Tag: Bible

We Believe (#11): Living God’s Word by Meditation and Prayer

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

Part 11 in a series of Sunday posts celebrating the glorious Truth we believe as Christians. The readings are quoted from the Elder Affirmation of Faith, of my church, Bethlehem Baptist (Pastor John Piper). I’m doing this because every few weeks our congregational reading is an excerpt from this document, and every time we all read aloud the truths we confess, my soul rejoices. I pray these posts will aid you in worshiping our Lord on His day.

Living God’s Word by Meditation and Prayer

We believe that faith is awakened and sustained by God’s Spirit through His Word and prayer. The good fight of faith is fought mainly by meditating on the Scriptures and praying that God would apply them to our souls.

We believe that the promises of God recorded in the Scriptures are suited to save us from the deception of sin by displaying for us, and holding out to us, superior pleasures in the protection, provision, and presence of God. Therefore, reading, understanding, pondering, memorizing, and savoring the promises of all that God will be for us in Jesus are primary means of the Holy Spirit to break the power of sin’s deceitful promises in our lives. Therefore it is needful that we give ourselves to such meditation day and night.

We believe that God has ordained to bless and use His people for His glory through the means of prayer, offered in Jesus’ name by faith. All prayer should seek ultimately that God’s name be hallowed, and that His kingdom come, and that His will be done on earth as it is done in heaven. God’s sovereignty over all things is not a hindrance to prayer, but a reason for hope that our prayers will succeed.

We believe that prayer is the indispensable handmaid of meditation, as we cry out to God for the inclination to turn from the world to the Word, and for the spiritual ability to see the glory of God in His testimonies, and for a soul-satisfying sight of the love of God, and for strength in the inner man to do the will of God. By prayer God sanctifies His people, sends gospel laborers into the world, and causes the Word of God to spread and triumph over Satan and unbelief.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 11.1 – 11.4. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.

Quote to Note 1: Theology and Preaching

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

From time to time, I’ll be bringing Quotes to Note. Most often they will be quotes good enough to stand on their own two feet. And hopefully they will indeed be quotes worth noting.

Today’s concerns theology and preaching.

“Theology without proclamation is empty, proclamation without theology is blind.“

— Gerhard Ebeling

After providing this quote in his article “Preaching and Biblical Theology” for The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (IVP, 2000), P. J. H. Adam elaborates:

So theologians should never be satisfied when their theology serves only the needs of the academy. Any theology, including biblical theology, must serve the Christian ministry of the word. Likewise preachers should not be satisfied when they have communicated only their own insight, the ideas of contemporary sociologists, or even current theories of Christian or church life. Nor should they be content with ritual repetition of a text of Scripture, reference to a token Bible verse, or preaching on a text to which they have not first applied Paul’s instruction to Timothy: “Reflect on what I am saying” (2 Tim. 2:7).

The dangers of the Western academic tradition are its assumptions that knowledge can be discovered only by those who share secular, naturalistic, or contemporary world views, and that knowledge is a satisfactory end in itself. These are damaging assumptions for any Christian academic to adopt, but particularly damaging for the theologian. Many preachers today, even many who know the Bible, do not use it in their preaching, or use it in a trivial way. We should not meet the challenge of postmodernism by abandoning the Bible, but by using it carefully, theologically and effectively. If we abandon theological reflection on the meaning of the text of the Bible, we will indeed be blind guides. ¹

 ¹ Pgs. 105-106, The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy & Steve Carter (Inter-Varsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois, 2003).

 ² P. J. H. Adam is the Vicar of St. Jude’s Carlton, Melbourne, Australia. The quote by Gerhard Ebeling is from his book Theology and Proclamation (London, 1966), pg. 20.

We Believe (#10): God’s Work in Faith and Sanctification

~ fundyreformed

Part 10 in a series of Sunday posts celebrating the glorious Truth we believe as Christians. The readings are quoted from the Elder Affirmation of Faith, of my church, Bethlehem Baptist (Pastor John Piper). I’m doing this because every few weeks our congregational reading is an excerpt from this document, and every time we all read aloud the truths we confess, my soul rejoices. I pray these posts will aid you in worshiping our Lord on His day.

God’s Work in Faith and Sanctification

We believe that justification and sanctification are both brought about by God through faith, but not in the same way. Justification is an act of God’s imputing and reckoning sanctification is an act of God’s imparting and transforming. Thus the function of faith in regard to each is different. In regard to justification, faith is not the channel through which power or transformation flows to the soul of the believer, but rather faith is the occasion of God’s forgiving, acquitting, and reckoning as righteous. But in regard to sanctification, faith is indeed the channel through which divine power and transformation flow to the soul; and the sanctifying work of God through faith does indeed touch the soul and change it into the likeness of Christ.

We believe that the reason justifying faith necessarily sanctifies in this way is fourfold:

First, justifying faith is a persevering, that is, continuing, kind of faith. Even though we are justified at the first instant of saving faith, yet this faith justifies only because it is the kind of faith that will surely persevere. The extension of this faith into the future is, as it were, contained in the first seed of faith, as the oak in the acorn. Thus the moral effects of persevering faith may be rightly described as the effects of justifying faith.

Second, we believe that justifying faith trusts in Christ not only for the gift of imputed righteousness and the forgiveness of sins, but also for the fulfillment of all His promises to us based on that reconciliation. Justifying faith magnifies the finished work of Christ’s atonement, by resting securely in all the promises of God obtained and guaranteed by that all-sufficient work.

Third, we believe that justifying faith embraces Christ in all His roles: Creator, Sustainer, Savior, Teacher, Guide, Comforter, Helper, Friend, Advocate, Protector, and Lord. Justifying faith does not divide Christ, accepting part of Him and rejecting the rest. All of Christ is embraced by justifying faith, even before we are fully aware of, or fully understand, all that He will be for us. As more of Christ is truly revealed to us in His Word, genuine faith recognizes Christ and embraces Him more fully.

Fourth, we believe that this embracing of all of Christ is not a mere intellectual assent, or a mere decision of the will, but is also a heartfelt, Spirit-given (yet imperfect) satisfaction in all that God is for us in Jesus. Therefore, the change of mind and heart that turns from the moral ugliness and danger of sin, and is sometimes called “repentance,” is included in the very nature of saving faith.

We believe that this persevering, future-oriented, Christ-embracing, heart-satisfying faith is life-transforming, and therefore renders intelligible the teaching of the Scripture that final salvation in the age to come depends on the transformation of life, and yet does not contradict justification by faith alone. The faith which alone justifies, cannot remain alone, but works through love.

We believe that this simple, powerful reality of justifying faith is God’s gift which He gives unconditionally in accord with God’s electing love, so that no one can boast in himself, but only give all glory to God for every part of salvation. We believe that the Holy Spirit is the decisive agent in this life-transformation, but that He is supplied to us and works holiness in us though our daily faith in the Son of God whose trustworthiness He loves to glorify.

We believe that the sanctification, which comes by the Spirit through faith, is imperfect and incomplete in this life. Although slavery to sin is broken, and sinful desires are progressively weakened by the power of a superior satisfaction in the glory of Christ, yet there remain remnants of corruption in every heart that give rise to irreconcilable
war, and call for vigilance in the lifelong fight of faith.

We believe that all who are justified will win this fight. They will persevere in faith and never surrender to the enemy of their souls. This perseverance is the promise of the New Covenant, obtained by the blood of Christ, and worked in us by God Himself, yet not so as to diminish, but only to empower and encourage, our vigilance; so that we may say in the end, I have fought the good fight, but it was not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

*Taken from the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith, paragraphs 10.1 – 10.6. You are free to download the entire affirmation [pdf] complete with Scriptural proofs for the above statements.

Puppets, Popoli & The Open Theism Debate

~ fundyreformed ~ 5 Comments

I’m sure my astute readers are all up to speed on the open theism debate. Then again, some of you probably aren’t. And I haven’t really ever debated the issue, so I had to do some homework too.

The Issue

Open Theism is the belief that God is in a sense bound by time. He knows as much as can be known, but not absolutely all things in the traditional sense of “omniscience”. He can’t know the free decisions of humans before those decisions occur, otherwise they wouldn’t be completely free.

This is obviously not a Calvinistic idea, but even most Arminians would repudiate the idea as just plain wrong. Yet the open theists have some verses they will marshal, verses showing that God changes his mind, repents, is surprised by things, and gives contingent prophecies. They also have some logical arguments at their disposal. It can sound plausible, and even helps make Christianity more palatable for the post-modern atheists of today. And– surprise, suprise– open theism is gaining in popularity among evangelicals today.

Puppets & Popoli?

I mention all of this because my friend “jamsco” runs a blog named “The Responsible Puppet“. His title stems from his adherence to what he dubs “hyper-compatibleism”: God is the puppetmaster, yet we are totally responsible for our actions. He is still working out his position which is not quite 5 point Calvinism, he tells me.

Jamsco links to Vox Popoli (with the “read at your own risk” warning, for Vox’s sometimes-edgy views & speech), who he knew personally in college, largely because he takes issue with Vox’s adherence to OT. Vox does a great job of tearing down popular atheistic arguments, yet he often employs OT in his efforts to disarm his opponents. Jamsco wants to defend a compatibleist view and I’m sure wishes he could convince Vox of the error of his ways.

So Vox for most of this year has had Jamsco on his blogroll under the section “target-rich environments”. And he has promised to interact on the issue.

Round 1

So round 1 of the debate has begun. Vox has responded to Jamsco’s “A Defense of the Omniderigence of God” (where Jamsco had interacted with some of Vox’s views). In his characteristic witty style, Vox does a good job advancing his argument (and answering Jamsco). Jamsco has yet to respond, but its easy to get lost in the hundreds of comments Vox’s posts generate.

Now Vox mentions me in the post, since I had commented under Jamsco’s original post. I stand corrected, yet I did follow up with some comments of my own on the issue. I look forward to Jamsco’s response, and Vox’s promised follow up of Scriptural proof for his view. It will be good to be aware of what kind of arguments are out there on this, and gain an education on this issue.

Recommendations

In doing my homework for my comment under Vox’s post, I came across some excellent articles I should recommend here. A couple are fairly short and yet give a good overview of a conservative response to OT. They are worth reading at some point.

Calvinism: A Man-Made Philosophy??

~ fundyreformed ~ 36 Comments

Recently in the comments of an earlier post of mine “Regeneration, Reception, and Faith“, the charge has again been made that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy.

Many of the Calvinist faithful are rolling their eyes and muttering “not again!” Yes, again.

I’m sure we’ll continue to hear this charge, and so I think it is worth addressing in a post. Hence I’m breaking my blog-silence and giving you a substantive post for a change!

Before I begin, let me say I have nothing against C. Hartline. She levied the charge (you can see the relevant exchange by clicking here and scrolling all the way down until you see comments from October 2007–about the last 4 or 5 comments) and I do plan on addressing many of her specific comments. But I will keep that in the comments of the post in question.

Here I hope to address the larger issue: the common claim that Calvinism is a man-made philosophy. So let’s begin.

The Anatomy of the Charge

Now I will attempt to be fair to the non-Calvinist side in this post. But it should be obvious that saying Calvinism is a “man-made philosophy” is designed to be a pretty strong blow to our side. The charge insinuates that we don’t follow the Bible, but man. And to be frank, the charge is often hollow: there is little or no proof. It’s just thrown out there as fact, and it is designed to predispose people to not trust Calvinism. That is called “poisoning the well”.

When a proof is given for this assertion, often it is given “pit bull style“. I’m referring to “verse pitting“. I suppose a whole post could be devoted to this one thought, but let me try to explain. “Verse pitting” involves throwing proof texts at someone in a debate. I’m not saying whether context is considered or not, quantity is the issue. Rather than dealing with each text brought up for either side, one side just dodges the bullets and keeps firing yet another proof text. If one text gets explained away, fine, they reach for another. And they feel no compulsion to deal with texts which might contradict their side, because after all their verses need answering too. Jehovah’s Witnesses are master of this technique, by the way.

What’s wrong with this approach is that Scripture is belittled. Based on Scripture’s testimony to itself, we would expect all of Scripture to harmonize and agree. Rather than compiling a list of texts that prove our side and contradict the opposing side’s texts, we should seek to harmonize all the texts and really do honest exegesis.

The Myth of Neutrality

Moving beyond the logic of the charge itself, we must consider the claim to neutrality. Non-Calvinists who levy this charge turn around and set up their own man-made philosophy in the place of Calvinism. You can say “it’s just plain Bible” until you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t make your interpretation obviously neutral. All of us are men, and all of us are trying to fit together verses and passages from all over the Bible into an intelligent system of thought.

We all are trying to follow what the Bible says. Just because you think you are right and I’m not, doesn’t let you impugn motives on me, or assume that I am just resisting the plain teaching of the Bible. We all come to the Bible with different assumptions and with holes in our thinking. I know what I’m saying here won’t really make sense until I move on to the next point. So let’s do that.

The Evidence to Explore

It’s time to back up what I’m saying with some evidence. Let me do it this way. Non-Calvinists will unfurl their list of proof texts that they claim Calvinists “explain away” in favor of their man-made philosophy/system. Then they point to the Calvinists’ explanation of these texts as proof that Calvinists really are all about “logic”, “intellect”, or whatever. And they very neatly conclude that Calvinism is just a man-made philosophy that doesn’t come from Scripture.

With this background, let me marshal some of the non-Calvinist texts for you. Then I’ll show what Calvinists do in explaining them that seems so “man-made” to the other side. Next I’ll turn around and marshal some Calvinist texts for you, and show that non-Calvinists do a similar job of explaining away texts in a “man-made” fashion. Finally, I will list some texts that both sides of this debate “philosophize” together on. You be the judge!

Calvinist “Philosophizing”

John 3:16 — Calvinists explain away “whosoever will”, claiming only the elect can believe and be saved. In this verse, and others, Calvinists redefine “whosoever” to mean “the elect”.

2 Pet 3:9 & 1 Tim 2:4 — Calvinists explain away “[God is] not willing/wishing that any should perish” and “[God] desires all (people) to be saved”, claiming that God only wants the elect to be saved. In these verses Calvinists either redefine “all” or “wish/desire”.

1 Jn 2:2 — Calvinists explain away the truth that Christ is a propitiation for “the sins of the whole world”, claiming that Christ died only for the elect. Here Calvinists twist “whole world” into “world of the elect”.

1 Pet 1:1-2 — Calvinists explain away the qualification that people are elected “according to the foreknowledge of God”, claiming people are elected apart from God’s knowing beforehand that they will choose to believe. Here Calvinists ignore the above phrase altogether.

Heb. 2:9 — Calvinist’s explain away the assertion that Jesus died to “taste death for everyone”, claiming instead that Jesus only tasted death for the elect. In this verse Calvinists redefine “every”.

Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”

Acts 13:48 — Non-Calvinists explain away “as many as were appointed/ordained to eternal life believed”, claiming instead that because people believe they are elected/ordained. In this verse they redefine “appointed/ordained” to mean “predisposed to”.

Jn1:13 & 1 Jn 5:1 — Non-Calvinists explain away both that the new birth is “not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God” and that belief in Jesus indicates one “has been born of God” (rather than resulting in a subsequent new birth), claiming that the new birth results from human-originated faith. In these verses, non-Calvinists seem to ignore the above phrases altogether.

Jn 10:26 — Non-Calvinists explain away Jesus statement that people “do not believe because [they] are not part of [Jesus’] flock”, claiming instead that it is belief which makes people members of his flock. Here, non-Calvinists ignore the cause relationship between being of Jesus’ flock (which comes first) and believing. [Cf. Jn. 8:47]
2 Pet 2:8b — Non-Calvinists explain away the statement “they disobey the word, as they were destined to do”, claiming rejection of the Gospel and disobedience in general does not result from any choice on God’s part or any outside force at all. In this verse, non-Calvinists either redefine “destined (or appointed)” or explain this as referring only to national Israel.

Rom. 9:11,15-16, 22-23 — Non-Calvinists explain away such clear statements as “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 his call”, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy….So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy”, and “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction…vessels of mercy, which [God] has prepared beforehand to glory”, claiming instead that the passage does not touch on individual election or salvation at all. For these verses non-Calvinists claim that only national Israel and national election is in view, not individual salvation.

Calvinist & Non-Calvinist “Philosophizing”

Rom. 5:18 — Both groups explain away the statement “one act of justification leads to justification and life for all men”, claiming instead that only some men receive justification and new life. In this verse, both groups redefine “all” to be referring to a specific segment of humanity: “the saved/elect”.

1 Cor. 15:22 — Both groups explain away the truth that “as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive”, claiming that only some men will be made alive in Christ. Here both groups claim the first “all” refers to all people and the second “all” only refers to “the saved/elect”.

Jn. 14:28b — Both groups explain away Jesus’ statement that His “Father is greater than [He]”, claiming instead that Jesus is co-equal in essence with God the Father in the Trinity. In this verse, both groups look at the larger context of the phrase and define it in light of Jesus’ subjecting Himself as a man under the authority of God the Father.

Rom. 2:7 — Both groups explain away the assertion that those who “by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, [God] will give eternal life”, claiming rather that eternal life is given on the basis of faith alone not as a reward for “well-doing”. Both groups interpret the verse in light of the whole teaching of Romans and harmonize it with other clear verses which say salvation is given on the basis of faith in Christ alone.

A Final Appeal to Non-Calvinists

Now we come to the conclusion. From the above list of texts let us make a couple points. First notice that both sides do some “philosophizing”. We cannot escape the need to fit the various texts into our heads and try to harmonize them. So no side can truly claim neutrality. There isn’t just a completely simple “Biblical” interpretation that can be taken for granted.

Secondly, I hope you would agree that we can’t just “keep score”. We don’t give the prize to the group with the longest list. Each and every text on both lists must be brought into harmony with one another. We can’t ignore Acts 13:48 if we don’t have an answer for it, simply because we can find 20 verses that have “whosoever will” in them.

Finally, let me encourage any non-Calvinists to do some homework. Don’t lash out against the imagined evils of Calvinism. Seek to truly understand our position. Many of us, myself included, used to dwell in your ranks. It was Scripture which caused us to change our thinking in this area. It is so easy to just attack the opposite position and claim they’re just plain wrong, and go on to imply they’re unBiblical. I have to guard against the temptation to be lazy in my debating myself, as well.

If you really want to understand Calvinism, please do yourself a favor and read one or two articles written by Calvinists. Get the scoop from the horse’s mouth himself! I recommend this short booklet written by my pastor John Piper. In the comment thread linked to at the top of this post, there is evidence of a non-Calvinist reading that booklet and coming to understand he was much closer to being a Calvinist than he thought. At the least he gained an appreciation for Calvinism and understood us better.

So please, before you claim we’re just a man-made philosophy, check out the evidence for yourself. Try to understand how we arrive at our conclusions. If you stop and listen, at the least you will have to see we are moved by many many texts to come to the conclusions we arrive at.