Category: Calvinism

Discussions and defense of Calvinism and Covenant Theology

More on Redemptive Historical Interpretation of Scripture

~ fundyreformed ~ 1 Comment

Lately I have been thinking alot about hermeneutics. I have been contemplating the merits of the redemptive historical interpretation of Scripture. (Learn what that means here, in a previous post.) The article by my friend Nathan Pitchford, linked to in the post mentioned above, points out that the literal, grammatico-historical hermeneutic of the Reformers is different that that of today. And the reason this is the case, is the growth of rationalism due to the pervasive influence of the Enlightenment. (Be sure to read that post, I have mentioned!)

Anyway, last week I heard a presentation by someone on hermeneutics which dealt specifically with the parable of the Good Samaritan. The speaker was teaching that we should not allegorize the parable at all, but that it only conveys a main basic point that Christ was attempting to draw from it. Yet in his presentation, (I suppose to show how this allegorizing kind of interpreting can get out of hand), he quoted many different leaders throughout church history, and only John Calvin did not give an allegorical view of this parable. The first person to push for the interpretation this guy was advancing was in the late 1800s and was a German intellectual. This presentation seemed to push me the other way, totally! It sure seemed to illustrate how rationalistic thinking has changed our hermeneutics. Now granted there have been some extreme examples of rampant allegorization, but by and large a Christ-centered hermeneutic has been employed throughout church history. I cannot bring myself to conclude that the “enlightened” modern (and post-modern) world has finally been able to recover sound hermeneutics, and that the Holy Spirit was somehow unable to bring Christ’s church to unity in a true and sound hermeneutic until He was helped by the Enlightenment.

In thinking through this issue, I came across a good (and brief) article which gives a “how to” plan for interpreting Scripture (specifically OT Scripture–which is where the differences of opinion are strongest, today). As you will see when you look at it, this article does not throw out many of the advances made in interpretation today, particularly greater understanding of the different genres and forms of literature the Bible contains, etc. These insights are very helpful for interpreting the text correctly. However, it stresses that we must compare the teaching of each OT passage with all of redemptive history, particularly the gospel of Christ. Only then can we learn all that God intends for us with this Scripture. The article is called, “How a Christian Can Read Any Old Testament Passage” and is by Robert A Lotzer. [He draws from Beale and Greidanus among others.]

Stay tuned, for more posts on this topic. I think it is as important as any topic I discuss here. May God bring us all to a better understanding of and a clearer apprehension of Christ through His Word.

The Best Argument for Calvinism: Rom. 8:28 – 9:24

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

I had always heard people say that Calvinism is based on logical implications not required by Scripture. Basically, it was argued, Calvinists have gone beyond what Scripture clearly teaches to come up with their positions. Anyone who agrees with this assessment must grapple with this passage of Scripture: Rom. 8:28-9:24. Why? Because it is the single best argument for Calvinism–and it is simply Scripture.

From my experience, most people choose to ignore this passage. Chapter 9 practically never gets preached on. And the average Christian just turns his brain off when reading this. Or if he is disturbed by the passage’s seeming contradiction with his theories of the atonement and man’s free will, he quickly meditates on his understanding of John 3:16 and goes on his way. Some do deal with this passage, but they so blatantly come to it with their preconceived notions as to what Scripture already does teach, that they cannot simply sit at the feet of Romans 9 and learn.

The article I am about to link to, is a good and simply written exposition of this passage. I encourage all to read it and let Scripture speak to this debate. In my own experience, I have found that it is the non Calvinist who does not let the Scripture speak. They are the ones who depend upon logical arguments for their position. There are scores and scores of passages which plainly teach the various truths which Calvinists singularly affirm. As many have said before, the Calvinist really does affirm everything a non Calvinist affirms about the gospel and God. Yet they affirm more, because they are compelled by Scripture to do so.

So, here is the article, An Overview of Romans 8:28-9:24, compliments of Reformation Theology Blog. Do not let others do your thinking for you. Read and study, and let Scripture be the authority for you on this issue.

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

Reformed Hermeneutics: Christ-centered not Naturalistic

~ fundyreformed ~ 3 Comments

My friend Nathan Pitchford was recently made a contributor to Monergism.Com‘s Reformation Theology Blog! In his first post, he dealt with an issue concerning which he has written a book (he is currently seeking to get it published). It is an issue which is very important to our understanding of Scripture–the topic of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. Everyone has a hermeneutic, whether or not they can spell the word, or know what it means.

Evangelicalism today largely favors the use of a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic. This approach takes each word in its normal sense unless the context or grammar demands otherwise. It also takes into account the historical setting of the author, book, and audience, in making interpretative decisions.

Nathan argues that this was the approach of the Reformer’s, yet with one important extra feature. The Reformer’s interpretive approach focused on finding how every passage of Scripture centered on Jesus Christ. They viewed the Bible as a unified whole, presenting one story–God’s redemption of fallen man.

Nathan points out that the literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic has been used due to the influence of the Enlightenment and subsequent liberal theology, to stress a naturalistic approach to the text. Nathan contrasts the two approaches to Scripture prominent today as follows:

“What exactly do I mean when I say that many evangelicals demonstrate ‘a basically un-Christian reading of much of the Old Testament’? Simply put, I mean they employ a hermeneutic that does not have as its goal to trace every verse to its ultimate reference point: the cross of Christ. All of creation, history, and reality was designed for the purpose of the unveiling and glorification of the triune God, by means of the work of redemption accomplished by the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The bible is simply the book that tells us how to see Christ and his cross at the center of everything. It tells us who God is by showing us the person and work of Christ, who alone reveals the invisible God. If we do not intentionally ask ourselves, ‘How may I see Christ more clearly by this passage,’ in our reading of every verse of scripture, then we are not operating under the guidance of Luther’s grammatical-historical hermeneutic. If we would follow in the steps of the reformers, we must realize that a literal reading of scriptures does not mean a naturalistic reading. A naturalistic reading says that the full extent of meaning in the account of Moses’ striking the rock is apprehended in understanding the historical event. The literal reading, in the Christ-centered sense of the Reformation, recognizes that this historical account is meaningless to us until we understand how the God of history was using it to reveal Christ to his people. The naturalistic reading of the Song of Solomon is content with the observation that it speaks of the marital-bliss of Solomon and his wife; the literal reading of the reformers recognizes that it has ultimately to do with the marital bliss between Christ and his bride, the Church. And so we could continue, citing example after example from the Old Testament.”

The approach Nathan advocates, is called a “redemptive historical approach” by Reformation Theology Blog, and others. Nathan gives six reasons why an approach which “does not see Christ at the center of every verse of scripture does not do justice to the Reformed worldview.” They are:

1. A naturalistic hermeneutic effectively denies God’s ultimate authorship of the bible, by giving practical precedence to human authorial intent.

2. A naturalistic hermeneutic undercuts the typological significance which often inheres in the one story that God is telling in the bible (see Galatians 4:21-31, for example).

3. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for Paul’s assertion that a natural man cannot know the spiritual things which the Holy Spirit teaches in the bible — that is, the things about Jesus Christ and him crucified (I Corinthians 2).

4. A naturalistic hermeneutic is at odds with the clear example of the New Testament authors and apostles as they interpret the Old Testament (cf. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, Paul’s interpretations in Romans 4 and Galatians 4, James’ citing of Amos 9 during the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, the various Old Testament usages in Hebrews, etc.).

5. A naturalistic hermeneutic disallows a full-orbed operation of the analogy of faith principle of the Reformation, by its insistence that every text demands a reading “on its own terms” .

6. A naturalistic hermeneutic does not allow for everything to have its ultimate reference point in Christ, and is in direct opposition to Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:16-18, and Christ’s own teachings in John 5:39, Luke 24:25-27.

Be sure to read his entire article!

Bitterness and Desire: Reflections on Perseverance

~ fundyreformed ~ 4 Comments

A recent post and discussion over on Pyromaniacs blog, has me thinking again about perseverance. [See my recent look at the “Once Saved, Always Saved” doctrine here.] James Spurgeon is promising to post more on this topic there, with specific reference to the importance of church in the avoidance of apostasy as seen in Heb. 10:25. Just prior to reading that post (and the earlier one here) on perseverance, I started reading the book On the Mortification of Sin by John Owen (abridged/edited by Richard Rushing and published by Banner of Truth). Anyway, the last few days, it seems, this topic has been on my mind. As I already have mentioned I recently wrote a somewhat lengthy post about this issue, but I have a few more brief thoughts I would like to post here which may be helpful to some (they were to me).

To begin, I want to quote a verse which could easily have made it into my original post, had I remembered it when composing that. I think it makes clear the importance of perseverance. Hebrews 5:9 “And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” Also, with regards to my use of Rom. 2 concerning judgment, let me clarify. The only reason we are allowed in heaven is that our names are in the Lamb’s book of life. Jesus’ work on the cross is our ONLY hope of heaven. Yet, Jesus works in us through the Spirit’s sanctifying work to such a degree that everyone who enters heaven has good works to evidence that their faith was genuine. This is where passages like Rom. 2:6-11 and John 5:28-29 come in. This is not to say believers are not judged concerning their works with respect to varying degrees of reward, but I believe (along with Wayne Grudem–see his systematic theology) that there is one final judgment where the lost and saved together will stand before God (Matt. 25:31-46; Rev. 20:11-15). And at that time the saints will be rewarded while the lost will receive punishment see Rev. 11:18 (also concerning degrees of punishment for the lost see Luke 12:47-48; 20:47).Here would be a good time to point you to some further resources on the topic. First, be sure to read this short article by John Piper directed to pastors entitled “Brothers, Save the Saints”. Next, I would direct you to several articles at Desiring God listed here. Of course, you should read all or part of John Piper’s book Future Grace. I would also direct you to some further online resources available here, listed by Monergism.Com.

Now I would like to post a few quotes from Owen’s book which really apply to this discussion. On the Mortification of Sin is basically an extended (and very profitable, I might add) study of Rom. 8:13b “But if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Let me first reproduce his outline of the verse:

  • 1) To whom it is directed: “You believers”.
  • 2) The condition: “If you”.
  • 3) The means of accomplishment: “The Spirit”.
  • 4) A duty: “Put to death the deeds of the body”.
  • 5) A promise: “You will live”.

Owen stresses that believers must be mortifying sin: “The choicest believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin [see 8:1], should also make it their business all of their days to mortify the indwelling power of sin.” (pg. 2)

He then expounds on exactly how mortifying is a condition: “The purpose of the condition, ‘If you’, is to express the certainty of the relationship between the cure and the result. There is a clear connection between the mortifying of the deeds of the body and living. This connection is not cause and effect properly and strictly, for ‘eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 6:23), but rather means and end. The intent of the text in this conditional expression is that there is a certain infallible connection and coherence between true mortification and eternal life: if you use this means, you shall obtain that end; if you do mortify, you shall live. This then, is our main motive for the enforcement of this duty in our lives.” (pg. 2)

Now comes some really interesting quotes concerning the false professor, the one who does not mortify sin:

“The basic characteristic of an unmortified course is the digestion of sin without bitterness in the heart. He who is able to swallow and digest daily sins in his life without conviction in the heart is at the very brink of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” (pg. 11-12)

“From this door have gone out from us most of the professors that have apostatized in the days in which we live. For a while most of them were under conviction, and they ‘escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (2 Pet. 2:20). But after having become acquainted with the doctrines of the gospel, they became weary of thir spiritual duties. They had no true desire for these and they allowed evil instead to lay hold of them, and speedily tumble them into perdition.” (pg. 12)

From the above two quotes, it is clear that Owen says two characteristics of false believers–those who profess only but do not possess–are no bitterness of heart over sin, and no true desire for holiness. Let us soberly examine our hearts in this light. May we pray that God would great us hearts that mourn over sin (Matt. 5:4) and that have a true desire for holiness.

I hope these various reflections on perseverance help you. Feel free to add more thoughts or questions in the comments here.

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

A Synergistic Defense of Monergism

~ fundyreformed

Okay! Pardon my puns. This post will point you to a defense of monergism that is written by a beliver indewelt by the Spirit (hence it is a “synergistic” defense).

What is “monergism”?

John Hendryx who heads up Monergism.com (perhaps the best online resource for all things Calvinism–or for theology period, really) gives the following brief description of “monergism” (accessible from this webpage):

Monergism simply means that it is God who gives ears to hear and eyes to see. It is God alone who gives illumination and understanding of His word that we might believe; It is God who raises us from the dead, who circumcises the heart; unplugs our ears; It is God alone who can give us a new sense that we may, at last, have the moral capacity to behold His beauty and unsurpassed excellency. “In theology, [monergism is] the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in regeneration [the new birth] – that the human will possesses no inclination to holiness until regenerated [born again], and therefore cannot cooperate in regeneration.”

So to put it simply, while synergism says man contributes or cooperates in regeneration, monergism says only God is active in the regeneration process. (For further explanation of this concept, again I refer you to the webpage where I got this quote from.)

Now on to the synergistic defense. Hendryx’s fellow blog partner, John Samson, had posted a brief post showing that 1 John 5:1 supports monergistic regeneration (regeneration preceeding faith) over on their blog, Reformation Theology Blog. One of the comments in response to that article really drew John Hendryx’s ire. He responded with a great and brief defense of monergistic regeneration. I want to point you to his post here, as it is especially helpful. He really makes a strong case for 1 John 5:1 proving monergism, and he also shows how John 6:63-65 does the same.

To whet your appetite for this post here is a brief excerpt:

Those who believe faith precedes regeneration believe we have the ability to see spiritual things before we are spiritual, that we have the ability to hear spiritual things before we have spiritual ears. That we can desire Christ and believe the gospel when we are by nature hostile to God.What does it mean when we are a certain thing by nature? A cat has whiskers by nature and no amount of willing can change that. Likewise we are naturally in bondage to a corruption of nature, slaves to sin and thus cannot be otherwise unless God intervenes to change who we are. Only God can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. To believe that our faith is the cause of (or precedes) regeneration is to believe unregenerate, unspiritual man to be spiritual, an impossibly contradictory supposition. It is a rejection of the necessity of the Holy Spirit to change our naturally hostile nature to one that sees the beauty and excellency of Christ.

[Be sure to read the whole article!]

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