Category: Theology

Classic Arm Chair Theology at its best (or should that read worst?)

“The Chronological Study Bible (NKJV)”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Chronological Study Bible NKJV, order at Amazon.comAuthor: compilation of several scholars
Format: Hardcover
Page Count: 1690
Publisher: Thomas Nelson
Publication Date: 2008
ISBN: 0718020685
Rating: 3 of 5 stars

The Chronological Study Bible (NKJV) by Thomas Nelson Publishers, is a very well done study Bible. The hardback book is beautifully designed with color and graphics on every page. In fact, pages without some kind of article or note are few and far between. The Bible is arranged chronologically, which means individual books and the order of groups of books are arranged according to a chronological ordering. Sometimes this is done according to the presumed date a book was written, often it relates to what time period the section describes. In any case, the Chronological Study Bible will always let you know why each section is included where it is.

What makes the book valuable for study are the many discussions of the history, customs and culture of the time period that the Scripture is addressing. Many parallels are drawn between ancient near-eastern culture and the writings of Scripture. Key archaeological finds which often testify to the historical veracity of Scripture are described or even pictured. Time-lines are given for the Biblical events as well as historical events of that same era.

I flipped through every page of this massive volume (1600+ pages), and read or skimmed through each article. It is both fascinating and educational, and brings the Bible alive. Such a view of the historical time-frame of Scripture, however, does bring up some questions. The introduction highlights this fact and explains that this study Bible “takes with equal seriousness the views of traditional, conservative Bible students and those of modern, critical scholarship.” (pg. xi) It doesn’t try to “persuade readers that one particular view is correct”, leaving that for the reader to decide.

This in my mind is the only real drawback of the book. In the main the Chronological Study Bible presents multiple views on various issues (such as the dates for the Exodus), but occasionally the perspective shared is not what I’d agree with. Sometimes the notes state that the Bible borrowed concepts from previous cultures, and the role of inspiration is ignored. See for instance the discussion of Satan on pg. 902. It also presents a consistent egalitarian view regarding the role of women in the church, in the notes on the relevant passages.

Often, however, the historical insights enlighten the text and help the reader better understand what’s going on. There’s a fascinating discussion of the phrase “offspring of vipers” on pg. 1124 which stands as a positive example in this light.

Ultimately, those who are serious Bible scholars will find this resource very helpful. And these kinds of questions do need to be addressed and thought through. For new Christians, an uncritical endorsement of this book may not be best, however. In every other respect this study Bible far exceeded my expectations.

I encourage you to check out the Bible for yourself at chronologicalstudybible.com. You’ll find a preview and other great information on the study Bible there.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the publisher. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Amazon.com or direct from Thomas Nelson.

Clarifying Calvinism

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

5pointPhil Johnson (of Pyromaniacs fame), just finished a superb series of posts entitled Clarifying Calvinism. The series is posted over at Grace To You’s blogizine Pulpit Magazine.

He starts out by exhorting younger, web-savvy Calvinists to get their theology from books not blogs (a wise piece of advice, I’d admit). Then he discusses hyper-Calvinism and gives a balanced treatment of Arminianism.

The best part of the series are his last three or four posts which center on one little verse which encapsulates Calvinism’s doctrines: 1 John 4:19 “We love him, because he first loved us.” If you have some time, I’d encourage you to give the series a quick read.

Why "Limited Atonement" (part 2)

~ fundyreformed ~ 18 Comments

I apologize for not picking up my limited atonement series sooner. The holidays plus a couple bouts of illness intervened.

I’m not optimistic enough to think in the next few posts I’ll answer all of everyone’s questions on this topic. I’ll still have more research to do and questions of my own, I’m sure. What I hope to do, however, is to explain where Calvinists are coming from in this whole matter of “Limited Atonement”, and I hope to show that even if you disagree with our conclusions, there are strong Biblical arguments for our position.

Points of Agreement

In this debate, its important to remember where we are on the same page. Most non-Calvinists agree with the 5 point Calvinists in many respects regarding the atonement.

1) We agree that Christ died to secure salvation for all who would believe in Him.

2) We agree that not all people will believe in Jesus; therefore, many will sadly perish ultimately in Hell.

3) We agree that Christ’s death provides the basis for the global mission of preaching the gospel to all. Everyone has a bonafide offer of salvation in the gospel, because of Christ’s death.

4) We also agree that because of Christ’s death, mercy (common grace) is given to all men such that God does not consume those who sin instantly. Rather, he gives them innumerable good things to enjoy in this life. God is freed up to do this because Jesus’ death proves that God is just.

Here we see a great degree of agreement. Without actually saying Christ died for all, Calvinists nevertheless believe all benefit from His death. Setting aside that semantic quibble, Calvinists basically affirm all the main things non-Calvinists affirm about the atonement. (We’ll deal with the non-Calvnist reasons for insisting on death for all, and their logical objections to the Calvinist view in future posts.)

Calvinist’s add one additional point

Calvinists go further, however, and affirm the following.

5) Christ’s death not only makes salvation possible for all who would believe, it actually purchases the very faith by which the elect believe. It does so because by his death, Jesus actually propititated God’s wrath for the elect and suffered in their place.

In short, we believe that the elect were in God’s mind all along with his designs for the atonement. He had called them from the beginning of the world, and it is consistent with Scripture and reason that he would see his death as effecting their salvation particularly. We all believe in a substitutionary atonement, in this view, however, Christ actually substituted for specific people, the elect.

In the next post I hope to provide the Biblical support that Calvinists have for this claim. Then I’ll try to interact with objections to that view and the support for the typical non-Calvinist evangelical position.

God Working in Us: Philippians 2:13 And the Will

~ fundyreformed ~ 13 Comments

I’m getting ready to start up my series on the Calvinist view of the atonement soon. One of the objections which has already arisen in the comments on part 1, is the idea that Calvinists believe God somehow forces unbelievers to believe the Gospel. Faith is not a gift from God, it is claimed, but rather something the lost must do. They are offered life upon the condition of faith, and while God may help them believe, He will not “force” them.

What I find amusing in this objection is how the same people who hold that view find no problems with the following verse.

Philippians 2:13, “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

This verse teaches clearly that in the lives of believers, God works in them both providing the will and doing the works in and through them. This is why Paul says:

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Cor. 15:10)

Christians have no problem affirming that God works in the very hearts and minds of believers. God empowers them for every good work (1 Cor. 12:6, 1 Pet. 4:11). He equips us with everything we need to do what is right. But He does more than that, He works in us the very things that please Him:

Heb 13:20-21 Now may the God of peace… equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

In doing all of this, is God forcing believers to please Him? Doesn’t God’s work negate the goodness of the works we believers produce? On the one hand, the good works of believers testify to them and others that we are truly justified and actually regenerate. They provide assurance that we are God’s children. But God is the one producing these works. God requires this of us, but then He works in us to do what He requires.

I think most of us agree with this and find no problems. What is the difference then when it comes to unbelievers? Do they have to give God the key to their hearts before He’ll work in them to believe? Is God’s work in believers okay because we sanctioned it, but not okay in unbelievers because they haven’t? If God works in unbelievers to will to receive Christ as Lord, is this forcing them to do something against their will?

For my part, I don’t see how we can draw a line between believers and unbelievers which limits God’s ability or right to work in hearts. I see the teaching of Scripture that God works in us to will as fitting nicely with the passages which teach that faith and repentance are gifts (see Acts 11:18, 15:9, 18:27; Rom. 12:3; Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:24-26; 2 Pet. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:14; Acts 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:21).

I have further support in this idea of there being no hard and fast line which limits God from working in unbelievers like He does in believers. In 2 Thessalonians, Paul starts out by thanking God for the believers growing faith. He doesn’t point to the believers as the source of the growth in faith, but thanks God (1:3). Then later in the epistle, Paul goes on in the same vein:

“But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” (2 Thess. 2:13)

Paul thanks God for choosing them to be saved. God accomplished that through His Spirit’s work, and by providing belief in them.

So I conlude we should praise God for working in us to trust Him, and to grow in His grace to the degree that we have. Praise God for mercifully energizing my heart and giving me a desire to live for Him!

Why "Limited Atonement" (Part 1)

~ fundyreformed ~ 21 Comments

Recently, a dear brother in Christ posted a lengthy rebuke of limited atonement as a comment on my blog. I promised him a response and thought I’d share the exchange here for the benefit of my readers. Feel free to read his original comment. This is the first part of my response to his concerns.

A Widespread Concern

Many Christians are very concerned over the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. To them, the very words “limited atonement” imply something totally foreign to Scripture — that Christ’s atonement is limited. Christ’s power isn’t, neither is His love. Worse yet, there are many verses which seem to teach that God loves all and wants all to be saved, and that Jesus suffered and died for all. So Calvinism then, is unscriptural and dangerous in that it teaches Christ’s power is limited.

The motivation behind the above conclusion is commendable. Scripture is more important than any system of belief and Christ’s power is not limited. Such points are important to defend. The problem comes from the basis of the above conclusion. Most Christians who object to Calvinism on this point do not understand what it is that Calvinism is actually teaching by means of the words “limited atonement”.

The Cavlinist Concern

Before I explain what Calvinists affirm by this doctrine, I want to point out something very pertinent to this debate. The very Christians who claim Calvinism limits the atonement, limit the atonement themselves. They admit that not all are saved finally. This admission teaches that the atonement Christ performed did not have complete saving results for all people. And since it was done for all people alike, then it is incomplete in the sense that people must respond and believe to finish the work of the atonement. So, in effect, Christ really didn’t save anyone in particular. He merely made salvation possible for everyone.

The Calvinist View of The Atonement

This is where Calvinists part ways with the idea of unlimited atonement. When we think about atonement, we see men as dead sinners totally in need of a Savior. Every thought of our hearts are vile and we do not even have the ability to please God in any way. Yet God in his mercy chose a people for his sake to glorify his name. He is cleansing and purifying that people and he has given them as a bride to his Son. His Son keeps them and will not lose any the Father has given him. It is for these and these alone that Jesus in his High Priestly role prays (John 17:9, 12). It is this flock that he keeps and guides. And if one is not part of the flock they will not believe (John 10:26). It is for these– his people, the many– that Christ lays down his life (John 10:11; Matt. 1:21; 26:28). He purchased his church with his blood (Acts 20:28), and he died for the purification of his bride (Eph. 5:25-26). He didn’t also purchase the non-church and die to purify the non-bride.

For salvation to occur, sins need to be paid for and the penalty used up. God’s wrath needs to be spent on a substitute, that it might be propitiated. The condemned need someone to die in their place, instead of them. Once such a substitutionary death takes place, there remains no more penalty for sins. Such a sacrifice purchases the sinner and buys him back from death’s domain. That blessed man has been saved.

Faith is still necessary, but such faith is a gift of God. The sinner is an enemy of God and hostile to God. He wants no part of God. What makes his anger towards God cease? How can his dead heart start living by faith? How can his unborn existence become born into new life? The Spirit graciously applies the benefits of Christ’s sacrificial work in the hearts of the elect causing them to awake and instantaneously believe in Christ. To be alive is to have been born, and to be spiritually alive is to have been regenerated. Spiritual life is not possible without faith. And faith is not possible for the non-elect. When the Gospel is preached, the elect ones respond in belief by the working of the Spirit. And the miracle of salvation is seen by all.

Are we co-operators with God in our salvation? He dies for us and just stands at our heart’s door meekly knocking hoping we’ll believe? Or is he the one who comes to the tomb or our hearts shouting “Lazarus come forth!”

The Real Question

So at the end of the day, both groups limit the atonement in some sense. The question in my mind should center on what we mean by “atonement”. After the break here, I’ll provide an excerpt from an earlier post I did on this topic, and offer some other links to help people understand just how Calvinism impacts evangelism, and why I see strong scriptural warrant for the postions of Calvinism.

The following quote is from my post: “Who’s Limiting the Atonement?”

Calvinists affirm basically all that Arminians teach on this point. Arminians believe that Christ death provides a legitimate gospel offer of salvation to every person. Calvinists affirm that Christ’s death purchases common grace for all and enables everyone the opportunity of responding to the gospel message. Both groups agree that those who respond will be saved, and both groups agree that not everyone responds.

This leads us back to the difference””Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the nature of the atonement. Calvinists see it as an actual payment of sins and a purchase of people. They see it as purchasing the very gifts of faith and repentance. So while anyone might potentially believe, all who believe are the ones for whom Christ actually died to procure their salvation.

Arminians, however, claim that faith and repentance are something that human beings add to the atonement (in a sense) to make it effective. And even on this point, they would claim that God’s grace enables the sinners to repent and believe. Calvinists see this grace as having to be purchased on the cross for specific people, and Arminian’s don’t.

So on the face of it, Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement. Neither are universalists. Both claim that we must preach the gospel to everyone and yet only some will be saved. Calvinists basically affirm everything Arminians do, but affirm something else. That repentance and faith were purchased on the cross, and that the sins of the elect were actually atoned for (not potentially atoned for) on the cross. They claim that Jesus came to actually save sinners, not merely to make them savable.

So the question should not be “Who is limiting the atonement?” But rather, “What is the nature of the atonement?” When you approach the “L” in TULIP from this perspective, the Calvinist doctrine of “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” will make more sense.

Additional Resources