His life provides us with an example of Christian living, that through pious adherence to the Law, we may reach salvation through the Law as Jesus did.  This view is wrong on so many levels.  To begin, if Jesus successfully fulfilled the Law, what was the point of his death?  If the wages of sin are death, but Jesus lived a sinless life, why was His death necessary?  Did He not earn the reward of life for His sinless life?  Finney’s theology can’t answer that question.  The next problem is that the OT types and shadows point towards vicarious sacrifice.  Lambs and doves are offered as atonements, cover ups, for sin throughout the OT.  Clearly, the issue of a vicarious sacrifice is intended by scripture.  Finally, Finney completely denies the Covenantal relationship of Adam to mankind.  In the same way that Jesus cannot vicariously atone for our sin, we cannot be vicariously in the condition of sin through Adam.  In other words, Finney commits the Pelagian heresy and denies Original sin.

I use Finney as an example for a reason.  Finney is championed by so many modern American Evangelicals as the greatest spreader of the gospel since Paul.  The problem is that what he was advocating was clearly not The Gospel.  He denied Original Sin; he denied the efficacy of the Resurrection for anyone not named Jesus Christ; he created a works based system of salvation that wasn’t even the Rabbinical code of the Old Covenant.  If we throw rocks at Judaizers and the so called Messianic Jewish movements, how much larger stones should we throw at Finney and his followers?

So, in summary, what is Limited Atonement?  This is the doctrine that the Resurrection accomplished what the Bible says that it accomplished: justification through the Blood of Jesus and His resurrection for all of His elect.  The atonement has 100% penetration and 100% efficacy for His elect.  This means that 100% of the elect benefit and 100% of the elect receive the full measure of this benefit.  The atonement has nothing to do with the reprobate.  That is what is meant by limited.  This is NOT to say that Jesus is limited in any way.  This says instead that His redeeming actions are limited for the benefit of His elect only, that He himself selected.

--Troll--

Building Blocks: Calvinism: Unconditional Election

The second point of Calvinism to discuss is Unconditional election.  The word election means that someone was chosen or selected.  We will discuss how someone becomes elected in Christ.

John 3:3 states:  Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Remarkably, this verse has been mutated to an imperative.  This statement is indicative.  It is describing not how to see the kingdom of God, but rather what condition must exist for this to happen.  A man cannot influence or control the timing of his birth, the manner of his birth, the identity of his parents.  A man is born; this is an indicative statement.  In the same way, a man is born again.  He no more control over this second birth than he had over the first.  Jesus, in his office of priest, takes care of this for man.  The manner of this rebirth is the work of the Holy Spirit acting in an individual gifting him the belief in the scripture.  The elect will receive this rebirth and the reprobate will not.  This is unconditional.  There is no added value of the individual that contributes to the likelihood of election.

Many will argue that this is not fair.  Return to the third to last paragraph of the Total depravity post.  God sees mankind as a wasteland of dead people.  This is what we deserve.  It is only through the Grace of God, by the actions of Jesus, as revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, who gives us belief in the scripture, that we get something other than what we deserve.  Do not ask for fair.  You do not want fair.  Fairly, we should receive death and eternal separation from God.  This is our problem.  Why are some elect while others are reprobate?  We are not given to know the answer to all of God’s mysteries.  Some things we just have to accept and move onward.

But what of free will?  We will come to this discussion in the post about Irresistible Grace.  For now, I will try to explain with this example.  I have a jar of coins by the phone.  When I come home, I empty my pockets of coins into this jar.  Occasionally, my wife will cash the coins at the bank.  These coins have value to us.  What is more, some coins have a higher value than other coins.  Our bank recognizes these coins as currency and gives them a value that depends upon the intrinsic makeup of the coin.  God does not recognize these coins as having any value in our redemption.  They are but various shiny pieces of metal to him.  There is no difference in value between pennies and dimes or any other coin.  All coins have two sides.  On side is usually called heads, for obvious reasons, and the other side is called tails to distinguish it.  Suppose that each coin represented a person.  The heads side represents salvation and the tails side represents damnation.  Heads, you are elect; tails, you are reprobate.  Then total depravity means that in the beginning, before Adam, everyone was on heads.  God created heads up creatures.  Adam fell, and when he did, he caused every coin to be flipped over.  Jesus placed Himself into the world with heads up.  Now, we have a light in the world.  Jesus then shook up the whole jar and spilled them out on the ground.  Some landed on heads and others did not.  We do not know how Jesus selected which coins to land on heads.  That is not given to us to know.  We know that the work of the Holy Spirit is to notify each individual that they have landed on heads.  It is the arrogance of man to assume that a coin has the power within it to determine on which side the coin falls.  A coin does not determine its own outcome.  A coin is dependent upon the hand that turns it to determine its fate.  The Bible says that Jesus deliberately turns more coins to heads that can be counted.  This is the image of Grace.  We will return to this analogy in a later post.

Now in that graveyard of eternity called humanity, God has elected some to be alive again through Jesus.  Some are called to rebirth in Christ Jesus.  Others are left in the death that we all deserve.  This is Grace, that any are called from the fate that we deserve, to live again by rebirth in Jesus.

Where does the bible reveal this to us?  While I could take the more circuitous route through the Bible again, I’m going to go straight to the heart of the matter.  Romans 3 and Romans 9 are the key passages.  I’ve cited Romans 3 about every third post, but here we go again.  The second half of the passage, after we are proven dead in sin, reveals the offer of Christ through faith.  What is key in this passage is that the only prerequisite for the gift of propitiation through Jesus’ blood is faith.  In chapter 9, Paul ups the ante.  Take the time to read this chapter.  You should read all of Romans straight through without interruption, but that is another topic.

God's Sovereign Choice

9:1 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea,

“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”

Israel's Unbelief

30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Now, go back and read verses 8-24.  That’s pretty heavy stuff.  Before they were born, before there was any reason for either to be judged in a civically fair way, God elects one son to be cursed and the other to be elect.  There was no condition, only God’s sovereign choice.  That is the essence of Unconditional election.  Many other passages talk about the elect, but this is exactly the doctrine that we are talking about now.

--Troll--

Building Blocks: Systematic Theology

It was recently said by a friend: 

If you spend your time bound up in theology and certain religious schools of thought you'll never be loose enough for [the] Holy Spirit to teach you Himself.

The purpose of systematic theology is to provide a framework for interpretation that makes sense of text that at times seem to create paradoxes and contradictions.  A person's view of God very powerfully influences this discussion.  If you believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then you would have to conclude that some views of God and scripture, views that necessarily detract from those attributes, are distortions at best of the truth. There a number of assumptions that all of us bring to the table.  I love being called closed minded when a lack of discipline is being equated with openness.  Who is more open minded: the person who takes scripture seriously and expects the Holy Spirit to teach about Christ, or the person who believes in revelations outside of scripture and then charges the first person with a lack of openness, thereby becoming guilty of their own accusation?

The notion of Sola Scriptura does not mean that everyone runs off to the corner with their Bible and interprets it any way they please then comes back to the table with whatever interpretation they were inspired to concoct.  There are whole epistles about the qualifications of teachers.  We are expected to have teachers.  That is how the Holy Spirit works, through the preached Word and the Sacraments.  Christianity is not an experience; Christianity is a set of facts external to the person made clear by hearing the Word and believed because the Holy Spirit gave that person the gift of belief.

I would digress for a moment and refer you to my prior discussion on this topic.

Let us look for a moment at building a 5000 piece puzzle from the point of view of systemic theology vs the point of view of liberalism.  The systematic theologian starts from the box top of the puzzle with a general idea of what the puzzle is supposed to depict.  Next, there is a separation of pieces into edges and middle, the edges defining the limits or Law.  After the edges are constructed, the middle pieces are further separated into pieces with similar colors or patterns.  Such grouping allows for construction of areas or doctrines.  Finally, when all of the larger patterns are put in place, the leftover smaller pieces are put into place, completing the puzzle.  Most of us never finish the puzzle.  But that's OK, as long as we understand the picture on the box top.

The liberal approaches the puzzle in a different way.  Rules have no purpose or meaning.  There are no doctrines that are sacrosanct.  After a quick glance at the box top, the liberal dumps the puzzle on the table and treats it like a Rorschach diagram, telling us what he sees or feels that the puzzle is depicting.  He might pick up individual pieces and talk about how this piece or that piece proves his interpretation.  He might be very convincing at this tactic.  At the end, the liberal will have told a different tale of what the box top reveals.  There may some similarities.  Some of the words may match.  But on the Last Day, the picture of Redemptive History will be very different.

Can a liberal be a Christian?  Absolutely, but it is much harder to get a vision of the box top when he spends his time telling himself that his vision of the box top is the box top.  Better to let the Author of the puzzle tell you what the picture is, and trust in His revelation.

--Troll--

A response out of context #2

The following interaction occurred on another format, and I have moved it here.  This was linked to an online version of J. Gresham Mechan's Christianity and Liberalism, that is linked again here, and is now permalinked in the right column.

This is a challenge, but it is very readable. Start here if you want to understand what I've been saying about The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was to sent to testify about Jesus and His redemptive work on the Cross. You know there is a different Jesus and a different Gospel at work when people tell you the spirit is telling them about ANYTHING else.

And now the comment:

I couldn't disagree more.

   John 14:26 tells us: But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
   Holy Spirit talks to those who have received Him on a daily basis about ALL things. Those who don't seem to hear him, ever, should question whether they ever received Him.
   Furthermore, 1 John 2:27 tells us the same thing - the anointing being Holy Spirit.
   As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
   It saddens me that you don't hear Holy Spirit talking to you about anything other than Christ and the Gospel. He talks to me about how to care for my children, my husband, my body (health), and how to treat others. He speaks daily about EVERYTHING on my life.
   I hope that you will consider really allowing Holy Spirit to open your mind to this one.

When someone accepts a challenge, one of the conditions is to actually read the material.  Commenting without reading requires unsubstantiated assumptions, and proves nothing.  Making a declaration without offering a sufficient proof is merely asserting, and it does not convince.  Let’s start at the top and go down.  First, you think you are disagreeing with me.  That’s the problem.  You are actually disagreeing with Jesus, John, Peter, Luke and Paul. And please read the book, regardless of your anger with Ogre.

John 14:28.   When you quote Jesus, be sure you include the whole quote.  If you were to quote the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, and only quoted one line, you might think that the Pharisee was actually righteous before God.  When you quote a verse, it is probably good not to leave out phrases.  What will the Holy Spirit teach the Apostles, and later us?  Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth.  He is comparing what the Holy Spirit will teach to what the reprobate can know without the Holy Spirit.  The difference between the elect and the reprobate is that the elect believe in Jesus and His redeeming work on the cross because the Holy Spirit gave them the gift of this belief, while the reprobate considers this talk folly.  It's all about Jesus.

1 John 2:27.  The irony of this passage is that it absolutely proves my point without a shadow of a doubt unless you remove it from context.  This passage is about deception from Antichrists.  So, in the context of deception about Antichrists, the anointing of the Holy Spirit will abide in you so that you do not need these false teachings.  We know this because the Holy Spirit has already taught us everything about the true Christ.  The Holy Spirit teaches us about the true Christ, and helps us to discern false teachings.  This is powerful truth that I can and do receive. 

I’m very sorry that Biblical truth saddens you.  The Holy Spirit doesn’t need to tell me anything about that other stuff, stuff that is not in the Bible, and here is why.  The Holy Spirit was sent to witness to Jesus and His redeeming work on the Cross.  The Holy Spirit gives us the gift of belief in the revealed Scripture.  There is no other revelation required.  I believe that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is wholly sufficient for my salvation.  I believe that the Scripture alone testifies to this truth.  I believe this because the Holy Spirit has made me believe this.  The Holy Spirit has enabled me to believe in the truth of Scripture.  There is no continuing revelation.  There is no additional scripture.  There are no amendments.  There is no second holy book.  If you believe in any of that stuff, then you are denying the sufficiency of the resurrection.  I’m not going to put myself in such a position.  It isn’t because I’m all that clever, I’m not.  I’m going with the Scripture and Jesus as revealed, because Peter did.  As Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

But so that I am not guilty of mere assertion, let us study the Holy Spirit according to Jesus.  How about in Luke 24?  He opened their minds to understand Scripture.  You are witnesses of these things.  He sent the promise of the Father upon them.  Notice that He didn’t say he was going to send more Law.  John 16 has a section called the Work of the Holy Spirit.  Perhaps we should read that together.

The Work of the Holy Spirit

“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Jesus thought that the Holy Spirit was going to “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.”  All three of these issues Jesus explains in terms of himself.  Powerful stuff!  I believe that the Holy Spirit does what Jesus said the Holy Spirit does.  Put your proof texts back into context and see if you can see them afresh in terms of Jesus.  The whole Bible is about Jesus, all of it.  That is what I believe.  The Holy Spirit does what?  The Holy Spirit convicts the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment.  Now look at verse 14:  He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.  That looks pretty straight forward either in context or out of context.  Some verses are just more important than others.  Those are the ones that usually have clear and obvious meaning, like John 16:14.

I’ll take Jesus’ Word on what the Holy Spirit does and doesn’t do.  Sola Scriptura is a part of my belief set.  It is a part of the Reformation.  It is a part of a systemic theology that I happen to believe is correct.  The Holy Spirit has opened my mind completely, to a faith in the fullness and Grace of Jesus, in His redemptive work on the Cross, on my need for Salvation from a wrathful and just God, of His propitiating atonement on the behalf of those elect to whom the Holy Spirit has given the gift of belief.  I know that you have been given that gift.  I just hope that you will hold fast to the singularly important issue and let go of all of the chafe.  

--Ogre--

Building Blocks: Calvinism: Total Depravity

The first point of Calvinism that we are discussing is Total Depravity.  This concept is active on two levels, both at the level of individual sin and mankind.  We will discuss the condition of sin as well as individual sins.  We will discuss specific passages that make this clear.

Sin is breaking the Law, the Commandments.  In the Old Covenant, the rabbinical law was included in this definition, but Jesus has cleared away all of the rabbinical law and left us with the Commandments.  There are two ledgers of the Law: Love God and Love your neighbor.  While these sound innocuous at first glance, it must be understood that the Law is designed to convict us.  The Law will demonstrate to us that we are hopeless in sin.  We may not have realized it until we are measured against the Law.  The Law teaches us that we sin.

Total depravity is the idea that man is sinful by definition.  The doctrine of original sin is that Adam, as a federal representative of mankind, sort of like an elected official who votes for us in Congress represents a group of constituents, represented all of mankind in the Garden of Eden.  His sin is inherited by all of mankind federally and legally.  What has to be understood here is that a Covenant existed between God and Adam.  Covenants are contracts; there is a legally binding obligation involved.  God’s contract with Adam contained blessings if he obeyed and curses if he failed.  This all takes place in Genesis 3 and is worth reading.  Don’t get bogged down in the creation story.  This concept is not about creation, it is about the Covenant of Law established by God in creation, in which Adam was mankind’s covenant representative.  The curse part of Adam’s breaking of this covenant is death.  The wage of sin is death.  This is our inheritance from Adam.

Let’s look at this concept both from the point of view of each person being in the individual condition of sin as well as the futility of fulfilling each Commandment.  Man has fallen, and from the moment of conception, each individual human is a flawed creature destined for Hell without the intercession of Christ on his behalf.  We live under the condition of sin in which every aspect of our being is corrupted by sin.  All of our decision process is based upon the evaluation of data through a lens colored by sin.  We will always make a decision and act in accordance with the fact of that sinful condition.  Therefore, our free will is tainted.  We are free to choose an action between sinful choices.   

In Covenant theology, there is a very important distinction between two kingdoms.  We may make decisions and act in a way that has civic righteousness in it, but our motives are also important.  Oprah Winfrey uses her fortune to do much good in the world, but she has clearly demonstrated that her theology is not Christian.  She is not, at this point a duel citizen of the Present Age and the Age to Come.  She is firmly rooted in the Present Age, still under the yoke of sin through Adam.  Her civic righteousness amounts to dust in the Kingdom of Heaven.  This distinction is huge.  You must have these categories in order to understand Covenant theology.

Let’s back up and look at sin as specifically breaking the law.  Total Depravity means that we will all break the law.  To understand this concept, try to look at the Ten Commandments like this.  God gave us these basic rules to live by and Jesus reinforced them during his time on earth, see Matthew 5:17-20, 48.  That is the minimum requirement to fulfill our duty to God.  Breaking any one of them is sin.  Any sin is worthy of eternal damnation.  Plus, Jesus says that perfection is the standard that is required to fulfill the law.  Wait, it gets worse.  We do not have to act to sin.  Our thoughts convict us.  No, wait, it’s worse than that.  Our hearts, in their sinful condition have sinned before our minds have had the thoughts and long before we ever get around to acting on these sins.  In fact, we may never act on these sinful thoughts.  That’s pretty heavy justice to lay on mankind, but that is essentially the deal.  It’s no wonder that the history of national Israel is one of falling short of the Will of God.  These are tough standards.  So tough, in fact, that no man can possibly meet the standard.  Let me say that again.  No man can possibly meet the standard, and is therefore damned to Hell.  This is what total depravity means in the end game.  If you think that you can come before God with your body of works, your good life and have any kind of positive outcome, you are deluded.  It’s not happening.  You are by definition flawed and sinful.  That is total depravity.

From what passages in the Bible does this stuff come?  Let’s start in the Old Testament and then work our way through the Gospel and finally to Paul.  The beginning is a good place to begin: Genesis 6:5.  That last half of the verse requires no explanation: every intention of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil continually.  Sort of heavy news, isn't it?  Let's try some more.  Ecclesiastes 9:3 is a good spot.  That verse is so horrible, that I'm going to come back to it at the very end.  Jeremiah is one of the prophets who is particular tough.  Chapter 3 has this gem.  And here are some more from Jeremiah.

And now from Matthew 15, Jesus tells us what wonderful things come from the heart:  For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.  This is not exactly telling us how wonderful that we are.  There are, of course, similar passages in the other synoptics.  But the real damage is done by Paul in Romans 1-3.  I've quoted the first half of Romans 3 above and here again.  In case you are unaware, that quoted section is from various chapters of the Psalter.  Paul is using the Old Testament, sections I haven't even mentioned yet, to prove his point.  Can there be that much debate on this topic?

Elsewhere, I introduced some terms that I want to bring back here:  Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism and Amyraldianism. These three terms relate to the order of decrees by God concerning the fall of man relative to the creation of man. Here is a great post to delineate the issue of decrees.  What is important here is that all of these things have happened already.  Whether you believe that creation occurred before or after God decreed the fall of man, it’s all over and done now.  There was either one (Jesus) or two (Adam and Jesus) men who ever came into this world sinless.  That’s it.  The rest of us came into the world after the fall of man and are BY DEFINITION sinful.  This is what Total Depravity means.  BTW, I will be supporting the Infralapsarian position in all of my posts.  This is not necessary to learn, but I include it for completeness, so that you will know, if you choose, the grounds for the arguments and the other possible positions that people might take.  Most Calvinists are Infralapsarians.

Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.  I mentioned that I would come back to this verse.  Imagine for a second that you are God looking out at fallen humanity from eternity.  Without Jesus in the world, God sees nothing but dead people.  With Jesus in the world, He sees one life.  Then he sees more, then there are more than can be counted.  But until Jesus was introduced into the picture, all that there was, under the Covenant of the Law, was death.  Keep that picture in mind when we come to the next section.  When we are talking about what is fair, remember this sea of death that God would see if it were not for Jesus. 

And from Romans 5:  12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.  It doesn't get any more clear than that.

This is where the doctrine of Total depravity leaves man: sinful, lost and most especially dead in sin.  So, how do we get by this little problem and hope to come to God and eternal life?  We’ll go to the concept of election in the next post.

--Troll--

Connect the Dots

I’ve been listening.  I’ve been listening carefully.  Did you know that there has been an Ogre among you?  Here is what I’ve been hearing.  Children, you must make a decision for Jesus and against sinning.  There is a prayer to pray if you accept Jesus.  Your sins will kill you eventually.   God gives you abundant life, if you will only ask him for it.  The so called “worship leader,” after singing songs about relationships with God, then prays that we should not consider what God has done for us, but rather what God can and will do for our lives now.

And so, after listening to this for a while, I finally have to ask these questions to the youth pastor.  On what grounds do we have music ministry people leading prayers, particularly when their theology is, well, questionable?  If we are not to ask what God did for us, what was the point of the resurrection?  What is your view of original sin?  What does Jesus offer me?  I know you quoted Romans 10:9, but have you read the rest of that book?  Have you ever once talked to the kids about what was in the rest of that book?

First of all, I’m absolutely astonished that singing or banging on drums or strumming a guitar qualifies a person to lead prayer in church.  This is the main corporate worship for many of the kids who show up on Wednesday night.  And we have a music guy leading a prayer.  I’m not suggesting that it isn’t OK for everyone to pray.  What I am suggesting is that perhaps a professional should be leading prayer at a corporate worship.

Next, “don’t be thinking about what God did for us….” What?  Isn’t that the whole point of being Christian?  There was this guy, Jesus, who lived, died and was resurrected from the dead 2000 years ago.  That is in the past.  That was the point.  That is what this whole Christianity thing is all about.  Can I get an “Amen?” And we have a singer praying that our kids should not be thinking about what God did for us in the past?  Let’s run through that again.  Jesus, God incarnate, wholly God and wholly man, condescended to come down from heaven, where He was present in eternity to be incarnate, under the Law, under the curse of Adam, so that He could live the perfect life, to fulfill the Law, to be the perfect sacrifice, to usher in the New Age, the be the first born of the New Covenant in Jesus Himself, to die as a penal substitution for the sins of the believers, of the elect, to die to reconcile us to Himself, to God, to be resurrected, to destroy death, to return to His Heavenly throne, where He sits until that day when He will return in Judgment, on the Last Day, to be the our only mediator and advocate on that Last Day, for our Judgment, a day that would otherwise seal our doom.  What?  That’s not what your worship leader said?  Then he shouldn’t be preaching through prayer.  He’s not qualified.

I promised a friend that I would leave the Arminian thinking alone, so I’ll just skip quickly over the whole idea that we have any hope of seeking God (Romans 3:1-20) and move onto my next topic.  I didn’t really talk about the idea that God is the one who makes the vertical moves possible.  Our vertical moves upward are futile (tower of Babel.)  I won’t mention that justification is a forensic declaration based on the propitiation, atonement and reconciliation, bought for us by Jesus 2000 years ago.  I’ll leave the whole idea that humans are afflicted by the condition of sin, which is far larger problem than any particular sin that I might or might not commit, totally out of this discussion.  I won’t discuss that it isn’t me who chooses God, but God who had chosen me, moving me to faith by the action of the Holy Spirit.  But we aren’t going there this time.

What about sin kills us?  What is abundant life?  Is not death the wage of sin?   Since we are in the condition of sin, we are all doomed to die.  Evidence is available in the local cemetery.  Is abundant life a life of material reward?  Perhaps abundant life is instead the life lived in confidence, in belief in the promise of the resurrection, in faith in the knowledge of the work of Jesus on the Cross for us, completed 2000 years ago, as we live in both the Present Age and the Age to come, citizens of both Ages, both under the curse of Adam, but in knowledge of our salvation in Jesus.

Youth Pastor?  When will you ever connect the dots?  What do we do when the same kids come to altar call four weeks in a row?  Why is that happening?  Do they understand why Jesus had to die on the cross?  Did you tell them that yet?  Did Jesus really have to die for your message?  Really??  This theology we hear every Sunday and ever Wednesday is not the full Gospel.  We are teaching a very small part of the Gospel.  We are stripping the Gospel of its richness and of its vital importance.  We are not connecting the dots.

--Ogre--

Building Blocks: Calvinism Overview

Systemic theology is a basically a set of assumptions that people bring to the Bible.  These assumptions alter how they read and understand passages of the Bible.  Everyone has these assumptions, whether they admit it or not.  Learning to recognize your assumptions and defend your assumptions is key to Biblical understanding.  In some instances, the most profound movements of the Holy Spirit involve changes in these assumptions.

Calvinism is probably a misnomer.  The views that are labeled Calvinism are more accurately attributed as far back as Augustine.  When Luther was asked what to call his theology, he suggested that it be called the Pauline Way, just don't name it after him....   Luther and Calvin share much in common although there are small differences.  Many Calvinists would say that the word Calvinist used as an adjective should substituted with the word Biblical, and Troll would certainly agree, although this is certainly a position of the orthodox reformation corner.  Calvinism that we abbreviate today with the acronym TULIP is an evolution of Calvin's points and represent a small summary of the some of the key points.

Total Depravity is a nice phrase that means original sin.

Unconditional election is a phrase that means that grace not works justify.

Limited atonement is a phrase that means that the resurrection was 100% efficacious for a limited number of people.

Irresistible grace is a phrase that means that the Holy Spirit will win over free will.

Perseverance of the saints is a phrase that means that the truly elect cannot undo their election.

In the next few posts, I will go through each of these ideas in detail, offering Biblical references for support of each idea.  Questions will be answered by way of revision of the original post.

--Troll--

A response out of context #1

Sometimes, I take my quotes from emails or other conversations that I do not reveal here.  Such is the case with this post.

The scriptures are alive - Holy Spirit speaks through them. Let them speak to YOU! Christ is our Mediator - through Him, I can approach the Throne boldly. It doesn't get more plain than that. You simply cannot explain it away and make it harder than it is.

And what does the Holy Spirit say to you?  The Holy Spirit was sent to us by God to bear witness to Jesus Christ and His redeeming work on the Cross.  The Holy Spirit is present whenever I hear the Word of God preached correctly or receive the Sacraments.  What is different about that for you?  Isn’t it interesting how it is me who does not make this plain?  What makes this hard is these convoluted presuppositions that you bring to the text.  Perspicuity of the text is on one side or the other.  Let’s see which side that might be.

My first and most basic assertion is that proof texting is dangerous.  Taking verses out of context is dangerous.  Reading whole sections and whole letters is important.  That is what makes the Bible plain, not some amorphous rush of endorphins and adrenaline while I’m reading.  There is a metanarrative that runs from Genesis through Revelations, and that story is the redemptive work of Christ.  That is the prism through which all verses should be viewed.

The Holy Spirit came and gave specific apostolic office to the twelve in the upper chamber, with the later addition of Paul, and that was to witness to the resurrected Christ.  That is the thumbnail of Acts 2.  It could not be more plain.  Let’s look at what some have said about Acts 2.  Perhaps then, you will understand what it does say.  Then we can view Ephesians 3 again, with a bit more perspective.

A few words on the versions of the Bible.  There are two basic philosophies in Bible translation.  There is the Word for Word translation and the Thought for Thought translation.  The ESV that I use is more on the Word for Word end of the spectrum, while the NIV is more on the Thought for Thought end of the spectrum.  The main criticism of Word for Word translations is that it requires more work.  With the ESV, for instance, there is a necessary need to do word studies and then to read and do research on the metanarrative to understand the context of the usage of a particular word.  With the NIV, for instance, there is a group of theologians who do this work for you.  The problem with the ESV is that it requires more work.  The problem with the NIV is that you are allowing someone to do this work for you.  What if they have an agenda?

BTW, all of us have a point of view.  All of us have an agenda.  This is why I prefer the ESV.  Any church can use the ESV and apply whatever spin that they would prefer.  The NIV is giving you a spin, whether or not it fits your Biblical paradigm.  The work of learning the words and the use of those words is the work of understanding scripture.  When words are changed to clarify meaning, the question becomes does this meaning really reflect the words?  We can’t tell any longer if the words have been changed.  This is the reason to use a Word for Word translation over a Thought for Thought translation.

So who edits the NIV?  It is a who’s who of American Evangelical seminaries.  This is one of the major problems with the NIV.  There is clearly an agenda at play here.  There are a few representatives of the more conservative seminaries on the panel, but with Dallas and Wheaton represented multiple times, this speaks volumes.  I have done the word study on Propitiation for you in the past, and in it, I point out some of the problems of the NIV and how interpretation can sanitize some of the richness of the language and therefore some of the depth of meaning from the very doctrines of our faith.

Acts 2 is dealt with on the latest episode of the WHI, which I posted earlier today.  The main issue here is that the sermon of Peter is a great example of how to preach.  Is this what you hear on Sunday?  It is not what I hear on Sunday, far from it.  Peter appeals to Old Testament Scripture and to events of which all who were present were aware, namely the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Peter shows through scripture how Jesus fulfilled this prophesy.  This is the model for preaching.

Hal Lindsey and others would have you believe that this is a reference to the book of Revelations and that this whole passage is yet unfulfilled.  Peter, in no uncertain terms, is telling you that Joel 2:28-32 has just occurred.  The worldly events happened at the death of Jesus Luke 23:44-45, Mark 15:33-39, Matthew 27:45-56.  Now, the Holy Spirit coming to the sons and daughters happened in the upper room on Pentecost, at which time there were both men and women present  Acts 1:14.  In other words, Peter is telling us that this particular prophesy is fulfilled.  This is the same prophesy mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians, but that is for another conversation.

And finally, taking the last bit first, how exactly are the scriptures alive?  The Canon was closed upon the death of the last Apostle, John, in about A.D. 120.  Scripture has a couple of criteria; the first of which is that it must have come from either the inner circle of 12, or someone who had direct contact with that inner circle (such as Luke and Paul.)  John lived a long life, but not 2000 years.  The Canon is closed.  The last Old Covenant prophet was John the Baptist and the last New Covenant prophet was John the Apostle.  What happens when the Word is preached correctly is that the Holy Spirit moves people to understand and believe the truth.  This is not to say that the scripture is altered or amended in any way.  There is no section of scripture called the Amendments.  Scripture is the infallible, eternal Word of God.  It does not change.

Now in Ephesians 3, we have a passage in which Paul is assuring the Gentiles that we do indeed inherit the kingdom, even when Paul dies, as Paul was in jail in Rome when he wrote Ephesians.  I understand this verse to mean that through Christ I may face Judgment with boldness, because I have access to the New Covenant mediator through my faith in Christ Jesus.  It is pretty straight forward.  Paul has just mentioned how the hosts of heaven are made aware of the overarching plans of God by the revelation of the church on earth.  Then he reminds the Gentiles that they are part of that church and that they too have access to the promise.

And so at long last, I come to the original question, one which was flippantly answered with the quote above.  What does Ephesians 3:12 mean to you?  It was your verse that was plucked out of context and given who knows what meaning by you.  That is why I asked the question.  As I have shown, the plain meaning does not seem to dovetail with your comment, so I ask again.  What does Ephesians 3:12 mean to you?  In all of our conversation, there is this undercurrent of accusation that this is just my interpretation versus your interpretation.  That is not the case.  I am trying to represent an orthodox reformed position.  I do not believe that the Scripture changes depending on the reader.  My position is shared by millions over the last two millennia.  I’m fighting against the various liberal positions in the church today that erode the very foundations of our faith.

No, this has not been a tender and loving letter.  Once again, I perceived an air of frustration in you.  I, too, have been frustrated.  I think it is important to tell us why you chose that verse or any verse that you post.  What are you doing with (or to) that verse.  These are the reasons for my frustration.  No, I am not making it harder than it is.  I’m just asking the questions that you should be asking.

--Ogre--