Author Archives: Dan C.

When God told Job to "Man Up!"

Posted by Dan C. on

Most of us are familiar with the story of Job, a man considered righteous among the men of his time, and greatly blessed by God in terms of this world’s riches. Satan was allowed to take it all away and Job was counseled by four friends concerning why he was suffering and by his wife who recommended he curse God and die. If you haven’t read the account of Job for yourself, we recommend you do so, paying particular attention to the dialogue between Job and his friends.

After all of the dialogue, in itself interesting because it revealed the true character of everyone in the discussion, we finally have in Chapter 40, God speaking directly to Job and reminding him of exactly who he and his friends were dealing with:

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:

“Dress for action like a man;

    I will question you, and you make it known to me.

Will you even put me in the wrong?

Will you condemn me that you may be in the right?

Have you an arm like God,

    and can you thunder with a voice like his?

“Adorn yourself with majesty and dignity;

    clothe yourself with glory and splendor.

Pour out the overflowings of your anger,

    and look on everyone who is proud and abase him.

Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low

    and tread down the wicked where they stand.

Hide them all in the dust together;

    bind their faces in the world below.

Then will I also acknowledge to you

    that your own right hand can save you.

     (Job 40:6-14 ESV)

What follows through the rest of Chapters 40 and 41 is a wondrous and awesome declaration of God’s sovereignty over all creation. At the end of God’s declaration and challenge, Job replies:

Then Job answered the LORD and said:

“I know that you can do all things,

    and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’

Therefore, I have uttered what I did not understand,

    things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.

‘Hear, and I will speak;

    I will question you, and you make it known to me.’

I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,

    but now my eye sees you;

therefore I despise myself,

    and repent in dust and ashes.”

     (Job 42:1-6 ESV)

Whatever self-righteousness Job might have had vanished completely as Job considered what God had spoken and his own stature compared to the sovereign Lord of the universe! As a result Job concludes the matter by saying to God:

I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Ch 42, vv. 5-6)

It is with that confession to God that Job provides us with what I consider to be a perfect definition of true humility before God; realizing exactly who God IS and who we are!

For Job to ‘man up’ before God turned out to be seeing God, realizing who he (Job) was compared to God, and finally assuming a posture of repentance and humility before Him.

What a lesson for us in today’s extremely self-centered culture! So I need to ask myself, “Dano, how’s your eyesight been lately?”

Be Blessed!

Alice in Trans-Land: Trans Agenda Meets Academia in ‘Biological Women’ Controversy

Posted by Dan C. on

By Jeff Maples

image

Just as Alice plunged into the rabbit hole and found herself navigating the dizzying absurdity of Wonderland, we too seem to be hurtling down a similar abyss, a world unmoored from objective reality. This is no child’s story, but the sobering reality of our modern American society, where principles of truth and reality, once held inviolable, are now eclipsed by a storm of subjective make-believe.
Case in point: A seemingly bright, inquisitive student receives a failing grade, not due to any academic shortcomings, but because she dared to mention the term ‘biological women’ in a project proposal about “transgender women” in sports. An issue that deserves rational discourse, grounded in objective scientific truth, and guided by moral clarity, has instead become a breeding ground for intellectual intimidation.

This begs the question: How did our institutions of higher learning, once a stalwart of free speech, truth, and knowledge, become strongholds of censorship, where reality is a taboo and free inquiry a crime? We have strayed far, beloved, from the wisdom of our Creator, the author of all truth, and the compass of our lives.
The fear of the Lord, as the Bible attests, is the beginning of wisdom. Yet, our society has completely abandoned and forgotten this fundamental truth. Instead of seeking wisdom from God, the author of objective reality, we are bartering it for the hollow ideals of worldly acceptance. This is our Babel moment—a relentless pursuit of human wisdom and human understanding, a tower built on shifting sands, ready to crumble at the slightest gust of wind.

To quote the Scriptures, “Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” (1 Corinthians 1:20). The current discourse on transsexuals in women’s sports is but one glaring example of this foolish wisdom.

The complexities of human identity and competition in sports cannot be navigated by suppressing the truth about biological distinctions between males and females. These distinctions are not human constructs, but divine designs, each beautifully and wonderfully made, each fulfilling its unique role in God’s good purpose for life.

We cannot succumb to the foolishness of the world, but we must resist the pull of this cultural tide, this societal demand to embrace subjective reality over God’s objective truth. This ideological conformity seeks to intimidate us into silence.

Yet our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against a spiritual fog that has descended upon our society, blurring our vision, and leading us away from God’s light. It is time for us to wake up, to shake off this slumber, and to reclaim our commitment to God’s truth, and not just in our academic institutions, but more importantly in our churches and our homes.

Much like the Ninevites who repented and turned from their sinful ways when confronted with the truth, we too must confront the uncomfortable realities we face today. We must counter the narratives that deny God’s design and bring into the light the truth of the gospel that our world so desperately needs to hear.

Our journey out of this rabbit hole won’t be easy—it demands courage, conviction, and most importantly, a steadfast reliance on God’s wisdom. Yet, as daunting as this journey might be, we take solace in the knowledge that we do not walk alone. We tread this path guided by our Creator, the author of truth and knowledge, who grants wisdom generously to those who seek Him.

Remember, brothers and sisters, we are not just contenders in a culture war, but ambassadors of the Kingdom of God. As we rise to this challenge, put on the armor of faith, girded by truth, and stand fast in our commitment to defending the truth while we “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ…” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

We are called to be salt and light in this world, to infuse our society with God’s wisdom and illuminate the path of truth for those lost in the labyrinth of human rebellion—our battle is not merely against errant ideologies; it is a fight for the souls of those entangled in this web of deceit.

In this endeavor, let us anchor ourselves in the promise of Scripture, “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you” (James 1:5). With hearts open to divine wisdom and minds committed to the pursuit of truth, we can brave the storm, secure in the knowledge that our God is with us.

Finally, let us stand fast, not swayed by the changing tides of societal narratives, but rooted firmly in God’s unchanging truth. Let us lift our voices, not in the clamor of human wisdom, but in the confident proclamation of the gospel, and only by embracing this reality, we will find the clarity to navigate the complexities of our times.

Alice emerged from her journey through Wonderland with a newfound appreciation for reality. May our journey through this present Wonderland lead us back to a deeper understanding of God’s world, a reality grounded in His wisdom, upheld by His truth, and illuminated by His love.
“Lead me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation” (Psalm 25:5).

_______________________________

Online Source: Alice in Trans-Land: Trans Agenda Meets Academia in ‘Biological Women’ Controversy (disntr.com)

What is Needed Today. . . .

Posted by Dan C. on

image

“What is most needed today is a wide proclamation of those truths which are the least acceptable to the flesh.

What is needed today is a scriptural setting forth of the character of God—His absolute sovereignty, His ineffable holiness, His inflexible justice, His unchanging veracity.

What is needed today is a scriptural setting forth of the condition of the natural man—his total depravity, his spiritual insensibility, his inveterate hostility to God, the fact that he is “condemned already” and that the wrath of a sin-hating God is even now abiding upon him.

What is needed today is a scriptural setting forth of the alarming danger in which sinners are—the indescribably awful doom which awaits them, the fact that if they follow only a little further their present course they shall most certainly suffer the due reward of their iniquities.

What is needed today is a scriptural setting forth of the nature of that punishment which awaits the lost—the awfulness of it, the hopelessness of it, the unendurableness of it, the endlessness of it. It is because of these convictions that by pen as well as by voice we are seeking to raise the alarm.

A clearer vision of the awe-inspiring attributes of God would banish much of our levity and irreverence. A better understanding of our depravity by nature would humble us, and make us see our deep need of using the appointed means of grace. A facing of the alarming danger of the sinner would cause us to “consider our ways” and make us more diligent to make our “calling and election sure.” A realization of the unspeakable misery which awaits the lost (and which each, of us fully merited) would immeasurably deepen our gratitude, and bring us to thank God more fervently that we have been snatched as brands from the burning and delivered from the wrath to come; and too, it will make us far more earnest in our prayers as we supplicate God on behalf of the unsaved.

Remember that the ground must be plowed before it is ready to be sowed: and the truths mentioned above are needed to prepare the way for the Gospel.”

__________________________________________________

The above quotes were excerpted from the book Eternal Punishment by A.W. Pink, first published in 1940 and in the Public Domain.

Arthur Walkington Pink (1 April 1886 – 15 July 1952) was an English Bible teacher who sparked a renewed interest in the exposition of Calvinism or Reformed Theology. Little known in his own lifetime, Pink became “one of the most influential evangelical authors in the second half of the twentieth century.”

Field Hands Needed!

Posted by Dan C. on

image

35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. 36 When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few. 38 Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.” – Matthew 9:35-38

Jesus’ statement to his disciples in the above passage that the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few brings to mind at least three questions:

1. Where is the harvest?

2. What is the harvest?

3. Who are the laborers?

Question 1: Where is the harvest?

If we are to use Jesus’ example in this passage to define the location of the harvest, we must include first of all, towns and villages, along with their synagogues in which Jesus taught both religious leaders and the ordinary people in attendance (v 35). Second, we should conclude that there is a harvest wherever Jesus saw crowds of needy people (v 36). Third, the harvest field might be described as being ‘out there’, since Jesus spoke of ‘sending’ laborers into the harvest field. In other words the ‘harvest’ is wherever there are people.

Question 2: What is the harvest?

On a macro level, the harvest is defined as a ‘field’. It’s interesting to note that in the passage, the terms harvest and field are singular. Perhaps Jesus was referring to God’s called out remnant people as a single entity, what we might call the universal invisible church. If so, it’s a really BIG field!

On the micro level, we can say that it’s a ‘people’ field, in the same way we might be driving through Illinois and see miles and miles of corn fields. The harvest Jesus spoke of is made up of people – people who are ‘harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.’ Where there is no shepherd to protect and care for the sheep, they are harassed by the wolves and are often become lunchmeat, as it were. In spiritual terms, everyone living apart from Christ (the good Shepherd) is being constantly ‘harassed’ by sin and ‘helpless’ to do anything about it. The difference between sheep and wolves on one hand, and people and sin on the other is that sheep are afraid of angry wolves and people apart from Christ love their sin.

Question 3: Who are the laborers?

Our passage from Matthew ends with Jesus telling his disciples to ‘ask the Lord of the harvest (God) to send laborers (field hands) into his (God’s) harvest field. Jesus didn’t tell his disciples that he would be sending them (which he did), he told them to pray that more laborers be sent! It seems to be a given that field hands be sent by God. Jesus didn’t say ‘pray for more workers’, he said ask the Lord to send more.

Then there is a matter of the qualification(s) required for working in God’s harvest field. Well, since the job defines the qualifications, and in our passage we have Jesus proclaiming the good news of the kingdom (the gospel), might we say that God’s laborers are those who know his gospel? And since Jesus looked upon the crowds with deep compassion should compassion for the lost be the mark of the most effective worker?

Now that we have described the laborer in the harvest as a compassionate proclaimer of the gospel, we need to ask if qualified ‘field hands’ are limited to those who are specially gifted preachers, teachers, evangelists, etc.? We say no, and here’s why. There are at least two groups of people in the New Testament who provide us examples. The first group is includes those who personally encountered Jesus and then told others. The woman at the well, the man born blind, and the women who went to Jesus’ tomb come immediately to mind. There are many more.

The second group would be those who, after Jesus’ resurrection, and beginning at Pentecost, heard the gospel and believed – several thousand in Jerusalem during the Feast of Pentecost followed by many, many more, in Judea, Samaria, and parts beyond. Read the book of Acts for an account of how and where the gospel was proclaimed, carried by gifted and empowered preachers, teachers and evangelists, but also shared by ordinary folks; Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, soldiers and civilians, male and female, who had heard and believed the gospel.

My Christian brothers and sisters, the ordinary folks are US!

One last question: Are you a field hand, or just a consumer?

Be Blessed!

One Old Soldier, John Calvin, and “Calvinism”

Posted by Dan C. on

The old soldier is yours truly. I remember years ago disliking, even hating a man called John Calvin, although I knew very little about the man, except that he believed in something called “predestination”, which meant that God chose those who would be saved, and not the “free will” of us mortals. I knew that God was completely sovereign over His creation, mostly because I had at one point completed a Lutheran Catechism course. Also, the Bible told me as much. So how did I reconcile being free to make my own decision, choose Christ (who died for my sins) and this find salvation?

At the time, it actually seemed rather simple. It went like this:

1. I was convinced of my own free will to choose or reject Jesus as my Savior.

2. At the same time, God was completely sovereign over everything in His creation, including me.

3. Because God was sovereign, He could allow me to make my own decision.

In effect, the sovereign God was passing down His sovereignty to me in the matter of salvation. Simply put, I could “save myself”, or send myself to hell for all eternity. It had to be so. That we have the free will to ultimate decide our eternal destiny was an absolute “given” in my universe. I had never been taught anything about what I know now as “reformed” soteriology All I knew

Also, during that period in my journey as a former prodigal son brought back into the fold, I had begun studying scripture in earnest. I couldn’t get enough, which is a good thing. With things associated with John Calvin nowhere on my ‘radar’ screen I just continued reading my Bible. Passages of scripture kept popping up that prompted me to rethink some of my not so rock-solid opinions about “how” God saves sinners. Here are the two examples that immediately come to mind:

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.” (Ephesians 1:3-6)

“For those whom he (God) foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

These are especially significant because years earlier I had asked my Mom what it meant that God “foreknew” us and “chose us before the foundation of the world”, and she told me that God knew who would eventually choose him and therefore chose them (predestined them) for salvation. My Mom was a godly Christian woman so of course I believed her. Besides, what she told me fit perfectly into” the “free will” paradigm.

Through the years, I discovered other passages that spoke to the state of the natural will of fallen men; like:

“as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;  no one understands; no one seeks for God. (Romans 3:10-11)

“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8)

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

Those passages (and others) began to chip away at my conclusions about salvation. I selected certain critical terms and researched them in other Bible translations, Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and original language concordances. Eventually, I became convinced from the Bible, with the confirmation of deeper study that sovereign grace doctrine was what Scripture taught. But I digress.

Enter once again, John Calvin and the TULIP. I thought it would be a good idea to study the life and ministry of John Calvin and the doctrines of Calvinism. I might as well as learn the truth rather than what I assumed was true from what Calvin bashers had told me. I discovered a 70+ lesson online course called The History and Theology of Calvinism, taught by Dr. Curt Daniel. The entire series is available at Sermon Audio beginning here. Not only did I learn about John Calvin (warts and all), I learned about the history of Calvinism from its origins until the present.

What stood out to me the most was that the doctrines of Calvinism had their origins in Scripture itself. Since those meager beginnings of my research into the doctrines of sovereign grace and Calvinism, I have of course continued to study the subject, as well as opposing doctrines from every possible angle. Through the years I have found many others whose doctrinal journey has been similar to mine, in that they received and came to believe in the doctrines of sovereign grace from Scripture.

I enjoy engaging in thoughtful and intelligent discussion about these matters, but am not out to “prove” anything. I don’t care much for those whose mission in life seems to bash John Calvin and misrepresent Calvinist doctrine, mostly because they cannot accept the thought that fallen men do not have complete and autonomous free will. That was yours truly years ago. If I am asked why I believe in sovereign grace (Calvinism), I suggest that they seem to be the necessary state of affairs due to the nature of fallen men. I ask the simple question, What does the Bible say about the ‘natural’ state of fallen men?”, and leave it there. I trust the Holy Spirit to take it from there.

image

Be blessed!

Is the Calvinist-Arminian Debate Really Important?

Posted by Dan C. on

Interview with John Piper, May 4, 2020

Audio Transcript

Is the Calvinist-Arminian debate overblown? It’s a question today from a young man, a listener to the podcast who writes us this: “Pastor John, hello! I’ve argued about predestination and free will with fellow believers for years. I’m a five-point Calvinist. But lately these conversations have grown tiresome to me. No amount of debate seems to settle all the questions. And I recently read a letter by C.S. Lewis where he called the Calvinist-Arminian debate pretty much pointless because it only answers questions about this life, answers meaningless in eternity.

“He wrote, ‘Both the statement that our final destination is already settled [Calvinism] and the view that it still may be either heaven or hell [Arminianism], seem to me to imply the ultimate reality of time, which I don’t believe in. The controversy is one I can’t join on either side, for I think that in the real (timeless) world it is meaningless’ (Collected Letters, 2:703). I think Lewis raises a fair question: Is this whole debate time-bound? And even within time, I find myself more and more asking, What is the real-life fallout? Is the practical and spiritual value of Calvinism for this life significantly better? If so, how?”

Oh, Lewis, Lewis, Lewis! My friend! My mentor! Let’s start here. There is a huge difference between saying, on the one hand, that fruitless debates have grown tiresome — which I can totally understand and would not encourage — and saying, on the other hand, that I’m not seeing the real-life fallout or the practical spiritual value of Calvinism in this life. Those are radically different sentences and the last one is tragic — tragic. And I hope such a theological, personal malaise doesn’t fall on me, and I hope it can be lifted from our young friend.

Philosophy and Exegesis

So, first let me say a word about Lewis — bless his heart and rest his soul in heaven — and then about Calvinism and time. That’s the issue that he raised: time. And as I go along, I will try to show for our friend the preciousness of these things.

I have read more of C.S. Lewis than any other author on the planet except Jonathan Edwards. I love C.S. Lewis. He has made a great difference in my life. But one thing you will look for in vain in all the writings of C.S. Lewis: careful, serious biblical exposition. We have no idea how he did it (I presume he did it); we have to guess how C.S. Lewis read his Bible because he does not show us, which means he comes at biblical-theological questions more philosophically than he does exegetically.

This is certainly the case when it comes to Calvinism versus Arminianism. As far as I can tell, he simply sweeps aside dozens of specific, clear biblical sentences with the philosophical wand of timelessness. Nobody who reads the Bible carefully, and seeks to submit to the Bible’s own logic — not an alien philosophical presupposition — will be content with Lewis’s way of handling the issue of Calvinism and Arminianism. It cannot satisfy if you’re a Bible-saturated person who takes sentences — real, live, meaning-carrying sentences — seriously when you read the Bible.

Let’s just pretend that I’m now talking to C.S. Lewis about the five points of Calvinism. Here’s what I would say to Lewis. Four of them, Mr. Lewis, do not address the time issue at all. And the fifth one addresses the time issue because God made it address the time issue. God put the pre- in predestination. Man didn’t decide to do that; God did that, and he had good reasons for doing it — not to be swept away by the wand of timelessness. So let me take them one at a time.

1. Dead in Total Depravity

The issue is: At the point of my conversion, was I dead? Was I dead? Was I utterly incapable of seeing or savoring Jesus Christ as my supreme treasure? Answer: yes, I was. I was dead, blind, spiritually incapable of believing on Jesus. First Corinthians 2:14: “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God.” No way. I’m stiff-arming them totally in my deadness and fallenness and blindness. They are folly to me. I’m not able to understand them. They are spiritually discerned, and I don’t have the Holy Spirit. I hate God, and I love myself, and I am in bondage.

The question is not one of time. And the answer makes all the difference in the world about whether you praise yourself or praise your God in speechless wonder that you are now a lover of Jesus — that you can see the light of the glory of the gospel (2 Corinthians 4:4). John Piper now sees the light of the glory of the gospel.

How did that happen? If you think you were only partially incapable of faith, and just needed a little divine nudge, your amazement, your humility, your worship, your reverence will be hindered. How dead and how helpless were you when God saved you? Come on, Lewis. Come on. Talk about 1 Corinthians 2:14, talk about Romans 8:7, talk about Ephesians 2:4–5, talk about 2 Corinthians 4:4. Don’t give me your philosophical wand of timelessness. Talk to me about the deadness of the human soul.

2. Awakened by Irresistible Grace

The question, Mr. Lewis, is, What happened on that bus ride that you described in Surprised by Joy — the one that you began as an unbeliever, and to your own amazement, you ended as a believer? What happened?

The Bible is not silent about what happened. It is not left to your philosophical speculation. It goes like this: “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).

God did a creative miracle in your life, Mr. Lewis — just as much as when he called the universe out of nothing. He took out the heart of stone and put in the heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26). He raised you from the dead and seated you in the heavenly places with Christ (Ephesians 2:4–6). He opened your eyes to give heed to the truth, and in the very moment when you passed from death to life, God was decisive — not you. You did not impart life to your dead self. This is not an issue of time, Mr. Lewis; this is an issue of worship. To whom will you give glory for your decisive passage from unbelieving death to believing life?

3. Purchased by Limited Atonement

Here the question is not time. The question is whether the new-covenant miracle that happens to every Christian when their dead heart — our dead heart — is replaced with a new heart was definitely purchased for them by the death of Christ, but was not so purchased for everyone. That’s the issue. Everyone would have a new heart if it was purchased the same way for all.

Jesus called his blood the “blood of the covenant” (Matthew 26:28). Jesus called it “the new covenant” (Luke 22:20). And what the new covenant promised was that the old, unbelieving, rebellious hearts of C.S. Lewis and John Piper would be sovereignly replaced by God with a new, soft, believing heart, and that the law of God would be written on that heart so that we do from the heart what we’re called to do, like believe and obey. We don’t write it. He wrote it.

This was all secured when we were purchased by the blood of the new covenant. When Christ died, he secured a perfect, complete redemption, including the undeserved mercy of our conversion and faith. This is not a question of time; this is a question of what Christ achieved for his people on the cross. Did he lay down his life for the sheep (John 10:11)? Did he ransom the children of God (John 11:52)? Did he ransom for himself a people scattered among the peoples (Revelation 5:9–10)? Or didn’t he? That’s the issue.

4. Secure in the Perseverance of the Saints

This is not a question of timelessness or time. This is a question about whether you and I will wake up a believer tomorrow morning. Will I? And I cannot imagine for our young friend who wrote in this question anything more immediately relevant to me when I go to bed at night or think about it all day long, than the answer to the question, Will I wake up a believer, heaven-bound, tomorrow morning, or won’t I?

Jude is so blown away by the glory of God’s sovereign keeping that the greatest doxology in the Bible is crafted to extol this work of God’s sovereignty over our fickle, so-called “free will.” If God left me to my fickle free will, I’d be out of here. “Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it — prone to leave the God I love. Here’s my heart, oh, take and seal it” — chain it, bind it, keep me.

Here’s what Jude says: “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless . . .” He’s going to keep you and present you blameless because he is sovereign. If he doesn’t do it, it isn’t going to happen. And then he says, “. . . to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen” (Jude 24–25).

That’s how amazed Jude was that God would not let him go. God wouldn’t let him fall into unbelief. God would not let his vaunted free will have the last word. This is not a matter of time; this is a matter of sweet assurance that tomorrow morning I will wake up with a heart for God.

5. Awestruck by Unconditional Election

Here we meet time. Ephesians 1:4–6:

He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace.

Paul’s aim here is to inflame the praise of the glory of the grace of God. That’s his purpose. That’s the goal of Ephesians 1:4–6. The sovereign saving grace of God that is based not on our so-called “free will,” but on “the purpose of his will.” Paul intends to put God’s saving grace outside our control so that, when all history is said and done, the song of the ages will be to the praise of the glory of God’s free, invincible grace, so that no human might boast except in the Lord.

And I would just say in closing that if these five realities are not humbling, emboldening, stabilizing, worship-inflaming, sacrifice-empowering, joy-igniting, what we ought to do is not ignore them, but get on our knees and cry out for the eyes of our heart to be opened.

________________

John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books, including Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist and most recently Come, Lord Jesus.

__________________

Online Source: Is the Calvinist-Arminian Debate Really Important?

The Battle of the Will

Posted by Dan C. on

The state of the human will, after the Fall of Adam, has been hotly contested for centuries. That battle can be said to be reflected primarily by four different ‘debates’, if you will, between four sets of ‘sparring partners’: Pelagius and Augustine in the 4th & 5th Centuries, Luther and Erasmus in the 16th Century, Arminianism and the Synod of Dort in the 17th Century, and finally, John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards in the 18th Century. An introduction and summary of each one of those ‘debates’ are provided below: More detail is provided for each, and can be accessed at the links provided for each of the four parts.

Regardless of what you personally believe concerning the state of the human will, these summaries present an accurate picture of both sides of the centuries old debate. I trust you will enjoy reading both the summaries and the complete essays from which they were extracted courtesy of The Gospel Coalition.

The Battle of the Will, Part 1: Pelagius and Augustine

AN ESSAY BY Matthew Barrett

The Battle of the Will, Part 1: Pelagius and Augustine – The Gospel Coalition

DEFINITION

The debate over the will between Augustine and Pelagius focused mainly on the doctrine of original sin and the nature of the grace needed for humans to lead lives of faith and holiness.

SUMMARY

Pelagius and Augustine were two of the first figures in early Christianity to debate the nature of the human will after the fall of Adam and Eve and the nature of the grace needed to allow humans to exercise faith. Pelagius argued that the sin of Adam, called original sin, was in no way passed down or imputed to the rest of the human race. Adam and Eve simply provided a bad example that was followed by all of their offspring. Because of this belief, Pelagius believed that grace simply helped humans to know what to do to live holy lives and that humans were completely capable of following these commands. Augustine, on the other hand, argued that the sin of Adam affected the will of every human who followed, rendering them incapable of following God’s commands or loving God. Because of this, the grace of God is not simply illuminatory but liberates the will and enables it to love and obey God.

One of the most important debates in church history is that between Pelagianism and Augustinianism. As you might have guessed, these labels represent two figures: Pelagius and Augustine, both of whom lived in the fourth and fifth centuries. The debate was complex and, much like an onion, had layer upon layer. But its main facets concerned the nature of man and the necessity of divine grace.

The Battle of the Will, Part 2: Luther and Erasmus

AN ESSAY BY Matthew Barrett

The Battle of the Will, Part 2: Luther and Erasmus – The Gospel Coalition

DEFINITION

The debate over the will between Luther and Erasmus focused on the ability of the will to cooperate with the grace of God in salvation; Luther argued that the will was incapable of such necessary cooperation, and Erasmus argued that the will must cooperate with the grace of God.

SUMMARY

Although the debate over the ability of the will does not receive as much attention as other Reformation debates, this issue was at the root of many of the disagreements between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Erasmus, a Catholic humanist and respected linguist, argued that the will is free to resist or cooperate with divine grace, even after the fall and affected by original sin. Thus, the will can turn away from the grace of God, and his grace is not irresistible. Luther, on the other hand, argued that man’s will could not be free and autonomous in this manner for multiple reasons. First, God foreknows everything, so the will cannot be able to choose autonomously and not based on God’s foreknowledge. Second, God wills everything that he knows, so everything that we choose he first wills. Thirdly, apart from Christ, our will is in bondage to sin, and only guilt and corruption are attributed to us. Therefore, a grace that liberates our will and restores in us the capacity to love and obey is necessary for our faith. This grace is not coercive but gently restores in us the ability to love what is truly lovely.

When the sixteenth century Reformation is discussed, doctrines like sola scriptura and justification sola fide get all the attention. There is good reason for this, since these issues were central to the divide with Rome. But underneath the surface was another debate, one Luther said was at the heart of the divide, the very meat of the nut itself. It was the debate over free will and it occurred early on, in the 1520s, defining the Reformation over against those who still held to an optimistic view of man’s abilities in salvation. The representatives in the debate were two of the most influential and formidable figures of the day: Erasmus, the humanist and Greek scholar, versus Martin Luther, the German reformer.

The Battle of the Will, Part 3: Arminianism and the Synod of Dort

AN ESSAY BY Matthew Barrett

The Battle of the Will, Part 3: Arminianism and the Synod of Dort – The Gospel Coalition

DEFINITION

The debate over the will between Calvinists and Arminians focused on whether fundamentals of Christian theology, such as regeneration and election, are dependent on the free choice of man or whether they are dependent wholly on the freely given grace of God apart from any works of man.

SUMMARY

These debates were carried out after the death of Calvin between various Calvinist theologians and Jacobus Arminius and those who sided with him, notably leading to the Synod of Dort. The Remonstrants, as they were called, denied that God’s grace was given based on God’s unconditional election of individuals to salvation. Instead, election was based upon God’s foreknowledge of what choice man would freely make, ultimately making regeneration contingent on man’s decision. Calvinists, on the other hand, taught that God chose those to whom he would give faith in eternity past, rather than foreseeing who would have faith on their own. Therefore, spiritual regeneration preceded the choice of the will for the Calvinist, while for the Remonstrant, the choice of the will in faith preceded the benefits of salvation.

It is often assumed that the debate between Calvinists and Arminians was a 16th century debate between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius. Many are surprised when they discover that Arminius was only a small child when Calvin died. The debate between Calvinists and Arminians took place at the end of the sixteenth century and beginning of the seventeenth century, and it did not merely concern Arminius but certain Remonstrants (objectors, protestors) and the reaction of the Synod of Dort.

The Battle of the Will, Part 4: John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards

AN ESSAY BY Matthew Barrett

The Battle of the Will, Part 4: John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards – The Gospel Coalition

DEFINITION

The disagreement over the will continued on into the 18th century between figures such as John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards: Wesley held, as an Arminian, that the will was granted a previenient grace that allowed it to choose to follow Christ freely; Edwards, on the other hand, argued that the desires of the heart were, at the bottom level, given to it by God or the sinful nature of man and, therefore, God was sovereign over the choices of man while allowing men to choose according to their desires, which is what human freedom is for Edwards.

SUMMARY

The disagreement over the role of the will in salvation continued on into the 18th century and can be seen clearly by juxtaposing the theology of two prominent theologians and pastors: John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards. John Wesley held, as an Arminian, that the will was granted a previenient grace that allowed it to choose to follow Christ freely. This meant that every person was able to choose to follow Christ or not freely, but it also meant that they could lose their salvation. In addition to this, Wesley believed in a level of Christian perfection that included the Christian being free from all conscious sin. Jonathan Edwards, on the other hand, as someone in the Calvinist tradition, argued that the desires of the heart were, at the bottom level, given to it by God or determined by the sinful nature of fallen humanity. This protected both God’s sovereignty, human responsibility, and the gracious nature of salvation. While man’s desires, or inclinations, are determined, humans always act freely according to their desires, so the free nature of man’s will is also protected in Edwards’s argument.

John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards were two of the most significant Christian preachers of the eighteenth century. Their respective ministries and writings not only influenced Christians and churches across continents, but their legacy was inherited by the generations that followed. Nevertheless, while both men were committed to preaching and teaching the same gospel, their stories differ, and so do their theologies.

Be Blessed!

_______________________________________

If nothing else, our hope is that you have benefited from these essays and are better equipped to enter the debate, should you desire to do so!

Jeff Durbin & James White Debate with LGBT Theologian Brandan Robertson

Posted by Dan C. on

On March 9th, Jeff Durbin and James White of Apologia studios debuted their conversation with Robertson at Apologia Studio where they debated his interpretations of Scripture concerning homosexuality. It’s quite instructive. I will also add that you have probably heard  most of the arguments on both sides of the debate. It’s still worth the listen.

You can access the interview by clicking the above link.

“The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by John Owen

Posted by Dan C. on

John Owen wrote “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” in 1647. I would be lying if I didn’t tell you that it’s a challenging read. What follows is short excerpt from J. I. Packer’s introduction to John Owen’s classic work:

“Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. Plainly, these differences are important, and the permanent value of the “five points,” as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.”

“Whether we call ourselves Calvinists hardly matters; what matters is that we should understand the gospel biblically. But that, we think, does in fact mean understanding it as historic Calvinism does. The alternative is to misunderstand and distort it. We said earlier that modern Evangelicalism, by and large, has ceased to preach the gospel in the old way, and we frankly admit that the new gospel, insofar as it deviates from the old, seems to us a distortion of the biblical message. And we can now see what has gone wrong. Our theological currency has been debased. Our minds have been conditioned to think of the Cross as a redemption which does less than redeem, and of Christ as a Saviour who does less than save, and of God’s love as a weak affection which cannot keep anyone from hell without help, and of faith as the human help which God needs for this purpose. As a result, we are no longer free either to believe the biblical gospel or to preach it. We cannot believe it, because our thoughts are caught in the toils of synergism. We are haunted by the Arminian idea that if faith and unbelief are to be responsible acts, they must be independent acts; hence we are not free to believe that we are saved entirely by divine grace through a faith which is itself God’s gift and flows to us from Calvary. Instead, we involve ourselves in a bewildering kind of double-think about salvation, telling ourselves one moment that it all depends on God and next moment that it all depends on us. The resultant mental muddle deprives God of much of the glory that we should give Him as author and finisher of salvation, and ourselves of much of the comfort we might draw from knowing that God is for us.”

“And when we come to preach the gospel, our false preconceptions make us say just the opposite of what we intend. We want (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Saviour; yet we end up saying that Christ, having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviours. It comes about in this way. We want to magnify the saving grace of God and the saving power of Christ. So we declare that God’s redeeming love extends to every man, and that Christ has died to save every man, and we proclaim that the glory of divine mercy is to be measured by these facts. And then, in order to avoid universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ have done can save us unless we add something to it; the decisive factor which actually saves us is our own believing. What we say comes to this—that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this—that we save ourselves with Christ’s help. This is a hollow anticlimax. But if we start by affirming that God has a saving love for all, and Christ died a saving death for all, and yet balk at becoming universalists, there is nothing else that we can say. And let us be clear on what we have done when we have put the matter in this fashion. We have not exalted grace and the Cross; we have cheapened them. We have limited the atonement far more drastically than Calvinism does, for whereas Calvinism asserts that Christ’s death, as such, saves all whom it was meant to save, we have denied that Christ’s death, as such, is sufficient to save any of them. We have flattered impenitent sinners by assuring them that it is in their power to repent and believe, though God cannot make them do it. Perhaps we have also trivialised faith and repentance in order to make this assurance plausible (“it’s very simple—just open your heart to the Lord…”). Certainly, we have effectively denied God’s sovereignty, and undermined the basic conviction of religion—that man is always in God’s hands. In truth, we have lost a great deal. And it is, perhaps, no wonder that our preaching begets so little reverence and humility, and that our professed converts are so self-confident and so deficient in self-knowledge, and in the good works which Scripture regards as the fruit of true repentance.”

___________________________________

Packer’s entire introduction can be found here: Introductory Essay to John Owen’s Death of Death in the Death of Christ (J. I. Packer) (all-of-grace.org)

John Owen’s work can be found here: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (eBook) | Monergism

A modernized version of Owen’s work can be found here: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (onthewing.org)

Enjoy!