|
Post by Admin on Aug 19, 2023 21:16:09 GMT -5
“Sufficiency/Efficiency” Important for Allen’s defense of hypothetical universalism is the theological distinction of “sufficiency/efficiency.” The distinction is common in theology. It occurs in the Canons of Dordt II. 3. Allen’s explanation of the distinction, which is important for his theology of the cross, is that Christ’s death was sufficient for the redemption of all humans in that He did actually die for all, atoning for the sins of all and satisfying the justice of God on behalf of the sins of all (always excepting unbelief). Efficiency then for Allen has to do with the application of the saving benefits of the cross to humans (on the condition of faith). The meaning of the distinction for Allen is that although the cross was sufficient in having been atonement for all humans, it was not efficient in actually accomplishing the salvation of any. One need not argue with Allen with regard to the question whether all, or nearly all, theologians before Beza understood the distinction, “sufficiency/efficiency,” in this way. This is by no means to concede that all, or nearly all, did in fact understand the distinction, particularly with regard to sufficiency, as Allen alleges. It is on its very face unusual that Christian theologians, who were also sharp thinkers, would explain sufficiency as the actual blotting out of all sins. Were one to say that he had a machine that was sufficient to cut down all the trees in a forest, no one with an average intelligence would understand this sufficiency as meaning that the machine did in actuality cut down all the trees, or that the speaker intended to say so. “Sufficiency,” especially in close relation with “efficiency,” refers to the capability of accomplishing a certain work. “Efficiency” denotes the power of actually accomplishing the work. If, then, theologians pressed the distinction, “sufficient/efficient,” into the usage that Allen ascribes to it, the thinking of these theologians left something to be denied. —Prof. David J. Engelsma
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 22, 2023 10:44:54 GMT -5
WHAT GOOD IS SALVATION TO ME, IF...? Salvation itself is experiential, involving our conscious certainty of salvation, for example, justification, the chief benefit of salvation. Justification is not simply the forgiveness of sins. Justification is the forgiveness in the forum of the believer’s consciousness, as the Protestant Reformation has taught us. What good is salvation to me, if I do not know it, if I live in doubt of it? What good is the Comforter to me, if I cannot confess, truthfully, concerning myself personally, what the Heidelberg Catechism puts on the lips of every man, woman, and child who believes the gospel of Jesus Christ from the heart in its first question and answer: [My only comfort in life and death is] that I…belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ, who with his precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must work together for my salvation.1 —Prof. David J. Engelsma
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 24, 2023 13:57:48 GMT -5
THE GIFT OF ASSURANCE (4/7) Prof. David J. Engelsma Sealed, When and How? When and how the believer is sealed with the Spirit is the question. Many of the Puritans and certain of their contemporary disciples, agreeing that sealing is the assuring of the sealed of their salvation, contend that the sealing is a work of the Spirit that follows faith in Christ in time, often after many years. Therefore, it is common, if not the norm, they insist, that believers lack assurance of salvation. With reference to sealing, or witnessing, as the Spirit’s work of assuring the believer of his salvation, Thomas Brooks wrote: Though the Spirit be a witnessing [that is, sealing— DJE] Spirit, yet he doth not always witness [that is, seal—DJE] to believers their adoption, their interest in Christ, etc. There is a mighty difference between the working of the Spirit, and the witness of the Spirit. There are oftentimes many glorious and efficacious works of the Spirit, as faith, love, repentance, holiness, etc., where there is not the witness of the Spirit (Isaiah 1:10)…Though the Spirit of the Lord be a witnessing and a sealing Spirit, yet he doth not always witness and seal up the love and favor of the Father to believers’ souls…14 Thomas Goodwin, whom J. I. Packer praises highly as the best of the Puritan exegetes of Paul and whose doctrine of assurance, according to Packer, “represent the main current of Puritan thinking,”15 is clear and emphatic that the sealing with the Spirit taught in Ephesians 1:13, 14 is a work of the Spirit distinct from faith and a work following the gift of faith in time. The necessary implication of Goodwin’s doctrine of sealing is that it is reserved only for a very few believers. “The work of faith is a distinct thing, a different thing, from the work of assurance.” Basic to Goodwin’s insistence on this difference between faith and assurance, or the sealing with the Spirit, is Goodwin’s denial that faith in Jesus Christ is assurance of salvation. Faith in Christ is merely a confidence that the promises of the gospel are true. It is not a confidence that the promises of the gospel are true for oneself. Faith in Jesus Christ, faith in Jesus Christ from the heart, leaves the believer doubting whether he himself is the beloved object of the promises of the gospel. “It must be granted, that in all faith there is an assurance; but of what? Of the truth of the promise…But the question here [that is, concerning being sealed with the Spirit—DJE] is about the assurance of a man’s interest; that is not always in faith.”16 The sealing with the Spirit follows the Spirit’s work of giving faith to the elect child of God in time. Goodwin suggests that this is usually a long time, for the believer must wait and work for the sealing that gives assurance: You that believe are to wait for this promise [of being sealed]…Serve your God day and night faithfully, walk humbly; there is a promise of the Holy Ghost to come and fill your hearts with joy unspeakable and glorious, to seal you up to the day of redemption. Sue this promise out, wait for it, rest not in believing only, rest not in assurance by graces only; there is a further assurance to be had.17 The line, “Rest not in believing only,” incredible in one who claimed to be furthering the Reformation, is fatal to the Puritan doctrine of assurance, and damning. Although Goodwin does not expressly say so, he puts assurance—personal assurance that one—(a believer in Jesus Christ!) - is saved - forever out of the reach of most believing children of God. For the sealing with the Spirit, that gives assurance, is an immediate, extraordinary, mystical experience: There is an immediate assurance of the Holy Ghost [the sealing with the Spirit], by a heavenly and divine light, of a divine authority, which the Holy Ghost sheddeth in a man’s heart, (not having relation to grace wrought, or anything in a man’s self,) whereby he sealeth him up to the day of redemption...One way [of assurance] is discoursive; a man gathereth that God loveth him from the effects…But the other [the sealing with the Spirit] is intuitive, as the angels are said to know things…There is light that cometh and overpowereth a man’s soul, and assureth him that God is his, and he is God’s, and that God loveth him from everlasting.18 This is the unbiblical, “sickly” mysticism of the Puritan doctrine of assurance. This mysticism is fundamental to the Puritan doctrine. The dependency for assurance upon strange experiences by the people in churches committed to the Puritan doctrine of assurance is not an unfortunate aberration. It is the inevitable, necessary effect and fruit of the Puritan doctrine. The result is two-fold. First, assurance, or the sealing with the Spirit, is forever beyond the reach of most of the people. They never experience the “light that cometh and overpowereth a man’s soul.” They live and die in the dreadful misery of doubt—doubt that God loves them, doubt that Christ died for them, doubt that their sins are forgiven, doubt that they will go to heaven. The Puritan divines, past and present, will answer to God for the souls of these people. The second result is that those elite few who suppose they have received the light that overpowers a man’s soul and therefore are certain that they are saved lean on a broken reed. Their state is worse than that of those who, true to the Puritan doctrine, honestly doubt. For they deliberately “rest not in believing only.” God does not assure His children of His love by immediate, mystical experiences. He assures His children by “believing only.” With an honesty that shames those who like to leave the impression that the Puritan doctrine of assurance is faithful to Calvin, Goodwin frankly admits that his, and the Puritan’s, doctrine of assurance differs radically from that of Calvin. “Calvin,” says Goodwin correctly, taught that the sealing with the Spirit is “the work of faith itself…In believing, in the work of faith, the Holy Ghost did seal up the truth of the promise unto their hearts.” That is, Calvin taught that when a man believes the gospel the Spirit seals him in such a way that “there is an assurance of a man’s interest in those promises [of the gospel].” Goodwin rejects this doctrine of assurance. Calvin’s teaching is “what it [the doctrine of assurance] is not.”19 The influential English preacher D. M. Lloyd-Jones promotes the Puritan doctrine of sealing and thus the Puritan doctrine of assurance. Lloyd-Jones rightly understands the sealing with the Spirit in Ephesians 1:13, 14 as a work of the Spirit that “authenticates to us the fact that we are the sons of God, truly His people, and heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, of a glorious inheritance,” that is, the work of the Spirit assuring the believer of his salvation.20 But he makes a “sharp distinction between believing (the act of faith) and the sealing of the Spirit…Sealing with the Spirit does not always happen immediately when a man believes…There may be a great interval…it is possible for a person to be a believer and…still not know the sealing of the Spirit.”21 “`Sealing with the Spirit’ is something subsequent to believing, something additional to believing.”22 This something “is an experience; it is something experimental,” indeed, “the highest, the greatest experience which a Christian can have in this world…an overwhelming experience.”23 According to Lloyd-Jones, this “experience” is the most desirable feeling that a Christian can have, short of heaven. The truth of sealing in Ephesians 1:13, 14, in Lloyd-Jones’ judgment, is “one of the most vital statements for us as Christian people at the present time.” The failure to understand sealing (as Lloyd-Jones explains it) has been the “chief trouble [with the Christian Church] for a number of years.”24 Since the experience is the Spirit’s assurance of the believer that he is saved, it is extremely precious. But Lloyd-Jones does not tell us what this experience consists of. He admits that he cannot. The best he can do is describe the experience in the words of Goodwin, Wesley, Flavel, Edwards, Moody, Evans, and Whitefield: overpowering light; overwhelming experience; ravishing tastes of heavenly joys; “ecstasy”; an extraordinary view of the glory of Christ; a flood of tears and weeping aloud; such an experience of God’s love as caused Moody to ask God “to stay His hand”25; relief of mind; rejoicing in God.26 Because the all-important sealing follows faith in time, Lloyd-Jones too sets all believers seeking for sealing, that is, assurance of salvation consisting of an indescribable experience: “Are we to seek this sealing? My answer, without any hesitation, is that we should most certainly do so.”27 The people must seek the sealing by working, and working hard: “Prepare the way…mortify…cleanse yourselves]…put into practice the virtues…labor at it…pray for this blessing…be desperate for it.”28 Alas, however, “many Christian people have only known this just before their death.”29 Thus, like a good Puritan (but a bad pastor and theologian), Lloyd-Jones shuts up many Christians to an entire lifetime of doubt whether they are saved. And since the sealing is an undefined and indescribable “experience,” Lloyd-Jones sends all believers out on an uncertain, perilous quest—the quest for the will-o’-the-wisp of a feeling that they are loved by God.30 The translation of Ephesians 1:13 in the Authorized Version might lend credence to the erroneous and injurious doctrine that the sealing of the Spirit, and, therefore, assurance of salvation, follows the gift of faith in time, often after many years of working for assurance. The Authorized Version unfortunately inserts into the text the word “after”: “in whom after that ye believed, ye were sealed.” In the original Greek is neither the word nor the notion, “after.” Literally, the text reads this way: ‘in whom [Christ] ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation—in whom [Christ] also having believed, ye were sealed,’ etc. The thought of the text is this: In the past (and for the Ephesian believers the not too distant past31) the elect saints at Ephesus heard the word of the truth, believed in Christ, and were sealed. These three things happened in this order, but all at the same time. The doctrine of the text is that when one believes in Christ, having heard the gospel, he is sealed with the Holy Spirit at this time and under these circumstances. Sealing, that is, the assurance of salvation, accompanies believing in Christ, as an integral element of the believing. Sealing follows believing in the order of the text as the effect of believing, just as believing is the effect of the hearing of the gospel, but as the effect that is simultaneous with the believing.32 What the apostle adds in Ephesians 1:14 about the “earnest” is related. An “earnest” is both the foretaste of something and the guarantee of the future, complete possession of that thing. An example of an earnest from earthly life might be the down-payment one receives on a certain property. The down-payment is both the first part of the full payment and the guarantee that the full payment will be made. A better example, doing justice both to the notion of foretaste and to the spiritual reality, might be the kiss of a woman who engages to become a man’s wife. The kiss is both the foretaste of the coming delights of marriage and the woman’s guarantee that she will marry the man. In Ephesians 1:14, the earnest is foretaste and pledge of the inheritance of all those who believe in Christ. It is perfect salvation, body and soul, in the new world. As foretaste and pledge, the earnest is assurance of salvation. The earnest is the Spirit Himself. And we have the Spirit as earnest in our consciousness, that is, we have assurance (such is the relation of v. 14 to v. 13), when we believe in Christ, not years or even months later. We have the Spirit as earnest by believing in Christ, not some other way, for example, by working, striving, laboring, weeping, and what not more spiritual acts. Witnessing with Our Spirit The second passage that teaches the truth about assurance is the most profound text on assurance in all of Scripture, Romans 8:15, 16: “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” The entire eighth chapter of Romans is one glorious confession of, and exultation in, assurance. It is put in the mouth of every believing child of God. Romans 8 utterly demolishes the Puritan notion that many believers, probably most believers, live for years in doubt of their salvation and that this is the will of God for many of His dear children. Written to Roman believers and their children, only recently converted from heathendom, the eighth chapter of Romans teaches the truth that all believers, not only have salvation, but also have the assurance of salvation. We all groan, not in doubt of our salvation, but in ardent longing for the resurrection of our body (v. 23). This is assurance. We all know that all things are working together for our good (v. 28). This is assurance. We all are certain that God is for us and that nothing can be against us (v. 31). This is assurance. We all are sure that God delivered His Son up for us (v. 32). “Us” includes me. This is assurance. In that marvelous exclamation of assurance consisting of verses 35-39, every believer declares his or her certainty, not only that he or she is loved by Christ and God, but also, and especially, that nothing can separate him or her from the love of God. Indeed, every believer exclaims that in all the troubles of life, which are many and severe, he or she is “more than conquerors.” This is assurance. The entire wretched Puritan doctrine of assurance is smashed to pieces on Romans 8:35-39. Would to God the contemporary disciples of the Puritans would demolish this doctrine, forthrightly, clearly, unambiguously, and boldly, in their preaching, teaching, and writing, thus delivering thousands of doubting, despairing members of their churches from their bondage, in the mercy of God. The sinful doubt of everyone who believes the gospel of grace from the heart must, and will, be destroyed by the sound preaching of Romans 8. Romans 8:15, 16 is the profound explanation of the assurance of the elect believer. Verse 15 affirms the assurance of the believer: He cries, “Abba, Father.” “Abba” is the Hebrew, or Aramaic, word meaning “father.” “Father,” in the passage, translates the Greek word for father. “Abba, Father” expresses certainty of salvation. One who knows God as his father is sure of the love of God for him in Jesus Christ. Of course, one who calls God his father is sure of his own sonship by the adoption of the cross. “Abba, Father” is expressive of universal certainty. All believers, whether Jew or Gentile, know God as their father. Besides, Romans 8 attributes this calling upon God as father, not merely to a few super-saints like the apostle himself (although he would never distinguish himself from the rest of the church as a super-saint), but to all who believe the gospel of grace from the heart: “We cry.” “Abba, Father” is a strong affirmation of certainty. The believer is doubly sure that God is his father: “Father, Father.” The believer exclaims God’s fatherhood of him, and, therefore, also his own sonship, loudly, as one does when he is sure of something: “We cry.” One thing explains this assurance of believers. Rather, one person, one person within them, explains this assurance. The explanation of the believers’ assurance is that “ye have received the Spirit of adoption.” By Him, we cry, “Abba, Father,” for this Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. Verse 16 is not teaching that the Spirit’s witness is to our spirit, as though there is one witness—the witness of the believer’s spirit as prompted by the Holy Spirit. Rather, within the believer there are two distinct witnesses, testifying to the believer that he is a son, or she, a daughter, of God. One witness to the believer is his own human spirit. As the believer hears the gospel of God’s grace in Christ and believes on Christ as presented by that gospel, his own spirit witnesses powerfully to him that he is a child of God, adopted by God’s grace in the cross of God’s own eternal Son in human flesh. This witness by his own spirit is worked by the Holy Spirit. But this witness, powerful as it is, and prompted by the Holy Spirit, is not enough for assurance. One’s own spirit may be doubted. It is, after all, a very human spirit. Assurance of salvation on the part of a sinful, weak human does not come easy. Because of the importance of assurance, it may not rest on flimsy or assailable grounds. There must be two witnesses, and one of them must be God Himself. “With” the witness of the spirit of the believer is another witness, testifying the same thing. The second witness to the sonship of the believer is the Spirit. Not only does the Spirit move the spirit of the believer to witness to the believer. He Himself also, within the believer, speaks to the believer, in a wonderful, mysterious (though not immediate), and convincing way, “You are a child of God.” This is the end of doubt. In the mouth of two witnesses, the word of the gospel of sonship is established in the soul of the believer. This is assurance of salvation. God the Spirit has spoken in the consciousness of the adopted child. The living word of God banishes doubt. The witness of God Himself is conclusive. _________________________
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 27, 2023 19:37:10 GMT -5
The Dove-Like Spirit at Christ’s Baptism By Stewart. Angus Some six weeks or so after baptizing the Lord Jesus Christ at the River Jordan, John the Baptist’s testimony regarding that highly significant event included the following: "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him" (John 1:32). All four evangelists speak of the Holy Spirit descending upon the Messiah at His baptism "like a dove" (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). Why a dove? First, a dove is a bird. God chose as the sign of the Spirit at Christ’s baptism not an animal which moves on the land or a fish which swims in the sea but a bird which flies in the air (Gen. 1:20). The point is a simple one to grasp. The Spirit is God who dwells in heaven; birds fly above us in the heavens. The Spirit of God, represented by a bird of heaven, issued a heavenly call to office and equipped the Lord Jesus with divine gifts in His human nature for His public work as Messiah. John the Baptist, in his testimony concerning Christ at His baptism, declared that the Spirit, like a dove, a bird, "descended" (John 1:32, 33) from "heaven" (32). Second, God chose a dove as the sign of the Spirit at the Lord Jesus’ baptism because doves are harmless and innocent (unlike, say, a magpie). In a phrase that has since become proverbial, Christ told His disciples that they must be "harmless as doves" (Matt. 10:16), for He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26). By the power of the dove-like Spirit, the Lord Jesus was harmless, innocent, pure and holy in His human nature and in His office as our Saviour. Here we see the unity of the dove symbolism and the voice from heaven at Christ’s baptism: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). God is well pleased with His Son for He is as harmless and innocent as a dove. Third, God chose a dove as the sign of the Spirit at Christ’s baptism because doves are lovely, loving and beloved (unlike, say, an old, mangy vulture). Here one thinks especially of the dove imagery in the Song of Solomon which presents them as soft, with beautiful feathers and eyes, and affectionate and faithful to their mates (e.g., 1:15; 2:14; 4:1; 5:2, 12; 6:9). The lovely, loving and beloved dove from heaven and the voice of God from heaven say essentially the same thing: "This is my beloved Son." Fourth, the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, not only descended from heaven upon Christ at His baptism but also remained upon Him. This struck John the Baptist, who announced that the dove-like Spirit "abode upon him" (John 1:32) and remained on Him (33). The idea is that the Spirit calls and equips the Messiah for His public ministry permanently, bestowing upon His human nature divine gifts and graces as the harmless and lovely Son of God. With the abiding Spirit resting upon Him, Christ began both to preach and to perform miracles, neither of which He did prior to His baptism, His installation as God’s great prophet, priest and king. Remember, too, the frequency and significance of "remaining" and "abiding" in the Gospel According to John. It speaks of inward, enduring and personal communion. The Triune God, by His dove-like Spirit, abides in inward, enduring, personal, covenant communion with His harmless and beloved Son. Isn’t this beautiful! Fifth, God chose a dove as the sign of the Spirit at the Lord’s baptism because, in the Bible, doves are, above all, birds for sacrifice (Gen. 15:9; Lev. 1:14-17; 5:7-10; 12:6-8; 14:22, 30-31; 15:14-15, 29-30; Luke 2:24; John 2:14, 16). It is easy to see why harmless and innocent doves were chosen by God as sacrifices prefiguring the removal of sin. In connection with His testimony that the Spirit descended from heaven like a dove upon Christ (John 1:32), John the Baptist proclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (29). The Spirit, in the form of a sacrificial dove, called and equipped the beloved and harmless Messiah to be the sacrificial lamb who bore the punishment due to us for our transgressions. Sixth, God chose a dove as the sign of the Spirit at Christ’s baptism because a dove, better than any other bird, symbolizes the new world. At the first creation, "the Spirit of God moved [or hovered, as a bird] upon the face of the waters" (Gen. 1:2). At the flood, a harmless and lovely dove was sent out of the ark three times and did not return the third time (Gen. 8:8-12)! The message is clear: God’s wrath is now past; the new world awaits! This is the biblical association between the dove and the new creation. The "world" (John 1:29) for which the Lamb of God died is the "world" of believers whose sins Christ propitiated and for whom He intercedes as advocate (John 3:16; I John 2:1-2). It is not the "world" which God judged at the cross and for which the Lord Jesus does not pray (John 12:31; 17:9). Since the Lamb of God died for "the sin of the world" (John 1:29), redeeming His people "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9), the brute creation will also be "delivered from the bondage of corruption" (Rom. 8:21). Because man is the head of the creation, when man fell, the creation fell with him. With man’s redemption and renewal in Christ, the world has been redeemed and will be renewed as the new heavens and the new earth. The Spirit, in the form of a lovely and harmless dove, descended and abode on the Lord Jesus at His baptism so that, through the Lamb of God’s sacrifice, the new creation will come—a gloriously beautiful and perfectly safe world in which the lion will lie down with the lamb (Isa. 11:6-8; 65:25). —Rev. Angus Stewart _____________________ Rev. Stewart is pastor of Covenant Protestant Reformed Church (CPRC) Ballymena, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 28, 2023 10:21:37 GMT -5
A Critical Analysis of David Allen’s “The Extent of the Atonement” (2/3) David J. Engelsma But Allen’s attempt to foist his understanding of the distinction on the Canons of Dordt is an obvious, utter failure. Dordt speaks of the sufficiency of the death of Christ for the expiation of the sins of the world in II. 3:“The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” (Schaff, Creeds, II. 3). By no means does Dordt mean by sufficiency that the death of Christ was in fact atonement for the sins of the whole world. Dordt does not derive sufficiency from Christ’s having died for the sins of all humans. Rather, the Reformed creed finds sufficiency in the nature of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. It is because of who Christ is who died that His death is of infinite worth and value. Article 4 states this explicitly: “This death derives its infinite value and dignity from these considerations; because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only-begotten Son of God … and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin” (Schaff, Creeds, II. 4). If Allen’s notion of sufficiency, which he imposes on Dordt, were correct, the Canons would read: “This death derives its infinite value and dignity from the fact that Jesus did actually atone for all humans.” There is not so much as a hint in Canons II. 3, 4 of the sufficiency’s deriving from, or meaning, that Christ died for all in any respect whatever. That Christ died for the elect, and for the elect alone, is immediately confessed in Canons, II, 8. For the Canons of Dordt, official, authoritative creed of the Reformed faith, sufficiency is the inherent worth of the death of Christ as the death of the eternal Son of God in human flesh. Its worth is infinite, so that if God had willed, the death of Christ could have expiated all the sins of the whole world of all humans, and all the sins of a thousand similar worlds besides. Efficiency is the actual atoning, satisfying, and redeeming nature and effect of the death of Christ in the place of, and on behalf of, those, and those only, for whom Christ died as the substitute according to the will of God. Capable of atoning for all humans, had God willed it, as to its inherent worth and value, Christ’s death effectively atoned for the elect only, according to the will of God. Sufficiency is hypothetical. Efficiency is the reality of the cross. That Christ died (efficiently) for the elect, for the elect only, in any sense whatever is spelled out in Canons, II. 8: This was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father … (Schaff, Creeds, II. 😎. Canons, II. 8 is the death-knell upon hypothetical universalism, at least for all who confess the Reformed faith, and that in several respects. First, the Canons ascribes “efficiency” to the death of Christ: “saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son,” whereas hypothetical universalism denies that the cross as cross inherently has efficacy. For hypothetical universalism the death of Christ was a death for many who are not saved by it. The cross was inefficacious. As Beza observed, to say so is “blasphemous.” David Allen ought to take warning. Second, for the Canons the cross itself, as the death of Christ, did something, accomplished something: it “confirmed the new covenant” and “effectually” redeemed the elect. The certain effect of the cross is that it fully and finally saves all for whom Christ died: “should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in his own presence forever.” The effect of the effectual death of Christ is the efficacious application of the atoning, satisfying, and redeeming cross to every one for whom Christ died. According to Allen’s hypothetical universalism, the cross of Christ lacks the efficacy to save those for whom Christ died. As Beza observed, to say so is blasphemous. David Allen ought to take warning. Third, the cross confessed by the Canons of Dordt purchased faith for those humans for whom Christ died. It is of fundamental importance to hypothetical universalism that the death of Christ did not earn and purchase faith for those for whom Christ died. Allen repeatedly denies that the cross merited faith for any. For the cross to have purchased faith would limit the death to some only—the elect. In addition, the truth that the cross purchased faith for some would nullify Allen’s and hypothetical universalism’s teaching that faith is the condition that humans must fulfill in order to make the cross efficacious on their behalf. If faith was earned for some, it cannot be a condition that sinners must fulfill to apply the cross to themselves for their salvation. Allen denies “the notion of the purchase of faith, which is at the heart of the necessary salvation of the elect” (p. 211). But the Canons confess that Christ purchased faith for those for whom He died, that is, for the elect: “… faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, he [Christ] purchased for them by his death …” (Canons, II. 8, in Schaff, Creeds). Whatever can be said of Allen’s gigantic project, it shatters on the second head of the Canons of Dordt, as do all other forms of the heresy of universal atonement. Whatever credentials hypothetical universalism may have of antiquity and popularity, it is not creedally Reformed, but heretical, according to the official judgment of the Reformed churches and their confession. Two Bases Allen grounds his doctrine on two main bases. One is his church historical claim that virtually all theologians before Beza, including Calvin, held universal atonement, which atonement is made particular only by the condition of faith. Church historians may and do dispute this claim, especially with regard to Calvin. Regardless of the soundness of the claim, it is not conclusive in the controversy. There has been development of the truth in church history. In this development, doctrinal error has prevailed for a time in large sections of the church and among many theologians. Think only of the doctrine of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. This development of sound doctrine against error has been especially noticeable regarding the pure gospel of grace. How late in coming in the history of the church was the clear understanding of the truth of justification by faith alone. How prominent for a long time was the heresy of justification by works with all its attendant evils. No orthodox Protestant would be swayed by the careful selection of many quotations of theologians prior to Luther in defense of justification by works. The second basis of Allen’s hypothetical universalism is his contention that the Bible knows nothing of limited, or particular, atonement. According to Allen, it plainly teaches universalism. This contention is deeply flawed by the highly subjective and high-handed biases with which Allen burdens the battle of the texts. Whatever biblical passage teaches a death of Christ for the “world” and for “all” must necessarily refer to every human without exception, and cannot refer to all classes of humans or to the world of Gentiles as well as Jews. There is no possibility, therefore, of contending against Allen that “world” in John 3:16 does not mean every human without exception, but rather the world of Gentiles as well as Jews, regardless that a leading theme in John’s gospel is the extension of salvation to the world of the Gentiles; regardless that the immediately preceding context restricts the loving, saving purpose of God in the cross of Christ to those who believe (vv. 14, 15); and regardless that John elsewhere definitely limits the extent of the atonement of Christ to the elect (John 10:11, 15). A second presupposition of Allen, which he makes a law of interpretation, thus settling the controversy in favor of hypothetical universalism from the outset, is that every passage that limits the atonement, for example, to the sheep, or to many, or to those whom the Father has given to Christ, must be understood as allowing for the extension of the atonement more widely. When, for example, Jesus teaches that He gives His life “for the sheep” and that He lays down His life “for the sheep” (John 10:11, 15), Allen insists that the meaning is that He died for the sheep and, in addition, for all other humans. Allen has recourse to a little-known logical fallacy with which to dismiss all explanations that do justice to biblical passages plainly limiting the death of Jesus to some, and some only. All such explanations are guilty of the “negative inference fallacy” (p. 663, and elsewhere, often). What this fallacy amounts to is limiting to a certain class what is intended to apply to a class as representative of others. In the case of John 10:11, 15, the Holy Spirit did not intend to limit the atonement of the cross to the sheep, but merely to mention the sheep as representative of the larger category of all humans without exception. When, therefore, Jesus Himself taught that He would die for the sheep, He intended to teach that He would die for the sheep, the non-sheep, and the goats, that is, for all humans without exception. Similarly, Allen would no doubt dismiss Jesus’ own limitation of His atoning death in Mark 10:45: “The Son of man came … to give His life a ransom for many.” “Many” forsooth becomes “all without exception.” But how this arbitrary application of the “negative inference fallacy” entails perversion of the very nature of the death of Christ! For Christ calls His death a “ransom.” A ransom is the payment of a price for the deliverance of those ransomed. If Christ’s death was a ransom for all humans without exception, all humans without exception must be delivered from Satan, sin, and death, unless the ransom, that is, the cross of Christ was unavailing. Exactly this is the abominable doctrine of David Allen. In addition, Mark 10:45 is even stronger than the English translation would indicate. The preposition in the text is literally, “in the stead of”: “… a ransom in the stead of many” (Greek: anti). The text teaches the substitutionary nature of the death of Christ. He died as the substitute for many. If now, as David Allen teaches, many for whom Christ died as the substitute will yet themselves eternally die as slaves of Satan and sin, that is, perish in hell, Christ could not have been the substitute for sinners. Thus, the very nature of the death of Christ, as taught by the Savior Himself, is denied. In truth, Mark 10:45 is clear, convincing testimony to the limited or particular, extent of the atonement of Christ: “[effectual] ransom in the stead of many [all of whom are efficaciously ransomed and saved, unless the ransom was no ransom at all].” No doubt, Allen is a master of the logic of wielding his “negative inference fallacy” against all appeals to biblical passages that plainly limit the atonement to the elect, and on strategic behalf of universal atonement. But he is not even a novice in biblical logic. As a result, he is an utterly unreliable expositor of Holy Scripture. A schoolboy is more adept and reliable regarding the logic of the Bible than is David Allen. When in the context of His teaching that some humans are His sheep in distinction from others who are not His sheep, and this by divine reprobation (v. 26: “Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep”), Jesus declares that He gives His life for the sheep, biblical logic clearly and incontrovertibly demands that Jesus died for some humans, in distinction from other humans, for whom He did not give His life. Thus, by this passage alone, the controversy over the extent of the atonement is settled: Jesus died for His sheep, according to eternal election; He did not die for humans who are not His sheep, according to divine reprobation. It would seem evident that even everyday, non-biblical logic rejects the tactic of dismissing all exclusionary statements by appeal to a “negative inference fallacy.” When I say about a certain female that she is my wife, in distinction from myriads of females who are not my wife, and that I live with her, sound logic would seem to require that I live with her, and with her alone, in the marital relationship. Sound, everyday logic would not allow David Allen to explain that, in fact, I mean that I live with all females. Nor would the logic of the woman who alone is my wife. The Real Issue Regardless of the two proposed bases for hypothetical universalism as defended by David Allen, what actually drives his defense is the theory of the well-meant gospel offer. Allen is passionately committed to the theory that God offers salvation to all humans in His (saving) love for all and with the ardent desire to save them all. But Allen rightly understands that this explanation of the call of the gospel cannot be maintained unless Jesus died for all, as hypothetical universalism teaches. This argument on behalf of Christ’s sufficient atonement for all runs throughout the book, from beginning to end. It is no exaggeration to say that the appeal to the well-meant gospel offer is for Allen the leading argument on behalf of his hypothetical universalism, as also the chief motivation for the writing of the book. “Universal atonement guarantees the genuineness of the offer of salvation made to all people through the preaching of the gospel” (p. 178). “A universal atonement [lays] the foundation for a genuine gospel offer to all” (p. 235). “The universal extent of the atonement [is] the necessary ground for the free offer of the gospel to all” (p. 265). “A sincere offer of the gospel that invites all people to partake of its blessings necessitates an unlimited atonement. The gospel invitation declares that there is salvation provided and available for all, not just some. Without the unlimited atonement, such a universal offer is untrue, and such an invitation is a mere mockery” (p. 305). “Limitarian language with respect to the extent of the atonement can[not] ground the sincere offer of the gospel to all people” (p. 343). “Universal proclamation of the gospel cannot be genuine on the part of God or his messengers if there is no atonement for all people” (p. 416). Many of these quotations are Allen’s quotations of others. But they express Allen’s own conviction, and a main argument on behalf of the hypothetical universalism defended in the book. Summing up, Allen expresses his own thinking concerning universal atonement and the well-meant offer of salvation. All who affirm limited atonement face the problem of the free offer of the gospel … My argument is simple … If no atonement exists for some, how is it possible that the gospel can be offered to those people for whom no atonement exists … One cannot offer salvation in any consistent way to someone for whom no atonement exists … Universal atonement grounds the free offer of the gospel to all people (p. 776). On Allen’s and many others’ understanding of the call of the gospel as a well-meant offer to all, Allen’s logic, deficient as it is in other respects, is rock-solid. No one can gainsay it. If the call of the gospel to all and sundry is a well-meant offer, expressing the saving love of God and His sincere desire to save, the atonement of the cross cannot have been limited only to some, but must have been universal. For the cross is the ground of the saving love and sincere desire to save expressed in the gospel. What Allen carefully acknowledges at the very end of the book is that such a conception of the gospel-call also demands a doctrine of conditional election, and the rejection of the doctrine of reprobation. For all its weakness with regard to the truth of the cross, the book does serve the important purpose of warning the entire Reformed and Presbyterian community that the popular doctrine of the well-meant offer necessarily and invariably leads to the heresy of universal atonement. In fact, the theory of the well-meant offer implies universal atonement. Allen calls attention to the historical realization of this implication of the well-meant offer in the Christian Reformed Church. Allen appeals to the open advocacy of universal atonement, on the basis of the Christian Reformed Church’s doctrine of the well-meant offer, by Prof. Harold Dekker, and quotes Dekker to this effect (pp. 409, 410, 624, 699, 700). All churches and theologians who espouse the well-meant offer are thereby necessarily committed, willy/nilly, to universal atonement. Not only does logic, biblical as well as “natural” demonstrate this, but also church history does. Every church and every theologian that desire to remain Reformed by honouring the cross of Christ do well, exceedingly well, to heed the warning of the Extent of the Atonement. To be continued....
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 28, 2023 15:05:00 GMT -5
THE GIFT OF ASSURANCE (5/7) Prof. David J. Engelsma Justified by Faith The third group of passages establishing the truth of assurance are all those texts that teach justification by faith. One’s first reaction to this assertion might be that appeal to the biblical teaching of justification by faith has nothing to do with assurance of salvation. But this reaction would be mistaken. Justification implies the assurance of salvation on the part of the one who is justified by his faith. Inasmuch as justification is the certain fruit and benefit of the activity of believing in Jesus Christ, assurance is of the essence of faith. Justification by faith is the forgiveness of the believing sinner’s sins by means of the sinner’s trusting in Jesus Christ with the faith worked in him by the Holy Spirit. Justification is the forgiveness of sins in the sinner’s consciousness, as the Reformation expressed with the phrase, “in the forum of the consciousness.” In the act of justification, God the judge declares in the consciousness of the sinner, “I cancel the debt of the guilt of your sins! I reckon to your account the obedience of My Son Jesus Christ!” In this verdict, God announces the judicial ground: “My Son, your redeemer, obeyed in your stead His lifelong and died as your substitute on the cross.” There is no forgiveness except on the basis of the obedience of Christ in the forgiven sinner’s stead. The Belgic Confession defines justification as “the remission of our sins for Jesus Christ’s sake.”33 Every believer seeks justification on the basis of the death of Christ, as the Heidelberg Catechism teaches in its explanation of the fifth petition of the model prayer, “Forgive us our debts”: “Be pleased, for the sake of Christ’s blood, not to impute to us, miserable sinners, our manifold transgressions, nor the evil which still always cleaves to us.”34 The verdict of justification, in the sinner’s consciousness, therefore, includes, as part of the verdict, indeed, as the very foundation of the verdict, that Christ died for the sinner whose sins are pardoned. This means that in the verdict of justification itself is the assurance that God loves the sinner whose sins he forgives, the assurance of such love as gave God’s only begotten Son for this sinner. Still more, because all Scripture proclaims that Christ, His cross, and the blessing of forgiveness flow from God’s eternal love for certain sinners in the decree of election, the verdict of justification assures the sinner whose sins are forgiven that God has loved him with an eternal love. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him” (Rom. 5:8, 9). Assurance of the love of God for the justified sinner, on the part of every justified sinner, is the meaning of Romans 5:1: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God.” Having peace with God is assurance, that is, conscious certainty, that the sinner is reconciled to God, because God has redeemed him in love for him. In the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, Jesus teaches that the publican “went down to his house justified” (Luke 18:14). The meaning is that the publican returned home leaping and dancing, with gladness on his face and peace and joy in his soul, conscious and assured that God pardoned his sins in mercy for the sake of the sacrifice of the Lamb on his behalf. This was assurance of salvation. This was assurance of the love of God for him. This was assurance of salvation and the love of God as an essential element of justification by faith. It is no more possible for a sinner to be justified by faith without assurance of justification, salvation, and the love of God than it would be possible for a condemned criminal to depart the courtroom in which he had just heard a favorably disposed judge acquit him without knowing that he was acquitted and that the judge was gracious. Since every true believer is justified and since assurance of forgiveness, salvation, and the love of God is an essential aspect of justification by faith, denial that assurance of salvation belongs to justifying faith is, in fact, the denial of justification by faith — the heart of the gospel of grace. Nevertheless, the Puritans deny that assurance of salvation is an element of justification by faith. They deny this simply by denying, as they do, that assurance, or certainty of one’s own salvation, is of the essence of (justifying) faith. They deny this by denying, as they also do, that the Spirit gives assurance in and with the gift of (justifying) faith. They also deny that assurance is part of justifying faith, explicitly. The first conclusion we will begin with and premise as a foundation to what follows, is, that that act of faith which justifies a sinner, is distinct from knowing he hath eternal life, and may therefore be without it, because it doth not necessarily contain prevailing assurance in it. By prevailing assurance, I mean such an assurance as overpowereth doubts and sense to the contrary, so as, in the believer’s knowledge, he is able to say, Christ is mine, and my sins are forgiven; such an assurance whereby a man is a conqueror, as Paul speaks, Rom. 8:37, when he expresseth such strong assurance.35 According to Goodwin and the Puritans, the justified sinner is not able to know that his sins are forgiven, or to say that Christ is his. In asserting that justification by faith leaves the justified sinner unable to say, “My sins are forgiven,” the Puritans press their determination to deny assurance to believers to the point of absurdity. Justification by faith is God’s declaration to the sinner, in his consciousness, “Your sins are forgiven.” To acknowledge justification by faith (“that act of faith which justifies a sinner”), but deny that the justified sinner knows he is justified is not only false doctrine. It is absurd. One thing is sure: This doctrine is no “furthering” of the Reformation. On the contrary, it is, in fact, a denial of justification by faith as much as is the heresy of Rome, and leaves the penitent sinner in exactly the same miserable condition: Doubt! That the Puritan and “further reformation” doctrine of justification is the same as Rome’s in leaving believers in doubt of their forgiveness and salvation and that the Puritan and “further reformation” doctrine is diametrically opposed to Calvin’s (and the entire Reformation’s) teaching are proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, by Calvin’s refutation of the decisions of the Roman Catholic Council of Trent regarding justification. Trent “inveigh[ed] against what they call The Vain Confidence of Heretics. This consists, according to their definition, in our holding it as certain that our sins are forgiven, and resting in this certainty.”36 Trent condemned the certainty of forgiveness, that is, justification, as the vain confidence of heretics. Puritanism and the “further reformation” do the same. Indeed, their error is worse. Puritanism and the “further reformation” condemn as vain confidence the certainty of forgiveness of elect believers who are believing the gospel. With appeal to Psalm 32, Romans 5:1-5, Ephesians 3:12, Romans 8:37, and James 1:6, Calvin declares that certainty, indeed a bold certainty, of forgiveness is the gift of God to all believers and that it is the gift of God with forgiveness, as an element of the forgiveness itself. Charging the Roman Catholic theologians with “rob[bing] all consciences of calm placid confidence” by their “leaving it in suspense to whom and when they are forgiven,” Calvin asks, rhetorically, Where, then, is that boldness of which Paul elsewhere speaks (Eph. 3:12), that access with confidence to the Father through faith in Christ? Not contented with the term confidence, he furnishes us with boldness, which is certainly something more than certainty.37 He exposes a fundamental error of Rome, as of Puritanism and the “further reformation,” concerning faith when he adds, “faith is destroyed as soon as certainty is taken away.”38 Rome, Puritanism, and the “further reformation” contend that Paul’s claims of assurance of salvation apply only to himself and a few other specially favored saints and that they had their assurance by “special revelation,” or a mystical experience. Calvin denies this contention as a “frivolous quibble”: “[Paul] claims nothing so special for himself as not to share it with all believers, when in their name as much as his own, he boldly exults over death and life, the present and the future [in Romans 8:35-39—DJE].”39 At Trent, Rome declared: “Neither is it to be asserted that it becomes those who are truly justified to determine with themselves, without any kind of doubt, that they are truly justified.”40 Puritanism agrees, as the quotation of Thomas Goodwin above indicates. Calvin responds: “Paul makes it [full assurance] the perpetual attendant of faith.”41 Calvin recognizes Rome’s “ingenious” ploy of seeming to do justice to the Bible’s teaching of faith’s certainty, all the while maintaining its false doctrine that individual believers are in doubt of their own forgiveness and salvation. “They think…that they ingeniously obviate all objections when they recommend a general persuasion of the grace of Christ… [while] they allow none to apply grace to themselves with the firm assurance of faith.”42 Puritanism and the “further reformation” employ the same subterfuge when they maintain that believers are certain that Christ forgives sins, but uncertain whether Christ forgives their sins. Calvin scoffs at this worthless certainty. Those who teach it put both certainty and the efficacy of the death of Christ “in the air, so as to be only in confused imagination.” Calvin continues: “Christ is not set before me and others, merely that we may believe him to have been the Redeemer of Abraham, but that every one may appropriate the salvation which he procured.”43 The gravity of the false doctrine concerning assurance of salvation is indicated by Calvin’s blunt statement, “Paul and John recognize none as the children of God but those who know it.”44 One may say that Calvin was wrong about faith, justification, and certainty of forgiveness and eternal life. He may not say that Puritanism and the “further reformation” are faithful to Calvin (and the entire Reformation) on these great issues. And if he says that Calvin was wrong, and that Puritanism and the “further reformation” are right, he aligns himself with Rome on some of the most fundamental issues of the sixteenth century Reformation of the church. The Assurer The three outstanding passages on assurance — the sealing passages, Romans 8:15, 16, and the passages teaching justification by faith alone — all reveal that it is the Holy Spirit who performs the indispensable work of assurance. Only the Spirit can assure the elect sinner that he is forgiven, saved, and a child of God. The Spirit is God, and only God can and may assure anyone of salvation. Only God knows who are His. Only God’s testimony is conclusive for the elect sinner. Mere human testimony can, and will, be doubted. It is the same with personal assurance of salvation as it is with the church’s assurance that the Bible is the word of God: assurance is due to, and rests upon, the witness of God the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit itself beareth witness…that we are the children of God” (Rom. 8:16). The Spirit is the one who assures of salvation as the Spirit of Christ. Assurance of salvation is possible only in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 1:13 teaches that the believer is sealed in Christ with the Spirit: ‘In whom [Christ], also having believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.’ There is no assurance for the sinner apart from Christ. Working on behalf of Christ and in union with Christ, the Spirit assures as the Spirit of Christ. But He is the Spirit of Christ in the elect sinner. Only one who is in us, in our inmost being, can remove our deeply seated doubt, assure us in the depths of our being, and comfort us from within ourselves. No man can reach us where we must hear and be convinced that our sins are forgiven, that Christ died for us, even for us, and that we have God as our Father. But even Jesus Christ Himself outside of ourselves, alongside us, on the pulpit before us or on the couch next to us, cannot assure us. Therefore, He comes to us in the other Comforter, the Breath of God, who penetrates our inmost being, speaking convincingly to our spirit and to us ourselves with our spirit that our sins are forgiven and that we are the children of God. It is the Spirit, within us, by whom “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts” by the word of justification, that is, the assurance that God loves us (Rom. 5:5). It is the Spirit, within us, who, by means of the declaration that our sins are forgiven, moves us to cry, “Abba, Father.” How does the Spirit assure the believing child of God? 46 It is a wonder to me that all mystics and “experientialists” do not go stark, raving mad, always seeking a feeling, always trying to maintain a feeling, always basing salvation or assurance on a feeling, and, if they have such a feeling, always secretly fearing that the feeling might not be all it could be, or even that the feeling is no genuine operation of the Spirit at all. It is a great mercy of God to our physical and emotional life, as well as to the spiritual state of our soul, that salvation is by faith, not by feeling. 47 Fred van Lieburg, Living for God: Eighteenth-Century Dutch Pietist Autobiography, tr. Annemie Godbehere (Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2006), 65. 48 Ibid., 87. The autobiographies of the people influenced by the Puritan doctrine of the “mystical syllogism” are full of such visions, voices, dreams, indescribable experiences of God, and providential occurrences supposedly signifying salvation or the certainty of salvation. They are also replete with horrifying visions and dreams of Satan, death, and hell, which were thought to have spiritual significance. The people are mostly to be pitied. Their teachers are altogether to be blamed. 49 What the Canons of Dordt confess as Reformed orthodoxy concerning the assurance of preservation to final salvation holds as well for assurance of present salvation: “This assurance, however, [which, according to the Canons of Dordt, V/9, all “true believers may and do obtain”], is not produced by any peculiar revelation contrary to, or independent of the Word of God, but springs from faith in God’s promises, which he has most abundantly revealed in his Word for our comfort; from the testimony of the Holy Spirit, witnessing with our spirit, that we are children and heirs of God (Rom. 8:16); and, lastly, from a serious and holy desire to preserve a good conscience, and to perform good works” (Canons of Dordt, V/10, in Schaff, Creeds, vol. 3, 594; emphasis added). 50 The evil of Puritanism’s “mystical syllogism” with regard to assurance of present salvation is that condemned by the Canons of Dordt regarding assurance of future perseverance in salvation: “The Synod rejects the errors of those…who teach that without a special revelation we can have no certainty of future perseverance in this life. For by this doctrine the sure comfort of the true believers is taken away in this life, and the doubts of the papist are again introduced into the church, while the Holy Scriptures constantly deduce this assurance, not from a special and extraordinary revelation, but from the marks proper to the children of God and from the constant promises of God” (Canons of Dordt, V, Rejection of Errors/5, in The Confessions and the Church Order of the Protestant Reformed Churches, Grandville, MI: Protestant Reformed Churches in America, 2005, 177; emphasis added [Schaff does not give the Rejection of Errors sections of the Canons in English]).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 1, 2023 6:09:37 GMT -5
The Five Points of Calvinism copyright © 1995 Fred G. Zaspel published by Word of Life Baptist Church Introduction Area of Study Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the famous Baptist preacher of nineteenth century London, said "I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel . . . unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; not unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it on the special, particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and allows the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor." What Spurgeon is saying, very simply, is that the Christian gospel offers salvation freely in Jesus Christ. It is a work of God from beginning to end. God is the active giver: He chooses, He draws, He saves, and He keeps. It is all His doing. Anything less, he says, is not the gospel. This idea lies just on the face of Scripture. The apostle Paul said that God saves in such a way that it leaves no room at all for men to congratulate themselves (1Cor.1:29-31; Eph.2:9). In fact, this is God's very purpose in human salvation -- to display His own glorious grace (1Cor.1:31; Eph.2:7). Salvation is a work of God, designed to bring glory to Himself. And this is precisely why the gospel is "good news." It would not be very good news to hear that God would save us if . . . anything. We shudder to think of any condition laid upon us as a prerequisite for salvation. If God does not save freely, we know that we will not be saved at all. But hearing that He has promised to save us without condition, that He will take us just as we are, is precisely what gives us hope and confidence. God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, has done for us everything that God has required of us; and trusting in Him Who has accomplished in our place a perfect righteousness and Who has paid the penalty of our sin by His substitutional sacrifice on the cross, we have peace with God (Rom.5:1). This is the wonderful offer of the gospel. Salvation is free, in Jesus Christ. Sadly, however, this simplicity of the gospel has often been complicated even by well-intentioned men. And this confusing of the terms of salvation has caused considerable debate within the Christian community. Many have taught that it is man, not God, who is the determining party in salvation. His condition is one of sin; but his sinfulness, they teach, is not such that renders him incapable of choosing God. This, they affirm, is what determines a man's salvation: man must make the move. If he will but turn to God, then God will choose to save him, but not unless. Moreover, whatever previous "drawing" that God may do, He does equally for all men, leaving the final choice to the individual man himself. Further, the atonement of Christ, this theory teaches, was intended to do the very same thing for all men everywhere and without exception. Christ on the cross did "His part" to save everyone; again, it is man who makes the final decision. Finally, once that a man has chosen God and becomes a Christian, he may again choose not to be a Christian and may eventually fall away into condemnation. In all of this there is one central tenet: man is the controlling party in salvation. His will is free to make the choice, and this is what determines the outcome. God leaves the matter with us. What Spurgeon was emphasizing in the quote above, however, is that this is not at all the case. God has not left the matter with us. It is God and not man who makes the difference. God makes the choice, not man; indeed, man is so ruined by sin that he is unable to choose God. Further, God does the drawing; He goes before and Himself brings the sinner to Christ. In fact, this is the very purpose of Christ's death -- to save these whom the Father has chosen. And having saved them, God keeps them and will never allow them to stray so far as to fall into condemnation. Salvation, from beginning to end, is of God (Jonah 2:9; 1Cor.1:30). Historical Overview Debate over these issues traces back even to the early centuries. Augustine's attack of Pelagius for his denial of human depravity is well known; and, gladly, Augustine won the day. Martin Luther's response to Erasmus' The Freedom of the Will is well known also, resulting as it did in Luther's famous The Bondage of the Will. The Reformers were all united on these truths: God and not man is the determining cause of salvation. By the early seventeenth century, however, one Jacobus Arminus, a Dutch scholar, began to question it all; and his followers, called "Remonstrants" ("protesters") or "Arminians," challenged the church with their new beliefs: 1) The freedom of the human will; 2) Conditional election by God, based upon His foreseen faith in men; 3) Christ's death was designed to save every man, and whatever it accomplished it accomplished for all men equally; 4) Saving grace is resistible; it is generally given to all men equally and so may be refused; 5) Those who do exercise their will to be saved may later lose that faith and be lost. In response, the Synod of Dort reaffirmed that: 1) Man is totally depraved; everything about him, including his will, is negatively affected by the fall of Adam. 2) God elects whom He will save unconditionally; He places no conditions upon those whom He chooses but acts sovereignly. 3) The death of Christ, while completely sufficient to save all men, was designed specifically to save the elect. 4) When God moves in a sinner's heart to bring him savingly to Christ, He succeeds infallibly; His saving grace proves irresistible. 5) All those who are saved will persevere in faith forever. This response of Dort has been fashioned into an acronym after the state flower of Holland, the tulip. Total Depravity Unconditional Election Limited Atonement Irresistible Grace Perseverance of the Saints Oddly enough, although this matter of salvation as a work of God alone is a rather minority opinion today, it is a point of repeated emphasis in the Scriptures. We will work it out here in the form that it has been given to us for years: TULIP. Total Depravity When the apostle John notes for us that when the Lord Jesus "came to His own, His own did not receive Him" (Jn.1:12), his observation is more than an historical one. The history of man's refusal of Christ is a matter of theological significance: man rejects God. Man's natural aversion to God is a fact of history, theology, and everyday experience. "There is none that seek after God" (Rom.3:11). Owing to God his very existence and receiving from Him daily his life and health and joys, man still has not found it in his heart to seek God; he rebels. Religion he has and even wants, but God he would rather do without (Rom.1:21; cf. Jn.5:42). The apostle Paul describes man in his natural condition as "a child of wrath" who lives only for himself and Satan (Eph.2:2-3; cf. 4:17-18). That is to say, he has no time for God; he is a rebel. His desires run contrary to God's, but still it his own desires he follows. God's will is but an obstacle to his freedom. So the problem is not with God's willingness. Indeed, God stands, as it were, with outstretched arms in willingness to receive the sinner (Rom.10:21). He stoops even to begging sinners to come, as a street vender hawking his goods (Isa.55:1-2). The invitation is both free and universal: He will take all who come (Mat.11:28). No, the problem is not that God is unwilling; the problem is that man is unwilling. "I would, but you would not," Jesus said (Mat.23:37). "You are not willing to come to me that you may have life" (Jn.5:40). Loving their sin more than God, men refuse Him (Jn.3:19-20). Foolish as it is, man will not have God. What's worse: this problem is universal. "The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt" (Psa.14:2-3). And even a quick glance over our society will provide the evidence for this. Mankind has rejected God. Now this might seem unnatural. If God created man in His own image, we might expect man to have more favorable opinions of God! But something has happened, and that something is sin. Through our father Adam sin has entered into all of humanity, and this in such a way that all men are inherently sinful (Rom.5:12). "By nature children of wrath," the apostle Paul describes them (Eph.2:3). Worse yet, Jesus describes them as children of the devil who both will and act like their father (Jn.8:44). Put another way, natural man lives in a state of spiritual death (Eph.2:1); when it comes to truly spiritual things, he is lifeless. All this universal disobedience, then, is not an odd coincidence. All men have not somehow become sinners simply because they have all sinned. They all sin because they are sinners. It is a matter of natural tendency and disposition. Senses, intellect, affections, and will all share in man's spiritual deadness. As a result, the things of God are "foolishness" to him and altogether beyond his grasp (1Cor.2:9, 14). He "gropes in the noonday sun" (Job 5:14), recognizing neither his blindness nor his tragic fate. Satan has "blinded their minds," effectively preventing the light of the "glorious gospel from shining in" (2Cor.4:4). Spiritual death brings an insensitivity to the things of God. It is a spiritual slavery, the prisoners of which are helpless. Helpless slavery? "No man can come to me," Jesus said, "except the Father draw him (Jn.6:44; emphasis added). "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it be" (Rom.8:7). "No man can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1Cor.12:3). Once more, man " cannot cease from sin" (2Pet.2:14). This is the doctrine of total depravity. It does not mean, as many have misunderstood, that man is as bad as he can possibly be. It means that man is as bad off as he can possibly be. He is a sinner. He has sinned. He is guilty and deserving of divine wrath. And for this he can provide no remedy himself -- he is the sinner! And the one remedy which is offered in Christ he will not take. Indeed, he cannot understand it. Simply put, man is without ability to remedy his condition, and he is unwilling to be otherwise. He is as bad off as he could possibly be. The bottom line is this: our hope does not lie in our own will. It is our will that has got us lost! We are all sure for condemnation unless God would somehow incline our wills in the opposite direction. We must have a savior who is mighty enough to rescue us from ourselves. Clearly, God must do something. We've made our choice; our will has spoken. We are hopelessly lost -- unless God will choose otherwise. Unconditional Election So by the very nature of the case, our salvation depends upon God's choice of us. Our choice is naturally against Him; we are "sons of disobedience" (Eph.2:2) who refuse to seek God (Rom.3:11). It naturally follows, then, that if we are to be saved God must choose to do it. This is precisely what the Scriptures tell us. Salvation comes to us because God has graciously chosen us. Believers in Christ are people who were "chosen in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world" (Eph.1:4). Jesus said this to His disciples: "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" (Jn.15:16). Now Jesus is not denying here that His disciples had, in fact, decided themselves to follow the Lord; very obviously, they had heartily agreed to do so. But what was it that made them so agreeable? Were they not "sons of disobedience" also? Of course, and this is what Jesus addresses. It was not their choice of Him that determined His choice of them; that could never be. Rather it was His choice of them which preceded and determined their choice of Him. "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." Their election involved a call to service and holiness ("to bear fruit"), yes, but it did not rise from it. It was His choice that made the difference. And well it should. Men fallen and enslaved in sin "cannot" make their way to Christ (Jn.6:44, 65). But God's mercy is such that he did not leave us in that condition. He sovereignly and graciously and freely chose men and women from all over the globe -- men and women from every tribe under heaven, "a great multitude which no man could number" (Rev.7:9) -- and for these people He sent His Son on a mission of rescue. Our refusal of Him was no deterrent to His grace. Jesus refers to this again in John 6:37 -- "All that the Father gives me shall come to me." Who are these whom the Father "gave" to the Son? In the following verses Jesus identifies them as the objects of His saving mission. The Father gave them to Him, and He came to save them. This is how Jesus explains it all in His prayer to the Father: "I have manifested Your name to those whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me" (Jn.17:6). God's gracious choice of those whom He would save defined Jesus' mission. God in grace chose a people to be saved and sent His Son to accomplish that salvation for them. Indeed, the universal authority given to the Son is for this purpose exactly: "that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him" (v.2). In John 10 Jesus refers to these people as His "sheep" whom He will bring into the sheepfold (v.16). Note that they are not " sheep" because they are brought into the fold; they are brought into the fold because they are sheep. Jesus further clarifies this later on in the same chapter. It is only His sheep who come to believe in Him; the others refuse Him (vv.26-27). It is to His sheep that He gives eternal life (v.28). These are special objects of the Father's electing love and the Son's saving mission. In other words, God did not leave us to our own will. He saved us despite our contrary will. Nor did He save us by accident; He did it on purpose. If we are saved, we owe it to His electing grace. The apostle Paul argues this at length in Romans chapter 9. His whole purpose here is to show that salvation comes by grace and by grace alone, and this he sets out to prove by an exposition of the doctrine of election. But after citing as example the statement from the prophet Malachi, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated" (Rom.9:13), he realizes that he has just said something that will not sit well with many; and so he anticipates the objection: "What shall we say then? Is God unfair?" (v.14). His answer, curiously, was not to back up. He does not play down the idea of divine sovereignty. Instead, he pushes the matter further: "Who are you to question the prerogatives of Deity? Who are you to define for God what is fair? Is He not free to do as He wills with His creation? And after all, was there anyone who deserved salvation? And if not, then how can you object to His gracious choice of anyone?" (cf. vv.15- 24). To the Biblical way of thinking, it is not "Esau I have hated" that presents the problem. That God should hate Esau is very understandable. The problem is, rather, How could God "love Jacob"? Jacob was not deserving of God's love. Nor was the nation which came after him. But Paul's point is just that: God's choice of whom He will save is not at all determined by anything in the individual himself. It is an "election of grace" (Rom.11:5). Does this election sound like a stuffed ballot box? Indeed it does! And this is precisely our hope. Satan had cast his ballot for us. And our vote had been gladly cast with him. But God in grace overruled both. Many have misunderstood this wonderful truth. They see election as a negative thing. They reason as though there were many people who all want to be saved but can't because God hasn't chosen them. But of course this is all wrong. It is not that some want in but God bars the door. The reality is that the door is wide open for any to enter -- but none will! But, happily, God did not leave the matter there. He could have, and if He had He would have been entirely just in doing so. But He didn't. He instead made His own choice, one which overruled our own madness. And in His gracious choice we find the grace that brings salvation. This is grace at its best. God did not wait for us to come to Him. He chose us in keeping with His own purpose (Eph.1:5, 11; cf. 2Tim.1:9; Rom.8:28). Thankfully, He came to us even while we were running away from Him. All this is to affirm that salvation is of God and to His glory alone. Limited Atonement Now of course election is not enough to save us by itself. There is this matter of divine justice -- which must be satisfied. That is, God cannot merely take sinners into His fellowship. Their sin must be dealt with first. In fact, they must be punished. But this is the very heart of the gospel, that Christ came and in the place of sinners offered a sacrifice to God for their sin. In Jesus' words, "I lay down my life for my sheep" (Jn.10:11). Because His death was in their place and for their sin, they will go free. They are punished in Him, their Substitute. This, again, is the whole essence of the gospel, the very hallmark of Christianity. Golgotha was no mere place; it was an event. There Christ died for us. There He saved us. It is for this reason that we say, further, that Christ died with the intention of saving His elect. He gave His life "for his sheep" (Jn.10:11). To be sure, the value of Christ's person and work is infinite. His death therefore was entirely sufficient to atone for all the sins of all the men who ever lived. But of course, it was not designed to do that. We know this, very simply, because not all are saved. His mission, as He defined it, was to save "those whom the Father had given Him" (Jn.6:37-39). On His way to the cross, it was for the elect that Jesus prayed and not the world at large (Jn.17:9). He came on a gracious mission -- to save those whom the Father had chosen -- and it is with this intention that He offered Himself for sin. Put another way, by His death Jesus "gathered together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad" (Jn.11:52). The apostle Paul speaks of this in similar language. Christ "bought the church with His own blood" (Acts 20:28). He "loved the church and gave Himself for it" (Eph.5:25). Perhaps more significantly he speaks of the final number of the redeemed as a "purchased possession" (Eph.1:14); they have been bought, and so their salvation will come to full number and to fruition. And in Rom.8:32 he explains that those for whom Christ died necessarily receive all of the attending blessings; there are none for whom Christ died who do not receive salvation in its fullness. In short, every last person for whom Christ died will enjoy its benefits (2Cor.5:14-15). Or, to view it from the standpoint of justice, none for whom Jesus died can ever be condemned (Rom.8:34); because Christ has died in their place, justice demands their acquittal. The writer to the Hebrews is just as explicit. Some have mistakenly thought that in dying Christ attempted to save everyone. But that is plainly not the case. Christ did not attempt anything; by His death He " obtained eternal redemption" (9:12), not in theory but in fact. He died "so that those who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance" (v.15). Who are these "who are called"? They are the "many" for whose sin Christ was offered (v.28). At issue here is not the value but the efficacy of Christ's death. Did He in dying try to save everyone? Did He in dying merely make salvation possible for everyone equally? Was this His intent? If so, then in the end it was not His death that secured our salvation. And if that is so, then His death was not enough. This is why the Biblical writers emphasize so that in dying, Jesus secured and accomplished the salvation of His people. He did not die in hopes that someone somewhere might make his way to somehow make His atonement efficacious. Not at all. He died to save. He came to "save His people from their sins" (Mt.1:21), and so He did. In His death the work that saves was "finished" (Jn.19:30). This is precisely why we speak so confidently of our good standing before God in Christ. What God demanded of us in terms of justice, the Lord Jesus did for us. "Jesus Paid It All!" we sing, and for good reason. Even in heaven this will be our song. "You were slain, and by Your blood You have redeemed us to God" (Rev.5:9). Our assurance does not lie in anything less. We do not suppose that He did so much and left something else to us. No, we believe that He did enough all by Himself, and in this we take refuge. Accordingly, our only glory is "in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal.6:14). Spurgeon again puts the matter into right perspective. "We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it; we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, 'No, certainly not.' We ask them the next question -- Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer 'No.' They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say 'No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if . . .' -- and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, 'no, my dear sir, it is you that do it.' We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement, you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it." In short, our note of praise -- now and forever -- is for God's particular, saving love. We find no security, no joy at all, in a vague, general, impersonal love spread out over all men equally. We find our highest joy in this: although we were choosing hell, He chose us and rescued us by His blood. He loved "the church and gave Himself for it" (Eph.5:25). Irresistible Grace So our salvation was accomplished for us at the cross. But how is it applied? And when? Answer: when we are "called." The Bible reveals to us that it is just this which distinguishes Christians from the rest of the world: we are people whom God has called (e.g., 1Cor.1:26). He has not left us alone. He has "called us into the fellowship of His Son" (1Cor.1:9). Having chosen us and having sent His Son to secure our redemption, God did not then leave it to us to find our own way to Him. He in grace called us to Christ. This distinguishing grace, of course, is evident, for example, in gospel meetings. Many refuse the free offer of salvation in Christ, but some do not. And what is it that explains the interest and willingness of these who believe? Is the answer to be found in them? Are we to say that, well, they are obviously better people! Or can we say that they are more intelligent? Obviously, we would not say that. We instinctively realize that the difference is one of grace (cf. 1Cor.4:7; 15:10). In fact, this little scenario is precisely the illustration the Apostle Paul uses in 1Cor.1:18-31. The message of the cross is "foolishness" to the world; both Jews and Gentiles consider the idea of a "crucified savior" to be self contradictory (v.23). But when this same message is preached to "those who are the called," it is invariably received in faith, and this by the power and wisdom of God (v.24). In His wisdom, God calls those of His own choosing (vv.26-27), and this to keep from man any room for self- congratulation (v.29). It is for this reason that we say God's saving grace is "irresistible." This does not mean that no one rejects the gospel, obviously. Nor does it mean that God's elect may not for a time resist. It plainly admits all of this. What is meant by the term is that God's call is efficacious. That is to say, when God calls a man into the fellowship of His Son (1Cor.1:9), the call is not refused. And necessarily so: it is the outworking of the eternal plan. We are "called according to His purpose" (Rom.8:28; 2Tim.1:9). It is Jesus' chosen "sheep" whom He calls, and when they hear, they come (Jn.10:3, 27). This matter of the efficacy of God's call is both assumed and argued over and again in the Bible. For example, in Acts 2:39 Peter says that the promise of salvation is to "as many as the Lord our God shall call." In Rom.8:28-30 divine calling is one vital link in the outworking of God's eternal purpose. Those who are "predestined" are the same ones who are "called"; and it is these, in turn, who are "justified." In Paul's illustration of the Potter and the clay, the ones whom God "calls" are identified as the "vessels of mercy, which He before prepared unto glory" (Rom.9:23-24). Calling is viewed as the means by which we are brought to Christ (1Thes.2:12; 1Pet.2:9; 5:10; 2Pet.1:3). God's "call" is not his general "invitation" to "whoever will." It is His specific and compelling activity whereby His elect are brought into saving relationship to Christ. This, by the way, explains why the word becomes a sort of title for all of the redeemed. We are "the called" (Rom.1:6; 8:28; Jude 1; Rev.17:14). The Bible relates this same idea in other language also. "Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power" (Ps.110:3). "All" those whom the Father has "given" to the Son "shall come" to Him (Jn.6:37). Not "some" and not "might" -- "all" of them "shall come." And as a result, "none of them is lost" (v.39). The call is effectual. Indeed, "No man can come to me except the Father which sent me draw him (v.44), but "everyone" whom the Father draws and teaches "comes to me" (v.45). There is no room for mistake here. God works sovereignly and powerfully and without error. Not one of those whom He calls will be lost. Perhaps the best known illustration of this is from the ministry of the apostle Paul in Philippi. There he preached the gospel to a group of ladies at a prayer meeting. But it was one Lydia who responded in faith. Why? Because "the Lord opened her heart" (Acts 16:14). God's saving grace proved irresistible simply because He worked in her heart so as to remove her natural disposition to resist! She was "willing in the day of His power" (Ps.110:3). God, as with the apostle Paul himself, had "shined in her heart to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2Cor.4:6). He "worked in her both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Phil.2:13). All this is not to say that faith is unnecessary, to be sure! We must believe in order to be saved. We are "justified by faith" (Rom.5:1). What this emphasizes, however, is that this saving faith rises not from something from within us but from the work of God (cf. Mat.16:17). We believe, yes, but only as a direct result of God's mighty power at work within us (Eph.1:19) and regenerating grace (1Jn.5:1). Nor is this to say that we should not offer the gospel to "whoever will." God's special, effectual call is simply His response to a world who had already said "No!" to this general offer. Our natural disposition is to resist and reject the gospel offer. "None seek after God" (Rom.3:11). There would be no salvation at all if God were to leave us alone. So in mighty, conquering grace He works within us so as to bring us to faith in His Son. And this call we ourselves found irresistible. We suddenly found ourselves desperately in love with Christ and running to Him. The call, we have found, was effective. And for that we are glad.. This is precisely the testimony of the apostle Paul (2Cor.4:6; cf. Acts 9:1-6), and this is the testimony of every true believer. We do not suppose that we are saved because we . . . anything. We all recognize that we are saved because God has been graciously at work. "Twas grace that taught my heart to fear," we sing, because we understand that until God so moved in us there was no fear at all. "Thou hast made us willing, Thou hast made us free!" "By thy love constraining, By thy grace divine!" These are songs we sing in worship to express our grateful praise to God for His distinguishing and compelling grace made effective in our own lives. We have learned that our glorying is only in the Lord (1Cor.1:31). The Perseverance of the Saints Now then, if God has done all this for us, could we ever again become lost? Is it possible that God would include us in His eternal, redeeming plan and then allow us to be condemned? The question answers itself. "He Who calls us is faithful" and He will surely bring us to final glorification (1Thes.5:23-24). Having begun this work in us, He will certainly finish it (Phil.1:6). This is His work of redemption, and He will not fail (Jn.6:37-39). To accomplish the final salvation of all of God's elect is precisely the mission on which the Lord Jesus came (Jn.6:38-39). His death on the cross "perfected them forever" (Heb.10:14). All of Christ's sheep are safe forever in His hand, and, further, in the Father's hand (Jn.10:27-29). "They shall never perish" (Jn.10:28). Never. "But," someone might object, "isn't the enemy more powerful than the sheep?" Yes, he is. But he is not more powerful than the Shepherd, and they are safe in His hand. "They shall never perish." "But might they not sin?" Yes, they very obviously will. But they will not sin so as to bring themselves into condemnation. The Shepherd will bring them back. "They will never perish." Not ever. Moreover, God has justified them; and if He has justified them, who can say otherwise (Rom.8:33)? Is there anyone who can overrule Him? Still more, there is precisely nothing which could ever remove God's elect from the saving love of Christ. Nothing. No one. Not now, not ever (Rom.8:35- 39). Indeed, it would be wrong for them to perish! Christ has satisfied the demands of justice for them. He was condemned in their place so that they would never have to face it themselves (Rom.8:34). "There is no condemnation now in Christ Jesus" (Rom.8:1). Further, to bring them to hell would be to frustrate the divine purpose (Rom.8:29). All of those who have been justified must experience glorification (Rom.8:29-30). The eternal safe keeping of the elect of God rests on nothing less than God's decree. This is something "promised" to them "before the world began"; and this promise God must keep, for He "cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). This safety is not due to the power or even the faithfulness of the sheep. No. This is God's work of salvation. They remain in the faith, to be sure! But it is here they are "kept by the power of God" (1Pet.1:3-5). In fact, it is absurd to think otherwise. If God did all that He did for us "while we were enemies," can we imagine that he would do less for us now that we have been made his friends (Rom.5:10)? The very idea is ludicrous. The whole focus in all these doctrines is that God has set Himself for us, and "If God is for us, who can be against us" (Rom.8:31)? He has set out to bring us, His chosen ones, to glory. Christ came to secure our "eternal redemption" (Heb.9:12). Our Lord's prayer for us, that we would all be brought to glory (Jn.17:11, 15, 24), will surely be answered. We are safe, not for what we have done, but for what God has done for us. The question, then, is not whether we might sin. The question is whether God's grace is sufficient to keep us even though we sin. Happily, "Where sin abounded, grace much more abounded" (Rom.5:20). If it were otherwise, we would all perish. It is further a question of God's power. Can He keep us in faith? Indeed He can (1Pet.1:3-5). Can He keep us from sin such that would cause us to fall away entirely? Of course. He is well "able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24). Yes, all of God's elect will persevere to the end, and we will then stand not as testimonies to our own strength or goodness, but as monuments of God's great grace made effective in us. And realizing this, the rewards He then gives us we will throw back at His feet in glad and insistent affirmation that "He alone is worthy" (Rev.4:10-11). Theology & Biblical Studies | Contemporary Issues | Tape Catalogue Home Page | Theology Links | Email Fred Zaspel | Downloads T he Word Of Life Baptist Church Web Site COPYRIGHT 1996 Fred Zaspel
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 2, 2023 10:47:28 GMT -5
A Defense of Calvinism as the Gospel (1/2) by Prof David J. Engelsma The term, "Calvinism," is not the name by which we Calvinists prefer to have our faith called; nor do we prefer to call ourselves "Calvinists." Calvin was the name of a man, a great servant of God, John Calvin. He was one of the Reformers by whom the Holy Spirit reformed the Church in the 16th century. To call ourselves "Calvinists" and our faith "Calvinism" leaves the impression that we follow a man and that these beliefs are the invention of a man. In fact, these terms originally were terms of derision used by our enemies, as were also the names, "Christian," and "Protestant." Therefore, from the very beginiing, Calvinists called themselves "Reformed," or "Presbyterian." Thus, they deliberately distinguished themselves from the other great branch of the Protestant Reformation, the Lutheran Church, which did call itself by the name of a man (contrary to the wishes of Luther himself). Nevertheless, "Calvinism" and "Calvinist" are useful terms, today. They are widely known, even though that be, in part, through the attack upon, and reproach of, Calvinism by its enemies. Also, the name, "Calvinist," is embraced by persons and churches who are not Reformed, or Presbyterian, but who confess those tenets of Calvinism which they call "the doctrines of grace." "Calvinism" has come to stand for certain doctrines, a certain system of truth. We have no objection to calling these doctrines "Calvinism" as long as two things are clearly understood. First, it must be understood that not the man, John Calvin, but Holy Scripture is the source of them. Second, it must be understood that we who embrace these truths are not disciples of a man, Calvin, but are concerned exclusively to follow God's eternal Son in our flesh, Jesus Christ, exactly by confessing these doctrines. There are different ways of viewing Calvinism. Some have discovered political implications in Calvinism, e.g., strong opposition to every form of tyranny. Others have found Calvinism important for economics. Max Weber thought to trace the spirit of capitalism to Calvinism, indeed, to Calvinism's doctrine of double predestination. We could examine Calvinism as a total world-and-life-view. It is more, much more, than a set of doctrines, and certainly much more than five points of doctrine. Like humanism or Marxism, Calvinism is a world-and-life-view with which a man takes a stand in every area of human life. Also, Calvinism involves one with the Church, the instituted Church, and is not only the personal beliefs of the individual; it is through and through ecclesiastical. With the early Church, Calvinism fervently holds that "outside the Church is no salvation." At its heart, however, Calvinism is theology, true religion; and this means doctrine. This is how we will be viewing Calvinism, here. We limit ourselves to a consideration of Calvinism as the Gospel. Calvinism is the Gospel. Its outstanding doctrines are simply the truths that make up the Gospel. Departure from Calvinism, therefore, is apostasy from the Gospel of God's grace in Christ. Our defense of Calvinism, then, will proceed as follows. First, we will show that Calvinism is the Gospel. This is necessary because of its detractors, who criticize it as a perversion of the Gospel. Second, we will defend it as the Gospel. In doing this, we carry out the calling that every believer has from God. Paul wrote that he was "set for the defense of the Gospel" (Philippians 1:17). I Peter 3:15 calls every believer to give an answer, an "apology," or defense, to everyone who asks us a reason for the hope that is in us. As the name indicates, Calvinism is a certain teaching associated with John Calvin; it refers to Biblical doctrines that he propounded. Calvin was a Frenchman, born in 1509 and died at 55 in 1564, who lived during the Reformation of the Church, a contemporary of Martin Luther. He was converted from Roman Catholicism early in his life, "by a sudden conversion," he tells us in his preface to his commentary on the Psalms, "since I was too obstinately devoted to the superstitions of Popery to be easily extricated from so profound an abyss of mire," and labored on behalf of the Protestant Faith all the rest of his life. He lived and worked in Geneva, Switzerland as a pastor and theologian. His labor was prodigious. He preached almost daily; did an immense pastoral work; carried on a massive correspondence; and wrote commentaries, tracts, and other theological works. He is remembered especially for his great work on Christian theology, Institutes of the Christian Religion (which still exercises great influence, which every professing Protestant could profitably read, and which every critic of Calvinism ought to have studied, if he wishes to be taken seriously), and for his commentaries on almost every book of the Bible. Calvin's Protestant contemporaries recognized his outstanding gifts, especially in theology and exposition of Scripture. They referred to him simply as "the Theologian." Calvin's influence in all the world, already during his lifetime and ever afterwards, was tremendous. Luther, of course, stands alone, as the founder of the Protestant Reformation. But Calvin, benefiting from Luther, outstripped even Luther in influencing the Church of Christ in all the world. In the history of the Church, Calvinism is the name for the faith of the Reformed and Presbyterian branch of the Protestant Reformation. These Churches were called "Reformed" in Germany, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. In England, Scotland, and the north of Ireland, they were called "Presbyterian." This faith was early expressed in written confessions, or creeds. Among the confessions of the Reformed Churches are the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith, and the Canons of Dordt. The great Presbyterian creeds are the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Catechisms. All of these confessions are in essential agreement. The Reformed and Presbyterian Churches insisted that the teaching embodied in these creeds, that which is now called Calvinism, was the revelation of God in Holy Scripture. Calvinism bases itself on Scripture. It holds fully the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone). The doctrine of Scripture is the very foundation of Calvinism. It is a mistake, therefore, to define Calvinism apart from its belief concerning Scripture. The Bible is the only authority in and over the Church. It is this because it is the inspired Word of God, as II Timothy 3:16 claims: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." As such, Scripture is the "infallible rule" (Belgic Confession, Article VII). It may not be ignored, questioned, or subjected to criticism, but must be received, believed, and obeyed. This is vital for Calvinism because Calvinism teaches many things about which man complains, "These are hard sayings, who can hear them?" For Calvinism, the question is not, "will men in the 20th century like these things?" But the question is, "Does the Word of God say so?" Calvinism is concerned to proclaim the Scriptures. The preaching of Scripture, both within the Church and outside the Church, is the central interest of Calvinism. It is false to conceive of Calvinism as a theoretical, abstruse science carried on by heady intellectuals in ivory towers. With the entire Reformation, it wanted, and wants today, to preach the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation to every one who believes. Calvinism, then, can rightly be viewed as certain basic doctrines, the so-called "five points of Calvinism." But even here, a word of caution is in order. Historically, it is something of a misnomer to call these doctrines "Calvinism." On these doctrines, there was no difference between Luther and Calvin. These two leading Reformers were in agreement in their teaching on the doctrines of predestination, the depravity of the fallen man, and justification by faith alone. Indeed, almost without exception, all of the Reformers embraced what we now call "Calvinism." Besides, the "five points of Calvinism," as five particular doctrines that distinguish Calvinism, originated after Calvin's death. They were formulated by a Synod of Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, in 1618-l619, the Synod of Dordt, in response to an attack on these five doctrines by a group within the Reformed Churches that were known as the Remonstrants, or Arminians. This Synod set forth, confessed, explained, and defended these five truths in the Canons of the Synod of Dordt. But it was Calvin who developed these truths, systematically and fully; and therefore, they came to be called by his name. Total depravity is one of the five points of Calvinism. This doctrine teaches that man, every man, is by nature sinful and evil -- only and completely sinful and evil. There is in man, apart from God's grace in Christ, no good and no ability for good. By "good" is meant that which pleases God, namely, a deed that has its origin in the faith of Jesus, its standard in the Law of God, and its goal in God's glory. From conception and birth, every man is guilty before God and worthy of everlasting damnation. This is man's plight because of the fall of the entire human race m Adam, as Romans 5:12-21 teaches: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned..." Not only is every man guilty from conception and birth, but he is also corrupt, or depraved. This depravity is total. One aspect of this misery of man is the bondage, or slavery, of man's will. The will of every man, apart from the liberating grace of the Spirit of Christ, is enslaved to the Devil and to sin. It is willingly enslaved, but it is enslaved. It is unable to will, desire, or choose God, Christ, salvation, or the good. It is not free to choose good. It is not Calvinism, that God forces men to sin or that men sin unwillingly, but that the natural man's spiritual condition is such that he cannot think, will, or do anything good. On this doctrine, Luther and Calvin were in perfect agreement. Luther, in fact, wrote a book called The Bondage of the Will in which he asserted that the fundamental issue of the Reformation, the basic difference between genuine Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, is this issue, whether the will of the natural man is bound or free. Calvinism shows itself as pure Protestantism by its confession concerning the will in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. IX,III,IV: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good.... Another of the five points of Calvinism is the truth of limited atonement. There is deliverance for fallen men only in Jesus Christ, God's eternal Son in our flesh. This deliverance occurred in the death of Christ on the cross. His death was atonement for sins, inasmuch as He satisfied the righteousness of God, suffering the penalty of God's wrath in our stead who deserved that wrath because of our sins. Jesus' death was efficacious; it saved! It saved everyone for whom He died. It removed, in full, the punishment of everyone in whose stead Jesus died. He atoned for some, particular men, not for all without exception His atonement was limited as regards the number of men for whom He died and whom He redeemed. They are "His people" (Matthew 1:21); His "sheep" (John 10:15: "I lay down my life for the sheep"); and "as many as (the Father) hast given (Jesus)" (John 17:2). It is not Calvinism, that any, even one, who seeks salvation will be denied, but that the death of Jesus saved, that it was efficacious, that it was not in vain. The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him. To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same ... (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. VIII,V,VIII) Irresistible grace, or efficacious grace, is a third of the five points of Calvinism. This doctrine refers to the actual saving of fallen men by the Holy Spirit, in applying to them the redemption accomplished on the cross. This work of salvation is wholly the work of God; it takes place by grace alone. Negatively, this means two things. First, the salvation of a man is not something that any man deserves, or makes himself worthy of, in any way. Second, salvation is not a work that man accomplishes, in whole or in part. Man does not co-operate with God in bringing about his salvation. Positively, that salvation takes place by grace alone means that salvation is freely given to men by God, merely out of His love and goodness. Also, it means that this salvation is accomplished by God's power, the Holy Spirit. He regenerates; He calls; He gives faith; He sanctifies; He glorifies. This work of saving and the power of grace by which the Holy Spirit performs this work are efficacious. In carrying out this work, the Spirit and His grace do not make a man's salvation possible, but effectually save him. It is not on the order of a mere attempt by God that depends, ultimately, on the man whom God tries to save and that may, therefore, be frustrated and come to naught; but it is on the order of a work of creation that sovereignly and unfailingly makes the man whom God is pleased to save a new creature in Jesus Christ. It is not Calvinism, that God forces men, kicking and screaming, into heaven, but that God makes a man willing, who before was unwilling. In the Canons of Dordt, the Reformed believer describes the saving work of irresistible grace this way: ...it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation, or the resurrection from the dead... so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner, are certainly, infallibly, and effectively regenerated, and do actually believe ... (III,W,12) The doctrine of the perseverance of saints, or "eternal security," as some call it, follows from the truth of irresistible grace. Not one person to whom God gives the grace of the Holy Spirit will perish, because that grace and Spirit preserve him unto the perfect salvation of the Day of Christ. It is not Calvinism, that one may do as he pleases and still be saved, or that a saint can never fall into sin. Against the charge that the doctrine of perseverance implies that one may do as he pleases and still go to heaven, Calvinism replies that the Holy Spirit preserves us by sanctifying us, by strengthening our faith, and by giving us the gift of endurance. As for the "melancholy falls" of Christians, the saints can, and sometimes do, fall into sin, even "great and heinous sins," but the indwelling Spirit, never wholly withdrawn from them, brings them to repentance. Calvinism imparts to all true believers the inestimably precious comfort of the "certain persuasion, that they ever will continue true and living members of the church; and that they experience forgiveness of sins, and will at last inherit eternal life" (Canons of Dordt, V,9). All of the salvation described above has its source in God's eternal election. The truth of election is another of the characteristic Calvinistic doctrines. God has from eternity elected, or chosen, in Christ, some of the fallen human race - a certain, definite number of persons - unto salvation. This choice was unconditional, gracious, and free; it was not due to anything foreseen in those who were chosen. Reprobation is implied. God did not choose all men; but He rejected some men, in the eternal decree. It makes no essential difference whether one views reprobation as God's passing by some men with His decree of election in eternity (which is, in fact, a Divine decision about their eternal destiny), or whether one views it as a positive decree that some men perish in their sin, their unbelief and disobedience. Election and reprobation make up predestination, the doctrine that God has determined the destiny of all men from eternity. This truth is regarded, not inaccurately, as the hallmark of Calvinism. The very heart of the Reformed Church is election, God's gracious choice of us sinners, guilty and depraved, worthy only of damnation, unto salvation. Election is the fountain of all salvation! As such, it is the ultimate, decisive, convincing proof and guarantee that salvation is gracious - that salvation does not depend upon man, but upon God; that salvation is not man's idea, but God's; that salvation is not man's work, but God's; that salvation is not due to man's decision for God, but to God's eternal decision for man. This is how Calvin himself viewed predestination - as the final, conclusive, incontrovertible testimony to, and guarantee of, gracious salvation. Therefore, in his definitive edition of the Institutes (1559), Calvin treated predestination at the end of Book III, after his treatment of redemption in Christ and his treatment of the application of redemption by the Holy Spirit. Calvin wrote: We shall never feel persuaded as we ought that our salvation flows from the free mercy of God as its fountain, until we are made acquainted with His eternal election, the grace of God being illustrated by the contrast - viz, that He does not adopt promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what He denies to others" (III,XXI,1). This is Calvinism! This is the Gospel! To be continued... –DAVID J. ENGELSMA
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2023 12:57:42 GMT -5
The Spirit does not give assurance after the manner of mysticism. He does not assure by special revelations, visions, extraordinary happenings, emotional experience, or direct whisperings in the soul, that is, whisperings apart from the preaching, reading, and meditating on the word of God and the use of the sacraments. ---Prof. David J. Engelsma
Do not quench the Spirit of assurance in you, by giving yourself over to doubt, as though doubt is the expected, even required, and therefore normal condition of believers. Do not quench the Spirit of assurance either by listening to Puritan preaching that is forever questioning your assurance, forever challenging your right to assurance, forever sending you on a quest for assurance, and forever instilling doubt. The Spirit does not work assurance by means of a gospel of doubt. Listen to the Spirit’s witness in you by the gospel of grace, and to the witness of your own spirit as the Spirit testifies to your spirit, and be certain — absolutely certain (which is the only certainty there is). And cry out, with all believers, young and old, aged saints who have been members of the church all their lives and recent converts, godly parents and covenant children, “Abba, Father.” —Prof. David J. Engelsma
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 4, 2023 9:22:04 GMT -5
A Defense of Calvinism as the Gospel (2/2) Prof. David J. Engelsma The Gospel proclaims man's misery as total depravity, including the bondage of his will. Ephesians 2:1 diagnoses the spiritual condition of the sinner, prior to the quickening of the Spirit of Christ, thus: "dead in trespasses and sins." Spiritually dead, the sinner is lacking all good, any ability for good, and both the power and the inclination to effect a change in this condition. Himself is helpless and his condition, hopeless - the helplessness and hopelessness of death. Romans 8:7-8 passes the same judgment upon fallen man: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." The "carnal mind" is human nature as it is by virtue of natural birth. Its condition is such that it is incapable of being in subjection to God's law. Those who are in the flesh are those who are not born again by the Spirit of Christ, those who are outside of Christ. Their spiritual condition is such that they are incapable of pleasing God; all that they are able to do is sin. For a sinner to will and to do of God's good pleasure, God must work in him both the willing and the doing, by the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:13). The Gospel proclaims the death of Christ as a death that effectively redeems some men, rather than as a death that merely makes salvation possible for all men. Scripture teaches limited atonement. Jesus Himself taught this about His own death in John 10:15 "... and I lay down my life for the sheep." A little further in the same chapter, the Lord specifically states that some men are not included among "the sheep": "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you" (v.26). He died for some men, "the sheep," in distinction from other men, who are not of His sheep. Jesus described His death similarly in Matthew 20:28: "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for (Greek: 'in the stead of') many." The important point is not so much that He spoke of those for whom He died as "many," not as "all," as it is that he spoke of His death as the ransom given in the stead of others. By dying, He paid the ransom-price to God on behalf of many sinners. He did this by taking their place, giving up his own life where theirs was forfeit. The effect of this death is that everyone for whom He died is freed from sin, death, and hell. Not one for whom He died will perish. None may perish, for the ransom is paid. This Gospel (and there is no other) was preached already by the evangelistic prophet, Isaiah, in Isaiah 53: the suffering Christ bears away the iniquities of God's people by being smitten of God as their substitute. The Gospel proclaims an irresistible grace, as the power that saves elect sinners. It cannot be otherwise, if the sinner is "dead in trespasses and sins." Having taught this in Ephesians 2:1, the apostle goes on to teach irresistible grace in verses 4,5: "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)." The saving of the sinner, in every case, is God's raising him from the dead, comparable to Jesus' wonders of raising the physically dead. Now two things are true about resurrection: it is the act of God alone, in which the one who is raised does not cooperate; and it is effectual - God never fails to accomplish the resurrection of any whom He purposes to raise. In verse 10 of this chapter, Paul likens the work by which we were saved to the work of creation, thus making dear that this work is exclusively the work of God the Creator, and not at all the work of the creature that is created: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works ..." Jesus explained that salvation takes place by the sovereign drawing-power of Almighty God, in John 6:44: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." The Gospel proclaims the perseverance of the saints. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one" (John 10:27-30). Jesus gives eternal life to every one of His sheep; and not one of those saints shall ever perish. It is impossible that anyone could pluck a saint out of God's hand, that is, cause a regenerated child to fall away to perdition. The reason is not the strength of the saints, but the power of the grace of God ("my Father ... is greater than all"). These words of Jesus make plain that the comforting truth of perseverance depends upon election and irresistible grace. The saints persevere, because the Father gave them to Jesus and because Jesus gives (not: tries to give, but: gives) them eternal life. As the source and foundation of salvation, the Gospel proclaims Divine election. This truth is on the very face of the entire Old Testament Bible: God chose Israel unto salvation, rejecting the other nations. The mediator of the old covenant tells Israel, "the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you ..." (Deut. 7:6-8). In perfect harmony with this obvious truth of the old covenant, the Mediator of the new covenant traces every aspect of His salvation back to Divine election. His life-giving death stems from election: "that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him" (John 17:2). His priestly pity and intercessory prayer are regulated by election: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (John 17:9). His saving revelation of the truth to men depends upon election: "I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world..." (John 17:6). The coming of men to Him in true faith is effected by election: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me..." (John 6:37). His preservation of men in faith and His resurrection of these men in glory are due to election: "... that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" (John 6:39). Election has a prominent place in the Gospel preached by the apostles. It is the cause of the salvation of every one who is saved, and the source of every blessing of salvation: "... the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings ... according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world ." (Ephesians 1:3,4). Upon eternal predestination was forged the golden (and unbreakable) chain of salvation: "Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Romans 8:30). The entire river of the mercy of God in Jesus flows out of His will of election; and the sovereign graciousness of this will is illustrated by this, that God hardens some men according to His eternal decree of reprobation: "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth" (Romans 9:18). There can be no ignoring of these doctrines, called "Calvinism"; if they are not preached and confessed, they are denied. Every preacher, every Church, every member of every Church must take a stand regarding them, and does take a stand. It is impossible not to. For they are writ large on the pages of Scripture, as essential elements of the gospel. Whoever rejects Calvinism embraces the only alternative to Calvinism - a system of doctrine that is opposed to Calvinism in every point. Does a man reject total depravity? Then he believes that fallen, natural man yet retains some good and some ability for good, specifically a will that is able to make a decision for Christ; that man outside of Christ is not dead in sins, but merely sick, that is, not dead, but alive. Does a man reject limited atonement? Then he believes that Jesus died for each and every human being without exception. Because both Scripture and the hard facts of life teach that some men do perish in hell, this advocate of universal atonement believes that the death of Jesus did not actually atone for sins at all, but merely made atonement possible; that the cross was not the payment of the ransom in the stead of every one for whom Christ died, but merely an example of love; that the suffering of the Son of God did not effectually satisfy the justice of God by bearing sins away, but merely...? Did what? Anything at all? And if not, was He really the eternal Son of God in the flesh? Does a man reject irresistible grace? Then he believes that God's call to salvation and the grace of the Holy Spirit depend upon the acceptance of the sinner by the exercise of his "free will," so that God's grace can be defeated and fail. Further, he believes that, whenever a sinner does come to Jesus in true faith and receives salvation, this is not due to the grace of God, but to the good will of the sinner. Does a man reject the perseverance of saints? Then he believes that every believer can fall away and perish at any time, including himself. Does a man reject predestination? Then he believes that the ultimate source and foundation of salvation is man's choice, decision, and will. In the end, there are two, and only two, possible faiths. The one maintains that all mankind lies in death; that God in free and sovereign grace eternally chose some; that God gave Christ to die for those whom He chose; that the Holy Spirit regenerates them and calls them efficaciously to faith; and that the Spirit preserves these elect, redeemed, and reborn sinners unto everlasting glory. This is Calvinism. The other faith maintains that fallen man retains some spiritual ability for good, some life; that God's choice of men depends upon their exercise of the ability for good that is in them; that Christ's death depends upon that good in man; and that the attainment of final glory depends upon that good in man. This is the enemy of Calvinism. This is the enemy of the Gospel! For Calvinism proclaims salvation by grace; the other faith preaches salvation by man's will and works and worth. Calvinism is the Gospel! God's Gospel is the message of wholly gracious salvation. This does not mean that Calvinism is unoffensive. On the contrary! Calvin himself took note, long ago, of the offensiveness of the truth that he taught, with reference specifically to total depravity: I am not unaware how much more plausible the view is, which invites us rather to ponder on our good qualities than to contemplate what must overwhelm us with shame - our miserable destitution and ignominy. There is nothing more acceptable to the human mind than flattery... if a discourse is pronounced which flatters the pride spontaneously springing up in man's inmost heart, nothing seems more delightful. Accordingly, in every age, he who is most forward in extolling the excellence of human nature, is received with the loudest applause. (Institutes, 11,1,2) But the offensiveness of Calvinism to men is nothing other than the offense of the cross of Christ. In Galatians 5:11, Paul speaks of "the offense of the cross," an offense that ceases only in the preaching of a cross-denying heresy. The cross of Christ, which is the very heart of the Gospel, is not pleasing to man, or acceptable to him. "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness" (I Corinthians 1:23). The cross, as the cross of the eternal Son of God in our flesh, shows the extent of fallen man's misery: he can be saved only by the death of the Son of God. Words finally fail to do justice to the greatness of the misery of the sinner, brought out by the cross: utterly lost, completely ruined, totally depraved. The cross shows that salvation is of the Lord, wholly of Divine grace, and not at all of man. As the cross of the Prince of life, the cross is powerful to save. Nothing and no one can nullify or defeat the blood and Spirit of Christ crucified. The Gospel of the cross is this message: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy" (Romans 9:16). Just because this is the message of Calvinism, Calvinism is offensive to men. It is offensive to proud man to hear that he is spiritually dead, totally devoid of anything pleasing to God, unable at all to save himself, nothing more than a child of wrath. But this is the judgment passed upon him in Calvinism - and in the Gospel. It is offensive to proud man to hear that salvation is exclusively God's free gift and sovereign, gracious work. But this is what Calvinism - and the Gospel - proclaim. Just because of this, Calvinism is good news! It is Gospel, glad tidings! As the message of grace, it comforts us and all those who, by the grace of the Spirit, believe in Christ. Only this message provides hope for lost, sinful, and otherwise hopeless men. There is salvation, only because salvation is gracious. Defending Calvinism is simply a matter of defending the Gospel. Therefore, we do not defend it apologetically, or defensively, or even as if its fortunes were doubtful, dependent on our defense. As the truth of God, Calvinism stands, and will stand - victorious, invincible. God Himself maintains it; and God Himself sends it forth on an irresistible course of conquest throughout the world. Calvinism is the Gospel for every age. It is the truth for which and by which the Reformation of the Church of Jesus Christ took place in the 16th century. The Gospel has not changed since that time; Jesus Christ in His truth is the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. But the truth of the Gospel is largely lost and buried in the Protestant Churches in our day, including many who pride themselves on being "fundamental" and "evangelical." The Gospel is perverted by a message that is essentially the same as that message against which the Reformation fought and which on its part bitterly opposed the Reformation. In those days, Rome preached a salvation that had to be earned by man's own works, as indeed it still preaches today; Rome taught that men were righteous before God, in part, by their own works, as indeed it still teaches today. In our day, the Protestant Churches teach and preach that salvation depends upon man's own will; they proclaim that the sinner must achieve his own salvation by willing. This "gospel" of much of Protestantism and the "gospel" of Rome are one and the same. Essentially, there is no difference between them. This is the reason why many Protestant Churches, preachers, evangelists, and people find it possible to co-operate closely with the Roman Catholic Church, especially in the work of evangelism; and this is the reason why a great reunion with Rome on the part of many Protestants is in the offing. Rome says, "Salvation depends upon man working;" modern Protestantism says, "Salvation depends upon man willing." Both are saying the same thing: "Salvation depends upon man." The apostle lumps both of these variations of the same basic doctrine together in Romans 9:16, and condemns them: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Having condemned these heresies, Paul declares that the source of our salvation is God showing mercy - only God showing mercy; he proclaims that salvation depends upon God showing mercy - only upon God showing mercy. This is the message of Calvinism; and because it is, our defense of Calvinism is a bold, uncompromisingly, unashamed defense. We say of Calvinism what B. B. Warfield once said of it: "the future of Christianity - as its past has done - lies in its hands." We repudiate the false accusations made against Calvinism, and the caricatures made of it. Men say of Calvinism that it is destructive of good works and of the law of God, that it produces careless Christians. Men say that it is destructive of zeal for preaching and missions. Men say that it is terrifying to poor consciences, that it is cold and hard, and that Calvinists are all head and no heart. These are old charges, hoary with age. You will find them, almost word-for-word, lodged against the apostle, Paul, and the Gospel that he preached (cf. Romans 3:8; 3:31; 6:1f.; and 9:19ff.). Would that men were not so ready to accept the caricature of Calvinism contrived by its enemies, but rather let Calvinism speak for itself, in its confessions. Read the Heidelberg Catechism, or the Westminster Catechisms, and see for yourself whether Calvinism is hard and cold and cruel, or whether it is warm and comforting. Read the Belgic Confession, or the Westminster Confession of Faith, and see whether Calvinism goes lightly over the law of God and over the good works of the Christian man, or whether it trembles before the law, stresses sanctification, and insists on the necessity of good works. Read the Canons of Dordt, the Reformed creed that is unsurpassed in its statement of predestination and in its defense of salvation by grace alone, and see whether Calvinism cuts the nerve of a lively preaching of the Gospel, including the serious call of the Gospel to all who come under the preaching. See also the tenderness of the Reformed Faith towards penitent sinners, and its deep pastoral concern for afflicted consciences. At the same time, we Reformed people and churches must refute the caricatures of Calvinism by our life and deeds. This also belongs to an "apology for Calvinism." We do well to take heed to ourselves, as well as to our doctrine. Are we zealous for good works? Are we ready to preach the Gospel to every creature and to give an answer to every man that asks us a reason for the hope that is in us? Do we manifest ourselves as joyful, hopeful, confident saints? This we will do, by God's grace, if we live out of the truth of Calvinism, that is, the Gospel. We have a powerful motive for defending Calvinism. For one thing, as the Gospel it is the only hope for sinful men - the only power of God unto salvation, the only means of the gathering and preserving of the Church. Even more compelling, Calvinism glorifies God. The glory of God is the heartbeat of Calvinism, and the heart of hearts of every Calvinist. Calvin's enemies have always seen this and have sneered at him as "that God-intoxicated man." Calvinism gives the magnificent answer to the question, "What is the chief end of man?": "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever." (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Quest. 1). But the glory of God is the goal of the Gospel, that is, the goal of God Himself through the Gospel: "...to the praise of the glory of his grace" (Ephesians 1:6). His glory He will not give to another (Isaiah 42:8). "Of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things;" to Him, therefore, be glory for ever. (Romans 11:36) –David J. Engelsma
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 9, 2023 7:39:47 GMT -5
Calvin writes: ...in reference to his [Augustine’s] book, entitled, "On the Blessing of Perseverance," he pointedly says, "This predestination of the saints is certain and manifest; which necessity afterwards compelled me to defend more diligently and laboriously when I was discussing the subject in opposition to a certain new sect. For I have learned that every separate heresy introduces into the Church its peculiar questions, which call for a more diligent defence of the Holy Scripture, than if no such necessity of defence had arisen. For what was it that compelled me to defend, in that work of mine, with greater copiousness and fuller explanation those passages of the Scriptures in which predestination is set before us? What, but the starting up of the Pelagians, who say that the grace of God is given to us according as we render ourselves deserving of it?" Augustine had, moreover, just before denied that any prejudice against his books could be justly entertained because of their want of the authority of the ancient Church. "No one," says he, "can surely be so unjust, or so invidious, as not to allow me to gain some instruction and profit for myself from this important subject." And he afterwards contends that it could be gathered from the testimonies of some of the ancient fathers, that their sentiments and teaching were the same as his own. Not to mention other authorities to which he refers, that is a more than satisfactory one which he cites from, Ambrose: "Whom Christ has mercy on, He calls." Again, "When He will, He makes out of careless ones devoted ones." And again, "But God calls whom He condescends to call; and whom He will, He makes religious." Now who does not see that the sum of the whole Divine matter is comprehended in these few words? Ambrose here assigns the reason or cause why all men do not come to Christ that they may obtain salvation. Because God does not effectually touch their hearts. The holy man declares that the conversion of a sinner proceeds from the free election of God, and that the reason why He calls some, while others are left reprobate, lies solely in His own will. Ambrose neither hesitates nor dissembles here. Now, who that is endowed with the most common judgment does not perceive that the state of the whole question is contained in, and defined by, these three summaries? In a word, Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings. But that I may not, on the present occasion, be too prolix, I will be content with three or four instances of his testimony, from which it will be manifest that he does not differ from me one pin's point. And it would be more manifest still, could the whole line of his confession be adduced, how fully and solidly he agrees with me in every particular. In his book, "Concerning the Predestination of the Saints," he has these words: "Lest any one should say, My faith, my righteousness (or anything of the kind) distinguishes me from others; meeting all such thoughts, the great teacher of the Gentiles asks, 'What hast thou that thou hast not received?' As if the apostle had said, From whom indeed couldst thou receive it, but from Him who separates thee from every other, to whom He has not given what He has given to thee?" Augustine then adds, "Faith, therefore, from its beginning to its perfection is the gift of God. And that this gift is bestowed on some and not on others, who will deny but he who would fight against the most manifest testimonies of the Scripture? But why faith is not given to all ought not to concern the believer, who knows that all men by the sin of one came into most just condemnation. But why God delivers one from this condemnation and not another belongs to His inscrutable judgments, and His ways are past finding out.' And if it be investigated and inquired how it is that each receiver of faith is deemed of God worthy to receive such a gift, there are not wanting those who will say, It is by their human will. But we say that it is by grace, or Divine predestination." The holy father then makes these beautiful and striking observations: "Indeed the Saviour of the world Himself, the adorable Son of God, is the brightest luminary of Divine grace and eternal predestination, not only with respect to His Divine nature as the Son of God, but especially also in reference to His human nature as 'Man' For in what way, I pray you, did 'THE MAN Christ Jesus,' as Man, merit so great a glory as that, being taken into union with the Divine Person of the Son by the word of the co-eternal Father, He should become the 'only-begotten Son of God'? What good word or work preceded in this glorious case? What good thing did 'THE MAN' perform? What act of faith did He exercise? What prayer did He offer up that He should be exalted to such preeminent dignity? Now here, perhaps, some profane and insolent being may be inclined to say, 'Why was it not I that was predestinated to this excellent greatness?' If we should reply in the solemn appeal of the apostle, 'Nay, but who art thou, O man, that replies against God?' and if such an one should not even then restrain his daring spirit, but should give more rein to his blasphemy and say, 'Why do you utter to me the caution, "Who art thou, O man?" etc. Am I not a man as He was, concerning whom thou speakest? Why, then, am I not now what He is? He, forsooth, is what He is, and as great as He is, by grace. Why, then, is the grace different where the nature is the same? For most assuredly there is no acceptance of persons with God.' Now I would solemnly ask, What Christian man, nay, what madman, would thus reason, speak, or think? Let, then, our glorious Head Himself, the Fountain of all grace, be an ever-shining luminary of eternal predestination and a Divine example of its sovereign nature. And from Him let the stream of electing grace flow through all His members, according to the measure of the gift in each. This, then, is the eternal predestination of the saints, which shone with such surpassing splendour in the SAINT of saints! And as He alone was predestinated, as MAN, to be our HEAD, so many of us are also predestinated to be His members." Now, that no one might attribute it to faith that one is preferred above another, Augustine testifies that men are not chosen because they believe, but, on the contrary, are chosen that they might believe. In like manner, when writing to Sextus, he says, "As to the great deep—why one man believes and another does not, why God delivers one man and not another—let him who can, search into that profound abyss; but let him beware of the awful precipice." Again, in another place he says: "Who created the reprobate but God? And why? Because He willed it. Why did He will it?— 'Who art thou, O man, that replies against God?'" And again, elsewhere, after he had proved that God is moved by no merits of men to make them obedient to His commands, but that He renders unto them good for evil, and that for His own sake and not for theirs, he adds, "If anyone should ask why God makes some men His sheep and not others, the Apostle, dreading this question, exclaims, 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!'" And as Augustine, tracing the beginning or origin of election to the free and gratuitous will of God, places reprobation in His mere will likewise, so he teaches that the security of our salvation stands in that will also, and in nothing else. For, writing to Paulinus, he affirms that those who do not persevere unto the end, belong not to the calling of God, which is always effectual and without any repentance in Him. And, in another work, he maintains more fully that perseverance is freely bestowed on the elect, from which they can never fall away. "Thus," says he, "when Christ prayed for Peter, that his faith might not fail, what else did He ask of God, but that there might be with, or in, Peter's faith a fully free, fully courageous, fully victorious, fully persevering will, or determination? And He had just before said, 'The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His.' The faith of such, which worketh by love either faileth not at all, or, if there be any in whom it does partially fail, it is renewed and restored before this life is ended. That iniquity which had interrupted it is done away, and the faith still perseveres unto the end. But those who are not designed of God to persevere—if they fall from the Christian faith, and the end of life finds them in that state thus fallen—such, doubtless, could not have been of this number of God's elect, even while they were, to all appearance, living well and righteously. For such were never separated from the general mass of perdition by the foreknowledge and predestination of God, and therefore were never 'called according to His purpose.'" And, that no one might be disturbed in mind because those sometimes fall away who had been considered the sons of God, he meets such perplexed ones thus: "Let no one think that those ever fall away who are the subjects of predestination, who are the called according to God's purpose, and who are truly the children of promise. Those who live godly in appearance are, indeed, called by men the children of God; but, because they are destined sometime or other to live ungodly, and to die in that ungodliness, God does not call them His children in His foreknowledge. They who are ordained unto life are understood, by the Scripture, to be given unto Christ. These are predestinated and called, according to God's purpose. Not one of these ever perishes. And on this account no such one, though changed from good to bad for a time, ever ends his life-so, because he is for that end ordained of God, and for that end given unto Christ, that he might not perish, but have eternal life." A little afterwards the same Augustine saith, "Those who, by the all-foreseeing appointment of God, are foreknown, predestinated, called, justified and glorified, are the children of God, not only before they are regenerated, but before they are born of woman; and such can never perish." He then assigns the reason: "Because (says he) God works all things together for the good of such; and He so makes all things thus to work together for their good, that if some of them go out of the way, and even exceed all bounds, He makes even this to work for their good and profit; for they return to Him more humble and more teachable than before." And if the matter be carried higher, and a question be moved concerning the first creation of man, Augustine meets that question thus: "We most wholesomely confess that which we most rightly believe, that God, the Lord of all things, who created all things 'very good,' foreknew that evil would arise out of this good; and He also knew that it was more to the glory of His omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil, than not to permit evil to be at all! And He so ordained the lives of angels and of men that He might first show in them what free-will could do, and then afterwards show what the free gift of His grace and the judgment of His justice could do." In his "Manual" to Laurentinus, he more freely and fully explains whatever of doubt might yet remain. "When Christ shall appear (says he) to judge the world at the last day, that shall be seen, in the clearest light of knowledge, which the faith of the godly now holds fast, though not yet made manifest to their comprehension; how sure, how immutable, how all-efficacious is the will of God; how many things He could do, or has power to do, which He wills not to do (but that He wills nothing which He has not power to do); and how true that is which the Psalmist sings, "The Lord hath done in heaven whatsoever pleased Him." This, however, is not true, if He willed some things and did them not. Nothing, therefore, is done but that which the Omnipotent willed to be done, either by permitting it to be done or by doing it Himself. Nor is a doubt to be entertained that God does righteously in permitting all those things to be done which are done evilly. For He permits not this, but by righteous judgment. Although, therefore, those things which are evil, in so far as they are evil, are not good, yet it is good that there should not only be good things, but evil things also. For, unless there were this good, that evil things also existed, those evil things would not be permitted by the Great and Good Omnipotent to exist at all. For He, without doubt, can as easily refuse to permit to be done what He does not will to be done, as He can do that which He wills to be done. Unless we fully believe this the very beginning of our faith is perilled, by which we profess to believe in God ALMIGHTY.''
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 10, 2023 7:27:53 GMT -5
“ORIGINAL SIN” The controversy on the doctrine of “original sin” goes as far back as the times of the church fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. It was hotly contested between Augustine and Pelagius. Augustine taught that by the “disobedience” of Adam, sin had been extended to the entire human race. He maintained that the sin that Adam committed was infectious and hereditary. Pelagius on the other hand held on to his position that Adam's fall into sin had nothing to do with the sinful nature of man and held on as well to a view that the infant’s sinful nature is a state or condition not from the womb, but a matter acquired through imitation. WHAT IS THE TRUTH? WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY? Among other numerous text proofs, two passages in the Bible shed much light, especially as regards this doctrine of “original sin”, and as to why the doctrine is essential to Christian understanding. These passages are found in Romans 5 and Romans 7. Verse 12 of Romans 5 says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” The passage is explicit. It speaks about Adam’s breaking God’s command in Genesis 2:16-17: “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” This disobedience of Adam, needless to say, occasioned the entrance of sin into the world and the meting out of God’s death sentence—physically and spiritually, as God warned Adam; which God immediately carried out. Continuing, verses 13 and 14 state, “(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come…).” The text is saying that before the giving of the moral law at Sinai, though there was no imputation of sin as yet (anent the Mosaic law), the death sentence was already enforced—already being administered—from Adam to Moses, upon the entire human race, exactly according to God’s divine purpose and perfect justice. This account in the Scripture has been unabatedly challenged by the Pelagians and the semi-Pelagians (the Roman Catholic) as well as by those who cannot accept the hereditary nature of the original sin; as well as by those who hold on to the belief that “the son cannot be held responsible for the sins of the parents.” At this point, it’s fitting and proper that the questions: Didn’t Adam sin alone? How can one be held responsible for a sin that he or she didn’t do? Isn’t that unjust of God, and cruel of Him to have meted out besides a condemnation even upon infants yet unborn? These are valid questions which is the purpose of this article to answer. At creation, Adam, being the first man created, was mandated by God to be head and ruler over all His creation. Says Genesis 1:28, “And God blessed them [Adam and Eve), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Having been so charged, Adam served as God's representative and father of mankind and was made responsible for all his actions, so that when he sinned, the entire humankind sinned in him. To illustrate further, man’s changed nature–from the original state of rectitude to the state of total corruption and depravity–a human government may be used as an example. In human government, politicians make laws for the regulation of the life of their people. These laws when so enforced, say, in the waging of war against a particular nation, are the government's responsibility alone; that is, whatever the outcome. Although the subjects had not broken any law at all, but merely are submitting to the actions and decisions of the government, they are, nonetheless, made to suffer the consequences. The same is true in the case of Adam in relation to man. Because of the sin of one man, the whole of humankind was counted and made to suffer the consequences of Adam’s disobedience. The same doctrine of “original sin” applies to infants even yet unborn. Even yet in the womb, God’s condemnation of Adam is already passed on to them. This fact is attested to in numerous parts of the Scripture. In Psalm 51 verses 5 and 7, David declared, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin DID MY MOTHER CONCEIVE ME. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” In verse 5, David acknowledges that he was already tainted with sin even before he was born; and in verse 7 acknowledges his total sinful nature so that he was asking to be purged with hyssop for him to be clean; and to be washed so he could be whiter than snow. In Isaiah and Job, man's corrupt and sinful nature is taught and exposed; and also in many other parts of the Scripture. Says Isaiah 48:8, “Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor FROM THE WOMB." Isaiah here is affirming that being a transgressor or lawbreaker has its root in the womb. Job 14:4, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." The reference here is to man from whose being nothing clean can come out. Rom 3:10, "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." This is an absolute statement, None is righteous, no one. Ephesians 2:1-5 "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” The whole passage here is speaking about every man’s original sinful nature before regeneration. And now in the second important passage in Romans 7, the passage says, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” The whole passage is speaking about Paul’s totally corrupt and depraved nature, a nature which he confirms by saying, “no good thing dwelleth in him.” This is also confirmed in other passages, such as in Galatians 5:19-21. The passage, says, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” And so on and on we can quote more texts proving man inheriting Adam's corrupt nature because of Adam’s disobedience, which universally and consequentially brought about the whole human race to be infected with a completely depraved nature. In summary: The doctrine of “Original Sin” is biblical. It is the consequence of the first sin committed by the first man, Adam, whose fall into sin infected and corrupted totally man's nature; which nature was extended to the entire human race. All sins spring from that original sinful state of man. It serves as the root underneath the ground and from which all sins are produced. It's only CURE Paul himself declared, in answering his question, and about the second Adam: WHO SHALL DELIVER ME FROM THE BODY OF THIS DEATH? “I THANK GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.” Romans 7:25.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 11, 2023 7:13:48 GMT -5
Have You Seen The Kingdom? A question for all the ‘born-again’ Mark Raja
Early church liturgy Jesus, speaking to Nicodemus, said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” So, if we claim to be born-again, have we seen the kingdom? If yes, how can we describe it?
In one of his sermons, Tim Mackey gave an excellent parable to describe this. A few weeks before presenting that talk, he went on a hike to a campsite on the side of Mt. Hood in Oregon for a personal prayer retreat. While walking on the trail, Tim heard a noise from the bushes on the side. He stopped to see what it might be. He thought it could be an animal that he must be cautious about — but later, he noticed a woman crouching in the bushes. As he didn’t want to bother, he continued on the trail. Then she stood up, and her mouth was full. Excitedly, she said, “Look, these huckleberries, they are everywhere!” She was crouching in the bushes to pick them and eat.
Tim looked around and found that he was surrounded by one of the thickest, purplest, dense huckleberries he had ever seen. He looked down the path he came and noticed huckleberry bushes were everywhere as far as he could see. He looked up the trail and noticed the same. He also plucked some of those dark purple huckleberries and munched some. He had them all through his retreat time.
Tim relates this experience to the eternal presence of God that he began to experience lately, which was profound and transformative.
Is the kingdom of heaven ‘hidden in plain sight’? Or is it not real? If real, what does it mean to enter it? We should ask this question to know what it means to enter God’s kingdom instead of pretending in the garb of theology, religiosity, philanthropy, or popularity.
Ironically, the kingdom of heaven is not a topic of interest among Christians today. Therefore, many of us have confusing ideas or lack knowledge of it. Hence, I wonder, what gospel of the kingdom are we proclaiming?
Is the scripture clear about it? Of course, it is. Recently, I started highlighting my Bible on everything related to the gospel of the kingdom. All the epistles I read turned yellow with highlighters.
According to my imagination, if all the pages of the New Testament were transparent sheets of drawings overlayed, the one image that would emerge would be Christ and his kingdom. Not limited to the New Testament, the idea of the kingdom of God is persistent from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22.
So this is what every author is writing about. The kingdom of God is the eternal reign of God over heaven and earth, metaphorically called heavenly Jerusalem, which has come back to us in Christ, where he became king by his death and resurrection. By doing his will and discipling nations, we partake in this invisible reality, which will be made visible in all its glory at the end of the age.
By our faith in Christ and dying with him, we are raised in him, to eternal life as his body, as a new creation, as a child of God, as citizens of heavenly Jerusalem. My new birth is more than just an intellectual concept. Instead, it is consciousness that I am conceived by the Spirit of God, born of God in Christ.
Paul reminds us, “Therefore since you have been raised with Christ, strive for the things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.” “Put(ing) to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature,” and “put on compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, forgiveness and love”.
Peter also writes, “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness… to become partakers of the divine nature”. Therefore, he tells us, “Supplement your faith with virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love… if you practice these qualities, you will never fall. For in this way, there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom…”
Therefore, I enter the kingdom when I die to my old self daily to breathe, think and act like Christ, my real life. There is no life outside Christ. Paul puts it clearly, “When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.” But until then, as John Calvin says, the body of Christ makes it visible as a testimony by walking in the light of the kingdom in faith.
The kingdom of heaven is not a pie-in-the-sky to indulge in. Instead, it is a present reality made visible when the poor in spirit witness God’s kingdom on earth as in heaven as God’s holy and beloved family doing God’s will. They partake of God’s divine nature, in reverence to God, rooted in love; they pray together, joyfully share their sustenance with others, forgive one another, keep far from temptations and sin, defend the weak, release the oppressed, and confront the evil one. In other words, by loving God, their neighbour, and even their enemies as themselves.
But sadly, our individualistic, materialistic, moralistic church became oblivious to it because we live according to our flesh. We have reduced the gospel of the kingdom to a convenient set of opinions that takes us to heaven after we die but fails to become a testimony of it.
If we are truly born again, we become the life and testimony of this eternal, invisible, counter-cultural kingdom by walking in the will of God in every area of our lives together as God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works. Our works today in this unshakable kingdom are like treasures in heaven that remain for eternity.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 14, 2023 15:22:20 GMT -5
A Historical-Theological Response to John Piper’s What Is Saving Faith? John V. Fesko Harriet Barbour Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson
Pastor and theologian John Piper has recently published his book, What Is Saving Faith? where he makes the case that “there is in the very nature of saving faith some kind of affectional element.”[1] I am limiting my response largely to historical-theological claims that Piper makes in his book and his recent response to a review posted on The Gospel Coalition (TGC) website to support his arguments. I believe that Piper makes inaccurate appeals to various theologians, I want to focus on four theologians in particular: John Calvin (1509-64), John Owen (1616-83), Francis Turretin (1623-87), and Jonathan Edwards (1703-58) for several reasons.
First, Piper leans heavily upon these theologians.
Second, there is a historical link between Turretin and Edwards, as Edwards was familiar with Turretin’s theology but nevertheless chose to formulate his doctrine of faith in a different manner than Turretin.
Third, an exhaustive response to every cited theologian is beyond the modest scope of my reply. By digging into Calvin, Owen, Turretin, and Edwards, I will demonstrate why I am unpersuaded by Piper’s claims. My response therefore first surveys Calvin, second Owen, third Turretin, fourth Edwards, and fifth offers conclusions. One final note, I do not engage in an exegetical critique of Piper’s views as I have left this to the other panelist, Dr. Guy Waters.
Calvin
In his most recent response to Harrison Perkins’s TGC review of his book, Piper cites John Calvin as an example of someone who includes affections as a part of faith: “‘In a word, faith is . . . a warm embrace of Christ.’ Even the aspect of faith called ‘assent . . . consists in pious affection.’”
[2] This is an example of the inaccurate way that Piper cites texts, as Piper fails to note that Calvin is not here talking about justifying but sanctifying faith:
As there can be no doubt on the matter, we in one word conclude, that they talk absurdly when they maintain that faith is formed by the addition of pious affection as an accessory to assent, since assent itself, such at least as the Scriptures describe, consists in pious affection. But we are furnished with a still clearer argument. Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection.[3] In fact, Calvin is very clear that faith produces love and takes issue with Peter Lombard, who claims that love takes priority to faith: “For what the Schoolmen say as to the priority of love to faith and hope is a mere dream (see Sent. III.xxv, &c.) since it is faith alone that first engenders love.” [4] Calvin is also explicit to delineate between the role of faith in justification versus sanctification, when he explains Galatians 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love”:
With respect to the present passage, Paul enters into no dispute whether love cooperates with faith in justification; but, in order to avoid the appearance of representing Christians as idle and as resembling blocks of wood, he points out what are the true exercises of believers. When you are engaged in discussing the question of justification, beware of allowing any mention to be made of love or of works, but resolutely adhere to the exclusive particle. Paul does not here treat of justification, or assign any part of the praise of it to love. Had he done so, the same argument would prove that circumcision and ceremonies, at a former period, had some share in justifying a sinner. As in Christ Jesus he commends faith accompanied by love, so before the coming of Christ ceremonies were required. But this has nothing to do with obtaining righteousness, as the Papists themselves allow.[5]
Calvin clearly makes love a fruit or effect of faith and does not advocate Piper’s claim that love is what faith is.
Owen
A similar pattern unfolds with Piper’s citation of Owen in his response to Perkins. Piper makes the following quotation: “[Faith] is to receive the Lord Jesus in his comeliness and eminency. . . Let us receive him in all his excellencies, . . . comparing him with other beloveds, . . . and preferring him before them, counting them all loss and dung in comparison of him.”[6] Once again, the context of this statement is crucial to understanding what Owen is saying. Within Owen’s broader corpus, he is very clear about the nature of justifying faith. In his The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, Owen takes aim at the Roman Catholic view: “Others plead for obedience, charity, the love of God, to be included in the nature of faith; but plead not directly that this obedience is the form of faith, but that which belongs unto the perfection of it, as it is justifying.”[7] What, then, is the context of Piper’s quotation of Owen? He quotes Owen from his Communion where they context is not justification but rather communion with Christ:
When the soul consents to take Christ on his own terms, to save him in his own way, and says, “Lord, I would have had thee and salvation in my way, that it might have been partly of mine endeavours, and as it were by the works of the law; I am now willing to receive thee and to be saved in thy way, — merely by grace: and though I would have walked according to my own mind, yet now I wholly give up myself to be ruled by thy Spirit: for in thee have I righteousness and strength, in thee am I justified and do glory;” — then doth it carry on communion with Christ as to the grace of his person. This it is to receive the Lord Jesus in his comeliness and eminency. Let believers exercise their hearts abundantly unto this thing. This is choice communion with the Son Jesus Christ.[8]
Owen moves from justification to communion, which is “to receive the Lord Jesus in his comeliness and eminency.” Love, therefore, is not as Piper claims, what faith is. Rather, it is the fruit of a justifying faith.
Turretin
In his book, Piper argues for the “affectional nature of saving faith” because “great voices in the history of Protestant thought have pointed in this direction.”[9] Among the theologians to whom he appeals is Turretin. Piper observes that Turretin describes the six acts of saving faith. Although theologians typically distinguish the three elements of saving faith as knowledge, assent, and trust, further distinctions are necessary to have a clearer understanding of faith.[10] Piper explains the six different acts of faith according to Turretin:
Knowledge – truth is the object of faith and thus requires knowledge to apprehend it. Theoretical assent – by which we receive as true and divine what we know. Fiducial and practical assent – by which we judge the gospel to be true and worthy of love. Act of refuge – by which we desire Christ and seek in him pardon of sin and salvation. Reception of Christ – by which we both desire Christ and embrace him as an inestimable treasure; this is the formal principal act of justifying faith. Reflex act – looking at all that has transpired and marveling that we have been brought by faith.[11] In Piper’s assessment, Turretin’s fifth act is the most important because it is the act by which sinners embrace Christ and recognize him as a “supreme good offered, and the inestimable treasure.” Piper comments, “If Turretin is right, you can see why I am so eager to write this book. What does it mean to be a Christian? It means believing on Christ, not by a bare decision to affirm that Christ can rescue us from hell and make our future more like a golf course than a forest fire. That is not saving faith. To become a Christian—to be justified and finally saved—is to ‘embrace Christ.’ Embrace!”[12] Piper’s exposition of Turretin’s view is accurate, in and of itself, but he gives an erroneous understanding of the significance of Turretin’s argument. In other words, yes, Turretin says that people embrace Christ by faith and receive him as a treasure. However, Piper ignores other important points that Turretin makes and misinterprets Turretin’s statements to fit his own view. Three points reveal Piper’s error.
First, within the immediate context of Piper’s quotation, Turretin does say that we embrace Christ (adhaerimus, lit. “stick to him”).[13] However, surrounding statements provide the context for what Turretin means by embrace. Turretin writes of “reception” (receptionis), “receive him offered” (recipimus), and “resting upon Christ” (Redemptori inniti). Turretin uses these terms because they appear in Scripture. Quoting different passages, he says, “Believers are said ‘to receive the gift of righteousness’ (Rom. 5:17); ‘to receive Christ’ (Col. 2:6).” Turretin then concludes, “And because the soul thus apprehending Christ reclines upon him and rests upon and cleaves to him, faith is also sometimes described as an act of ‘reclining’ [Etquia anima Christum ita apprehendens in ipsum recumbit, et illi innititur et adhæret, fides etiam per actum reclinationisnon semel describitur] (Psa. 71:5; Isa. 10:20; 48:2; 50:10).”[14] Notable about Turretin’s repeated use of receive, rest, and recline is that these are scriptural terms and they are all passive. Turretin echoes the common scriptural theme that also appears in the Westminster Confession’s (1647) well-known line: “The principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life” (XIV.ii). Notably, the Latin translation of the Confession uses the same terminology as Turretin with the trinity of terms acceptio, receptio, and recumbentia: “Verum fidei salvificae actus illi sunt praecipua, Christi acceptatio & receptio, in eumque solum recumbentia pro justification, sanctificatione, ipsaque adeo vita aeterna.”[15]
Second, Turretin situates the passive language about the operation of faith under the distinction between direct and reflex acts. By this twofold distinction Turretin explains that faith first “believes the promises of the gospel” whereas by “the reflex he [the believer] (looking upon his faith) knows that he believes.” “The direct act precedes; the reflex follows and such a subordination exists between them that just as the direct draws the reflex after it, so the reflex necessarily supposes the first.”[16] Within the framework of this twofold distinction, Turretin places the first five acts of faith (knowledge, theoretical assent, fiducial and practical assent, act of refuge, and reception of Christ) under direct acts. The sixth act is the reflex act. Only under this final reflex act does Turretin include a seventh act that Piper does not report, the “act of confidence and consolation.” This seventh act is a subset of the reflex act where Turretin appeals to love, which consists of “joy, tranquility, peace, acquiescence and delight which arise from possession of Christ, by which the believing soul leaning upon its beloved (Cant. 8:5) and conscious of its own most intimate union with Christ through faith and sure of its own mutual communion and love with him, piously rejoices in the Lord.”[17] Turretin follows with a crucial qualification regarding this last and seventh reflexive act: “And this last act does not enter properly into the essence of faith and constitute as it were its form, but flows from it as a necessary consequence and an inseparable effect.”[18] In other words, love does not constitute the form of faith, as with Roman Catholic views but is nevertheless an inseparable effect of it.[19]
Third, Piper misses Turretin’s important distinctions but also purposefully conflates the acts of faith where Turretin distinguishes them. Though Piper approvingly cites Turretin as one of his mentors who provoked him to his view of affectional faith, he nevertheless demurs from the particulars of his formulation because he finds the term acts of faith ambiguous. He recognizes that Turretin distinguishes the nature of faith from its actings, or what faith is versus what faith does, but Piper very clearly rejects this: “I confess that while some distinguish the various aspects of faith’s nature from the various aspects of faith’s actings, I do not.” Instead, Piper contends: Faith “is act. It does not do acts. This is why the phrase acts of faith is confusing. So when I use the term acts of faith, I am referring to the various actings that constitute what faith is.”[20] So, does Turretin include affectional elements in saving faith? Yes. However, he clearly distinguishes them into direct and reflexive acts and says that the affectional acts are not of the essence of saving faith to constitute its form. Piper, on the other hand, removes Turretin’s careful distinction and collapses the reflexive acts into the very essence of faith. Piper’s rejection of the distinction between nature and act dramatically changes Turretin’s formulation and recasts it so that it is indistinguishable from Roman Catholic views.
Edwards
When Piper turns to Edwards, he believes he has one of his strongest pieces of evidence. Piper quotes Edwards’s comments on 1 John 5:1-4, “‘Love [to God] is the main thing in saving faith.’ The main thing! Really? Edwards is not the kind of thinker that we can dismiss easily.”[21] In his exposition of 1 John 5:1-4, Piper claims “in the mind of John, saving faith includes the affectional dimension of loving God. . . . I am not saying that faith in Christ and love for God are identical. I am saying that saving faith is a composite of different ways that the born-again soul receives Christ.” But Piper stipulates, “I do not go so far as Jonathan Edwards in his conclusion from this text, though he may be right.”[22] Piper then quotes Edwards’s explanation: “This [v. 4] is explaining what he had said before [v. 3], that our love to God enables us to overcome the difficulties that attend keeping God’s commands; which shows that love is the main thing in saving faith, the life and power of it, by which it produces its great effects.”[23] Piper is aware that Edwards was “a bit too independent and idiosyncratic in his views,” and that his doctrine of justification “is one of his most embattled positions.”[24] He also acknowledges that it is debatable whether we should say love is the main thing in saving faith.[25] Nevertheless, undaunted, Piper concludes:
Edwards is saying (and in this I do agree) that the reason justifying faith has this extraordinary effect of always producing the fruit of holiness (Heb. 12:14) is not only that those who are justified by faith have been born again and receive the Holy Spirit, but also that justifying faith is itself of such a nature as to overcome the world’s desire for sin and transform heavy commandments into happy corridors of obedience. And it does so because in it is love for God as supremely valuable and satisfying.[26]
In other words, Piper may decline to say that love “is the main thing in saving faith,” but he agrees with Edwards that faith contains love. Unlike his recast appeal to Turretin, here Piper rightly understands Edwards even if he backs away from Edwards’s description. Where Piper, however, fails is that he does not dig deep enough into Edwards’s view to understand why he characterizes love as “the main thing in saving faith, the life and power of it.”[27]
Instead of embracing the traditional knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus), and trust (fiducia) definitional pattern of faith, Edwards maintains an affective model: “That even faith, or a steadfastly believing the truth, arises from a principle of love.”[28] By way of contrast, Turretin, for example, recognizes the common threefold distinction regarding the three acts of faith: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.[29] Turretin explains, “The orthodox think trust is so of the essence of faith that it cannot be called faith which is destitute of trust.”[30] And in stark contrast to Edwards, Turretin claims “faith cannot be obedience to the commands because thus two virtues would be confounded which are mutually distinct—‘faith and love’ (1 Cor. 13:13). The former is concerned with the promises of the gospel; the latter with the precepts of the law.” Faith is the cause and love is the effect, or faith is the instrument and love is its consequent fruit. For Turretin, “In the matter of justification, faith and works are opposed as opposites and contraries.”[31] Edwards moves love, which was historically an effect of faith, into its very core.[32] This was no slip of Edwards’s pen, but a conscious and deliberate decision on his part. In numerous places in his discourse on faith Edwards claims that faith arises from a principal of love.[33]
In fact, Edwards must have known he was departing from the tradition based on two considerations. First, in observation 140 Edwards writes: “That love belongs to the essence of saving faith, is manifest by comparing Is. 64:4 . . . as cited by the Apostle, I Cor. 2:9.” In the very next observation, no. 141, he writes the following: “Dr. Goodwin . . . says, ‘The papists say, wickedly and wretchedly, that love is the form and soul of faith.’”[34] Edwards, therefore, was not ignorant of the traditional Reformed rejection of this idea. Even more telling is the editorial marginal comment entered by Jonathan Edwards, Jr. (1745-1801), “But how does the truth of this charge of wickedness appear?”[35] In other words, Edwards’s son was not convinced of the “wickedness” of saying that “love is the form and soul of faith,” a conclusion undoubtedly reached by reading his father’s works. Second, Edwards explicitly draws the idea that love is the form of faith from William Sherlock (ca. 1639/41 – 1707), a theologian accused of Socinianism in the seventeenth-century. Sherlock claimed that faith arises “from a principle of love to God.”[36] In the seventeenth century Sherlock was engaged in heated debate with John Owen (1616-83) over the doctrine of union with Christ. Owen first published Communion with God (1657) and Sherlock later responded with his “ridicule” in A Discourse Concerning the Knowledge of Jesus Christ and Our Union and Communion with Him (1674).[37]
In 1677 Owen published his major work on the doctrine of justification in which Sherlock, though not named, was in the cross hairs among other heterodox theologians.[38] In his treatise, Owen addresses this specific question: “Some of late among ourselves,—and they want not them who have gone before them,—affirm that the works which the apostle excludes from justification are only the outward works of the law, performed without an inward principle of faith, fear, or the love of God.” Owen goes on to explain that the law excludes all types of works including those motivated by love.[39] Owen, like Goodwin, whose statement Edwards cited above, also rejects the idea that love is the form of faith.[40] Sherlock, by contrast, describes the relationship of love and union with Christ much like Edwards. Sherlock, who in contrast to Edwards describes the union between Christ and believers as a political rather than mystical one, nevertheless maintains that Christ and believers “are acted by the same Principles, and love, and chuse the same things . . . when we are meek and humble, and patient and contented, as he was, we are as closely united to him, as if he dwelt in us, and we in him.” Love, according to Sherlock, is the “great Cement of Union.”[41] These are themes that resonate in both Sherlock and Edwards and given the explicit dependence of the latter upon the former, the connection between their understanding of faith is certain. The bottom line is that Edwards knowingly rejected the Reformed tradition’s definition of faith and was willing to agree with the tradition’s critics to support his view and Piper does not acknowledge or factor this in his own appeal to Edwards.
Conclusion
The Westminster Confession of Faith long ago rightly stated that nothing less than “the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” is “the supreme judged by which all controversies of religion are to be determined” (I.x). So, even if my critique is wholly accurate, I have not brought Piper to the bar of Scripture. Rather, I have targeted four of the theologians upon whom Piper bases his case for love being in the core of saving faith and I have demonstrated why he is in error. In short, Piper errs with Turretin because he collapses Turretin’s distinction between the direct and reflexive acts of faith, a move that the Genevan explicitly rejected, and he errs by appealing positively to Edwards without acknowledging that the New England theologian deliberately parted from and disagreed with the Reformed tradition on the nature of faith. If these errors are illustrative of Piper’s use of historical sources, can we say with him that “great voices in the history of Protestant thought have pointed in this direction”? Moving from historical theology to theology, if Piper recasts Turretin’s view to resemble the very Roman Catholic views that Turretin rejected, it is unclear to me exactly how “Roman Catholic thinkers speak about the affections as constitutive of faith—in a very different sense than” Piper does.[42]
These historical errors also press another important theological point, namely, if Piper has misused Calvin, Owen and Turretin, he has at least two options: (1) ask whether they are correct, and if so, revise his own book and retain the distinction between what faith is versus what faith does; or (2) if he disagrees with Calvin, Owen, and Turretin and agrees with Edwards, then acknowledge that he deviates from the historic Reformed tradition. In the end, the crux of the matter is not whether saving faith has connections to love. All agree on this, whether Roman Catholic, Calvin, Owen, Turretin, or Edwards. The critical question is whether the essence of faith is trust as it passively rests, receives, and accepts Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, and reflexively works by love. Or, contrariwise, as Piper suggests do we collapse what faith is and does together so that love lies at the heart of faith? The reason that the Reformed tradition opted for the first choice by distinguishing what faith is from what it does is that if love lies at the heart of faith, then faith ceases to be the lone instrumental cause of justification and our salvation no longer rests exclusively upon the alien righteousness of Christ but also upon our own affections and love for him. Piper’s errors are like a medical doctor who says, “See! The human body breathes and pumps blood, but I refuse to distinguish between the heart and lungs.” Such an error may be understandable but nevertheless deadly if the doctor operates on the lungs when he should be operating on the heart. If we fail to distinguish between what faith is from what faith does do we not conflate faith and works and compromise the doctrine of justification by faith alone? The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture is the supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined. Has Piper rightly heard the voice of the Spirit speaking in Scripture? Has he rightly interpreted the Reformed tradition on this issue? At this point, I am convinced that the historic Reformed tradition is saying something different than Piper regarding the nature of saving faith.
[1] John Piper, What is Saving Faith? Reflections on Receiving Christ as a Treasure (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022), 13.
[2] John Piper, “On the Nature of Saving Faith,” at www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/john-piper-response-faith/ accessed 11 Nov 2022, emphasis Piper’s.
[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), III.ii.8.
[4] Calvin, Institutes, III.ii.41.
[5] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and the Ephesians, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), p. 153.
[6] Piper, “On the Nature of Saving Faith,” emphasis Piper’s.
[7] John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, in The Works of John Owen, vol. 5, ed. William H. Goold (1850-53; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1998), 103.
[8] John Owen, Of Communion with God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in The Works of John Owen, vol. 2, ed. William H. Goold (1850-53; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1997), 58-59.
[9] Piper, Saving Faith, 57.
[10] Piper, Saving Faith, 61.
[11] Piper, Saving Faith, 62-63.
[12] Piper, Saving Faith, 63.
[13] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1992-97), XV.viii.5; idem, Institutio Theologicae Elencticae, 3 vols. (New York, NY: Robert Carter, 1847).
[14] Turretin, Institutes, XV.viii.5.
[15] Confessio Fidei in Conventu Theologorum Authoritate Parlimenti Anglicani Indicto Elaborata (Edinburgh: Officina Societatis Bibliopolarum, 1689), XIV.ii.
[16] Turretin, Institutes, XV.viii.4.
[17] Turretin, Institutes, XV.viii.7.
[18] Turretin, Institutes, XV.viii.12.
[19] Council of Trent, “Decree on Justification,” Session VI, 13 Jan 1547 in, Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 4 vols. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 2:826-39, esp. 831; Robert Bellarmine, De Iustificatione Impii Libri Quinque 4.18, in Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini (Naples, 1858), 593–97; John W. O’Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2013), 102–16; Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), 326–92; Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, 2 vols. (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1963), 166–96.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 19, 2023 8:07:23 GMT -5
Hey, everyone. A production note before we begin: Just when you cannot imagine John Piper’s voice diving any lower, here we are. It’s bronchial stuff, plunging Pastor John into new realms of sub-bass that only a Hollywood movie trailer voice-over guy could normally reach. That’s true here for about a week or so. Here’s today’s episode.
Pastor John, here’s a question from Caden in Boca Raton, Florida. “Hello, Pastor John! After seeing the documentary American Gospel, I was conflicted because I’m not sure if I am supposed to call out false teachers. Second Peter 2:1–3 makes it obvious that there will be false teachers, but the text also does not say we should point them out. I have heard both sides to this argument, but I’m still not sure. I want to be careful to not ‘pronounce judgment before the time’ (1 Corinthians 4:5). Does this passage apply here in this situation? Are we taking a judgment that isn’t ours? Or should we rest in God’s ultimate knowledge? And if a prominent false teacher is to be called out, who does this — where and how?”
Maybe it would be helpful to step back first and get the bigger picture of the New Testament response to those who live and teach in ways that lead others into error and ruin, and then zero in on 1 Corinthians 4:5 for some guidelines for how we should speak and write about such people.
Beware the Wolves So let’s begin with Jesus. Matthew 7:15: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” And the word beware means all of us should be alert, but especially shepherds, to identify not just false teaching, but false teachers, whose ways are subtle. They’re clothing themselves with lamb’s wool while they’re wolves.
And Paul used the same Greek word for beware in Acts 20:28–29 when he said, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. . . . I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the.”
“In order to protect the flock, we should expose false teachers and minimize the spread of the gangrene.” Jesus used the same word again in Matthew 16:6, but he got more specific: “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Paul had the same kind of group in mind and the same kind of error in mind in Philippians 3:2 and 3:18: “Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.” And then verse 18: “For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.” Then in Romans 16:17, he warned, “Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.”
Avoid, Rebuke, Call Out To avoid them, you have to know who they are. You can’t avoid somebody if you don’t know who they are. This idea of identifying and avoiding shows up in 1 Corinthians 5:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14; 2 Timothy 3:5; 2 John 10. In other words, Christians, and shepherds in particular, should be discerning and alert to behavior and teaching that dishonors Christ and destroys people — and not treat it in a casual or harmless way.
And then in 1 Timothy 5:19–20, Paul went beyond just “avoid them” to “rebuke them publicly.” So, speaking of elders who persist in error, he said, “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin” — and that can be sin of false doctrine or sin of evil behavior, anyone who does not accept correction — “rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear..”
And then Paul went on and actually named destructive false teachers:
“Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me” (2 Timothy 4:10). “You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes” (2 Timothy 1:15). “By rejecting this [faith and a good conscience], some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander” (1 Timothy 1:19–20). “Their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus” (2 Timothy 2:17). Paul names at least six false teachers that the church should watch out for.
So, I infer from Jesus and Paul and Luke and John that false teaching and destructive behavior are present dangers in this fallen world for the church. And all of us — especially shepherds, pastors — should be alert and discerning to identify and, in appropriate ways, expose. In order to protect the flock, we should expose them and minimize the spread of the gangrene (as Paul calls it).
Expose Evil Now, in 1 Corinthians 4:5, Paul is talking about how the Corinthians should assess Paul and Cephas and Apollos, because the people are choosing sides and boasting in their favorite teacher. He says,
I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one [Paul, Cephas, Apollos] will receive his commendation from God. (1 Corinthians 4:4–5)
“The best protection against the darkness of error is the light of truth.” So Caden is asking whether the words “do not pronounce judgment before the time” should keep us from identifying false teachers or from naming them. I don’t think so. “Don’t pronounce judgment before the time” means “Don’t do what only Christ can do at that last day — on the day of judgment.” Don’t presume to know the heart like Jesus will know the heart on that day. Only Christ “will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart.”
But for now, our job is indeed to do mouth judgment, writing judgment, behavior judgment — not a heart judgment, but mouth and writing and behavior judgment. When a mouth speaks unbiblical, destructive teaching, when a blog or an article or a book publishes unbiblical and destructive teaching, when a body — a human body, a physical body — behaves with unbiblical and destructive behavior, in all these cases, we are to be discerning. And according to Ephesians 5:11, we are to expose the error. “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” “Censure them; show them to be wrong” is what the word elegchō means.
Five Factors for Calling Out False Teachers So the question is how and when — not if. And here I think the Bible calls for wisdom, rather than telling us who and when and how. The question we ask is this: How can we best — in our situation, with our gifts and our responsibilities — help the most people believe and live the most truth, and how can we protect the most people from destructive beliefs and behaviors?
And here are five factors perhaps to consider when deciding whether to name a false teacher publicly.
The seriousness and deceitfulness of the error. The size of the audience. Is it growing? The duration of their ministry. Did they make one blunder or are they constantly doing it? The vulnerability of the people for whom you are responsible. The role you have in influencing shepherds who really need to be discerning for who the false teachers are. When you do name a false teacher, it’s best to do it in a setting where you do more than name-drop. You explain the error, you give reasons for rejecting it, you communicate complexities, you set a tone of longing for truth and love — you’re not just slinging mud.
The last thing I would say is to let your teaching be so powerful in clarifying the greatness and the beauty and the worth of God’s truth that your people will smell error before it infects their lives. The shape of error is always changing. You can’t preach enough negative sermons to stay ahead of it. And you don’t have to. The best protection against the darkness of error is the light of truth.
|
|