Author Archives: Dan C.

"Is God sovereign or do we have a free will?"

Posted by Dan C. on

When we talk about free will, we are usually concerned with the matter of salvation. Few are interested in whether we have the free will to choose salad or steak for our dinner tonight. Rather, we are troubled over who exactly is in control of our eternal destiny.

Any discussion of man’s free will must begin with an understanding of his nature because man’s will is bound by that nature. A prisoner has the freedom to pace up and down in his cell, but he is constrained by the walls of that cell and can go no further, no matter how much his will might desire it. So it is with man. Because of sin, man is imprisoned within a cell of corruption and wickedness which permeates to the very core of our being. Every part of man is in bondage to sin – our bodies, our minds, and our wills. Jeremiah 17:9 tells us the state of man’s heart: it is “deceitful and desperately wicked.” In our natural, unregenerate state, we are carnally minded, not spiritually minded. “For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be” (Romans 8:6-7). These verses tell us that before we are saved, we are at enmity (war) with God, we do not submit to God and His law, neither can we. The Bible is clear that, in his natural state, man is incapable of choosing that which is good and holy. In other words, he does not have the “free will” to choose God because his will is not free. It is constrained by his nature, just as the prisoner is constrained by his cell.

How then can anyone be saved? Ephesians 2:1 describes the process. We who are “dead in our trespasses and sins” have been “made alive” through Christ. A dead man cannot make himself alive because he lacks the necessary power to do so. Lazarus lay in his tomb four days unable to do a thing to resurrect himself. Christ came along and commanded him to come to life (John 11). So it is with us. We are spiritually dead, unable to rise. But “while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). He calls us out of our spiritual graves and gives us a completely new nature, one undefiled by sin as the old nature was (2 Corinthians 5:17). God saw the desperate and helpless state of our souls, and in His great love and mercy, He sovereignly chose to send His Son to the cross to redeem us. By His grace we are saved through the gift of faith which He gives us so that we can believe in Jesus. His grace is a free gift, our faith is a free gift, and our salvation is a free gift given to those whom God has chosen “before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). Why did He chose to do it this way? Because it was “according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace” (Ephesians 1:5-6). It’s important to understand that the plan of salvation is designed to glorify God, not man. Our response is to praise Him for the “glory of His grace.” If we chose our own salvation, who would get the glory? We would, and God has made it clear that He will not give the glory due to Him to anyone else (Isaiah 48:11).

The question naturally arises, how do we know who has been saved “from the foundation of the world”? We don’t. That is why we take the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth, telling all to repent and receive God’s gift of grace. Second Corinthians 5:20 tells us we are to be pleading with others to be reconciled to God before it is too late. We cannot know whom God will choose to release from their prison cells of sin. We leave that choice to Him and present the gospel to all. The ones who come to Jesus He “will in no way cast out” (John 6:37).

Recommended Resources: Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer

_____________________________________

I found this at GotQuestions.com. It’s a faithful excerpt from J.I. Packerr’s book,, for sure. I have the book and I highly recommend it.

“The names have been changed to comfort the guilty.” . . .redux

Posted by Dan C. on

This was first posted about five years ago, and I thought it time to repost it, with a couple of small tweaks:

Some of us old geezers remember the popular television series "Dragnet", especially the lead-in phrase that ‘the upcoming story was true, but the names had been changed to protect the innocent’. There’s a twist to that theme that is extremely popular in evangelical (I use the term loosely) circles these days. It’s not about changing the names of people, however, but changing the names of essential elements of the Biblical Gospel message for which we are accountable, and that we are charged to faithfully proclaim.

If you haven’t yet figured out what ‘names’ I’m talking about yet, they are repent (in all it’s forms), and sin (and all direct references to it). When Jesus announced that the Kingdom was near, He told his listeners to ‘repent and believe’ (Mark 1:15). When the Apostle Paul found it necessary to remind believers in Corinth of the contents of the Gospel message, he told them that the Gospel IS that Christ died for our sins, and was raised, according to scripture (1 Cor 15:1-4). He also reminded believers in Galatia that different messages than that were ‘another gospel’ (Gal 1:8-9).

We don’t use those terms very much these days. We tell folks Jesus died for their pain, broken heart, in order to have an abundant life, and a number of other reasons, but we don’t lay the cards on the table and tell them that Christ died for their sins. We have all sorts of ways to ‘soften’ the message and ‘short-sheet’ the Holy Spirit.

We don’t tell them they need to repent and believe the Gospel, we tell them they can come to Jesus for spiritual Band-Aids to smooth out the raw ‘stuff’ of life. If we did use the ‘R’ word as we ought, we would have to explain why repentance was necessary and that would necessitate using the dreaded ‘S’ word.

People can’t/don’t ‘repent’ from a broken heart, painful experiences, or lives that aren’t as abundant as they would like them to be. Those are all things that can be understood as outside of oneself, and there is no need repent of that which you are not personally accountable. If we are somehow responsible for anything it’s a poor decision, bad judgment call, or personal misstep, but never in any way the result of ‘sin’. We don’t like to use that word.

So I have to ask myself – Why don’t we tell it like it is, – define the issue using scriptural terms and definitions? Here’s my short list of why we don’t use the ‘S’ word.

  1. It makes people feel uncomfortable in our ‘seeker friendly’ service.
  2. People know they are sinners already, so there’s no need.
  3. If I use the ‘S’ word he/she won’t like me any more.
  4. If he/she/they like me/our church service they will naturally like Jesus.
  5. People who feel guilty when they hear the ‘S’ word won’t drop a check in the offering plate or donate to our ministry.
  6. Talking about ‘sin’ would hinder the warm ‘relationship building’ phase of personal evangelism technique/method, without which we might  never have a chance to share Christ.
  7. Broken hearts, and all the other painful ‘stuff’ of life, resulted from the Adam’s sin (the Fall) so we can just talk about those things and see even more ‘decisions’ for Christ than making folks feel bad.
  8. We can always talk about sin after they have made a decision/prayed the prayer/said the right words and are already saved.
  9. We can just talk about sin being separated from God because of what Satan did in the Garden. We humans are just victims here.
  10. We’re ashamed of the Gospel.

As for me, I think the first 9 are the ways we soften/disguise the real reason, #10. I know that sounds harsh, but either we are  ashamed of the gospel, or we just don’t believe we need to talk about sin and repentance, in which case we don’t know what the Bible really says about the state of fallen men and the sovereignty of God in their salvation.

“Lot, thinking to get paradise, found Hell.”

Posted by Dan C. on

I mentioned in an earlier blog post that this year I intended to read through the Bible using the 1599 edition of The Geneva Bible, along with all of the comments/footnotes found therein. The title of this post is actually the comment given for one of the passages in the following account from Genesis, Chapter 13.

Abram and Lot Separate

10 And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other. 12 Abram settled in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled among the cities of the valley and moved his tent as far as Sodom. 13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord.

Genesis 13:10-13 (ESV)

We don’t know if Lot knew the extent of the wickedness in Sodom, but we do know that he saw what was pleasing to the flesh and made his choice. I’ve read a lot of commentary concerning Lot’s choice, but never before read anything as harsh as: “Lot, thinking to get paradise, found Hell.”

I don’t know if it means anything, but the first thought that crossed my mind upon reading the comment was:

“And thousands upon thousands, looking for their ‘best lives now’, found Hell.”

You can substitute any number of specific things for ‘your best life now’; health, wealth & prosperity, a better job or career, nicer house or car, whatever. . . it all comes down to ‘lifting our eyes, seeing the lush Jordan valley’, and going after what seems to be paradise on earth. . .and meeting Hell.

Think about it.

Could Calvin Be A Pastor Today?

Posted by Dan C. on

Gideon Knox's avatarPolemics Report

Could John Calvin, the (in)famous Genevan Reformer, Biblical scholar and theological powerhouse actually get a job (for lack of a better expression) in the pastorate today, Or would this Bible expositor and eminent scholar be generally unemployable in 2014?

Before you answer, we’re talking about a man who preached pretty much every day across Geneva and was so dedicated to the ministry of the Word that when he made his return to Geneva following his forced exile, he picked up his preaching ministry in EXACTLY the following verse where he had left off years before. Could a man that radically devoted to the truth of Scripture and its proclamation receive the call to pastor a church today? In the majority of popular church circles, probably not. At least, that’s the picture I get from the attitude of Christians to the Word in general.

It’s been three and a half years…

View original post 660 more words

Has evangelicalism become preoccupied with ‘self’?

Posted by Dan C. on

“Redefining evangelicalism in terms of the self, in terms of the self having spiritual experiences, finding itself, satisfying, fulfilling itself, has everything to do with culture and nothing to do with Christ.” – David Wells

The above quote is from the book, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World, by David Wells. It is the author’s position that evangelicalism has indeed been co-opted by the self movement. The book takes you on a journey through the evangelical landscape from just after World War II to our own day, presenting his case.

While I already have an opinion in answer to the question in the title of this post, I am interested in what the few readers of this blog have to say.

And by the way, have a blessed new year!

The Geneva Bible

Posted by Dan C. on

For some years now I have had the habit of reading or listening through the Bible during the year. The reason for this post is that for this year’s journey through the Bible, I have chosen The Geneva Bible as the translation I would use. My beautiful bride had heard me talking about it as a 2013 project and decided to order it for me, but it took some time to arrive. I received an edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible sometime last Spring, and was already engaged in my project for 2013, which was listening through the entire ESV Bible. Therefore I postponed the literary excursion through what is perhaps the first English language ‘study Bible’ until this year.   To assist in my little journey, I am using the year-long Bible reading plan provided by The Gideons International, an organization we (Dan & Dee) joined this last year. I can remain in tune with the other Gideons in our local Camp and also include all of the study/marginal notes provided in The Geneva Bible in smaller units.

The information below is excerpted from an online article , ‘History of the Geneva Bible. ’  I recommend the entire article, especially if you are interested in the history of The Bible. Enjoy!

Overview

Despite being virtually unknown today, the Geneva Bible is most revolutionary of all English Bibles. It was born out of persecution and takes its name from the initial city of publication. When Mary I, also known as “Bloody Mary,” took the throne in 1553, English Bibles were made illegal and heavy persecution broke-out against Protestants and proponents of English Scripture. Hundreds fled England and many of these exiles settled in Geneva, Switzerland, where they produced a new English Bible—the Geneva Bible.

The Geneva Bible was the first English version to be translated entirely from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Though the text is principally just a revision of William Tyndale’s earlier work of 1534, Tyndale only translated the New Testament and the Old Testament through 2 Chronicles before he was imprisoned. The English refugees living in Geneva completed the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to English for the first time. The work was led by William Whittingham.

When the Geneva translation of the New Testament appeared in 1557 and the entire Bible in 1560, it was innovative in both text and format, and quickly became the household Bible of English speaking people. It was the first English Bible to have modern verse divisions as well as modern chapter divisions. It was the first Bible to use italics to indicate words not in the original language and the first Bible to change the values of ancient coins into English pound sterling equivalents. It was also the first to use plain Roman type, which was more readable than the old Gothic type, and it was in a handy quarto size for easy use. With prologues before each book, extensive marginal notes, and a brief concordance, the Geneva Bible was in fact the first English “study Bible.”

Between its first edition of 1560 and its last edition in 1644, 160 editions, totaling around a half million Bibles, were produced. And for the first time common people could not only understand the words in the Bible, they could actually own one. Its widespread use first solidified the English language among the common people, not the 1611 King James Bible as many assume. Actually, the King James Bible required decades to surpass the popularity of the Geneva and supplant it from the hearts of the English speaking world.

In fact, the Geneva Bible was the principal English Bible initially brought to American soil, making it the Bible that shaped early American life and impacted Colonial culture more than any other.

Born Out of Blood

Mary I, the daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, took the throne in England in 1553 and set the stage for the creation of the Geneva Bible. Sixteen years earlier her father, Henry VIII, had released the first Bible in English following his separation from the Catholic Church at Rome. However, once Mary was in power, she immediately began forcing all of England back under the authority of the Roman Church and suppressing the circulation of the Bible in the common (English) tongue. Specifically, Mary I issued proclamations in August 1553 forbidding public reading of the Bible and in June 1555 prohibiting the works of reformers Tyndale, Rogers, Coverdale, Cranmer, and others. In 1558 a proclamation was issued requiring the delivery of the reformers’ writings under penalty of death. A vicious persecution was instituted against anyone who supported the reformers’ views or attempted to circulate the scripture in English. Overall, nearly three hundred people were burned at the stake under Mary’s reign, and many more were imprisoned, tortured, or otherwise punished. Reformer John Rogers, who produced the Matthew’s Bible, was the first to be burned. Others who followed the same fate included Bishop Thomas Cranmer, who was involved with the second and subsequent editions of the Great Bible, Nicolas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, and John Hooper, who was often referred to as the “Father of Puritanism.”

It is estimated that during Bloody Mary’s reign as many as eight hundred reformers fled England to seek shelter on the Continent. Some settled in Strasburg, some in Zurich, and some in Frankfort. Many settled in Geneva, the “Holy City of the Alps,” where Protestantism was supreme. The city was under the control of the famed scholar, John Calvin, with the assistance of Theodore Beza. By 1556 a sizeable English-speaking congregation had formed in Geneva with Scottish reformer John Knox serving as pastor. William Whittingham, a tremendous scholar who according to tradition married a sister of Calvin’s wife, succeeded Knox as pastor in 1557.

The Translation

 

Immediately after the release of Whittingham’s 1557 New Testament, the English exiles entered upon a revision of the whole Bible. Assisted by Beza and possibly Calvin himself, several English exiles were involved in the translating, but it is impossible to say how many. Miles Coverdale, who produced the Coverdale and Great Bibles, resided in Geneva for a time and may have assisted, and a similar claim may be advanced in favor of John Knox. The famed sixteenth-century English historian, John Foxe, was also in refuge in Switzerland during this time. Yet the chief credit belongs to William Whittingham, who was probably assisted by Thomas Sampson, Anthony Gilby, and possibly William Cole, William Kethe, John Baron, John Pullain, and John Bodley.

The Old Testament from Genesis through 2 Chronicles and the New Testament were merely revisions of Tyndale’s previous monumental efforts. The works of Coverdale, Rogers, and Cranmer were also consulted, and the English exiles completed a careful collation of Hebrew and Greek originals. They compared Latin versions, especially Beza’s, and the standard French and German versions as well.

While Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and the Great Bible were merely revisions of Tyndale’s translations from the original Hebrew and Greek, the Geneva Bible charted new ground. The scholarly English refugees in Geneva completed the translation of the remainder of the Old Testament directly from Hebrew into English for the first time. Tyndale had only translated the Hebrew (Masoretic) text up to 2 Chronicles before he was imprisoned in 1535, and it was not until this handful of scholars assembled in refuge in Geneva that there was sufficient familiarity with Hebrew among reformers to complete the translation of the Old Testament directly from Hebrew. Thus, the English scholars who escaped persecution in their native land and resided in Geneva produced the first English Bible ever completely translated from the original languages.

The work took over two years, and in 1560 the world witnessed a new English Bible, which is now known as the “Geneva Bible.” In a simple prefatory note, the Geneva Bible was dedicated to “Bloody Mary’s” successor, Queen Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Bolyen.

The Wisdom of the Age | Monergism

Posted by Dan C. on

“The wisdom of the age has it backwards. Declaring that a person is a sinner does not make one a hater, but a lover of that person … and of mankind. Do Christians point out sin to shame, bully or incite violence against someone? Absurd and a profound misapprehension of our intent. In calling someone a sinner do Christians think they are superior, more moral? May it never be! Most people’s sin pales in comparison to mine. Fact is, it would only be hate or discrimination if we refused the gospel to someone because we thought their sin makes them somehow unworthy of it. The gospel declares that anyone who, by the grace of God, comes to Christ will be forgiven, no matter how abominable their sin. And such are granted a new heart which loves God and his law.

The gospel is offensive, and according to the Bible, a stumbling block (Matt 21:44; 1 Cor 1:23; 1 Pet. 2:8). If people were not offended by it then I would think we were doing something wrong. Of course, we should not make ourselves needlessly offensive in the process. But I thank the Lord he is forgiving, or I would not stand a chance on my own. And He will forgive you if, by grace, you come to Jesus. He has come to bring good news to the afflicted, to bind up the brokenhearted and to proclaim liberty to the captives. (Isaiah 61)”

Source: The Wisdom of the Age | Monergism.

Why Do The Heathen Rage?

Posted by Dan C. on

That’s the question asked by the first verse of Psalm 2. The entire verse reads:

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?” (KJV)

Other Bible translations read something more akin to:

“Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?”

Either way, it’s the same question; a question that can be asked about nations as well as individuals.

The short answer is not a complex one. The ‘heathen’ rage because they are heathens. Those who profess no belief in the God who created them ‘rage’ because it is the natural thing to do. Furthermore, all of us who profess belief in God and His Son as having died for our sins were once heathens, and by nature the objects of God’s just wrath (Eph 2:1-3).

So what is it about man’s ‘heathenness’ that makes him rage? I’m glad you asked! Hold on to your seat belt. You see, the Bible tells us certain things about everyone that has ever been born since Adam fell. I will share just a short passage from the book of Romans:

“For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 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. (Rom 8:6-8, ESV)

All of us were born with the same kind of mind – a carnal mind set on the flesh. None of us has a mind set on the Spirit until such time as we are ‘born again’, as Jesus so eloquently told Nicodemus in John 3. And as our Romans passage tells us, the ‘carnal’ mind is hostile to God. That hostility is expressed in our raging against God. Some of us rage privately in the recesses of our hearts and minds while some of us rage a lot – in public. Nevertheless, until God sovereignly saves us and delivers us from the bondage of our carnal minds, at some level we rage because it is our nature to do so.

Sadly, some us who proclaim Christ as Lord and Savior seem to have forgotten why it is that the heathen rage and that their rage is really against God. How do I know that? Thanks for asking. . .again.

Well, I’ll give you a two word answer and then then explain it, since you might think that I must be a little bit nuts. So here’s my two word answer: Duck Dynasty! That’s right, I said Duck Dynasty! Hear me out, please.

More to the point, it’s the Christian right’s response to the whole Phil Robertson saga that troubles me and leads me to believe that we’ve forgotten why and against whom, the heathen rage. This morning I heard yet another Christian radio broadcast discussing the whole ‘freedom of speech’ war that seems to be raging around the Duck Dynasty saga, and how we believers should be coming to the defense of Phil and the gang because of all of the hatred and bigotry spewing forth from the likes of GLAAD and a number of other organizations and media personalities. While I agree it’s really disgusting, I also realize that the real ‘haters’, while hammering Phil, are really raging against God!

I say that because I believe that the Bible is true – specifically a few passages from Romans 1:

Romans 1:

“ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.” (Rom 1:18-32, ESV)

This passage from Romans tells us that we all know that God IS, and that those who would deny Him, are really only denying what they know to be true, resulting in the debasement of God’s natural order among other things. Those who are raging against Phil, as well as those who have been crusading for the removal of all reminders of God in the public square, are really raging against the God they know exists.

And what do we (evangelical Christians) do? We fight for ‘rights’ to free speech as if winning a few court battles is going to really solve something. Well guess what? Even if we do win a few court skirmishes, the heathen will continue to rage, in the futile attempt to justify that which they know to be wrong in the eyes of the God they know exists.

If we really love them like we say we do, we would remember that they are raging not against us, but against God, that we too were once the objects of God’s wrath, and we would endeavor to lead them to the Cross of Christ. And that my friends is not something we can do while we battle with them for ‘rights’. I also believe that the battle for ‘rights’ can, and does, distract us from the mission of sharing the gospel and that the enemy love it when we get distracted!

Think about it.