Author: fundyreformed

L, 'ish, & Particular Redemption

~ fundyreformed ~ 24 Comments

Yesterday, I concluded my involvement in a somewhat long blog debate over L, ‘ish, & particular redemption. The “L” is the middle point of TULIP, of course, which refers to “limited atonement” or as Calvinists prefer to phrase it  “particular redemption”. The ‘ish  is a Hebrew word for “man” which can also be translated “each” or “every”. That word became important in the debate which centered on Is. 53:6.

To summarize, Pastor Kent Brandenburg claimed that the use of  ‘ish indicated that the reference was expanding from either the nation of Israel or the believing  remnant (which is the consistent use of “we” throughout the context) to all people everywhere. He claimed that both the use of “all” at the beginning and end of the verse, as well as the use of ‘ish [translated as  “every one”] set the verse off from the context to indicate that all people in general, or all of mankind are in view in the final phrase “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all”.

I disagreed with this view. I see the Hebrew word in question merely pointing to each person in particular within the “all we” group about whom the verse is speaking. In fact, ‘ish comes in a phrase that also includes “we” in the translation: “we have turned everyone to…”. That seems to support my view. (For more support, reference the debate itself.)

This is not to say that Is. 53:6 is an open and shut case for limited atonement. The word “all” is used twice in the verse, and I can see how people (like Calvin himself!) would take the verse to be referring to all of mankind. But I see the “all” as referring to everyone within the group referred to by “we”. A spokesman might say on behalf of a group: “we agree”. Then later he might emphasize, “we all agree”. I think a similar use of “all” is in view here.

And I believe this understanding  fits with two other important points. First, the verse is written as poetry—Hebrew poetry. And the poem is longer than just verse 6. Second, several verses in the context all point to the “suffering servant” (aka the Messiah—Jesus Christ) as suffering on behalf of and atoning for the sins of the believing remnant—a select group of people.

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…”  — vs. 4

“But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.”  — vs. 5

“…stricken for the transgression of my people”  — vs. 8

“…by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.” —  vs. 11

“…yet he bore the sin of many,…”  — vs. 12

So this is my position on Is. 53:6.    It fits with the larger teaching on the atonement elsewhere in Scripture. In the atonement, Jesus actually substituted for and actually redeemed a people for Himself. Jesus did not merely make atonement or redemption possible, He accomplished it.    I recently came across a great blog post which gives many of the reasons for the Calvinist understanding of particular redemption. Let me refer you to that summary post  and also  this article (taken from this  online booklet) by John Piper.

But before I go, let me deal with two further things. First of all, Pastor Brandenburg, with many others I am sure, like to stress that just because the Bible says Christ died for the sheep (Jn. 10:11, 15), or died to purchase His church (Acts 20:28), or died to save His bride (Eph. 5:25-27) it does not follow that Christ did not die for the non-sheep, non-church, and non-bride. I respond as follows: such a logical dismantling of these texts results in a bunch of nonsense. What is the point in saying Christ shed his blood to purchase the church, if he also purchased everyone else? When Jesus says He gives His life for His sheep, that has to mean something. It is just such expressions of intent, which are one of the chief cornerstones of the doctrine of particular redemption. He bore God’s wrath for all of the sins of the elect. God did not intend to save the world, and fail; rather, He intended to save the elect and wonderfully succeeded!

Lastly, let me deal with Calvin. Perhaps some of my readers have some proof that he believed in limited atonement. But his comments on Is. 53:6 and 53:12 lead me to conclude that he did not accept this position. How can I respond to this? Well, for starters, Calvinism as a system of doctrine was still being formulated, and later Reformed people like John Owen would advance this understanding of the atonement. Further, particular redemption has never  ruled out  that general blessings  for all flow from Christ’s work on the cross (ie. common grace, not being thrown into Hell immediately, gospel preached to all nations, etc.). But most importantly, Calvin’s rejection of this doctrine highlights the fact that I don’t merely agree with a man, but with the Bible. Further, it shows that Calvinists can disagree over this point, and they have. There are a number of “4-point” Calvinists today. Some may argue that “L” logically follows from the other points, and I would agree. But  others differ. In other words, I’m saying if you shoot down “L” that doesn’t demolish Calvinism as a whole.

Finally, let me hear from you on this. Do you agree with my position that “we” refers to the remnant? Am I wrong about Calvin? What passages  convince you  of  particular redemption?

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Overstatements & Theological Reductionism: Fundamentalists on Piper & MacArthur

~ fundyreformed ~ 14 Comments

Another “heated” discussion has arisen on Sharper Iron over a perceived inconsistency between John MacArthur’s recent criticism’s of Mark Driscoll and a promotinal video clip for a teen conference held at John’s very own church. Like most SI discussions, there is an abundance of chaff mixed in with the wheat, so to speak. Yet there are valid points of discussion being raised—to the degree that Phil Johnson has jumped into the discussion with only a matchbox rather than a Pyromaniacs blowtorch.

Ah, but there are overstatements too. Many of them jumped off the page. Some made me wince, others made me laugh, most made me shake my head in disbelief. I commented about them on pg. 22 of that thread (which is scheduled to close at noon today), and I thought I would be lazy and copy those comments here. Well, not merely lazy, because these comments discuss a topic I plan to bring up in the future “theological reductionism” [ironically, I heard that term in a recent Mark Driscoll sermon, the first one I’ve heard]. So without further ado, let me paste my comments here below.

____________________________________________

This thread certainly has some worthwhile discussion. But it also has its fair share of overstatements. I want to look at the overstatements which I see stemming from a theological reductionism. That is a fancy sounding term to describe the oversimplifying of things. Fundamentalists at the very least are prone to such a fault.

Biblical separation for Biblical reasons requires Biblical discernment. There really is no “one-size-fits-all” approach. Oh, but such an approach is far easier, and thus far more appealing. Hence, reductionism.

Consider the following overstatements found in this thread, and then we will look at some clearly wrongheaded conclusions which follow such oversimplification.

Re: John Piper

“Piper endorses Driscoll” “Piper endorses ECM”

It has been mentioned before that Piper had Driscoll speak because he wanted a theologically conservative, yet credible witness to the distrubing trend of ECM. The whole conference was in large part a Biblically based response to the Emerging Church Movement. Driscoll was invited to speak because he knew the movement, and because he is very conservative in his theology while still being very missiological in his evangelism and philosophy. In some respects having Driscoll as a speaker was a statement re: ECM that you can be missiologically minded without being loose theologically. Certainly Piper does not unequivocally endores Driscoll. And obviously he does not endorse ECM.

“Piper now uses rap for worship” “Piper…make(s) allowance for rap music as worship”

This is totally wrong! I am a member at Piper’s church and let me emphasize Piper does not “use” rap for worship. I explained this in a comment on another thread, and you can go there (see my first point) to read the explanation. Needless to say this was merely a kind gesture and not a methodolical strategy on Piper’s part.

“[Piper] will not separate from the Baptist General Conference who have endorsed open theism and continuously endorses practices that are contrary to scripture in emphasis”

This makes it seem as if Piper is just glibly along for the denominational ride. That is so not true! Piper has been a leader in trying to purge open theism from the BGC. He has constantly been a prophetic voice to the denomination, and no doubt has influenced many churches within it. He is in the quandry earlier fundamentalists were in. They were standing for truth in their denominations, but at some point eventually saw the need to abandon them. Remaining in the BGC and fighting for the truth is a totally different reality from what is expressed in this sentence.

“He taught at Bethel College when all sorts of “left wing” Evangelical teaching and practice was occurring and felt comfortable with it.”

This also assumes too much. Are you really sure he was “comfortable” with it? Or could he not have been fighting for Bethel College’s preservation?

Re: John MacArthur

“I talked to a pastor who went to a MacArthur meeting in Michigan. Right before MacArthur stood to preach on the holiness of God, an ensemble from his Master’s College publically swayed to the seductive rhythm of their contemporary music.”

Second hand info about a “public swaying” to music! Are we going to Biblically separate from someone based on how so-and-so felt when he heard the MC ensemble perform?

“In an interview with Mark Dever, MacArthur, was asked if he was a ‘Dispensationalist.’ There was hesitation and then he said; ‘well, in the sense that I believe there is a future Kingdom for Israel.’ He was then asked if he was Reformed and without hesitation MacArhtur said ‘Yes!’ What he indicated is that he may not be Dispensationalist but what is called “Historic Premillenial. That plus his view against the two natures in the Christian should make him examine whether he can sign the IFCA statement of faith. Perhaps he should consider dropping his membership in that organization.”

This statement also is reading motives into MacArthur’s “hesitation”. It overstates the case and concludes from this interview that MacArthur is a weak Dispensationalist. (By the way, should fundamentalists be separating over dispensationalism? I for one don’t think so.)

Re: both

“[They] are wrong in their practice of separation. Separation is a Bible doctrine. This means they are off-base doctrinally on separation. Music is a doctrinal issue and their music is wrong.”

Anyone familiar with SI knows that the music issue is a complicated subject. But we can conveniently simplify it into “their music is wrong” and an implied “we should separate from them”. Again, both Piper and MacArthur practice separation. They differ on specific applications of it between themselves and especially with fundamentalists, but they still are separating. Separation is a difficult topic with much “gray matter”, yet we can simply say they are “wrong in their practice of separation”.

These kinds of overstatements and oversimplified conclusions, lead people into making some of the following extreme statements.

“Why don’t you all take the only rational view and stop buying and reading the books and CDs of a man that says one thing and does the other?”

Again, we have been reminded in this thread that we all are prone to saying one thing and doing another. And certainly examples of this could be given for other “approved” authors. Simply ignoring MacArthur and Piper seems to be far less than a Christian approach to this. It is an overreaction based on an oversimplification of the facts involved. Who needs discernment? Just chuck all books by MacArthur or Piper!

This last quote comes from the comment thread on the post that was linked to at the start of this SI thread. On that blog someone simply said:

“MacArthur is a hypocrite who has an electric guitar shaped beam in his own eye.”

I hope everyone here agrees that such a statement is not only overstated, but it is patently unkind. It is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of John MacArthur. But it makes life easy. Just paint your opponents the darkest shade of black you can–that’ll make you look white on any account.

Hopefully, we can try to avoid such overstatements and oversimplifications–theological reductionism. I know even as I type this that I can easily become guilty of this myself, in several different directions at once even! May God help us think Biblically and calmly concerning these matters. We need to think hard, but let us think, not avoid thinking.

He Touched Me — Food for Thought

~ fundyreformed ~ 1 Comment

I have a few more of Jesus’ Demands, to post about. And I have another post or two in the works. But I need to get this Christmas tree put together! It has been so busy around here, it seems.

Well, I want to get a post up today, so let me provide two quotes from a really good post by someone else, and encourage you to use your blogging time reading it. The article is another “Images of the Savior” post by my friend Nathan Pitchford. This one concerns Jesus’ cleansing of a leper in Mk. 1:41-42. The excerpts I’ll provide below should hopefully encourage you to go read the whole thing. (He just posted another “Image of the Savior” today, too. So check that one out as well.) Anyways, here goes.

And then, we may also learn much of the evil-conquering purity of Christ from this account. For consider how overpowering a thing was evil, as Moses’ law testified. For the one who was unclean, when he touched a person who was clean, did not thereby become clean — no, quite the opposite, for both alike became unclean (Haggai 2:11-14). Indeed so powerful was the corrupting influence of sin’s impurity, that he who was a leper was required to withdraw far from his brothers, and to cry out at all times, “Unclean!” lest they, through accidental contact, should contract the same defilement (Numbers 5:2-3; Leviticus 13:45-46). But this leper came straight to Jesus, seeking mercy; and Jesus was not loth to reach out and touch him! And so marvelous is the unspotted purity of our Savior, and so powerful is he over sin and death, that he did not become unclean; but rather, the leper became pure, and was cleansed from all the disfiguring effects of sin in his body. So will it ever be with him who touches Jesus. There is much truth to meditate upon in this exceptional circumstance….

There is no doubt that, to the extent that we see in ourselves the same desperate needs as we see in these hopeless wretches to which Christ revealed his power and compassion, to that extent only will we be blessed and comforted by these stories of the wonderful works of Christ. If we see ourselves as pure and healthy already, we will be little moved by this account of Christ’s dealings with a miserable leper. But if we see that we are indeed leprous, and even worse than he, leprous on the inside, and impure in the heart — then we will find no end of delight in meditating upon the amazing qualities of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, so mightily displayed as he walked on this earth some two thousand years ago….

Don’t forget! Read the whole thing!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

John Piper on the NPP and the Pharisees

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

Just a quick link to a good article by John Piper which discusses the New Pauline Perspective and their view of Phariseeism. The article strongly suggests  that NPP proponents are not considering properly what Jesus Himself says concerning the Pharisees.

Here is the link: “Jesus, Islam, Pharisees, and the New Perspective on Paul“.

The article is important reading, but it is also devotional reading. We must not be relying on our own merits for favor with God. Let us remember this as we go “serve” God today in worship. Let us come expecting to receive more than give, and come as needy not worthy.  

Thank you Jesus for such undeserved and altogether glorious grace!

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7

Preaching Pictures

~ fundyreformed ~ 14 Comments

Having recently pushed for my viewers to buy a movie ticket to see The Nativity Story, I was very intrigued by Kevin Bauder’s recent article on the history of fundamentalism and the movies. This first article is primarily history while part two, apparently, will be Bauder’s own assessment of the morality inherent in going to a movie.

With this discussion on my mind, I stumbled across By Faith magazine, and some recent articles they have on movies and drama.  

The article entitled “We Do Theater Because We Believe” by Charlie Jones drives home the point that drama has the ability to move us. It tells a story, and stories are powerful, especially in a post modern age like our own! Drama often preaches a sermon, so to speak. It can powerfully communicate a message. And if you look around, there are lots of sermons and millions of listeners. But it is not us Christians who are doing the preaching.

In an interview with Christian playwright and actor Tom Key, Key claims that “art always leads the person to slightly or profoundly more than change, whereas the entertainment that is not art will not experientially, existentially affect the recipient.” So while drama can move us, if it isn’t good art, it probably won’t. Which leads us to wonder with Art Within founder Bryan Coley, “In a media-saturated generation, where are we as Christians?”  

I guess these articles (they are all fairly brief) caused me to ponder a few things. First, that the art form of drama and motion pictures is a powerful medium which Christians should redeem, and feel free to experience (with discernment of course). Second, that Christians should be more involved in the production of artful plays and movies. And lastly, such Christian involvement in the production of drama would lead to both a communication of Christian themes to a wider audience, as well as providing a healthy alternative to secularism’s often lustful creations–to “criticize by creating” as Michelangelo and Bryan Coley put it.

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7